These drawings appeared on the BBC, where imam Abu Bashar was showing the false drawings to official representatives from the Arabic League. The voice-over added that JyllandsPosten had apologized for these drawings - which is untrue, of course, since these drawings have never appeared in JyllandsPosten. (Danish article)
When imam Abu Bashar is not busy spreading lies about Denmark and inciting hatred, he works as an imam in the state prison in Nyborg. That's right, the Danish government pays him for teaching Muslim prisoners how to cope in a modern world.
In case there are people from Mars (or the Middle East) reading this: These blasphemous drawings have never appeared in any Danish newspaper - they were published and distributed by "Islamic Society of Denmark".
Imam Abu Bashar has declined to comment - as the entire "Society" have done for the last couple of weeks.
If you're looking for some genuine drawings of the prophet, I can recommend the Mohammed Image Archive and its Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History.
Masked gunmen briefly seized a European Union office in Gaza City to protest the caricatures, and the dairy group Arla Foods, which is based in Denmark, reported that two of its local employees in Saudi Arabia were beaten by angry customers
[. . .]
The Danish Red Cross said it was evacuating two of its employees from Gaza and one from Yemen after receiving death threats.
The armed thugs have won again, and the dhimmies have been beaten into obedience.
The most frustrating part is that while Danes are being beaten and threatened, the imams who spread the fake and blasphemous drawing of Mohammed all over the Middle East are sitting in Copenhagen, protected by Danish law in a Mosque which is partially funded by Danish government money.
The might give the impression that "The Danish Islamic Society" speak for all 200,000 Muslims in Denmark - as the Society's spokesman, Kasem Ahmed, has claimed - but the truth is very different. A Danish newspaper has counted the members of the various unions - this is actually easy to do since unions must list their members in order to receive funding from the state. (Danish article)
The newspaper found that a more correct figure would be 15.000. Thus "The Danish Islamic Society" do not represent the 4% Muslims in Denmark, but only 7.5% of the 4%.
Some of the 28 unions, which were listed on their official complaint, did not exist - and others had never been asked, whether they wanted to participate.
One of those is the Youth and Culture Union from the city of Vejle, where the chairman, Yakub Ekici, states: "I have never asked to be added on that list. As a matter of fact I don't think the delegation should have gone to the Middle East to discuss these here Prophet-drawings. We can easily discuss it openly here in Denmark."
The leader of "The Danish Islamic Society", imam Abu Laban admits that his staff has misinformed, but denies cheating, "One could say that the list shows the truth plus sales tax."
Added: For more details on the exact numbers, see Islamic Society of Denmark.
Can we finally admit that Muslims have blown out of all proportion their outrage over 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper last September?
[. . .]
Here are a few facts we should remember. However offensive any of the 12 cartoons were, they did not incite violence against Muslims. For an example of incitement, though, one must go back a few weeks before the cartoons were published. In August, the Danish authorities withdrew for three months the broadcasting license of a Copenhagen radio station after it called for the extermination of Muslims. Those were real threats and the government protected Muslims - the same government later condemned for not punishing the newspaper that published the cartoons.
Second, the cartoon incident belongs at the very center of the kind of debate that Muslims must have in the European countries where they live - particularly after the Madrid train bombings of 2003 and the London subway bombings of 2005. While right-wing anti-immigration groups whip up Islamophobia in Denmark, Muslim communities wallow in denial over the increasing role of their own extremists.
As just one example, last August Fadi Abdullatif, the spokesman for the Danish branch of the militant Hizb-ut-Tahrir organization, was charged with calling for the killing of members of the Danish government. He distributed leaflets calling on Muslims in Denmark to go to Fallujah in Iraq and fight the Americans, and to kill their own leaders if they obstructed them. [. . .]
Boycott of Danish Goods Over Blasphemous Cartoons.
