Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
来源：百度文库 编辑：神马文学网 时间：2024/10/04 21:18:35
Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation,search
This article containsweasel words, which may compromise itsneutrality.
Please see the relevant discussion on thetalk page.
Jyllands-Posten
cartoons controversy
The controversy
Main issueTimelineInternational reactions OpinionsNewspaper reprintsAnders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons
Primary parties involved
DenmarkJyllands-PostenIslamic world
Contents
[hide]
1 Opinions in Denmark1.1 Opinion of the Queen of Denmark
2 Opinions of Muslims3 International opinion4 Criticism of Muslim reactions5 References
[edit]
Opinions in Denmark
A poll onJanuary 29, from Epinion forDanmarks Radio, the national broadcasting company of Denmark, showed that of 579 Danes asked, 79% believe that thePrime Minister of Denmark should not apologise to the Muslims, with 48% citing that would be political interference with the freedom of press, while 44% thought the Prime Minister should try harder to resolve the controversy. 62% of those asked believed that Jyllands-Posten shouldn‘t apologise either. 58% felt that while it was the right of Jyllands-Posten to publish the images, they could understand the Muslim criticism.[1]
OnFebruary 3, another poll from Epinion made forDanmarks Radio, had asked 509 people "Considering the events that have occurred in the past week, should Jylland-Posten have published the depictions?". 47% said they shouldn‘t have been published, 46% said the opposite, while the last 7% did not know which stance to take.[2]
The Denmark based ‘Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network‘ said "the cartoons among others things identified Islam with terrorism,(this) can only increase the xenophobia and racism that these populations are already victims of in Europe. Furthermore, this kind of image contributes to discrediting entire countries and their populations."[1]
The question of whether the drawings should have been printed in the first place has been intensively discussed in Denmark from letters to the editors of news publications, tonational television, to open debate meetings athigh schools and universities. The controversy arises from several sources:
Most Islamic traditions forbid representations of Muhammad. The satirical nature of some of the drawings was not considered respectful, especially one that shows Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, thereby re-enforcing the stereotypical association of Islam withterrorism[3]. The drawings upset the Muslim community in Denmark at a time when relations between Muslims and European society are strained.
The Islamic Society in Denmark has proposed that a three day celebration of Muhammad should be held in Denmark, putting a focus on Muhammad‘s life. They further proposed that this be coordinated in part by the Islamic Society, Jyllands-Posten, and at least some of the five universities in Denmark.[4] This was declined by the universities, as they do not take part in religious activities.
The editor who originally approved the cartoons, Carsten Juste, later declared that the opponents of free speech had "won" because the furor would almost undoubtedly deter future editors from printing anything similar. He thought it unlikely that anyone would print a caricature of Muhammad within a generation. He also said that, had he known exactly what the consequences would be, that is death threats, boycotts and terror threats, he would not have printed the cartoons.[5]
Dagbladet Information‘s satirical criticism ofAnders Fogh Rasmussen‘s reluctancy to meet with the ambassadors
Many people in Denmark have criticised the government‘s handling of the affair, particularly the prime-minister‘s decision not to meet with the Islamic ambassadors in October.
OnDecember 20 twenty-two former Danish ambassadors sent an open letter to the prime-minister criticising his decision not to open a dialogue with the international representatives.[6]
In early February, Swedish newspaperDagens Nyheter published an article that focused not on the cartoons but the cartoonists (who were not named). It was based on interviews with a few of the cartoonists, several of whom regretted creating the pictures. (Dagens Nyheter also noted that although the cartoons have received worldwide attention and have been published several times, the cartoonists have only earned the initial few hundred Danish kroner each for their work.)
OnFebruary 4 the newspaperDagbladet Information published twelveAnders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons satirising his handling of the entire affair.
A 2004 report by the immigrant rights lobbyist organisation ENAR claimed that the Danish media devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problems posed by immigrants, and most often Islamic immigrants, while often ignoring the problems that these immigrants face. Over the 3 month period studied, from September 1 2004 to November 20 2004, 19 out of the 24 Jyllands-Posten‘s editorials on "ethnic issues" were negative, while 88 out of 120 op. ed. pieces on "ethnics" were negative, and 121 out of 148 letters to the editor on "ethnics" were negative.[7] In Denmark, ENAR is represented by Bashy Quraishy, who is a former member ofSocialistisk Folkeparti and is known for his apologetic attitude with regards to the9/11 attacks and for referring to the focus onIslamic fundamentalism during the following investigations as "crusades". The other representative for ENAR in Denmark is Mona Sheikh, who failed to gain a seat inFolketinget representingRadikale Venstre when it was discovered that she was a member of the fundamentalist Minhaj-ul-Quran network.
