A Danish paper has stirred up a huge row with its series of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammed basically looking like a fool. It’s a bit more complicated than that, but not much more. In order to understand the issues involved, I’ve uploaded two of the most offensive images here (thanks to Di2.nu for the images). I warn anyone who might come here to cheer these images that I have not displayed them in order to promote their message, but in order to understand the depth of emotion and principle (to the extent there is any) involved on both sides of this argument.
Let’s start off talking about the cartoons themselves and the motivations of the cartoonist and newspaper that published them. These are deeply offensive cartoons created by insensitive individuals. If I were Muslim they would make my blood boil too. There’s no doubt in my mind that publishing these cartoons was meant to throw sand in the eye of Muslims. As we all know, there is an argument raging in right-wing circles (especially in Europe) that Muslims refuse to integrate into the “majority” culture; that they therefore cannot be trusted to become full members of any non-Muslim society in which they live; that they see themselves as superior to non-Muslims, etc. etc.
The sentiment behind these cartoons is precisely that of this anti-Muslim argument. For all these reasons, I say that the Jyllands-Posten is getting precisely what it deserves in terms of opprobrium from the Muslim world.
That being said, I in no way support some of the extreme aspects of the Muslim reaction to the cartoons’ publication. Because a newspaper publishes an odious religious image does that mean the entire nation is at fault? Does that mean you punish that nation’s businesses as if they colluded in the publication as well? Does that mean that Muslim gunmen are justified in strong-arming their way in the Gaza offices of the EU or in taking a German hostage on the West Bank? Such overreaction is just as odious if not moreso than the original cartoons.
What is required is calm, discussion, debate, an attempting to find common ground. Danes should be demonstrating on behalf of their own Muslim community and against the cartoons. Muslims should express appreciation for such support. The problem with the escalation on both sides is that it crowds out moderation and constructive dialogue. We see this constantly in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The hotheads seem to run the agenda leaving progressives on the margins of the debate. I only hope cooler heads will prevail; that Arab governments and European governments might have an emergency summit at which they discuss such issues and issue denunciations of extremism on both sides of the divide.
One thing, by the way, which I find hard to understand is why you can’t see these images in the mainstream media. I guess this is yet another example of the postive role blogs provide in covering stories in ways the big guys can’t or won’t.
They shouldn’t have published pictures like that.
In Islam we’re not even allowed to draw pictures of the Prophet peace be upon him.
We dont draw pictures of Jesus or Moses, we respect all the prophets.
We love our prophet peace be upon him.
As I’ve followed this controversy, I’ve basically wished a big womp on the head to everyone involved. I don’t know how you reconcile the belief that no images should ever be made of the Prophet, even respectful ones, with a free press.
But those cartoons were just DUMB. What the hell was the point? This was not a smart battle to fight.
Oops, and I don’t know what the hamptonroads link was doing in there. Darn autofill. Sorry!
Wait everyone!
This is important. It’s not like the cartoonists just published the cartoons for fun. A Danish writer had written a sympathetic children’s book to explain Islam, but he could not find any artists in Denmark who were willing to work with him, for fear of death threats or worse for even depicting Mohanned in a pictorial way, which is forbidden in Isamlic law:
How it all began:
On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed. NOTE: These had been commissioned by the culture editor Flemming Rose, AFTER he learned that the children’s book author Kare Bluitgen had been UNABLE to find an illustrator for his new book project: the life of the prophet Mohammed, as told for children.
MONEY QUOTE: “He wanted to see how deep the self-censorship in Denmark lies,” today’s Zeit quotes Rose as saying in a detailed background article.
Kathleen Parker’s column also says:
The cartoonists in question are a dozen Danish artists who drew
Muhammad-themed cartoons last September for the Danish newspaper
Jyllands-Posten during an exercise to test the limits of free speech.
*******The cartoon-a-thon was conceived in response to complaints from a
Danish author who couldn’t find anyone to illustrate her Muhammad
children’s book.
Although the book itself was not controversial, the Muslim faith
considers it blasphemy to depict the Prophet in any way.
So you see, there is MORE here than meets the eye.
The image of the Prophet Muhammad as a suicide bomber is literally an explosive one., noted Jefferson Morley in the Washington Post.
