I have to admit I've been puzzled by the whole Danish Cartoon ??? I don't even know what to call it. Controversy seems too mild a word when buildings are burning and people are dying. Debacle implies that the Danish newspaper did something wrong, or at least something worse than what every other newspaper does, and that is to continue publishing political cartoons, an artform that (in the US at least) is simply wretched, worn out, and cliched. Who can take them seriously anymore? Crisis may be the best fit, but that depends on whether anything is learned or changes (on either side) or if after awhile the whole thing settles down to the status quo ante.
So how did we get here? The Brussels Journal provides a pretty good overview of the whole affair (there, I've made my decision on what to call it for now):
Do not think that by now you have heard all that there is to say about the “Danish cartoon” crisis. Last September, a Danish paper noticed that some cartoonists were frightened to depict Near Eastern topics. They seem to have sensed that being funny leads to serious trouble. So the paper made some effort to get such material. The result was twelve drawings [see them here, halfway down the page].Some are good, others so-so. Still others are not especially funny. When perusing the material before the cartoons became the story, I thought that they depict an “Islamic type” in different situations. The best one seemed to be a scene at the gates of heaven. Incoming suicide bombers (“martyrs” if you insist) are told by the gate-keeper: “Stop, we ran out of virgins.” Another favorite is several women in burkas that follow a turbaned fellow. The rectangular eye-hole cut out of the black cloaks is transferred over the eyes of the (unenlightened?) man. In time it was discovered that the caricatures show the Prophet. That is a no-no if you are a Moslem. As time passed there was, rather than boos, a bit of protest. When it intensified, other papers reprinted the cartoons to show what the outcry is all about. Thereupon the insulted protestors defending the messenger of peace became violent. Considering that Islam claims to be a creed of mercy, peace and benevolence, its discontented are surprisingly violent. All of which makes one wonder what would happen if the faith would not have peaceful forgiveness in its core.
And they are one of the few places you could see the cartoons over the past four months . So by all means, go and read up on the subject there if you are interested.
The contrast between the anger of those upset and the silliness of the simple cartoons can serve to distract us from the important issues confronted here -- at core what can I expect of and what can I demand of my fellow man. Normally in religion the questions are about the relations between man and God; here despite the religious angle the questions are about the relations between man and man, and the different beliefs on that subject that are informed by the overall culture, not just religion (and it can be mighty hard to separate the two). Christopher Hitchens agrees with me, just at greater length and with a different view of religion.
The fault lines are not just between West and East; there are fault lines within the West as well, and are well explored by Jeff Goldstein:
"This battle over the Danish cartoons highlights all of these philosophical dilemmas (which I have argued previously are the result of certain linguistic misunderstandings that are either cynically or idealistically perpetuated); and so we are brought to the point where this clash of civilizations—which in one important sense is a clash between theocratic Islamism and the west, but in another, more crucial sense, is a clash between the west and its own structural thinking, brought on by years of insinuation into our philosophy of what is, at root, collectivist thought that privileges the interpreter of an action over the necessary primacy of intent and agency and personal responsibility to the communicative chain—could conceivably become manifest over something so seemingly trivial as the right to satirize."
Actually, I think that arguments in the abstract don't cause anyone but college professors to get excited; it takes something simple and concrete like satirical cartoons to set everyman's heart to pounding.
I expect there are fault lines within the East as well, its just as a man of the West I'm not the best judge of them.
And I have to wonder, with all the provocations to chose from, why this one?
Another view is that the cartoons are an excerise in racism, freedom-of-speech a dodge to hide it, and that the Prophet Muhammad is not a current figure who would be an appropriate target for political cartoonists. Apparently symbolism is lost on some people.