While generally offended by the cartoons, most members of the Danish Muslim community comdemn the violence that the drawings have sparked off in the Middle East, arguing that the state of Denmark is not to be held responsible for the drawings published by Jyllands-Posten. OnFebruary 7 300 Danish Muslims and ethnic Danes marched through Gjellerupparken near舝hus carrying torches demonstration for an increased understanding between the Danish Muslim community and Danish mainstream community. Rabih Azad-Ahmad who organized the demonstration appealed for friendly and open interaction between the Muslim and mainstream Danish communities.[8]
Former Danishminister of foreign affairs and ex-chairman ofVenstre,Uffe Ellemann-Jensen has openly criticised Jyllands-Posten for publishing the drawings. Referring to the cartoons as a "pubertal demonstration", Elleman-Jensen argues that editor-in-chiefCarsten Juste has acted irresponsibly and also implies that Juste is an incompetent editor. Ellemann-Jensen argues that, Juste should retire from his position as editor of the newspaper.[9]
[edit]
Opinion of the Queen of Denmark
In April 2005 the British newspaper, theDaily Telegraph published an article which quoted QueenMargrethe II of Denmark as saying that the Danes have "to show our opposition to Islam"[10]. The comment is from the book Margrethe (2005)ISBN 87-567-7027-8. The statement was however somewhat mistranslated and ripped from the following context: [page 197] "There is, as said, something moving about people, whom to this degree surrender to a faith. However there is also something frightening about such a totality, which also is a side of Islam. There must be shown counter-play [interplay of an alternative / sparring], and once in a while you have to run the risk of getting a less flattering label stuck upon you. Because there is certain things before which one should not be tolerant." The passage as it appeared in the Daily Telegraph was re-printed by the pan-Arabic news paper Al-Hayat, as evidence of Islamophobia in Denmark[11]. Queen Margrethe has previously in her annual new year抯 speech scolded the Danes for hostility against immigrants.[12]
[edit]
Opinions of Muslims
This cartoon from theJordanian newspaper Al Ghad expresses the fear of many Muslims that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy exemplifies a perceived advancement ofIslamophobia in the West. Counterclockwise: "This one is anti-Semitic", "this one is racist", "and this one (bottom) falls under freedom of speech"
A great many Muslims were angered by the publication of what they considered offensive images. This anger has been expressed in violent and peaceful public protests and newspaper articles in Arabic and Islamic countries. Although the artists have denied representing Mohammed as a terrorist, many Muslims felt that "a bomb in a turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb" suggested a connection between Muhammad and terrorism. There are multiple ways to interpret this particular drawing though, for example that some Muslims are putting violence into the religion by using bombs, or that Islam is a bomb waiting to go off.
Other Arabs and Muslims have expressed their condemnation of the cartoons: "In [the West] it is consideredfreedom of speech if they insult Islam and Muslims," columnist Mohammed al-Shaibani wrote in Kuwait‘s Al-Qabas daily on January 30. "But such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights and anti-Semitism if Arabs and Muslims criticize their religion and religious laws."
A number of Muslim commentators, including Ehsan Ahrari of theAsia Times, have pointed at laws inGermany,France,Austria and seven other countries in Europe which explicitly regard thedenial of the Holocaust as a crime, free speech considerations notwithstanding. They maintain that offensive imagery regarding theJewish religion and the Jewish people is largely prohibited in the media in post-Holocaust Europe. The media in general practices self-restraint in this matter; nonetheless, Muslims allege that a different set of standards seem to apply for the Islamic faith.
In aBBC news programme, Asghar Bukhari of the British Muslim organizationMPACUK and Roger Koeppel, editor ofDie Welt, the German newspaper that published the cartoons, debated the issue. Bukhari suggested to Koeppel that a German paper would be particularly mindful of the effect of such imagery, considering the lengthy history ofanti-Semitic propaganda anddemonization of Jews in German media prior to the Holocaust, whencaricatures of Jews as rich financiers or evilBolsheviks were commonplace. Koeppel replied that he did not consider the caricatures of Muhammad in the same vein.
The public anger was accompanied by a condemnation from Arabic and Islamic governments. TheMuslim World League (MWL) called onUN Secretary-GeneralKofi Annan to activate international laws against insolence toward religion.[13]
Theboycott of Danish products. The text shown in the image can be translated as: Dear customers, in response to the insults towards the Prophet (Peace be upon Him), the supermarket ofAl Tamimi boycotts all Danish products.
The Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister of theUnited Arab Emirates, Mohammed Al Dhaheri, called it "cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression," according to the official WAM news agency. "The repercussions of such irresponsible acts will have adverse impact on international relations." InTunisia, Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, president of the Islamic Organization for Education, Science and Culture (the Islamic world‘s counterpart toUNESCO) called the drawings "a form of racism and discrimination that one must counter by all available means." He said, "It‘s regrettable to state today, as we are calling for dialogue, that other parties feed animosity and hate and attack sacred symbols of Muslims and of their prophet," said also Jordan‘s largest circulation daily, government-run Al-Rai, said the Danish government must apologize.[14]
The condemnations have also come from the General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Conference, saying:
It is evident that the intention of Jylland Posten was motivated to incite hatred and violence against Muslims. By exposing the level of understanding of Islamic religion and its symbols the dailies have seriously damaged their credibility in the eyes of Muslim world and harmed democracy, freedom of the press, violated decency and civilized norms.[15]
Iran‘s supreme leader AyatollahAli Khamenei said on February 6th, 2006, that a "Zionist conspiracy" was to blame for the row over the cartoons, in his first reaction to the controversy: "The reason for the Zionist action is because of the loss they suffered byHamas winning". Khamenai was referring to Hamas victory in thePalestinian legislative election, which took place in January 2006, several months after the publication of the cartoons.
