The Jyllands-Posten-Cartoons

- There will be no Moslem bashing nor Moslem cuddling on this page -

Although my homepage is dedicated to the Minox 35 cameras and deliberately in German language, the bigotry and ignorance generated by the Jyllands-Posten-Cartoons (on both sides) pushed me to formulate some commentaries in English. First I am not sure the Danish-flag burning masses and defenders of liberty of press really know the cartoons which are supposed to offend them or they have to defend. Let’s have look at them one after another (also an opportunity to show them):

- If you don't want to see them, don't continue! -





Not funny, not even a Cartoon. The green colour, the crescent and the star are Islamic symbols. Nothing irrespective.


 This is a cartoon? Looks more like the illustration of a children’s book about the life of Mohammed. Really nothing to be offended.



Oh, I see a Christian Saint would have an halo, a Moslem a crescent. Hm, limited fun and wit, but no real disgrace visisble.


This seems rather intelligent to me: Visible the man is not Mohammed but Katzennelson, the cartoonist (perhaps even a Jew? Horror!). The cartoonist refuses to make a cartoon of Mohammed, and rightley identifies the whole action as an PR-Stunt, well seems as if he was right. But this cartoon does not make fun of Mohammed, it is more a critic of the action.


Well, what's wrong with this one, after all this is now reallity, cartoonists will fear Islamic persecution if they depict Mohammed. The sad reality, but not irrespective of Mohammed or Islam.


Mohammed is a common name (even in Denmark), isn't it? Or is it disrespective and idolatric to name a child Mohammed? The writing on the "wall" is quite right: Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. :-)


This one is really true! In fact not a caricature of Mohammed, already a commentary.


Hey, this is the only funny one, I like it. Perhaps it depicts Mohammed, perhaps not. But certainly no disgrace to him. Should generate a reflection why a cartoonist thinks about suicide bombers when he is ought to draw something about Islam and Mohammed?


I do not understand this one, what<'s funny? Well, germans are known for their lack of humor.....


No picture of Mohammed at all, the statement is disputable, I won't do this here. Interesting combination of Crescent and David's star.


Not funny at all, a little forced: the gap in the veil is used to cover the eyes of the (supposed) Prophet brandishing a dagger. The gap is supposed to anonymise the prophet? Or to blind fool him? Doesn't look very sympatic, no clear  message. Entitled Osama bin Laden it would not be better neither, although the message would be clearer. Bad taste, simply a bad caricature, but nothing to make fuzz about.


This one is a real hard one and certainly the one originating all the debates. The syllogism Mohammed = Islam = Terrorist is not seized and appreciated by everyone. But  flag-burning Moslems do not prove the contrary. It should generate the debate between Moslems, why Islam is identified to terrorism and murder. As an cartoon and from a technical view it is rather good, but does not make fun about Mohammed. A clear message: No fun at all, more the bitter view Islam gives to Danes and Europeans.... The Danish cartoonist were asked how they see Mohamed, and that is how K.Westergard sees him. Not flattering, but unhappily the way Islam is perceived by westerners, up to Moslems to prove the contrary.

So after all: one really bad cartoon and one with  harsh critic, but nothing to be really offended. Where is the blasphemy? Where is the fun? The film "The life of Brian" was blasphemy and funny. These cartoons are neither, well, perhaps one is funny.

The "offence" is more like a storm in a tea-pot. The fact the noise about this "nothing" is made up 4 month after the publication lets me think at something stirred up, Alhamedi has his personal theory about this. Somebody is profiting of this "storm", wait and see who and why. Who is to blame? Not the cartoonist or the Jyllandes-Posten, but the Iman Laban who visited Arab countries with made up a fake dossier and false statements.

It is seems to be an offence to depict the Prophet, I am not a specialist for the writings, but this interdiction is apparently not for Shia Muslim, since in Iran pictures of Mohamed are sold:

from Alhamedi

Even, if making pictures of Mohammed is forbidden to Moslems, it is not forbidden for Nonmoslem-Danes, and the makers of Jyllands Posten did not oblige Moslems to do the cartoons. After all, Moslems don't care eating cows, sacred to Hindus and there is 1 billion of them......

Perpetuing a positve Image of Islam is certainly not done by burning flags, bombing weddings in Jordan, stabbing Theo van Gogh or branding posters like this one:


And for respect of other religions, Islamic countries should show this first, as long as it is not possible to wear a cross in Saudi-Arabia or build a Church in Turkey I don't know who is to complain for religious tolerance..... Remember the Buddha of  Bamijan? The Bombs in Churches in Irak and Pakistan?

But what will happen: Let's face it in one month the whole "scandal" is forgotten, most Europeans will not have seen the cartoons and will shrug the shoulders thinking: "Not surprising this reactions by a bunch of backward Muslims" . The "2 Billion offended Muslims" who did never see the cartoons will shrug their shoulders and say: "Not surprising by this bunch of perverted Europeans". So everybody will be happy again in its mutual prejudices. The problem will be that it will be those who are the least responsible for the whole "scandal", the poor in the Europe as well as in Moslem countries will suffer: It's the diary workers in Denmark who suffers from the boycott, and the  Pakistanis in Cashmere by the retreat of Danish and European NGO. We already observed a net retreat of charity from Europe after the deadly earthquake in Cashmere; I suppose for the next natural disaster in a Moslem country there will be even less people willing to help, and who suffers?

To close, some quotes and a link to further cartoons:

“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.” Voltaire

and Kant, "What is enlightenment"

Kurt Tucholsky: "Was darf Satire - Alles!"

Le Canard enchainé: "La liberté de la presse ne s'use que quand on ne s'en sert pas."




In order to test European freedom of speech the Arab European League strikes back and publishes cartoons  :

"After the lectures that Arabs and Muslims received from Europeans on Freedom of Speech and on Tolerance. And after that many European newspapers republished the Danish cartoons on the Prophet Mohammed. AEL decided to enter the cartoon business and to use our right to artistic expression. Just like the newspapers in Europe claim that they only want to defend the freedom of speech and do not desire to stigmatise Muslims, we also do stress that our cartoons are not meant as an offence to anybody and ought not to be taken as a statement against any group, community or historical fact. If it is the time to break Taboos and cross all the red lines, we certainly do not want to stay behind."

In the last days, they start to row back:  and added the commentary: "AEL does not necessarilly endorse the content of these cartoons"

Well, I think their cartoonist Nabucho missed something, but  I publish them here.  Perhaps the Arab European League (Why do they proclaim themselves European, in their "vision" they proclaim obligations towards Arabia and Arabian Diaspora, but toward Europe) understands the difference in European reaction on their cartoons: No public offence uproar, no burning embassies, no price on the head of Nabuccho.

They do not reflect my opinion, but I will not further comment these cartoons, they speak for themselves.....:

I suppose they mean Auschwitz




I do not understand why the Arab European League thinks that these cartoons could initiate a dialogue of understanding between Europe and Islam?

Bien dit!