Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy: Difference between revisions

File:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg

The Face of Muhammed. - The controversial cartoons of Muhammad, first published in Jyllands-Posten in September 2005. Larger versions of the image are available

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after complaints were made about twelve editorial cartoons which depict the Islamic prophet Muhammad among other things, with a bomb on his head and greeting suicide bombers arriving in heaven. The cartoons were printed in the centre-right Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten on September 30 2005. Some of the cartoons have been reprinted in newspapers in Europe, the United States, New Zealand, and Jordan.

The drawings were meant as satirical illustrations accompanying an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Jyllands-Posten commissioned twelve cartoonists to draw them and published the cartoons in response to the difficulty that Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen had finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad, because the artists feared violent attacks by extremist Muslims. Islamic teachings forbid the depiction of Muhammad as a measure against idolatry, a form of aniconism. In the past there have been non-satirical depictions of Muhammad by Muslims; however, a significant number of Muslims have publicly indicated their perception that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons imply that all Muslims are terrorists, by depicting Muhammad carrying a bomb in his turban and collaborating with terrorists (by receiving them in heaven). This generalisation comes in the context of perceived islamophobia, and has lead to the recent escalation of the controversy.

Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, there are both Muslims and non-Muslims in Denmark and elsewhere who view them as offensive, blasphemous and Islamophobic.

In reaction to the articles, several death threats have been made, resulting in two newspaper cartoonists reportedly going into hiding and the newspaper enhancing its security precautions. The reactions from the international community was also swift; the foreign ministries of eleven Islamic countries demanded action from the Danish government, and Libya eventually closed its embassy in Denmark in protest after the government refused to censure the newspaper or apologise. The Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "The government refuses to apologise because the government does not control the media or a newspaper outlet; that would be in violation of the freedom of speech". A large consumer boycott was organised in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Arabic-speaking countries. Recently the foreign ministers of seventeen Islamic countries renewed calls for the Danish government to punish those responsible for the cartoons, and to ensure that such cartoons are not published again. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark. Protests have also taken place against the cartoons, many of them violent. On February 4, the buildings containing the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set ablaze, although no one was hurt. Because of what has happened in Damascus, the Norwegian and Danish governments advise Danes and Norwegians to leave Syria.

Further protests on February 5 result in the burning down of the Danish General Consulate in Beirut, and the arrest of two Jordanian newspaper editors after they reproduced the drawings.

Timeline

Main article: Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

The cartoons were first published in late September of 2005; approximately two weeks later, nearly 3,500 people demonstrated peacefully in Copenhagen. In November, several European newspapers re-published the images, triggering more protests. Labour strikes began in Pakistan the following month, and several organizations criticized the Danish government. More protests occurred in January, and later that month a boycott of Danish goods began. Several countries withdrew their ambassadors to Denmark, and widespread protests, some of them violent, began. The protests continued 4. February; In Damascus, Syria, both the Norwegian embassy and a building containing the Danish, Swedish, and Chilean embassies were stormed and set afire by protesters. 5. February, the Danish General Consulate in Beirut was burned down by approximately 15.000 protesters.

The events

Debate about self-censorship

On September 17 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam" ("Deep fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book "Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv" ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:

One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen. [In October 2004, a lecturer was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen.

The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the Qur'an on television, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction.

Publication of the drawings

On September 30 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("The Jutland Post") published an article titled "Muhammeds ansigt" ("The face of Muhammad"). The article consisted of 12 satirical caricatures (of which only some depicted Muhammad) and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, 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 Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]

After an invitation from Jyllands-Posten to around forty different artists to give their interpretation on how 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. In the clockwise direction of their position in the page layout:

• 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.
• Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb. This drawing is supposed to be the most controversial of the lot.
• 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.
• An abstract drawing of crescent moons and Stars of David, and a poem on oppression of women "Profet! Med kuk og knald i låget som holder kvinder under åget!". In English the poem could be read as: "Prophet you crazy bloke! Keeping women under yoke"
• Muhammad as a simple wanderer, in the desert, at sunset. There is a donkey in the background.
• A nervous caricaturist, shakingly drawing Muhammad while looking over his shoulder.
• Two angry Muslims charge forward with sabres and bombs, while Muhammad addresses them with: "Rolig, venner, når alt kommer til alt er det jo bare en tegning lavet af en vantro sønderjyde" (loosely, "Relax guys, it's just a drawing made by some infidel South Jutlander". The reference is to a common Danish expression for a person from the middle of nowhere.)
• 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).
• 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.
• Muhammad standing on a cloud, greeting dead suicide bombers with "Stop Stop vi er løbet tør for Jomfruer!" ("Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins!"), an allusion to the promised reward to martyrs.
• Another shows journalist Kåre Bluitgen, wearing a turban with the proverbial 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.

