C L O S E R – Pictures of you

C L O S E R

The release of the prophet Mohammed cartoons by the Danish Jylland Posten has become a hot topic, online and offline.

First in a few sentences the whole story. After the complaint by an author that no one dared to illustrate his book (because, according to him illustrators feared that extremists would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed – or people in general), the newspaper urged cartoonists to send in drawings of the prophet.

So twelve people did on the newspaper posted all the photo’s. It caused (and still does) a huge debate about ‘Islam and free speech‘ and several Muslims launced a complaint.

“The newspaper has with its action deliberately stepped on Islam’s ethical and moral values with the purpose of contempt and ridiculing Muslims’ feelings, their holy sites and their religious symbols,” the group said.

(My italics, MdK)

The Danish PM refused to talk with Muslims about the issue:

Meanwhile, Denmark’s prime minister on Tuesday accused a group of local Muslims of smearing the country’s reputation in the Middle East as they sought support against a newspaper that published caricatures of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he was “stunned” that leaders of the Islamic Faith Community had travelled to Egypt, Syria and Lebanon “to stir up attitudes against Denmark and Danes”.

The group’s leader, Ahmed Abu Laban, a cleric, has defended the December trip, saying the Muslim community was feeling marginalised in Denmark in its protests against the paper.

Dutch MP Hirsi Ali supported him

European leaders should step forward and support Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s refusal to meet with eleven Muslim ambassadors to discuss press coverage of Islam, Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali said on Sunday.

Rasmussen, however, declined to meet the ambassadors, saying that if they had the slightest understanding of the workings of Danish society, they would know that he had no desire or powers to change the newspaper’s editorial policies. ‘The Danish prime minister’s reply to the ambassadors should be an example for every European leader,’ Hirsi Ali told Jyllands-Posten’s reporter. ‘The prime minister steps forward to tell Muslims loud and clear that the freedom of expression is a deciding factor for a free society, and that a prime minister in a free society neither can nor wishes to regulate what newspapers do or do not do. The fact that he makes a special point of explaining this to the ambassador from Turkey – which is seeking entrance to the EU – is an expression of true statesmanship.’

‘It’s necessary to taunt Muslims on their relationship with Mohammed, because otherwise we will never have the dialogue we need to establish with Muslims on the most central question: Do you really feel that the prophet Mohammed is completely infallible, and that every Muslim in Europe in 2005 should follow the way of life the prophet had 1400 years ago, as the Koran dictates? The provocation is necessary to spark the debate,’ Hirsi Ali said.

The debate is therefore about islam and freedom of speech and the need to tackle the prophet Mohammed as an example for all Muslims by provocations. I don’t know if that was the intention of the author mentioned above, but that’s off topic probably.

So one might be pragmatic and saying what is the need the draw the prophet Mohammed in a book about him. Muslims can do without (see the movie Al Rissala). On the other hand there are muslimgroups who did make drawings of the prophet. So what is actually the problem for them. Well the pictures could be a problem for some, but more important is probably the part in italics I mentioned above, and will repeat here:

the purpose of contempt and ridiculing Muslims’ feelings,

The Muslims who are upset, seem to be upset because they think this is done with a negative reason, or with a more neutral phrase (by Hirsi Ali) to provoke them. This seems also the opinion of Zubair Butt Hussain, Spokesman “Muslims in Dialogue“, Denmark:

But long before these drawings came into the public domain, there was widespread apprehension among Danish Muslims over the way they and their religious affiliation were presented in the media. The image projected in the Danish media of Islam has been one of a faith that did not undergo a reformation and renaissance similar to Christianity and is thus stuck in the middle ages. The drawings are simply a culmination of several years of media persecution of the Muslim minority in Denmark.

Even worse is the role elected politicians have played in stoking this fire. It is not unusual for certain politicians to make the ill-willed and mistaken but common equation that Muslims are immigrants, and immigrants are badly integrated and therefore the root of all evil in Danish society. Beyond the prejudice against immigrants in general this belies, it also contradicts the fact that most Muslims in Denmark have been here for 30-40 years and many are born here. But if that is pointed out, they are simply called second or third generation immigrants. Even ethnic Danish Muslim converts are described by the derogatory “ersatz-immigrants”; one politician has gone so far as to compare these converts to Nazis, and, in all seriousness, advocate that they be placed under surveillance as they constitute a threat to society. A politician from the same party described Muslims as a spreading cancer, while others have suggested criminals of non-Danish ethnic background should be interned or exiled with their closest family.

So well they got what they wanted. Muslims are provoked and it is striking to see how people are islamizing their complaints about a lack of respect and all. And also how non-Muslims are islamizing this protest by speaking of a holy war or by speaking of jihad. And of course some Muslims are doing the same with the violent jihad towards Denmark.

But one can of course be very principal and state the freedom of speech is absolute not matter what the intentions are.