As you are aware by now esteemed bloggers that some cartoons are creating havoc around the world. Widespread protests from Kabul to Auckland. Scandinavian embassies were burned in Beirut (the beleaguered city was limping back to normalcy, now again precariously perched), Damascus and today (not surprisingly) Teheran. Danish products are being boycotted in many Islamic countries, one may add similar to American boycott of French product not long ago.
Never has in the history of human race cartoons have created such an international uproar and debate. Off course there has been isolated cases of provocative cartoons in the past. The one I recall is that of an appalling cartoon of Hitler with Anne Frank in bed, which I thought was outright repulsive and vulgar (the question of aesthetics doesn’t even arise). How the public space is used does reflect the level of evolution of a society. Tolerating these kinds of cartoons is hardly a sign of evolution. This brings us to the issue of where we draw the line of Freedom of Expression particularly in the globalised world at the crossroad of mind boggling technological innovations. The challenges never imagined.
The set of cartoons in question came in Danish Newspaper Jylland Posten late last year (the mischief of these cartoons emerging now is clear). But before the newspaper brought these cartoons out they published an article under the headline "Deep fear of criticism of Islam". The article discussed the difficulty encountered by a writer who was initially unable to find an illustrator for his children's book "The Quaran and the prophet Muhammad's life". Three artists declined this proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to this writer: One artist declined, with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Thoe van Gogh, while another declined, citing the attack on the lecturer in Copenhagen. In October 2004, a lecturer was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Quran to non-Muslims during a lecture in Copenhagen. The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self censorship and led to much debate in Denmark. Jyllands-Posten published an article titled "The face of Muhammad". The article consisted of 12 satirical caricatures (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an explanatory text, in which Jyllands-Posten's "culture" editor, commented: “The modern,secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him”. Note that compatibilty with contemporary “democracy and freedom of speech” means ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule!!!. The example of which we find in the happening in Iraq. The “super power” undermining the local populations for its interests we saw it in Vietnam, in Chile, in Nicargua…. in all the meets of world organisations. This “ insults, mockery and ridicule” in the name of Democracy. So what do we do with democratically elected Hamas?. Good question!!. Writes Robert Fisk (of The Indepedent) ..."And this is not a great time to heat up the old Samuel Huntingdon garbage about a "clash of civilisations". Iran now has a clerical government again. So, to all intents and purposes, does Iraq (which was not supposed to end up with a democratically elected clerical administration, but that's what happens when you topple dictators). In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood won 20 per cent of the seats in the recent parliamentary elections. Now we have Hamas in charge of "Palestine". There's a message here, isn't there? That America's policies--"regime change" in the Middle East--are not achieving their ends. These millions of voters were preferring Islam to the corrupt regimes which we imposed on them...." Coming back to Jyllands-Posten they asked around forty different artists to give their interpretation on how Prophet Muhammad may have looked, twelve different caricaturists chose to respond with a drawing each. Some of these twelve drawings portray Muhammad in different fashions; many also comment on the surrounding self-censorship debate. Around 12 cartoonist send their contributions. Considering that the cartoons are not worth reproducing I give the description to let know what exactly is it about.
1)The face of Muhammad as a part of the Islamic star and crescent symbol. His right eye the star, the crescent surrounds his beard and face.
2)Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb. This drawing is considered the most controversial of the twelve.
3)Muhammad standing in a gentle pose with a halo in the shape of a crescent moon. The middle part of the crescent is obscured, revealing only the edges.
4)An abstract drawing of crescent moons and stars of david, and a poem on oppression of women. In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke"
5)Muhammad as a simple wanderer, in the desert, at sunset. There is a donkey in the background.
6)A nervous caricaturist, shakingly drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.
7)Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel south jetlander". The reference is to a common Danish expression for a person from the middle of nowhere.)
8)An Arab-looking boy in front of a blackboard, pointing to the Farsi chalkings, which translate into "The editorial team of Jyllands-Posten is a bunch of reactionary provocateurs". The boy is labelled "Mohammed, valby school, 7.A", implying that this Muhammed is a second-generation immigrant to Denmark rather than the founder of Islam. On his shirt is written "Fremtiden" (the future).
9)Another drawing shows an angry Muhammad with a short sabre and a black bar censoring his eyes. He is flanked by two women in niqaabs , having only their wide open eyes visible.
10)Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with "Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!", an allusion to the promised reward to martyer.