Several cartoons published in the Danish newspaper Jyland Posten last fall have stirred an international controversy, with Arab countries withdrawing diplomats from Copenhagen and calling for a boycott of Danish goods.
The paper published the cartoons in response to news reports that a local author couldn’t find illustrators for a children’s book on the life of Muhammad due to the Islamic prohibition of images of its founding prophet.
The newspaper’s apology, issued today in English on their Web site, said the images were part of a “debate on freedom of expression.”
The images “were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize.”
The paper denied the images were part of a “campaign against Islam.”
“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,” the editors of the popular daily said, “offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us. That this happened was, consequently, unintentional.”
The blogger DI2nu, who you qote above, now has note on blog that reads: ”As a mark of respect to the large number of dead in the recent Egyptian ferry disaster I have decided to remove the images.”
Why Muslims are so sensitive to images of Prophet being used BASHIR MAAN MUSLIMS hold the Prophet in such high respect and reverence that he is only after God. He is regarded more respectfully than one’s parents. Believers think of him as the prefect human being in the world. Islam forbids images of anybody. Images are forbidden in the Koran. There are many verses in the Koran which condemn worshipping idols. From that we draw that idols are paintings and pictures, and particularly pictures of the Prophet. There were no paintings in his life of how he looked. There are descriptions of how he looked and explanations of his facial features, but no pictures. It is regarded as idolatrous. That is the reason that the Prophet prohibited images in the house. But the Prophet is more defended because of the respect and reverence that we have for him. There are some people who say that photographs are acceptable because that is not a painting. They say that a photograph does not come into that category. But, on the whole, Muslims do not like photographs or idols. Veneration starts from the photographs and causes idolatry. It will never change because it covers everything. Islam is a way of life. It covers every aspect of human life. There is no room for innovation or changes there. Everything is proscribed. The best thing is the template of the life of the Prophet. Everything was written down, it was history. But there is no rigidity, there are no extremes in Islam, no right or left. Those who protest can protest peacefully. As they have the right to print, so they have the right to protest. There should not be any violence. I don’t think the pictures should have been published. It only widens the… Read more »
Wikipedia has a comprehensive article on the entire controversy.
Note: CNN has chosen to not show the cartoons out of respect for Islam.
Just goes to show that globalization and the mixing of cultures will at some point explode.
So you see, there is MORE here than meets the eye. Danny Bee: Sorry to say–not really. First, I don’t buy that a children’s book author cannot find an illustrator willing to draw the prophet Muhammed. Perhaps, she wanted to find a Muslim illustrator to do this. You don’t specify precisely what she was seeking. I can believe that a Muslim would not want to illustrate such a book. But a non-Muslim artist would certainly do this. Second (and as you point out in your description of the twelve cartoons), two of the twelve (neither of which I display here) depict said children’s book author as a PR hound. So I don’t believe this enterprise was a good faith attempt to test freedom of expression. There were ulterior motives that besmirch any pure ones. I choose to believe that this author or the editors (or both) were trying to provoke Muslims for the sake of making some personal or perhaps political point. Again, whatever they were trying to do was ill-informed & ill-conceived. I’m in favor of freedom of the press. But I’m not in favor of letting a newspaper do the equivalent of shouting fire in a burning theater. That’s what Jyllands-Posten has done with this incident. If they were truly interested in portraying the prophet Muhammed why were so many of the cartoons derisive and insulting? Now that they’ve done it I’m afraid we have to say they have a right to do so. Unfortunately, freedom of the press also includes the right to be stupid, which the Danish publication has been in spades. The newspaper’s apology, issued today in English on their Web site, said the images were part of a “debate on freedom of expression.” The images “were not intended to be offensive… They must be… Read more »
Nah, doesn’t need to if people try to honor & respect the culture & religion of others. The main thing is to think how your action would appear to the person to whom it’s addressed. Before you draw a caricature of the prophet with an exploding bomb in his turban think how this might appear to Muslims–BEFORE you do it. Not after. Jyllands-Posten didn’t bother to think about what they were doing beforehand. Or if they did their thinking was woefully inadequate.