Cassandra, not surprisingly, has girded her loins for intellectual battle:
Nowhere is this phenomenon more evident than the Danish cartoon kerfuffle. But for all the overwrought fulmination about freedom of expression, what the Coalition of the Outraged hate to admit is that unfettered speech in the Western world is more sentimental fiction than reality. By law and by custom, Western society has always recognized all sorts of limits on the right to speak freely. A notable example is the fighting words exception to the First Amendment, which recognizes that certain words and ideas are so inflammatory that society's interest in maintaining order outweighs the individual's right to express himself without limitation. Another, the criminalization of 'hate speech', places paramount value on the feelings of certain identity groups while allowing others to be insulted or attacked with impugnity. A third, cultural bugaboos, are equally problematic in that they allow rappers to casually drop words like 'nigger' but mandate that everyone else use silly euphenisms like 'the n-word' as surrogates for an appellation so shocking that only the pigmentally gifted may utter it without rending the fabric of the universe in twain.So it would appear that protestations to the contrary, our own tolerance for free speech has definite limits. The question then becomes not, "Does a free society recognize any limitation on speech?". Of course it does. The sticking point becomes "Where do we draw the line, and who gets to draw it?" And therein lies the rub. The mainstream media regularly exercise self-restraint... but only when it suits them. As I observed earlier regarding the JCS controversy, media self-censorship is at best a hypocritical exercise:
She doesn't stop there my friends, but of all people I don't want to steal herthunder.
And as far as the cowardly response of the American Press to spare our delicate sensiblilities by not showing the cartoons, what am I as a Christian to learn? That there is a double standard when handling Islam or Christianity? That we would be better off killing abortionists, blowing up abortion clinics, burning down movie theaters that show movies like Dogma or The Last Temptation of Christ, offing Dick Wolff or any other TV producer when he shows Christians in a negative light, or anyone else who disrespects us because then we would get respect? Then would our feelings would taken seriously? We'll never know, will we, because we woulnd't be Christians if we did. There's an idea for a movie - The Latest Tempation of a Christian.
Maybe, just maybe we should applaud some obscure Danish newpaper for having the audacity to commission cartoons these cartoons, and by doing so have caused not just turmoil in Islamic lands but soul searching in Western lands . We live in interesting times.
It's my view that this whole riot business is fueled by shari'a, and I just saw a study/poll that says most Middle East countries want shari'a as their law. Get read for more of this in the future.
the danish caroons are nothing less then provocatory. I fail to see the link between drawing a political cartoon about the middle east and insulting the Prophet, who is the embodiment of Islam- there really was no need for these insensitive cartoons. Then again the Danes are known for their Islamophobic views the world over, as well as their xenophobic takes on forein affairs. therefore I cant say I was surprised by the cartoons.
I am getting tired of this as well as all the other "controversies" and accusations that come out of the middle east. When a group of people accuses another group, or an individual, of bigotry enough times over a long enough period, it creates bigots because it associates association with the accusing group with unpleasant accusations. When accused of undue violence, a similar result occurs when the accused finally protests with a violently stated "shut the $*#@ up!"
Middle-east stability is an oxymoron and will stay one. One month we have Palestinian leadership seeking peaceful co-existence with an Israeli state. The next we have Palestinian leadership that will only accept the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of Jews from the region. Palestinian politics render the duration of any accord or treaty the same as the term of office of the person who signed it -- unless he bows to internal pressures and changes his mind while still in power.
One fact seems obvious: peace is only possible when both sides stop fighting. I, for one, am tired of watching deeds and their resulting measured responses escalate to the need for yet another accord. Decades of unease and discomfort have not made both sides ready to quit fighting. I am reminded of two brothers fighting -- he who is most vicious appears to be the winner regardless of ability. I vote we take the gloves off and start deserving all the accusations thrown at us. I vote that we forget about the modern stigma surrounding imperialism, own the complaining countries, and then trade them for a nice handicraft we can display in the white house.
I know my words and ideas will offend many of the pacifists out there. I am an old military man and can honestly say I hate war -- probably much more than my pacifist brothern who know little of it -- but -- the only necessary war is the one that is the only way to a secure and lasting peace; and sometimes the only thing that will secure such a peace is making an antagonist intimately aware of the futility and negative consequences of continued aggression.
It should also be realized that whereas we are now facing fragmented challenges from many groups instead of one identifiable opponent, war normally galvanizes participants and unites them under one banner. If we do become guilty of the accusations against us, I believe one leadership will take control in the opposition against us. Only when this happens will we be able to negotiate an enduring peace. Until that happens, we need to answer accusation with guilt.
Regards,
God has made at least three appearances in "Far Side" cartoons published in the United States. I quote from "The PreHistory of The Far Side: A 10th Anniversary Exhibit" by Gary Larson, Copyright 1980-1989. I can cite these cartoons legally here under the "fair use" clause of the Copyright Act, for scholarly purposes. Page 147 shows the three cartoons. Here are their captions and a brief description.
