Print Friendly, PDF & Email


Articles in English

Asia Times

Punishing Denmark (2. feb. 2006)
“Ramzy Baroud believes the Muslim world is sadly taking on the wrong enemy.”


Rune Engelbreth Larsen: The Danish cartoon affair: How and why it all began (24.-26. sept. 2010)
“… what happened during those four months, and could the escalation of the crisis have been prevented? Was it simply about freedom of speech and a ‘clash of civilizations’ or were other agendas in play? Moreover, why did it happen in Denmark of all places?”

Richard Neville: All this from the Danes, the least funny people on earth: the cartoons that shook the world (9. feb. 2006)
“In the TV footage of rioting Muslims in Syria, one placard stood out: The West has entered a Dark Age. That much is true. Both sides are blinded by belief, so let’s use free speech to open each other’s eyes, or our tongues will turn to lead.”

Rachard Itani: Danes finally apologize to Muslims – but for the wrong reasons (2. feb. 2006)
“Muslims deserve nothing more nor less than for Christians in the U.S. and Europe, and Zionist Jews in Israel, to simply abide by the golden rule: treat others as you would have others treat you. So far, Christians and Zionist Jews have proven that they only abide by the alternative definition of this rule: They who have the gold, make the rule.”

Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier/Danish Institute for International Studies

Lars Erslev Andersen: Freedom of speech, battle over values, and the political symbolism of the Muhammad drawing: An analysis of how the Cartoon Crisis about the Muhammad drawings developed in 2006 (DIIS Report, 2008:6, 26 sider)
“This article argues how the publishing of the caricatures was used as a fitting and symbolic event in other political, cultural and religious battles in Denmark and even more so internationally.”

Ulla Holm: The Danish ugly duckling and the Muhammed cartoons (DIIS Brief, feb. 2006, 6 sider)
“This brief argues that the construction of Danish national identity as a homogeneous, harmonious ethnic entity makes it difficult for Danish governments to conduct foreign policy that takes into consideration other cultures. The Danish vision of being morally superior to other countries because of its welfare state and egalitarian politics enhances this attitude to other countries. The question is therefore how Denmark may become a swan again.”

Informed Comment [Juan Cole]

More on the hypocrisy of the West and Cartoongate (7. feb. 2006)
“The Danish newspaper that published the caricatures of Muhammad refused to carry cartoons lampooning Jesus of Nazareth.”

Caricatures roil Muslim world (6. feb. 2006)
“There are 1.5 billion Muslims. A lot of Muslim countries saw no protests at all. In some places, as in Pakistan, they were anemic. The caricature protests are resonating with local politics and anti-imperialism in ways distinctive to each Muslim country. The protests therefore are probably not mostly purely about religion.”

International Socialist Review

Lee Sustar: A campaign against Muslims (nr.46, marts-april 2006)
“One had to scour the foreign press via the Internet to piece together the real political agenda behind the cartoons: a dramatic shift to the right in Denmark since 2001, driven by the far-right Danish Peoples Party, which provides the parliamentary support that keeps the ruling center-right coalition in office. The cartoons were a calculated racist provocation that took place in the wake of the government culture ministry’s initiative to promote ‘Danish culture’ against the supposed influence of Denmark’s Muslim population.”

International Viewpoint

Danish cartoons controversy: documents (nr.376, marts 2006)
“We publish here the statement of the February meeting of the FI’s international Committee on the Danish cartoon controversy, the statement by the Red-Green Alliance in Denmark, the statement of Socialist Resistance in Britain, authored by Piers Mostyn and an article by Tariq Ali.”

Danish cartoons controversy: British media campaign’s response (feb. 2006)
“The Campaign for Press and Broadcasting Freedom, a longstanding media reform organisation set up by the unions and the labour movement (including the British journalists’ union, the NUJ), explains its position of the Mohammed cartoons controversy.”

