'Draw Muhammad' Cartoonist Goes Into Hiding at FBI's Insistence After Assassination Threat

Published September 16, 2010 | FoxNews.com


advertisement
The Seattle cartoonist whose artwork sparked the controversial "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!" has gone into hiding at the advice of the FBI after being targeted by a radical Muslim cleric, according to the newspaper that published her comics.

Molly Norris has moved and changed her name, the Seattle Weekly said Wednesday, after U.S.-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki placed her on an execution hit list. Awlaki -- who has been linked to the botched Times Square bombing and cited as inspiration for the Fort Hood massacre and a plot by two New Jersey men to kill U.S. soldiers -- reportedly called Norris a "prime target" for assassination and that her "proper abode is hellfire."

"You may have noticed that Molly Norris' comic is not in the paper this week," Seattle Weekly Editor in Chief Mark Fefer wrote Wednesday. "That's because there is no more Molly."

"The gifted artist is alive and well, thankfully. But on the insistence of top security specialists at the FBI, she is, as they put it, 'going ghost': moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity. She is, in effect, being put into a witness-protection program -- except, as she notes, without the government picking up the tab," Fefer wrote.

Norris ignited a firestorm in April after drawing a satirical cartoon to protest the decision by cable television channel Comedy Central to cancel an episode of "South Park" over its depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit.

In her cartoon, Norris mockingly proposed making May 20 "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!"

Soon after, a fan page popped up on Facebook, but Norris wrote on her since-shuttered website that she had nothing to do with it.

"I did NOT 'declare' May 20 to be 'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day,'" she said, adding that her idea was satire that was "taken seriously, hijacked and made viral."

"I apologize to people of Muslim faith and ask that this 'day' be called off," she said.

The 27-year-old Facebook page creator -- a Canadian woman who asked not to be identified due to fears of reprisal -- told FoxNews.com in July that she was visited at her home by Royal Canadian Mounted Police officials who advised her to remove her page and not to talk to reporters.

"I'm scared," she said. "I'm scared that somebody might kill me."

Islam strictly prohibits the depiction of any prophet as blasphemous and the "Draw Muhammad" page led to Facebook being temporarily blocked in Pakistan and sparked angry street protests.

In July, English-language Al Qaeda magazine "Inspire" attributed an article to Awlaki, saying Norris "should be taken as a prime target of assassination."

"The large number of participants makes it easier for us because there are more targets to choose from in addition to the difficulty of the government offering all of them special protection," wrote Awlaki. "But even then our campaign should not be limited to only those who are active participants."

He warned that "assassinations, bombings and acts of arson" are all legitimate forms of revenge against the creators of blasphemous depictions of Muhammad.

"Now, with the defamation of Muhammad reaching the shores of America, I wonder whether the patriotic American Muslim will still have the audacity to claim that he enjoys the right to be a Muslim in America?" Awlaki wrote. "Does he understand that this right includes his duty to fight against those who blaspheme his Prophet?"

Awlaki invited Muslims worldwide to "stand up in defense" of Muhammad and for their efforts to "manifest in all appropriate" means.

Albatross wrote:Muslims overreact hysterically to a percieved slight.

In other news: Dog bites man.

Albatross wrote:Muslims overreact hysterically to a percieved slight.

Gorgeous Gary Golden wrote:Saw this earlier, pretty crazy. Still think "Draw Muhammad Day" was stupid though.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:she should still have been allowed to do it without fear of reprisal in the form of death.

Frazzled wrote:As long as there's donuts.

Kilkrazy wrote:It is all a crappy mess.

All Muslims didn't overreact hastily, only the most traditional extremists.

Stop tarring them all with the same brush, it is thoughtless and bigoted.

It strikes blows against the moderate majority and drives them out of western society into the hands of extremists.

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It is all a crappy mess.

All Muslims didn't overreact hastily, only the most traditional extremists.

Stop tarring them all with the same brush, it is thoughtless and bigoted.

It strikes blows against the moderate majority and drives them out of western society into the hands of extremists.

Killkrazy, obviously not all Muslims over react. However, this is a story about one that did over react. No one who is not a Muslim should be held to Islamic religious standards. Period.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It is all a crappy mess.

All Muslims didn't overreact hastily, only the most traditional extremists.

Stop tarring them all with the same brush, it is thoughtless and bigoted.

It strikes blows against the moderate majority and drives them out of western society into the hands of extremists.

Killkrazy, obviously not all Muslims over react. However, this is a story about one that did over react. No one who is not a Muslim should be held to Islamic religious standards. Period.

This is kind of funny, given the 'Stoning Woman' argument in a previous thread. Should Non-Westerners be held to Western Standards?

I might also point out that going into the Witness Protection program, changing your name and relocating ect, seems to be a big reaction to a threat like this. I don't know how credible the threats posed by Fatwas are in Seattle, I would imagine Seattle would be a much harder place for Assassinations than most. Do they actually have the means to carry out these promises?

