The Jyllands-Posten Cartoons

Yesterday, I followed a link to slide.com that had posted the purported cartoons from the Jyllands-Posten.  I don't know if these are what were actually printed in that newspaper. Along with these were three "cartoons" of uncertain origin the were clearly offensive (in the "I know it when I see it" sense).  If anyone has the link from yesterday, I would appreciate them posting it in the thread.

I would be interested in how the cartoons are being read (deconstructed, interpreted) by Muslims.  And what the offense of each one is.  My reaction to the twelve Jyllands-Posten cartoons was that one would have to be told that they were images of Muhammed in order to make that interpretation.

And I would be interested in hearing how these are like of different from Jesus General's "Republican Jesus"

   1. A guy in a turban and beard merged with the crescent and star.

   2. A fierce looking guy whose turban is a bomb with the fuse lit.  On the front of the bomb are something written in Arabic (or Arabic looking characters)

   3. A bearded guy in sandals, pants, and a tunic with a turban and a crescent-shaped halo over his turban

   4. Five PAC-man looking figures chomping down on a Star of David and a crescent with the caption in Danish "Profet! Med kuk og khald i laget somholder kuinder under buet" or something like that.

   5. A bearded man in sandals, pants, tunic and a turban, leading a donkey loaded with two packs and under a red sun

   6. An artist shaking and sweating with fear while working of a drawing of a guy with a beard and arab headscarf (kaffiyeh?)

   7. A guy in a turban and royal looking clothing looking at a piece of paper, restraining two guys.  One has bomb and sticking up behind his back is the barrel of an air cooled rifle.  The other holds a scimitar.  The Danish caption has been translated as "Relax folks, itis just a sketch made by a Dane from the south-west of Denmark"

   8. A Danish schoolboy named Mohammed standing in front of a blackboard, having written "Jyllande-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provacateurs" in Arabic

   9. Two women in black burkas that have a rectangular eye space.  Between them a bearded guy in a turban with a black rectangle (which might have been cut from one of the burkas) in front of his eyes as if blinding him.

  10. A cloud (the Western cartoon symbol for heaven or paradise) with bearded man dressed as a mullah.  A line of burned guys (waiting to enter paradise?) and the caption "Stop, stop, we ran out of virgins".

  11. A geeky Danish-looking guy in a turban.  On top of the turban is an orange(?) labeled "PR stunt".  In his hand he holds a stick drawing of a guy with a beard and a turban.

  12.  A police lineup.  Number 1 is a guy in a tee shirt, beard, and turban and wearing a peace sign.  Number 2 is a lady(?) in a pink blouse, black suit coat and a turban.  Number 3 is a Jesus-looking bearded guy in a turban.  Number 4 is a Buddha-looking guy in a turban.  Number 5 is a stern white-bearded guy in a turban.  Number 6 is a guy with scraggly hair and a beard, and in a turban.  Number 7 is a geeky Danish looking guy holding a sign in Danish.  The reddish blond guy trying to identify them is saying "Hm, I don't recognize him".

Those are the Jyllands-Posten cartoons, as a full page scan of the article entitled "Muhammeds ansigt" shows.  Now tell me where Muhammed is actually shown as opposed to a generic Arab.  And tell me what is offensive.

If you want offensive.  Also circulating on picture sites like slide.com are at least three items that are definitely offensive and most likely from anti-Islamic bigots.

   1. A guy in a beard with a shaved head and Satanic horns holding a little woman in each hand.  The caption is "Den Paedofile "Profet" Muhammed".  Now that is offensive, but there is no evidence that it was in the Danish papers.

   2. A Muslim in prayer being humped by a dog (something on the order of a golden labrador).  The caption is "DEEFOR BEDER MUSLIMER".  The image is clearly intended to be offensive.

   3. A very grainy picture of a fat guy with a piglike nose and what look to be lipstick-colored round lips singing into a microphone with the caption "HER ER DET REGTIGE BILLEDE AP MUHAMMED".  This is so grainy as to not be easily interpreted except for the caption.  But I suspect if the image were clearer that it might be offensive.

None of these last three come from the Jyllands-Posten.

All of the scanned images have translations handwritten in Arabic.

•  Dude,

  I would be interested in how the cartoons are being read (deconstructed, interpreted) by Muslims.

  you've not seen the riots in several countries regarding these cartoons?

  I think that gives us a good idea of how the cartoons are being interpreted.

  by Superpole on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:13:30 AM PDT

  •  I think

    He wants a Literary Deconstruction. Not a Literal Deconstruction.

    by kraant on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:23:04 AM PDT

•  asdf

  Those three, I imagine, are the three fake ones.  Someone besides the Jyllands-Posten made those up to stir up the rabble a bit more.

  The image in the Wikipedia article is a scan of the actual Jyllands-Posten page in question.  That's probably as authentic as you're going to get.
  

  by Sura 109 on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:26:33 AM PDT

•  I don't want to sound grumpy,

  but what makes you think that Muslims should care what a non-Muslim westerner finds offensive or not?

  To me, the larger issue isn't whether all concerned can come to an agreement about what is offensive; the larger issue is that people don't seem to know how to act.

  Being offended is no excuse for violence or threats of violence. This is basic.

