Has anyone published a cartoon with an image of Mohammed in response to the attack?

[oberliner]

I think it would be admirable if (in the wake of these attacks) a brave artist published a cartoon image of Mohammed that was extremely respectful and dignified. Something where he is simply saying "Don't kill in my name" or words to that effect.

It would be brave in that it would be saying that artists ought to have the right to present an image of Mohammed, while at the same time doing so in a manner that is no way profane, graphic, or obscene.

There have been cartoon depictions of Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Joseph Smith and even God himself used to convey messages of various types, from gentle good humor to sharp criticism of the religion. People should not be afraid to do so. Evidence suggests that they are.

So what about publishing, with the utmost respect, an image of Mohammed espousing a message of peace?

Should people be afraid to do even that because of some extremists?

If such cartoons have been published, I would appreciate any links or references.

[F4lconF16]

1. How would that be more brave

Than a critical or humorous depiction?

Edit: I know you didn't say "more brave" but given the context, it appears you feel publishing a less respectful version is not as brave.

[oberliner]

4. I meant more brave than the cartoons in solidarity I've seen thus far

The fact that publishing any image of the prophet carries some risk makes it brave to be willing to take that chance, in my opinion.

Some people have been pointing out how profane/obscene the Charlie cartoons were - but it seems like people are afraid to publish even non-profane, non-obscene respectful cartoons of the prophet.

[F4lconF16]

20. Ah, okay, thank you for clarifying.

That makes sense. I wonder if they do it purely to avoid sales losses from Muslim readers?

[Yo_Mama]

2. Charlie Hebdo published such cartoons.

This one, aimed at radicals:


"It is hard to be loved by fools."

On the right it says "Muhammed overcome by dogmatists or fundamentalists"



This one shows Muhammed being decapitated by a headchopper who is calling him an infidel, while crying that he is the prophet. The top says "If Muhammed came back." This one refers to a novel direction in Islamist doctrine in which the violent wing is being taught that anyone who doesn't agree with their interpretation of doctrine is an apostate, and the penalty that is prescribed for that is death - that's why so many Muslims are being killed by other Muslims.

[oberliner]

5. Yes, I realize that

I mean a cartoonist publishing a cartoon in response to the attacks that includes an image of the prophet.

[Yo_Mama]

12. They are republishing these, if they have the guts.

One's insurance rates are likely to rise.

[cwydro]

3. Yes.

There are several in the toon threads on DU.

One shows Mohammed wearing a bag over his head because he's embarrassed by the deeds of his "followers." I think I saw one that shows him crying.

[oberliner]

6. Do you have a link to any of those threads?

I'd love to be able to identify which cartoonists did that.

[cwydro]

7. I see someone already put some up in this thread.

I can look in awhile, but look for threads by n2doc....he had a bunch.

[oberliner]

8. Those are from Charlie Hebdo

I am asking if other cartoonists, in response to the attack, have published such cartoons.

The point being that it is still dangerous to print even respectful images of the prophet - and that shouldn't be the case.

[cwydro]

14. I'm a bit muddle headed this morning lol.

But I'll see if I can find links.

Probably a google search will even bring them up.

[randome]

9. No one needs to be afraid but it would be wise to re-think pointless insults to insane people.

Is this the only possible response to Paris? "You're going to take our insults and LIKE IT, goddamnit!"

A facile response, IMO. No one is 'heroic' for publishing insults. A paper is especially not heroic because, well, because it's not a person.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[oberliner]

16. A respectful image of Mohammed calling for non-violence is a pointless insult?

I would argue it is not.

[F4lconF16]

22. I think so as well.

It both reinforces the idea that we will not bow to fear instilled in us from fanatics and does it in a way that does not alienate the Muslim world (though of course, one is completely within their rights to publish something that does. That should go without saying).

[KittyWampus]

25. Any image of Mohammed can be considered offensive to some Muslims. And I got my ass kicked

on DU some months back for suggesting a minority group should consider doing something that might be enlightening. In retrospect, I realized my critics had a point.

Your post seems another version of expecting Muslims to apologize for the actions of some violent, murderous criminals.

[oberliner]

27. I'm talking about an image that is respectful and dignified

And one that promotes a message of peace.

[KittyWampus]

30. and you are suggesting some one else (a Muslim cartoonist) should do it. As I learned

from my mistake- it's insensitive suggest what some one else should do to remedy a problem they didn't cause.

As a creative person I say if you want this cartoon and message do it yourself.

[oberliner]

31. Not suggesting a Muslim cartoonist

I am asking if any cartoonist of any religion has had the bravery to do it.

As I mentioned, I am not brave enough myself. I would be afraid that it would put me on some sort of marked for death list.

I certainly understand why others would be afraid like me.

