Newspapers should report the news, not make the news

The Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy began after twelve editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad, were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten on 30 September 2005. The newspaper announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the debate regarding criticism of Islam and self-censorship.

Danish Muslim organizations, who objected to the depictions, responded by holding public protests attempting to raise awareness of Jyllands-Posten's publication. The controversy deepened when further examples of the cartoons were reprinted in newspapers in more than fifty other countries.

This led to protests across the Muslim world, some of which escalated into violence with police firing on the crowds (resulting in more than 100 deaths, altogether), including setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and desecrating the Danish, Norwegian and German flags in Gaza City. While a number of Muslim leaders called for protesters to remain peaceful, other Muslim leaders across the globe, including Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas, issued death threats. Various groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by endorsing the Danish policies, including "Buy Danish" campaigns and other displays of support. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark's worst international crisis since World War II.

Some critics of the cartoons described them as Islamophobic or racist, and argued that they are blasphemous to people of the Muslim faith, are intended to humiliate a Danish minority.

Supporters have said that the cartoons illustrated an important issue in a period of Islamic terrorism and that their publication is a legitimate exercise of the right of free speech, explicitly tied to the issue of self-censorship. They claim that Muslims were not targeted in a discriminatory way since unflattering cartoons about other religions are frequently printed. They question whether some of the riots were spontaneous outpourings as they took place where no spontaneous demonstrations are allowed, and whether the images of Muhammad per se are offensive to Muslims, as thousands of illustrations of Muhammad have appeared in books by and for Muslims.

In the last week of February 2008, at least 17 Danish newspapers reprinted one of the 12 Muhammad cartoons that two winters ago set off an orgy of outrage and killing in the Muslim world. They claim that they did so not to sensationalize the news or ignite a return of the street riots in which scores of protestors were killed in early 2006. Rather, they published the caricature of the Muslim prophet to take a stand for freedom of expression. The papers' owners, publishers and editors wanted Muslim extremists to know they would not let threats and terror tactics intimidate them into giving up one of Western civilization's most fundamental freedoms, what one called "the right to blasphemy."

Unfortunately, the words, “Muhammeds ansigt” was placed in the same box that the cartoons were. In English, these words are; “The face of Muhammad.” That is a blasphemous insult directed against Muslim’s holiest man, Abu l-Qasim Muhammad, the founder of the world religion of Islam. He is so revered by Muslims, that even showing a painting of his face is considered a form of blasphemy. In one of the cartoons, his headpiece is depicted as a time bomb.

Publishing such a picture and implying that it is Muhammad, is the epitome of stupidity. Surely the publishers of newspapers who permit such a drawing to be published in their newspapers know that they are deliberately inflaming Muslims world-wide. Some of these publishers will say that what they were really trying to do was imply that many Muslims professing faith in the Koran; are really terrorists who set off bombs to kill innocent people.

I don’t take issue with that premise but any careful thinking individual looking at that particular cartoon can conclude that depicting Muhammed as a bomb thrower is no different that insulting Christians by submitting a cartoon depicting Jesus as a child molester. Only a stupid publisher would do such a thing.

In that same week, the National Post reprinted the same cartoon -- showing Muhammad wearing a turban, which doubles as a bomb with a lit fuse. In its editorial, the paper said in part; “We claim no high-minded motives for doing so. It merely seemed a logical part of our news coverage. The response from our readers has been heartening: virtually none at all. Only about a dozen people wrote to us about the inclusion of the image, and only three of those were critical.”

Those figures are meaningless. For all we know, there could be thousands of Muslims in Canada that took offence at the National Post’s publishing the cartoon showing Muhammad wearing a bomb wrapped in cloth as a headpiece.

Mohamad the prophet of Allah (God) said what was revealed to him by Allah. To him, the Quran is the word of Allah just as Moses said that the Ten Commandments were the word of God.

Admittedly, Muhammad wasn’t as serene as was Jesus Christ. Where the latter denounced violence; Muhammad excused it. For example, in the Qur'an, (which he wrote) you will find these passages;

"You shall destroy all the peoples ... showing them no pity." (7: 16) "... All the people present there shall serve you as forced labour." (20:12) "... You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town -- all its spoil -- and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you." (20:14-15) "... You shall not let a soul remain alive." (20:17)

All these quotations are advocating violence against other human beings. It is for these reasons that I find it hard to condemn anyone who depicts Muhammad as being a violent man in his time. However, one must accept the fact that he also wrote some wonderful passages stating that one should only be; fighting to protect oneself against invading enemies – that is the only kind of combat sanctioned (2:190 - 191). In numerous other examples, the Qu’ran teaches that the use of force should be a last resort (2:192, 4:90); that normal relations between peoples, nations and states, whether Muslim or not, should be peaceful (49:13); that necessary wars must be limited in time and space (2:190); that maximum effort must be applied at all times to advance the cause of peace (10:25); that whatever means are undertaken to work for peace during a conflict (such as mediation and arbitration) must be attempted over and over again until resolution is achieved (8:61); that freedom of religion must be granted to every one (2:256), and so on.

I appreciate the significance of the freedom of the press but obviously, there has to be limits, even when pictures are displayed as satire. In one recent instance, there was a picture published of Jesus Christ having sex with a pig. That is gross. It should not have happened.

In Canada, it is a criminal offence to publish blasphemous libel but such charges are rarely ever brought before a court. The reason is that there doesn’t appear to be any description in the Criminal Code defining what blasphemous libel is.

Blasphemy, in its natural meaning which in my opinion, is intended by the Act, is the profane speaking of God or sacred things.

You cannot be made to pay damages if you defame a dead person so it follows that you cannot be punished under criminal law if you blaspheme against Muhammad or Jesus since both are deceased and have been for a very long time.

The National Post said in its editorial and I quote in part with respect to publishing the offending cartoons;

“The papers and their staffs are to be commended for their courageous act. What they have done may seem, on the surface, trivial. After all, countless publications around the Western world every day publish material that is provocative and even scandalous. But in a world were political correctness and extremist violence have combined to stifle debate about the threat posed by militant Islam; the reprints were anything but ordinary. Perhaps in this regard, the Danes are way ahead of us North Americans. Having been among the first Western nations to welcome large-scale Muslim immigration more than 30 years ago, Danish society is now engaged in a national debate over what to do with the roughly 5% of the population who are Muslim and refuse to learn the language, participate in mainstream Danish life or respect the country's pluralistic traditions. The high-stakes Danish conversation over what we have come to call "reasonable accommodation" makes Quebec's version look like a pleasant chat about the weather.”

Today, most Christians oppose violence, but many Moslems endorse the violent Jihadist upsurge and tolerate terrorism. The obscene hatred that spews from numerous Imams against infidels, and Jews in particular, inevitably culminates with violence.

For a newspaper to publish such offending cartoons knowing that in doing so, it is fostering more violence, is a newspaper that doesn’t report the news, it makes the news.