The Mohammed Cartoon Controversy
Thought and
Reflection:
Today’s discussion comes straight from the headlines around
the world. By now you are all familiar with Muslim reaction to the YouTube
video and the attacks on the Libyan embassy (claimed as the cause and then
discredited to some degree) and other US interests in the Arab world. This
problem was exacerbated by the subsequent publication of offensive caricatures
in a French magazine only days later. Ironically, these events seem to parallel
similar recent crises in Denmark and Sweden and elsewhere. The media have
justified their actions on the basis of free speech and free press. The Islamic
world argues that those freedoms do not include the mockery of the sacred. And
so here we are. Our focus today is on what we might learn from this and, more
importantly, how we can move forward in an increasingly diverse world. Let’s
look at a series of controversies and see what we can learn from them.
The South Park Controversy
Let’s start with the following video clip that gives us a
pretty good overview of how the two sides differ. This clip (from CNN)
represents a report following anger at a South
Park cartoon a couple of years ago (and before the recent crises began)
that portrayed the Prophet Mohammed in a bear suit and then as Santa Claus:
Larry King even responded to this:
Here’s some background to help put the present moment in
perspective.
The Jyllands-Posten (2005)
In the fall of 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons,
some critical of the prophet, setting off a strong and eventually violent
reaction in the Muslim world and throughout the Middle East.
Published in Copenhagen, the Jyllands-Posten is the most widely read daily newspaper in Denmark
with a circulation of slightly more than 179,000 and is considered to be at the
center/right of the political spectrum (Mortensen, 2004). According to the newspaper’s cultural editor,
the cartoons were published with the objective of stirring a debate about self-censorship
(Asser, 2009). Danish writer Kare Bluitgen had complained publicly that he was
unable to find an illustrator for his children’s book about the life of the
prophet Mohammed because of the Islamic tenet banning portrayals or images of
the prophet. In response, the newspaper created a “contest” asking newspaper
illustrators to “draw the prophet as they saw him, as an assertion of free
speech and to reject pressure by Muslim groups to respect their sensitivities,”
according to a report by the BBC News Service (Asser, 2009).
While some of the images published in the Jyllands-Posten were not critical of
Islam, others drew heavily from cultural, political and racial stereotypes
created in the current age of terrorism. One of the cartoons, for example, was
a visual image of a police line-up that included Mohammed among other
turban-wearing figures. The witness, who is examining the suspects, states, “I
don’t know which one he is.” The figures in the line-up include Jesus Christ,
Danish politician Pia Kjærgaard, and Bluitgen himself. Another shows Mohammed
greeting deceased suicide bombers in Heaven. As they arrive in a long line,
Mohammed proclaims, “Stop. Stop. We have run out of virgins.” Perhaps the most
controversial cartoon was a drawing that included an image of Mohammed with a
lit bomb in his turban.
The images were accompanied by an article written by the
newspaper’s cultural editor, Flemming Rose, who had invited the submissions
from the Danish Illustrators Association. The purpose of the article was to
defend the decision to hold the “contest.” It was needed, he wrote, to prevent
the kind of censorship that is found in totalitarian societies. Referring to
the growing Muslim community in Denmark, he opined, “They demand special
position when they insist on special considerations for their own religious
feelings. It is incompatible with a temporal democracy of expression, where you
must be ready to tolerate scorn, mockery, and ridicule.”
Initially, the Muslim community in Denmark complained
peacefully to Danish political leaders and to the newspaper itself. Danish
Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen told Islamic leaders that the principle of
freedom of speech prevented him from intervening (Omestad, 2009). Unhappy with
the lack of a Danish response, a group of local imams sent representatives to
the Middle East to begin publicizing the newspaper’s publication of the
offensive cartoons and the Danish government’s failure to respond sympathetically
(from their perspective) to the Islamic community. On the streets of the Middle
East, Pakistan, Nigeria, and even as far away as Indonesia, Muslims responded
with violent riots that included burning Danish flags, staging protests at
Danish embassies, and calling for boycotts of Danish products sold in those
countries (Omestad, 2009).
