As ever with the media, it's timing and volume that have to be considered.
Why have they picked this moment to anger millions of Muslims in the name of 'freedom of speech'? This moment to make it an 'issue' and drive it to the top of the news agenda?
This the media incapable of telling the truth about its own role in the buildup to the Iraq war, and of course the current buildup to war on Iran. The media right now constantly repeating lying slogans like 'illegal nuclear program'?
Well, never forget the hundreds of them in the pay or under the influence of security services, usually taking the form of implicit promises of honours, influence and political patronage (but also good old blackmail, working well inhis age of advanced hypocrisy). This was demonstrated categorically in the 1970s, and we have no reason to hope things have improved in the age of the GWOT.
But they're capable of the most astonishing self-regarding hypocrisy even when not subverted — and here we must pick out the French for special mention — the suppression of Algerian democracy by the military in 1992, after FIS won the 1990 election, was not only applauded by the European media, but they had actually agitated for it, all in the name of the rights of female 'journalists.' And don't get me started on Yugoslavia (not much 'solidarity' with fellow journalists then)...
This is a huge deception. Some of them may be stupid and vain enough to be swept along with the tide of enthusiasm, but the beating heart of this proliferation will be journalists with security contacts, executing the instructions of their patrons.
Whether these patrons represent the official policies of their states is a different matter.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - gracefulboomer
Um.. well I have to disagree while respecting your opinion.
The Muslim cartoon controversy is so fraught with ignorance that it is hard to even begin to comment.
It is simply untrue that Mohammed's image as not been depicted in various human and spiritual forms throughout history.
Mohammed's image is included in the marble panels of the Supreme Court.
His image is very evident along with the images of Napoleon, Charlemagne and other 'historical lawgivers.'
Mohammed's image in paintings, icons, book covers, wood cuttings, and frieze, and even in commercial applications are numerous ..
Iran, Russia, the French, the romantics have all commissioned beautiful icons depicting the prophet in various stages of his life.
Mohammed has been depicted with reverence, scorn, and commercialized for centuries.
What a powerful and destructive force political Islam has become.
I sincerely hope that ignorant vandals do not destroy these representations in their fervor.
For a quick look I recommend zombie time. Just click on his first listing of captured Mohammed images throughout history. Although the collection is just a sampling and in no way can convey the beauty of some of the marble statues...
What a shame - when we can teach- that we instead find ourselves caught up in the muck of an ignorant political movement which has chosen- for whatever reason to deny its' own cultural beauty.
2 - Bing
Christianity is ridiculed everyday in America by so called "progressives" yet we don't see Christians chanting int he street calling for blood.
3 - chromatius
I'm more interested in the timing, to be honest.
4 - gracefulboomer
Timing?
Are you implying that it is not politically correct to teach Mohammed depictions throughout history at this time?
Are you suggesting that Islam is too infantile too backward to learn?
Are you seriously entertaining the thought that all of the civilized west should hold our knowledge to our chest and act as if this Mohammed cartoon controversy is just a misnomer?
Would this appeasement- it can't be taken as anything else- would this suppression of the existence of great marble statuaries, oil paintings from the Romantics, cuttings worked and commissioned hundreds of years ago, finally satisfy the so-called Arab street?
The shame is not ours here, the shame should be put squarely on Islamic clerics who have had themselves the benefits of exposure- of education- and who are using their followers' ignorance of their world in all of its' rich cultural heritage to their own advantage.
5 - JC
There is more than enough stupidity to go around.
(1) The cartoonist was stupid to not have seen that a little cartoon humor was not worth the economic turmoil and violence it could cause.
But the cartoonist was indeed prescient if it was seen that a "bomb" would be going off in the heads of some.
(2) Those who are overly reacting to the cartoon are stupid to resort to violence because of a cartoon.
Boycott if you like, but violence is totally unjustified.
6 - Independent and proud
C'mon poster #2, that is a generalization.
Nobody wants to take away Christianity. All people are saying is keep it out of government.
Want proof that governments who force ONE religious viewpoint never succeed? Look at the Middle East for proof...
Sorry, America is no more Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever...it's a country that can succeed BECAUSE we don't advocate any one religion over the other AND thank God for that.
7 - syn
In other words, the Muslim religion is demanding the infidels Submit or Die while Liberalism blindingly bends over and accepts.
8 - B Moe
The media haven't picked this moment to anger Muslims, images of Mohammed are nothing new as others have pointed out. The question you should be asking is why have the Muslim's picked this moment to be outraged.