1. "Yes! That's right! the answer is 'Wisconsin'! Another 50 points for God, and . . . uh-oh, looks like Norman, our current champion, hasn't even scored yet."
The scene shows a game show "Trivia Tonight", with two contestants: a huge robed figure with crepuscular rays coming from His head (obviously God); and Norm, looking all pissed off because he has to compete against God on the game show.
2. In God's kitchen.
God is taking a globe out of the oven. It's steaming, and He thinks, "Something tells me this thing's only half-baked."
3. God as a kid tries to make a chicken in his bedroom.
The cartoon shows a Far Side kid all covered with smoke, a singed chemistry set, and feathers flying all over.
#1 is complimentary about God, and Larson notes in the commentary that he portrayed God as most people think He looks. #2 pokes fun at the earth, and most people think something's wrong here anyway. #3 implies that God Almighty had a learning phase, so I guess that one could be offensive. I think it's amusing to think of God in human terms for a moment, which we all do because we can't fully comprehend God.
By the way, these three cartoons could be construed as representing Allah. Allah is the name of God in Islamic theology, right? The three great monotheistic faiths don't diverge until long after Moses.
I seem to remember that the Prophet Mohammed made an appearance in the Far Side. Larson drew a robed figure at his desk, looking over his shoulder at the door. A huge pile of earth was pushing up against the door, and the doorbell was ringing. The caption said, "Mohammed looked at the door, but there was no one there. No, it was the mountain. The mountain had come to Mohammed." (ding-dong!)
That cartoon dealt with the legend of Muhammed moving a mountain. I don't recall anyone getting upset by it. Mohammed may have been partially shown (just his back). So the point here is that it's not just the mere depiction of the Prophet that's offensive; it has to be a derogatory depiction (in a political cartoon) to cause riots.
I showed the Far Side cartoons last night to my praise/Bible study/prayer group, and they all thought they were hilarious. My favorite is #1.
By the way, we did NOT leave our prayer group and immediately go off to torch some embassy. It appears that Friday prayers at some mosques are different from the Christian worship services that I attend.
False drawings and well marketing from danish radical imams have set more fuel on the fire.
There were 12 drawings in the danish newspaper, 55 were presented by the Imams to the arab wolrd. One of the more offending, showing a man with beard with at mask of a pig nose and ears, is stolen from this link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8959820. The Imams took a unclear black/white copy of it and told that in denmark every news is contuining showing pictures like that, and disunder the religion. The purpose was one, to get rated high in the arab world and media for their own ambision.
I do hope some day the truth will get through, danish people and authorities did not make or contribute these cartoons in any way. In the 12 original drawings, I think a couple of them showed an abused attitude that off course should not have been printed, as they had no sound reason. Here in Denmark we had one more peace demonstration arranged by moderate muslims today, trying to tell the world that this has grown into a big lye and that they live well here and like Denmark. The story is told in danish here:
http://www.berlingske.dk/indland/artikel:aid=693298/
to Carl Drews
How many Jews fit in a Volkswagen : 9
2 in front 2 behind and 5 in the ashtray !
isn't that hilarious ?
no it isn't , right ! why ? ..it's the context stupid !
there is no such context in the Larson's cartoons but there is one in the Danish stuff : the way the west and Muslims perceive each other specially ,after 9/11 !
To Watson
Yet Carl's point is valid - even with that remark you won't see Jews storming at your door to kill you.
Tasneeem, what I know about the Danes as a group is that they were able to save most of the Danish Jews during WWII. They had more guts and compassion than any other European nation.
Jensen911, thanks for the info.
Watson, it isn't the context that's different, it's the content. Is anybody hurt or made fun of in the Farsides? Nope. Your joke has 5 dead in a way that deliberately invokes the Holocaust.
