Muhammad Caricatures: Middle East Reaction & Nordic Press

[Bilal]

Bilal, been trying to figure out something where would value your opinion - say when something like this current caricature mess occurs, how deep and wide does the reaction run in Islamic countries? To elaborate, when I watch the news we get about the reaction in the Islamic world, it seems difficult to quantify the amount of hurt this incident has caused (since what we see in the news and what is reported, to great extent, are people from the "extreme-end" rallying the streets and burning flags ... and as such trying to make any sort of objective analysis about this is quite difficult). How & to what extent do the 'common man' see and feel this, is it possible to elaborate and/or quantify what the "many people" (like above in your post) actually means?

- In Islamic world, around 30 % - 40% of people attend the mosques; surely all of those will respect what the imams say. They will boycott and demonstrate … while the rest will be under pressure to boycott as a patriotic duty... as I heard in some countries nobody dare to buy Danish products !

- We can not separate between these cartoons from the current political environment in the Islamic world after the war on Iraq and 11/9. If these cartoons were published before few years, I doubt that people will react in such way. For example, the former Israeli PM (Yetshaq Shamir) insulted explicitly the prophet of Islam in an interview with the Israeli TV … At least once per year; the Jews extremists put pegs (very dirty animals in Islam) in well known mosques after writing (Mohammed) on their skins. (These actions are much worse than cartoons in the eyes of muslims)

- There is a huge anger in ME after the war in Iraq. They really hate their governments (especially pro USA), and they looking to discharge their anger. They feel that they are under racist attacks from the American. The Arab media doing well in showing the American as new invasion of Mongolian wars (Jenkiz Khan), Crusaders or even NAZI. It is enough to watch an Arab TV for few hours to realize that the American are far from being decent human! It is rarely to hear good word about them (of course I do not agree with such brainwashing!)

- The problem is not just religious. Many people see these cartoons as racism against the Arabs as a race and Islam as a culture (not only religion).

These cartoons exist since last September, so why everything changed dramatically in last few weeks?

As I said before, the PM of Denmark ignored around 8 ambassadors and rejected to meet them in that time. Therefore those ambassadresses and their governments focus on this issue for weeks; they ordered all the imams to make it as a main topic on Friday prayers. They warned the people that if they do not react, the worse will happen … they compared these cartoons with the anti Jews cartoons in 30s. (This Danish newspaper was belong to NAZI in the 30s, they used to publish dirty cartoons about the Jews)

The PM of Denmark could easily say from the first day as most of European leaders said: We are not responsible about these cartoons; it is the responsibility of this newspaper …. Instead he disrespected the ambassadors and said: I will not comment on what the newspaper mentioned.

- The cartoons are stupid and very wrong because they can show a cartoon of a Muslim religious man instead of Prophet Mohammed. Unfortunately, showing the prophet as a terrorist (evil) means that the root of the ME culture is evil. In other word, it is type of cultural clash more than religions.

- The other problem, Denmark was never under attack from any Muslims group – may be people can understand if American or English newspaper did that- so what is their goal to insult another culture ?

I wish the government of ME can put pressure soon on the imams to calm, otherwise nobody can expect what will happen, and especially they extend the problem to include other European countries.

 

[Bilal]

I also have to wonder why there is any outrage at all over what a non-Muslim person may be doing. If it's against Islam to portray Muhammad then fine, Muslims may not do it. But Islamic law applies to them, not to others. We don't see Islamic jihads about pork packing plants, groceries and restaurants that handle pork against the Koran on a daily basis. It seems that the protest is not really about the depiction of Muhammad. It's probably more about a *negative* depiction, which should warrant comparable outrage as negative comments put in text instead. So really, there's nothing new here.

It is not just cartoons ... even in Islamic countries, there are no religious rules except Saudi Arabia and Iran. We have many atheists and communists who insult Islam in their books and media.

The question: If this newspaper published its cartoons in 30s about the Jews, how the West will react?