That's why if someone did it, I would applaud their courage.

[randome]

32. I was talking about the previous 'cartoons' designed to inflame and insult.

I didn't read all your OP and I should have. I agree, something respectful is called for.

At the same time, isn't it interesting that Muslim media does not try to portray the Western world's religious icons with as much disrespect as we do theirs? At least not that I know of. I'm sure there are exceptions but I haven't come across any.

No doubt there are some vicious interpretations of Judaism but that'a been a bone of contention for thousands of years. Not quite the same as ridiculing someone's religious icon for sport, is it?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[samsingh]

53. should any group define boundaries around free speech?

[randome]

60. Most of the world does not believe in free speech.

I think they should but I like to highlight that point because it's not generally known and adds some nuanced complexity to the issues.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[Spitfire of ATJ]

10. I like this one....

[madokie]

11. I wish we had more peace and less religion

[Sunlei]

13. google search there are thousands, Mo. is even piced with Jesus his pal back in the walkabout days.

People are not afraid

[oberliner]

17. Thanks for sharing that

It seems like, though, there aren't any in large distribution mainstream newspapers. Have you found some?

[Sunlei]

21. search images. I very much doubt any mainstream press will start to show cartoons before the situtat

situation is resolved. They still have to find a couple people.

Although Charlie Hebdo did plenty of "animal rights" cartoons and Peta put the cartoons up on their Memorial for Charlie Hebdo page.

[cwydro]

15. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026061909

[oberliner]

18. Only one of them purports to present an image of Mohammed

But thank you for sharing that link!

[cwydro]

19. I thought there were two.

There's some other threads around here somewhere ...

If I find them, I'll link.

[KittyWampus]

23. As an artist all I can say is if you have this concept- do it yourself.

Then we can all say how brave you are.

[oberliner]

28. I'm not brave enough

That is what I am identifying as a problem.

I would admire someone who had the courage to do what I am afraid to do.

[goldent]

24. Doubling down is often not a good idea.

[oberliner]

29. I mean a completely respectful and dignified image

And one that simply promotes a message of peace while at the same time standing up for artistic freedom - but doing so with the utmost respect.

[goldent]

37. I understand your point, but you are using your sense of what is respectful.

It's kind of like the question of whether certain words are (or are not) slurs - often depends on your point of view.

[L0oniX]

26. *

[TorchTheWitch]

33. in the Islamic religion pictures of Mohammad are forbidden

This was proscribed by Mohammad himself because he didn't want followers worshiping "idols" of him.

Other than that, what is pictures of Mohammad intended to do? Respectful or not they're still going to be taken as insults by the perverted beliefs of extremist terrorists. Mohammad is a prophet, and Muslims don't do anything in his name but in Allah's name. There is no such thing to extremist terrorists of "respectful" images of Mohammad or the notion that they do anything in Mohammad's name. This isn't modern Christianity where Jesus is far more deified than God.

For heaven's sake, why would you even WANT any pictures that are more "respectful" to such cretins anyway?

The only response to these nuts is unequivocal disgust and condemnation, and we don't need any cartoons for that just as we never needed them in response to any other terrorist attack. France knew all three of these goons were recruiting terrorists and trained in Yemen, and let them WALK from their crimes waiving or vastly reducing their sentences, ignoring what they were doing while free and enabling them to carry out these atrocities. An ounce of prevention is a pound of cure, and if anyone is responsible other than the terrorists themselves it's France's grossly negligent criminal justice system that let these fucks out on the street knowing what they were and what they would likely do even after finding them GUILTY. They wouldn't have been ABLE to do these horrific acts in the first place if France hadn't found them guilty of terrorist intent yet set them free and ignored them.

[oberliner]

38. Even if the image is respectful and dignified?

People have pointed out how obscene and profane the Charlie Hedbo cartoons were, but would respectful and dignified cartoon images of the prophet potentially have resulted in the same response?

[TorchTheWitch]

46. of course

These people are violent nutballs. You think they give a crap if a picture of Mohammad that is forbidden in Islam anyway is "respectful" according to ignorant Western ideas? They commit these sicko acts because they've perverted Islam beyond recognition and USE it as an excuse to attempt to control people, just as religion has ALWAYS been the go-to excuse for all manner of oppression, power and control.

Is there something you don't get about ANY depiction of Mohammad is forbidden in Islam and therefore CANNOT be dignified or respectful and certainly not to violent extremists who don't give a rat's ass anyway and use ANY fucked up excuse to kill people? The whole point to terrorism is to slaughter innocents. Does it MATTER that they decided to chose Charlie Hebdo, the people in the kosher market or some other innocents?

[Sunlei]

50. "These people are violent nutballs" only positive is "These 3 people -were- violent nutballs"

[oberliner]

51. So it wasn't really about the cartoons being obscene or grotesque?

It was just the fact that the prophet was depicted at all?