Well I can understand the bruised sentiments over the caricature and I personally voice my concerns regarding this if sentiments were hurt. But what about the ignorance of the greater injustice rendered by the same group of people over people of other religions in their countries. Countries like Saudi Arabia for ages have never permitted people from other religion to worship their Gods. They have hunted them down like dogs and desecrated their worship places. They have openly lynched people who preach other religion or carry religious documents. There are umpteen cases of all this in the past decade. Where were all these sympathizers then? Can these people who are so concerned about sentiments campaign against various governments in the Middle East to permit free worship of their respective religion??? I hope more and more people who have experienced what I am talking about will come forward and share their experiences on this regard. There are ample reliable sources that have documented burning of religious documents by these fanatics in the so-called Muslim countries. Is there a single country in the WEST where Muslims cannot profess their faith or practice it? Doesn’t all this mean respect? The taliban openly destroyed the Buddhist Monasteries in Afghanistan desecrating the Buddhists faith. What was that for?? Hordes of Muslims ransack minority villages in Indonesia every day. I do not see this furor then? What about all this? Is this what is called mutual respect?
According to the Bible a man is supposed to have only one wife and what happens if the Christian countries try to impose this on the rest of the world. Certain cultures and religion ascribe to polygamy and no one can force it on anyone. The Jews, Buddhist and Hindus have similar beliefs too. The Hindus strongly disagree on eating Beef as
The Cow is holy to them and it is considered their God. Aren’t the people of the Muslim world disregarding that? Does that mean people of India should start boycotting Arabic products or products from Islamic world? Isn’t that Insane? Every religion has certain beliefs and you cannot expect people of other religion to abide by that.
The reasons why Issues have not flared up regarding all this is only because people of other religions have been tolerant to such matters and have respected personal religion and personal space.
That’s what the fanatics need to understand. This is not a war between cultures or race or religion. If that was so, is there an iota of doubt about the capabilities of the so-called Christian countries to destroy the Arab nations?? It could happen is jiffy if that was the intension of the WEST. Why not now when the Muslim world is weak and lack nuclear power than later??? So it’s clear that no one is running a Crusade here or planning to wipe out any race or religion. I guess after Bible has become accessible to the public, Christians have always abhorred the very crusaders for they were anti-Biblical acts. The Christian world has grown out of all the prejudice in the course of time. But these fanatics who have their own axe to grind are using this as a pretext to blind the world of the reality of mutual respect and pander to the lower tastes of egos and complex for the developed world. Muslim countries that have stood for development have achieved what they dreamed and have succeeded to provide their subjects with all the facilities of the modern world. Examples are before you, all you need to do is open your eyes as a human being and see. I don’t see any kind of hatred being spewed from those countries at all. It’s a matter of seeing things in distinction. One cannot condemn a government or a religion for acts perpetrated by a person. I Strongly believe that the Muslim world needs to see the rest of the world with a broader perspective and start to see it as a place that belongs to people irrespective of religion. Only then can peace prevail.
Watson, I think that joke is funny, regardless of context, because I can separate myself from the reality and realize that the Holocaust was horrible.
Generally, the West has a style of humor that can separate the joke from the reality. Nobody with conscience would find the Holocaust itself funny, but to have a sense of humor about something is all relative.
From 50 feet away seeing somebody fall down can be hilarious, but get too close and the humor gives way to concern.
I say right on to the cartoons. This behavior just further destroys radical Islam in the eyes of the sane.
i think everybody has freedom and can print whatever they want. muslims are overreacting on this cartoon issue. cartoon are just for fun and should not be taken seriously.
Why don’t a say that some of you are assholes ,pigs, cretins, the breeding of dog and apes, stinking Jew /Arab or dirty Niger.
There are red lines beyond which your freedom of expression becomes (or for the matter is perceived as) an intolerable personal offense.
In country like Switzerland and Austria your are fined if you utter in public the Volkswagen joke or the sauna joke (for Zac who might find also funny)
What is the difference between a sauna for Danes and one for Jews - 900 degrees !
So what is the nonsense about Muslims having to learn tolerance for outright offense toped by a malicious “don’t take it personally… .just laugh when we desecrate your holy beliefs”
Why do you care what anyone else thinks about your beliefs? As long as you aren't being subjugated for them, who cares? We don't. Obviously. We laugh when you desecrate our beliefs, mock our political system and social freedoms, and condemn democracy. Why? Because we're confident that our way is better and your distain is totally irrelevant. Perhaps it's time to take a lesson from the west. Moreover, most of us don't have the time to be concerned about how the world views our beliefs... we have a jobs to do and lives to lead.
to rob
who is "WE" in
"we're confident that our way is better"
"we have a job to do"
what about muting this outrageous arrogance of thinking you are allowed to speak for the rest of us in the west !