However, not all Muslims placed blame entirely on the West. InIraq, the country‘s topShiite cleric,Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, decried the drawings but did not call for protests. Al-Sistani suggested thatmilitant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam‘s image.[16] In theUnited Arab Emirates, the periodical Al-Ittihad published an opinion piece which argued that
the world has come to believe that Islam is what is practiced byBin Laden,Zawahiri,Zarqawi, theMuslim Brotherhood, theSalafis, and others who have presented a distorted image of Islam. We must be honest with ourselves and admit that we are the reason for these drawings.[17]
Some Muslims, mainly in Europe, have supported the re-publication of the images so that individual Muslims can make up their own minds and welcomed the debate on the issues that that cartoons have raised.[18] It has also been pointed out that cartoons in the Arab and Islamic press "demonising" Jews and Israelis are common.[18]
Hamshahri, Iran‘s largest newspaper has announced that it will be holding an "international cartoon contest about the Holocaust" in reaction to the images. Says the papers graphics editor: "The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let‘s see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons".[19]
[edit]
International opinion
Some commentators have remarked on the polarisation of the issue, and the vested interests involved in that polarisation. For example,Tariq Ramadan, a member ofTony Blair‘s committee to combat Islamic extremism, claims to see an "unholy alliance" between the anti-immigrant right wing in Europe and the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. As the reasoning goes, some seek to portray Muslims as enemies of Western values and incapable of integration in European society. At the same time various dictatorial regimes in the Islamic world seek to unite their populations behind them by creating external enemies, which they claim are attacking Islam. By polarising the issue these two groups have increased the division between Islamic andWestern society.[20] British newspapers took an unusually similar editorial line on the issue, agreeing with the government‘s assessment of the issue. Even those considered on the ‘right‘ criticised the intellectual justifications given by Continental titles.[21]
According toat least one analyst, the controversy over the cartoons has resulted in bridging some of the divides that both sides of the "West vs Jihadist" conflict have historically exploited: The rift between theUnited States andEurope on one side, and the rift betweenSunnis andShiites on the other side. According to this view, the reaction of the Muslims to the cartoons unifies the factions on either side of the global conflict.
Irshad Manji wrote that Muslims should learn to mock themselves, and accept mockery. Also that the focus on Muhammad was inappropriate, given that it was a monotheistic religion.[22]
Another belief held is that all of the people who have reacted so rashly are making life difficult for ordionary Muslims, there have been reported cases of ‘death threats‘ sent to Danish-Muslims, so many people believe the governments of the world should stop the protesting because it is bringing danger to the lives of innocent people.[edit]
Criticism of Muslim reactions
Commentators who characterize the Muslim reaction as hypocritical[23] point to several inconsistencies. First, the numerous anti-Semitic publications in Arab media.[24] One website,Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this criticism in a political cartoon[25]. Also countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lybia where demonstrations are tightly controlled, have been accused of allowing violent riots as a distraction. In the case of Syria protests would not be inconvenient in light of the currentHariri investigation.[26]. Furthermore, they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.[27]
Various commentators across the political spectrum[28] view the Muslim reaction to the cartoons, be it the actual violence or the non-violent justification for the violence, as evidence of whatSamuel Huntington predicted in his1993 book,The Clash of Civilizations, namely, "卼he fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic卼he dominating source of conflict will be cultural?
Daniel Pipes argues that the pattern of events shows Muslim hypocrisy and supremacism: "...will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones... .... .... The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism."[29]
George Friedman, the founder ofStratfor, questions why Muslims would threaten all members of a given nationality as a result of the actions of a few of its members or that of a small, private company. Friedman notes that according to that logic, not only would the entire Western world be held "hostage" to the strictures of Islam, but the entire Western world (or at least all Scandinavians) would bear the consequences for the actions of individuals they cannot control. Therefore Westerners would have to conclude that violent clashes between the West and jihadist elements is both inevitable and uncontrollable.[30]
Others prefer to view the massively disproportionate Muslim response as simply a form of "arm flexing" or intimidation by violent Muslim factions.[31]
Some commentators also assert that there is an inconsistent reaction towards various countries whose media is guilty of the same thing. For example, the Egyptian NewspaperEl Fagr published 6 of the Muhammad cartoons during Ramadan with no apparent adverse reaction.[32]
In response to some of these criticisms, editor ofAl-Quds Al-Arabi MrAbd al-Bari Atwan on the BBC‘sDateline London argued that most if not all of the ‘anti-semetic‘ cartoons in the Arab press are of Israeli politicians not of Jewish prophets, or related to the ocupation ofPalestine and theSabra-Shatila massacres. However also argued if true, two wrongs do not make a right.