It is still stated matter-of-factly that Islam forbids people to portray the Prophet, but is this true? I stumbled over an interview from September 17th 2005 - after an artist had agreed to illustrate a forth-coming book about Mohammed anonymously. (Danish article, my translation).
The first interviewee is Jørgen Bæk Simonsen, PhD., author of the book "Islam i Danmark" and daily leader of the Danish Institute for Culture in Damascus:
The postulated prohibition against images has never been a general rule for the Islamic world as a whole. 56.000 interpretations have been construed, and there as never been any general agreement.
[. . .] The prohibition against images has never been enforced with the rigor that is being contended. For this reason it is also moderately hysterical when Danish artists state this as a reason for not wanting to illustrate a book, which a Danish author for some strange reason has decided to produce.
So the Danish artists who were too scared to illustrate the new book, were "moderately hysterical". What are we to say about the 57 Muslim countries who threaten to boycott Denmark four months later?
The next quote is by Imam Fatih Alev - born in Denmark of Turkish descent.
"There will always be Muslims who by virtue of their Islam-interpretation will oppose any depiction of humans. Then there will be others who'll think that the Prophet shouldn't be depicted, while others may. Myself, I lean towards that the Prophet shouldn't be depicted, but that others may" says Fatih Alev. He thinks that both views clearly are equally valid within Islam.
Fatih Alev adds that rules are necessary lest the images should become objects of adoration, and he adds that the rules only apply to Muslims: "This here is a rule for Muslims. Non-Muslims can do as they please, just as I cannot be offended by non-Muslims drinking, eating pork or having sex outside the marriage".
Thirdly comes Imam Abdul Wahid Pedersen:
We have a prohibition in Islam against depicting living humans, animals and especially prophets, because this would be an attempt to imitate the Creation. But this prohibition only applies to Muslims, it doesn't apply to non-Muslims. Therefore I'm bound, but my neighbour is not.
Thus were the words back in September: There is no general agreement against drawing Mohammed - or why it might be prohibited. The only thing that these three learned men could agree on was that any prohibition there might be, wouldn't apply to non-Muslims.
To clarify: the three wise men were discussing the upcoming book about Mohammed - and not the 12 pictures in JyllandsPosten, which had not yet been published.
I dwell on this point because even today we're told in the media that drawings of Mohammed are prohibited in itself. As the above quotes show there's no clear decision.
This material included the 12 drawings of Mohammed from JyllandsPosten, which I have already posted (see the top, right corner of this page) - and it included 3 really insulting images, which the imams ought to have quietly destroyed, but instead have chosen to immortalize by distributing copies all over the Middle East (Imams showed pedophile Mohammed).
The case file also included a silly page from the back of the newspaper WeekendAvisen. This page was printed November 10th 2005 and I have never heard about this page before it appeared in the imams' material - which of course was never meant to be published in Denmark.
According to the text in the case file "an almost extinct newspaper brought images that were more powerful and worse" i.e. worse than those in JyllandsPosten. This opinion was repeated in several newspapers 4th January 2006 by Kasem Ahmad, spokesman for Islamisk Trossamfund (The Danish Islamic Society) "WeekendAvisen has shown images that are worse than Jyllands-Posten. This is a campaign to insult Muslims in Denmark" (Danish article - my translation).
This is where you begin to feel that either Muslims are speaking with two tongues - or at least that the left hand knows not what the right hand doeth: Two days later, January 6th 2006, another leading imam, Fativ Alev, was interviewed. He was shown the "offending" page from WeekendAvisen, which was now almost 2 months old - a page which according to Mr. Ahmad was worse than JyllandsPosten (which has enraged 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide) - and Fativ Alev had never heard about this page before.
Fativ Alev took a few looks at the page and WeekendAvisen pressed him several times for his opinion (Danish article - my translation):
Reporter: "Our satire page is OK?"
Alev: "That is... yes, of course it is. I don't think it's funny, but I wouldn't say I'm insulted either. As humans we have different taste, and this isn't exactly my taste."
