OPINION & EDITORIAL
More letters regarding cartoon publication
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- SSFC stipend appropriate (December 11, 2007)
- Poor plowing cuts off handicapped access (December 10, 2007)
- Cars that actually help the environment (December 10, 2007)
- Organic food: Deliciously safe (December 10, 2007)
- Diversity deserves attention at UW (December 7, 2007)
Related Stories:
- The freedom to offend (February 20, 2006)
- Herald fails to adequately justify publication of controversial cartoon (February 16, 2006)
- Cartoon debate rages on (February 17, 2006)
- Times justified in printing 'secrets' (August 8, 2006)
- Censorship via blackmail (October 10, 2001)
by Letters to the Editor
Monday, February 20, 2006
Issue more than free speech
This is in response to your unfortunate decision to publish the demonizing cartoons.
Being the editors of a university famous for its liberal atmosphere and support for human rights you should have done some homework for this sensitive issue.
The issue is not about freedom of expression vs. freedom of religion or about blasphemy.
The issue is about demonization.
The cartoons did not attack the dogma of Islam but depicted the Prophet as one who supports terrorism and suicide bombing.
A study of history shows us that the persecution of Native Americans, African slaves, African Americans, Jews (especially in Nazi Germany), Bosnians, Gujarati Muslims (India) and other similar persecution was always preceded by demonization. If you had done some research in the background of Mr. Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons you would have found out that he has ties to Daniel Pipes (of the notorious Campus Watch — so much for your freedom of expression), a well-known Islamophobe.
I am providing you some links for you to judge the appropriateness of your decision to run a demonizing cartoon in these times of growing hatred against Muslims. You should also do some research before making sweeping statements or agreeing with them, statements such as drawing a picture of Prophet Muhammad is considered blasphemous by all Muslims.
Shaik Ubaid, MD
Cartoon disrespectful
I just heard a short run on Fox News in reference to your paper running controversial cartoons.
As a Muslim American living in this country for 34 years, I do feel sad to see throwing gas over an already tense situation. Muslims respect all prophets including, Abraham, Jesus, and Moses. We believe in them, their message, and books, the Bible and Torah. Including Jesus and Moses in any such presentation is also offensive to Muslims. I believe freedom of press comes with enormous responsibility just as in a democracy every citizen has responsibility. Freedom means being responsible. Question is, does targeting a religion advance freedom of press? Those who have published these cartoons knew well in advance that this action will get an uncontrolled reaction.
Our Prophets are above any name calling. We know Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him) is not what he is being called to be in these publications. We take from Prophet guidance in similar situations that occurred in his lifetime. He simply forgave such actions and only explained his message. I am absolutely against any violent reaction in response to these publications, as it has been all over the world. There needs to be a close dialogue among all people in this interconnected planet and we should learn to respect each other.
Mushtaq Ahmed
Paper made right choice
I believe you did the correct thing in printing the cartoon. I hope you will not have any consequences to your health and safety or to your position at the newspaper as did the editor at the University of Illinois. I have already emailed [sic] Chancellor Wiley to share this feeling with him. Keep up the good work.
Pam Grundman Parent of University of Wisconsin student Verona, Wis.
Paper must go further
So that your readers are more fully informed about the cartoon controversy, I've provided a little background which you may not be familiar with.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali was born a Somali Muslim in 1969. She arrived in Holland in 1991 as a refugee, fleeing from a marriage arranged by her father. She found work in factories and hotels, learning the Dutch language and attending college along the way. She is now a member of the Dutch parliament, and she renounced Islam in 2002. In 2004 she conceived the idea, and wrote the screenplay, for a film about the mistreatment of women in Islam. Theo van Gogh, a distant relative of the famous painter, produced the movie. It was titled "Submission."
In November 2004, van Gogh was murdered, in broad daylight, on an Amsterdam street by a second generation Dutch Muslim of Moroccan descent, citing "insult to Islam" as his motive. The killer left a message, attached to a knife in van Gogh's chest, threatening others with a similar outcome. And Hirsi Ali spent two months in protective custody; in California (sic).