[edit]
References
^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/01/28/062331.htm href="http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/01/28/062331.htm">Epinion: Ingen skal undskylde Muhammed tegninger,?Danmarks Radio,28 January2006.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/04/094600.htm href="http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/04/094600.htm">Delte holdninger til JP‘s tegninger,?Danmarks Radio,4 February2006.^http://www.secularislam.org/articles/call.htm,http://religion.krishna.org/Articles/2001/10/008.html^ A class="external text" title=http://213.237.52.131/wakfweb/wabout.nsf/ByUID/2FCECF53BE66D968C12570E70050D21D?OpenDocument href="http://213.237.52.131/wakfweb/wabout.nsf/ByUID/2FCECF53BE66D968C12570E70050D21D?OpenDocument">Proposal on three day celebration,?Islamisk Trossamfund,1 February2006.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=435166 href="http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=435166">Jyllands-Postens redakt鴕: 籇e har vundet?/A>,?Politiken,1 February2006.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=425732 href="http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=425732">22 tidligere ambassad鴕er siger fra,?Politiken,20 December2005.^ENAR Shadow Report 2004 Denmark^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/07/212844.htm href="http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/07/212844.htm">Muslimer og danskere i f鎙les demonstration,?dr.dk,7 February2006.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/08/054643.htm href="http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/08/054643.htm">Ellemann: JPs chefredakt鴕 b鴕 g?/A>,?dr.dk,8 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/15/wqueen15.xml href="http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/15/wqueen15.xml">We must show our opposition to Islam, says Danish queen,?The Daily Telegraph,15 April2005.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=436871 href="http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=436871">Citatfejl bag vrede mod Margrethe,?Politiken,5 February2006.^ (da)Dronningens nyt錼stale 1984^ A class="external text" title=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566979/posts href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566979/posts">freepublic.com Muslim World League calls on UN to validate cartoon rage,?freerepublic.com,28 January2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.crisscross.com/us/news/18287 href="http://www.crisscross.com/us/news/18287">Outrage builds over Muhammad cartoons,?Crisscross,31 January2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0601317044194736.htm href="http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0601317044194736.htm">OIC condemns publication of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH),?Islamic Republic News Agency,5 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183686,00.html href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183686,00.html">Thousands Protest ‘Offensive‘ Cartoons in Gaza,?FOX News,3 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.slate.com/id/2135449/ href="http://www.slate.com/id/2135449/">Something‘s Rotten in the State of Denmark,?Slate,3 February2006. ^ab A class="external text" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in depth/4677976.stm" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4677976.stm">Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row,?BBC News,3 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18066746-1702,00.html?from=rss href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18066746-1702,00.html?from=rss">Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons,?NEWS.com.au,7 February2006.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Webavis/WAvPrint.php?pWAvVis=1241 href="http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Webavis/WAvPrint.php?pWAvVis=1241">En uhellig alliance har bragt konflikten om det hellige ud af kontrol?/A>,?Information,1 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4677474.stm href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4677474.stm">How UK press shapes up to cartoon row,?BBC News,3 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/ href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/">Combustible Cartoons,?Wall Street Journal News,4 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702538,00.html href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702538,00.html">How cartoons fanned flames of Muslim rage,?The Observer,5 February2006.^http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm,http://www.memri.org/antisemitism.html^http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20060204^ A class="external text" title=http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/01/news/denmark.php href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/01/news/denmark.php">European papers join Danish fray,?The New York Times,8 February2006.
A class="external text" title=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2027876,00.html href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2027876,00.html">Restraint, please ?except for taking retaliatory action on Mr Bongo-brains,?The Times,7 February2006.^http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html
A class="external text" title=http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9461 href="http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9461">CAIR Head Refuses to Denounce Terrorists,?ChronWatch,20 August2003.^ e.g.: A class="external text" title=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5194697 href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5194697">The ‘Muhammad Cartoon‘: Has NPR Been Intimidated?,?National Public Radio,7 February2006. A class="external text" title=http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/686/op5.htm href="http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/686/op5.htm">The clash of civilisations revisited,?Al-Ahram Weekly,February2006. A class="external text" title=http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html href="http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html">Democracy in a Cartoon,?Spiegel,3 February2006.
^ A class="external text" title=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622571922&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622571922&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">We are all Danes now,?Jerusalem Post,7 February2006.^http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=261960 (premium subscription needed)^ A class="external text" title=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622571842&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622571842&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">Militant Islam intimidates,?Jerusalem Post,7 February2006.^http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3548386/
Retrieved from "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Opinions_on_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy"
Categories:Articles with weasel words |Islam and controversy |Current events
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to:navigation,search
This article containsweasel words, which may compromise itsneutrality.
Please see the relevant discussion on thetalk page.
