The controversy in question is simply a series of cartoons which were first published in a Danish newspaper (Jyllands-Posten) in 2006. This controversy has recently been stirred by a reprinting of the article in many European newspapers in a stand of solidarity for freedom of speech. The original (and subsequent) publication(s) led to a public outcry, and sparked violent protests in the Islamic world. Danish Muslim organizations staged protests, while the cartoons were being reprinted in more than 50 other countries. Critics of the cartoons call them “culturally insulting,” “xenophobic,” and even so far as “blasphemous.” Supporters claim that the cartoons simply illustrate an issue important to current events, and the publications of such …show more content…
And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims. (Rose, 2006)
However, there is an entirely opposing viewpoint to this, and this opposing viewpoint sparked incredible violence and retaliation. “The violence came one day after protestors in neighboring Damascus, Syria, torched the Norwegian Embassy and the Danish Embassy, furious that newspapers in both nations had published images banned under Islamic law” (Protesters burn consulate over cartoons, 2006) The violence escalated into “fights between Muslims and Christians.” Now, how did one page of cartoons cause all of this trouble? Chapter 42, verse 11 of the Quran reads: “The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He has made for you, from your selves, mates, and from the cattle mates: by this means He multiplies you. There is nothing whatever like Him” (The Holy Quran, Ch 42). This is traditionally taken further by Muslims to mean that Allah simply cannot be depicted by human hand. Attempting to do so is an insult to Allah (Q&A: Depicting the Prophet Muhammad , 2006). In relativism, there is no real solution to this debate. If both sides are “right,” in their own ways, how can anyone be wrong? I find that in my own life, I would be
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysGet Access
Originating in the 19th century, political cartoons are created and drawn as a means to deliver a message. Whether it be about politics, events or social concerns, the artist is able to express themselves creatively. The cartoons are not only meant to express the view of the creator, but are also open to interpretation. Most political cartoons have a biased point of view and uses rhetoric to persuade its audience.
It is very important to be aware that the media is capable of controlling the flow of information that citizens receive. Furthermore, much of the content suppressed in this country is for fear of retribution from others. When governments and other institutions suppress information, citizens are not able to address matters concerning their country, as well as around the globe. In ‘The Decline of American Press Freedom’ by Anne Applebaum, Applebaum explains a recent controversy with Yale University and the publishing of a contentious comic in a scholarly report on the global consequences of political comics. The comics in question were satirical in nature and displayed the Islamic prophet Muhammad in an offensive manner. In an aniconic religion where visual depiction of the prophet is inherently blasphemous, the Islamic response to these comics were violent. When an analysis of the comics and the cultural backlash was written, instead of publishing it, Yale University swept it under the rug for fear of offending Islamic extremists. Applebaum argues that if “Yale University Press refuses to publish [the comics], then that makes it much harder for anybody else to treat the cartoon controversy as a legitimate matter for scholarly and political debate” (Applebaum 640). By not allowing the publishing of this analysis, Yale University is censoring what the American populace have access to in terms of global controversy. The issue becomes trivialized because institutions fear retribution from extremist groups. Without these scholarly points of reference of this issue and others, it is difficult to have a serious conversations about the ramifications of political and religious satire. This leads to people remaining uneducated and ignorant of these serious issues, and liable to repeat these same actions that so sorely offended an extremist
The cartoonists are the main social group portrayed in the cartoon “On Satire” by Joe Sacco, which is published in The Guardian. “On Satire” portrays other cartoonists as obnoxious, insensitive cavemen who often cross the line between satire and just outright offensive mockery of the religious beliefs of Muslims. The purpose of the cartoon is to ridicule the black and white way of representation of all Muslims as terrorists. Also he is aiming to get cartoonists to convince governments and news outlets to consider ways in which to stop terrorism by understanding why terrorism exists instead of just eradicating all Muslims and hoping that terrorism dies with them.
Political cartoons are a form of propaganda. They would find Political cartoons on posters and in the newspaper. Political cartoon E. Titled: “The day of revenge is coming.” Explanation: “A father holds his bleeding son, run over by a car full of careless Jews. This plays on both the charge that Jews were rich and Germans poor, and that Jews care not at all for the harm they were doing to Germany.” (Calvin, 9) This political cartoon enraged the Germans how they seemed weaker than the Jews. They wanted to feel greater than them. Not all Jewish people were Rich and/or careless. This piece along with maybe all political cartoons were propaganda by being bias or misleading
In conclusion, those who create such offending material must be careful in the context of its usage. It's one thing to use stereotypes in order to bring awareness to a social issue, but it's wrong and unnecessary to use this material JUST to gain publicity. At the same time, it's also wrong to censor content because it could be seen as offensive, especially content produced years ago during a different
Half of the Arab-Islamic population didn't know about the September 11th attack. Americans still, blamed the Arab-Islamic, while other Americans blamed every Arab-Islamic and Germans. The Americans did indeed go to war with the Germans, Germany in general, and it was very heartbreaking. I think that the majority of the Germans didn’t even want a war to go on against the United States. Most Americans took the issues and complications, creating anger and hatred towards the Germans, creating rumors about them who were actually innocent. Both Germans, Arabs and Islams gone through discrimination after the tragedy. Many Americans who lost their loved ones grew hatred towards the Germans, Arabs, or Islams. Even though they were innocent, no one seemed to believe them. Businesses and shops that were owned by the Germans, Arabs, and Islams; were destroyed or vandalized plenty of times. Everyone around them despised them in one way or the other, no one ever tried to hear their side of the story. As long as anyone knew, it was either a whole country or a whole religion's fault, no one bothered to listen to those who pleaded innocent. Many posters had a darker message behind it, talking about a certain country or religion. Those who created these posters, used a number of frightening images towards German soldiers, creating them as beasts and
In our world at this particular time people are overly sensitive to what is published in the media, mainly about anything to do with religion. I believe that it is a first amendment right for newspapers to publish cartoons even if it is viewed as offensive to a certain population. What is not acceptable is the way it is handled by society. Things have been taken way out of proportion. It is unjust and goes against the Constitution of the United States if anyone has to suppress their opinions just because it might offend a community.
