Opinions on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy

This page collects opinions, other than those of governments or inter-governmental organizations (see International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy for those), on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. For an overview, and details on the controversy please see the main page.

Opinions in Denmark

Polls

A poll on January 29, 2006, from Epinion for Danmarks Radio, the national broadcasting company of Denmark, showed that of 579 Danes asked, 79% believe that the Prime Minister of Denmark should not apologise to the Muslims, with 48% citing that would be political interference with the freedom of press, while 44% thought the Prime Minister should try harder to resolve the controversy. 62% of those asked believed that ''Jyllands-Posten'' should not apologize either. 58% felt that while it was the right of ''Jyllands-Posten'' to publish the images, they could understand the Muslim criticism.

On February 3, 2006, another poll from Epinion made for Danmarks Radio, had asked 509 people ''"Considering the events that have occurred in the past week, should Jylland-Posten have published the depictions?"''. 47% said they shouldn't have been published, 46% said the opposite, while the last 7% did not know which stance to take.

Should they have been published?

The question of whether the drawings should have been printed in the first place has been intensively discussed in Denmark from letters to the editors of news publications, to national television, to open debate meetings at high schools and universities. The controversy arises from several sources:

* Most Islamic traditions forbid representations of Muhammad.
* The satirical nature of some of the drawings was not considered respectful, especially one that shows Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, thereby reinforcing the stereotypical association of Islam with terrorism.
* The drawings upset the Muslim community in Denmark at a time when relations between Muslims and Western society are strained.

Criticism

The Denmark-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Network said "the cartoons among things identified Islam with terrorism, (this) can only increase the xenophobia and racism that these populations are already victims of in Europe. Furthermore, this kind of image contributes to discrediting entire countries and their populations."

Former Danish minister of foreign affairs and ex-chairman of Venstre Uffe Ellemann-Jensen has openly criticized ''Jyllands-Posten'' for publishing the drawings. Referring to the cartoons as a "pubertal demonstration", Elleman-Jensen argues that editor-in-chief Carsten Juste has acted irresponsibly and implies that Juste is an incompetent editor. Ellemann-Jensen also argues that Juste should retire from his position as editor of the newspaper.

Cartoon editor's statement

The editor who originally approved the cartoons, Carsten Juste, later declared that the opponents of free speech had "won" because the furor would almost undoubtedly deter future editors from printing anything similar. He thought it unlikely that anyone would print a caricature of Muhammad within a generation. He also said that, had he known exactly what the consequences would be, that is death threats, boycotts, and terror threats, he would not have printed the cartoons.

The cartoonists

In early February 2006, Swedish newspaper ''Dagens Nyheter'' published an article that focused not on the cartoons but the cartoonists (who were not named). It was based on interviews with a few of the cartoonists, several of whom regretted creating the pictures. Dagens Nyheter also noted that although the cartoons have received worldwide attention and have been published several times, the cartoonists have only earned the initial few hundred Danish kroner each for their work.

Reaction to government actions

Many people in Denmark have criticized the government's handling of the affair, particularly the prime minister's decision not to meet with the ambassadors from Muslim majority countries in October 2005.

On December 20, 2005, twenty-two former Danish ambassadors sent an open letter to the prime minister criticizing his decision not to open a dialogue with the international representatives.

Criticism of Danish media in general

A 2004 report by the immigrant rights lobbyist organization, the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), claimed that the Danish media devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problems posed by immigrants, and most often Islamic immigrants, while often ignoring the problems that these immigrants face. Over the 3-month period studied, from September 1 to November 20, 19 out of the 24 ''Jyllands-Posten's'' editorials on "ethnic issues" were negative, while 88 out of 120 op. ed. pieces on "ethnics" were negative, and 121 out of 148 letters to the editor on "ethnics" were negative.

