The Danish Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad
The Current Conflicts page is a resource for Workable Peace educators and students interested in applying their WP skills to current events. In this section, Workable Peace profiles a current conflict or controversial issue of national or global significance, from the viewpoint of two or more groups involved. For past conflicts that have been highlighted on these pages, please click here.
The prohibition on Muslim women students wearing headscarves to school in France, the banning of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, opposition to demonstrations of extremist groups (such as the KKK), and the controversy around the airing of films such as The Last Temptation of Christ – each of these conflicts represents an example of tensions that have emerged between groups, cultures, and nations based on the differences in their values, traditions, and beliefs. In this Current Conflict, we focus on the debate over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
Overview
In September 2005, a Danish newspaper published a story about Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen and his unsuccessful search for artists to illustrate a children’s book about the Prophet Muhammad. Because many Muslims consider any image of the Prophet to be blasphemous, depictions of the Prophet in print are rare and controversial among Muslims (for a discussion on this topic, see Additional Resources). As a result, three artists had declined the job because they were worried about reprisals by Muslim extremists. The one artist who agreed said he would have to do it anonymously. The artists’ reactions were perceived as evidence of censorship, and writers began to publicly deliberate the issue in the press.
In response to this incident, and in an attempt to provoke public dialogue on the topic of censorship, the cultural editor of the Jyllands-Posten newspaper, Flemming Rose, contacted cartoonists and asked them to draw images of Muhammad as they saw him. On September 30 2005, twelve cartoons were published in Jyllands-Posten, accompanied by an article about censorship and free speech. The cartoons depict the Prophet Muhammad in a variety of situations and poses. In one, he holds a sword and his eyes are blacked out. In another, a halo around his head resembles a pair of horns. The most controversial portrays him wearing a turban shaped like a bomb with a lit fuse.
Some members of the Muslim community reacted in anger and indignation. In October, eleven Islamic ambassadors asked to meet with Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to discuss the issue and asked for an official Danish statement underscoring the importance of respecting all religions. Rasmussen refused the meeting, believing that they were asking him to punish those responsible for the cartoons. He stated that the government has no influence over the media, based on principles of freedom of speech. A number of Muslim organizations in Denmark claimed that the publication of the cartoons constituted a criminal offense, citing legal codes protecting citizens against discrimination based on religion.
By late January 2006, several European newspapers had reprinted the images, in solidarity with the Danish press and as a means of expressing their support for free speech or providing coverage of a growing issue in the news. These publications prompted increased protests around the world. In several Arab countries, consumers boycotted Danish goods. The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League demanded that the United Nations impose sanctions on Denmark. Protestors burned the Danish flag, Saudi Arabia withdrew its ambassador from Denmark, and Libya closed the Danish embassy. Rewards were offered for murdering the artists. More than 100 people died as a result of protests and violence.Several other relevant events and conditions are helpful in understanding the dynamic between the Islamic states and the European newspapers and the public.
The Muslim diaspora – immigrants who have left their homes in Muslim-majority countries and settled, often permanently, in other countries – is growing. There is now a substantial population of Muslims in many European countries, including Denmark, who are European citizens and also Muslim; they range from 2% percent of the population in Denmark to 5-10% in France (CIA Factbook 2006). As a result of these growing immigrant populations, there is much more interaction between Muslim peoples and other religious and cultural groups than there was in the past. The increased contact has led to more frequent incidents when the beliefs of these groups conflict.
The 9/11 attacks and subsequent terrorist incidents have also increased many Westerners’ familiarity with the Muslim world. That familiarity has not led to greater sense of shared values or situations. While Westerners have broadened their awareness of political, economic and social problems that fuel Muslim anger against the West, public opinion polls show that Westerners have become more mistrustful of Muslims over the past several years (Pew Global Attitudes Project 2004).
The current war in Iraq, and postwar instability in Afghanistan, have contributed to strong emotions and opinions about the relationships between the Muslim world and the West. Public opinion remains divided on the topic of what should be done in Iraq, and on whether recent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been successful, advantageous, justifiable, or effective.This conflict has been described in a number of ways. Some Western authors have presented this conflict as symbolic of a clash between the values of the Muslim world and the secular West, in which Islamic theocracy threatens the separation of church and state that many Westerners see as central to modern civilization. Others have argued that the publication of the cartoons should be judged according to whether authors and publishers appropriately considered measures of respect, ethics, and good taste. A third perspective suggests that the publication and subsequent uproar were primarily a symptom of the underlying tensions between the Muslim and Western world, as evidenced by the larger world context described above.
In the following analysis, we will explore how these different perspectives have been evident in voices addressing the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. We will also examine the interests, beliefs and identities underlying these perspectives, and pose the question of how to address such conflicts when they arise.
