Islamic Cartoons Yes! Holocaust Cartoons No?

Things that make you go…huh?

The cultural editor of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten has been sent on “indefinite leave”, immediately after giving remarks he would consider publishing Holocaust cartoons in the mass-circulation daily.

“The Editors have told (cultural editor) Flemming Rose to take a vacation because no one can understand the kind of pressure he has been under,” Jyllands-Posten editor Carsten Juste told Berlingske Tidende newspaper, Reuters reported Friday, February 10.

The move comes only two days after Flemming said he was considering to publish cartoons on the Holocaust in his daily.

An Iranian newspaper has said it will run a contest for cartoons on the Holocaust.

“We would consider publishing them,” Rose said Wednesday.

“But we will not make a decision before we have seen the cartoons, and it is in no way seen as remorse or a way to establish a false balance between our cartoons and the Iranian cartoons,” he told Agence France Presse (AFP).

Three years ago, Jyllands-Posten had rejected to publish cartoon of Jesus Christ because of being “offensive” to Christians.


Rose’s remarks on publishing the Holocaust cartoons has triggered an immediate public apology from the Danish daily.

“Flemming Rose has expressed regret for his error of judgment that must be ascribed to the fact that, during the past four months, he has experienced inhumanly hard pressure and been besieged by Danish as well as international media almost around the clock,” Juste said on his newspaper’s Web site.

“Under no circumstances will we allow ourselves to be latched onto the tasteless media stunt of an Iranian newspaper,” he added. [article]

It’s not that they thought of publishing them, because in my opinion a cartoon about the holocaust is as tasteless as a cartoon on the thousands of palestinians that have died for their land. It’s really about how they found them to be tasteless but the ones about the Prophet pbuh not. The grand daddy of all double standards?

Another article of interest


  • I think they should have published them anyway. Why not? I would encourage their publication throughout newspapers around the world just to give people a taste of the Iranians are all about. I honestly believe the only ones who will look bad if they do publish these cartoons are the Iranians.

    I think I read that Rose was pressured from higher ups at the paper not to do this. I don’t know if this was a business decision or what. I suspect that Jewish groups in Denmark would protest the publication and that their methods would hurt the paper directly more than the methods that the Muslim world is applying. Instead of boyotting just anything Danish, they would boycott products that are actually advertised in the paper. Then again, maybe Rose’s superiors are just nervous about creating any further controversy. Maybe they would also like to back down from their original cartoons but cannot do so without losing face.

    Double standards? Yes, I agree. Granddaddy of double standards? No, the granddaddy of all double standards in this story is still the fact that the Muslim world ignored the cartoons when they were published in Egypt last Ramadan before they were published in any European newspaper outside Denmark. When European papers repeated what the Egyptian paper had done, the Muslim world went ballistic, burning flags and embassies and threatening executions and terrorist attacks.

    Egyptian newspaper publishes offensive cartoons (during Ramadan): yawn . . . no big deal!
    European newspapers publish offensive cartoons: OUTRAGEOUS! The ‘kaffirs’ must pay for this offense!

    For more on the Danish story:,,1706377,00.html

    For more on the Egyptian story:

    Finally, Jews were big defenders of the anti-cartoon position, making Iran’s decision even more ironic:,7340,L-3211718,00.html

    (I find the fact that the French chief rabbi has spoken out so vigorously on the cartoons somewhat surprising. The French Jewish community has been the subject of numerous attacks on such locations as their cemeteries by North Arican immigrants and their native-born children in that country in recent years. If anyone should be wary of Muslims it would probably be them. The French government has tried to silence the problem of Muslim immigrants attacking Jewish citizens by pretending either that their is no problem or that these things are the work of white supremacists. See:

    Do you think other Arab papers will republish these Iranian cartoons? If they do, I think that this will be taken as the final evidence that, despite the repeated claims of the Arab world, anti-Jewish hatred (not just ‘anti-Zionism’) is rife. I wonder if at least one of the papers in the United States that has refused to republish the Danish cartoons will come up with a snarky excuse to publish the Holocaust cartoons? With the left-wing in this country, you never know?

  • Nas, your article states “Three years ago, Jyllands-Posten had rejected to publish cartoon of Jesus Christ because of being â??offensiveâ? to Christians.”

    It is somewhat besides the point, but I should note that this is disputed by another source:

    ‘Earlier this week, the editor of the paper’s Sunday edition defended a decision three years ago not to publish five unsolicited cartoons of Jesus’ resurrection.

    “I turned them down because they were not good – their quality was not good,” Jens Kaiser said.’

    The source of this claim is:

  • Edward, the link you provided dosnt work. also i didnt write the article but if you feel it is factually flawed i advise you to email lastly, what’s being disputed here? the bbc quote you provided merely adds on how many cartoons there were.

