Click here to go back to the issue outlines list

2006/11: Should newspapers have published political cartoons depicting Mohammad?

Related issue outlines:
1998: Religious images and urine: should the work of Andres Serrano be exhibited in Melbourne?

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).

Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis

Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items specifically on this subsject: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2006 file) and enter the following word.

mohammed
cartoons



Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald

Online newspaper items: see the end of this outline (after the list of newspaper sources) for a google search facility with which to attempt to access newspaper items still online or cached by third parties.


What they said ...
'We strongly feel that casting aspersions on Islam as a religion and publishing demeaning caricatures of Holy Prophet Mohammad goes against the spirit of Danish values of tolerance and civil society'
Letter to the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, from eleven Islamic ambassadors

'The freedom of expression is the very foundation of Danish democracy'
Letter to eleven Islamic ambassadors from the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen

The issue at a glance
On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, published political cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Danish Moslem organisations responded by staging protests. As the cartoons attracted international attention most were then reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries. This has lead to violent prostests outside Denmark, especially in nations where Islam is followed.

Those opposed to the publication of the cartoons claim they ignore the religious and cultural sensitivities of Moslems and that they humiliated a marginalised Danish minority. Supporters of the cartoons claim they and their publication made an important political point and that to have suppressed them would have been an attack on free speech.

Background
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten, contacted some 40 cartoonists and asked them to draw the prophet as they saw him. This move was intended to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer K†re Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad. Rose ultimately received twelve cartoons for the project and published them accompanied by an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech.
A number of the cartoonists who produced the cartoons are reported to have received death threats and to have gone into hiding. Eleven Islamic countries have demanded that the Danish Government take action and several Arab countries have closed their Danish embassies. There have been protests all round the world, including in England, embassies and churches have been attacked and there have been numerous deaths. On February 4, 2006, the buildings containing the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria were set ablaze.
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 would not be published again.
A large consumer boycott was organised in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and other Middle East countries
The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the Arab League have demanded that the United Nations impose international sanctions upon Denmark and that the European Union introduce blasphemy laws.

Internet information
The on-line encylopedia, Wikipedia, has a very full treatment of the Jyllands-Posten Mohammad cartoon controversy. It gives backgound information, miniatures and descriptions of the cartoons, a timeline of the events that are a feature of the controversy and a variety of opinions on the initial publication and the subsequent developments.
This information can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

On February 2, 2006, BBC News broadcast a series of questions and answers giving factual informatioon in response to a variety of questions about the cartoon issue. These can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4674864.stm

On February 3, 2006, BBC News published links to eight commentators giving a diverse range of opinions on the Mohammad cartoons issue. These can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4676632.stm

On October 12, 2005, ambassadors from eleven Islamic states including Turkey, Iran, Egypt and Lybia forwarded a letter to the Prime Minister of Denmark registering their concern that freedom of the press had been misused to abuse Islam and calling on the Prime Minister to take whatever action the law allowed against those who had done so. A full copy of this letter can be found at http://www.filtrat.dk/grafik/Letterfromambassadors.pdf

On October 21, 2005, the Danish Prime Minister replied to the letter from the the eleven Islamic ambassadors, sharing their concern for greater dialogue and understanding between cultures and indicating that though the Government had no power over the press when it acted with the law, Denmark has laws prohibiting 'expressions of a blasphemous or discriminatory nature'.
The full text of this letter can be found at http://gfx-master.tv2.dk/images/Nyhederne/Pdf/side3.pdf

On January 30, 2006, Carsten Juste, the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten published an open letter to 'Felloe Citizens of the Muslim World' in which he apologised for any unintended offence the publication of the 12 cartoons may have occasioned followers of Islam. The full text of this letter can be found at http://www.jp.dk/meninger/ncartikel:aid=3527646

On February 9, 2006, the European Council for Fatwa and Research (ECFR) issued a statement outlining the reasons for its opposition to the cartoons depicting Mohammad and indicating what it wished the world community to do in response. The Council also called on all Moslims to exercise tolerance and to be productive members of the communities of which they are part.
The full text of this statement can be found at http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/mohamed/1424/misconception/article19.shtml

Arguments against the publication of political cartoons depicting Mohammad
1. These cartoons were offensive to the cultural and political sensitivities of Muslims
Abu-Laban, , a leader of Denmark's Islamic community, has asserted that the cartoons were calculated to incite Muslims since it was well-known that in Islam, depictions of the prophet are considered blasphemy. 'We are being mentally tortured,' he said. 'The cartoons are an insult against Islam, an attempt by right-wing forces in this country to get a rise out of the Muslim community and so portray us as against Danish values.'
Similarly the Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan, has declared, 'The cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad are an attack on our spiritual values. There should be a limit to press freedom.'
Mohammad Rashid, writing in Wisconsin's Post-Crescent.com, an Islamic on-line newspaper specialising is supplying news and opinion for Wisconsin's Islamic community, has stated, 'It's forbidden in our faith even to draw any picture of prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, let alone a depiction of him in jokes, caricatures or in an insulting manner.'

