JORDAN: Editors given two-month jail sentences for publishing Prophet cartoons
New York, May 31, 2006 - The Committee to Protect Journalists is deeply concerned by the sentencing Tuesday of two Jordanian editors to two months in prison for publishing controversial cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
Jihad Momani, former editor-in-chief of the weekly Shihan, and Hashem al-Khalidi, editor-in-chief of the weekly Al-Mehwar, were found guilty by an Amman court of violating Article 278 of the penal code. The article outlaws publication of material likely to offend religious feelings or beliefs. Both editors have been released on bail pending appeal. Under the penal code an appeals court can replace a jail sentence of up to three months with a fine.
The editors said they did not intend to offend Muslims, but reproduced the cartoons to criticize the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that first published them. According to The Associated Press, al-Momani signed a Shihan editorial titled, “Muslims of the world, be reasonable,” which questioned what sparked worldwide Muslim uproar in January, several months after the drawings appeared. Al-Mehwar was the first to publish the cartoons on January 26, with Shihan, a widely circulated independent weekly, following a week later. Al-Momani was fired on February 3.
“We are alarmed by the two-month prison sentences handed down to Jihad Momani and Hashem al-Khalidi,” CPJ Executive Director Ann Cooper said.
“These journalists should not be prosecuted for what they published, even if many people were offended.”The cartoon controversy began last September when Jyllands-Posten published
12 drawings of Muhammad, one of them depicting the Prophet wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse. The publication caused anger in the Muslim world, where many consider depictions of Muhammad to be blasphemous.
The cartoons gained increased attention after they were reprinted in the January 10 edition of Magazinet, a small Christian evangelical weekly based in Norway.CPJ is a New York-based, independent, nonprofit organization that works to safeguard press freedom worldwide. For more information, visit www.cpj.org.
Enjoy this post? Get future updates sent to you for free! Join by 
32 Comments on “JORDAN: Editors given two-month jail sentences for publishing Prophet cartoons”
This discussion has grown tired. Having had many months to think about it, I think both sides of the equation need to examine their culpability. Non-Muslims should know that it is disrespectful and bigoted to have made and published such images. Counter claims that cartoons of Jesus don’t garner such reactions does not take into account that Christianity has a very long and widespread tradition of depicting Jesus which has desensitised Christians to its uses and abuses. Islam does not share this tradition, and non-Muslims should be sensitive to that.
On the other hand, the Muslims who acted in violence should have practiced restraint and acted to peacefully counter the demonisation of their faith. If for any reason, a non-violent protest and appeal should have been made out of respect for the Muslim faith and other followers. This, for knowledge of the fact that violent reactions by the few are being used as propaganda and justification for war in Iraq and actions against its neighbors in the region.
This latest development of imprisoning the Jordanian editors for publishing the cartoons does not help the matter. It shows a lack of sensitivity to the perception by the west of Islam. I am not certain of its grounding (imprisonment for blasphemy) in Quranic law. Perhaps, Haitham, you can bring light to the issue? It is certain that it will be seen from outside as another case of violation of freedom of speech, and that’s where Western sensitivity must educate itself to not react with personal bias.
We have oft heard the addage, “My freedom ends where yours begins”, and by extention there must be space for everyone to define their own personal freedoms and act according to their own will and conscience. This may extend also to societies, and the choice to live within or without the collective aspirations of that society.
Government is another matter, with its own designs and motivations, that are usually disrespective of the individual and even the society.
Again, Haitham, from a Muslim perspective, is there a ground for imprisonment as serving justice for blasphemy? It seems to me that you personally are for freedom of speech and expression. With all respect, my question is more in terms of whether there is any scriptural precedence within Islam. Thank you.
The charges for blasphemy in Islam is death. There is nothing on Islam that say imprisonment is a just charge for blasphemy.
But the charges in question here is if publishing such cartoons can be considered blasphemy? I don’t think this was the case here. It is more of scarifying these journalist to shut up any voice calling to charge them with blasphemy. Keeping in mind that this was (and still is) a very religiously-emotional issue for Muslims.