9 - camel face
Gracefulboomer. I have the original marble panel of mohammed which was intended to be placed on the Supreme Court. I was told it was made of porcelain, not marble. My respect for mohammed was so great I had her porcelain image installed at the bottom of my toilet. This way I can feed her each day if Im regular.
10 - gracefulboomer
Excellent point, B Moe.
You have with your comment 'hit the nail on the head.'
It is politically expedient for Islamic clerics to rile the population up at this time.
It is, after all their absolute authority which is being challenged by reforms.
This is not new.
This pattern is historical and repeats itself whenever attempts at political, human rights, and empowerment reform is introduced into Islamic societies.
As long as Islam is perceived as being under 'attack' by infidels suppression within their own societies can be overlooked for the 'greater good of Islam'
The failure of Fatah, the rise of HAMAS, calls for more accountability of the oil income and more important how the revenue among Arab nations is divided, corruption, the disparity of wealth, lack of a middle class, illiteracy etc..
Dictators, state-run mullahs, and all those on-the-dole royal princes will have a field day with this Mohammed controversy.
They are the only group who benefits. They always have.
11 - Samuel Butler
As if religion was intended
For nothing else but to be mended.
Compound for sins they are inclined to,
By damning those they have no mind to.
The trenchant blade, Toledo trusty,
For want of fighting was grown rusty,
And ate into itself, for lack
Of somebody to hew and hack.
-- Hudibras. Part i. Canto i.
12 - Bing
Independent and proud.....
major newspapers in America have printed pictures of things like an art piece called piss christ in which a cross is submerged in a vat of urine and other things one might consider offensive to chrisitanity but now they are refusing to print these cartoons for fear of offending muslims.
Anyone who say's there isn't a double standard in America with which religions are ok to bash is a fucking moron.
13 - Jamie
Why the cartoons now? Because the events to which they refer are occurring now. Would it have made more sense for the cartoonists to editorialize about violence done in the name of Islam at a time when Islam was actually behaving like the "religion of peace" that we're assured it is?
I'm certain that most Muslims, while angry and upset that a tenet of their religion has been violated, are not about to take up arms against the Danes or those of us who support the Danes. But that there is a group of Muslims, a group not denounced by the Muslim world at large, who are willing to carry placards saying "Get ready for the real holocaust!", is a fact we in the West must accept and for which we must prepare. A tenet of our "religion," freedom of speech and of the press, no less worth fighting and dying for than a sacrilegious image of Mohammed, has been violated too by violent demands that non-Muslims comply with Islam.
14 - Richard Brodie
Jamie: I'm certain that most Muslims, while angry and upset that a tenet of their religion has been violated, are not about to take up arms against the Danes or those of us who support the Danes.
Of course it's true that "most Muslims" are not going to take up arms against the Danes. If they are really 1.5 billion strong, then 750 million plus would have to be en route to Denmark!
But with the exception of a relative handful (maybe a few lousy million) who have either been educated in the West or who have converted from non-Muslim backgrounds, it is clear that the VAST majority of muslims SUPPORT those who ARE calling for violent retaliation.
15 - Vladimir
It's worth mentioning that when Sinead O'Connor tore up a photograph of the Pope, or when Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" made the news that Catholics did not threaten violence like these Muslims do, nor did they have critics who feel a need to bring up past injustices, real or imagined to support their behavior or make excuses regarding media focus.
The picture of the Muslim with the khaffiyeh shrouding their face and holding a placard that says "Freedom go to Hell" speaks volumes.
16 - David M. Brown
Yeah. "Timing." What about the timing of the publication of Salmon Rushdie's novel, or the timing of the death threat against Rushdie, or the timing of Islamo-fascism and death threats whenever they occur?
Of course if one is offended by a cartoon, the issue is the cartoon, and one might as well question the cartoonists' "timing" along with other aspects of the production--until and unless the result is mass demonstrations against Western freedoms, complete with repeated assertions by prayer leaders and demonstration leaders that the cartoonists and publishers should be beheaded.
And what's with putting the word "controversy" in scare quotes? If receiving worldwide death threats in response to satirizing a religion or its practice doesn't count as "controversy," I wonder what "does."
17 - Sean
I question the timing of this entire thread
18 - camel face
Must run. It's dinner time. Plop plop.
19 - Richard Brodie
I question the timing of this entire thread
I question the timing of your questioning
20 - Khan (No, Not That One)
I time the questioning (in GMT)!