11)Another shows a journalist (Kåre Bluitgen), wearing a turban with the orange dropping into it, with the inscription " Publicity stunt". In his hand is a child's stick drawing of Muhammad, referring to Bluitgens upcoming illustrated children's book on the life of The Prophet. The proverb "an orange in the turban" is a Danish expression meaning "a stroke of luck", here the added publicity for the book.
12)A police line-up of seven people, with the witness saying: "Hm... I can't really recognise him". Not all people in the line-up are immediately identifiable. They are: (1) A generic Hippie, (2) politician Pia Kjærsgaard, (3) possibly Jesus, (4) possibly Buddha, (5) possibly Muhammad, (6) a generic Indian Guru, and (7) journalist Kare Bluitgen, carrying a sign saying: "Kare's public relations, call and get an offer".
This is how the controversy began and it seems it has just got started.
It need be noted that most contemporary Muslims believe that ordinary portraits and photos, films and illustrations, are permissible. Only some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam still condemn pictorial representations of any kind. Offensive satirical pictures are a somewhat different case — disrespect to Islam or to Muhammad is still widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious.
One need also point out here that some of the people in media have been very irresponsible. The “freedom of expression” was used to create and reitrate the perspective of the “intolerable other” wherein it was clear that the majority of the people didn’t identity with the lunatic fringe, considering the muted protest in the begining (in case of india nobody is really bothered atleast till now). Prejudice has been always the first step to all mass killings. And the most organised killings in the history of humanity happened in industrial Europe. I guess its better to know one’s own history before pontifying. Lets understand whatever maybe the case every society will always have a violent fringe group which will try to exploit emotive issues for their own end, to spread hatred. A responsible media will be aware of this….
As the BBC puts it so very rightly "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims. As Muhammad is the proto-typical Muslim this association with terrorism is comparable to a generalisation to all Muslims. Furthermore, the cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims perceive to be an Islamophobic mood in many of the western countries involved. In this context the effect of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons on Muslims differs significantly from the effect of comparable cartoons on a Christian living in the west”.
Sensitivity to peoples feelings are very important. This sensitivity is not about accepting regressive and feaudal norms and “cultures” sometimes coming as religion. The line definitely is drawn. There are no options here. As a blogger writes from Britian: “Because let's face it: it is more difficult winning the fidelity of few million individuals than it is to win the fidelity of ethnic "leaders" (who bargain for promises, power, influence) and who then direct their followers how to vote. It's a form of lazy electoral outsourcing that, in this country, both parties are guilty of indulging in—though the modern conservative / libertarian movement often argue vehemently against the kernel precepts that enable it, while many progressives embrace the pragmatism of the political marketing convenience and pre-made collectivism these precepts have already prepared the groundwork for….liberty must remain ever-vigilant”. In this context its very important to know that Jordan’s Al-shihan reproduced the cartoons telling Muslims “what bring more prejudice against islam?. These caricatures or pictures of a hostage taker slashing throat of his victim?''. 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. It has also been pointed out that cartoons in the Arab and Islamic press "demonising" Jews and Israelis are common.
I have been going through many sites and blogs, as also some articles…..these comments sums up the or lets say gives the glimpse of issues involved and varied reactions reflective of mindset doing the round- it will not be an understatement to say that these are to large extend reflective of people around the world.
Columnist of Guardian Gary Young writes: “ if newspaper have the right to offend then surely their target have the right to be offended. Moreover if you are bold enough to knowingly offend a community then you should be bold enough to withstand the consequences, so long as that community expresses the displeasure within the law”. He writes further “muslims are being vilified twice-once through the cartoons and again for exercising their democratic right to protest.” The emphasis here is “within the law”. What happens when the people don’t have proper public platform or articulation skill to cater to media particularly western?. The BBC recently ran a discussion program titled (quite audiciously i thought) “Whether arabs need to learn from western media?” or something to that effect with Tim Sebastian as the compere. We know what happened in America. How the propagandist media followed Bush in the search of WMD. Yah sure learn. The only learning as I see it is the use of innovative technology. I sincerely hope media around the world don’t stoop to the level of western media (offcourse few rare exception). The market media. The tabloid culture. The crass as breaking news. God save. "In the West, one discovers there are different moral ceilings and all moral parameters and measures are not equal," wrote the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat.
