A series of cartoons, depicting the Prophet Mohammed, has sparked an
uproar of protest from Muslims around the world. Today, Iraq's top Shiite cleric joined in condeming the cartoons. The cartoons were initially published in September, but were recently republished in a Danish paper. Other papers in turn printed the cartoons. The publication caused such an uproar in the Muslim world, that numerous editors who chose to publish the cartoons in their respective publications have been fired.
Some context for the printing of the cartoons is needed. Danish writer Kare Bluitgen wrote a children's book about Mohammed, but was unable to find any artists willing to illustrate his children's book. Clerics have interpreted the Quran as forbidding depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and other major religious figures to prevent idolatry.
More below...
Jyllands-Posten invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to "draw Mohammed as they see him." While forty artists were invited to participate, only twelve responded. Those twelve cartoons ran alongside an article about free speech and self-censorship. You can read a description of the 12 cartoons
here. The most controversial one is of Mohammed wearing a turban, shaped as a lit bomb.
What we should remember as this story unfolds is that the tensions between religious sensitivities and free speech is not limited to the borders of Europe and the Muslim world. Within our own borders, we have repeatedly witnessed the protesting of art by religious groups who perceive the works to be blasphemy. Perhaps the starkest example of this occurred in the late 1990s with Chris Ofili's "The Virgin Mary". Ofili's painting depicted the Virgin Mary surrounded by elephant dung. Ofili's painting was so controversial, the gallery that exhibited it almost lost its funding. More recently, religious groups protested the (now canceled) television show "The Book of Daniel" because of its "anti-Christian bigotry.", and several local affiliates refused to air the show. In Russia too, the tension between free press and religious sensitivity has come into sharp relief. Last year, a museum director in Russia was convicted and fined for "inciting religious hatred" with their presentations of "Caution! Religion." (the artist was acquitted. See his art here). The convicted museum directors just filed an appeal with the European Court of Human Rights.
Both Denmark and Germany are refusing to apologize for publishing the Mohammed cartoons (though the Danish paper did run an editorial apologizing for the furor). This is the statement by the German Interior Minister:
"Why should the government apologize for an act of press freedom?" Interior Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble asked in an interview with daily Die Welt, one of several German papers that reprinted cartoons. "If the government interferes with that, then that's the first step to restrict the freedom of the press."
Unfortunately, it appears the controversy is growing instead of dying down. Saudi Arabia's interior minister has called upon the Vatican to intervene and prevent publication of the cartoons, while Imam Ibrahim Mogra, a leading British imam, has cautioned Muslims about overreacting to the cartoons. And, finally, the European Union is considering incorporating criminal penalties for inciting religious hatred into its media code of conduct.
Should the restrictions or sensitivities of a specific faith--whether it be Christianity or Islam or whatever--act as a muzzle on freedom on expression? Even if the artist is not a believer of that faith? What level of deference--if any--should artists accord to religious considerations? The recent controversy is just another chapter in this debate, a debate all nations have engaged in--and a debate without a clear answer.
Update [2006-2-3 13:46:57 by georgia10]:: scorponic, who's been following the controversy from Denmark, has an interesting take on it here.