  If you offend someone, you should apologize and make some effort not to do so in the future, even while acknowledging your legal right to be offensive. This is also basic.

  For example, if Jyllands Posten had put the pictures inside, with a note mentioning that Muslim readers could be offended by the contents, perhaps that might have calmed the situation, since it would have been respectful even though still publishing what the editorial staff decided to publish. This approach has been used in many other contexts; whether it would have helped here I don't know.

  As another example, if offended Muslims had simply demonstrated peacefully, along with things like petitions and diplomatic communications, with no threat of violence, perhaps that could have caused Jyllands Posten to apologize and even to make changes in editorial policy that would cause less offense in the future. Again, it's hard to know for sure that this would have happened, but it seems plausible to me.

  The problem is, that neither side seems to know how to act. If I were their parent, I'd put them on time out.

  Greg Shenaut

  by gshenaut on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:29:49 AM PDT

  •  My Guess

    "What makes you think that Muslims should care what a non-Muslim westerner finds offensive or not?"

    My guess is that ten centuries of invasions of their countries based on the premises that they are "infidels" and/or "barbarians" makes them pretty mad when they see cartoons depicting the founder of their religion in ways like this.

    The see a danger in the way that the Western world views them ...  The danger of armed incursions, mainly, into the countries where they live.  That danger is real.  The U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003.  We'll probably bomb Iran next.

    by bink on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:53:55 AM PDT

    •  Invasions of THEIR countries?

      Do you imagine the long-ago ancestors of today's Muslims adopted Islam because of the attractiveness of that religion?

      Today's Islamic lands in North Africa, Turkey, the Middle East and Asia were populated by Christians, Jews, Hindus and other peoples.  They were forced to convert by invading Jihad armies, or convinced to convert by punitive taxation.

      by Sargon on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:26:53 AM PDT

      •  Yes

        Their countries.  They live there now.  They are citizens of those countries.  Etc.

        by bink on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 09:33:13 AM PDT

  •  Being offended

    is a matter of choice.  If someone acts in a rude manner, it is my choice to be offended or not by the act.

    by EeDan on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 08:09:32 AM PDT

  •  You miss the point

    I want to understand why the gap in what I see as offensive and what justifies the mass anger and violence that was the actual response.

    Especially in light of the fact that several of the cartoons seem to be mocking the newspaper's assignment as a PR stunt.  And another that shows the fear of the cartoonist in drawing his picture.

    And I want to understand why that is more offensive to Muslims than the "Republican Jesus" cartoons are to rightwing Christians.  It just smells like the political manipulation of religious outrage to me.

    That said, I think that the assignment that the Danish paper gave to its cartoonists was profoundly stupid.

    by TarheelDem on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 10:37:32 AM PDT

    •  Measuring the gap between what

      you or I find offensive and the violence of the response isn't going to help anything. Finding out what offends other people and showing some respect for it will.

      The Jyllands Posten editors knew that Muslims would be offended; that was their point. The same with France-Soir and others who published the cartoons. If it had been inadvertent or if there had been a more careful/respectful presentation of the cartoons, I doubt there would have been as great a reaction.

      So what did we learn? That if we deliberately do something we know will be greatly offensive, and do it without showing any real respect for the offended people, and we do it to a group that includes desperate, violent people, why is it surprising that the reaction will include violence or threats of violence, whether or not the offensive act happens to be offensive to us too?

      Greg Shenaut

      by gshenaut on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 11:50:01 AM PDT

      •  Thanks

        I am properly humbled, but no less informed.

        by TarheelDem on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 01:17:04 PM PDT

•  "Bearded guy with turban"

  2. A fierce looking guy whose turban is a bomb with the fuse lit.  On the front of the bomb are something written in Arabic (or Arabic looking characters)

  I'm no Arabist, but I'm pretty sure that the Arabic inscription is "There is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet", i.e. the most fundamental declaration of Islam, which you can see also on the flag of Saudi Arabia. Which is why this particular cartoon is the one that has probably been reprinted or referenced the most often in stories about the cartoons, because it is probably the most in-your-face blasphemous.

  by DavidSewell on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:29:58 AM PDT

  •  Flags

    As someone pointed out (here or elsewhere; I can't remember), the Danish flag has a cross on it.

    So if you burn the Danish flag....

    by SadTexan on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 07:43:51 AM PDT

    •  The vikings will land their...

      ...Longships on your coast and plunder your fields and ravage your women?

      by Salo on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:12:17 PM PDT

      •  I'm a guy.

        Will there be female Vikings involved?

        by SadTexan on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 12:18:38 PM PDT

•  Number 2 in the first list ---

  is the one that's drawing most of the wrath.

  The Muhammed with a pig's nose pic (Number 3 in the second list) is widely believed to have been in the original Danish paper, but that is not true.

  Yes, some of these cartoons would probably offend me too if I were a Muslim. However, the real problem here is that al-Qaida and al-Qaida-like elements in the Muslim community worldwide are using this to incite hatred of the West and recruit people for suicide missions.

  Just what the world doesn't need after the Hamas election victory in Palestine.

  by Kimball Cross on Sat Feb 04, 2006 at 08:19:49 AM PDT