So whom are we do believe? Ahmad or Alev? Has WeekendAvisen exceeded JyllandsPosten when it comes to hurling deadly and blasphemous insults at 1.5 billion Muslims - or was it a harmless joke, which nobody would ever have heard about if Ahmad hadn't included it in his propaganda material?
Let's look at a few samples. I have never seen the page myself, but luckily the imams have preserved the "blasphemy" for all eternity in their case file.
The alleged joke is that the newspaper's staff have a contest to paint a picture of the prophet:
Exhibit A: "This is the prophet" is the short recommendation from our furniture designer, who also wanted to participate.
Funny, no? I tend to agree with Alev, "this isn't exactly my taste".
|Mother with Prophet|
For those who don't know this old joke: If you don't know what to call an abstract painting, you can always label it "Mother with child". Funny, no? The worst picture on the page is a fin-de-siecle drawing of woman - a large beard has been painted on her face and the text says, "Can you prove perhaps that the prophet wasn't a woman?"
There's no need to go through all the non-funny non-jokes - none of which shows Mohammed - we already have Imam Alev's word that this is not blasphemous.
But we are left to wonder, how an Infidel Dane is supposed to know about Muslim laws, when two leading members can hold so diametrically different opinions.
Added: It turns out that the imams made a totally wrong translation of Mother with Prophet.
Added: I updated the original post to replace the illustrations with copies in colour and to add a copy of the original page.
If you have stumbled upon this page and wondered why I have posted a lot of drawings of the prophet Mohammed (see the right column for links), then I can understand your perplexity. A news story, which would normally have been forgotten long ago, has grown totally out of proportion. You may start by reading about the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in WikiPedia.
It all started when Danish author, Kåre Bluitgen, found that he was unable to commission an artist for illustrating his new book about Mohammed. Apparently the artists did not want to suffer the same fate as Salman Rushdie and Theo van Gogh had suffered: Danish Artists Scared of Islam.
The newspaper Jyllands-Posten wanted to see if free speech was endangered in Denmark, and they invited more than 40 artists to submit their interpretation of the prophet. Many declined, some didn't answer - but 12 artist submitted one drawing each. As you can see on this blog, most of the drawings are pretty harmless (in contrast to the three black and white pictures that I have labeled © Dansk Islamisk Trossamfund, which I shall return to).
Half of the pictures don't even portray Mohammed and some of those that do are rather reverent. The "worst" ones show Mohammed as a warrior (just as he is described in the al-Quran), and link Mohammed to terrorist attacks (just as the terrorists themselves do).
I doubt anybody had foreseen what was to come. It started predictably enough with a death threat - apparently from a young Danish Muslim acting on his own. Then it got worse: An extremist Pakistan party promised 500,000 Rupees (8,333-US Dollar) for the murder of the cartoonists: Denmark warns travellers to Pakistan:
Urdu Times(News): Denmark said on Friday it had issued a warning to travellers to Pakistan after fundamentalists reportedly offered a reward for the deaths of cartoonists who drew the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in a Danish newspaper.
Copenhagen altered its travel advisory for the Muslim country after an official from Jamaat-i-Islami allegedly offered the Rs 500,000 (8,333-dollar) bounty, said Denmark's Ambassador to Islamabad, Bent Wigotski.
You may wonder why all 12 artists were sentenced to death, when half of the drawings don't even portray Mohammed. There was a reason for this: Price on the heads of the men who drew Mohammed:
A bounty of DKK 50,000 had been put on the head [of] the cartoonist responsible for the drawings, daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende reported on Friday. The Pakistani group offering the reward mistakenly believes that the 12 cartoons were created by just one person.
How could they think those 12 very different drawings were made by the same person if they had seen the drawings before issuing death sentences? It got worse.