Sometime thereafter, the Danish author, Kare Bluitgen, complained that artists had declined to create drawings of Muhammad for his upcoming children's book on the prophet's life. Some of the artists cited the van Gogh/Hirsi Ali situation as one reason for their decision.
To test Mr. Bluitgen's assertion (and the growing perception that artists and journalists were self-censoring out of fear of reprisals by Muslim fundamentalists), the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten solicited 40 artists to submit drawings of Muhammad, as they envisioned him.
Of the twelve who responded, seven depicted the religious figurehead Muhammad. And three of the twelve were pro-Muslim.
And let's put the charges of racism to bed. Many are quick to point out that there are approximately 1.2 billion Muslims around the world. Of course, they typically chose to ignore the racial diversity within Islam — from the distinctly Asian faces of Uzbek Muslims, to the white European features of Muslims in Bosnia, to the Arab features in much, but not all of the Middle East, to the Muslims of Nigeria.
Islam is not a race. It is an ideology.
Stick to your guns. And in order to fully educate your readers, publish all of the drawings.
Bob Corrow South Lake Tahoe, Calif.
Herald did right thing
I applaud your journalistic integrity for publishing the famous cartoon. Our freedoms and way of life in western countries should not be allowed to be co-opted by any group, no matter the thickness of their skin and insecurities.
A person has to be tough to live in this country. I'm just so proud that there are journalists like you that do the right thing. Heck, I may just become a Badger fan now!
Paul Samuelson Twin Cities, Minn.
Cartoon publication unnecessary
… displaying those cartoons has nothing at all to do with "freedom of the press," nor with "raising issues" for intelligent people to discuss.
Freedom of the speech (or of the press) does NOT provide license to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. And in today's world that's exactly what those cartoons do. I'm Jewish, by the way.
Dan Bessie
Cartoon portrayal accurate
I viewed you on TV last night and your stand in regards to the cartoons, which I commend highly. This form of Islam, which is being exposed to us is a dangerous collective psychosis seeking to become global, and any attempt to compromise with such madness is to become part of the madness oneself. Islam in Muhammad's texts and its codification, discriminates against us it is extremely offensive. Islam discriminates against all "unblievers" (sic).
Peter Comaskey Nampa, Idaho
Readers need to see cartoon
Thanks for publishing the cartoons which are causing such an uproar. We need to see the cause of the worldwide outrage and judge for ourselves what is happening. So much for freedom of speech, academic freedom, diversity and tolerance in one of the most intolerant cities in the country.
Kathie Madison, Wis.
Cartoon demonizes
I am writing to discuss the detriments of reprinting the cartoons depicting Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islam's final prophet. First, I'd like to draw an analogy:
Many people wrongly assume that simply having the ability to do something entitles that person the right to do whatever he/she likes with it. Abortionists use this fallacy in reasoning by saying "it's a woman's body, it's her right", but that's a whole other can of worms.
Also, you never hear anyone say, "it's my hand, if I want to go steal something, who are you to tell me what I can or can't do?" The point is that one must look at ethics, causes, and effects.
In reprinting these grossly offensive cartoons, the Badger herald (sic) neglected to do this. What you've done is further alienate the Muslim community and exacerbate the flames of hatred. Editorial staff of any respected newspaper should be able to recognize that these cartoons blindly demonize 1.3 billion people.
Yaseen Elkasabi
Cartoon justification insufficient
You can argue free speech to justfy (sic) your insult to Muslims by reprinting the cartoons, but it does not stand, because you would not dare do the same to other groups, it is just that you think insulting Muslims is OK, no one will defend them.
This is irresponsible. You should print an apology.
Khuloud Labanieh Milwaukee, Wis.
Muslims hurt by cartoon
As you well know, Muslims all over the world love and respect Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and the recent spate of republishing of the cartoons has offended all Muslims everywhere. Regardless of the intent of the those involved, the re-publishing the cartoons at this time, in your paper, at your school, is but gratuitous, and maligns the one whom Muslims love the most, and, consequently Muslims on your campus and far beyond.