 

[Orefa]

It is not just cartoons

I agree. The first caricature in the set is just a man standing. I doubt that much would have been said if it had been limited to innocuous figures like this one. What triggered the uproar is the negativity carried in the other ones. I think the uproar is not over the fact that an image of Muhammad was drawn, it is over the critique made using the other drawings.

We have many atheists and communists who insult Islam in their books and media.

Do they all go about their daily life in peace in spite of this?

The question: If this newspaper published its cartoons in 30s about the Jews, how the West will react?

I don't know. The West is a big disparate place. I prefer to ask "How should people in general react today?" Political cartoons are an established medium to carry critique towards all sorts of other groups. It's not unexpected that Islam should be a target of this type of humour, just like politicians, Catholic priests, lawyers, cops, George Bush and everyone else you can think of. They all receive critiques, suck it up and move on.

 

[vanesch]

Thanks for the link, I was curious. After seeing them I have to say "that's it?!?"

I think if these silly cartoons are enough to make some people want to slaughter others, something is seriously wrong with their belief system.

I'd say Amen to that, but I don't know if it is appropriate

 

[revelator]

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060204/muhammad_protests_060204

Wonderful , the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus have been torched. Link above.

 

[vanesch]

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060204/muhammad_protests_060204

Wonderful , the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus have been torched. Link above.

We now have the "live" version of the cartoons, on TV

 

[Orefa]

I don't know if I am interpreting this part of the article correctly or if it was even translated accurately but they report this chant "We will redeem our prophet, Muhammad, with our blood!" Does it mean what I think it means: you guys called our prophet a name so we will kill someone? Tell me I'm wrong.

 

[revelator]

Way to prove to the world that the cartoons are grossly inaccurate portrayals of Islam Geez...

 

[ukmicky]

I have zero sympathy with the Danish muslims over this issue.

Muslim countries have what the west would consider draconion religious based laws against such things as alcohol, tobacco and sex which although deeply disliked by most westerners, visitors to their countries are expected to adhere to.

Denmark has it's own laws which include freedom of speech which it seems some muslims dislike deeply.

Well tough!

When in Rome do as the Romans do. A country's laws are not an 'a la carte' menu. If muslim immigrants don't like Denmark's freedom of speech then nobody is compelling them to stay there so they should vote with their feet and leave. If however they elect to remain then it can only be because on balance they prefer Denmark to their native country so perhaps they should bear this in mind before expressing their outrage or inciting violence or reprisals against their host country.

I couldn't have worded it any better

 

[selfAdjoint]

I think what we have here is an example of the classic game theory problem, the Prisoners' Dilemma, in which both parties would gain a lot by giving up something, but their perceived self-interest leads them to opt for a much smaller gain by not giving up anything. It has been shown in simulations that tit-for-tat is an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS). though not the best one, for PD games.

 

[Bilal]

I don't know if I am interpreting this part of the article correctly or if it was even translated accurately but they report this chant "We will redeem our prophet, Muhammad, with our blood!" Does it mean what I think it means: you guys called our prophet a name so we will kill someone? Tell me I'm wrong.

These expressions mean that they are giving full support to our prophet. They do not indicate to violence as you understood from the direct translation.

 

[Bilal]

While the demonstrators burn the Danish flags, they shout: Death to America!

However, I do believe it is the time for the Danish Muslims to call those people to calm. It is a civilized behavior to protest against the racist cartoons, but it is really too much!

The Scandinavian nations (especially Sweden and Norway) are the most peaceful and civilized nations in the world, they opposite the war on Iraq and they deserve all the respect.

May be we need to remind the demonstrators that Bush's government who are murdering 50000 civilians per year in Iraq and they destroyed hundreds of mosques …. They should demonstrate against the pro USA dictators in Arab world.

 

[Bilal]

Way to prove to the world that the cartoons are grossly inaccurate portrayals of Islam Geez...