Haitham, do you know if Al-Jazeera ever showed the photos on one of their broadcasts?
Did most of the Arab world see the cartoons themselves, or just hear that Mohammed’s picture (caricature) was printed in Europe?
What I’m trying to get at…Was most of the outrage fueled by word of mouth description, or actual sight of the offending objects.
No, Al-Jazeera never showed them. Always had the cartoons part smudged somehow so that no one can see anything of it. I didn’t hear of any Arab TV network showing them.
As if they were seen by Arabs or not, I can’t confirm or deny this. But I guess they have seen them even if for curiosity in the hide
But Raymond, even here on the blog is this statement from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proudly displayed on the bar to the right:
———-
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
———-
Western ideal or not, it is a well-recognized right. And your assertion about Christians is way off. We take offense (after all, this is not our prophet being maligned, but our God) intensely, but we know that it is God’s role to avenge his name, not ours. Riots and calls for death do not honor God, as Christians understand him. It has nothing to do with the fact that the west has religious freedom and freedom of speech.
Philip,
You sidestep my point. I am not calling for the disregard of Article 19, but I do call for sensitivity. Words and actions have consequences, and we are responsible for understanding those consequences and owning them when we proceed to speak or act.
There was ill-will displayed in these images, bigotry and slander. The prejudiced casting of the Muslims and Arabs by the West as backwards and wicked is bound to incite anger, especially in light of the imperialist agenda that has cast them this way since the 19th century.
Please read Edward Said’s “Orientalism.” It has much to do with this, the war in Iraq, and popular Western opinion, and precedes any discussion here by over 25 years.
postscript - an estimated 38,000 and 42,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed in the last three years. Do these murders honor god?
Philip,
Could you please clarify something I find contradictory in your post above which is this: on one hand you bring the Declaration of Human Rights concerning free speech up calling it a Western ideal and on the other hand you say “As Christians..we believe it is God’s role to avenge his name.” I don’t get how these two ideas can coexist. How is God going to avenge his name? Is it that we shouldn’t make laws against free speech but if anyone uses it to blaspheme God’s going to get them? Please explain and give an example.
As for the Koran giving the death penalty for blasphemy, does this mean that a human must meet out the punishment or that God will give them eternal death? Or is it once again a question of moderate vs fundamentalist interpretation? I am very saddened from my “Western (albeit modified) point of view” that these two men have been jailed.
Raymond,
Though we agree on a lot of points we do not agree on the one you make.
YOU have decided that it was ill-will, bigotry, and slander to publish the images of Mohammed while YOU completely disregard the ill-will, bigotry, and slander by the Muslim Brotherhood Imams who faked images, lied, and manipulated in order to create an outrage against the entire population of a country.
Not once have any of you given any thought to that the images were not a burst of random hatred, but the CONSEQUENCE OF WORDS AND ACTIONS by a small group of backwards and wicked Muslim fundamentalists in Denmark. Not once have you given any thought to that the images did not stand alone, but were accompanied by a long article discussing the increase of Muslim radicalism in Denmark. Not once have you given any thought to that threatening elected politicians is a gross violation of democracy, which is just as offensive in the Danish culture as depicting a prophet is in Muslim culture. Not once have given any thought to that demanding that Islam must be taught in schools and that Danish society has to be modified to fit Islam are gross violations in a secular culture and a great insult to Danes and Danish culture.
I don’t want to rip up in the endless (read: pointless) discussions about the caricatures again, but where is the sensitivity you call on for the Danish people, their national laws, and their secular culture?
Are you saying that Muslims should be treated like rotten eggs while no shot is too cheap against the rest of us?
Robin,
Could you please clarify something I find contradictory in your post above which is this: on one hand you bring the Declaration of Human Rights concerning free speech up calling it a Western ideal and on the other hand you say “As Christians..we believe it is God’s role to avenge his name.” I don’t get how these two ideas can coexist. How is God going to avenge his name? Is it that we shouldn’t make laws against free speech but if anyone uses it to blaspheme God’s going to get them?