And in the centre:

• A police line-up of seven people, with the witness saying: "Hm... jeg kan ikke lige genkende ham" ("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 Kåre Bluitgen, carrying a sign saying: "Kåres PR, ring og få et tilbud" ("Kåre's public relations, call and get an offer")

Police investigation on Jyllands-Posten

A number of Muslim organizations submitted complaints to the Danish police claiming that Jyllands-Posten had committed an offence under section 140 and 266b of the Danish Criminal Code.

Section 140 of the Criminal Code prohibits any person from publicly ridiculing or insulting the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalises the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion. Danish police began their investigation of these complaints on 27 October 2005.

On 6 January 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor in Viborg decided to discontinue the investigation as he found no basis for concluding that the cartoons constituted a criminal offence. He stated that in assessing what constitutes an offence, the right to freedom of speech must be taken into consideration and that the right to freedom of speech must be exercised with the necessary respect for other human rights, including the right to protection against discrimination, insult and degradation.

Jyllands-Posten response

Jyllands-Posten published two open letters on its website, both in Danish and Arabic versions, and the second letter also in an English version. [1] [2] The second letter was dated 30 January.

Reprinting in other newspapers

On January 10 2006, some of the cartoons were reprinted in the Norwegian Christian newspaper Magazinet. Later they were reprinted in the German newspaper Die Welt, the French daily France Soir, and many other European newspapers as well as newspapers in New Zealand and Jordan. In response to an outcry from the Muslim community, the chief editor of France Soir was fired by Raymond Lakah, the Franco-Egyptian and Roman Catholic owner of the newspaper.

Three of the cartoons were reprinted in the Jordanian weekly newspaper al-Shihan. The cartoons accompanied an editorial by Jihad Momani, a former Jordanian senator. He urged Muslims to "be reasonable." [3] He asked: "Who offends Islam more? A foreigner who endeavors to draw the prophet as described by his followers in the world, or a Muslim with an explosive belt who commits suicide in a wedding party in Amman or elsewhere."[4]. Momani was fired, and the publisher, Arab Printers Company, withdrew copies of the newspaper from circulation. Momani issued a public apology for reprinting the cartoons, saying that he did not mean to cause offence. On February 4 2006 Momani was arrested by Jordanian police and charged with insulting religion.

Several of the cartoons were also reprinted in the Jordanian newspaper al-Mehwar. The editor Hisham Khalid was also arrested on February 4, 2006 and charged with insulting religion.

In the United States, the Philadelphia Inquirer reprinted one of the cartoons alongside a story on the controversy, stating "The Inquirer intends no disrespect to the religious beliefs of any of its readers. But when a use of religious imagery that many find offensive becomes a major news story, we believe it is important for readers to be able to judge the content of the image for themselves, as with the 1987 photograph by Andres Serrano of a crucifix in urine. On that basis we reprint this cartoon."

In South Africa, a Muslim organization, the Jamiatul Ulama Transvaal (Council of Muslim Theologians) obtained an interdict from the Johannesburg High Court on February 3 2006 against several South African newspaper companies, preventing them from publishing the cartoons. [5]

Islamic tradition

Main article: Aniconism

The Qur'an, the Islamic holy book, does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures; it merely condemns idolatry (verses 41 and 52). Direct prohibitions of pictorial art, or any depiction of sacred figures, are present in the Hadith.

Views regarding pictorial representation within the Muslim community have varied from group to group, and from time to time. Shi'a Muslims have been generally tolerant of pictorial representation of human figures, Sunni Muslims less so. However, the Sunni Ottomans, the last dynasty to claim the caliphate, were not only tolerant but even patrons of the miniaturists' art. Many Ottoman miniatures depict Muhammad; they usually show Muhammad's face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light (depicted as flames). Pictorial surveys of Islamic religious art can be found at [6], [7], and [8]. Note that the last site also contains some extremely and intentionally offensive modern depictions of Muhammad.

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.

Reasons for escalation of the controversy

The cartoons were published in a conservative mainstream newspaper in the context of what many Muslims perceive as an islamophobic mood in many of the western countries involved [9], [10], [11], [12] [13].

Another reason for the escalation is that the controversy appears to have been fuelled by autocratic Arab regimes.

International reactions

Main article: International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

This includes official reactions of governments and similar bodies.

