More Cartoon Offenses: Sweden & Opus
Michael C. Moynihan | August 27, 2007, 5:43pm
Via Drudge, the Washington Post, according to "sources" at the paper, killed a Berkeley Breathed cartoon for fear of offending Muslims. From Fox:
The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday's installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.
...
Sources told FOXNews.com that the strips were shown to Muslim staffers at The Washington Post to gauge their reaction, and they responded "emotionally" to the depiction of a woman dressed in traditional Muslim garb and espousing conservative Islamic views.
There was also considerable alarm over the strip at the highest echelons of The Washington Post Co., according to the sources. Lago said she flagged some of the syndicate's newspaper clients for two reasons: because of the possibility that the jokes about Islam would be misconstrued and because of the sexual innuendo in the punchline.
But over in Sweden, where no mainstream newspapers dared run the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (and many of whom tongue-lashed those who did), another cartoon controversy is raging. The top story at Aftonbladet.se, website of Sweden's largest-selling tabloid, says the country's chargé d'affaires to Tehren, Gunilla von Bahr, was called into a meeting to discuss a cartoon of Mohammad that recently ran in the (local) Swedish newspaper Nerikes Allehanda. The Iranians were, apparently, offended by the Örebro daily, and desired Swedish government intervention.
When artist and art historian Lars Vilks, the man behind the beautiful "Nimis" sculpture in Skåne, couldn't find a gallery to display his series of ink drawings, which includes a representation of Mohammad as a dog, the paper published them in support. Sound familiar? The Iranian goverment, on a summer break from hanging gay men, has taken action, warning the Swedish government that the cartoon is "insulting to the prophet Mohammad." A Foreign Ministry spokesman was having none of it: "The Iranian government can protest whatever they want. But the Swedish Foreign Ministry and government have no reason to comment on this protest," the official told TT, the country's largest newswire.
A few English stories on the Vilks controversy here and here. None of them mention that a moderate Muslim group in Sweden offered to exhibit the drawings—that is until Vilks published this anti-Semitic drawing of a hook-nosed sow, gobbling up Palestinians. Caption: "Modern Jew sow, swollen by capitalism, on his way out to tear apart (att böka sönder) some peaceful villages. (In the style of Cézanne)"
Vilks Mohammad cartoon here.
iih | August 27, 2007, 8:56pm | #
As a Muslim I did not find the Opus cartoon offensive. It is a bit stereotypical and misrepresents what the
hijab (i.e., scarf without face veil) - as opposed to the
burqa -- means to many Muslims. The burqa is associated with fundamentalism (not the a colorful scarf as the one shown in the Opus cartoon -- the mouth covering is realy neither a burqa nor a standard
hijab -- a cute stereotypical addition by the Opus cartoonist) and most Muslims (outside KSA and Afghanistan) find it too extreme and even offending.
It is funny, I came across the news regarding Opus on Micelle Malkin's website, confirmed by Fox and no where else! They basically propagated the "fact" that they are offensive, that Muslims are already "outraged" and that Westerners/Christians/"free-speechers" should stand up to Muslim "outrage". Well, being connected to many Muslim news sources (here and abroad), I have found very little regarding Opus (let alone the fact they are necessarily "offensive"), no "outrage", and the whole thing seamed theatrical and staged.
In any case, someone on this thread once shared this George Bernard Shaw quote:
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it."
I did find the original Danish cartoons disturbing (not offensive). I found it to be an expression of liberty, but was certainly irresponsible. The Danish cartoons did, however, provide the precedent to initiate debate (and was sad to see the outrage on the Muslim side, and equally sad to see the ignorance and stereotyping on the side of many Westerners). Now repeating the offense seems to me pointless. It seems to me to be irresponsible, the quality of tabloids, or is just meant to antagonize and not debate.
An Arab | August 28, 2007, 12:03pm | #
Hi all,
This is my first post here.
iih,
You claim that you are a practicing Muslim, and that you were not offended by the cartoons. In my opinion, you are on the other side of the bell curve, in that, 95% of all Muslim friends/relatives I talked to since, have found those cartoons to be hands down offensive. I have lived in the Middle East for 20 years, and in the West for 8. This is why I am confident you are more of an exception than the rule, regarding this particular matter.
More to the point, most Muslims do not like that the prophet Mohammad is being put on such a negative spotlight by the West.
One may argue that current violent events by other Muslims disgrace Islam more than cartoons. I counter that those events are done in a political vein, with a religious veneer. Westerners believe its the opposite: Religious fundamentalism, masquarading as political griefs.
This initial assumption on their part is factually wrong - humans dont generally think in existential terms - they might motivate or provide some sort of annesthezia, but at its heart, motivation for humans has to do with on the ground, earthly issues.
