Here’s a pretty funny—and politically astute—comic strip commenting on the Danish Mohamed-cartoons affair and the attendant fear of Muslim reprisal. Yet so strong is that fear, and so effective have been the threats from Muslims, that many papers are now afraid to even comment on the issue. Twenty of them have asked for a replacement for the following strip (note that it contains no depiction of Mohamed):
The Daily Cartoonist quotes the author:
Responding to the news that his strip may not appear in some papers, Wiley tells me, “the irony of editors being afraid to run even such a tame cartoon as this that satirizes the blinding fear in media regarding anything surrounding Islam sadly speaks for itself. Indeed, the terrorists have won.”
31 thoughts on “Where’s Muhammad? Not in the papers!”
(note that it contains no depiction of Mohamed)
HEY! You spoiled my fun!
yeah, I looked for him anyway 🙂
I thought that this was a nod to the “Draw Muhammed” controversy where people were drawing stick figures and labelling them Muhammed and still getting verbally attacked for it.
So maybe Muhammed really *is* in the picture!
Muhammad may not be there, but if you look very closely at the bottom of the picture, I think you’ll find Augustine.
Ba da bing!
Yesterday’s Toronto Star ran it.
I thought Mo was in the outhouse, certainly spends a lot of time on the toilet in Jesus & Mo.
He’s behind the tree & the squirrel is after his nuts.
I guess a riot could ensue based on the fact that Mo is not the central figure of reverence while the depiction of an “unclean” dog is walking its owner.
Some heads are gonna roll.
“Roll over! Play dead!”
Yup, the papers got the Mo’s bitch part perfectly.
Aargh! Replace “bitch” with dog, I’m not going to humor the common misogynist terminology. Need infusion of coffee to brain.
It ran in Pittsburgh today.
Which paper? I’m in pgh on business right now, would love to snip this one for the fridge at home!
Los Angles Times did not run. Ran “Obviousman” strip instead with an ’06 copyright. Sad.
Make that Los Angeles Times.
Dotto Washington Post
Where is Katherine now that we need her?
Even if Muhammad were in this picture, how would we know who he is? No pictures :[
He’s be the guy with the 9 year old “wife”.
This is a great cartoon. It is clearly intended to provoke (thought, not violence) but there’s nothing there for anyone to actually complain about.
Various publications deciding not to run the cartoon just sweetens the deal.
It’s enormous fun to render reactionary idiots impotent by simply playing by their rules.
The battle for freedom of speech began in 1989 with Rushdie’s ‘The Satanic Verses’. The then US senate had unanimously condemned the death threats to the author and upheld his fundamental right to express ideas without fearing for his life. Such responses are unimaginable now. Worse, federal agencies now suggest that offending cartoonists should go into hiding and change their identities. We have well and truly lost the battle. Shame on us!
The battle could be won quickly if a significant number of mainstream publications ran the cartoons.
HAHA, Brilliant! I can’t wait until the crazies get offended and then start arguing over which character in the scene is Muhammad.
I can see why people are outraged. This picture depicted Muhammad as going to the toilet!
And “going to the toilet” would have been a sure bet if the artist had included the (standard) crescent moon on the outhouse door.
Of course: Wiley, the best cartoonist on the planet!
Is he waiting behind Aisha (she’s his favourite wife so she gets to choose her own ice cream)?
Are you blind? That’s him flying the kite. Franklin stole the idea from him.
Mohammed is the guy with the remote control — he shaved his beard to avoid detection. That innocent-looking little boat is packed full of C-4. In one blast he’ll kill the immodest sunbather, the unclean dog, and the dangerous hippopotamus.