Opinions

Opinions in Denmark

A poll on January 29, from Epinion for Danmarks Radio, the national broadcasting company of Denmark, showed that of 579 Danes asked, 79% believe that the Prime 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, and while 58% did feel that while it was the right of Jyllands-Posten to publish the images, they could understand the Muslim criticism.

On February 3, another poll from Epinion made for Danmarks 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. And the last 7% did not know which stance to take.

The organisation named Islamic Society in Denmark wanted the case put forward for a trial to determine whether the publication of the drawings had violated any "hate speech" laws, but the case was dismissed by the public prosecutor before it went to trial because he found there was no basis for such a trial.

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, to national television, to open debate meetings at high schools and universities. The controversy arises from several sources:

• Most Islamic traditions forbid representations of Muhammad.
• The satirical nature of the drawings was not considered respectful, especially one that shows Muhammad with a bomb in his turban and therefore enforces the stereotype of Islam and terrorism [14] [15].
• The drawings upset the Muslim community in Denmark at a time when relations between Muslims and mainstream 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. 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.

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. Twenty-two former ambassadors sent an open letter to the prime-minister criticising his decision not to open a dialogue with the international representatives. In reflection of this opinion the newspaper Dagbladet Information published twelve Anders Fogh Rasmussen cartoons satirising his handling of the entire affair.

Opinions in the Muslim world

File:Arabcartoon.jpg

This cartoon from the Jordanian newspaper Al Ghad expresses the fear of many Muslims that the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy exemplifies growing Islamophobia in the West. Clockwise: "This one is racist", "this one is anti-Semitic", "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 public protests, newspaper articles, emails, and SMS messages 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.

Other Arabs and Muslims have expressed their condemnation of the cartoons: "In (the West) it is considered freedom of speech if they insult Islam and Muslims," Mohammed al-Shaibani, a columnist, wrote in Kuwait's Al-Qabas daily Monday. "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, such as Ehsan Ahrari of the Asia Times, have also noted that offensive imagery regarding the Jewish religion and the Jewish people is no longer tolerated in the media in post-Holocaust Europe, which has voluntarily curtailed their freedom of expression on such a sensitive matter; nonetheless, similar attacks on the Islamic faith remain acceptable. In particular, they have pointed at laws in Germany, France, Austria and seven other countries in Europe which explicitly regard the denial of the Holocaust as a crime, free speech considerations notwithstanding.

In a BBC news programme, Asghar Bukhari of the British Muslim organization MPACUK and Roger Koeppel, editor of Die 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 of anti-Semitic propaganda and demonization of Jews in German media prior to the Holocaust, when caricatures of Jews as rich financiers or evil Bolsheviks 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. The Muslim World League (MWL) called on UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to activate international laws against insolence toward religion.

The Justice and Islamic Affairs Minister of the United 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." In Tunisia, Abdulaziz Othman Altwaijri, president of the Islamic Organization for Education, Science and Culture (the Islamic world's counterpart to UNESCO) 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.

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."

However, not all Muslims placed blame entirely on the West. In Iraq, the country's top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, decried the drawings but did not call for protests. Al-Sistani suggested that militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting Islam's image.[16] In the United 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 by Bin Laden, Zawahiri, Zarqawi, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, 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]

The Jordanian paper, Shihan, also published the cartoon and urged Muslims to "be reasonable" in an accompanying editorial.[18] The editorial, written by Editor Jihad Momeni -- a former Jordanian senator -- asked: "Who offends Islam more? A foreigner who endeavors to draw the prophet as described by his followers in the world, or a Muslim with an explosive belt who commits suicide in a wedding party in Amman or elsewhere." [19] Momeni was later fired.

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.[20] It has also been pointed out that cartoons in the Arab and Islamic press "demonising" Jews and Israelis are common. [21]

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 of Tony Blair's committee to combat Islamic extremism, 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.[22].

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.

The Vatican sharply criticized the publication of newspaper cartoons satirizing the prophet Mohammed, saying the caricatures have offended the religious sentiments of millions of Muslims. Also in their statement the Vatican mentioned that "the right to freedom of expression does not imply the right to offend religious beliefs" and mentioned how government law protects secular symbols (national flags) but ignores respect of religious symbols.

Rumours and disinformation

Story about bounty

On December 2 Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende published a story on their front page indicating that the Pakistani religious party, Jamaat-e-Islami had put a bounty of $10,000 on any of the cartoonists, and that this had been published in several Pakistani newspapers and other media. Berlingske Tidende's only source was the Danish Embassy in Pakistan. However there was no indication in Pakistan that any fliers had been distributed encouraging people to commit such a crime, and it was revealed that just one newspaper contained a small footnote article referring to the bounty, as opposed to what had been written in the Danish newspaper.