The James Petras website

The caricatures in Middle East politics (02.26.2006)
“… it is not surprising that a Ukranian Jew, operating under the name of Flemming Rose with close working relations with the Israeli state (and in particular the far right Likud regime) should be the center of the controversy over the cartoons.” [sic!]

Too much respect (Prospect, marts 2006)
“It is true that there is nothing particularly laudable about the cartoons themselves. They are at best childish, at worst distasteful. But free speech is nothing if it is not the right to be distasteful, even racist.”


Stephen Eric Bronner: Incendiary images: blasphemous cartoons, cosmopolitan responsibility, and critical engagement (vol.5, nr.1, winter 2006)
“The political cartoon has a long history. Some of it is bright and noble … The best evidenced a sense of critical engagement and cosmopolitan responsibility. Their work needed the protection accorded by civil liberties because it dared to contest the reigning belief and the arbitrary exercise of power … But the tradition of the political cartoon also has another historical tendency [which] undermine reflection, toady to the powerful, and rub out any sense of a common humanity … This tradition defines the artistic context for those political cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, and the others with like-minded stereotypic and racist images, which provoked the rage of Muslims during February of 2006.”

MIFTAH: The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy

The cartoon wars (8. feb. 2006)
“Would these mass protests have been as equally rogue and violent before the US carpet bombing of Afghan refugee camps following 9/11, before the deceptive US war against Iraq, under the false pretext of eradicating Saddam’s WMDs, or before the notorious horrors of Abu Ghreib prison in Baghdad, among other atrocities committed in the name of ‘democracy’ during the past 4 or 5 years?”

MR Zine

Deepa Kumar: Fighting Islamophobia: a response to critics (03/04/06)
“In what follows, I respond to these comments for reasons that should be obvious to any person of conscience: the wholesale demonization of Arabs and Muslims is racist and unacceptable, it serves to bolster US foreign policy goals in the Middle East, and giving even an inch to Islamophobia divides us and weakens our ability to build an effective opposition to the war in Iraq and the potential war on Iran.”

Deepa Kumar: Danish Cartoons: racism has no place on the left (21/02/06)
“I feel compelled to speak out against the steady rightward drift among sections of the left since 9/11 on the question of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism. The Danish cartoon controversy, and the anemic response by the left in this country, is only the latest example of this drift.”


Doug Ireland: The right to caricature God … and his prophets (7. feb. 2006)
“Believers in free speech must resist Islamist attempts to enforce theocratic censorship.”

Ehsan Masood: A post-Satanic journey (7. feb. 2006)
“The contrast between the ‘Satanic Verses’ affair of 1989 and the cartoon controversy of 2006 shows how far Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain have travelled.”

Neal Ascherson: A carnival of stupidity (6. feb. 2006)
“The conflagration over Danish cartoons of Islam’s prophet reveals that Europe’s balance of freedom, mutuality and coexistence is at a trigger-charge moment.”

David Hayes: Muslims and Europe : a cartoon confrontation (6. feb. 2006)
“The row over the publication of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed raises profound tensions – between freedom of speech and mutual respect, ethics of satire and sacrality, shared values and coexistence, perceived western arrogance and Muslim victimhood. A compendium of writers’ views.”

Socialism Today

Lynn Walsh: Blasphemy: a burning issue? (nr.111, juli-august 2007)
“The knighting of Salman Rushdie, now ‘Sir Salman’, by the queen has re-ignited the furore that followed the publication of his novel, The Satanic Verses, in 1988. The Ayatollah Khomeini, supreme leader of the Iranian Islamic Republic, issued a fatwa calling for Rushdie’s death, on the grounds that his novel was an insult to Islam.”

Socialist Worker

Cartoon row : the issue is racism (nr.1987, 11. feb. 2006)
“This is not about ‘freedom of speech’. It’s not about a ‘war of civilisations’. It’s about racism. Anyone who doubts that need look no further than the right wing Danish paper that commissioned the notorious anti-Muslim cartoons last September.”
See also in the same issue:

Weekly Worker

Islamophobia: no! Free speech: yes! (nr.612, 16. feb. 2006)
” Peter Manson analyses the furore over the Danish cartoon controversy.”