Muslims are 23% of the world ... this means you talk about a world contians 55 nations with different cultures and history not about a tribe in the Amazon forests.

The governments of USA and UK support the Muslims against the Denmark in ‘’the cartoon war”, this automatically means that Muslims are wrong..

 

[Hurkyl]

May be we need to remind the demonstrators that Bush's government who are murdering 50000 civilians per year in Iraq and they destroyed hundreds of mosques …. They should demonstrate against the pro USA dictators in Arab world.

So rather than preach nonviolence, you'd rather just redirect it at someone you don't like?

 

[Orefa]

These expressions mean that they are giving full support to our prophet. They do not indicate to violence as you understood from the direct translation.

Thank you for clarifying that. I am not surprised that something got lost in the translation.

While the demonstrators burn the Danish flags, they shout: Death to America!

Oh well, thank your for clarifying this as well!

 

[Bilal]

So rather than preach nonviolence, you'd rather just redirect it at someone you don't like?

I do believe this enthusiasm in ME against the Cartoon should be directed to the dictators who are supported by USA. Our corrupted dictators (also the terrorists as OBL and his crimnal group) are the real dangerous cartoons. I am not against the American as a nation, because I know they have a little knowledge about the rest of the world.

 

[russ_watters]

- The cartoons are stupid and very wrong because they can show a cartoon of a Muslim religious man instead of Prophet Mohammed. Unfortunately, showing the prophet as a terrorist (evil) means that the root of the ME culture is evil. In other word, it is type of cultural clash more than religions.

I've explained this before, but you missed the point of the cartoon as well. The cartoon isn't saying that the Islamic faith, in general, is a terroristic faith, it is saying that by using Islam as a justification for terrorism, the terrorists are saying Mohammad is a terrorist. The point of this cartoon is to point that out and several people gave parallel examples about christianity that would work the same way - and would not garner the same response.

The irony here is that the more widespread the response to the cartoon, the more widespread the applicability of the cartoon: the people responding violently are just adding themselves to the list of people perverting the religion.

question: If this newspaper published its cartoons in 30s about the Jews, how the West will react?

Well, if you want to see a cartoon that actuallly portrays Jews, in general, negatively, there is no need to go back to the 1930s - just look at contemporary Arabic newspapers. See, the shoe is on the other foot right now and the other side does not react violently to it.

So another irony is that the reaction to this cartoon stands in stark contrast with how civilized people around the world react to parallel situations. The people taking part in the violent response are protesting someone calling them uncivilized... by being uncivilized!

 

[Bilal]

russ_watters

This is just an example about the cartoons of the Jews:

In 1997, an Israeli woman named Tatiana Soskin drew this caricature of Mohammed as a pig authoring the Koran and tried to display it in public in the city of Hebron.

http://www.nordish.net/mohammed_image_archive/drawing.JPG

Please look at the cartoons of the Jews before blaming the Palestinian for their cartoons...

By the way, could you show me a sample the Arab cartoons about the Jews?

I will be grateful if you support your opinions by evidences as I do...

 

[PerennialII]

- In Islamic world, around 30 % - 40% of people attend the mosques; surely all of those will respect what the imams say. They will boycott and demonstrate … while the rest will be under pressure to boycott as a patriotic duty... as I heard in some countries nobody dare to buy Danish products !

- We can not separate between these cartoons from the current political environment in the Islamic world after the war on Iraq and 11/9. If these cartoons were published before few years, I doubt that people will react in such way. For example, the former Israeli PM (Yetshaq Shamir) insulted explicitly the prophet of Islam in an interview with the Israeli TV … At least once per year; the Jews extremists put pegs (very dirty animals in Islam) in well known mosques after writing (Mohammed) on their skins. (These actions are much worse than cartoons in the eyes of muslims)

- There is a huge anger in ME after the war in Iraq. They really hate their governments (especially pro USA), and they looking to discharge their anger. They feel that they are under racist attacks from the American. The Arab media doing well in showing the American as new invasion of Mongolian wars (Jenkiz Khan), Crusaders or even NAZI. It is enough to watch an Arab TV for few hours to realize that the American are far from being decent human! It is rarely to hear good word about them (of course I do not agree with such brainwashing!)