It is for this reason that Westerners in general see Muslims blow themselves up and then assume its an 'Islamic thing', thereby tainting the entire religion.
Its almost as if Westerners spend 1 minute listening to an entire 1 hour speech by Muslims, but then spend 1 hour analyzing the final "Allahu Akbar" phrase in closing statements.
Westerners are not stupid. Seeing this is not hard. And yet many still do it.
In my dealings with Westerners who mis-understand this, I have come across two types of people, whom I have roughly classified.
-- The first type are the ignorant ones. Through no fault of their own, they just simply do not know enough about politics and history of the Middle East. Generally a polite bunch, they approach issues with an open mind. On the flip side, they are the ones most likely to by swayed by whatever sounds and points are floating around, without giving it too much thought.
-- The second category are the Westerners with a more malevolent streak: They look at you, hypothesize you are middle eastern, and will immediately think you have insider knowledge as to why OPEC is raising oil prices. Now I do have a sense of humor, so I ask them to call Cheney and ask him for my overseas phone-call transcript to various oil sheikhs, one good American to another.
On the more sinister side however, are people like Michelle Malkin, Daniel Pipes, etc. Those are famous people in those circles, but of course there are others like them but just regular folks. Those types of Westerners do not like Islam, or Muslims. They taint the names of Arabs and Muslims for a living. Not just individuals - but all of them. They stereotype us, making other Westerners fear us. There is a strong correlation between people who randomly ask me 'Why I hate them', and them watching Fox News, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkins, etc. This correlation is no accident. This is the fruit of the seeds that those bigots spew.
iih | August 28, 2007, 12:24pm | #
You claim that you are a practicing Muslim, and that you were not offended by the cartoons. In my opinion, you are on the other side of the bell curve, in that, 95% of all Muslim friends/relatives I talked to since, have found those cartoons to be hands down offensive. I have lived in the Middle East for 20 years, and in the West for 8. This is why I am confident you are more of an exception than the rule, regarding this particular matter.
yep, you are right. I think I would be considered a "liberal" Muslim. But such reformists or liberal Muslims are not a minority, eventhough most Muslims would be offended by depictions of Muhammad in general (on theological-bases, not dogmatic/superstitious bases). When it comes to the cartoons, I did not find the Opus cartoons offensive with the possible exception mentioned above. The original Danish cartoons were not offensive until they were repeatedly published just to cause further offense to Muslims. I originally thought it was partly ignorant of Muslim sensibilities, but an honest and unconventional way of sparking debate.
More to the point, most Muslims do not like that the prophet Mohammad is being put on such a negative spotlight by the West.
Agreed.
One may argue that current violent events by other Muslims disgrace Islam more than cartoons. I counter that those events are done in a political vein, with a religious veneer. Westerners believe its the opposite: Religious fundamentalism, masquarading as political griefs.
Oh, yes. Muslims' irrational responses and violence extremely stupid, reactionary, and does no good. I argue, unlike those Westerners you mention in this paragraph, that they are doing this
despite of Islamic teachings as opposed to
because of these teachings. I.e., they are ignorant of their own faith. Or may be, I have a very different view of the faith than these ignorant Muslims (let alone fundamentalists) do, which was point that Muslims come in all sorts of shapes and backgrounds, and are not monolithic.
I pretty much agree about the remainder of your comment.
I was myself welcomed on H&R a few months ago. I like it when people discuss matters rationally and objectively, as opposed to the nutjobs who often times show up (a few examples can be found in this very thread). Overall, this is an excellent forum, especially if you are libertarian, or have libertarian tendencies. I am a Muslim with strong Libertarian leanings. And am still learning!
An Arab | August 28, 2007, 5:05pm | #
iih,
yep, you are right. I think I would be considered a "liberal" Muslim.
Two points. It is very possible that Muslims with a liberal outlook also be offended by such images. This is because the offensiveness of the images has many aspects. (More on this below). In other words, I realise that you call yourself a 'liberal Muslim', but that doesnt explain why you are not offended by the images. :)
Secondly, I prefer not to use terms such as 'liberal muslim' to begin with. It implies that being just a 'muslim' is illiberal. IMO, it is yet another Western concoction betraying the initial assumption that to be Muslim, is to be a violent illiberal fanatic to begin with. As such, I refuse to give credance to such a basis, and oppose using that phrase. Muslim will do. How this Muslim acts depends on his/her political leanings, character, etc.
When it comes to the cartoons, I did not find the Opus cartoons offensive with the possible exception mentioned above. The original Danish cartoons were not offensive until they were repeatedly published just to cause further offense to Muslims.
Regarding the images, there are many elements associated with the 'offensiveness' of the articles. Primarily, those are:
1) The actual image.