2. These cartoons served no genuine public interest.
It has been claimed that publishing the cartoons depicting Mohammad served no significant public interest. The editor of Jyllands-Posten has claimed he wished to draw attention to the climate of fear and self-imposed censorship which had made it impossible for a Danish author to find an illustrator for a children's book explaining the life of Mohammad.
However, it as been argued, in issuing a general request for pictures of Mohammad and allowing a number of those who contributed to caricature Mohammad and show his image in the midst of making a political comment critical of certain sections of Islam, the newspaper went far beyond its supposed objective and lost whatever legitimate public interest the project may originally have had.

3. These cartoons demonstrate bias against Muslims.
The publication of these cartoons has been condemned across the world as the manifestation of a pervasive anti-Muslim bias.
Writing in the Egyptian on-line newspaper, Al-Ahram, Ramzy Baroud wrote, 'In Arab and Muslim media, few condoned the aggressive protests, embassy burnings and threats of violence awakened by the global cartoon campaign. Except of a few holier-than-thou Arab and Muslim journalists, however, there seemed to be consensus among most commentators that both appreciate the enormity - and harm - of the inherent anti-Muslim bias in Western societies and acknowledged the need to respond to such vilification of Muslims and Arabs on a collective level, even if it includes modes of pressure and muscle flexing.'
To many Muslims, the apparently deliberate and pointless disrespect directed toward what they value most is evidence of a wide-spread prejudice against Islam and its adherents.

4. These cartoons were likely to foster ill-will between Muslims and the Western world.
Muslim leaders have warned that the cartoons and the general indifference of the Danish community to the offence the cartoons represent is alienating Danish Muslims from the country they have either adopted as their own or been born in. As part of the current controversy, some right wing political commentators have characterised the growing numbers of Muslims in Denmark as 'invaders'. Abu-Laban, , a leader of Denmark's Islamic community, has asked, 'Are young Muslims growing up here going to assimilate better when they hear themselves described in this way?'
Outgoing Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia on Thursday condemned the caricatures, saying they 'provoke all Muslims everywhere in the world'.
An Afghani spokesperson has further stated, 'Publication of the caricatures would give ammunition to those seeking to disrupt international relations.'
Mohammad Rashid, writing in Wisconsin's Post-Crescent.com, an Islamic on-line newspaper specialising is supplying news and opinion for Wisconsin's Islamic community, has stated, 'The publication of these cartoons did no good to anybody. Instead, it offended 1.5 billion Muslims all over the world. The world doesn't need unnecessary provocation and turmoil at a time when it's already experiencing a number of volatile crises.'

5. These cartoons prompted civil disorder and violence
Protests and violent riots have occurred all round the world since the initial publication of the Mohammad cartoons.
Pakistani protesters set fire to a church in Sindh province as police battled with rioters in the federal capital, Islamabad. About 400 people attacked the church in the city of Sukkur after accusations that a local Christian had burned pages from the Qur'an, local police said.
The first protests in Nigeria flared in the provinces of Borno and Katsina. Witnesses said hotels and shops were torched by protesters who ran wild after police fired teargas to disperse them. Two weeks later sixteen people were killed during a night of violence during which protesting Muslims burnt churches.
At least nine people were reported dead in the Libyan city of Benghazi after a mob set fire to the Italian consulate. More than 1,000 protesters set upon the mission, setting cars alight and breaking windows, apparently angered by a minister in the government who said he intended to wear T-shirts bearing some of the cartoons.
Three people were killed and many others injured after three consecutive days of violent protests in Pakistan over the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.
Such violence and death has been condemned as the direct consequence of the publication of the cartoons. The editor of Lyllands-Posten has stated that had he known that publishing the cartoons would result in death, terror threats, riots and boycotts then he would not have published the images.

6. No media outlet has unlimited freedom of expression
It has been argued that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not absolute and that restrictions are necessarily placed on each. For example, the publication of information which might jeopardise a nation's security is not allowed. Equally, the publication of material that might limit an accused person's chances of getting a fair trial is also not allowed. Limitations are also placed on freedom of the press and freedom of expression where matters slander or libel is at issue. It is also either unethical or illegal in most jurisdictions to foment public disorder, or racial disharmony.
Mohammad Rashid, writing in Wisconsin's Post-Crescent.com, an Islamic on-line newspaper specialising is supplying news and opinion for Wisconsin's Islamic community, has stated, 'The question is being raised, why should non-Muslims care about [these cartoons]? We live in a pluralistic, democratic and civilized society, which affords us freedom of speech, religion and press. None of these freedoms is, however, unlimited or without any responsibility. One individual's freedom ends where it encroaches into somebody else's freedom. In this society, we're expected to respect each other's freedom and religion. That's the only way we can continue to enjoy a civilized society, where all of its citizens, regardless of color, ethnicity, religion, live in peace and harmony.
A glaring example of limitation of free speech or freedom of press is the media coverage of the events prior to and since the beginning of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Without going into details, it suffices to say that the media hasn't enjoyed 100 percent freedom, nor has there been much of a demand for such freedom.'