Satire and controversy never really exist without each other, every article that is written, every image that is taken and every cartoon which is drawn, somebody with a slightly different interpretation may take an element of offensive. Charlie Hebdo continually exercised their right to freedom of speech and pushed boundaries that no other publication dared to but they did not single out and or target Islam or the Prophet Muhammad, they targeted pretty much anything that was relevant.
Humans actions and behaviors are quite ironic because we create something with a purpose, but later use it for the exact opposite. Religion often times teaches us to love and have faith, yet it is used as an excuse to twist the real meaning of religion and use it to justify evil acts. Religion teaches us that being humane is the way to heaven yet, we kill the humans to find a way to God. In Pineda's political cartoon we see famous leaders use God as an excuse for wrong acts, “By warding off the jews I am fighting for the lord’s work!” Hitler once said.“ We’ll rise up and conduct Jihad for the sake of God!....“ The almighty told me to strike al-Qaeda and I struck them"(Pineda). This political cartoon makes fun of religion and politicians who
only a form individual freedom but it is also a form of freedom from a religious doctrine. If these cartoonists were to not express themselves because they fear they are disrespecting other people’s religion, then they themselves are also giving concessions to the principles of that religion. Thus if one views infringement of liberty by the definitions set through the harm and offense principle, it is clear that the interest of a civil society is to protect freedom of speech not to block or regulate it. The state has a role to protect liberties of all individuals not to define what should and should not be tolerated. Just as it is not the job of the state to institute policy on religion, it is not the states’ responsibility to regulate what freedoms of speech individual may and may not express.
YouTube is the best source for examples of free speech. Ever since the day the website open, YouTube has become the source to publish videos. People make videos on any topic. Most of the time, YouTube is full of parodies made by independent content creators. Many of these videos create a follow on the person who made them. There are times in which people publish a video that creates a controversy. When Innocence of Muslims was posted on YouTube, it causes a problem in which people believe the video provoked violence. This video creates many problems for example riots in Muslim countries, and supposedly Benghazi. Besides having an offensive message, it made the people involved with this project to fear for their lives. Innocence of Muslims is
Findings from visual analysis in the previous chapter show that Muslims have different ways of visualising women in Muslim media. Both contents and forms of representation demonstrate the Muslim flexibility in representing visual imagery. Despite the variation of representation, all images under investigation carry a notation of heterogeneity of Muslim populations in the West, particularly in Britain. This would support the idea of multiculturalism that recognize the difference and celebrate the sense of belonging among all citizens. Furthermore, the results show that Muslim populations are inclusive within the majority and that their religious and cultural practices do not threaten the wider population. Indeed, the visual representations
The Muhammad cartoon contest organized by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI) and held in Garland, Texas, was an insult to over a billion good Muslims. It also put innocent Americans in danger. This irresponsible contest will give the Islamic State (IS) justification to kill more Americans, and will motivate many fanatic wealthy Muslims from the Middle East to donate millions of dollars to IS to fight this blasphemy.
The debate on whether or not the Islamic religion actually produces terrorists and condones violence continues on and will continue on for as long as the religion exists. Both sides do have valid arguments. Some say that Islamic Extremists like ISIS are only interpreting the Quran in their own sick and twisted way, but when one actually looks into the holy book and studies it to its extent, they see that it calls Muslims to war with nonbelievers more than it does to make peace with them.The Quran also states to chop off the hands of thieves, and stone adulteresses. However, many modern day Muslims express their freedom to interpret the Quran their own way. So what’s the problem with it then? The problem
Think how well it would have worked out if every news paper in the world printed the Danish artists critical rendering of the prophet Muhammad, instead of cowering in fear and capitulating. Because we cowered and allowed them to silence us, we empowered Islamic terrorists and what ever other religious group to cry foul when offended. They now know, not only are we are afraid to offend or criticize them, but that we will give in and "guarantee" their terror and intimidation in our country and the