Jyllands-Posten
cartoons controversy
The controversy
Main issueTimelineInternational reactions OpinionsNewspaper reprintsAnders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons
Primary parties involved
DenmarkJyllands-PostenIslamic world
Contents
[hide]
1 Opinions in Denmark1.1 Opinion of the Queen of Denmark
2 Opinions of Muslims3 International opinion4 Criticism of Muslim reactions5 References
[edit]
Opinions in Denmark
A poll onJanuary 29, from Epinion forDanmarks Radio, the national broadcasting company of Denmark, showed that of 579 Danes asked, 79% believe that thePrime Minister of Denmark should not apologise to the Muslims, with 48% citing that would be political interference with the freedom of press, while 44% thought the Prime Minister should try harder to resolve the controversy. 62% of those asked believed that Jyllands-Posten shouldn‘t apologise either. 58% felt that while it was the right of Jyllands-Posten to publish the images, they could understand the Muslim criticism.[1]
OnFebruary 3, another poll from Epinion made forDanmarks Radio, had asked 509 people "Considering the events that have occurred in the past week, should Jylland-Posten have published the depictions?". 47% said they shouldn‘t have been published, 46% said the opposite, while the last 7% did not know which stance to take.[2]
The Denmark based ‘Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network‘ said "the cartoons among others things identified Islam with terrorism,(this) can only increase the xenophobia and racism that these populations are already victims of in Europe. Furthermore, this kind of image contributes to discrediting entire countries and their populations."[1]
The question of whether the drawings should have been printed in the first place has been intensively discussed in Denmark from letters to the editors of news publications, tonational television, to open debate meetings athigh schools and universities. The controversy arises from several sources:
Most Islamic traditions forbid representations of Muhammad. The satirical nature of some of the drawings was not considered respectful, especially one that shows Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, thereby re-enforcing the stereotypical association of Islam withterrorism[3]. The drawings upset the Muslim community in Denmark at a time when relations between Muslims and European society are strained.
The Islamic Society in Denmark has proposed that a three day celebration of Muhammad should be held in Denmark, putting a focus on Muhammad‘s life. They further proposed that this be coordinated in part by the Islamic Society, Jyllands-Posten, and at least some of the five universities in Denmark.[4] This was declined by the universities, as they do not take part in religious activities.
The editor who originally approved the cartoons, Carsten Juste, later declared that the opponents of free speech had "won" because the furor would almost undoubtedly deter future editors from printing anything similar. He thought it unlikely that anyone would print a caricature of Muhammad within a generation. He also said that, had he known exactly what the consequences would be, that is death threats, boycotts and terror threats, he would not have printed the cartoons.[5]
Dagbladet Information‘s satirical criticism ofAnders Fogh Rasmussen‘s reluctancy to meet with the ambassadors
Many people in Denmark have criticised the government‘s handling of the affair, particularly the prime-minister‘s decision not to meet with the Islamic ambassadors in October.
OnDecember 20 twenty-two former Danish ambassadors sent an open letter to the prime-minister criticising his decision not to open a dialogue with the international representatives.[6]
In early February, Swedish newspaperDagens Nyheter published an article that focused not on the cartoons but the cartoonists (who were not named). It was based on interviews with a few of the cartoonists, several of whom regretted creating the pictures. (Dagens Nyheter also noted that although the cartoons have received worldwide attention and have been published several times, the cartoonists have only earned the initial few hundred Danish kroner each for their work.)
OnFebruary 4 the newspaperDagbladet Information published twelveAnders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons satirising his handling of the entire affair.
A 2004 report by the immigrant rights lobbyist organisation ENAR claimed that the Danish media devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problems posed by immigrants, and most often Islamic immigrants, while often ignoring the problems that these immigrants face. Over the 3 month period studied, from September 1 2004 to November 20 2004, 19 out of the 24 Jyllands-Posten‘s editorials on "ethnic issues" were negative, while 88 out of 120 op. ed. pieces on "ethnics" were negative, and 121 out of 148 letters to the editor on "ethnics" were negative.[7] In Denmark, ENAR is represented by Bashy Quraishy, who is a former member ofSocialistisk Folkeparti and is known for his apologetic attitude with regards to the9/11 attacks and for referring to the focus onIslamic fundamentalism during the following investigations as "crusades". The other representative for ENAR in Denmark is Mona Sheikh, who failed to gain a seat inFolketinget representingRadikale Venstre when it was discovered that she was a member of the fundamentalist Minhaj-ul-Quran network.
