Kåre Bluitgen, a Danish writer who wrote a book for
children on Prophet Muhammad reportedly could not find any cartoonist
willing to do illustrations. It is commonly believed today that Islam
prohibits any depiction of the prophet. The Dutch cartoonists contacted by
Bluitgen, it is said, were worried about violent attacks by Muslim
extremists. So, ostensibly to protest against self-censorship and defend
the freedom of expression principle, Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the
right wing Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, contacted some
40 cartoonists to draw the prophet as they saw him. Rose finally received
12 cartoons, which were published along with an article in his paper on
September 30, 2005.
Outraged by these cartoons – some of them portray the
prophet as a woman-enslaver and a terrorist – a Danish Muslim organisation,
Islamic Society in Denmark, demanded that Jyllands-Posten apologise
to "all Muslims" and withdraw the offensive cartoons. On October 11,
nearly 5,000 Muslims held a peaceful protest demonstration outside the
newspaper’s office in Copenhagen. But the paper offered no apology.
On October 19, ambassadors from 10 Muslim countries
request a meeting with the prime minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh
Rasmussen, to draw his attention to the offensive cartoons in particular
and Islam-bashing in sections of the Danish press in general. The prime
minister refuses to meet the ambassadors on the grounds that he cannot
infringe on the freedom of the press.
In early November, a delegation of imams from the Islamic
Society in Denmark go on a tour of West Asia to draw the attention of
influential Muslim religious and political leaders.
In the first week of December, Louise Arbour, the UN high
commissioner for human rights, expresses concern over the cartoons and
says the United Nations is investigating racism of the Danish cartoonists.
On December 19, 22 former Danish ambassadors criticise the prime minister
of Denmark for not meeting with the 11 ambassadors in October. The same
day, the Council of Europe criticises the Danish government for invoking
the "freedom of the press" in its refusal to take action against the
"insulting" cartoons. (The Council of Europe is an international
organisation of 46 member states in the European region, open to all
European states which accept the principle of the rule of law and
guarantee fundamental human rights and freedoms to their citizens. The
council is a separate entity from the European Union.)
The first time public notice of the controversial cartoons
was taken in the Muslim world was on October 17, in the middle of Ramzan,
when an Egyptian newspaper, El Fagr, published six of the
cartoons along with an article strongly denouncing them. Interestingly,
the publication of the images reportedly did not lead to any protest from
either the religious authorities or the government in Egypt. The first
public protest took place in Pakistan in the first week of December.
On January 6, 2006, the regional public prosecutor
declared that no criminal charges could be pressed against
Jyllands-Posten for it had merely exercised its freedom of expression
and had not violated the law of the land.
Had the Posten been quick to acknowledge that some
of the cartoons it chose to publish were not just about freedom of
expression, had the conservative Danish government not shown a cavalier
attitude for three long months, the issue may well have been contained
within the boundaries of a tiny corner of Europe. On January 30, 2006,
Jyllands-Posten apologised, not for having published the cartoons in
the first place but for having inadvertently hurt Muslim feelings. The
next day the Danish Muslim Association said it was satisfied with the
apology from the newspaper and the prime minister and would now help in
improving the situation in the country. By then, however, it was too late.
As the cartoon controversy snowballed, some or all of the
cartoons were republished by newspapers in over 50 countries across the
globe in a highly unusual show of support for freedom of expression. On
the other hand, much of the Muslim world erupted in protests, some of
which turned violent and vicious.
According to statistics being compiled by the web site,
www.cartoonbodycount.com, by end March a total of 139 persons had lost
their lives worldwide and as many as 823 had sustained injuries. The
economic costs of the controversy, especially to Denmark as a result of
the economic boycotts, are yet to be assessed.
The global polarisation over the controversy has been
sharp enough for some to hark back to Samuel Huntington’s questionable
‘Clash of Civilisations’ thesis. Those in the media who have republished
or televised the cartoons first published by Jyllands-Posten and
governments and politicians who have defended the Danish newspaper and the
Danish government claim that freedom of expression is sacred. But critics
insist that those championing the cause of absolute freedom are in fact
hypocrites for they too recognise and practice self-censorship. Critics
say the controversial cartoons in question are not about freedom but an
expression of growing racism and Islamophobia in many parts of the West.
In January, none less than former US President Bill
Clinton denounced the cartoons as "appalling" and "outrageous" and
expressed the fear that having spent decades after the Holocaust purging
itself of anti-Jewish prejudice, the West now shows signs of succumbing to
a new disease: anti-Islamic prejudice.
Meanwhile, while defending the unquestionable right of
anyone to protest against something they feel offended by, many ask
whether those Muslims who resorted to violent acts and words in expressing
their anger have not ended up reinforcing the very image of their faith
that the Dutch cartoonists portrayed.