Ongoing threats against one of the cartoonists:
Here is a response from representatives of the Islamic
community in the UK following the publications of the Mohammed cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten in 2005:
Here’s a very interesting interview from Danish television
regarding this (don’t worry it is in English, with Danish subtitles):
Lars Vilks and the “Roundabout Dogs”
Two years later, a similar controversy would erupt in
Sweden. Artist Lars Vilks was invited to participate in “The Dog in Art”
exhibition. In response, he produced three drawings of the prophet Mohammed
portrayed as a “rondelhund” (a “roundabout dog”). For several years prior to
this exhibition, Swedish artists had been constructing and sculpting (usually
out of crude and rudimentary materials) depictions of dogs and leaving them
anonymously in the roundabouts on Swedish roadways. Vilks’ drawings appeared to
be poking fun at both Mohammed and this popular cultural phenomenon. When
several galleries refused to display the drawings out of fear of a backlash from
the Islamic community, the regional Swedish newspaper, Nerkikes Allehanda, decided to publish them along with an editorial
that was critical of censorship. The editorial argued:
This is unacceptable
self-censorship. A liberal society must be able to do two
things at the same
time. On the one hand, it must be able to defend Muslim’s
right to freedom of
religion and their right to build mosques. However, on the
other hand, it also is
permissible to ridicule Islam’s most foremost symbols—just
like all other
religions’ symbols. There is no opposition between these two goals.
In fact, it is even
the case that they would presuppose each other.
Here’s a report on this from Al-Jazeera:
And here’s a report from CNN:
The French Magazine: Charlie Hebdo
Only days after the US ambassador to Libya was killed in the
attacks connected with the controversial YouTube video, the French satirical
magazine Charlie Hebdo announced it
would publish caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. This magazine loves to be
the provocateur and has been at the center of many recent controversies. Here’s
some good background on this. Please read:
This clip also gives a good overview (note that it was
produced by Jewish news agency):
Finally, here’s the Al-Jazeera report:
Some Questions
So, what is at the heart of this controversy? Do you feel
that this is solely about free speech? Is there more? What are your sympathies for
both sides? Do both have legitimate arguments? How do we get past this?
Here’s some additional background to consider (focusing on
the Jyllands-Posten crisis in
Denmark):
Free Speech versus Press Regulation in Denmark
Although the Danes loathe self-censorship, they have
historically recognized the need for the press to be sensitive to potentially
vulnerable groups within their society, including immigrant groups. The
challenge, of course, is what happens when these potentially conflicting ideals
collide.
Danish Press Regulation and Policy. The Danish Constitution, adopted in 1849, gives every Danish
citizen the right to impart information while prohibiting any form of
censorship (Mortensen, 2004). Additional contemporary press laws address the
issues of defamation and libel. In addition to these legal regulations, Danish
journalists follow a set of ethical guidelines that were adopted in 1991 and
codified in 1992 as the National Code of Journalistic Conduct. While strongly
supporting the notion of free expression, the code does not specifically
address how to handle materials that might be deemed offensive to individuals
or specific groups (regarding race, religion, etc.). The code does call for the
need to respect an individual’s “integrity,” but it stops short of prohibiting
publication of offensive materials. Section 3A states: “Information which may
be prejudicial or insulting to somebody or detract from other persons' opinion
of the person concerned shall be very closely checked.” Arguably, the phrase
“closely checked” contains some ambiguity about how the media should respond to
potential offensive images or content (Mortensen, 2004).
Religion in Denmark
The Danes, like most Scandinavians, take what can be
described as a secularist, individualistic, or pragmatic approach to religion,
which is a stark contrast to rigid, dogmatic, and highly structured demands of
Islam. Only a small very small percentage of Scandinavians attend public
worship services and most could be aptly described (in Swedish) as “namnkristna”—“Christians
in name only” (Tomasson, 2002). Most Scandinavians maintain their connection to
the church only through specific events—baptism, confirmation, marriage, and
burial—while maintaining indifference toward the organized Church itself. They
recognize the need for decent values in preserving the community and see
religion as contributing to human decency but not the necessary and only source of these values. As such, religion is
seen as “private,” based on the individual’s own conception of moral values and
universal guidelines (Tomasson, 2002).