Some critics have claimed that Western prohibitions on freedom of speech are hypocritical, protecting groups like Jews or blacks while allowing attacks on Muslims like the cartoons. Typical cited examples of this are bans on Holocaust denial (in effect in Germany) and hate speech. However, it should be noted that Western countries typically draw a sharp distinction between secular matters of race or humanist ethics and the purely religious. Thus the Islamic prohibition on depictions of Muhammed is not considered an appropriate basis for the limitation of free speech. Other acts such as compromising national security, sedition, libel, or purely racist speech are usually considered outside the protection of free speech. However, in many Western countries even this kind of speech is usually tolerated so long as it is not seriously intended or is only published by a fringe group.
Some commentators have also remarked on the polarisation of the issue, and the vested interests involved in that polarisation. For example, Tariq Ramadan, a member of committee to combat Islamic extremism in Britain, sees an "unholy alliance" between the anti-immigrant right wing in Europe and the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East. 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 and Western society. 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..
"The protests in the Middle East have proven that the cartoonist was right," said Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress.
The panel on Fox News Brit Hume says: What is striking about this is what offends these Muslims who are protesting and these imams. Does the slaughter of innocent people in many parts of the world in the name of Allah offend them? Is that a sacrilege worthy of protest? No, not in the least. No, cartoons published five months ago in a -what- for people who live in Gaza and Damascus is an unknown and unheard-of newspaper--that's what's offending them. Not to mention, of course, the kinds of slurs against Christians and against the Jewish faith that are regularly spread abroad in the Arab world by the mass media and by these imams. This is really a disgrace. And it is a disgrace not least because of the obvious, howling double standard involved here. The really great sins are ignored. And this trivia is protested.
These are comments of some bloggers (following these was very exciting), offcourse some comments were biased and abusive. I found this “muslim” voice worth quoting:
I just came across your blog when doing a search. I want to say
1) Please do not equate Islam=terrorism or do not ascribe what few hundred extremists' action to whole Islamic world. You know, the same thing is happening in the Islamic world, equating what Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson saying to the whole Christianity. Now you can agree with both of these men, but they surely are not the representatives of the whole Christianity.
2) All these "West-East" conflicts just help extremist elements in Islamic nations, and hurt pro-Western elements in those countries. The extremists tell them "see, The Western values you are defending are so degenerate". So please keep in mind that those conflicts are exaggerated -sometimes intentionally- for fueling propaganda against West and pro-Western people in Islamic countries. I believe we have a duty to promote democracy and tolerance in Islamic countries, and the way to do it is not putting down or even insult a whole religion based on extremists, but recognizing and supporting the moderate elements in Islamic nations that form the core of democracy.
The reply from another blogger:
You're obviously correct that what Falwell and Robertson say does not apply to all Christians or Christianity. (I am not fundamentalist Christian, so I tend to ignore them both.) On the other hand, Falwell and Robertson have not injured or killed anyone either.
Another one:
You are talking about freedom of speech, is that right? Then do jokes about the jewish and about their lies about the holocaust, and see what will happen to the newspaper and to your country. The problem is that you thought that the muslims are ignorant and helpless, so it is easy to you to joke about them. This is not free of speech this is crowdedness, we are not against free of speech but the Islam taught us the difference between free of speech and insults, and I am against any threat of killing any cartoonists, but you must know that their are limits and their are respects.
The replies:
If you wish to live in a free society, you tolerate insults just like they might tolerate your insults. You ought not censor or stifle the speech of others simply because it bothers you.
Cowardice is overreacting to some cartoons published by a few newspapers, and then burning flags, threatening people, and attacking embassies.
I agree that the cartoons were disrespectful, and some were just silly, but none deserved the response that they have gotten.
This American in Kabul went to what he thought was the core: Isn't it interesting how Muslims can call for the death of Westerners from the pulpit every Friday for centuries and no one notices. Some obscure papar in Denmark (Denmark????) prints a couple of cartoons and you'd think we shot their Phillipino maidorsomething. The fact that this is their way of showing the world that their's is the religion of peace is sort of amusing.P.S. I am an American working in Kabul. Rest of the world; we got your attention yet?
Reply: What about crusaders??
A blogger: "As it grows into an international cause célèbre, the cartoon controversy indicates the gulf between the Islamic world and the post-Christian West in matters of freedom of speech and expression. And it may yet turn out that as the West continues to pay homage to its idols of tolerance, multiculturalism, and pluralism, it will give up those hard-won freedoms voluntarily."