While generally offended by the cartoons, most members of the Danish Muslim community comdemn the violence that the drawings have sparked off in the Middle East, arguing that the state of Denmark is not to be held responsible for the drawings published by Jyllands-Posten. OnFebruary 7 300 Danish Muslims and ethnic Danes marched through Gjellerupparken near舝hus carrying torches demonstration for an increased understanding between the Danish Muslim community and Danish mainstream community. Rabih Azad-Ahmad who organized the demonstration appealed for friendly and open interaction between the Muslim and mainstream Danish communities.[8]
Former Danishminister of foreign affairs and ex-chairman ofVenstre,Uffe Ellemann-Jensen has openly criticised Jyllands-Posten for publishing the drawings. Referring to the cartoons as a "pubertal demonstration", Elleman-Jensen argues that editor-in-chiefCarsten Juste has acted irresponsibly and also implies that Juste is an incompetent editor. Ellemann-Jensen argues that, Juste should retire from his position as editor of the newspaper.[9]
[edit]
Opinion of the Queen of Denmark
In April 2005 the British newspaper, theDaily Telegraph published an article which quoted QueenMargrethe II of Denmark as saying that the Danes have "to show our opposition to Islam"[10]. The comment is from the book Margrethe (2005)ISBN 87-567-7027-8. The statement was however somewhat mistranslated and ripped from the following context: [page 197] "There is, as said, something moving about people, whom to this degree surrender to a faith. However there is also something frightening about such a totality, which also is a side of Islam. There must be shown counter-play [interplay of an alternative / sparring], and once in a while you have to run the risk of getting a less flattering label stuck upon you. Because there is certain things before which one should not be tolerant." The passage as it appeared in the Daily Telegraph was re-printed by the pan-Arabic news paper Al-Hayat, as evidence of Islamophobia in Denmark[11]. Queen Margrethe has previously in her annual new year抯 speech scolded the Danes for hostility against immigrants.[12]
[edit]
Opinions of Muslims
This cartoon from theJordanian newspaper Al Ghad expresses the fear of many Muslims that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy exemplifies a perceived advancement ofIslamophobia in the West. Counterclockwise: "This one is anti-Semitic", "this one is racist", "and this one (bottom) falls under freedom of speech"
A great many Muslims were angered by the publication of what they considered offensive images. This anger has been expressed in violent and peaceful public protests and newspaper articles in Arabic and Islamic countries. Although the artists have denied representing Mohammed as a terrorist, many Muslims felt that "a bomb in a turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb" suggested a connection between Muhammad and terrorism. There are multiple ways to interpret this particular drawing though, for example that some Muslims are putting violence into the religion by using bombs, or that Islam is a bomb waiting to go off.
Other Arabs and Muslims have expressed their condemnation of the cartoons: "In [the West] it is consideredfreedom of speech if they insult Islam and Muslims," columnist Mohammed al-Shaibani wrote in Kuwait‘s Al-Qabas daily on January 30. "But such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights and anti-Semitism if Arabs and Muslims criticize their religion and religious laws."
A number of Muslim commentators, including Ehsan Ahrari of theAsia Times, have pointed at laws inGermany,France,Austria and seven other countries in Europe which explicitly regard thedenial of the Holocaust as a crime, free speech considerations notwithstanding. They maintain that offensive imagery regarding theJewish religion and the Jewish people is largely prohibited in the media in post-Holocaust Europe. The media in general practices self-restraint in this matter; nonetheless, Muslims allege that a different set of standards seem to apply for the Islamic faith.
In aBBC news programme, Asghar Bukhari of the British Muslim organizationMPACUK and Roger Koeppel, editor ofDie Welt, the German newspaper that published the cartoons, debated the issue. Bukhari suggested to Koeppel that a German paper would be particularly mindful of the effect of such imagery, considering the lengthy history ofanti-Semitic propaganda anddemonization of Jews in German media prior to the Holocaust, whencaricatures of Jews as rich financiers or evilBolsheviks were commonplace. Koeppel replied that he did not consider the caricatures of Muhammad in the same vein.
The public anger was accompanied by a condemnation from Arabic and Islamic governments. TheMuslim World League (MWL) called onUN Secretary-GeneralKofi Annan to activate international laws against insolence toward religion.[13]
Theboycott of Danish products. The text shown in the image can be translated as: Dear customers, in response to the insults towards the Prophet (Peace be upon Him), the supermarket ofAl Tamimi boycotts all Danish products.
The Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister of theUnited Arab Emirates, Mohammed Al Dhaheri, called it "cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression," according to the official WAM news agency. "The repercussions of such irresponsible acts will have adverse impact on international relations." InTunisia, Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, president of the Islamic Organization for Education, Science and Culture (the Islamic world‘s counterpart toUNESCO) called the drawings "a form of racism and discrimination that one must counter by all available means." He said, "It‘s regrettable to state today, as we are calling for dialogue, that other parties feed animosity and hate and attack sacred symbols of Muslims and of their prophet," said also Jordan‘s largest circulation daily, government-run Al-Rai, said the Danish government must apologize.[14]
The condemnations have also come from the General Secretariat of the Organization of Islamic Conference, saying:
It is evident that the intention of Jylland Posten was motivated to incite hatred and violence against Muslims. By exposing the level of understanding of Islamic religion and its symbols the dailies have seriously damaged their credibility in the eyes of Muslim world and harmed democracy, freedom of the press, violated decency and civilized norms.[15]
Iran‘s supreme leader AyatollahAli Khamenei said on February 6th, 2006, that a "Zionist conspiracy" was to blame for the row over the cartoons, in his first reaction to the controversy: "The reason for the Zionist action is because of the loss they suffered byHamas winning". Khamenai was referring to Hamas victory in thePalestinian legislative election, which took place in January 2006, several months after the publication of the cartoons.