Arguments in favour of the publication of cartoons depicting Mohammad
1. These cartoons were published to express political opinions
The most controversial of the cartoons appears to have been one showing Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb.
The cartoonist has claimed that the cartoon is not a ceriticism of Islam per se, nor of the majority of those who adher to the religion. Instead, he claims, it is a protest, a political statement, made in response to a tendency apparent in some followers of Islam. He has written, 'If a religion develops into religious fanaticism, we are faced with totalitarian tendencies, as we have been in the past, such as [with] Fascism and Nazism ...I think we should fight against that, and the weapon of a cartoonist is this pen or pencil ...We did so under the other 'isms. Under communism thousands of satirical drawings and other satire were made that revealed and spoke against it.'

2. These cartoons were not published with the intention of creating civil disorder
Those supporting the publication of the cartoons have argued that newspapers and other media outlets cannot be held responsible for the extreme reactions of a minority. According to this line of argument, if a comment has a public interest purpose, and is not published with the primary purpose of provocation, then the comment is legitimate.
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, has stated, 'The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously - and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world.'

3. Freedom of expression is protected by the Danish constitution.
After the furore surrounding the publication of 12 cartoons depicting Mohammad, the Danish Government issued a media release which included the following statement, 'Freedom of expression means that all citizens in Denmark have the right to express their views in speech and in writing.
Freedom of expression is safeguarded in Denmark through section 77 of the Danish Constitution which lays down that "Any person shall be entitled to publish his thoughts in printing, in writing, and in speech, provided that he may be held answerable in a court of justice" ...
Freedom of expression is not only a Danish legal position. Man's freedom of expression is also included in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.'

4. Suppressing these cartoons would have been a denial of free speech and an attack on the freedom of the press
It has been claimed that any attempt to restrict what can be published in deference to the religious or cultural sensibilities of a particular group constitutes a dangerous limitation on freedom of expression and of the press.
In an editorial published in The Australian on February 4, 2006, it was claimed, 'At the heart of the clash ... is the robust and open nature of intellectual discourse that characterises freedom of speech in liberal democracies ... newspapers across Europe reprinted the cartoons and the BBC aired them in a show of strength for freedom of speech. They have every right to do so. Some Muslims might find the depictions offensive, but the right to offend within the law is fundamental to free speech.'
It has been suggested that the pressure felt by newspapers not to publish these cartoons is an undesirable limitation on freedom of the press. Though over a hundred newspapers around the world have republished the cartoons, the vast majority of English and United States newspapers have refrained from doing so. Major British and American papers have commented on the cartoon controversy editorially, but they have generally agreed not to reproduce the images.
Several editors have been fired for publishing the cartoons and some for indicating that they intended to do so (notably Jacques Lefranc, the managing director of France Soir, owned by Egyptian businessman Raymond Lakah).
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, has stated, 'This is about standing for fundamental values that have been the (foundation) for the development of Western democracies over several hundred years, and we are now in a situation where those values are being challenged.'

5. These cartoons were commissioned in response to previous media self-censorship
Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, has expressed concern about media intimidation. He has claimed that newspapers and other media outlets are limiting what they publish because they are afraid of adverse reactions from some sections of their readership. He believes that this form of self-censorship is damaging political debate in his country and others. A rejection of this sort of self-censorship was one of the reasons why he decided to publish the series of the cartoons that sparked the current controversy.
Mr Rose has stated, 'I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam ... Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.'

6. These cartoons were not intended either to attack or give offence to Muslims
On January 30, 2006, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten posted an editorial which stated, 'In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober. They were not intended to be offensive ... Maybe because of culturally based misunderstandings, the initiative to publish the 12 drawings has been interpreted as a campaign against Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world.
I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and because we respect the right of any human being to practise his or her religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.'
The cartoonist who drew one of the more controversial of the cartoons has claimed, 'There are interpretations of it [the drawing] that are incorrect. The general impression among Muslims is that it is about Islam as a whole. It is not. It is about certain fundamentalist aspects, that of course are not shared by everyone.'
It has further been noted that Denmark has a vigorous tradition of public debate and that its newspapers regularly publish satirical drawings of Christian figures, figures from other faiths and prominent public figures such as Denmark's Queen.
The editor of Jyllands-Posten has claimed, 'By treating Muslims in Denmark as equals [through making their religion the topic of cartoons] ... we are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire ...'
It has further been claimed that those images which have caused most offence within Muslim communities were not published in the Danish press at all. A group of Danish imams has been accused of circulating additional, highly offensive cartoons, which it claims were received as hate mail by Muslims living in Denmark. It has been claimed the imams did not adequately distinguish this additional material from the original 12 drawings which were printed in Jyllands-Posten.