- The problem is not just religious. Many people see these cartoons as racism against the Arabs as a race and Islam as a culture (not only religion).

These cartoons exist since last September, so why everything changed dramatically in last few weeks?

As I said before, the PM of Denmark ignored around 8 ambassadors and rejected to meet them in that time. Therefore those ambassadresses and their governments focus on this issue for weeks; they ordered all the imams to make it as a main topic on Friday prayers. They warned the people that if they do not react, the worse will happen … they compared these cartoons with the anti Jews cartoons in 30s. (This Danish newspaper was belong to NAZI in the 30s, they used to publish dirty cartoons about the Jews)

The PM of Denmark could easily say from the first day as most of European leaders said: We are not responsible about these cartoons; it is the responsibility of this newspaper …. Instead he disrespected the ambassadors and said: I will not comment on what the newspaper mentioned.

- The cartoons are stupid and very wrong because they can show a cartoon of a Muslim religious man instead of Prophet Mohammed. Unfortunately, showing the prophet as a terrorist (evil) means that the root of the ME culture is evil. In other word, it is type of cultural clash more than religions.

- The other problem, Denmark was never under attack from any Muslims group – may be people can understand if American or English newspaper did that- so what is their goal to insult another culture ?

I wish the government of ME can put pressure soon on the imams to calm, otherwise nobody can expect what will happen, and especially they extend the problem to include other European countries.

Thanks Bilal! This helped in trying to grasp what is actually going on. Appears to demonstrate an unfortunate chain of events plausible in the current state of the world, and a clash of differing cultures promoted by it.

 

[Hurkyl]

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/arab_media_cartoon_20060202.asp

Gah! I suppose I should have seen this one coming, but gah!

 

[Bilal]

http://www.adl.org/Anti_semitism/arab/arab_media_cartoon_20060202.asp

Gah! I suppose I should have seen this one coming, but gah!

Anti-Zionism is not anti-Jews. Our problem with the Zionits is not because they are Jews. It is a result of 90 years of wars (based on politics).

 

[Hurkyl]

Well, I was really only sharing it because of my shock that there are people out there who seriously believe this whole thing was orchestrated by the Jews. (Sorry, the Zionists)

(Incidentally, I know you're obviously not in a position to know, but what percentage of Arabs in the ME do you think distinguish between "Jew" and "Zionist"?)


But, this does bring up another related point: clearly you seem to think it's okay to use a symbol of Judaism to refer to the Zionists.

Or, I suppose I should specify an extremist subsect of Zionists -- I did a search to try and find out exactly what that means, and it seems it properly means someone who supports Israel's existence as a homeland for Jews.

(How many people do you think make that distinction? Do you even make it?)


So, on the flip side, shouldn't it be okay to use a symbol of Islam to refer to Islamic extremists?

 

[Astronuc]

U.S. Says It Also Finds Cartoons of Muhammad Offensive
By JOEL BRINKLEY and IAN FISHER
Published: February 4, 2006

WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 — The Muslim world erupted in anger on Friday over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in Europe while the Bush administration offered the protesters support, saying of the cartoons, "We find them offensive, and we certainly understand why Muslims would find these images offensive."

For one, I think violence is an inappropriate reaction. Nevertheless, I can appreciate the anger.

I don't understand why the media feel it necessary to disparage a religion or culture. The Danish media can't be that unsophisticated or ill informed to be ignorant of the sensitivities involved, so one more or less might conclude that the cartoons are a deliberate slight against Muslims.

It is very sad all around.

 

[Bilal]

Expert Warnings About Cartoons Went Unheeded

By Hasan Cucuk, Copenhagen
Published: Thursday, February 02, 2006
zaman.com

Recent revelations show that the Danish Jyllands Posten newspaper consulted experts before publishing the caricatures that caused conflict between Denmark and the Islamic world.