The Danes locate religion well within the private sphere,
which, they believe, is essential to, and consistent with, the ideals of a
secular, liberal democracy. The problem,
according to Schmidt, is that the Islamic community insists that religion has a
“normatively based right to play a role within the public sphere” and public
life (Schmidt). As such, Muslims also have the normative understanding that
religion must be considered ahead of secular governing principles and cannot
become subordinate to the secular ideas found in Western democracies (Schmidt).
Portraying the Prophet
Media commentators in Denmark have argued that the
Muslim-Danish controversy was precipitated only by the publication of drawings
that include the likeness and image of Mohammed. Several writers and observers
have noted that the Muslim community deems such portrayals highly offensive.
While this may be true, the drawings alone (and the accompanying editorials)
could not have been expected to trigger such a strong and violent reaction by
themselves. History suggests otherwise. An examination of both historical and
contemporary depictions of the prophet reveals that Islamic and non-Islamic
painters have often depicted Mohammed. For example, the Apocalypse of Muhammad, written in Herat, Afghanistan in 1436,
shows Mohammed meeting the prophets Ishmael, Isaac, and Lot in Paradise. The
book is in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, France. More recent depictions
include paintings by Gustave Dore and Salvador Dali as well as a depiction of
Mohammed in a Tintin comic book
(France) in 1977.
Today’s Blog
Assignment
Please
read the assigned readings and watch the video clips. I want you to reflect
deeply on these issues. Consider the cultural, political, social, and
historical factors that are at play in the three crises that were discussed.
Consider the arguments presented by both sides. Can you defend and challenge
these arguments? What are the valid points made by both sides? Is this simply
about free speech, or does this reflect a deeper divide? In your mind, how do
we move forward? Can the media have a role in the solution?
Some References
Martin Asser, “What the Muhammad Cartoons Portray.” BBC News. Available: http://
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4693292.stm. Accessed: January 16, 2009.
Frands Mortensen, “Denmark.” In Mary Kelly, Gianpietro
Mazzoleni, Denis McQuail (eds.), The
Media in Europe: The Euromedia Handbook (3rd ed.). London: Sage,
2004, p. 43-53.
Thomas Omestad. “Culture Clash in Denmark.” US News & World Report. Available:
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061231/8denmark.htm. Accessed:
January 16, 2009.
Richard F. Tomasson, “How Sweden Became So Secular.” Scandinavian Studies, 74/1 (2002):
61-88.
In the CNN broadcast, a concept regarding Islam and the media came to mind that I had never really considered before. The CNN host and the woman who spoke said that Islam seems to be the only religion where its members will reach out in violence after it is attacked or mocked. The extremist Muslims referred to were so upset by the defaming of South Park on Muhammad that they were prompted to threat and essentially stalk its creators. The woman who spoke in the interview who said she was actually raised Muslim said that she was taught that anyone who portrayed Muhammad, Allah, or the Quran should be killed. I have never heard this so I am not sure that it is true for all, or even any, Muslims. But I did find it interesting how the woman spoke about how Jews do not reach out in violence if Moses is portrayed in a bad light, and Christians don’t make threats if Jesus Christ is portrayed badly either. From the experiences I have had meeting Muslims, I do not think any of the ones I know would make reach out in violent threats if the media or anyone was mocking their religion or religious figures in any way. I do know that Allah is not supposed to be portrayed in Islam, so I can see that being controversial. But I also believe that the large majority of Muslims are very peaceful and would choose to uphold peace rather than fight against someone who may be defaming their religious beliefs. But I do think there are extremists who feel very differently about the situation, as shown in the broadcast.
ReplyDeleteAs offensive as the cartoons in Jyllands-Posten may have been, my personal belief is that there is nothing anyone can say, write, or draw about anyone or their religious belief that should draw terror. In the British interview, the Muslim woman was very insistent in saying that what the Danish newspaper did was very wrong. I can see where she is coming from by saying that it was a very extreme way of pushing for Muhammad to be depicted by art. I do think a public forum or debate, as she suggested, would have been a much more sensitive way to do things. But the fact is, the newspaper did not do that. They dove head first into depicting Muhammad as a terrorist, which is I’m sure was very very upsetting for many Muslims. But I still do not see how that should lead to violence. And I think many/most Muslims don’t think that should lead to violence.