Further implications
It seems likely that the current controversy surrounding the publication of these cartoons will result in more of the sort of self-censorship that Jyllands-Posten wished to challenge. Thus public debate about certain aspects of fundamentalist Islam is now less rather than more likely to occur.
Carsten Juste was the editor of Jyllands-Posten who originally approved the publication of the 12 cartoons. He has since regretted the decision because he believes the furore the cartoons have created has acted against freedom of speech rather than promoted it. He believes that other editors would now be very unlikely to publish anything similar and considers that there will be no further caricatures of Muhammad produced 'within a generation'. Thus he believes that the Islamic fundamentalists prepared to use and threaten violence in the name of protecting their views from challenge have 'won'. He has further stated that had he known that publishing the cartoons would result in death threats, terror threats and boycotts then he would not have published the images.
The controversy also appears to have prompted the Danish Government to strength laws against religious slander, possibly at the expense of freedom of speech. On February 20, 2006, the Danish ambassador to Saudi Arabia announced that Denmark would take steps to ban religious slander in accordance with Danish and European laws. Ambassador Hanz Kingburgh met with Abdullah al-Turki, the General Secretary of the Muslim World League, and discussed Denmark's plans to take legal measures as well as offering the apology offered by the Danish newspaper which was reprinted in the Saudi press over the weekend.
Despite these moves, however, it seems that this controversy has worsened relations between Christian or secular Europeans and the Muslim communities living in their midst.
The publication of these cartoons cannot, therefore, be said to have achieved any of the aims that it intended, rather, only harm has resulted. Does this therefore mean that the cartoons should not have been published? That is a difficult question to answer.
If one of the objects of freedom of speech and the press is to encourage popular debate then that has conspicuously not been achieved by the current controversy. It would have been desirable if the Danish Government, representatives of the Danish media and representatives of Danish Islam had met and arrived at an understanding that included the acknowledgement that no offence was intended to Danish Muslims by the publication of the cartoons. This would have been a far better outcome than Jyllands-Posten's belated apology or the Danish government's moves to prohibit religious slander in a way likely also to restrict freedom of speech.
The position of devout religious believers within a secular state is difficult, but closing down avenues for discussion and debate is, in the long-term, likely only to promote the sort of violence and intolerance that has been exhibited in recent months and years.

Newspaper sources used in the compilation of this outline
The Age:
AGE, February 4, page 19, news item, `Cartoon fury "a clash of civilisations"'.
AGE, February 6, page 1, news item (photos) by B Zwartz, `Muslim cartoon outrage spreads to New Zealand'.
AGE, February 9, page 19, comment by Rami Khoury, `The real truth behind the cartoons theory'.
AGE, February 8, page 17, comment by Irshad Manji, `Lighten up, fellow Muslims, respect is not a one-way street'.
AGE, February 7, page 7, comment by James Button, `Making a caricature of freedom'. AGE, February 7, page 7, analysis (photos) by S Das, `Publish and be damned: the fight for freedom of expression' (with related item by B Zwartz, `What the fuss is all about'
AGE, February 7, page 12, editorial, `Igniting a tinderbox of intolerance in a divided world'.
AGE, February 7, page 13 comment by Maher Mughrabi, `Drawing a line: trampling others' beliefs in defence of yours'.
AGE, February 6, page 2, news item by Chee Chee Leung, Most pupils see Muslims as terrorists'.

The Australian:
AUST, February 1, page 9, news item (photos), `Muslim backlash over cartoons forces Danish newspaper to apologise'.
AUST, February 9, page 12, comment by Leon Hadar, `Democracy not an export item'.
AUST, February 6, page 8, comment (with cartoon) by Paul Comrie-Thomson, `Why religion can be a laughing matter'.
AUST, February 6, page 11, news item, `Depictions of prophet nothing new'.
AUST, February 4, page 16, editorial, `Clash of cultures'.
AUST, February 20, page 9, comment by Danish editor Flemming Rose, `Why I published those cartoons about Mohammed'.
AUST, February 6, page 11, news item (photos) by E Symons, `Embassies torched as cartoon conflict divides West'.

The Herald-Sun:
H/SUN, February 9, page 20, comment by Jill Singer, `Damned if you do or don't'.
H/SUN, February 8, page 21, comment (photo) by Andrew Bolt, `Fear is not funny'.

Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.

Google