Professor Tim Jensen, a prominent Danish theologian, said the caricatures should not be published, warning the newspaper “It will offend Muslims and only cause pointless provocation.” A lecturer at South Denmark University, Mr. Jensen summarized his answer to Zaman regarding the Jyllands Posten newspaper: “Surely, Denmark has freedom of press, but pictures of the Prophet Mohammed have never existed throughout history. Any picture or caricature to be published will offend Muslims deeply. It would be provocation in a climate where Islam and Muslims are already in the limelight. It’s like pouring gas on the fire.”

Another point Professor Jensen, a leading expert on religious history and the author of ‘Religion Guide’ to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, noted is the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist. “In a climate where Islam is associated with terrorism, depicting the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb on his head is both offensive and insulting” said Jensen, underlining the involved caricatures go beyond normal caricatures or pictures. Jensen added he requested the newspaper evaluate thoroughly its responsibilities and avoid any publications that would rupture up Denmark’s relationship with Muslims. Leading ecclesiastics of Denmark called for moderation of tensions.

Copenhagen Bishop Erik Norman Svendsen condemned both the burning of a Danish flag and insulting the Prophet Mohammed via caricatures.

Svendsen, calling on Danish citizens to take a cool look, said, “We should not cut dialogue with Muslims.” The Viborg Bishop said, “It is difficult for certain people among Danish citizens who do not pay enough attention to religion to realize how far they go when talking about Islam and Muslims.”

Loland Faster Bishop Steen Skovsgaard said the wound caused by the caricatures will take long time to heal, adding, the dialogue should go on.

 

[Bilal]

Dear Hurkyl,

There is a nationalism conflict between Arabs (muslims and christians) and Jews since 4 generations (90 years). You can not expect after all these wars to see any respect of these communities to each other. If you visit Israel , and if you want to insult a person you can call him (Aravim), which mean "Arab" ... the same in the Arab countries, if you want to insult a person you can tell him ''Yahudi" ... which means ''a Jew".

It has nothing to do with anti-Semite ... it is continuous wars, and in such environment you should not expect to find many Jews and Arabs love each other. Hate and racism exists in both communities...

I wish it clear now? Let's pray for peace, may be next generation will accept each other.

Here is a homepage of religious Jews who hate the Zionists and have good relations with Arab and Muslims including Hamas and Iran:

http://www.nkusa.org/index.cfm

Well, I was really only sharing it because of my shock that there are people out there who seriously believe this whole thing was orchestrated by the Jews. (Sorry, the Zionists)

(Incidentally, I know you're obviously not in a position to know, but what percentage of Arabs in the ME do you think distinguish between "Jew" and "Zionist"?)


But, this does bring up another related point: clearly you seem to think it's okay to use a symbol of Judaism to refer to the Zionists.

Or, I suppose I should specify an extremist subsect of Zionists -- I did a search to try and find out exactly what that means, and it seems it properly means someone who supports Israel's existence as a homeland for Jews.

(How many people do you think make that distinction? Do you even make it?)


So, on the flip side, shouldn't it be okay to use a symbol of Islam to refer to Islamic extremists?

 

[Mk]

They're copyrighted, so it's probably best to link to a site that can provide them legally.)

That's ok, I'm sure none of you would bust me. I wouldn't care anyway.

 

[hypnagogue]

Protesters Set Fire to Danish Embassy in Beirut

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) -- Thousands of Muslims rampaged Sunday in Beirut, setting fire to the Danish Embassy, burning Danish flags and lobbing stones at a Maronite Catholic church as violent protests spread over caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Prophet-Drawings.html?hp&ex=1139202000&en=aa159dd6f5d9a9c1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

My God, the world is full of idiots.