Thanks for the question; it appears some clarification is in order. First, I wasn’t calling the Declaration a western ideal, but a universal one. Raymond referred to the western ideals of free speech, and I referred to the document to counter that (especially given that non-western Haitham has it prominently displayed). I have some issues with the entire UN document, but this article (as most) I embrace. This means that no human may restrict the speech of another, even if it is insensitive (this of course excludes libel, clear inciting of violence and other very obvious exceptions). If God is the target of an offensive cartoon, then we as humans (I am stating the general Christian perspective) have the right to speak out, to call it horrible, to boycott the publisher, etc. We do not have the right as humans, though, to imprison nor act out violently against those who do it. When I say we leave it to God to avenge, that means we let him decide what he wants to do about it. He may do nothing. This is most likely. He is a big boy and can handle it. In some cases he may decide to “avenge his name” to make a point. How? *shrug* Mainly, though, they can answer for it after this life. And we, as his followers, can get on with our lives and just shake our heads at the foolishness of the offenders. So we do not, as human, make laws to restrict free speech. And anyone who wants to insult God by abusing that right can deal with him themselves. So, no, I am not saying that God is going to get them! I am saying that any vengeance to be meted out (that is, if any at all) should only be by God’s hand.
—–
Raymond,
I agree that people should be responsible with the right to free speech. Fair enough. But not everyone will, and when they don’t, you state your disgust and move on. We as Christians do that all the time, even though it is our God being mocked. I personally am for saying little, because oftentimes the protest draws attention to something that would otherwise be obscure and go by largely unnoticed. A good example is the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ. The movie was poor to mediocre in quality (by reviews I have read; I never saw it), and the subject wasn’t a terrible interesting one to the American public. Yet, thanks to my fellow Christians and their protest signs, the movie did very well and has made its name in cinematic history.
—–
Thomas,
I dare say we are on precisely the same page on this one!
Robin..the beginning of the last comment was supposed to be set apart as a quote, but my html tag didn’t work. Sorry ’bout that!
Thomas and Philip,
Would you go into an African American neighborhood in the US and shout racial slurs? You are protected under the Constitution to do so, but it would be irresponsible (and stupid) to do it. Same with the newspapers.
I have not claimed that non-Westerners or non-Muslims are not as responsible for their words or actions. I pointed at the cartoons because that is the topic of this post. Should the Imams be responsible for their actions? Absolutely.
I am arguing that there was irresponsible behavior on both sides.
Thomas,
Also, to quote myself:
“We have oft heard the addage, “My freedom ends where yours begins”, and by extention there must be space for everyone to define their own personal freedoms and act according to their own will and conscience. This may extend also to societies, and the choice to live within or without the collective aspirations of that society.”
Note the last sentence. I hope that it is clear that freedom of expression is a personal choice, as much as it is a negotiation to be a part of any society. If you reject that negotiation, you bear the responsibility of the results of that choice. It is a two-way street.
Exansion: Would you go into an African American neighborhood in the US and shout racial slurs? ou are protected under the Constitution to do so, but it would be irresponsible (and stupid) to do it.
and racist and bigoted
I feel like I’m digging a hole here that had already been filled.
Well, here we are back on the subject of the cartoons. It seems they have taken on a life of their own.
In the above post, it refers to article 278 of the Jordanian penal code: “The article outlaws publication of material likely to offend religious feelings or beliefs.” but then goes on to explain, “The editors said they did not intend to offend Muslims, but reproduced the cartoons to criticize the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that first published them.” What somes to my mind? A woman going to a doctor and pointing to a doll to explain her ailments rather than undressing and allowing the doctor to examine her. This is not unheard of in the Arab world, it happens all the time in Saudi Arabia. I am NOT making a judgement, I am only giving a fact. That these editors published the cartoons in Jordan in the attempt to point out that they are simply cartoons, and should not be used for purposes of overreaction is also the fact of the arguement for their publication. I think the editors were trying to “undress” the madness. Unfortunately, not EVERYONE wants to be undressed and once again it is a matter of sensitivity. In this case it boiled down to a law which forbids it. We also have anti-defamation laws here in the US, they are referred to as “hate crimes”. But if a hate crime is committed, and then the victim goes on a rampage, there are also laws against that.