The biggest issue with this whole thing is the violent response. It's one thing to be righteously indignant and another to kill, burn and to act otherwise barbarically. For the typical Muslim who wants nothing more than equal respect as he perceives his western counterparts as receiving, the violent reactionaries should be the graver insult to his sensibilities. Surely there must be Muslims out there who can come up with more creative and effective measures to display their anger. Instead, the foreseeable outcome to this ridiculous situation is likely to be a further taboo on Islam and a greater division between it and other mainstream religions.
Fortunately for Islam, some of their state sponsors sit on vast oil reserves giving them one of their only resources to remain remotely involved within the leasership circles of the world.
Everyone go back to their Old Testament. In the Old Testament, after the whole golden calf thing, God said no to graven images. Muslims, with all the old testament rules that they break, observe this one. TRY to find a picture or image OF ANYONE in a mosque... It isn't just Mohammed. But the real problem is that God was behind it all, and Muslims get hung up on Mohammed, who was (they believe) at most, a mouthpiece for God. That is what a prophet is... If they showed their offense at graven images, they could have gotten a lot more buy in...
We live in a free world where people must have the right to express any opinion....
I am not going to say that this was not very offensive to Muslims but patience please.
If we want freedom of the press and freedom of expression we must take the good with the bad.
If nobody had made such a big deal out of this, then nobody outside of Denmark would have even seen these caricatures....
This drew attention to them... Just today Police shot 4 protesters in Kabul to prevent hundreds from storming a US army base.
The world authorities following the lead of President George Bush have called for an end to deadly rioting across the Muslim world over drawings of the Prophet Muhammad.
Denmark is up there amoung the most democratic of all the countries in the world... therefore the last place you would have expected this nonesense.
The worst I heard was that one woman carried a placard that said, To Hell with Free Speech!
She is using Free Speech to condemn it...
Excuse me....
Patience Please People......
Ross Tylor
Ottawa, Canada
"The Danish paper responsible for the original caricatures of the prophet Muhammad is set to run cartoons satirising the Holocaust."(Guardian)
Let us thank them for settling the debate on what is freedom of expression and what is just outrageous cynicism and iconoclasty to entertain the circus maximus.
Discretion being the better part of valor, the media, for reasons best known to themselves, have forborne showing those culturally-insensitive cartoons that has Islam in an uproar.
Instead on every newscast the TV shows the Danish flag being burned. Unfortunately, however, there being a dearth of Danish flags to be burned in Jihadistan, the holy warriors had to make do by making up some home-made version for the edification of TV cameras. What seems to have escaped everyone’s attention is the fact the white cross was centered on a red field, which, of course, is the flag of the Swiss Confederation.
As for the groveling by the Scandinavians towards their future lords and masters, it is hard to believe that they once made the civilized world quake in fear (from the wrath of the Norseman Oh Lord deliver us). Even as late as 1864, when Prussia and Austro-Hungary jointly assaulted Denmark, the Danes fought back and even though they lost that war and had to surrender the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein, they, at least, made them work for it.
E. David Litvak
To E. David Litvak
Are you the one fumbling with hate crime legislation ?
If yes, I suggest you start grappling with the elementary stuff first ,like trying not to confuse action with reaction
Beyond that ,pompously signing your post doesn't add neither authority nor credibility ..on the contrary
Understand what you utter:discretion is the better part of value
Dear Fellows,
Muslims are demanding just one thing .. a serious apology for those cartoos. Since the matter has gone beyond newspaper itself, therefore Danish Govt. should do it.
And Yes, Islam does have foregiveness at the core of it. But did anyone asked for it?
Not so long ago, a US paper published a cartoon where a Muslim country was shown as a dog. The country demanded apology and the newspaper promptly and seriously apologized and the matter was cleared. Nothing burned, nothing was shut down and nothing went out of order.
Now, I explain the reaction of Muslims. The single most reverenced person for us is Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him). The punishment of the person who knows the status of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and mocks him can be as high as DEATH SENTENCE! - Unless he sincerely apologizes.
