The Prophet and the Newspaper
It has never been my intention to be political on this blog; however, I now feel the need to at least comment on a very political situation that has developed over the Danish publication of drawings of the Prophet Mohammed.
It’s a story that in many ways resembles the fairytale “It’s Quite True” by Hans Christian Andersen in as much, as something which was rather significant, though not of monumental proportions, became an international diplomatic crisis that by the hour is gaining allies on both opposing sides. One feather turned into five hens…
In September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (JP) published 12 satirical drawings of the Prophet Mohammed. The reason for the paper’s commissioning of the drawings was that an illustrator, who was to illustrate a children’s book about the life of the Prophet, had chosen anonymity out of fear of the reactions from fundamentalist Muslims. According to the Koran, no man may picture the Prophet, as only God has the power to do so. JP apparently meant the drawings to illustrate that freedom of speech comes before religious beliefs and that no-one should be intimidated into anonymity or silence.
Should the drawings have been published – were they perhaps poorly thought up (satirical!)? Should the paper and the Danish government have acted faster and been more sensitive to the outcries from the Danish Muslim community?
Danes have a way of getting in trouble because of humour. Humour should never have entered into this issue – it’s not funny that some artists feel threatened into anonymity, nor is it much fun to have your faith insulted. The paper may have had all good intentions, and commissioning the drawings may have been a very good means of making a solid point about the freedom of speech. But satirical? Humour and religion very seldom go hand in hand.
Since September, Muslims – civilians, religious leaders, diplomats, governments – have protested the publication of the drawings and demanded apologies from the newspaper and the Danish government (most recently Bahrain has demanded that the Danish Queen apologize… However, unlike Arabic royalty she, of course, has no political power and therefore no political responsibilities). None were given – the paper stood by its actions, and the government did not see the problem as one of official, national concern.
Meanwhile, all kinds of rumours and exaggerated accounts of the drawings flourished in the Muslim world and further incited negative feelings. The international media was also fed incorrect information, and the BBC even showed a false drawing in its news programme. Muslims – with or without government consent – started boycotting Danish products, and a "Buy Danish" campaign was initiated by an American blog.
An apology of sorts was finally issued this week, when JP formally apologized for the offence the publication of the drawings had caused. They never meant to insult anyone, nor had they expected their actions to spur such strong felt reactions as they did. The apology did not include the actual publication.
On January 31st, the day after the apology, an English speaking person called in a bomb threat against the newspaper. Muslims in Gaza burned Danish national flags and photos of the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Another bomb threat was received yesterday.
Yesterday, newspapers around the world published some of the drawings – most notably Die Welt in Germany and the French newspaper France Soir, countries which both have large Muslim communities.
This crisis – now an international crisis – is a classic tale of a story taken out of context and blown into unreasonable proportions by way of rumours, hearsay, and a generally problematic politico-cultural climate.
Proper handling of the situation early on could have brought an end to the entire issue, but perhaps lack of cultural understanding and sensitivities prevented governmental organs from taking action? It almost seems as if the PM’s refusal to get involved in solving the problem became a stubborn principle rather than a rational and well-considered stand point.
Religious fundamentalism also carries a great part of the blame in the way things evolved, but even moderate Muslims are joining in. The same is true for the press. It is like the Hans Christian Andersen fairytale, where you have to join in the outcry, pass it on, and add your own special touch, because you are good and righteous, and you will stand up for what’s right. (Even I am commenting…)
Maybe standing up is sometimes wrong? Maybe we should all learn to see things from an opposing point of view and be big enough to apologize, even when we believe we are right.
It’s a story that in many ways resembles the fairytale “It’s Quite True” by Hans Christian Andersen in as much, as something which was rather significant, though not of monumental proportions, became an international diplomatic crisis that by the hour is gaining allies on both opposing sides. One feather turned into five hens…
In September 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (JP) published 12 satirical drawings of the Prophet Mohammed. The reason for the paper’s commissioning of the drawings was that an illustrator, who was to illustrate a children’s book about the life of the Prophet, had chosen anonymity out of fear of the reactions from fundamentalist Muslims. According to the Koran, no man may picture the Prophet, as only God has the power to do so. JP apparently meant the drawings to illustrate that freedom of speech comes before religious beliefs and that no-one should be intimidated into anonymity or silence.
Should the drawings have been published – were they perhaps poorly thought up (satirical!)? Should the paper and the Danish government have acted faster and been more sensitive to the outcries from the Danish Muslim community?
Danes have a way of getting in trouble because of humour. Humour should never have entered into this issue – it’s not funny that some artists feel threatened into anonymity, nor is it much fun to have your faith insulted. The paper may have had all good intentions, and commissioning the drawings may have been a very good means of making a solid point about the freedom of speech. But satirical? Humour and religion very seldom go hand in hand.
Since September, Muslims – civilians, religious leaders, diplomats, governments – have protested the publication of the drawings and demanded apologies from the newspaper and the Danish government (most recently Bahrain has demanded that the Danish Queen apologize… However, unlike Arabic royalty she, of course, has no political power and therefore no political responsibilities). None were given – the paper stood by its actions, and the government did not see the problem as one of official, national concern.
Meanwhile, all kinds of rumours and exaggerated accounts of the drawings flourished in the Muslim world and further incited negative feelings. The international media was also fed incorrect information, and the BBC even showed a false drawing in its news programme. Muslims – with or without government consent – started boycotting Danish products, and a "Buy Danish" campaign was initiated by an American blog.
An apology of sorts was finally issued this week, when JP formally apologized for the offence the publication of the drawings had caused. They never meant to insult anyone, nor had they expected their actions to spur such strong felt reactions as they did. The apology did not include the actual publication.
On January 31st, the day after the apology, an English speaking person called in a bomb threat against the newspaper. Muslims in Gaza burned Danish national flags and photos of the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Another bomb threat was received yesterday.
Yesterday, newspapers around the world published some of the drawings – most notably Die Welt in Germany and the French newspaper France Soir, countries which both have large Muslim communities.
This crisis – now an international crisis – is a classic tale of a story taken out of context and blown into unreasonable proportions by way of rumours, hearsay, and a generally problematic politico-cultural climate.
Proper handling of the situation early on could have brought an end to the entire issue, but perhaps lack of cultural understanding and sensitivities prevented governmental organs from taking action? It almost seems as if the PM’s refusal to get involved in solving the problem became a stubborn principle rather than a rational and well-considered stand point.
Religious fundamentalism also carries a great part of the blame in the way things evolved, but even moderate Muslims are joining in. The same is true for the press. It is like the Hans Christian Andersen fairytale, where you have to join in the outcry, pass it on, and add your own special touch, because you are good and righteous, and you will stand up for what’s right. (Even I am commenting…)
Maybe standing up is sometimes wrong? Maybe we should all learn to see things from an opposing point of view and be big enough to apologize, even when we believe we are right.
posted by [meen kyolë] at 9:25 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home