  • Sorry, I accidentally hacked off the last letter of the url:

    The IslamOnline article states that the Jesus cartoons were refused because they were offensive to Christians, the BBC article suggests they were refused for poor artistic quality not for ideological or religious reasons. There is certainly a difference. I will take you up on your suggestion to email IslamOnline about this issue since they provide no source for their claim that the cartoons were refused for being religiously offensive.

  • “Under no circumstances will we allow ourselves to be latched onto the tasteless media stunt of an Iranian newspaper”

    maybe the danish newspaper only wants to participate in their own tasteless media stunts?

  • upyernoz, it could certainly be. 🙂

    I don’t think they necessarily did the cartoons to provoke the sort of Muslim outrage that they did, but I do think the Jylland-Posten, like many papers worldwide, is sensationalistic and often intentionally provocative.

    Like I’ve said in a hidden comment ‘that is awaiting moderation’ still, I think they should publish the Holocaust cartoons. I hope many other papers worldwide will publish the cartoons. How will we ever know what all the fuss is about if we don’t see the cartoons?

    Prior to the announcement about the intention of an Iranian paper to publish Holocaust cartoons, I was one of those who believed that the Mohammad cartoons shouldn’t be republished either. This Iranian paper’s decision has made me think though. Now I believe both sets of cartoons should be published for the sake of accuracy in reporting.

    Frankly, European countries like Germany are not, in my American mind, countries that truly have free speech. In Germany you can be imprisoned for Holocaust denial and displaying Nazi symbols. Germany has a much freer press than many Middle Eastern countries but I believe it should abandon all restrictions on free speech. Likewise, the decision of courts in South Africa to prevent the publication of the Mohammad cartoons based on their offensiveness is more proof to me that blasphemy, ‘intolerance’ and hate speech laws are completely incompatible with free societies. Speech laws must be abandoned completely. We cannot have religious clergy writing our laws. Religious censorship must be ended for all time.

  • It is unfortunate that it took a series of caricatures to unify all these people rather than the underlying grievances that are the real source of their hardships, and their resentment. Any initial hope that this affair would refocus the attention on these grievances seems to fade away by the hour. It has turned into an empty yelling match with little concrete content.
    Holocaust catoons vs Mohammad cartoons? Please!
    When the billions of dollars of Iraqi oil revenus are pouring down the drains (ie American corporate pockets)?
    The REAL issues are POLITICAL and ECONOMIC, but once again it all gets lost in the sterile and nebulous realm of values, taboos, ‘relative’ freedoms, etc. etc.

  • Well of course the Danish editor is gonna say he didn’t allow the Jesus cartoons to be published because he thought they weren’t funny, what do you expect him to say? “I refused them because I thought they were offensive”? I mean does anyone in the world seriously think that’s what he’s gonna say when the entire world is talking about how the cartoons about muhammed (pbuh) were offensive? Such a statement from him today will be the equivelant of a confession of hypocricy and double standards in the newspaper.

    In any case, here, the cartoonist himself said [from the Guardian,,,1703500,00.html]:

    Zieler received an email back from the paper’s Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: “I don’t think Jyllands-Posten’s readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them.

    Anyway, here is Christoffer Zieler’s site,

    Honestly, I’ve seen the 12 cartoons, and I’ve gone threw Zieler’s cartoons (I think the Jesus cartoon in question is the last one), and I think Zieler’s cartoons look more professionally done. I don’t understand Danish, so what his cartoons say might make them bad, but so far, I’m not buying the editor’s story, “He thought they were good, I thought they weren’t”, I call BS on that.

  • Hey, Hamzeh, thanks for the link! I wasn’t aware that the cartoons were available online anywhere.

    Yeah, seeing that I would definitely agree that, if that last cartoon is the one of the Jesus cartoons in question, then it looks a lot more professional than some of the Mohammad cartoons. You could very well be right, Rose might just be making excuses.

  • The Muslim world has happily ignored the fact that Egypt beat all the European countries in reprinting the cartoons. Still, for some strange reason, the Egyptians themselves feel the need to keep up the attack and the latest one is particularly retarded:

    This is almost as good as drawing on Hitler moustache on George Bush. You have to admit, the sheer stupidity of some of these people is pretty funny. 🙂

  • Speaking of retarded, the biggest retard in all of Iran is blaming Israel for Mohammad cartoons:

    So what do you think? You guys and girls live in that part of the world? Will Arab papers reprint the Holocaust cartoons or will they refrain on grounds that the material is too…well, you…OFFENSIVE?

    (Also, in the previous post, Malkin makes a good point about how Islamists react to women in bathing suites, now that’s hypocrisy!)

  • The hypocrisy continues:

    From the following source:

    Saudi Sheik Abdul Rahman al-Seedes, the imam of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, called on Muslims to reject apologies for the “slanderous” caricatures.”

    “Is there only freedom of expression when it involves insults to Muslims? With one voice … we will reject the apology and demand a trial,” he said in his sermon, which was published Saturday in the Al Riyad daily.