 

[russ_watters]

This is just an example about the cartoons of the Jews:

I didn't say that they don't participate as well. Again, you are missing the point. The point is that while everyone has been targeted with caricatures (and worse), the violent reaction we are seeing comes from only one group. Heck, the US is targeted with caricatures all the time - when was the last time an angry mob of Americans burned down an embassy in protest?

By the way, could you show me a sample the Arab cartoons about the Jews?

I will be grateful if you support your opinions by evidences as I do...

Examples abound with a quick Google: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/egpress3.html

I didn't post a link because this isn't a competition to see who is worse, Bilal - I was just emphasizing the fact that all sides do it. And for that I shouldn't need to provide a link: you should already know it.

 

[sanchecl]

I didn't say that they don't participate as well. Again, you are missing the point. The point is that while everyone has been targeted with caricatures (and worse), the violent reaction we are seeing comes from only one group. Heck, the US is targeted with caricatures all the time - when was the last time an angry mob of Americans burned down an embassy in protest? Examples abound with a quick Google: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/egpress3.html

I didn't post a link because this isn't a competition to see who is worse, Bilal - I was just emphasizing the fact that all sides do it. And for that I shouldn't need to provide a link: you should already know it.

Accepting the free expressions of others, even when it makes one's blood boil, can be difficult. I think this is especially so in parts of the world with little experience with freedom of expression.

 

[Averagesupernova]

I remember several days after 9/11 one of the major network anchors was doing an interview with a bunch of school children. One of the kids said that they thought that the terrorists rammed the buildings because: Their religion says that if they kill someone who is not of their faith they will go to the Islam or Muslim equivelant of heaven or some crap.
.
Now some other kid said that this is not the case and explained the religion accurately. I'd have to say that Americans have a clearer understanding of the religion since 9/11 than prior. Yet, we continue to have suicide bombings and violence in the name of religion to this day. So my question to middle easterners and members of the religions in question is how do you expect Westerners to perceive the religion?
.
When someone misunderstands what I personally stand for, statements I have made, etc., I am expected to clear the mess up. I can't just say "I'm right and you're wrong!" I'm expected to explain my statements and etc. in order to clear up any misunderstandings. So my message to those offended by the cartoons is do something to clear up any misconceptions that the rest of the world has of you. While you allow terrorists safe haven you are sending the message that you agree with what they do and say, yet you claim you don't.
.
So while I think Bush is an idiot I do kind of see what he means when he says: "You're either with us or against us." Meaning that you can't have it both ways. However, I think he could have put it more tactfully although I don't believe he has the mental capacity to do so.

 

[russ_watters]

Accepting the free expressions of others, even when it makes one's blood boil, can be difficult. I think this is especially so in parts of the world with little experience with freedom of expression.

I agree - I've read a number of commentaries on this and the common thread is that those who are protesting this simply don't understand the concept of freedom of speech. It's sad, really - that's one of the most fundamental freedoms that a person can have.

 

[Lisa!]

I'm curious to know what was the reaction of US muslims in this case!
And anyway don't forget that abusing your freedom of speech is sad as well!(No need to mention that I'm missing the point of caricatures because I'm not talking about this case)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Prophet-Drawings.html?hp&ex=1139202000&en=aa159dd6f5d9a9c1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

My God, the world is full of idiots.

At least they made you post here!

 

[Lisa!]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/324e352c-96b5-11da-a5ba-0000779e2340.html

Debate among moderate Muslims online supported boycotts as a means of protest. A Kabul-based Muslim woman said: "If one wants to show outrage, boycotting seems to be the most logical way to go rather than issuing fatwas and burning down buildings"

 

[russ_watters]

I'm curious to know what was the reaction of US muslims in this case!

I haven't heard of any reaction from US muslims, but European ones have had small, but peaceful protests.

 

[Gokul43201]

I really liked the following bit from an article I recently read on this (it echoes exactly, my own sentiments) :

Irreverent infidels like me, and there are many of my kind in free societies, believe that religion and the gods must be kept within the realms of literature and even cartoons.

http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=87288