21 - Chromatius
To reiterate: my point is not about the original cartoon, but about the orchestrated proliferation of a whole set of them across a variety of newspapers. Whose agenda benefits?
And if you want to examine the rise of inflammatory theocratic leaderships, you are obliged to look to America. It is and was the policy of the US (and Israel), in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, to suppress nationalist and leftist revolutionary movements, and one technique was to foster religious leaders and movements instead. Thus Khomeini, thus Osama Bin Laden, thus Hamas.
So they created an enemy more in their own image (for many of them are religious zealots), and whether they defeat these enemies or not (or even want to), they have won a 'higher' level victory by helping the process of reintroducing theocratic leaderships worldwide.
So whereas 20 years ago, we faced conflicts driven by Marxian interpretations of imperialism and capitalism, we know are led to be believe we face a clash of cultures, or civilisations.
A lie, but one becoming truer by the day.
PS this is nothing to do with 'freedom of speech' which is abut the individual's relationship with goverment and law. Clearly not the issue.
And then there's the Judaism/Zionism comparison - check out this article on Counterpunch:
This whole affair is nothing but an over-reaction to a simple cartoon, you say? Not if you remember a certain other cartoon that appeared in the British newspaper, The Independent, on 27 January 2003. It depicted Prime Minister Sharon of Israel eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying: "What's wrong? You've never seen a politician kissing babies before?" Jews in Britain and around the world erupted with indignation, arguably because the depiction reminded them of millennial charges levied against them by Christians who accused them of using the blood of babies in ritualistic killings. You see, Sharon can actually kill, maim and spill the real, actual blood of Palestinian babies: that is not offensive to Zionist Jews and their apologists in the West. But let Sharon be depicted in a cartoon metaphorically as the ogre that he has proved to be in his real life, symbolically eating a Palestinian child, and the world will erupt in offended indignation. A cartoon that is offensive to Muslims, on the other hand, is depicted as nothing but an expression of "free speech." There is a word for this in any language: hypocrisy.
22 - Pablo
To reiterate: my point is not about the original cartoon, but about the orchestrated proliferation of a whole set of them across a variety of newspapers. Whose agenda benefits?
This started with a series of cartoons in one paper. Those were commissioned by the paper in response to the inability of a children's book author to find someone to illustrate his book about Mohammed.
It's about the death threats. That's why they're everywhere now. Other papers have reprinted them in defense of free speech. Whose agenda benefits? Mine. You see, I don't like violently intolerant people. This has caused many of them to self-identify. That's a good thing.
23 - Pablo
Jews in Britain and around the world erupted with indignation, arguably because the depiction reminded them of millennial charges levied against them by Christians who accused them of using the blood of babies in ritualistic killings.
1. I wasn't aware that the "child blood in pastries" libel was a Christian meme. I know that many muslims accept it as fact to this day.
2. How much of the Jewish indignation resulted in boycotts, withdrawl of ambassadors and demands for beheading? Expressing indignation is one thing. Demanding that other cultures protect your values under threat of violence is another.
3. The Guardian cartoon pales in comparison to some of the vile anti-semitic trash published in Arab media. the hypocrisy is breathtaking.
24 - gazelle
The timing is meant to:
1. promote the idea of 'clash of civiliations'
2. promote bin laden's agenda of extremism
3. hence also promote the neo-con/crusader agenda, meaning more action (regime change, neutralization) in the muslim world - possibly against hamas, iran, syria, lebanon
4. punish the neutrality of europe (minus UK) in the iraq war in muslim perceptions
5. divert attention of muslims from US to Europe
6. get europe on board "against" the muslims
7. to try to give a blow to neutrality, rationality, internationalism, and political realism
8. it is the parting attempt of a failing extremist world policy
9. It is the a country coming to terms with the new world, with its glass house broken
It is a strategy ultimately designed to fail today like the war in iraq, although something similar worked successfully before the 1492 reconquista in Spain.
Chilling?
do I smell the emergence of new nuances of freedom to come from the ashes that confront us?
25 - Kathy K
The original cartoons were printed months ago. As B Moe pointed out, the "timing" is not the West's.
The reason the other newspapers all printed the cartoons is simply in reaction to the (delayed as it was) completely ridiculous and over-the-top reaction of SOME Muslims. Not all.
I could point you blogs by Muslims who think also that it's ridculous and over-the-top, by the way. Start here. It's a post by the Egyptian Muslim blogger 'Big Pharoah' - who is pointing to a Jordanian newspaper that published 3 of the cartoons.