B. The key interests, beliefs, identities, and emotions of the writers advocating the various responses:
C. The writers' perspective on the interests, beliefs, identities, and emotions of others who have different points of view, and who may be affected by this conflict.
The Workable Peace Sources Chart provides a tool for this examination. (html or pdf)
Perspective 1: Newspapers and media must safeguard the right to free speech, even if the content of the material is offensive or insulting. Governments have no role in prohibiting or speaking against freedom of expression, which is especially relevant in this case, since the cartoons were commissioned specifically in response to the issue of censorship. The negative reactions to their publication must be seen as an attempt to explicitly limit expression, so Western states must defend their values and principles against the wishes of Islamists who want to prevent free speech in the West.
Primary Source Accounts:
Twelve prominent Arab, Muslim or ex-Muslim leaders signed this statement, which was originally published in the French political satire weekly Charlie Hebdo. The statement calls for resistance against the totalitarianism of Islamists and expresses support for “secular values” and “the universality of freedom of expression.” Download as PDF
Islamic radicalists, writes Dale, are using this issue to gain “political advantage” by inciting anger against the West. This is evident in the fact that European Muslim populations have not reacted in the same way as their counterparts in the Middle East. Download as PDF
Yes, the cartoons were offensive, agrees Hensher. But that does not mean that the state should take legal action against their publication. On the contrary, the “anti-democratic forces in the Muslim world” who are using these cartoons as a way “to rally support for extreme causes” would regard any support of restrictions on speech as a victory for them. Download as PDF
Perspective
2: Newspapers must maintain their right to freedom of speech, but they also have the responsibility to protect others’ rights by not being insensitive or offensive. Free speech must be balanced with respect toward others’ religions, values, and beliefs. However, the definition of “respect” varies according to these authors. Some maintain that “respect” is not the same as “censorship”, and that they were treating Islam in the same way they would treat any other religion. These authors argue that the press would not publish items that were illegal or in bad taste or unethical, but that the cartoons depicting Muhammad were not any of those. Other authors contend that the act of publishing the cartoons was profoundly disrespectful and perpetuated a culture of hate, prejudice and racism, which could escalate tension between countries or cultures. They claim that there exists a double standard in how restrictions are applied to different communities.
Primary Source Accounts:
Rose reminds the reader that the original reason for commissioning the cartoons was to address issues of censorship. He writes that Jyllands-Posten did consider the balance between ethics and freedom of speech in deciding whether to publish the cartoons, but determined that, in this case, freedom of speech was of greater importance. He maintains that he was treating Islam in the same way he would treat any other religion, and asserts that supporters of a belief system should not force others to adhere to their ideas. Download as PDF
Ihsanoglu voices the disappointment and dissatisfaction felt by the OIC because of the lack of response on the part of the Danish authorities. He supports the principle of freedom of expression, but argues that publishing the images represented disrespect for their religion and sustained an environment of hate and discrimination against Muslims. Download as PDF
One can have a right to freedom of speech and still decide not to practice it, writes Younge. “If our commitment to free speech is important, our belief in anti-racism should be no less so.” Download as PDF
Perspective
3: The publication of the Danish cartoons was not really an issue of free speech, but was used by the Danish press to make a point about Muslim intolerance and rigidity. In doing so, the cartoons perpetrated a racist stereotype of Arabs and Muslims by representing the Prophet as a terrorist and his followers as violent extremists. This is a continuation of the long-standing tradition of the dominance of Western countries over the East, and the marginalization of Muslim-majority countries. The reaction of the Muslim world indicates that it has begun to assert itself and is fighting for political change.
Primary Source Accounts:
The fear, anger, and concern felt by the protesters was in response not only to the cartoons but also to the Western response to the issue and the broader political context in which they are situated. The Arab-Islamic societies see this as a “political battle” in which they are seeking freedom from dominant Western policies and standards, and are determined to resist double standards and “assert their right to live in freedom and dignity.” Download as PDF
Walia argues that the cartoons are offensive not primarily because of their religious content, but because they stereotype Arabs and Muslims who are already marginalized. Muslims have been criticized for protesting these depictions although other groups (e.g. Jewish organizations) can protest stereotypes against them. Download as PDF
“This is not an issue of ‘freedom of expression’,” writes Sardar. “It is about power, domination and demonization.” Satire is meant to ridicule the powerful, and since the European Muslims have no power, it makes no sense to target them. The kind of absolute freedom of expression that first amendment defenders advocate “belongs only in the jungle,” where one does not have to take responsibility for one’s actions. Download as PDF
This page was researched and written by Workable Peace Intern Sarah Bruinooge, a graduate of the Intercultural Relations Masters Program at Lesley University.