I write to you from Chicago wishing that Allah Most High guide you to the truth in this matter and in all matters.
Thank you very much.
Ali Toft
Islam peaceful religion
I was absolutely disgusted by the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in a negative light. By printing these images, you not only disrespected Muslims but also you dragged the UW-Madison name into the dirt. If this is the way you express your tolerance to the religions of the world, you only destroy any incentive to attend your University. I know that making fun of the Holocaust is not something the "Badger Herald" would do, but why is it ok for this magazine to make fun of Islam? By re-printing these cartoons, you are adding to ignorance in the world, and demonstrating your own. Had you done research, you would find that the Prophet Muhammad was not a terrorist in any way, but rather a man of peace. You would understand that Islam does not have a blind spot when it comes to women's freedom, but in fact liberates its women and equalizes them in society in far better a way than any other society. In a time where Muslims are being portrayed with a negative light, these images only perpetuate that negativity, and enrage the Muslims all over the world. By printing these cartoons, you are only preventing a true understanding of the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, and are only adding to the misconceptions about Islam and its true message, a message of peace.
Besma Jaber Cartoon publication fuels fire
It just tells me you are courageous to publish racist content that could incite violence or lead to hate crimes. Thank you for adding fuel to the fire of violence and anger. When are you publishing anti-Semitic and anti-African American cartoons? I will be waiting for your next racist move.
Mariam Raza
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 5:35am):
Still waiting for the herald to print pictures from abu gharib. what? afraid to start a riot?
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 6:55am):
Dan,
It's shouting fire "FALSELY" in a crowded theater. That word makes a difference--you can be punished for misstatements of FACT that lead to harm or death. Opinions, however, resist such characterizations, and thus the example shouldn't apply to any such opinion, regardless of how ugly it is. You should also note that Holmes wrote this statement and then abandoned his intellectual honesty (for the time being) by using the formulation to uphold the (10 year) conviction of a man who had used the US mail to protest WWI. The argument? That he had thrown "gas" on a dangerous fire...
Sorry. I just get tired of people with only a passing familiarity with the First Amendment (and perhaps no devotion to its principles) misuse its caselaw. Here's another First Amendment quote that might be on point for the Madison community: "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."
Zaki Saad (February 20, 2006 @ 7:41am):
I am totally shocked by all of this hoopla about cartoons that reflect nothing but the disrespect and demoralization of our principles as humans. We are human beings with different beliefs that came from the same source. We seem to forget the teaching of the holy books' Old Testimons, Bible Quraan' and adopt new ideology called the freedom of speech. Islam, not the west, came with the freedom of speech, rights of women and many other important ideas. Women had the rights to vote, open their own business, lead, and so on when counsels in Europe were debating if she is human. For some to dehumanize others under the umbrella of freedom of speech and other umbrellas is such a mockery to human intelligence. I can read from the response that many people have already converted by the brain washing that is going on. Most prominent newspapers in this country and others refused to publish such cartoon because they found out that it does strike an interest in the intelligent circle they target. Be the human being you are.
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 7:56am):
"Abu Ghraib", not abu Grahib. Moron!
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 7:57am):
Letters, letters and more letters. Must be a shortage of ideas for new topics at The Herald.
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 10:47am):
Murdering a person because of what they have said is wrong, always and everywhere.
I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
-Voltaire
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 11:04am):
"Letters, letters and more letters. Must be a shortage of ideas for new topics at The Herald."
What's wrong with you? They've published more reader views in the past week than in the previous three years combined. I count that as a welcome change, hopefully one that will continue to new topics.
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 11:06am):
Most of the world already associates Islam with terrorism anyway... the cartoon isn't creating ideas that aren't already popularly accepted. Maybe Muslums and the rest of the world should think about WHY people have this link between Islam and terrorism and then do something about it. Instead of having protest after protest and burning building after building (which just plays more into the idea that Muslums are terrorists), why don't you arrest the bastards that blow things up and kill in the name of Islam?
