This series is divided into three articles: first, a critic on the Muhammad cartoons for contributing to islamophobia; second, a discussion of islamophobia as neo-orientalism; and third, an invitation to a "get to know" dialogue with Muslim moderates.

The Danish parliament has recently decided to allocate a consequent state budget to the "branding" of Denmark abroad, a decision supposed to help repairing the damage done to its image, and end its association with the (in)famous “Muhammad cartoons”. A good occasion for making a flashback.

The “Muhammad crisis” left a bitter aftertaste on liberal-democratic tongues. Indeed, as time passed by and the crisis grew we were more and more left with but a dichotomous “either/or” choice between standing for freedom of speech or against it. You are either with us, defending democracy and freedom of expression, hereby supporting the publication and republication of the caricatures representing Mohammad, or you are against us and with our enemies in condemning the cartoons, hereby supporting Islamic extremism against our Western democratic values.

However, this attitude is defending a wrong cause and favouring a “clash of civilisation” because it contributes to an attitude of islamophobia – or neo-orientalism – when dialogue among rational moderates from the West and Islam is needed.

The facts 

It is a paradox that globalisation made the “Mohammad cartoon crisis” world famous, while the local context remained unknown.

On 17 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article discussing the difficulty encountered by a writer to find an illustrator for his children's book on the life of the Prophet Muhammad (1).

On 30 September 2005, the daily newspaper Morgen Avisen Jyllands-Posten (The Jutland Post) published an article entitled "Muhammeds ansigt" ("The face of Muhammad") (2). The article consisted of twelve cartoons – of which some depicted Muhammad associated with terrorism, intolerance, and/or obscurantism, some were witty and funny without representing Muhammad, and one was mocking the editor for making a “PR stunt”. Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:

“The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with contemporary democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is of minor importance in the present context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]”

Immediately after the publication of the “Mohammad cartoons” by Jyllands-Posten (hereafter JP), the Danish press expressed its distance with this article. Moderate Muslims demonstrated peacefully against the newspaper, together with non-Muslims, to condemn such depictions for being insensitive and tasteless in a context of tensions and pressure against Muslims (the far-right is in coalition with the government).

In October 2005, Politiken polled thirty-one of the forty-three members of the Danish cartoonist association, which contradicted the statement of self-censorship among cartoonists. Fifteen of them rejected JP's project (3).

After this, extremists took the case in hand with the success we know. Even some moderate Muslims condemned the cartoons in a completely overreacting fashion. Non-Muslim Arab governments also exploited the hysteria for political use.  Few Muslim media republished the cartoons in order to urge Muslims to “be reasonable” (4). However, extremists dominated the media, as moderate Muslims, the minority in Arabic countries, do not have the means to be represented and therefore heard.

Rejecting dichotomous positions

It has become difficult today to express a more nuanced opinion when a vast majority of the news media in the West expressed solidarity with JP. And how could it be otherwise when extremists burn flags, and threaten the cartoonists as well as their compatriots?

Extremists' reactions shall be condemned indeed, but not on the name of defending a freedom of speech that contributes to spreading islamophobia.

JP exploited how extremists overreacted in order to justify their action by stating that they defended democratic traditions and values. It is true that freedom of speech should involve mockery and ridicule, but it is also true that mocking and ridiculing a group that is not well integrated and subject to pressures by a right-wing government in coalition with a far-right party, is not of the best effect for democracy.

Instead of caricatures, JP should have published an article, or a series of articles, presenting diverse opinions and an enlightening debate discussing the state of the Islamic world and the alleged ban on the depiction of Muhammad.

The spread of islamophobia

Furthermore, publishing cartoons representing Muhammad or Muslims as extremists is spreading islamophobia by blurring nuances, enmeshing extremists with moderates, avoiding the presentation of moderate Muslims’ opinions, spreading the image of a Middle-Age Islam as the only existing Islam, thus maintaining ignorance about Islam and the Islamic world by focusing on negative aspects, and perpetuating the conception that Islam is necessarily remote from Western values.

This was the work of a tabloid and not of a responsible newspaper.

Freedom of speech shall not serve as a folding-screen to the spread of islamophobic feelings.

Notes:

(1) ”Dyb angst for kritik af islam", Politiken, 17 September 2005 (Danish)
(2) "Muhammeds ansigt", Jyllands-Posten, 30 September 2005 (Danish).
(3) "Profetens ansigt: Ingen selvcensur blandt tegnere", Politiken, 20 October 2005 (Danish).
(4) http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/world/4677976.stm, published: 2006/02/07 14:06:17 GMT

Vorschau bild:  „Muhammad“ von Hattat Aziz Efendi. Quelle: Muhittin Serin: Hattat Aziz Efendi. Istanbul 1988. ISBN: 375-7663-03-4. S.91. Aziz Efendi verstarb am 16. August 1934 (ebd. S. 35), des Werk ist deshalb gemeinfrei.

Pictures of Mohammad from "Ottoman religious paintings": http://www.ee.bilkent.edu.tr/~history/ottoman33.htm

and Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad 

Bild 1: 15th century illustration in a copy of a manuscript by Al-Bīrūnī, depicting Muhammad preaching the Qur'ān in Mecca.

Bild 2: Muhammd solves a dispute over lifting the black stone into position at al-Ka'ba.  Jami' al-Tavarikh: The Compendium of Chronicles or The Universal History. Rashid Al-Din, 1315.

Bild 3: The Prophet and his companions advancing on Mecca, attended by the angels Gabriel, Michael, Israfil and Azrail. Siyer-i Nebi: The Life of the Prophet, 1595. Hazine 1223, folio 298a.

Bild 4:  A 16th-century Ottoman illustration depicting Muhammad at the Kaaba. Muhammad's face is veiled, a practice followed in Islamic art since the 16th century, Siyer-i Nebi: The Life of the Prophet. Istanbul, 1595. Hazine 1222, folio 151b.