A leading Danish newspaper has apologised for the offence caused by its controversial publication of a series of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed that provoked protests across the Middle East, while defending its right to commission and print them in the first place. Rohan Jayasekera reports. (01-FEB-06)

Carsten Juste, editor-in-chief of the daily Jyllands-Posten admitted that the 12 cartoons, one of which depicted the Prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb-shaped turban ?C and others which mocked the paper?s prejudices and motives – had caused “serious misunderstandings”.

-Apologize, or we attack
Juste denied the cartoons were intended to be offensive and insisted that they remained within Danish law, but admitted that “have indisputably offended many Muslims, for which we apologise”. The paper also denied that they had been coerced into the apology by a string of threats from Islamist groups abroad. Danes working on humanitarian projects in Gaza and the West Bank have been threatened and two people working for a Danish food company in Saudi Arabia were attacked. Masked gunmen briefly stormed the local office of the EU in Gaza, demanding apologies from Denmark and Norway, where a paper had reprinted the cartoons.

Self-censorship
The daily published the series of cartoons after Danish author Kaare Bluitgen complained that nobody dared illustrate his book about Mohammed, for fear of death threats similar to that endured by Salman Rushdie. Islamic rules bar pictorial depictions of the Prophet. “We must quietly point out here that the drawings illustrated an article on the self-censorship which rules large parts of the Western world”, the paper said in response to early protests. “Our right to say, write, photograph and draw what we want to within the framework of the law exists and must endure – unconditionally!”

-While anti-Semitism is a crime, attacks on Islam are commonplace
-Religious feelings, added the paper?s cultural editor Flemming Rose, “cannot demand special treatment in a secular society. In a democracy one must from time to time accept criticism or becoming a laughing stock.” However the general response of the Arab media has been to condemn the paper and Denmark for double standards. “What happened in Denmark and Norway is part of the attack against Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, and the wave of hostility against Islam, which started in the West on 9/11,” alleged columnist Abd al-Bari Atwan in the London based daily al-Quds al-Arabi. “Anti-Semitism in the West is regarded as a crime while attacks on Islam are commonplace, and are described as a part of free expression.”

Prime Minister welcomes paper?s apology
Danish Muslim groups have been generally conciliatory in response to the paper?s qualified apology. But the paper suffered a bomb threat soon after it issued the statement. Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that while the government could not apologise on behalf of newspapers, nor limit their freedom of speech, he welcomed the paper?s apology. He told the TV2 channel: “I personally have such a respect for people?s religious belief that I personally never would have depicted Mohammed, Jesus or any other religious character in a way that could offend other people.”

Citizens of other Scandinavian countries also threatened in the Middle East
Rasmussen rose to power on the back of a campaign that focused on Danish hostility to asylum-seekers. He initially strongly defended the right of the paper to publish the cartoons, even at one point refusing to meet ambassadors from 11 Islamic countries seeking to discuss the issue. But he was forced to reconsider after Danish businesses came under attack or faced boycotts in the Middle East, and citizens of other Scandinavian countries were threatened. “One has to be careful with where to draw the line when freedom of speech and the freedom to tackle issues that others may hold precious is in question,” said professor Jaakko H?0?1meen-Anttila, Finland?s foremost expert on Islamic culture and religion told the daily Helsingin Sanomat. “Making fun of someone?s religion is a matter where caution is advisable, even in the name of common courtesy, if not for any other reason.”