I’m sorry to hear that. I think he was performing an important service in the pursuit of knowledge & understanding. Not sure I quite understand the connection he’s making betwen the ferry disaster & these images (of course I understand that he doesn’t want to do anything insulting to Islam in the midst of this tragedy–but this distinction doesn’t seem persuasive to me). But let me add that I certainly mourn the loss of life in this terrible disaster.
I’m certain I’m not the only progressive blogger with these images–at least I hope not.
Richard, You are right, that the newspaper certainly didn’t have to sponsor that cartoon contest as a fullpage feature in order to illustrate the plight of the children’s author who could not find an artist to work on the book with him. A much better editorial idea would have been to write a story about the kids book author and how he was having trouble finding an illtrustator and why. THAT would have been education and non-incendiary. In doing what they did, you are right, they blew up a bomb and it is going off right now worldwide and who knows when it will stop. Bad move on the editor’s part. He was not thinking things through. However, one note: the author of the kids book, a man, Danish man, he wrote the text and could not find anyone in Denmark willing to illustrate it for his publisher. Really. This is true. When you wrote above: “I don’t buy that a children’s book author cannot find an illustrator willing to draw the prophet Muhammed. Perhaps, [he] wanted to find a Muslim illustrator to do this. You don’t specify precisely what [he] was seeking. I can believe that a Muslim would not want to illustrate such a book. But a non-Muslim artist would certainly do this.” …… From what I can find out online so far, the writer did write a sympathetic book about Islam for Danish kids, in Danish, and he had a publisher for it, and they were looking for an artist, any ethnicity, male or female, to do the artwork, and they could not find EVEN ONE willing to sign on. When the newspaper heard this story, the editors there decided to sponsor a context to “illustrate” the problem of depicting images of the Prophet in Danish publications,… Read more »
Hamlet: something is rotten in the state of Denmark:
For discussion: On September 30, 2005, last year, the daily Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (“The Jutland Post”) in Denmark published an article titled “Muhammeds ansigt” (“Muhammad’s face”). The article consisted of 12 satirical caricatures of Muhammad and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten’s culture editor, commented:
QUOTE: 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 12 members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. […]” UNQUOTE
BTW, Reactions in support of Jyllands-Posten
A web badge used by the “Buy Danish” campaign.Various people and groups, including conservatives, liberals, anti-Islamist groups, White Supremacy groups, freedom of speech proponents, anticlericalists and American weblogs[29] have initiated a Buy Danish Goods campaign, which is intended to counter the boycott from Middle East countries.[30]
The president of Reporters Without Borders Robert Ménard says that Morgenavisen Jyllandsposten has taught the world a thing or two about free speech and that there is nothing for which to apologise.[31]
Is this shades of Salman Rushdie all over again. Would love to hear what he has to say about all this. QUOTES anywhere? Remember when when there were calls to kill him, now calls to kill the cartoonists? This is getting ugly. A newspaper in New Zealand a very good editorial, The precious right of freedom of speech: 04 February 2006 Modern society rests on the contest of ideas, the ability to question perceived wisdom and to challenge authority, The Dominion Post writes in an editorial. Without that contest, and the right to free speech that makes it possible, societies stultify and become entrenched in their beliefs. That freedom to question and to challenge must include the right to be offensive, to affront people’s most heartfelt beliefs, even to disparage that which they hold sacred. Otherwise it is an empty freedom. Our decision to publish the 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed from the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (Jutland Post) at the centre of the escalating row between the Muslim world and the nations of the West is not one that the newspaper has taken lightly. However, in the clash of values at the centre of the dispute not to publish because of fear of disturbing the sensibilities of Muslims would be to give way in the face of bullying threats. That is what Muslims are seeking to have the Western democracies do with their threats of bombs and trade boycotts. There is no doubt that Muslims find the portrayal of the Prophet offensive. The Koran is clear that the slander and mockery of Islam and prayer crosses a sacred boundary, and warns that those who cross that boundary will be hurled into “crushing disaster”. Mufti Abdul Barkatullah, a member of the British Muslim Council, calls it a no-go area at… Read more »
The New Zealand editorial is largely hogwash. Certainly the general principles it enunciates about freedom of speech and of the press are laudable. But this is high-minded boilerplate. And the Jyllands-Posten incident is something other what they portray it.
In addition, I’d be willing to bet (w/o having researched this) that 90% or more of the newspapers printing the cartoons (including Jyllands-Posten) have right-wing editorial positions. I’d be willing to bet that many or most of them have published editorials critical of foreign immigration, and of the rights of minorities to practice their religious beliefs in public settings (like women wearing a head coverings).
Again, a mischaracterization of the issue. The real issue is the deliberately insulting portrayal of the prophet. If Jyllands-Posten published portraits of the prophet that were thoughtful or interesting or probing, I wouldn’t be complaining here nor would Muslims throughout the world. But instead the cartoons were (with a few exceptions) either thoughtlessly provocative or insipid.
I find it interesting that although you agree with the reasons that Muslims are upset by the publications of the cartoons, you still are showing the images of the cartoons on your website. It is my understanding that the image of Mohammed should not be seen. The offensive nature of the cartoons only adds insult to injury. It is not just the original publication of the cartoons, but the repetition of exposure of the images that is sacreligious.
Richard and I are friends so we can discuss things here rationally and even at times agree to disagree, SMILE. — Danny Bee You wrote: “Again, a mischaracterization of the issue. The real issue is the deliberately insulting portrayal of the prophet. If Jyllands-Posten published portraits of the prophet that were thoughtful or interesting or probing, I wouldn’t be complaining here nor would Muslims throughout the world. But instead the cartoons were (with a few exceptions) either thoughtlessly provocative or insipid. ” Beg to differ here: The real issue is NOT the delberately insulting portrayal of Mohammed. The editors did not draw the cartoons. In a test of free speech and free expression, they asked 40 Danish cartoonists to submit cartoons about Islam or Mohammed or the kids book controversy ….(AND IT NOW TURNS OUT, …… CNN IS REPORTING, THAT THE KIDS BOOK WAS PUBLISHED IN DENMARK LAST YEAR AND SOLD IN BOOKSTORES and IT WAS ILLUSTRATED BY A DANISH ARTIST, but he ASKED THAT HIS NAME BE KEPT OFF THE COVER AND INSIDE BOOK art credits FOR FOR FEAR OF BACKLASH FOR EVEN PORTRAYING THE NEUTRAL IMAGE OF MOHAMMED IN PUBLIC PRINTS)… and out of the 40 artists queried, just 12 entered the fray with their cartoons which the newspaper editors published without alteration or censorship. The editor of the paper today on CNN International Correpsondentrs show said that he never considered the cartoons insulting to Mohammed but were merely caricatures of what the artists felt were issues worth portraying. Again, the editor Mr Rose did not draw the cartoons. He merely asked for submissions to illustrate a point and he printed the 12 cartoons that came in. Another point. this all happened 4-5 months ago and there was not a peep out of anyone in the Moslem world.… Read more »
Btw, a columnist at one American newspaper noted, in regard to this issue:
“Thanks for your note, Danny Bee, and for reading the column. I did indeed look into the original purpose of creating the cartoons. But I think the Danish newspaper may be backpeddling a little bit here. Okay, the original purpose was to spark a conversation in relation to the issue of self censorship. But that doesn’t explain the need for intentionally incendiary cartoons (and at least three of them are particularly insulting). This doesn’t change my sense that calling for the Danish government or any Western government to apologize or curtain press freedoms is ridiculous.”
Another columnist wrote: “Danny, thanks for your note. I do think we have reached the tipping point. Clarity at last.”
I find it interesting that although you agree with the reasons that Muslims are upset by the publications of the cartoons, you still are showing the images of the cartoons on your website. Not quite. I am not a Muslim. Therefore I do not feel bound by strict Islamic practice regarding the portrayal of the prophet’s face. Next, I did not say I agreed with the reasons the Muslims are upset. If a Muslim is upset with the insulting portrayal of Muhammed then, yes, I’m with them. If a Muslim is upset & believes that no non-Muslim has the right to portray the prophet no matter his or her intention–that’s a position I disagree with. It is my understanding that the image of Mohammed should not be seen. The offensive nature of the cartoons only adds insult to injury. It is not just the original publication of the cartoons, but the repetition of exposure of the images that is sacreligious. You’ve heard of the notion of education? You’ve heard of the notion of teaching tolerance and understanding for those outside your own nation or religion? That is the purpose of displaying these images. I want people to know the nasty nature of these images so people will understand how wrongheaded Jyllands-Posten’s project was. If all we do is talk about the controversy and never see what started it–how can we talk about it in an informed way? It makes the entire debate disembodied & awkward. My ultimate goal in this post is something other than to adhere to Islamic practice. My goal is to teach tolerance. Tolerance for Islam and tolerance for all religions & cultures, even those with whom we sometimes find disagreement. An interesting aside…I believe that Brandeis’ Jewish film center owns the rights to distribute various Nazi… Read more »
The real issue is NOT the delberately insulting portrayal of Mohammed. The editors did not draw the cartoons…The editor of the paper today on CNN International Correpsondentrs show said that he never considered the cartoons insulting to Mohammed but were merely caricatures of what the artists felt were issues worth portraying. Again, the editor Mr Rose did not draw the cartoons. Danny: If I’m a newspaper editor and I commission a journalist or cartoonist to create a work for my publication, and then after reading it myself, I publish it in said paper…who is responsible if it turns out the piece is insulting, incendiary, in bad taste, etc. Is it the journalist/cartoonist or me? Well sure, it’s both. But much more onus is on the editor who both commissioned the work and decided to publish it. What’s more, he received twelve cartoons. Who said he had to publish all of them? An editor loses the ability to edit when it comes to publishing cartoons? Nah. He was courting notoriety and controversy when he published those negative cartoons. Only he didn’t understand the hornet’s nest he was stirring up when he did that. Now he, his paper and his nation will unfortuately have to pay a price. You published a comment fr. the Jyllands-Posten editor earlier in which he said that if he knew then what he knew now he never would’ve pushed that ‘Publish’ button. But that’s stupid. I’m no professional journalist & I could’ve told him what he might be facing before he hit that button. Why didn’t he have the slightest sense to understand what might happen? Isn’t the job of an editor to anticipate what might happen if he or his journalists write about controversial subjects? I’m not saying they shouldn’t (after all that’s one of the… Read more »
Richard, I support your stated goal here in displaying the cartoons. It is an important one. BTW, let’s get real, everyone! Nobody knows what Mohammed looked like, there are no photos of Him, just as we don’t know what Jesus looked it either, nor Moses, nor Buddha. We are dealing with Ancient History here. So if somebody says that is Mohammed in one of the cartoons, how do we know? There are no existing images of what he looked like while he was alive here on Earth, same with Jesus and Moses and Buddha and other prophets, except for okay, Joseph Smith and Bubba Free John. The editor of the Danish newspapers told CNN today that he didn’t SEE the cartoon about the man with the turban as a terrorist bomb as Mohammed, but just as a depiction of that cartoonist’s view of a Moslem man, not the Prophet per see. It never entered his head, he said. He said he said. This entire malaise is about fanaticism and superstition and good intentions gone awry, in addition to a global media circus whipping up even more dismay. Sometimes I feel that we moderns, living today, are the unahppy inheritors of ancient superstitious screeds that continue to warp men’s (and women’s) minds worldwide, resulting in this huge clash of civilizations that in no way began with 911 and in no way stops there. We are in for over 1000 years of this meshagus, better get used to it. And in a way, the Internet and the global media reach, only help spread the misinformation and poison worldwide. But, yes, let’s teach tolerance and let’s foster the notion of education and enlightenment. The world is not over yet. Although the end is nigh. Near. It could very well be that human beings… Read more »
Pat Robertson still has not weighed in on this weighty issue. He will. G-d willing.
What’s next? More intolerance? Friendly handshakes across the seas? Holy War?
Question: all this beccause of a minor unheralded illustrated children’s book to teach respect for Islam in Denmark that didn’t even sell 3000 copies????????????????
You say: The real issue is the deliberately insulting portrayal of the prophet. But isn’t it just the portrayal of the prophet- insulting or not and deliberate or not. I have looked at the cartoons on your site and a friend had sent me all of them- Sorry, but I do not see them as insulting and I would not know they were suppposed to be iimages of Mohammed if it diid not state it specifically- The best of editorial cartoon rely on the reader/viewer to interprete.
In fact the idea of the “Sorry We ran out…” seems not insulting but quite parallel to many editorial cartoons. Sorry, but not being Moslem I tend to see the issue of religious insults on the same level as the issues of inadvertent insullts to the feelings of the Catholic Church- The entire secular world cannot be expected- or at lest should not be expected- to accord to the demands of the religious issue of a particular faith. The issue of image of God is common in many religiuns, and somehow the world has gotten past it. Although I may point out the recent riots of Haredim in Israel over an autopsy of a suspicious death although most Rabbeim would say it is approvable for those reasons: Nonetheless, groups of haredim felt “insulted” by that offensive act. Thank you,
Actually, the Muslim prohibition against portraying the Prophet parallels a Jewish prohibition against portraying God (“You shall make no graven image”). No one knows what Yaweh looks like but that might not stop an artist from attempting to portray Him/Her. Hence the reason for the commandment. Similarly, it doesn’t matter whether or not we know what the real Prophet looked like. What Islam is getting at is the Prophet was so profound that he cannot be imaged by mere human beings.
Max: There is a very delicate line we walk as human beings. We all belong to different ethnic and religious traditions and are members of different nation states. The problem I have with those who honor their own traditions but somehow misplace sympathy for those who adhere to different ones is this–if we cannot stop for a moment and try to see it through their eyes then why should they try to see things through ours when we ask them to?
This does not mean I’m asking you to become a slavish apologist for Islam, faults and all. I’m just asking people to walk a mile in an Muslim’s shoes before you doubt the validity of their sense of injustice.
Look at it this way, an Arab cartoonist portrays Moses with a kipah that displays images of an Israeli flag and an F-16. Would it piss you off? It would me. I’d call it not just anti-Israel, but anti-Semitic. I’d also call it tasteless & insulting. So what’s different when a Danish cartoonist draws something similar?
“What Islam is getting at is the Prophet was so profound that he cannot be imaged by mere human beings.”
THAT is fine for adherents of the religion in question. But those who follow other religions or belief systems and live in the modern world, can’t they draw pictures of Mohammed and depict what he might have looked like?
The Orthodxo Jews always write God as G-d, because they are taught that thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. That’s okay. But I can write God and they don’t get angry at me. Or threaten to burn my embassies.
It’s time for the Moslem world to grow up and face modern times. i know it’s not kosher or PC to say such a thing, but so be it. Tolerance. Englightment. Education. But most of all, tolerance.
Like Max said so well above:
“I do not see them as insulting and I would not know they were suppposed to be iimages of Mohammed if it did not state it so specifically — The best of editorial cartoons rely on the reader/viewer to interprete.’
Amen.
Now the question is: will TIME or NEWSWEEK magazine in the USA dare to print the cartoons in question here. We will see on Monday,
Ricahrd,
On this point, you are spot on, and good on ya, mate: ” I’m just asking people to walk a mile in an Arab’s shoes before you doubt the validity of their sense of injustice.”
yes yes yes: walking a mile in an Arab’s shoes, I feel their sense of anger and injustice over the publication of those 12 cartoons. Their sense of anger and injustice is valid.
But don’t burn Danish embassies down for G-d’s sake! Just write a letter to the editor, like most civilized people would do.
What some are saying…
‘I have been hurt, grieved and I am angry.’
–Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf
‘There is freedom of speech, we all respect that, but there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory… I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary, it has been insensitive, it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong.’
–Foreign Secretary Jack Straw
‘We’d take Muslim protests more seriously if they weren’t so hypocritical… The imams were quiet when Syrian TV showed Jewish rabbis as cannibals in a primetime series.’
–Berlin’s Die Welt which republished one of the cartoons
‘We didn’t think the cartoons had crossed any line… We are the biggest newspaper in Denmark. We have always been the enfant terrible of the Danish press. Our cartoonists have made fun of politicians, Jesus and the Virgin Mary.’
–Jan Lund, foreign editor of Danish Jyllands-Posten
‘As much as we condemn this, we must have, as Muslims, the courage to forgive and to not make an issue… between religions or cultures.’
–Afghan president Hamid Karzai
‘This plays into the hands of Muslim extremists. Many people at Friday prayers will want to express their anger, but we say do it within the law.’
–Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain
‘If someone said something offensive about my mother, I would deal with it, but if they insulted the Prophet it would be worse.’
–Abdullah Wahim, teacher, outside the Danish embassy in London