Jyllands-Posten cartoons
Danish daily newspaper
A Danish paper’s commissioned Muhammad cartoons — framed by its editor as a test of self-censorship — became the first global flashpoint of the cartoon era, read as a principled free-speech stand by some and a calculated humiliation of Muslims by others.
What happened
Culture editor Flemming Rose invited cartoonists to draw Muhammad “as they see him,” after reports an author could not find an illustrator willing to depict the Prophet. Twelve cartoons ran; the most notorious showed Muhammad with a bomb in his turban. Months later came boycotts of Danish goods, embassy attacks, and dozens of deaths in protests worldwide.
“…one must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule.” (Flemming Rose’s accompanying essay.)
Under each definition
The stated aim was to test free expression on Islamic belief, yet critics argue the “bomb in the turban” image imputed violence to Muslims collectively.
Whether it targets “perceived Muslimness” is exactly the disputed question; the turban-bomb image is the hardest case.
Depicting/mocking the Prophet is insult to Islam under the defamation frame; the OIC organized the diplomatic response.
Commissioning satirical drawings of a religious figure is protected expression; offence taken does not make it bigotry against people.
Who called it Islamophobic
Danish Muslim organizations and later 57 OIC states argued the paper deliberately insulted the Prophet and stigmatized Denmark’s Muslim minority.
The defense
Rose said the exercise was about self-censorship, and that treating Islam like other religions included Muslims in Danish satire “as equals.”
Outcome
The editor-in-chief apologized for the offence while defending the right to publish; cartoonist Kurt Westergaard faced repeated assassination attempts.
In their words
The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism… We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers.
The verdicts above are how each framework would most likely treat this case — illustrative guidance, not official rulings. The frameworks diverge most on speech and ideas: the OIC “defamation of religion” lens and the secular/free-speech position often reach opposite conclusions on the same act. See the Definition tab for each framework’s full text. Inclusion is documentation, not a finding.