Diplomats from Egypt and 10 other countries made an official protest and demanded that Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen should make Jyllands-Posten offer an apology. Apparently they thought Jyllands-Posten was owned by the Danish government (I'll get back to that). Fogh Rasmussen refused to meet the diplomats, which was in retrospect a very bad move.
It got even worse with labour strikes in Pakistan and Kashmir - and with 51 Muslim countries threatening to boycott Danish goods (I don't suppose they bought much Carlsberg and bacon to begin with). All because non-Muslims in a far-away country had broken a Muslim tradition.
Then the explanation slowly appeared. Islamisk Trossamfund (The Danish Islamic Society) had sent delegations to all countries in the Middle East and suddenly strange "facts" had begun to appear in Egypt newspapers, like:
- It was claimed that the Danish government owns Jyllands-Posten (In fact Jyllands-Posten is privately owned).
- Several Danish newspapers are crusading against Islam and the Prophet (the truth is that everybody's too politically correct to ever criticise Muslims).
- The Danish Government will publish a censored version of the Quran (Please. We haven't had censorship for 150 years)
- A movie is being made that will show how terrible Islam is (This rumour probably appears because of the Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali's recent visit to Denmark).
The Danish Newspaper Berlingske Tidende interviewed the Egyptian editor, Mahmoud Bakri, in this article (Danish text) where he said (my translation); "I am convinced that there is a conspiracy going on in Danmark to degrade Muslims and Islam". How - you may wonder - did Mahmoud Bakri become an expert on conspiracies in Denmark?
You probably gusessed it: The delegation from Islamic Society of Denmark had paid Mr. Bakri a visit - and he proceeded to write in his newspaper that the Danish government was going to bring forth a replacement for Submission 1 by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. When asked for his sources, he answered that he had based his article on "Dutch sources" and on the delegation from Danish Islamic Society.
Then came the revelation: The delegation from the Danish Islamic Society had not limited themselves to discussing the 12 drawings and to spread misinformation in general. They had actually produced propaganda material, which includes far worse pictures than the relatively harmless ones in Jyllands-Posten. The newspaper EkstraBladet has published all 43 pages here. The article is in Danish and the propaganda material is in Arabic, but look at all 43 images and you will see the 12 drawings I have published, a page from WeekendAvisen and three very blasphemous pictures of unknown origin.
One picture shows a praying Muslims being anally raped by a dog, another shows Mohammed with pig's ears and snout and the third is labeled "The pedophile 'prophet' Mohammed". I have no idea where Danish Islamic Society have found these pictures - they were certainly never published in any newspaper - therefore I must assume the pictures belong to Danish Islamic Society, and I have added a copyright notice. By reproducing these primitive pictures and spreading them all over the Middle East, the Danish Islamic Society have ensured that this pictures - which they supposedly hate - are now immortalized.
This explains most of the anger. The three blasphemous pictures are linked together with the 12 innocent drawings in Jyllands-Posten, which (or so the Muslims in the Middle East are told) is owned by the Danish government.
Of course there is more to the story than this. Why would people in Pakistan and Egypt react so violently - just because a Danish newspaper in a far-away country has broken an Islamic tradition? After all there's nothing in the al-Quran forbidding making drawings of Mohammed.
Muslims butcher cows, even if cows are sacred to the Hindus. Muslims step on bugs and ants, even if Hara Krishnas hold all life sacred. Muslims denigrate pork, even though the Nordic Gods have wonderful pigs like Særimner and Gallinbursti. So why do (some) Muslims take it so personally when non-Muslims break a Muslim tradition?
The sad (and scary) explanation is that non-Muslims are simply not allowed to break Muslim laws. In certain Muslims' minds, Islamic rule must be introduced world-wide and all who do not convert are treated as unclean "Kufr" and "Dhimmi" (a Dhimmi (or Zimmi) is a non-Muslim who must pay a special tax for protection ("jizya") and suffer humiliation). There is no room for compromise, since there is only one god and one Prophet. This explains why the Danish Islamic Society took such extreme steps to "punish" not only Jyllands-Posten, but Denmark as well.