Accusations of JP double standard

On February 4, Danish newspaper Politiken printed that Jyllands-Posten in 2003 received a submission of a cartoon of the resurrection of Jesus and did not print it. The article alleges that the reason JP did not publish the image was concern that it would lead to an outcry. Editor-in-chief Carsten Juste defended the decision of not printing the cartoon by claiming the submission of the cartoon was uninvited, and they had no reason to print it. Juste also said, most uninvited submissions to the newspaper are of poor quality and they most likely have printed caricatures of Jesus before, though he could not name any particular incident.

Rumours and disinformation regarding the images

Additional images

A Muslim religious organisation in Denmark, Islamisk Trossamfund, has brought attention to the cartoons during a tour of the Middle-East, and has allegedly represented that Muslims in Denmark have been exposed to much more overtly offensive images. However, these additional images ([23], [24], [25]), none of which had previously been published by any mainstream media outlet, would be considered deliberately profane and obscene by many non-Muslims. On February 1 BBC World aired a story showing one of these three images, and incorrectly claimed that it had been published in Jyllands-Posten.

Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour, claimed to be unaware of the origin of the three pictures, claiming that they had been sent by unknown persons to Muslims in Denmark. Arkkari purported to justify the use of the three drawings as providing "insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims." However, when Akkari was asked if the Muslims who had received these pictures could be interviewed, Akkari refused to reveal their identities.

Exaggerated membership

Further questions have been raised about the legitimacy of Islamisk Trossamfund's claims and actions. During its tour of the Middle East, the organisation claimed to represent 21 different Muslim organisations in Denmark, however many of these groups have disclaimed any connection. The organisation also appears to have significantly exaggerated its membership, claiming to represent all 200,000 Muslims in Denmark, when its actual membership is believed to be fewer than 15,000, and about 500 to 1,000 people attend their Friday prayer gathering each week.

Ambiguous statements by Imam Ahmad Abu Laban

Despite informing Danish media that he would try to stop the boycotts, the leader of the organisation, Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, went on to state during an interview with Al Jazeera that "If the Muslim countries decide to boycott and if the Muslim citizens feel it's their duty to defend the prophet, then it is something we can be happy about".. In a press release dated February 2 2006, Abu Laban said that during the interview he was referring to Muslim respect for Muhammad, not the boycotts. . According to Abu Laban, the cartoon controversy has helped his mosque to vastly increase its membership: "I thank the (Danish) government very much for its stubbornness." Ahmad Abu Laban has previously been declared officially unwelcome in several Arab states.

In response to Danish Muslims who criticised Denmark in Arab territories, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said, "I am speechless that those people, whom we have given the right to live in Denmark and where they freely have chosen to stay, are now touring Arab countries and inciting antipathy towards Denmark and the Danish people".

Ownership confusion

Further disinformation reportedly spread amongst Arab Muslims includes claims that Jyllands-Posten is a government-owned newspaper, which in incorrect. For example, the spokesman for the Danish delegation Muhammed al Samha, and delegation member Ahmed al-Harbi said in the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram: "Jyllands-Posten, a newspaper belonging to the ruling Danish party — an extreme right-wing party — [was] publishing drawings and sketches of the prophet Muhammad."

Other claims include statements that Danish newspapers are running a campaign against Islam and that the Danish government is planning to publish a censored version of the Qur'an. The confusion might have arisen because of the recent publication of Kåre Bluitgen's children's book Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv ("The Qur'an and the life of Prophet Muhammed"). It is not published by the government but by an independent publisher (Høst og Søn).

Muslim organizations in Denmark

During a high profile television interview with the leaders of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades by SVT's (the Swedish Broadcasting Company) news journal, Rapport, the Islamic Society in Denmark was incorrectly described as "an organisation officially representing the Muslim community in Denmark", and failed to provide any comments or views from non-Muslim or Danish government sources, or any opportunity for countercomments.

Confusion between editors-in-chief

Per Kokkvold, the general secretary of the Norwegian Press Society has incorrectly been identified as both the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten, and the artist who created the drawings. His picture has been shown on Al-Arabiya and other TV channels, as well as in printed and online newspapers. Kokkvold has attempted to correct this error, but is not optimistic of success, "if foreign newspapers are as bad at correcting their mistakes as Norwegian ones."