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 11:08am):
I've just got to wonder how many would die if a cartoon of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) with his six-year old wife was printed in the papers? I understand that he did wait until she was nine years old to consummate the marriage.
Maybe it could be printed with a retrospective of all the "Catholic priests abusing children" cartoons that have been printed in the papers over the years?
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 11:28am):
I can't believe the comments that say the BH "did the right thing." Yes, the Herald has the right to publish them, but they also have the right not to publish them. To say that a paper has to publish intentionally offensive cartoons is morally irresponsible.
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 12:07pm):
Educate yourselves.
History Illuminates the Rage of Muslims
People will sacrifice their interests, their health, their reason, their family, all in service to an idea "that has lodged in their brains." That idea, he argues, is like a virus or a worm, and it inspires bizarre forms of behavior in order to propagate itself. Islam, he points out, means "submission," and submission is what religious believers practice. In Mr. Dennett's view, they do so despite all evidence, and in thrall to biological and social forces they barely comprehend.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/20/arts/20conn.html
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 12:23pm):
Like many, I was *shocked* when I saw the contraversial cartoons with my own eyes. I was shocked at just how tame the cartoons are by Western standards. To know that fanatics are burning down buildings, killing, and dying over these cartoons is difficult to comprehend. If you want to blame someone for reinforcing negative stereotypes about Muslims, don't blame the Herald. Blame the tens of thousands of fanatics around the world lashing out in violence over a CARTOON. But here's the rub, what you call a negative stereotype, they think of as virtue.
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 12:50pm):
David Irving, the British historian who denies the holocaust, has just been sentenced to 3 years of jail time in Vienna, Austria, just for questioning the existence of gas chambers in Nazi Germany. While I think he is probably wrong, did he not have the "right to offend", just as much as the you and other newspapers had the "right to offend"?
Why are you dealing with double standards?
Racism and discrimination based on religion are horrible, and it is equally wrong to call an African-American the "N" word, as it is to blasphemize the prophet of Islam.
But obviously, you have grown accustomed to view satyrizing Islam as fair game, just because of the ongoing wars in the Middle East.
Remember that Islam recognizes and respects your religion, your holy books and your prophets. Have some respect too.
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 4:03pm):
"Women had the rights to vote, open their own business, lead, and so on when counsels in Europe were debating if she is human."
That's very interesting since women can't even drive in Saudi Arabia today. Can they vote? And what about these "honor killings" of women in the moslem areas?
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 4:21pm):
My understanding of the historical fact set includes:
1. The Prophet Mohammed ,according to the Koran as the LAST Prophet and received the distilled word of God, and documented it in the Koran.
2. That message is final and immutable. Islam does not want and can not change according to its underlying belief structure. To change would be to deny God's message.
3. Ultimately all peoples will convert to Islam or perish via the Sword of the Righteous.
4. The Mid East and North Africa was (pre-7th century) Christian. Islam forcibly converted all those lands and conquered Spain, southern France, the Balkans, right up to the gates of Vienna (circa Mid 1600's)
5. Islam has this nice ratchet rule, like a fine timepiece. Once a land or a person has converted, the decision can not be un-done. The penalty is death. So Islam only moves forward occupying more land. Any attempts at reclaiming lands from Islam are Crusader invasions.
6. Islamists want an asymmetrical tolerance. We must tolerate and accept the true faith. They can be intolerant of even the most benign things on pain of death. Once we accept a tenet of this accommodation, we can never withdraw the tolerance on our part. (see rule 5 above). Ultimately your grand daughters will be in black robes if these folks have their way.
8. When these people say they want to kill us and establish Sharia law, first across Andalusia, then the rest of Europe, then the US, you really have to believe they mean what they say. Hitler, and Mao, and Pol Pot all described their governing philosophies well in advance of their ascent to power. Islamists did the same in the 7th century, their blueprint is the Koran. It describes how Islam will conquer and rule the world. It's just a matter of timing from their perspective.