This is a very sad case in Jordan. The way I understand it is that these editors were referring to the second part of the equation, laws forbidding rampage. No, you cannot go to South Central Los Angeles and scream out “N—-r (unless you are black yourself in which case it’s become fashionable to call each other by this epitaph). But as a white woman, I would not go to South Central and hang out on a street corner. Conversely, DWB (driving while black) in a white neighborhood is also a reason for many a pullover by the local police.
You are not digging a hole Raymond. And neither is Thomas. None of us condone violence as a means to express outrage to racism. That is the bottom line. This is what the editors in Jordan were also trying to say and they received a jail sentence for “undressing the doll”. I fear that laws need to be made to prohibit hate crimes as well as laws against improper responses. But no law will ever rid the heart of hate or disdain towards others. It is up to each and every individual to do this job.
Well stated, Robin. (completely off the point, but sometimes when I address you I hear Adam West’s voice in my head. sorry, but it can’t be helped)
Thanks Raymond (but maybe you could picture me as Catwoman/Halle Barrie rather than Robin/Burt Ward. Dream on you silly 52 year old woman)We all need to hold good thoughts in our hearts. These editors now await jail sentences. I think they were just trying to point out, “sticks and stones may break your bones but words (cartoons) can never hurt you”. It may be simplistic on my part to phrase it this way, but I think you understand my intent.
Does anyone know the answer to my question in the above post #12 about the Koran and the death sentence for blasphemy?
Yes Robin, the penalty for blasphemy is God’s punishment with eternal hell.
Now, during history, some idiots gave themselves the right to judge people and charge blasphemy with death!
Thanks Haitham, it all goes to prove that a guillotine should never be given to anyone with a second-grade reading level!
Raymond,
I don’t really see the relevance of whether I would go into an African American neighborhood in the US and yell or do anything. It is completely beside the point.
I am Danish, but I am not Jyllands-Posten and I have not published any cartoons, but 1.2 billion Muslims around the world stepped over the line and attacked me (as a collective of all Danes) for something that was none of their business to begin with.
Nobody, as in absolutely nobody, has the right to interfere with how the Danish population chooses to run affairs within the borders of Denmark. This is what is called sovereignty which nobody should have the right violate.
Purposely, I did not comment on the jailing of the editors in Jordan, because I really do not care - it is absolutely none of my business how the people of Jordan choose to run their affairs. That does not mean that I do not have an opinion about violating freedom of speech, but if the people of Jordan are unhappy with their government and if they think it is wrong to jail editors, then they are the ones who will have to force their government to recognize the freedoms that are currently being restricted.
This comes back to the discussion in one of the other threads about whether a country can (and should) bring freedom to another country and whether freedom can be taken away or only be restricted.
If I accepted that any population outside of Denmark has any business in Danish affairs, then the consequence would be that I accept that sovereignty is a worthless concept for all countries. In that case it would be hypocritical of me to oppose that the USA invaded Iraq or that Israel seeks to expand beyond their internationally recognized borders! With no respect for sovereignty, maybe I could even get the crazy idea that Denmark should invade Jordan in order to give the people of Jordan the right to publish cartoons at will!
You are contradicting yourself when you say that “…there must be space for everyone to define their own personal freedoms and act according to their own will and conscience. This may extend also to societies, and the choice to live within or without the collective aspirations of that society.” but at the same time you argue that outsiders or minorities have the right to prescribe which freedoms should or should not be available in Denmark.
In Denmark the people has chosen that freedom of expression and freedom to make personal choices are among the liberties everybody in Denmark must have and that everybody residing in Denmark have the right to live under those conditions. Those who do not like those conditions are free to leave, regardless of their political, religious, or sexual orientation. Muslims in Denmark (regardless of whether they are immigrants, naturalized citizens, or born citizens) have the right to leave, they are not forced to stay in any way!