Comparable incidents

Freedom of speech versus blasphemy

Main article: Freedom of speech versus blasphemy

Believers from a multitude of faiths have frequently called for boycott, arrest, censorship or even murder of critics, artists and commentators whose works they consider blasphemous. The Indian-born British writer Salman Rushdie, for example, was sentenced to death by Ruhollah Khomeini for his book The Satanic Verses on alleged mentions of aspects of Muhammad's life. Since then, Rushdie has lived in hiding. Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed and killed at the university where he taught in Tsukuba, north of Tokyo, and his Italian translator Ettore Capriolo was beaten and stabbed in Milan.

In 1993, Rushdie's Norwegian publisher William Nygaard was shot and severely injured in an attack outside his house in Oslo. Thirty-seven people died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was burnt down by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator.

A 2002 ThisDay newspaper editorial about the year's Miss World contest suggesting that Muhammad would probably have chosen one of his wives from among the contestants had he been alive to see it, resulted in riots in which over 200 people were killed in the city of Kaduna.

In November 2004, Dutch filmmaker, publicist and actor Theo van Gogh was murdered by Mohammed Bouyeri, a radical Muslim. Van Gogh had previously received death threats in response to his polemical comments about Islam and his short movie Submission.

Some Muslim countries carry prison or death sentences for blasphemy of Muhammad, Allah or the Islamic religion.

While many nations where Christianity is the dominant religion also have a tradition of separation of church and state which dates back to the enlightenment, many of them still have historical blasphemy laws on the books which were once enacted to protect Christian beliefs, and which are occasionally enforced. As an example, there are blasphemy laws in Norway. However, the last person to be charged for blasphemy was Arnulf Øverland in 1933; he was acquitted.

In March 2005, Austrian writer Gerhard Haderer published the book "The life of Jesus" where he depicted Jesus smoking a joint, and as a surfer on lake Genesaret. He was called for a hearing in Greece and was sentenced for 6 months for blasphemy, but the sentence was later revoked. In general, satirizing religion is more widely accepted in these countries. On February 4 2006, for example, during the Muhammad cartoon crisis, the International Cartoon Festival in Belgium chose a 'yawning Christ on the cross' as winner. [26]

Countries with strong Christian religious fundamentalist movements, such as the United States, have also seen frequent protests against movies, books, and other publications considered blasphemous or pornographic by these movements, sometimes culminating in public book burnings and calls for censorship. For example, the release of The Last Temptation of Christ resulted in death threats for director Martin Scorsese and one incident in France where a cinema showing the movie was attacked with molotov cocktails, injuring thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned.

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 or hate speech. However it should be noted that Western counties 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, libel, or purely racist speech are usually considered outside the protection of free speech. However it is the case in many western countries, that usually even this kind of speech is tolerated so long as it is not seriously intended or is only published by a fringe group.

Other controversial newspaper caricatures

Main article: Controversial newspaper caricatures

See also

• Blasphemy in Islam
• Cultural relativism
• Freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Denmark
• Freedom of the press
• Freedom of speech
• Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
• International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy
• Islam in Denmark

Other

• The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, a book written by Samuel P. Huntington that predicted the increase of intercivilizational conflicts.
• 2005 civil unrest in France
• 2005 Sydney riots

External links

• Template:Da icon The official home-page of Jyllands-Posten
• The page of Jylland-Posten that contains Muhammad cartoons

Official correspondence

• The letter to the Prime Minister from the Muslim ambassadors (PDF)
• First open letter in Arabic to the Muslims of Saudi Arabia from Jyllands-Posten (PDF)
• Second open letter to the Muslims of Saudi Arabia from Jyllands-Posten
  • In Arabic (PDF)
  • In English
• The EU Commission's vice-chairman, Franco Frattini (on this issue)

Islamic views

• IUMS Statement on Publishing Anti-Prophet Cartoons
• Danish cartoons and sacred imagery

News sites

• BBC News article: Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad
• World press review by BBC Monitoring
• Protests over images

Support for Denmark and Jyllands-Posten

• Support Denmark Campaign
• Petition to support Jyllands-Posten

Images

• Jihad Against Danish Newspaper - We are all Danes now
• Mohammed Image Archive (historical depictions of Muhammad. Warning: includes intentionally offensive post-controversy pictures)
  • Mirror site: info2us.dk Mirror site
• [27] pro-Danish user made caricatures
• Enlargeable images link
• Caricatures of Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, published by the Danish newspaper Information
• Listing of the cartoons in controversy
• Picture series - burning of the Danish embassy in Syria

Academic analysis

• Complexity and Social Networks Blog at Harvard University discusses and applies various social network theories to the recent event.