Cartooning Mohammad The Prophet or... Shouting Fire in A Crowded
Theater
by Terrell E. Arnold
February 9, 2006
from
Rense Website
The writer
is the author of the recently published work, _A World
Less Safe_, now available on Amazon, and he is a regular
columnist on
rense.com. He is a retired Senior Foreign
Service Officer of the US Department of State who held
several senior diplomatic positions, including Consul
General, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Deputy Director of the State
Department Office of Counterterrorism, and Chairman of
the Department of International Studies of the National
War College. He will welcome comment at
wecanstopit@charter.net |
On September 30, 2005 twelve cartoons depicting Mohammad the Prophet
were published in
the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
Admitting
that cartoonists generally were reluctant to work with him on
illustrations for a children's book on Mohammad the Prophet, the
writer, Kare Bluitgen, reportedly commissioned and published these
cartoons to illustrate how difficult it was to get people to work on
this subject. It took several months for this blooper to become
common knowledge in the outside world, but the result has been
predictably chaotic.
The crisis, according to one report, was precipitated by a young
Islamic scholar in Denmark who hand delivered the cartoons to
leading Arab officials and clerics. This young activist Ahmad Akkari
now appears to admit how much he underestimated how volatile
publishing the cartoons could be. Certainly the creator now knows
why illustrators were reluctant to work on his book, but that is
only the first lesson.
Islamic religious aversion to images of people or animals,
especially images of God or the prophets, is well known, probably
even in Denmark. In Christendom, outside of images on the ceiling of
the Sistine Chapel of the Vatican, godly depictions are rare. Even
mention of the name of God is often frowned upon and is written by
some as g-d to avoid full reference. Most societies, regardless of
the specifics of their beliefs, are circumspect about references to
their deity. This subject is not, therefore, the proper subject of
flippant discourse in any society.
Westerners as a group may have become fairly casual about various
biblical references, and cartooning, even of delicate subjects, is
actually a commonplace way of raising certain issues without
offense. The offense, if any might be taken, may be diminished in
some societies by cartooning, and cartoons about some subjects may
make people angry, but rarely at the cartoonist. Some would class
this state of mind as a sign of western moral decay, but others
might class it as a sign of maturity.
Whatever the case, any detachment about religious matters has been
achieved by a relatively small number of Muslims. Aniconism, the
aversion to images, including not depicting images of the Prophet,
is an Islamic practice that has outlasted generations of exposure to
the outside world, and it presently resides among the strongest of
Islamic core beliefs. Mosques, old or new, are often elegant studies
in geometric designs and Arabesque wood work, and mosque windows (mashrabia)
are often screened with finely turned and finished lathe work. But
there are no human or animal images in them.
In quiet global times, when there were no significant disagreements
between Islamic countries and the West, the Danish cartooning gaffe
might have passed with relatively little note. It would in no case
have been ignored, but it came on top of a pile of provocations: The
invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the War on Terrorism that US and
increasingly European officials and media refer to as a clash of
civilizations, the increasing poverty of many Islamic societies, the
readiness of certain individuals and groups to use this gaffe to
their own advantage, and the ready global circulation of any story
together rendered the climate to say the least poor for an offense
against Mohammad the Prophet. In this regard, a Bush team decision
to tie the crisis to its Middle East agenda by blaming Iran and
Syria only further inflames Islamic emotions.
Danish journalists, the Government of Denmark, and media allies in
many countries have argued that publishing the cartoons is covered
by freedom of speech, that is, in the United States, speech that is
protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. In a
waspish defense of that argument, the cartoons have been published
worldwide on the Internet, in the newspapers of 20 countries or
more, and in one US newspaper.
That sounds all well and good, but none of the media organizations
taking this position would publish a cartoon of an Israeli rabbi
with a bomb fuse in his skull cap, even though there have been some
fairly rabid ones. Nor would they publish an image of Jesus Christ
holding a hand grenade with his arm drawn back to throw it, even
though a number of Christians openly support violence. The image of
Mohammad the Prophet with a bomb fuse in his turban is no less
offensive.
None of those images would pass muster in the US as "protected
speech". In fact, predictably all of them would have the same effect
as shouting fire in a crowded theater. Not everybody who heard about
them or saw them would be angered enough to react violently, but
some would.
The publication of the cartoons was at a minimum thoughtless.
Reactions have been excessive, but such effects in the present state
of world affairs were totally predictable. Justifying the
publication as an act of free speech is a dangerous example of a
growing Western habit of looking down its nose at the sensibilities
of Islamic peoples.
It is time for serious fence-mending, starting with recognizing that
even if the cartoons were an innocent stupidity, they were
potentially offensive to one out of six people on the planet. Even
if real and determined work is attempted to repair the damage, it is
unlikely to be successful in the short run. Both the reactions to
the cartoons and the task of cleaning up after them are closely
linked to past and proclaimed future western policies and actions
toward Islamic societies.
