The Jordanian weekly Sheehan has published three of the controversial caricatures (in Arabic) that depict the Prophet Mohammad. Accompanying the cartoons is an editorial from the paper’s editor-in-chief, Jihad al Moumani. You can read the whole story here (in Arabic) but here are some translated portions:
You Muslims of the world, act rational. Who insults Islam more: a foreigner who draws the prophet or a Muslim with an explosive belt killing himself at a wedding in Amman or a anywhere else? … Which act prompts the world to insult Islam and Muslims: cartoons or a real scene of the butchering of a hostage with a sword in front of a camera while accompanied by the chanting of Allah Akbar.
What’s going to happen now? Will people start boycotting Mansaf? Will Jihad Al-Moumani start receiving death threats? Will the government shut this paper down? This is a very bold move that may have grave consequences.
Meanwhile, intense discussions are currently raging over this issue on Mental Mayhem’s newswire. Frankly, I can’t keep track of all the comments at this point. As the discussion has grown it is becoming more heated between those for and against the cartoons. Some are really getting out of line. I’ll need to hire someone full-time just to monitor the debate and comments from both sides of the conflict! There are links to other related stories within these posts, but these are the hot topics receiving the most discussion right now:
- Row deepens over Danish cartoons of Prophet
- Norwegian magazine prints Prophet caricatures
- Danish goods boycott begins over Prophet caricature
UPDATE: As I’d expected, a few hours after the publication of the cartoons in the Jordanian weekly Sheehan, the owners said they had fired their editor and taken the issue off the stands. And, no surprise either, the government is threatening legal action.
UPDATE 2: The publisher of the newspaper Sheehan has made a statement: "The company was shocked that Sheehan republished the insulting caricatures and it strongly condemns such an irresponsible behavior." It vowed "severe measures against people whose implication is proven." The government also came out strongly against newspaper’s decision. "The government believes that the paper committed a grave mistake and demands an apology, while at the same time is considering legal action," said Government Spokesperson Nasser Judeh according to Jordan’s News Agency, Petra. In the mean time, Jihad Moumani apologized, expressing "deep regret" and saying he meant to show people how the cartoons were insulting. More details are available at The Jordan Times.
Nightowl here saying the editor of Sheehan has been fired.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4675462.stm
I am an advocate of social responsibility theory – one of the theories of communications.
The media must hold itself socially responsible.
Protesters still can not comprehend a free media that is a different entity than the government. The fact that the protesters’ governments have to approve or disapprove an article before publishing and would stick its long nose in every thing the media has to release make them believe it is this way all over the world. Even if the head of state in Denmark sends an apology; that apology would have no meaning. If an apology is due ( ethically, but not legally), then it has to flow down from the publisher/writer to the regular readers who usually read this newspaper and only for those who felt offended, and not for any other who read the article because of the publicity made afterwards by those idiots
“The government threatened legal action?” So much for freedom of the press…
As I commented recently to someone else on a similar subject (well similar in the sense of offense, since it involved someone asking for examples of someone else’s art work, then getting pissed when the only samples he had where erotic drawings). My argument was that while the artist might have been exceptionally stupid, its not certain, short of telling them before hand, that they would a) mind, or b) not be looking for that type in the first place. I also said that when you start arguing that some obscure right exists that says, “I have the right not to be offended by X”, you are on a slippery slope, where the question becomes, “Who decides what is offensive.” If the answer is “everyone”, then everyone would end up offending someone and by law have to be arrested. If its, “That group over there gets to decide”, then does anyone honestly think its going to be liberal people with no bias that makes the judgment based on what “everyone” finds reasonable, and not a fanatic making arbitrary assumptions? Don’t bet on it.
In the end, we can claim to be able to define right and wrong with respect to vague “offenses”, but the only “right” we truely have is the right to choose to be offended or choose to ignore it. The moment you cross the line into demanding that someone else subscribe to your version you are offending other people by doing so, and maybe they will decide your the one that needs to shut up or go to jail.
Apparently there are now toilet seats being fashioned with the world la illah ila allah mohammad rassoul allah.
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/7651/islamfusher7jn.jpg
I dare any norwegian or danish newspaper to print the following: “the holocaust did not happen”. And then see what happens.
hehe 😉
yes.. Mansaf is definitly on the boycott list now!!
Very bold indeed … but is it an act of courage that reflects a sincere point of view? Or is it a publicity stunt? But if the majority are against, how can this be for publicity? hmmmm … I wonder what went on in his mind!!
Yup. And a dangerous one at that.
Publicity stunt