However, not all Muslims placed blame entirely on the West. InIraq, the country‘s topShiite cleric,Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, decried the drawings but did not call for protests. Al-Sistani suggested thatmilitant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam‘s image.[16] In theUnited Arab Emirates, the periodical Al-Ittihad published an opinion piece which argued that
the world has come to believe that Islam is what is practiced byBin Laden,Zawahiri,Zarqawi, theMuslim Brotherhood, theSalafis, and others who have presented a distorted image of Islam. We must be honest with ourselves and admit that we are the reason for these drawings.[17]
Some Muslims, mainly in Europe, have supported the re-publication of the images so that individual Muslims can make up their own minds and welcomed the debate on the issues that that cartoons have raised.[18] It has also been pointed out that cartoons in the Arab and Islamic press "demonising" Jews and Israelis are common.[18]
Hamshahri, Iran‘s largest newspaper has announced that it will be holding an "international cartoon contest about the Holocaust" in reaction to the images. Says the papers graphics editor: "The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let‘s see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons".[19]
[edit]
International opinion
Some commentators have remarked on the polarisation of the issue, and the vested interests involved in that polarisation. For example,Tariq Ramadan, a member ofTony Blair‘s committee to combat Islamic extremism, claims to see an "unholy alliance" between the anti-immigrant right wing in Europe and the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. As the reasoning goes, some seek to portray Muslims as enemies of Western values and incapable of integration in European society. At the same time various dictatorial regimes in the Islamic world seek to unite their populations behind them by creating external enemies, which they claim are attacking Islam. By polarising the issue these two groups have increased the division between Islamic andWestern society.[20] British newspapers took an unusually similar editorial line on the issue, agreeing with the government‘s assessment of the issue. Even those considered on the ‘right‘ criticised the intellectual justifications given by Continental titles.[21]
According toat least one analyst, the controversy over the cartoons has resulted in bridging some of the divides that both sides of the "West vs Jihadist" conflict have historically exploited: The rift between theUnited States andEurope on one side, and the rift betweenSunnis andShiites on the other side. According to this view, the reaction of the Muslims to the cartoons unifies the factions on either side of the global conflict.
Irshad Manji wrote that Muslims should learn to mock themselves, and accept mockery. Also that the focus on Muhammad was inappropriate, given that it was a monotheistic religion.[22]
Another belief held is that all of the people who have reacted so rashly are making life difficult for ordionary Muslims, there have been reported cases of ‘death threats‘ sent to Danish-Muslims, so many people believe the governments of the world should stop the protesting because it is bringing danger to the lives of innocent people.[edit]
Criticism of Muslim reactions
Commentators who characterize the Muslim reaction as hypocritical[23] point to several inconsistencies. First, the numerous anti-Semitic publications in Arab media.[24] One website,Filibuster Cartoons pointed out this criticism in a political cartoon[25]. Also countries like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Lybia where demonstrations are tightly controlled, have been accused of allowing violent riots as a distraction. In the case of Syria protests would not be inconvenient in light of the currentHariri investigation.[26]. Furthermore, they believe it is odd that cartoons are considered blasphemous when terrorist attacks in the name of Islam are not equally condemned by Muslims.[27]
Various commentators across the political spectrum[28] view the Muslim reaction to the cartoons, be it the actual violence or the non-violent justification for the violence, as evidence of whatSamuel Huntington predicted in his1993 book,The Clash of Civilizations, namely, "卼he fundamental source of conflict in this new world will not be primarily ideological or primarily economic卼he dominating source of conflict will be cultural?
Daniel Pipes argues that the pattern of events shows Muslim hypocrisy and supremacism: "...will Westerners accede to a double standard by which Muslims are free to insult Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism and Buddhism, while Muhammad, Islam and Muslims enjoy immunity from insults? Muslims routinely publish cartoons far more offensive than the Danish ones... .... .... The deeper issue here, however, is not Muslim hypocrisy but Islamic supremacism."[29]
George Friedman, the founder ofStratfor, questions why Muslims would threaten all members of a given nationality as a result of the actions of a few of its members or that of a small, private company. Friedman notes that according to that logic, not only would the entire Western world be held "hostage" to the strictures of Islam, but the entire Western world (or at least all Scandinavians) would bear the consequences for the actions of individuals they cannot control. Therefore Westerners would have to conclude that violent clashes between the West and jihadist elements is both inevitable and uncontrollable.[30]
Others prefer to view the massively disproportionate Muslim response as simply a form of "arm flexing" or intimidation by violent Muslim factions.[31]
Some commentators also assert that there is an inconsistent reaction towards various countries whose media is guilty of the same thing. For example, the Egyptian NewspaperEl Fagr published 6 of the Muhammad cartoons during Ramadan with no apparent adverse reaction.[32]
In response to some of these criticisms, editor ofAl-Quds Al-Arabi MrAbd al-Bari Atwan on the BBC‘sDateline London argued that most if not all of the ‘anti-semetic‘ cartoons in the Arab press are of Israeli politicians not of Jewish prophets, or related to the ocupation ofPalestine and theSabra-Shatila massacres. However also argued if true, two wrongs do not make a right.