    Now, past comments from the same imam:


    Last April, while addressing 2 million followers at the Grand Mosque in Mecca, chief cleric Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Sudais prayed to God to “terminate” the Jews, who he called “the scum of humanity, the rats of the world, prophet killers … pigs and monkeys.”

    Al-Sudais also urged Arabs and Muslims to abandon peace initiatives with Israel. His comments were carried worldwide by Reuters and the Associated Press. The racist characterization of Jews was not a singular occurrence, as suggested by some media. Al-Sudais has variously described Jews as “evil,” a “continuum of deceit,” “tyrannical” and “treacherous”

    Al-Sudais, was listed as a “specially invited guest” of the conference, which was slated to be held at the 31-acre Kissimmee campus of Universal Heritage Foundation, near Disney World, but was later moved to the nearby county-owned Silver Spurs Arena.

    Following media exposure, al-Sudais’ name disappeared from conference materials. Later, Imam Siraj Wahhaj’s name also was dropped from a new issue of the program.

  • Edward, Michelle Malkin is a well known Islamophobe, she ties everything to Islamists. Do you know the name of the Egyptian tabloid the printed the picture of the Danish Queen? I want to visit their web site, and I want to learn more about their ties to the “Islamists”. What’s the name of the paper? You see, people like Michelle Malkin realize that they have to be “politically correct” so they make sure they always say a word like “Islamists” instead of “Muslims” or “Arabs” in order not to appear racist or theophobic, which in reality they are. But when you look closely at what they say, you realize that to these people, all muslims are Islamists, and therefore the word they choose to write makes no difference. The racism and islamophobia exists in their minds no matter what.

    Also, in fairness sake, the title of the article you quoted on Ahmadinajad is inaccurate; the Irani president did not blame Israel for the cartoon controversy, his speech was directed against zionism in Europe, I trust you know the difference between the two. Also, even though he directed his speech against zionism, he did not blame it [zionism] for directly causing the cartoon row. As a matter of fact, one could view his words as quoted in the Jerusalem Post article as criticizing the zionist dominance in Europe and using the cartoon incident as an example that illustrates his point; that the “free world” in Europe has fallen hostage to zionist thugs. Otherwise, the freedom of expression that allows a newspaper to insult one of God’s prophets would also allow people to express their anti-zionist ideas, without attempting to distort the words and portraying them as forms of racism. Anti zionism is not a form of racism, yet this is the way it’s treated by most of the “free world”.

    The last article you pointed out about Al Sudais also illustrates this trend in world media were anti Jewish speech is portrayed to the western world as racist speech. Judaism is known not to be a race, but a religion. I would say the man is definitely anti-jewish, but I wouldn’t call him a racist just yet.

    Since you’ve been doing a lot of reading lately, I’m sure you’ve come across many many articles that talk about hypocricy in the muslim world by showing “anti-semitic” cartoons that are published in newspapers around the Arab and Muslim worlds. If you think about those cartoons for a second, you’ll see that over 90% of them is not “anti-semitic”, they are cartoons about Israel, and in most cases they are cartons depicting Israel’s political leaders (especially Ariel Sharon). All of a sudden, anti-Sharon becomes anti-Israel, and anti-Israel becomes anti-Jewish, and anti-Jewish becomes anti-semite and there you have it, a racist cartoon. The only reason these cartoons are pointed out is the presence of the star of david in them. Now, I’m torn about what to think regarding this matter. On one hand, Israel is a state that refuses but to identify itself as a Jewish state, even their flag is as simple as two parallel lines that enclose the star of david, it therefore can easily be argued that a political cartoon about Israel will most likely have the start of david somewhere. On the other hand, I wouldn’t want any anti-Saudi cartoon to display the words on the Saudi flag (Islam’s tawheed phrase). But then again, Islam has an equivalent to the star of david, and it’s not the tawheed phrase that’s drawn on the Saudi flag, it’s the Islamic crescent. Therefore, while I strongly believe that these cartoons are not racist, are not anti-semitic or anti jewish, rather anti-Israel politics, anti-zioinist, I think there is still a case for criticising their use of the star of david. However, the hypocricy argument falls apart when you consider that 90% of it is argued on false basis, and that is the racism.

    I do share with you objection to one thing however, the fact that certain muslim imams insist on calling humans with names like “scum, grandchildren of pigs and monkeys etc.”, which is something that I believe does not belong in the good muslim’s conduct.

  • This whole episodes reflects extremely poorly on the Muslim world. What does the systematic slaughter of millions of human beings – Jews, gays, gypsys, etc. in Germany in the 1940s have to do with a Danish Christian newspaper daring to face up to fascist bullies by publishing a cartoon?

  • Well, Well, well

    So here we get the real story behind the “freedom of speech” issue. Now it become more then evident that the problem was not the freedom of speech, but a psychological sabotage of Islam and Muslims.

    If its freedom of speech, why not the holocaust cartoons be published ??????????????????

Your Two Piasters: