The Muslim countries from Morocco to the Philippines have demonstrations against the twelve cartoons published in the Danish newspaper, Jyllandsposten. Many people have been killed, Embassies and flags have been burned, and there are high rewards for killing any of the artists behind the cartoons.

My personal view is that the cartoons are actually cute and harmless seen from the Danish tradition of cartoons. None of them are evil or demonising at all, or expresses contempt or degradation. Therefore it is difficult to understand how these drawings can have offended most Muslims and caused such a rage in a big part of the world. It could be interesting to make some small conferences on a university level to discuss in which ways these drawings could be seen as harmful or insulting.

A conference could consist of professors of literature, art, religion etc. and of artists and journalists. Fifty percent of the participants could be Muslims. Each of the cartoons should be evaluated on different advantages and disadvantages and for the artistic impression. Finally there should be a concluding discussion.

The aim is to get an “objective” evaluation of these drawings, and get an understanding of when, why and how they or other drawings are harmful to the Muslims. The drawings will function as examples in an otherwise abstract discussion. The aim is understanding. Negotiation of moral or legal guidelines for future behaviour belongs elsewhere.

It is ironic, that most of the furious masses have exactly not seen the drawings. They of course have ideas of what these drawings are like, but what people don’t know often hurts the most, and there have been many rumours.

It has been told, that Danes wanted to burn the Koran in demonstrations; that Muslims were not allowed to build mosques in Denmark; that the Danish government owns the actual newspaper; that the Danish government wanted to censor the Koran; that a publishing house wanted to publish the cartoons in a book for children to teach them not to have religious taboos; etc. These are rumours that have been printed on a diplomatic level (the last mentioned in a letter to Kofi Annan from the Egyptian minister of foreign affairs).

Some Danish Muslim imams have travelled in the Middle East with the cartoons to collect indignation from colleagues. They have also brought three drawings of quite another calibre, that they claim to have received as anonymous letters; these are drawings, that are maximum unpleasant (even though one of them is a misty copy of a picture from the Internet of the winner of a French pig screaming contest). The three false cartoons have in the presentation been mixed up with the originals e.g. by BBC.

To get back to the twelve original cartoons, I will in the following describe each of them, as many of the readers have not seen them or forgotten them. Twelve newspapers in Muslim countries have been closed down for showing the cartoons. A Swedish website has been closed, and the minister of foreign affairs had to resign. A German website has been closed too.

The story connected to the drawings was, that a Danish writer, Kåre Bluitgen, complained that he could not find an artist to illustrate his book about Islam as rumours said, that you were not allowed to depict Mohammad. This rule could not count non Muslims, so to test this Jyllandsposten asked some artists to “draw Mohammad as you see him”, and published them in an article, “The face of Mohammad”.

The artists had no reason to draw Mohammad in any special way and more of them reflect their own situation in the drawing. I will begin with most harmless cartoons and let them follow in the order of expected rising harm:

1.  This cartoon shows a modern schoolboy with an arrow pointing at him saying: “Mohammad Valby school 7A”. With the pointer he points at an Arabic text on the blackboard. The text says (in Arabic) “The journalists on Jyllandsposten are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs”. He is a modern nice, sporty second generation immigrant kid. On his shirt is a Danish text saying: “THE FUTURE” (the Danish word sounds a bit like a known soccer team). The cartoon has nothing to do with the Prophet.

2.  This cartoon shows the writer, Kåre Bluitgen (Who’s book started the whole thing). In his hand he holds a childish drawing with a stick figure with beard and turban. Kåre Bluitgen also wears a turban and an orange with the text: “PR – STUNT”. It is a Danish expression that “an orange fell into your turban” or “that’s an orange in your turban”, if something extraordinary lucky happens (seemingly) by coincidence. The cartoon has nothing to do with the Prophet, except for the neutral stick drawing.

3.  This cartoon shows a wanderer in the desert at sunrise or sunset. It is a sympathetic, mild and thoughtful man with black beard and with a pilgrim’s staff and a donkey in the background. He is dressed in white, with a red brown turban and bare-footed in sandals. It is an aesthetic drawing like hundreds of drawings already made over the centuries of Mohammad.

4.  This cartoon shows the artist sitting at his drawing table late at night sketching a drawing of Mohammad. The drawing in the drawing has the text: “Mohammad”. The shade is closed. The artist is very nervous. He is sweating, has a cigarette in his mouth, is partly hiding his head behind his shoulders, is looking over his shoulder and trying to cover the drawing with his left hand. This is not a drawing of Mohammad, but of a man who is feeling very nervous over making a drawing of Mohammad.

5.  This cartoon shows 7 persons lined up in an identification process like at the police station behind a one way screen. They all wear a turban. We can recognise Jesus (by his nimbus) and Buddha, but also a hippie, a Danish right wing female politician and clearly the writer Kåre Bluitgen who has a sign saying: “Kåre’s PR, Call for an offer”. There is also a sympathetic man with a black beard. In the foreground there is a thoughtful observer, who is saying: “Hm…. I don’t recognize him”. The joke is, that it is difficult to know what Muhammad looks like, that many want to get in the line of celebrities and that Kåre Bluitgen talked so much to promote his book. The cartoon might show Muhammad, but in no way is it negative. The only one he possibly could be is the best looking person in the row.

6.  This cartoon shows an emir in a palace. He stands looking at a paper that he holds in his left hand. Two eager and obliging warriors come running into the room, one with a sword and the other with a bomb in his hands and a machinegun over the shoulder. The emir stops them waving his right hand saying: “Easy friends, when all comes to all it is just a sketch made by an infidel from South West Denmark”. This is how the artist hopes that the emir will react. We cannot see the drawing or what is on his papers. It is only for Muslims that it is forbidden to make drawings of Muhammad, not for infidels. The emir could be Muhammad and the modern weapons could be anachronisms, but there is nothing condescending in the figure. He is a powerful and polite man.

7.  This cartoon shows a tall man in loose clothing with turban and barefooted in sandals. The hands are in the opposite large sleeves. He has a gentle posture and a gentle face, but we cannot see his mouth in the full beard, which adds to an inscrutable expression in his face. He looks straight at the reader with sort of a twinkle in his eyes. He has a nimbus which is also the Arab half moon. It sits over his head in a way that can also associate to horns. This is the expression in his face: “Hey, look what I can do with my nimbus”. The cartoon is subtle and can be interpreted in many ways expressing doubt of what Islam is. Most obvious would be a positive interpretation, as the whole posture of the man is friendly and arch.

8.  This cartoon is an icon or logo. It is a stylistic face built upon the Arab half-moon and star. The half-moon frames the face and the star is the one eye or covers the one eye. The half-moon and the star are green and the rest is black and white. A few solid lines build the turban and eye, nose and beard. In the black beard the under lip is clear. The drawing is very neutral, simple and icon like. Actually an underground orchestra in Teheran, The Insj’Allahs, is said to have wanted the drawing as cover icon.

9.  This cartoon pictures Muhammad standing on a cloud in Heaven. A row of suicide bombers has just arrived with blown up tattered clothes and still smoking from the blast. Muhammad holds his arms out and says with a concerned face: “Stop Stop, We have run out of virgins!” Each suicide bomber is said to be promised 72 virgins in Paradise. This is a traditional cartoon and the one that people (also Muslims) laugh at. Mohammad is not degraded in any way.

10.  This cartoon shows three persons on a green background. In the middle is a man in a white tunic and turban. Over his left shoulder he has a blanket. In his right hand he holds a scimitar ready and another saber is hanging on his back. He has a tremendous full beard and big eyebrows. His eyes are covered with a black rectangle like in newspaper pictures, when people are not supposed to be recognised. Behind him are two women dressed in black chadors that only leave an open rectangle the size of the rectangle that covers the eyes of Mohammad. The women’s eyes are scared and wide open. Mohammad seems ready to fight. This is a stylistic study showing the women’s eyes rectangular hole in the black clothing parallel to his covered eyes.

11.  This cartoon is a highly stylistic and rather abstract study. The cartoonist constructs silhouettes of women with the Arab half-moon as an angry and talking mouth and a Jewish star as eye (instead of the five-legged Arab star). Upon the face some lines indicate hair. He makes five almost identical faces. This chorus of women (most likely European women) grumbles over the Prophet: “Prophet! Daft and dumb, keeping women under thumb”. This cartoon does not show the prophet at all, but it criticises him, and the effect of his teaching on today’s life for many Muslim women. Is that going too far?

12.  This cartoon is the most known. This is the one that is used in demonstrations all over the world as an example of the twelve cartoons to feed the rage of the masses. The cartoon shows the head of a man with a round bomb with a lighted fuse in his black turban. The man has a black full beard. His expression is strong, energetic and angry. This is also the one of the 12 cartoons that with any reasonableness could be questioned in a context of blasphemy. It is important not to forget that terrorism often has been done in the name of Islam and Mohammad. Somebody could get offended if they read this cartoon as a statement that Mohammad was a violent person, but as a cartoon it must be read in a context of the present situation where violence done in the name of Islam has gotten a lot of attention since 9/11 (and also in relation to the cartoons after their publication). Except for the association to anger and violence there is nothing humiliating, condescending or degrading in the cartoon. It is ironic that for example in an Afghan demonstration of rage over the cartoons the message to the press was that 150 suicide bombers were ready to give their life to defend the Prophet against such insults.

The Danish Director of Public Prosecutions has on 15 March 2006 decided that none of the cartoons can be seen juridical as against the Danish law, and he has therefore decided not to institute criminal proceedings.

References:

Decision
Press release

It is his duty to refuse the case if it is hopeless, but it could have been more satisfying for the complainants to have the case tested in court. An appeal to the UN or the Court of Human Rights is considered unavailing by experts but it might cause a process that can provide more clarity and guidelines for future use.

The Union of Lawyers in Multan in Pakistan is said to have promised 10 million rupees (140.000 USD) for each of the cartoon artists that are killed. The chairman, Syes Athar Shah Bukhari, is alleged to have given this promise at a demonstration in the beginning of March 2006. On March 10 the Pakistani Imam Maulana Yousaf Qureshi also put a price on the heads of the artists. Later a minister of the state Utter Pradesh in India, Mohammed Yaqoob Qureshi, also did so.

The known Pakistani cricketer Imran Khan has said to BBC:

“I don’t think the message has got through that for us it’s far more painful than perhaps even the Holocaust for the Jews. Any caricature or any ridicule or any humiliation of the holy prophet is far more painful for the Muslims.”

The French philosopher Voltaire is in many ways the epitome of “the freedom of expression”. He is very much quoted for having said:

“I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

A cultural center of a small French town, Saint-Genis-Pouilly, organised a reading of Voltaire’s play from 1741, Mahomet, ou le Fanatisme (Fanatism, or Mahomet the Prophet), but the event was met with strong objections from Muslims. It is interesting, that actually Voltaire emphasized in the play the tolerance of Islam compared to Christianity. The essence of the play is a critique of the Church and the absolute monarchy. The Lord Mayor did not give in, but called in police reinforcements.

The age of Enlightenment (about 1680 – 1780) was a period marked by curiosity and very positive to Islam and other foreign religions. But what ever is written in history is not to be censored.

Denmark has been criticized in the broadcast “60 Minutes” for not being prepared to receive immigrants and that might be thrue to some extent. Denmark used to be one of the most homogenous countries in the world. Today 4 – 5% of the population is Muslims (“60 Minutes” said 2%, but it is not so); 35 years ago it was zero. That is a great change. There are other groups of immigrants, but they integrate smoothly.

As a Dane it is a bit shocking to see the Danish flag being burned around in the world. According to Danish law it is strictly forbidden to burn the flag of a foreign country. A Dane is allowed to burn the Danish flag, but not others. We used to see ourselves as a whole as peace loving people (this is one of the reasons why we have received so many refugees and immigrants in this small country), so for many it is difficult every night on the TV News to see people shouting that Danes should be beheaded. For most Danes it is surrealistic and beyond understanding.

Many articles have been written on the cartoons, especially in Denmark of course, but also in most of the world and on the internet. Many of those who participate do not know or do not remember the cartoons, and the discussion is dealing with rumours and many other things at the same time and many people seem interested in feeding the fire of the conflict.

Therefore some conferences on university level or of a similar objectivity with participation of Muslims and Non Muslims could be interesting. These cartoons have got far more attention than they deserve. That calls for further investigation. It is a new situation. Today news spreads over the world in minutes, whereas just a few years ago a country could lean on its own traditions and sort of feel at home inside its own borders.

From the reactions one should think that the drawings have been transformed into sacred icons (as a Muslim journalist states), but most of the drawings (if not all) do not even try to portray the Prophet. They are topical comments in a Danish debate, but some people treat them as magical.

The present situation should have been a debate inside Denmark between the different positions. Maybe that’s what we are back to when the dust has settled.

Here and now the interesting question to the readers is if they will participate in a conference here and give their opinion of the single cartoons.

What is insulting, funny, stupid, bright, artistic, childish, demonizing, subtle etc.? Is there a difference between Danish and Arab humour?

© 2006 Richardt Thomas Lionheart
Psychologist
Copenhagen Denmark