[edit]
References
^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/01/28/062331.htm href="http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/01/28/062331.htm">Epinion: Ingen skal undskylde Muhammed tegninger,?Danmarks Radio,28 January2006.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/04/094600.htm href="http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/04/094600.htm">Delte holdninger til JP‘s tegninger,?Danmarks Radio,4 February2006.^http://www.secularislam.org/articles/call.htm,http://religion.krishna.org/Articles/2001/10/008.html^ A class="external text" title=http://213.237.52.131/wakfweb/wabout.nsf/ByUID/2FCECF53BE66D968C12570E70050D21D?OpenDocument href="http://213.237.52.131/wakfweb/wabout.nsf/ByUID/2FCECF53BE66D968C12570E70050D21D?OpenDocument">Proposal on three day celebration,?Islamisk Trossamfund,1 February2006.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=435166 href="http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=435166">Jyllands-Postens redakt鴕: 籇e har vundet?/A>,?Politiken,1 February2006.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=425732 href="http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=425732">22 tidligere ambassad鴕er siger fra,?Politiken,20 December2005.^ENAR Shadow Report 2004 Denmark^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/07/212844.htm href="http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/07/212844.htm">Muslimer og danskere i f鎙les demonstration,?dr.dk,7 February2006.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/08/054643.htm href="http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/02/08/054643.htm">Ellemann: JPs chefredakt鴕 b鴕 g?/A>,?dr.dk,8 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/15/wqueen15.xml href="http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/04/15/wqueen15.xml">We must show our opposition to Islam, says Danish queen,?The Daily Telegraph,15 April2005.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=436871 href="http://politiken.dk/VisArtikel.iasp?PageID=436871">Citatfejl bag vrede mod Margrethe,?Politiken,5 February2006.^ (da)Dronningens nyt錼stale 1984^ A class="external text" title=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566979/posts href="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1566979/posts">freepublic.com Muslim World League calls on UN to validate cartoon rage,?freerepublic.com,28 January2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.crisscross.com/us/news/18287 href="http://www.crisscross.com/us/news/18287">Outrage builds over Muhammad cartoons,?Crisscross,31 January2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0601317044194736.htm href="http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-22/0601317044194736.htm">OIC condemns publication of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH),?Islamic Republic News Agency,5 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183686,00.html href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,183686,00.html">Thousands Protest ‘Offensive‘ Cartoons in Gaza,?FOX News,3 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.slate.com/id/2135449/ href="http://www.slate.com/id/2135449/">Something‘s Rotten in the State of Denmark,?Slate,3 February2006. ^ab A class="external text" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in depth/4677976.stm" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4677976.stm">Q&A: The Muhammad cartoons row,?BBC News,3 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18066746-1702,00.html?from=rss href="http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18066746-1702,00.html?from=rss">Iran to publish Holocaust cartoons,?NEWS.com.au,7 February2006.^ (da)A class="external text" title=http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Webavis/WAvPrint.php?pWAvVis=1241 href="http://www.information.dk/InfWebsite/FremvisningPHP/Webavis/WAvPrint.php?pWAvVis=1241">En uhellig alliance har bragt konflikten om det hellige ud af kontrol?/A>,?Information,1 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4677474.stm href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4677474.stm">How UK press shapes up to cartoon row,?BBC News,3 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/ href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/">Combustible Cartoons,?Wall Street Journal News,4 February2006.^ A class="external text" title=http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702538,00.html href="http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702538,00.html">How cartoons fanned flames of Muslim rage,?The Observer,5 February2006.^http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm,http://www.memri.org/antisemitism.html^http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20060204^ A class="external text" title=http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/01/news/denmark.php href="http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/01/news/denmark.php">European papers join Danish fray,?The New York Times,8 February2006.
A class="external text" title=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2027876,00.html href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2027876,00.html">Restraint, please ?except for taking retaliatory action on Mr Bongo-brains,?The Times,7 February2006.^http://www.iags.org/fuelingterror.html
A class="external text" title=http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9461 href="http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=9461">CAIR Head Refuses to Denounce Terrorists,?ChronWatch,20 August2003.^ e.g.: A class="external text" title=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5194697 href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5194697">The ‘Muhammad Cartoon‘: Has NPR Been Intimidated?,?National Public Radio,7 February2006. A class="external text" title=http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/686/op5.htm href="http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/686/op5.htm">The clash of civilisations revisited,?Al-Ahram Weekly,February2006. A class="external text" title=http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html href="http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html">Democracy in a Cartoon,?Spiegel,3 February2006.
^ A class="external text" title=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622571922&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622571922&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">We are all Danes now,?Jerusalem Post,7 February2006.^http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=261960 (premium subscription needed)^ A class="external text" title=http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622571842&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1138622571842&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull">Militant Islam intimidates,?Jerusalem Post,7 February2006.^http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3548386/
Retrieved from "https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Opinions_on_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy"
Categories:Articles with weasel words |Islam and controversy |Current events