Our religion encourages forgiveness .. but the justice is defined as TIT FOR TAT. It is very natural. Why dont u just slap a passer-by? 'cuz he will instinctively do the same to u. But if you apologize .. he may forgive u.
Same is in this case. Denmark has slapped the Muslim world squarely. Now either she apologizes or gets ready for response. Simple enough.
Sounds rather threatening Khurram. The problem is the Muslim world is entertaining a paradoxical position. On the one hand, their desire is to be embraced as a respectable world religion and in many cases world powers; on the other, they openly shun those ideals the rest of the world calls inalienable rights (namely free speech/press, equality, and etc.). If these rights cannot coexist with Islamic law and the result is disorder, there indeed will be a response. Unfortunately for the Muslim world, the response is going to be a large scale rejection of Islam by the majority remainder of the world.
The fact is, in an open society criticisms exist against everything --including the freedoms I mentioned above. A reality that goes along with that is that one must be willing and able to accept those criticisms without some barbaric response of death and destruction. If Denmark were to apologize, the message would be that they are willing to cave to bullying by a Neanderthal collective that gets its way through intimidation by force.
Regarding your ridiculous analogy, the so-called Tit-for-Tat response. Nowhere in Denmark or anywhere else did I see any Muslim get killed or have his property destroyed in this instance. So I would suggest that the Muslim reaction is quite exaggerated.
Lastly, to 'Enough,' if you are going to refute someone please do so coherently. A mere nonsensical angry sputter serves no useful purpose.
Mr. Shehzad,
Can you provide any information on this dog cartoon? I've never heard of it, and quite frankly, I'm highly doubtful any such cartoon was published seeing as how few newspapers are willing to reprint the Danish ones.
What are your thoughts on the Danish imams who have provided highly insulting cartoons that were never published in a Danish newspaper as if they were?
Why wasn't the Newspaper's apology good enough? Who escalated the controversy beyond the newspaper itself?
How did the actual Danish cartoons mock the prophet? Was it simply depicting the prophet, or was some particular content of the cartoon? Please be specific.
How exactly did Denmark (as opposed to the newspaper) slap the Muslim world? What should the response be? Since you believe in TIT FOR TAT justice, I look forward to 12 cartoons about the Danish -- and nothing more. Anything else would be its own provocation, wouldn't it?
You demand respect for your beliefs, but do you provide any for others?
If a country is responsible for the actions of any citizen (which is what you seem to say when you make Denmark responsible for the actions of particular Danes) and justice is defined as TIT FOR TAT (I think eye for eye, tooth for tooth is the better phrase), then can the United States wipe out every country that had citizens take part in various lethal attacks on US citizens (African Embassies, USS Cole, 9/11) performed by al qaida?
Thanks in advance for your reply.
to shelafi
"if you are going to refute someone please do so coherently.A mere nonsensical angry sputter serves no useful purpose"
Well ...what about applying this to your own ridiculous pontifications :-)
I've seen so many cartoon they talked about, but i don't think i've seen the one which is became the real kontroversi. Can you show me? Just out of curiousity.
Anne,
I don't know exactly which one you are talking about. The published cartoons can be found here. You can see the fake ones Danish Imams circulated here, here, and here. I hope that helps you.
watson,
The Danish paper isn't running any holocaust cartoons.
To Khurram and others who keep calling for apologies it might interest you to know that the Danish government officially apologised a couple of weeks. The paper that originally printed the cartoons have issued statement after meeting leading muslim clerics appologising as well as stating that the purpose was never to insult muslims but rather to highlight the fear of touching issues that could be seen as provocative to the far middle east.
I guess that fear has been proven to be true now...
Thomas
They preach religion, but don't practice it. Their religion should be hypocracy. They need to learn a little more democracy. They come to America, but they can't stand us. Although it's okay for them to take our social security and welfare money. But they hate us.
The big problem here is everything becomes generalized. One cartoonest does not represent the view of all danish people, any more than one suicide bomber does not represent the view of all muslims. It would be nice to see more protest over loss of innocent life by all parties. Then I think we should move on to the cartoons.
Now think of it, the one thing muslims should protest more than anything is suicide bombing.This desicrates the religion far more than cartoons. Suicide bombers say they represent muslims. Maybe it is time to set the record straight. Also I am sure Muhammad has a sense of humour.