Seen in this light the whole story turns out to be not about freedom of speech and not even about freedom of religion. It's all about freedom from religion.
|Akkari and the Akkari file (also known as the Akkari Dossier 43)|
It turns out that the 12 drawings in JyllandsPosten weren't sufficiently bad - at least not to justify a trip to the Middle East - so the imams have inserted a few extra images to make sure their trip wasn't a waste of money.
Danish Islamic Society claim they have received these images in mail, but they refuse to tell Danish newspapers, who has received them - and they won't allow the newspapers to interview these people. Danish Islamic Society has also failed to explain, why an entire country must be denigrated all over the Middle East because of 3 drawings mailed by a single person.
|Spokesman Akkari showing the press a photo of "Mohammed as a pig". Actually it's a photo from a French pig-calling competition|
As long as Danish Islamic Society have failed to properly explain, where they have obtained these images, why these images were distributed in the entire Middle East - and exactly what the Danish Islamic Society were hoping to achieve - we must assume the images belong to Danish Islamic Society.
The irony is that in doing so the Muslims have done exactly what they accuse the non-Muslims of doing: They have broken Muslim law by reproducing, publishing and distributing drawings of the prophet. And they have managed to out-blaspheme the infidel Danes by reproducing 3 blasphemous pictures that are far worse than anything ever published in JyllandsPosten.
|© Dansk Islamisk Trossamfund / © Danish Islamic Society|
These fake cartoons have never appeared in any Danish newspaper. They would probably be illegal. Only a lying imam, wanting to cause trouble, could think up such sick drawings.
|© Dansk Islamisk Trossamfund / © Danish Islamic Society|
The imams have not yet explained on their homepage, http://www.wakf.com/, why they distributed these disgusting images - and what they were hoping to achieve.
|© Dansk Islamisk Trossamfund / © Danish Islamic Society|
There's some evidence that the person who wrote this text is one, who has learned Arabic before he learned the Western alphabet: Revealed.
Added: The links on the newspaper's article has been non-functioning for a few days (some say because of overload), but they appear to work again. If not, try this Danish page. Alternatively you can see the images on this site instead: mysterier.org/politikk/ekstrabladet/hefte/
Added: The false Mohammed drawings have appeared on BBC and al-Jazeera.
|Video still: Imam Abu Bashar holding the Akkari file in Cairo: "This is one of the worst pictures can anyone ever imagine. They imagine our prophet(PBUH). Hands of a man praying and a face of a pig".|
Added: Mohammed as a pig was discussed on the "tour de imam" in Cairo (see photo to the right). You can see a video clip from Danish television at NeanderNews and Michelle Malkin. Both of these sites also have a transcript of spokesman for The Danish Islamic Society, Ahmed Akkari, who refuses to answer why he presented the pig-photo in Cairo, when it was not produced in Denmark.
Added: BBC apologizes for airing the false cartoon (and wrongly attributing them to JyllandsPosten) - but the apology is very hard to find on their site.
Added: One of the false Mohammed drawings has been identified .
Added: The so-called Akkari dossier is now available at WikiPedia.
Added: Don't forget to see the video about the false drawings: Taqiyya.
Added: The Akkari-dossier is now available in colour.
Note: Presently this post has received 294 comments, which apparently exceeds some limit. New comments are regrettably not displayed.
Det Islamiske Trossamfund (The Danish Islamic Society) answers to an enquiry from a reader about whether Muslims are allowed to donate blood - and more important if the pure Muslim blood may be given to a "kufr". A Kufr (sometimes spelled Kuffar or Kafir) is an unclean Dane.
The homepage is www.wakf.com but I cannot deep link to the article. (My translation):
I have a question about blood donation. Is it allowed. And is it irrelevant whether it's for a Sister or Brother or a kufr?
