Introduction:
According to Alexenberg (2008), Islam has a strong culture of aniconism. This is the prohibition of depiction of the supernatural using material objects. The Islamic holy book, the Quran, does not expressly prohibit the depiction of human figures. However, it prohibits idolatry. It is important to note that because of its aniconism culture, it generally considered wrong to depict God, the prophet Muhammad and other prophets using images.
Before the Jyllands-Postencontroversy, it was unheard of in popular media of depiction of the prophet Muhammad. Jyllands-Posten is the leading newspaper by circulation in Denmark. Before the newspaper published the story, a Danish writer had written a children’s book about the Quran and the life of Prophet Muhammad. The writer had mentioned that he had found it difficult to find artists willing to illustrate the book. Artists had declined to illustrate the book for fear of reprisals from the Muslim community. In previous years, attacks had happened against people seen to be against Islam. This included the attack on a university professor in Copenhagen for reading passages in the Quran to non-Muslim students.
Jyllands-Posten decided to conduct a research to determine whether the illustrators in the country were afraid of reprisals resorting to self-censorship. The notion that artists were self-censoring eventually led to the publication of the cartoons on 30 September 2005. Self-censorship is evident in figure 1 above. The image is part of the cartoon series that created a controversy. The image shows an artist drawing Muhammad but appears visibly shaken. This may be because of the fear of the negative outcomes associated with drawing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.
Figure 1: An artist sketching Muhammad’s caricatures in fear
Source: http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/ig/Muhammad-Cartoons-/Muhammad-Cartoons--9.htm#step-heading
In particular, the artists involved in the project also wanted to capture the nature of violence and the promotion of suicide bombing by sections and factions of Islam. Figure 2 below depicts prophet Muhammad with a bomb on his turban. The artwork communicates different aspects of terrorism and the use of violence in Islam. True to the artwork, one of the resulting outcomes from the publication of the cartoons in the newspaper was a call for violence against the artists who had participated in drawing the cartoons published by the newspaper.
Figure 2: Portrait of Muhammad
http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/ig/Muhammad-Cartoons-/Muhammad-Cartoons--2.htm#step-heading
Initial function of the artworks:
The initial reason of the publication was to determine whether illustrators in the country were self-censoring because of feeling threatened for their work. The Jyllands-Posten contacted the writer who had first raised the issue asking for the details of the artists who had declined his project. The writer declined to provide the details of these illustrators and the Jyllands-Posten did not have a way to confirm the story. Consequently, the newspaper decided to run a project to confirm whether this was true. Forty-two professional illustrators in Denmark were contacted by the Jyllands-Posten and asked to depict what they thought prophet Muhammad looked like. Of the forty-two illustrators contacted, there were fifteen responses with three illustrators expressly declining the project. Another illustrator described the project as vague and therefore did not know how to respond to it while another illustrator said the project was poorly paid and stupid. Significantly, only one artist responded by saying that they feared for their life. The respondents provided twelve depictions of the prophet Muhammad although three of them did not depict the prophet directly.
The editor of the Jyllands-Posten argued that many of the illustrators who had initially been contacted worked for rival newspapers. Their contractual agreements meant that they could therefore not contribute to the project. As a result, the results of the project were considered inconclusive. This meant that the article with the cartoons could not be run as news and was relegated to the opinion pages of the newspaper. Apart from the initial intents of the project, depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in the cartoons was meant to elicit discourse. The editor in the actual publication noted that Muslims had rejected the modern secular society and demanded special considerations for their own religious feelings.
As a result, Muslims expected to operate under different rules to what applied to other members of society. For example, the demand that Prophet Muhammad could not be depicted in images and the violent reaction towards such depictions was simply not applicable in modern society. Everybody has a right to free speech and although some things may be said that are hurtful to one religion, it must be ready to put up with it. Otherwise, it would lead to a situation where self-censorship would rise above free speech.
In the art world, the cartoons received mixed reviews. The Danish society was considered as among the most liberal in the world. Many supporters of the publication showed it as a genuine exercise of free speech. The publication intended to pass a message that the Muslim society should be ready to operate under the same rules that apply to other religions. It also sought to support free speech. Depiction of the leaders of religions was common in many religions and Muslims should simply accept it. Opponents of the publication argued that the publication of the cartoons amounted to incitement. It was not necessary to publish the cartoons and the fact that they were published showed that the newspaper intended to incite the Muslims who are a minority in Denmark.
Controversy beyond art world:
Although the publication of Muhammad cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten had a significant impact in the art world, the effects were far much greater beyond the art world. The publication brought to the limelight an issue that had been ignored for a long time; the issue of equal treatment of religions. Islam is a conservative religion that for a long time strictly adhered to its teachings and beliefs. Among these beliefs is that it was wrong to depict images of the prophet Muhammad in any form. This belief is not unique to Islam. Many religions in the world do not depict supernatural beings. For example, depiction of Buddha in Hinduism was done by showing his presence or symbols of his authority rather than direct depiction. For Islam, it is appropriate for this rule to be enforced in Muslim countries. However, the rule was also seen to apply in countries with a Muslim minority. Many secularists argued that this was not right. The rules that apply to other religions should also apply to Islam. Insistence that depictions of the prophet could not be made was an affront to free speech. If a person wanted to depict the prophet, they should be able to do so without fear of any repercussions. Opponents of the publication said that the publication amounted to humiliation persecution of the Muslim society in Denmark, which was a minority. Because they were a minority, they were forced to consume material that went contrary to their beliefs.