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
First, Islamic standards and Western standards are different. One's religious and one's cultural. So, regardless of where I live or my culture, if I'm not a Muslim, I shouldn't be condemned by their clerics for not following Islamic standards.

Second, if someone is going into the witness protection program, then yes, the threats are probably real and can be carried out.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It is all a crappy mess.

All Muslims didn't overreact hastily, only the most traditional extremists.

Stop tarring them all with the same brush, it is thoughtless and bigoted.

It strikes blows against the moderate majority and drives them out of western society into the hands of extremists.

Killkrazy, obviously not all Muslims over react. However, this is a story about one that did over react. No one who is not a Muslim should be held to Islamic religious standards. Period.

This is kind of funny, given the 'Stoning Woman' argument in a previous thread. Should Non-Westerners be held to Western Standards?

Monster Rain wrote:
When it comes to human rights?

I think so.

Monster Rain wrote:When it comes to human rights?

I think so.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Interesting. Is there a reason behind this assessment?

Wrexasaur wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Interesting. Is there a reason behind this assessment?

Oh man, this will be drawn out for pages. I prefer to hear his response on what exactly is to be done about it. I'm a busy man, I need answers in a timely fashion.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:
First, Islamic standards and Western standards are different. One's religious and one's cultural. So, regardless of where I live or my culture, if I'm not a Muslim, I shouldn't be condemned by their clerics for not following Islamic standards.

While I would sincerely like to agree with you, Reality speaks differently. Religion and Culture often go hand-in-hand and it would be foolish to discredit the links so swiftly.

EDIT: What I mean to say is that, IMHO, Relgion should be an entirely seperate matter from other aspects of our lives, but this is highly unfeasible.

Second, if someone is going into the witness protection program, then yes, the threats are probably real and can be carried out.

You mean to say that Al-Qaeda has the capacity to hunt down and kill US citizens on US soil at their leisure, in addition to waging a war spanning several countries against the combined might of the Western Worlds forces?

Or is this more likely to be another Angry, Angry Imam or somesuch spouting the same tired rhetoric?

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:If I am not a Muslim and my beliefs do not require me to NOT draw prophets, I shouldn't be practically forced to comply with Islamic standards by having my life endangered. I am a Christian. My church has artist depictions of Moses, Noah, and lots of other biblical prophets. They are used in Sunday school classes as visual aids. So, should my entire church be afraid of some Islamic cleric issuing a fatwa against us? Should we be forced into the witness protection agency and have to change our names?

sebster wrote:

DarkAngelHopeful wrote:If I am not a Muslim and my beliefs do not require me to NOT draw prophets, I shouldn't be practically forced to comply with Islamic standards by having my life endangered. I am a Christian. My church has artist depictions of Moses, Noah, and lots of other biblical prophets. They are used in Sunday school classes as visual aids. So, should my entire church be afraid of some Islamic cleric issuing a fatwa against us? Should we be forced into the witness protection agency and have to change our names?

There's two thing here. Yes, you're right that someone's faith shouldn't prevent a person chasing their own artistic vision. But there's also an obligation to not be a dick. Seriously, just because you have the freedom to draw Mohammed it doesn't mean you shouldn't also accept that doing so might offend other people, and therefore you should have a reason to draw him.

I think Salman Rushdie was exploring his faith and the faith of his people, albeit in a highly controversial way, I think what he did was certainly offensive (he wrote of Mohammed and the arch-angle Gabriel in a homosexual relationship) but it was done for genuinely artistic reasons. As such the only criticism to draw there is on the fanatics who declared the fatwa against him.

On the other hand, the only point to 'draw Mohammed day' is to piss of the fanatics. So it isn't good that the cartoonist has suffered a reaction like this, but it's hard to draw much sympathy.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
When it comes to human rights?

I think so.

Interesting. Is there a reason behind this assessment?

sebster wrote:Yes, you're right that someone's faith shouldn't prevent a person chasing their own artistic vision. But there's also an obligation to not be a dick.

Seriously, just because you have the freedom to draw Mohammed it doesn't mean you shouldn't also accept that doing so might offend other people, and therefore you should have a reason to draw him.

I think Salman Rushdie was exploring his faith and the faith of his people, albeit in a highly controversial way, I think what he did was certainly offensive (he wrote of Mohammed and the arch-angle Gabriel in a homosexual relationship) but it was done for genuinely artistic reasons. As such the only criticism to draw there is on the fanatics who declared the fatwa against him.

On the other hand, the only point to 'draw Mohammed day' is to piss of the fanatics. So it isn't good that the cartoonist has suffered a reaction like this, but it's hard to draw much sympathy.

Monster Rain wrote:This might come off as slightly condescending, but I think that we have a better way of doing things over here.

Based solely on the difference in the way women are treated in the West compared to the region in which Fatwas are generally issued I would draw the conclusion that they should behave in a more civilized manner. I'm not saying that we should bomb them or anything, but we're well within our rights to look down upon savagery when confronted with it.