Another: No one deserves a right to freedom from criticism.
A blogger comments: "If the Danish cartoon had been about a Jewish rabbi, it would never have been published."
The reply: Sure. But If a Jewish rabbi had spawned a death cult responsible for the death of tens (hundreds?) of thousands over the centuries, then that analogy might not ring so false.
Some other bloggers:
"The economy of hatred" predicted just this back in '02. Noteworthy in that paper is the idea that leaders will fan hatred if it advances their cause, which is certainly relevant to this case.
...this is a standard fundamentalist tactic, inflame the populace, destroy the middle ground , and drive the moderates into the extreme camp...
I understand this concern, but why must the moderates go to the extreme camp? Why not migrate away from it? And if we are going to get the reformation/enlightenment movement that Islam desperately needs, it seems to me clearly delineating the battle lines is a logical first step.
What i see here is actually that the west is pushing moderate Muslims into the extremist camp. They are all lumped together with the fanatics and fundamentalists. You just did it yourself. By attacking Islam unilaterally you fuse the moderates with extremists.
Don’t advocate disrespecting any religion's peaceful teachings. (I'm for disrespecting the common def. of "jihad" as much as possible, but not picturing Mohammed is harmless, and a convention I think the West could and would live with, generally, if we weren't threatened with harm for breaking it. Reverse psychology...) It's the fact that some radical Muslims appear to believe that non-Muslims must also adhere to fundamentalist Islamic teachings that makes the uproar unacceptable, and is the basis for my Havarti-and-ham purchase today.
Free speech and free press are fundamental parts of our common "religion," values for which we are willing to fight and sometimes to die so - who knows? - the Archduke might be expiring as we speak.
What are we talking about here? "Respect." "Heresy." "Offense." "Faith." "Jihad.".
Sane voice
Lost in all the shouting, yet again, are the Koran's lessons of tolerance. If Islamic extremists, not to mention Arab governments, were less eager to sound the alarm of blasphemy in an effort to stir anti-Western hatred, the world would be a lot better off.
I thought these lines by a blogger is applicable to all the fundamentalists all over the world: Here lies the body of John O'Day who died defending the right of way he was right, dead right, as he sailed along but he's just as dead as if he'd been wrong.
Another one:
The friends of mine who were killed in the World Trade Center and in Bali, and injured in London were killed by followers of the prophet. As far as I am concerned those cartoons illustrate the world as many see it, including me. That is what a cartoon is supposed to do. It is time the modern world stood up and demanded that the moderate, tolerant Moslems we are led to believe are the majority of followers, took control of their religion.
This blogger had a compliant on blogs (!!!) which I thought was quite relevant: Perhaps they have made the judgment (consciously or not) that shorter and simpler blog posts are preferable due to the nature of the medium, i.e., reading text from a screen is more taxing than ordinary print. Perhaps they have become as fixated on the moment-to-moment gyrations of the daily news to the point that they have no time or concentration to look at the big picture of what is a war of ideas.Perhaps these factors combine to push bloggers in the direction of effective propaganda, by which I mean the categorization of information into categories such as: (1) Why we are the good guys; (2) Why they are the bad guys; (3) What we must do now to advance, etc. (me- this could even be applicable to mass media...the triviliasation)
And this one a clincher to end: In the non-abstract world these are merely thoughts. Thoughts, bouncing around in the brains of people. They don't exist outside of anyone's skull, and to that extent they're not real. They're just thoughts in people's minds, and anyone can change their minds. Some may choose to and some may choose not to, based on whatever other thoughts they have, but anyone can change their minds. You think you are somehow respecting them by deferring to their faith, but the truth is you are infantalizing them.
To end the article one can but feel sad about these unfortunate events. The radical or shall we say sensationalised approach will only fuel reactionaries, instigate violence and hatred. This outcomes of elites dealing the issues which matters to the world. In this opulence (irresponsibilty is the defining factor here....like this arrogant who comes in TV as Devil's advocate once proclaimed..."whatever.. i want my coca cola"..)..in this mele the issue of power abuse in the name of religion, the concerns of Gender, Environment, health care, education...and other problems and needs of ordinary people gets sidelined. As the Jylland Posten cartoon says: Publicity stunt. Not at all surprising in the Marketeers profitable world. Why should we pay for the irresponsibilty of few. Is this the kind of freedom for expression we need?.