Fortunately the answer is affirmative, so we can hope to see Muslim blood donors soon. I have donated blood about 80 times now (four times a year) so my unclean kufr-blood is running through the veins of many a son and daughter of Allah.
CAIRO — An Egyptian cleric’s controversial fatwa claiming that nudity during sexual intercourse invalidates a marriage has uncovered a rift among Islamic scholars. According to the religious edict issued by Rashad Hassan Khalil, a former dean of Al Azhar University’s faculty of Sharia, “being completely naked during the act of coitus annuls the marriage”.
The religious decree sparked a hot debate on the private satellite network Dream’s popular religious talk show and on the front page of Sunday’s Al Masri Al Yom, Egypt’s leading independent daily newspaper.
Suad Saleh, who heads the women’s department of Al Azhar’s Islamic studies faculty, pleaded for “anything that can bring spouses closer to each other” and rejected the claim that nudity during intercourse could invalidate a union.
During the live televised debate, Islamic scholar Abdel Muti dismissed the fatwa: “Nothing is prohibited during marital sex, except of course sodomy.”
For his part, Al Azhar’s fatwa committee chairman Abdullah Megawar argued that married couples could see each other naked but should not look at each other’s genitalia and suggested they cover up with a blanket during sex.
Det er alvorlige sager - hvis ægteskabet er ugyldigt, bedriver de hor, og det er der dødsstraf for.
Heldigvis fremgår det af artiklen, at et par af "moderaterne" er gået ind i debatten. Ifølge den ene er intet forbudt i ægteskabet "except of course sodomy" - undtagen selvfølgelig analt samleje. Ifølge den anden skriftkloge må et ægtepar gerne se hinanden nøgne, bare de ikke kigger på kønsdelene.
Time and time again the media have told us that Islam forbids to portray Muhammed - end-of-discussion. But according to Abdol-Hamid the drawings are not offending in themselves - it's the context.
Sometimes a Dane can dream with Wulff and Morgenthaler:
Den amerikanske TV-prædikant, Pat Robertson, godter sig offentligt: Robertson suggests God smote Sharon:
He was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America,' [. . .] God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone,'
Pat Robertson's udtalelser kan ikke overraske. Han har tidligere udtalt, at orkanen Kathrina var Guds straf over de homoseksuelle: "By choosing an avowed lesbian for this national event, these Hollywood elites have clearly invited God’s wrath", han har bekræftet Jerry Falwell i at 9/11 skyldtes vores holdning til menneskerettigheder og homoseksuelle og han har truet Dover med alverdens ulykker, fordi de ikke vil undervise i 'Intelligent Design':
I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city [. . .] And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there'.
Man kan selvfølgelig trække på skuldrene, men ulykken er, at der efter sigende er 1.000.000 mennesker, der følger hans daglige program i "The 700 Club".
A bounty of DKK 50,000 had been put on the head the cartoonist responsible for the drawings, daily newspaper Berlingske Tidende reported on Friday. The Pakistani group offering the reward mistakenly believes that the 12 cartoons were created by just one person.
The group thought that the 12 very different drawings were produced by the same single person. Have they even seen the drawings?
Maybe it would be a good idea for the Pakistani group to actually look at the pictures, the next time they feel like imposing death sentences on people in far-away countries?
Here's a picture which, strangely, has not triggered a death sentence - yet. It's by Wulff & Morgenthaler.
[....] a number of imams and other leaders from Islamic congregations in Copenhagen, Odense and Århus has during the last weeks ploughed the seas and countries in the Middle East in order to make ministers, top politicians, leaders of organisations and religious people in general, protest to Denmark.
The main force behind this initiative is Islamisk Trossamfund (The Danish Islamic Society) in Copenhagen, and here Ahmed Said Assem describes the campaign as »a great success.