Oppose all blasphemy laws (nr.612, 16. feb. 2006)
“Communists fight for the complete separation of church and state, says Eddie Ford.”

Wikipedia : The Free Encyclopedia

Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Lot of links to statemens, videos, images, and other sources. – (The Wikipedia Articles as of February 12, 2006 is compiled by editor John Simmons, Iraq Museum International as: The Wikipedia Muhammad Cartoons Debate : A War of Ideas – pdf-file, app. 25 printed pages).

International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad-controversy

Timeline of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad-controversy

Freedom of speech versus blasphemy

“Aniconism is the conviction that artists should not depict human beings. This conviction can be found in several cultures.”

Workers Liberty

Sean Matgamna: The issue is free speech (7. feb. 2006)
“Would we, socialists, have published those cartoons to start with? No, surely, we would not … caricature on that level, and in a society where there is racism against Muslims, is too much of a blunderbuss weapon. It can ricochet too widely. The cartoons have, however, been published. Free speech is now the issue.”

Don’t let religious authorities decide what can and can’t be published! (4. feb. 2006)
“Praised for it (and probably pressurised) by the Blair-Brown government, the British press has unanimously refused to let its readers see the anti-Islamist cartoons in the row which fills its front pages. We do not believe that religious authorities should decide what can or can’t be published, and so republish the cartoons below.”

World Socialist Web Site

Peter Schwarz: Denmark and Jyllands-Posten: the background to a provocation (10. feb. 2006)
“The basic lie in the controversy over the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published by Danish and European newspapers is the claim that the conflict is between free speech and religious censorship, or between Western enlightenment and Islamic bigotry … An examination of the prevailing political conditions in Denmark reveals how bogus such arguments are.”

European media publish anti-Muslim cartoons: An ugly and calculated provocation (4. feb. 2006)
“These crude caricatures, intended to insult and incite Muslim sensibilities, are a political provocation. Their publication, initially by a right-wing Danish newspaper with historical ties to German and Italian fascism, was calculated to fuel anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment.”


Tariq Ali: This is the real outrage (16. feb. 2006)
” Amid the cartoon furore, Danish imams ignore the tragedies suffered by Muslims across the world.”

Mahir Ali: Nothing to kill or die for (6. feb. 2006)
“In retrospect, would it not have been best from the Muslim point of view if the matter had been restricted to Denmark? Among other things, that would probably have prevented the cartoons from being reproduced in newspapers throughout Western Europe, as they were last week (with the notable exception of Britain). More important, that may also have kept the issue from being adopted by the international brotherhood of extremists.”

Omar Barghouti: Secular Arabs detest hypocrisy too (6. feb. 2006)
“To put it bluntly, would the west accept or tolerate cartoons which are anti-Semitic, novels which deny the Holocaust, or poetry which favorably evokes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion? This is the fundamental question that ought to be answered, above all others, I believe, in order to grasp where the problem lies.”

Harsha Walia: The row over the Danish cartoons (6. feb. 2006)
“But I agree that the cartoons are offensive. Not primarily because they violate religious tenets, but because they are offensive in the way that they depict and stereotype the entire Arab community and those perceived to be Muslim.”

Tarek Fateh: What would the Prophet have done? (5. feb. 2006)
“The posturing by Arab governments and Islamist movements is not in the tradition of Islam. These zealots should ask the question: what would Prophet Mohammed have done when faced with this insult? He would, I suggest, have said a prayer for the cartoonist and ‘turned away from the ignorant,’ as Allah commanded him to do in the Koran.”


Some countries which reproduced the Jyllands-Posten cartoons in the w:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy shown in orange… (Kilde: Caricaturemap corrected.PNG (


Indtast din kommentar
Indtast dit navn her

Comment moderation is enabled. Your comment may take some time to appear.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.