Threatening democratically elected politicians is not a right for anybody in Denmark and demanding violation of the separation between church and state is not a right either, so I would be more than happy if everybody who think they have such right to violate the Danish constitution decide to leave. I would even argue for state sponsored flight tickets!
Respect for sovereignty IS a two-way street and so is respect for freedom, but it seems that you are the one who apply these concepts selectively.
Everybody has the right to be stupid, everybody has the right to be offended, everybody has the right to seek redress through the legal system, and everybody has the obligation to abide by the law and the decisions of the courts. Everybody also has the right to influence the democratic process to make or change laws, as laid down in the constitution. Those are the collective aspirations of the Danish society. Love it or leave it!
Wow. You sound like an American defending their constitutional rights. By your standard, I am not allowed to give my opinion on Danish society or its effects. But you have freely given your opinions here on all sorts of matters, most of them having little or no relationship to Denmark.
I never once stated that Denmark should change its laws to accomodate Muslims. I called for sensitivity toward them. You want to buy them tickets out of the country, be my guest. It is your country, after all.
So tell me, which are the offending, outsiders or minorities? And the minorities (assuming you mean the Arabs or Muslims) in Denmark, are they illegal aliens or have they been accepted into the society?
You are right about Jordan doing what Jordan sees fit to do, as much as Denmark is right to do what Denmark sees fit to do. But you still have an opinion about liberties and how they are being violated in certain parts of the world, do you not?
The lines that define the borders between one country and another are a fairly recent historical development. This is yours and this is mine, and don’t cross over into what is mine or I’ll slap your hand (or worse). It developed out of kingdoms and serfdoms, oligarchies and monarchies, and colonial methods of divide and conquer. They are still rather malleable, given the facts that a) there are no real lines drawn upon the earth, and b) the planet, like it or not, is getting smaller and more homogenised as people are more mobile and follow opportunity to make a living.
Now, this doesn’t mean throw it all away, none of it matters, but there has to be a sense of acceptance of these blurry lines by both the nation states and their native and foreign constituencies. Yes, if I have a problem with the rules governing, for example, Denmark or Saudi Arabia, then as a non-native I have a choice not to live there. Given.
But if I am seeking a better life, and I find it in either Denmark or Saudi Arabia, and the government of either of those nations has welcomed me, then the dialogue begins. It can be a one-sided dialogue, in which laws are cast in stone and immovable, or it can be a process of give and take, wherein either side may contribute to enrich and satisfy an integrated population.
I understand that Denmark has welcomed immigrants and that SOME of those immigrant pose a threat as menaces to that society. Denmark has every right to deal justice to those immigrants as it sees fit.
What I was trying to articulate was that WHY, given the volatility of SOME of these immigrants, would the press go out of its way to attack their religion? At that point, the problem multiplies from being about the few menaces to being about followers of an entire faith, a faith, be it beside or even to the point, that is not delegated to the Danish immigrants, but in fact is shared by millions world-wide. Why take that path? What was the motivation, if not to incite outrage?
Maybe I am treading on soil that is not my own, but I reserve my right to participate in a dialogue that is not insular.
Finally, Thomas, I am not trying to start an argument over the sovereignty of Denmark or its laws regarding the press or any other facet of its society. I have also agreed with you on other matters, and am not so far from complete agreement with you on this one, excepting that I think that the Danish press, in all respect to its right to publish whatever they like, could have exercises better judgement. The rioting and incitements of hate and violence that followed were clearly wrong. How do we react to such things is also a point after the matter. Do we move to paint followers of a religion as criminal, or do we examine the motivations of individuals, the history, currents and undercurrents of our societies in relationship, and try to find solutions that act against the severence of those relationships?
Raymond,
You said: “I never once stated that Denmark should change its laws to accomodate Muslims. I called for sensitivity toward them. You want to buy them tickets out of the country, be my guest. It is your country, after all.
