As I was getting into a discussion with someone in another thread about this issue, I was beginning to wonder whether he or she had actually seen any of the images in question other than the "Bomb-headed Muhammed", because the commentary brought forth was that all of the images were offensive, insulting, and irresponsible. Really?
The first time I looked at the "Danish 12" I found something interesting in all of them. Some of them are funny and relevant political commentary. The others I certainly didn't find offensive as I looked at them. I instantly wondered what exactly I should be offended at. Was there something dark and forboding about the images that should some how make me revulse at the mere sight of them? Not really.
Yet many here seem to be taking this revulsion on their own backs and carrying it with them (I am speaking of the apparently non-Muslim commentators). I imagine that there isn't a huge Muslim presence at this site, and I can see how THEY might be offended by these political cartoons, but there seems to be a contigent of non-Muslims who also claim to be offended.
So, my question is which of these images actually offends you, and why? If you are a Muslim, feel free to respond as well. I simply want to know whether some are carrying the emotions they have for the Muslim reaction, rather than deciding whether the images are actually offensive to them.
Do all of them offend you? Why?
The Wikipedia link, I believe, has more about what the tougher to decipher images mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
1)The first image I think is quite a good and positive image, and drawn nicely. I don't see anything negative here at all.
2)This one just looks funny to me in its style. It is true that it could be interpretted that his halo is shaped like horns, but I still don't see anything inherently offensive to me.
3)This drawing is just too simple to carry much meaning at all.
4)This one is just a well-drawn peice of art in my opinion. Could this actually represent Muhammed? Simply because the paper said it is so? I don't believe it could, and I don't see anything inherently offensive in this image again.
5)Now c'mon!!! Tell me that this virgin one isn't hilarious. The fundamentalist suicide bombers go to heaven and heaven is out of the virgins they were promised. This is just hilarious, and I would have to believe that you would have to have some sympathy for suicide bombers to think otherwise.
6)This cartoon is excellent wry political commentary about how the press chooses to use its freedom of expression. Some can even say it was visionary, but only if you believe that there aren't large supporters of the clash of civilizations that would make it a little more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.
7)This one is truly great. The fearful artist attempts his best rendition of Muhammed out of the fear he knows he might face. Considering this artist is in hiding now, was the commentary not accurate? That he had something to fear? Nothing offensive here.
8)This is yet another cartoon calling out the press for attempting to do something to stand out. I don't see anything offensive to me here either.
9)The worst drawn, but the commentary has a kick. It simply points that under Muhammed women are more oppressed than men. Is this incorrect? I don't think so. Nor do I find it offensive to me.
10)This one also has a political statement that is poignant, though proved not as visionary as the others. Of course the implication is that the individuals with bombs and swords might have had to go out to uphold fundamentalist law with a Muslim that drew Muhammed, yet muhammed stops them by stating that the danish artist is outside of Fundamentalist law. Unfortunately, this is not how the militant Muslims burning down embassies actually believe. There is certainly nothing to be offended by here in my eyes.
11)The bomb. Again, what is offensive here? The commentary can mean many things. To me it means that the face of Islam has been clouded to the rest of the world by its misuse at the hands of militant fundamentalists. Is it actually offensive to make that commentary? Not to me. (Of course I can see that Muslims would likely interpret it differently, but I am talking about my interpretation here).
12)The other poignant potical commentary... that the editor of the paper is simply trying to drum up a PR stunt. Not as funny as the Virgin cartoon, but certainly humorous in a wry way.