The publication also raised issues about free speech, self-censorship, and censorship in general. Many argued that the cartoons were a demonstration of free speech and that the Jyllands-Posten had a right to publish them. Opponents believed that the newspaper had to exercise some form of self-censorship so as not to offend a section of the population. It was clear from the initial publication that the newspaper expected a section of the population to be offended. The article accompanying the cartoons clearly stated that the notion of special consideration of Islam would not apply to the modern secular democracy and they must be ready to put up with insults and mockery and ridicule. This shows that the cartoons were intentionally published to provoke reactions from Muslims. Opponents believed that the newspaper had a duty to self-censor especially considering the provocative nature of the cartoons.
The publication of the article also led to discussion about the limits of freedom. Ideally, one person’s freedom ends where the next person’s freedom begins. Essentially, a person cannot use his or her freedom to violate the freedom of another person. Supporters of the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten argued that they had not violated the freedom of anyone. The simple fact that the cartoons were seen as offensive to Muslims did not mean that they violated their freedoms. However, opponents of the publication argued that the cartoons were insensitive to the beliefs of the Muslims.
The publication had significant ramifications in the political world. The publication was made just over two weeks after the fourth anniversary of the world trade center attacks in New York. Soon after the attacks, the United States and allied forces, mainly western nations had invaded Afghanistan, a Muslim in a war targeting terrorists. In May 2003, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq. The invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan was seen by many western countries as a war against terrorism. However, many Muslim countries saw these wars as invasions against their religion by western forces.
The relationship between many western countries and Muslim countries were therefore already strained by the time the cartoons were published. Muslim countries saw the publication as a further attack on the Islam religion. After the initial uproar about the publication, Danish Imams tried to organize a meeting between the Danish government and Muslim countries. The Danish Government declined the meeting citing the fact that Denmark had a right to free expression and that the publication was entitled to express their views. The Danish government also reiterated that it had no means or authority to influence the media. The Danish Imams then went to either Muslim countries with the images and information, which later turned out to have beenexaggerated or incorrect. This brought a political standoff between the Danish government and Muslim countries.
After the initial publications in Jyllands-Posten, many other newspapers in mainland Europe re-published the images. This led to a political standoff between Muslim countries and Western countries. This was because of their different views on the publications. However, Egypt and Turkey, which are Muslim countries, tried to resolve the problem politically. After the controversy caused by the cartoons, a new party was formed in Denmark that represented the interests of Muslims. The party wanted to show a clear difference between moderate Muslims and Islamists who were hardliners. The publication of the cartoons led to the difference between these two groups becoming clearer to the general population.
According to Göle (2013), the publication of the cartoons has far-reaching effects. In the immediate aftermath of the publication, some newspaper vendors refused to distribute the paper. Many critics who wanted to be politically correct argued that the newspaper had be wrong to publish the cartoons but also said that Islam should accept criticism. Demonstrations were also made because of the publications in Copenhagen. Muslims in Denmark initiated legal proceedings against the Jyllands-Posten claiming blasphemy and insults. However, the prosecutor in the case dropped the case after investigations showed that the newspaper had not committed a criminal offense.
Despite being published at the end of September 2005, many of the demonstrations against them internationally took place at the end of January and during February 2006. These demonstrations mainly took place in majority Muslim countries and countries with a Muslim minority. Many of the demonstrations turned violent resulting in over 200 deaths. In Muslim countries, embassies of western countries were targets of attacks. Christians and churches were also target in many of these demonstrations. Apart from the demonstrations against the cartoons, there were also demonstrations showing support for the newspaper, freedom of speech and Denmark that took place all over the world.These demonstrations were largely peaceful. The publication of the cartoons also led to a number of ministers losing their jobs. An Italian minister lost his job for publicly supporting the cartoons while a minister in Sweden lost her job for her role in the shutting down of a website that displayed the images. As a sign of protest, many Muslim countries organized for boycotts against Denmark and its products.
The images were reprinted in many newspapers all over the world, primarily in Europe. Significantly, the cartoons were first re-printed in an Egyptian newspaper, which is a Muslim Country where the accompanying article denounced the images and this did not cause uproar. Newspapers in the United States and Canada reported about the story but did not re-print the images. In some countries, newspapers were banned from publishing the images.
Death threats were made against the cartoonists and employees of the newspaper with many still living in fear of their lives. Numerous plots were discovered targeted at the editor of Jyllands-Posten, the cartoonist at the publication, other employees of Jyllands-Posten and property belonging to the newspaper. Plots have also been discovered targeting other European newspapers that reprinted the cartoons. The most significant is the attack of the Charlie Hebdo newspaper in France that republished the original Muhammad cartoons in Jyllands-Posten. This satirical newspaper had featured Muhammad as guest editor subsequent to the Jyllands-Posten publication. Over the years, the newspaper published caricatures of Muhammad. Death threats were made to employees of the paper and many of them were under police protection. On 7th January 2015 over 9 years after the Jyllands-Posten publication, gunmen attacked Charlie Hebdo offices as an editorial meeting was in progress. This attack led to the deaths of 12 people including a number of employees of the newspaper. This attack can ultimately be attributed to the cartoons first published in Jyllands-Posten.
Bibliography:
Alexenberg, M. L. 2008. Educating artists for the future: Learning at the intersections of art, science, technology, and culture. Bristol, U.K: Intellect.
Banakar, R. (Ed.). 2010. Rights in context: law and justice in late modern society. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Göle, N. 2013. Islam and public controversy in Europe.Burlington : Ashgate Publishing
Johan, A. and Ole, M. 2015. Artists defiant after Paris killings but fear censorship on Islam. [Online] Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-attack-cartoonists-idUSKBN0KG2D820150107 [Accessed 16 May 2016]
Robert, B. 2015. Cartoon Journalist. [Online] Available at http://atlassociety.org/commentary/modernity-and-terrorism/modernity-terrorism-blog/4045-cartoon-journalists [Accessed 16 May 2016]