9. Ultimately, the only difference between radical Islamists and Moderates is timing and method. A moderate thinks the world will all convert peaceably and slowly. The Radical thinks the sword will be needed and it will happen faster. Any means toward that end are acceptable. After all, they are doing God's work.
It's just a matter of timing from their perspective.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2006/02/ridiculous-fear-of-ridicule.html#comments
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 4:24pm):
No Mohammed images you say?
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 4:41pm):
"What's wrong with you? They've published more reader views in the past week than in the previous three years combined."
Sorry, I should've been specific. I'm meant to say that I'm tired of the Islam cartoons already. It's old news now.
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 4:43pm):
Poster two line above--you do realize that the US and Austria are different countries with different laws, right? Who, exactly, are you accusing of hypocrisy? Yes, Europe has not been equitable in the prosecution of its hate speech laws--all the more reason to abandon them.
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 5:15pm):
Remember that Islam recognizes and respects your religion, your holy books and your prophets. Have some respect too.
oh yea, how could we forget how respectful they are to us infidels/dhimmis.
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 7:12pm):
"Remember that Islam recognizes and respects your religion, your holy books and your prophets. Have some respect too."
Even in those countries where you can be beaten or arrested for wearing a cross or having a bible? Is that the kind of respect you are looking for? Should anyone with koran be thrown in jail?
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 7:23pm):
Well; congratulations on running "the cartoon(s)". Did you run all 12 or just a few? Whatever, you are to be praised for upholding the "Freedom to Offend" anyone with out censorship. It is an established right in all of tahe free world and every newspaper in the world should run those cartoons, especially our "Free" American journalists who are not intimidated by anyone. Did you notice how our big name newspapers have buckled under to the terrorists and are afraid to publish them? In their case: the terrorists have won.
Again; thanks for exercising our freedoms.
Don Schimpff Redding, CA email: guncollector@msn.com
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 7:39pm):
"Remember that Islam recognizes and respects your religion, your holy books and your prophets. Have some respect too."
The moslem mob's murder and mayhem don't show any "respect". The Christians in Nigeris had nothing to do with any cartoons yet they are killed and their churches burned. I would suspect that the mobs did not remove the holy books from the churches before torching them. In fact they didn't even remove the holy men!
Felix Usman, the priest in charge of St Augustine's Catholic Church in Maiduguri, said he was lucky to escape when his church was attacked and burned by protesters. Another colleague, Matthew Gajere, in charge of St Rita's Catholic Church, was burned to death by rioters inside his church, Usman said.
Respect by Islam would nice, but a good first step toward that would be to stop all the killing and burning.
Adam Sitte (February 20, 2006 @ 8:54pm):
Respect by Islam would nice, but a good first step toward that would be to stop all the killing and burning.
and this could go for every group, ESPECIALLY the west and especially america, if we chose to generalize like that. it is probably best if we try not to.
Adam Sitte (February 20, 2006 @ 8:56pm):
"oh yea, how could we forget how respectful they are to us infidels"
a term not even used in the quran
Anonymous (February 20, 2006 @ 9:52pm):
'Freedom of speech' must go along with ethics. If someone is offended by something, stop provoking. Such act will increase the anti-Americanism and hatred to the western world. Please respect among each other.
Anonymous (February 22, 2006 @ 11:47am):
As a response to Mr. Shaik Ubaid...It is unfortunate that you choose to ignore the atrocities that are still being committed on Kashmiri Hindus by the terrorists who want Kashmir to be a fully Muslim state through "religious" cleansing even while mentioning the atrocities committed on Gujrati Muslims in the same breath! This controversy has become full blown due to the cartoon reprint, but I would like to emphasize the fact that intolerance and fundamentalism of any religion breeds it in other religions as well. This is just one instance of a backlash. Not to stoke up yet another controversy, but I feel that both Christianity and Islam need to do some serious introspection especially on why their religions make distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers" which I feel sows the seed of intolerance for other religions.