[TorchTheWitch]

61. what is it that you don't get about people using religion as an excuse

to commit atrocities for power and control and to oppress a population? Every atrocity "in {insert deity of choice}'s name" isn't really about religion. That's the excuse used by the higher ups to convince the rank and file to do their dirty work for them. And it's worked since the dawn of mankind. They're violent nuts that latched on to the perverted "religious beliefs" of the blood thirsty mullahs, priests, preachers, or whoever runs the organized "church" that convince them that slaughtering people is holy when all it is is basic terroristic acts designed to oppress and control a population for their own perverted ends.

Charlie Hebdo was an obvious target for them, and they knew they were targets. And if CH wasn't doing the "satire" they were doing then a restaurant, market, mall, bus load of people, etc. would be targets just as good. It's what violent nutball terrorists DO... slaughter those that irritate their perverted "religious beliefs" and any other convenient innocents.

Again, it doesn't MATTER which innocents they chose or what perverted excuse they used to slaughter them, it's the FACT that they slaughtered innocents in a terrorist attack.

[oberliner]

62. Pretty sure we are making the same point

I'm just trying to help other get there.

[Sunlei]

34. Heres what all the major cartoonests did the past day in BBC news

excellent selection here - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30734777

Most of the world isn't going to mock an entire religion so soon after the senseless violence by a couple of people.

[oberliner]

36. I am talking about a respectful and dignified image of the prophet

Putting out a message of peace.

How is that mocking an entire religion?

[Sunlei]

40. The religion believes pics of him are like a false idol. he has a name that the religion uses

[oberliner]

41. A respectful image of Mohammed calling for non-violence = mocking an entire religion?

Where is the mockery there?

[Sunlei]

48. do you know how to use search? by the way, I think names spelled "Muhammad Peace"

[oberliner]

55. I don't understand your question

You claimed that even a respectful image of the prophet espousing peace would be mocking an entire religion. My argument is that there is no mockery inherent in such an image.

[Sunlei]

56. Here, perhaps this will help you understand. I think

I think religions are more of an ancient method of government but that doesn't mean people shouldn't respect others beliefs. Especially after what 3 people just did, Three people aren't spokesmen for an entire religion.


Depictions of Muhammad


The permissibility of depictions of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, has long been a concern in the religion's history. Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, but there is disagreement about visual depictions.[1][2] The Quran does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating visual depictions of figures.[citation needed]

Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited[3] and are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[4] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry.[5] In Shia Islam, however, images of Muhammad are quite common nowadays, even though Shia scholars historically were against such depictions.[4][6] Still, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.[7]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

[oberliner]

57. Nothing there suggests such an image represents "mocking an entire religion"

It would be doing something that "those who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions will sometimes challenge" but I don't see how it represents mocking the entire religion - especially since, as this link indicates, many adherents of the religion do not have any issue with such depictions.

[Horse with no Name]

35. Only one I have seen

[oberliner]

39. Hats off to that cartoonist

Do you know who it is? I can't read the signature.

[cwydro]

42. That was one of the ones I saw too.

It's a great one.

[Horse with no Name]

43. I tried to read it but the best I can get it "Fitzsimmons" n/t

[LadyHawkAZ]

44. David Fitzsimmons, AZ Daily Star n/t

[Horse with no Name]

45. Here you go...found him

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/artist/David+Fitzsimmons.html

[PeaceNikki]

47. David Fitzsimmons of The Arizona Daily Star

http://tucson.com/news/opinion/fitz/

[Pooka Fey]

49. Marianne reprinted one from Tignous for the cover of this week's issue

?3?2015011017


The caption reads

"God is big enough to defend Mohammed all by himself. Got that?"

Tignous (Bernard Verlhac) also worked for Marianne, a left wing political news magazine. The magazine caption reads "Continuons le combat!" (Lets continue the fight!) There is also the black band over the magazine logo to mark the national period of mourning for the victims.

You're not going to see a cartoon of Mohammed espousing a message of peace because it's satire, not fantasy-fiction. These events are brutally real, not abstractions. Families, friends and coworkers are freshly grieving, like they were over here in the USA on September 14, 2001.

[oberliner]

52. Good stuff

I guess my point was that if a lot of prominent cartoonists published cartoons containing respectful images of the prophet espousing a message of peace, it would get across the message of standing up for artistic freedom without muddying the waters with anything that could be deemed as racist or obscene.

[Pooka Fey]

54. I think you're confusing Mohammed with Jesus

Usually cartoonists that are great enough to become published and well-known don't get there by drawing nonsense images.

[n2doc]

58. A couple of others

[oberliner]

59. Thanks

Good on Monte Wolverton.