2) The intention behind it.
Thus, even though the actual images may at times not be overtly offensive as such, (for example, the artist has done a bad job), the actual
intention behind it is for the purpose of disrespecting Muslims, their faith, and their prophet.
That is what makes it offensive.
Of course, it is possible to mistake and rush to conclude that an otherwise docile image of say, Mohammed on a camel riding in the desert is intended to be offensive, and that of course, is wrong. In order to establish intent, it is necessary to probe the artist, the paper publishing it, before one concludes that there is an actual malevolent intent.
That being said however, it is clear from the actions of that Danish paper, its artists, and others who published those cartoons, that they are/were out to offend / disrespect Muslims in general.
Muslims' irrational responses and violence extremely stupid, reactionary, and does no good. I argue, unlike those Westerners you mention in this paragraph, that they are doing this despite of Islamic teachings as opposed to because of these teachings. I.e., they are ignorant of their own faith.
I see what you are saying, but I have a different take on it: First off, remember that the 'Muslims violent responses' were very, very localized. Out of a population of 1.1 billion Muslims, there were tens and tens of protests against the cartoons. A couple became violent. As I recall, molotov cocktails were thrown at a Western embassy in Syria, and a nun was shot in Somalia. In Pakistan, 11 people or so died in a stampede.
Now, Westerners who chose to taint Islam because of those are not simply ignorant of Muslims, but also of the laws of statistics. Out of 1.1 billion people and only 15 or so fatalities in the most backwards neighbourhoods of the world? I call that a success story. 15 out of 1 billion is better odds than dying in a plane crash.
Couple that with the fact that an umpteen amount of non-violent protests did in fact taken place across Egypt, the Gulf and the Levant, and you're left with naked Western bigotry.
Overall, this is an excellent forum, especially if you are libertarian, or have libertarian tendencies. I am a Muslim with strong Libertarian leanings. And am still learning!
It took only 22 minutes before the first bigot Mr F le Fur decided to post in reply to mine. A couple of minutes after that, another one alluded that I want Westerners to 'submit or die'.
This is the current environment we as Muslims have to live in iih, through no fault of our own. I very much doubt that rational conversation and understanding is possible anymore with those types of Westerners. 'We' took down the towers according to them, so its only fair that they chastize 'us'.
My advice to you iih is not to waste you time responding to each and every Western kook you come across. It really is a waste of time, and you can spend your time doing things that are much more productive.
You cant reason with those people. The best thing IMO is to make use of the Second Ammendment, buy a gun or two and some ammo, and prepare to defend yourself should any one of those Westerners decide to pull a Japanese-Internment camp on us.
grylliade | August 29, 2007, 1:01am | #
Secondly, I prefer not to use terms such as 'liberal muslim' to begin with. It implies that being just a 'muslim' is illiberal. IMO, it is yet another Western concoction betraying the initial assumption that to be Muslim, is to be a violent illiberal fanatic to begin with. As such, I refuse to give credance to such a basis, and oppose using that phrase. Muslim will do. How this Muslim acts depends on his/her political leanings, character, etc.
It's a useful descriptor. I'm a liberal Christian; that doesn't imply that being Christian is illiberal. It just means that, on the spectrum of liberal to conservative Christians, I'm further on the left.
Thus, even though the actual images may at times not be overtly offensive as such, (for example, the artist has done a bad job), the actual intention behind it is for the purpose of disrespecting Muslims, their faith, and their prophet. That is what makes it offensive.
Sorry, but this just bothers me. I still can't figure out why you should have a right not to be offended. Of course, I can never figure out why conservative Christians fly off the handle at negative depictions of Christians or Jesus, either. People need to be made fun of, as do their beliefs. If negative depictions of Muslims, their faith, or Muhammad offend you, well, welcome to free speech. You don't have to watch it.
Mainly, such negative depictions come in two flavors. One is the person who's
trying to be offensive for the sake of giving offense. Complaining about the offensive content just fuels their determination to be offensive, which means that the better course of action is to ignore it. The second flavor is the person who's trying to make a point, and either doesn't realize that what they're doing is offensive or realizes it but thinks that the point is important enough to do it anyways. This person needs to be engaged in discussion, because they just
might say something worth listening to.
Basically, I think that taking offense at things is just a waste of time. There are much more productive things to do than throw a hissy fit because your sensibilities are offended.
And let me apologize for the Neanderthals upthread. Some posters here have a stick up their ass about Islam (see also: Donderooooooooooo!!!!111omgluvrudy!!!!). These people live in a fantasy world where the West is locked in a struggle TO THE DEATH with Islam. Two civilizations enter; only one can leave! Ignore them; they aren't worth your time.