It appears that The Islamic Society of Denmark has spread some rather twisted "information" in the Muslim world: Egypt misinformed about Mohammed-drawings (Danish text, my translation):
According to Hanna Ziadeh, Egypt newspapers have written that there there's a campaign going on in Danish newspapers against Islam and the Prophet, that Danish authorities have plans to produce a censured version of the Quran, and that there's a movie on its way, which will show how terrible Islam is.
Information [Danish Newspaper] wrote Tuesday, that during the last couple of weeks a number of Danish imams and other leaders from Islamic congregations in Denmark- with Islamisk Trossamfund (The Danish Islamic Society )in Copenhagen as the main force, has travelled around in the Middle East to raise the case of the Mohammed-drawings. It is these people, whom Hanna Ziadeh describes as 'the Danish delegation'
The last one of the twelve drawings is by Franz Füchsel. Mohammed urges his mighty warriors to be cool-minded: "Easy friends, when all comes to all it is just a drawing made by an Infidel Dane from Southern Jutland". Wise words, which unfortunately does not seem to help Füchsel.
Füchsel has put the drawing up to auction: Disputed Prophet-drawing at auction (Danish Text). The money will be used for victims of the earthquake in Pakistan, so while Füchsel is sending money to Pakistan, the Pakistanis will spend money to have Füchsel killed.
If you have followed me so far, you'll have seen that the 12 drawings are 12 very different ones - drawn by 12 different people. Some are critical of Islam, some are reverent, some are indifferent and some are critical of JyllandsPosten and Kåre Bluitgen. You may not have to like all 12 drawings (or even any of them), but it should be clear, that this is not a "campaign to insult Muslims". JyllandsPosten has asked about 40 artists to give their contribution and those 12, who weren't scared stiff of violent thugs, have given each their own private interpretation.
If you still think there is malice aforethought let me give the final word to the artist himself - Füchsel states (my translation):
It has never been my purpose by participating in the assignment to defile or to belittle other people's religion. I was assigned a task and as a citizen in a democratic country it is my right to have an opinion about things, even if it may appear provoking.
Before those countries, where democracy is an unknown word, starts attributing the wrong intentions to us, they should clean up their own house first - and this is not done by sweeping things under a carpet, no matter how genuine the carpet may be. Where I live, it's allowed to criticize others without ending up at the scaffold - and one ought to learn from this instead of resorting to laws that belong to the Middle Ages.
Added: I have seen it stated on several sites that "from Southern Jutland" means "in the middle of nowhere". Well, I'm Danish and I have never heard that expression. People who make this claim seem to overlook the obvious (and true) explanation: That Füchsel hails from Southern Jutland. Believe me on this one - I used to work with his little brother with whom I had lunch every day for 6 years.
Erik Abild Sørensen
Another Mohammed-drawing without Mohammed
Erik Abild Sørensen doesn't pull his punches: "Prophet! Daft and dumb. Keeping women under thumb". I bet that hurts - but didn't we just agree that it was pictures of the prophet that were prohibited? Now suddenly, it is criticism in general.
It isn't Sørensen, who claims, that the al-Quran requires women to wear a "chador" or a "burqa". There are actually Muslim men out there, who make this claim - and they become the target of Sørensen's drawing.
If Muslim countries had more artist like Sørensen, they might have had a debate about women's rights a long time ago. Perhaps that's what they are afraid of?
Added 2008.03.05: Erik Abild Sørensen dies, aged 89 - proving that if you live long enough, Allah, the Devil, Sweet Baby Jesus, the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Zolzar: The Undying will get you in the end.
May his memory live.
Arne Sørensen has made an ominously prophetic drawing about free speech in today's Denmark. Just like Bob Katzenelson, Arne Sørensen has made a drawing of another drawing - and just like Bob Katzenelson, Arne Sørensen has ended up on the death list.