So tell me, which are the offending, outsiders or minorities? And the minorities (assuming you mean the Arabs or Muslims) in Denmark, are they illegal aliens or have they been accepted into the society?”
Shame on you, you are putting words in my mouth to fit your own agenda now. I have not said anything about that Muslims in Denmark (as a collective) should leave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What I have said is that everybody who do not accept that religion is a private notion that ranks below the Danish constitution and Danish laws created by democratically elected governments will not be tolerated and would be better off if they left Denmark.
Danish laws and Danish democracy are both above Muslim and all other religious laws. Muslim laws can exist within the framework of Danish national law as long as they do not violate Danish law or the rights of non-Muslims; that is called freedom of religion. You can call out, scream, and dance all you want, but you might as well give up calling for sensitivity for those who do not want to accept this.
You say: “But if I am seeking a better life, and I find it in either Denmark or Saudi Arabia, and the government of either of those nations has welcomed me, then the dialogue begins. It can be a one-sided dialogue, in which laws are cast in stone and immovable, or it can be a process of give and take, wherein either side may contribute to enrich and satisfy an integrated population.”
Nobody is denied the freedom to enrich or influence Danish society, but that freedom DOES NOT include the right to demand that Danish national law has to fit into the framework of Muslim law! Denmark is a country where it is accepted that EVERYBODY has the right to follow and exercise any religion freely, but it is also a country where calls for turning Denmark into an Islamic state is not tolerated. The legal framework that allows all religions within it will not be changed to a Muslim framework around Danish national law. This is what the whole debacle was about and there is NO COMPROMISE possible!
You say: “The rioting and incitements of hate and violence that followed were clearly wrong. How do we react to such things is also a point after the matter. Do we move to paint followers of a religion as criminal, or do we examine the motivations of individuals, the history, currents and undercurrents of our societies in relationship, and try to find solutions that act against the severence of those relationships?”
I have not painted followers of any religion as criminal for following their religion. According to Danish culture, freedom of religion includes the right not to follow any religion in particular. That is non-negotiable and anybody who does not accept that is not compatible with Danish culture and is therefore not welcome within the borders of Denmark!
Clearly you have chosen to rely on the Muslim Brotherhood for your opinions rather than accepting the fact that more than 90% of Danish Muslims are accepted in Denmark as equals, both under the law but also among everybody living in Denmark.
As I have stated in another thread, I am very happy that the caricatures were published in Denmark, because the ridiculous reactions from Muslim extremists in Denmark and around the world have brought Muslim Danes and non-Muslim Danes closer together than they have ever been and it has opened up for more and better dialogue between the two groups. The integration of Muslims into Danish society has taken a great leap forward because of this, so Denmark, as a whole, is much better off than before. I really do not care whether Muslims outside Denmark are sour faced or not over this matter, because it is an internal Danish matter and therefore not the business of anybody else!
If you want to appease everybody who wants a church state, that is none of my business, but it is hypocrisy if you start criticizing the Born Again Christians for trying to turn the USA into a Christian church state while you support Muslim extremist attempts to create Muslim church states in other parts of the world. If you are so tolerant and accepting of people advocating church states, where is your tolerance and accept for Zionist extremists who want to turn Israel into a Jewish church state?
You say: “You are right about Jordan doing what Jordan sees fit to do, as much as Denmark is right to do what Denmark sees fit to do. But you still have an opinion about liberties and how they are being violated in certain parts of the world, do you not?”
Look closely and you will not find any of my postings where I have demanded that any country has to follow my ideas about freedom! You will find posts where I have criticized countries and governments who have stepped out of line by disregarding the sovereignty of another country and I have criticized everybody who disrespects human rights - rights that do not include the right to an apartheid church state supporting a particular religion!
In order for discussions to have any value they need to be based on an exchange of opinions and points of view in order to identify areas of agreement, but an exchange of demands defeats the purpose of discussion. An exchange of differing demands by two or more groups of stubborn people is called a conflict. I prefer discussion over conflict, which is not the case of the Muslim Brotherhood which successfully turned a Danish discussion into a global conflict - with the help of you and many others.
You, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Allah have one important thing in common. None of you are a democratically elected representative of anybody in Denmark, so none of you have the right to influence the democratic process in Denmark! And, according to my opinion, it is good so.
Thomas,
I think we have a misunderstanding.
I have no uncertainty that The Danes should rule Denmark. Full stop.
I have no uncertainty that anyone living within the borders of Denmark should be subject to the laws of Denmark. Full stop.
I have no interest, personal or otherwise, in Denmark becoming a religious state. Full stop.
I don’t agree with the reactionaries regarding the cartoons, and that the violence that proceeded was unjustifiable. Full stop.
If I made any statements contrary to this in my above posts, they were unintentional inferences.
I appreciate the fact that in Denmark, the cartoons in question helped to bring various members of Danish society closer together. That is wonderful news, and I am very happy that you shared it.
Maybe I can stick to talking about this issue in an American context. In the U.S. everyone has the freedom to practice whatever religion they choose, or to practice none at all. Also, everyone has the right to say whatever they want, with protection under the U.S. Constitution. That said, if I published the same cartoons in a U.S. paper, in full knowledge of the current state of the world and the fragility of the relationship that the U.S. has to Muslims and the Arab world generally, I will have been irresponsible. Protected by the laws of the nation? Yes. Foolish. Yes.
There is an old addage that you catch more flies with honey. All nations and states and governments and laws aside, I don’t think that poking fun at the Muslim faith was a good idea, in whatever context you choose to frame it.
Again, I don’t wish for Denmark to change its national character. It works. It’s fine, and apparently stronger for having weathered this storm. I applaud that character. The U.S. would do well to take note of it.
And I mean all of this with every sincerity. I am sorry to have offended you.
Correction:
I don’t agree with the reactionaries regarding the cartoons, and do agree that the violence that proceeded was unjustifiable. Full stop.
I wonder if publishing cartoons of Hassan Nasrallah is considered blasphemy these days?
If you look back at Islamic history, there was a huge margin for dissent, which included blasphemy. the great poet Al Mutanabi mocked the Qur’an, accepting God’s challenge and deciding to compose his own–one he bragged was better than the original. He was not executed for that and his poetry lived. Yes, he got in trouble with rulers all the time, but does anybody think that he could stand a chance today?
It’s shameful that these two journalists should be sacrificed in this way. Really shameful.
Is caricaturing Mohammed blasphemy, though, since he is a prophet and not God? I’m not educated on this matter, so I thought I’d ask for clarification.
Philip,
Fundamentalist Islam bans ALL pictures of any living thing, human or animal, photo or drawing. Here is a good explanation of the fundamentalist view http://themajlis.net/Article77.html
One time while crossing the desert in Saudi we came across a lone bedouin riding with his camel. It was a breathtaking sight, all glowing white in his thobe with ammunition across his chest. We stopped to talk to him and asked to take his picture. He declined, saying “Al A’ax”. (he was Wahabi) Now while modern times have certainly introduced art and photography, the ban on creating ANY image of the prophet pbuh has not been so clear according to this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/13/AR2006021302407_pf.html
But regardless of one’s arguement, it is disrespecful of any religion to depict their profit in such a manner as this. Having said this, there is a picture in the Globe (my favorite bathroom material) of Madonna on her current tour in a crucifix pose with thorns and wires attached. Free speech. I couldn’t agree more. Insensitive to Christians, I personally couldn’t care less what she does. Apparently from the riots we see SOME, I emphasize SOME Muslims went wild. No this was not a proper response in any way shape or form. To that we ALL agree. I think we also agree the case in Jordan is a sad one, whether or not Jordan has the right to pass it’s own laws concerning the matter. Peace.
Got it! I have heard of the forbidden nature of depictions of humans but was unfamiliar where that fell into the blasphemy context.
Madonna’s career must be having trouble. Oh well. No big loss!