Anthony Heyer

Humor and Religion

20 October 2015
The cartoons are typically regarded by the Muslim community as
insensitive, disrespectful, and wrong(qtd. in Amin 1), yet many
reactions to the cartoons are far less polite. While the vast majority of
Muslims are outraged, very few are participating in the violent
reactions. This is the same miniscule percentile that gives Islam a bad
reputation in the first place. This ties into the primary reasoning behind
publishing the cartoons, which is to foment the moderate Muslims into
taking a stand against the radicals of Islam.
The publishers of the cartoons will agree that the freedom to publish
things doesnt mean you publish everything(Rose 2), but will argue
that the cartoons were a challenge to the widening feelings of fear and
intimidation towards Islam. The cartoon was meant to expand the
tightening limits of self-censorship occurring in modern media. One
example of what the cartoon desires to challenge is how in September,
2005, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with JyllandsPosten that he had no problem urinating on the bible in front of a
camera, but he dared not do the same with the Koran(Rose 2). The
people of the world should not have to tiptoe around Islam when it
comes to humor.

The same cartoonist that caused so much controversy with his

illustration of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban also had a drawing
published that portrayed Jesus Christ on the cross with dollar signs
instead of eyes, as well a drawing of the Star of David as part of a
bomb fuse; however, neither of these resulted in the burning of an
embassy or death threats from the offended parties. Both Muslim
Amrin Amin of Singapore and the cartoons publisher agree that this is
a massive issue in todays world society.
As a matter of fact, there was an Iranian newspaper that directly
reacted to the cartoons. Singapore writer Amrin Amin stated that he
was deeply embarrassed to read that a prominent Iranian newspaper,
Hamshahri, said that it plans to hold a competition for cartoons on the
holocaust to test if the west extends the same principle of freedom of
expression to the Nazi genocide(Amin 1). This is actually addressed in
Flemming Roses article, when he claims that he is offended every day
by things such as people claiming the holocaust never happened. But
that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as
they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspapers ethical
code(Rose 3).
When comparing these two articles, the primary idea that the two
share is that moderate Muslims need to stand up and differentiate
themselves from the radicals and the imams. The cartoons publishers
followed the controversy with three full pages of moderate Muslims

claiming that their faith is compatible with a modern secular

democracy(Rose 3). In addition, the publisher claims if a believer
demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in a public
domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And
that is incompatible with a secular democracy(3).
While the article might be distasteful and offensive, it is within the
boundaries of the world general ethical code. Compared to other
religious cartoons by the same artist, it is equally offensive, yet it
caused a worldwide outrage. The reason it caused such a controversy
is that a small minority of the worlds Muslims overreacted to it. If
justice is to be withheld, the worlds cartoonists shouldnt have to
refrain from making fun of a single religion for fear of persecution or
even death. Moderate Muslims need to stand up and prove to the world
that only a small portion of the religion is intolerant. That is the
purpose and result of this controversy.
Word Count: 617
Works Cited:
Rose, Flemming. "Why I Published Those Cartoons." Washington Post.
The Washington Post, 19 Feb. 2006. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.
Amin, Amrin. Muslims must correct image of Islam. The Straits
Times. NewspaperSG, 9 Feb. 2006. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.