I have to confess: I don't understand the drawing made by Annette Carlsen. The man says, "Umm ... I don't really recognize him". No. 2 is Pia Kjærsgård, a Danish Politician who is critical of the mass immigration from Muslim countries. No. 3 has a halo and is presumably Jesus. No. 7 has a sign saying "Kåre's PR. Call for an offer", so this must be Kåre Bluitgen - the author who had problems commissioning an artist for his forthcoming book about Mohammed:
It's a bit odd that both Annette Carlsen as well as Bob Katzenelson use the word PR, even though they could hardly have foreseen that the drawings would cause so much commotion.
One of the the other persons in the line-up may be Mohammed, in which case the drawing is blasphemous.
There isn't much of the Prophet on the next picture either:
It's difficult to see, who it is that Bob Katzenelson has drawn. I believe it's Kåre Bluitgen (see photo). Kåre has an orange in his turban. This is a Danish idiom meaning "to be unexpectedly lucky".
There's "PR-stunt" written on the orange. Kåre holds a stick-drawing of Mohammed in his hand, so the joke is that Kåre has promoted his career by calling his attention to his difficulties in finding an artist for his book.
Like I said, I'm not entirely sure whom the person under the turban is supposed to be, but the stick-drawing in his hand has got to be Mohammed, which means that the drawing is blasphemous!
|The real Pia Kjærsgård|
|Pia Kjærsgård in caricature|
It has been claimed that the person is not Kåre Bluigten, but rather Pia Kjærsgård - leader of the political party Dansk Folkeparti, which has a critical stance on immigration.
Look at the pictures and decide for yourself. Whatever the answer is, two things are certain: (1) The person is not Mohammed, and (2) everybody else must put up with routinely being subjected to caricature - except Muslims - because Islam is Above Criticism.
It gets Curiouser and curiouser:
Lars Refn draws a young immigrant names "Muhammed" in a public school in Valby (part of Copenhagen). The text on the blackboard is in Persian and means (or so I'm told), "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs."
Lars Refn is also on the death-list, so apparently it is also "illegal" to draw people, who are named Muhammed - or maybe it's illegal to insult Jyllands-Posten?
"Muhammed's" shirt is imprinted with the word "Fremtiden", which means "the future". Brave New World!
Added:The word "fremtiden" is split after "Frem". "Frem" is also the name of the local soccer club in Valby - and the red and blue stripes on the young boy's shirt are the official colours of the club. I have no idea whether you can buy a "Frem-tiden" shirt on their home page.
Added: Two things: (1) In some versions of Lars Refn's cartoon, an English text has been superimposed on the drawing, "We think Lars Refn is a coward, who does not understand the seriousness of the Muslim threat to free speech.". I have seen two sites so far, where it has been claimed - without any proof - that this text was added by the editors of Jyllands-Posten, who had desired a more offending picture.
*sigh* Sometimes I feel like the guy in the circus parade, who walks behind the elephants with a little broom and pail, but here goes:
- According to several sources, Jyllands-Posten did not know the meaning of the words on the black board. Here is but one Danish resource the Journalist (Danish text, my translation):
Several people on the newspaper have a good laugh, when it turns out that Lars Refn has written on his cartoon in Arabic that »Jyllands-Posten's editors are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs«.
Apparently nobody has noticed this before publication.
- Flemming Rose (culture editor) has time after time stated the opposite: (Why I published those cartoons): "I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet."
- In the original publication the drawing didn't have such a text (see image to the right). The text has been added later.
- Why on earth would a Danish editor write to his Danish readers in English?
(2) Innocent as the drawing is, Lars Refn was in fact one of the first to receive death threats. Normally the Security Intelligence Service won't leak any details, but an article in Ingeniøren from back in October, when a 17-year old boy issued death threats against two of the cartoonists tells us that Lars Refn were among the two.
I must repeat the question I asked in the original post: Is it illegal to draw a person named Mohammed? Or is it illegal to call Jyllands-Posten's editors and journalists a bunch of reactionary provocateurs?