Back to Contents
Cartoon Clashes Provide Smokescreen for Other Muslim, Arab Issues
by Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem
Bureau Chief
February 07, 2006
from
CNSNews Website
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com)
- Iran and other Arab regimes are fueling
anger over cartoons of Mohammed to advance their own interests -- to
deflect criticism of their regimes and deter punitive measures
against them, sources here said.
Several people have been killed in violence related to the cartoon
protests that have spread across the Muslim world. European
diplomatic missions have been attacked in Iran, Syria,
Lebanon and
the Gaza Strip.
Some Muslims say that according to Islamic law, it is forbidden to
depict Mohammed in any form. The cartoons were first published in a
Danish newspaper in September, and the anger -- organized opposition
in many cases -- has been building and spreading since then.
"It is a combination of spontaneous and organized [protests]," one
source in Jerusalem told Cybercast News Service.
"The idea is to change the [international] agenda," said the source,
who spoke on condition of anonymity.
If someone has a problem with the world because of his
nuclear
program or the threat of sanctions or because of elections that were
not so democratic, then he could point to the cartoons and say his
own problem with the West is "all because of Islam."
Dr. Martin Kramer of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy
said some protests may have started locally with the imams, but he
also said it is important to look at "who is getting a ride" on the
wave of resentment.
The answer to who is behind the trouble "is in the palaces" of the
Arab and Muslim world - the leadership. The goal is to divide the
transatlantic alliance between Europe and America on key issues
facing the world, Kramer said.
"Iran needs for the West to be divided.
Syria needs for the west to
be divided [and] the Muslim Brotherhood wants to break any embargo
[that might be placed on the] Hamas principality," said Kramer.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt want to escape Western pressure to make
democratic changes, he said.
"The affair is a godsend for the regimes. They are not interested in
Danish apologies. They want to be paid off... in the U.N. Security
Council and in the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] and the
inner conclaves of the financial institutions [like the World
Bank]," he said.
Iran is under threat of United Nations sanctions for pressing ahead
with its nuclear program, which the West believes is a cover-up for
making an atomic bomb; Syria is under threat of sanctions unless it
cooperates with an investigation into the murder of a former
Lebanese prime minister. Syrian leaders, in fact, are suspected of
involvement in the assassination.
Hamas, which won a majority of seats in Palestinian parliamentary
elections, is the first group of the radical Muslim Brotherhood to
triumph in elections. But Hamas, which is likely to form the next
Palestinian Authority government, is under pressure to renounce
terrorism and to recognize Israel or face a cutoff of U.S. and
European funding.
"Syria and Iran [want Europe] bowed into meek submission," said
Kramer. They are trying to escape sanctions, he said.
There is also the possibility of creating a division between Europe
and the U.S. on the issue of funding Hamas, he said.
According to Kramer, al Qaeda probably is not behind the
cartoon-related troubles, since its "method is to set off bombs in
Europe." But Egypt might have a hand in it, he said.
Egypt, considered a strong U.S. ally in the Middle East, is
nevertheless under intense pressure to make democratic reforms. But
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak is resisting those efforts, because
he wants to keep
the Muslim Brotherhood out of power.
It was Egypt's foreign minister who first started protesting the
issue of the cartoons, Kramer said. It could be that the government
of Egypt wants to be seen as a defender of Islam in place of
the
Muslim Brotherhood.
At the same time, Egypt and Saudi Arabia are playing a double game:
while the West is pressing them to make reforms, they are saying,
"we're the only one who can guard your interests," Kramer said.
No appeasement
Professor Raphael Israeli, professor of Islamic History at the
Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said appeasement of the Islamic
world would be a mistake and the U.S. and Europe must remain united.
"Appeasment never worked," Israeli said. Making an apology like the
Danish prime minister did or even worse, condemning incitement
against Islam like President Bush did, does no good and can instead
encourage the Muslim world, said Israeli.
The West needs to state a policy, "be firm" and make its own
legislation based on Western values, he said.
Western countries should pass laws against blasphemy while at the
same time maintaining freedom of the press -- and then uphold that
freedom. Each cartoon (or case) would then be judged on its own
merits.
Israeli referred to a case in Israel where a Russian immigrant,
Tatiana Soskin, drew a
picture of Mohammed as a pig writing the
Koran. The picture was posted in the West Bank city of Hebron in
1997. Soskin was tried, convicted and served time in jail for the
incident because it was judged that she had intended to offend the
Palestinians.
"There must be a difference between anti-religious incitement and
humor," said Israeli.
Israeli said enacting laws against
blasphemy is the only way the
West can be fair -- and appear to be fair -- and it is the only way
to teach Muslims that what they would have others do, they must do
themselves.
Back to Contents
|