ReplyDeleteYes, I have happened upon disgusting anti-Mormon literature or videos online that made me sad and upset. Yes, I was told the most horrifying anti-Mormon lies as a 19-year-old tracting in a foreign country that caused me to feel moments of rage or defensiveness. But no, I would never consider physically injuring another person who created or repeated those hurtful things. That is where I have a hard time relating to extremist Muslims who act out in violence to in efforts to stop the negativity about their religion. I believe in defending truth, but I also believe the cliché saying “sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.” It is hard for me to understand why someone would physically harm or kill someone for something they published. And I hope I am not sounding ignorant or unaccepting, I am just stating how I feel about the situation. But once again, I think this group of violence Muslims is small and far from the norm, from what I’ve seen in my experiences.
So to echo what the woman in the British interview said, I don’t think this is about how all Muslims respond to this Islamophobic presentation of Islam. I think it was perfect breeding ground for extremists to let lose their anger and strong opinions, and Islam as a whole was sort of dragged into that, creating an even larger and more impactful notion of Islamophobia in the world. So by publishing these cartoons, I believe the Danish newspaper contributed even more to Islamophobia, primarily because of the backlash they received. So I do think the media very heavily contributes to the spread of Islamophobia, but I do not think the media should stop publishing similar content, because I think that shows suppression of the media’s free speech.
This topic is extremely difficult for me to tackle. As I watched the many videos, I felt differently in each one. My first thought goes to our previous blog when we discussed how Muslim culture and the media. There were comedians poking fun at themselves, their culture, and current social issues facing them. I felt that media was causing some of these biases and it was a problem.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this issue of freedom of speech/press vs. freedom of religion is an extremely tricky one. I instantly think of the offensive videos, TV shows, and cartoons that portray LDS culture and it’s leaders. I think of the play “Book of Mormon” and it’s ruthless humor/criticism of our beliefs and story. However, the biggest difference is the reaction of our religion and the reaction of the Muslim extremists in many of these stories. I remember a flyer specifically published by the church that they would hand out after the play that said something to the effect of “Now that you’ve seen the play, it’s time to read the book!” and gave the recipient a way to contact the missionaries; A great example of using the negative humorous depiction and turning into a positive opportunity.
I am in no way condoning hurtful comments or media portrayals of relgion, race, gender, etc. however, it is the reaction of the Muslim community that is dictating what is ok to say and write and what is not. I think the laws and freedoms that should dictate what is ok, not the reactions of others. The comedian Penn Jillette surprised me when he said that nothing touching Islam should be free game because it isn’t safe. It seems that fear is the strongest motivator here.
Going forward, I don’t see a simple resolution. Bottom line, I think from my own upbringing and moral compass, that we should always be sensitive of others beliefs and not condone the ridicule of anyone. However, I also see the potential consequence of severely limiting the freedom of speech/press. I think as an LDS person it’s up to us to react in a Christ-like way and turn these incidents into positive opportunities.
ReplyDeleteIs this about freedom of speech? I think it’s about humans being idiots. That is my first reaction. I don’t think that it does any good to mock someone’s beliefs. I just think about how sacred my beliefs are to me and how I would feel if the world mocked and degraded what I believe. I mean they kinda already do.
But at the same time when I think about making jokes at religions that I think are “crazy” I have no problem with it. I disagree with everything those groups stand for and so I'm not bothered when someone throws them under the bus.
So what’s the difference between my beliefs? I think it’s because I can relate to the Islam religion whereas I can’t feel sympathy for Satan worshipers or people who sacrifice cats in order to get more rainwater.
I think the media can do something about how we see things. We see a lot of what the media wants us to see. You can make the argument that there is other information out there with different opinions out there, but it is under an avalanche of what people want to hear. I think we have to encourage news stations and outlets to look for ways to see all sides of the story.