In Denmark, ENAR is represented by Bashy Quraishy, who is a former member of Socialistisk Folkeparti and is known for his apologetic attitude with regards to the 9/11 attacks and for referring to the focus on Islamic fundamentalism during the following investigations as "crusades". The other representative for ENAR in Denmark is Mona Sheikh, who failed to gain a seat in Folketinget representing Det Radikale Venstre when it was discovered that she (even though she doesn't wear a headscarf) was a member of the Minhaj-ul-Quran network.

Danish Muslims

While generally offended by the cartoons, most members of the Danish Muslim community condemn the violence that the drawings have sparked off in the Middle East, arguing that the state of Denmark is not to be held responsible for the drawings published by Jyllands-Posten.

On February 7, 2006, 300 Danish Muslims and ethnic Danes marched through Gjellerupparken near Århus carrying torches to a demonstration for an increased understanding between the Danish Muslim community and Danish mainstream community. Rabih Azad-Ahmad who organized the demonstration appealed for friendly and open interaction between the Muslim and mainstream Danish communities.

Reconciliation

The Islamic Society in Denmark proposed that a three-day celebration of Muhammad should be held in Denmark, putting a focus on Muhammad's life. They further proposed that this be coordinated in part by the Islamic Society, ''Jyllands-Posten'', and at least some of the five universities in Denmark. This was declined by the universities, as they do not take part in religious activities.

Opinion of the Queen of Denmark

In April 2005 the British newspaper, ''The Daily Telegraph'' published an article which quoted Queen Margrethe II of Denmark as saying that the Danes have "to show our opposition to Islam". The comment is from the book Margrethe (2005) .

The statement was however somewhat mistranslated and taken from the following context: age 197

There is, as said, something moving about people, whom to this degree surrender to a faith. However there is also something frightening about such a totality, which also is a side of Islam. There must be shown counter-play nterplay of an alternative / sparring and once in a while you have to run the risk of getting a less flattering label stuck upon you. Because there is certain things before which one should not be tolerant.

The passage as it appeared in ''The Daily Telegraph'' was reprinted by the pan-Arabic news paper ''Al-Hayat'', as evidence of Islamophobia in Denmark.

Opinions of Muslims

Some Muslims were angered by the publication of what they considered offensive images. Although the artists have denied representing Muhammad as a terrorist, many Muslims felt that a bomb in a turban, with a lit fuse and the Islamic creed written on the bomb suggested a connection between Muhammad and terrorism.

Some Liberal Muslims, mainly in Europe, have supported the republication of the images so that individual Muslims can make up their own minds and welcomed the debate on the issues that the cartoons have raised.

It has also been pointed out that cartoons in the Arab and Islamic press "demonizing" Jews and Israelis are common.

Louay M. Safi, scholar and Muslim American leaders argued that the cartoons were an exercise in hate, rather than free, speech. Dr. Safi accused Jyllands-Poten editors of hiding behind free speech to promote anti-Muslim feelings and demonize the small but growing Danish Muslim community. He distinguished between free speech that aims at engaging an important issue, and hate speech whose goal is to marginalize and intimidate, and argued that Jyllands-Posten was evidently guilty of the latter.

Double standard?

Other Arabs and Muslims have expressed their condemnation of the cartoons: "In he Westit is considered freedom of speech if they insult Islam and Muslims," columnist Mohammed al-Shaibani wrote in Kuwait's ''Al-Qabas'' daily on January 30, 2006, "But such freedom becomes racism and a breach of human rights and anti-Semitism if Arabs and Muslims criticize their religion and religious laws."

A number of Muslim commentators, including Ehsan Ahrari of the ''Asia Times'', have pointed at laws in Germany, France, Austria, and seven other countries in Europe which explicitly regard the denial of the Holocaust as a crime, free speech considerations notwithstanding. They maintain that offensive imagery regarding the Jewish religion and the Jewish people is largely prohibited in the media in post-Holocaust Europe. The media in general practices self-restraint in this matter; therefore many Muslims say that a different set of standards applies for the Islamic faith.

BBC debate

The issue was debated in a BBC
...