Open mike: Danes, free speech and Mohammed

Njegos writes about the Danish cartoon furore:

"By now, everyone has heard of the infamous cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed that appeared on the editorial page of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. The crisis escalated recently when France-Soir ran the cartoons in solidarity with Jyllands-Posten. Other European newspapers followed suit resulting in a chain of violent demonstrations across the Middle East that have left several Danish embassies in ruins. Several Muslim countries have decided to boycott Danish goods. A rattled Danish Prime Minister has apologised to those who feel insulted by the cartoons but has steadfastly refused to condemn the editor's decision to publish them. Today we learn that an Iranian newspaper with links to President Mahmound Ahmedinejad has decided to throw down the gauntlet by announcing a Holocaust cartoon contest. The idea is to test Western commitment to free speech.

Many in the West are bewildered by the intensity of the anger. Journalists and politicians have defended the publication of these cartoons on the grounds of free speech, a sacred cow to most liberal-minded Westerners. Moreover, the "slow burn" nature of the crisis has caused some observers to question the spontaneity of the violence. Why now, they ask, instead of 4 months ago when the images were first published? Others feel that ultra-sensitivity to Muslim feelings should carry a price tag - Muslims should reciprocate by making more effort to understand the importance of free speech in modern Western society.

The solidarity with Jyllands-Posten , however, did not extend to British shores. Perhaps mindful of the recent London bombings, no British newspaper carried the cartoons. Foreign minister Jack Straw stated that it is was wrong to publish them, a view consistent with the government's failed Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. Some detected an element of schadenfreude in Straw's comments - after months of diabolical press coverage over Iraq, here was a rare but golden opportunity to shine in front of the Muslim world at the expense of Europe.

Others went further and accused the Danish editor of breathtaking cultural and political myopia. With the Muslim world in such turmoil along with Danish troops in Iraq, the risk of provocation should have been blatantly obvious. And if it were simply a matter of free speech, why did the same newspaper refuse to publish satirical cartoons three years ago depicting Jesus Christ? What were the editor's true motives?

Has the secular nature of our society destroyed Western sensitivity to religious beliefs? Or do people just need to lighten up and learn to put such things in context? Should our own newspapers express solidarity with Jyllands-Posten? How would you react to such cartoons appearing in the Royal Gazette or the Bermuda Sun?"

I can see both sides. On the one hand, some of those defending the cartoons seem to forget that freedom of speech is not absolute. Free speech was no defence for Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, jailed for seven years in the UK today for inciting murder and race hate. In Germany it is illegal to deny the Holocaust.

Conversely, however, by criticising Denmark for the actions of one of its newspapers, some Muslims do not seem to understand the lack of control Western governments have over their press. Moreover, their interpretation of the cartoons seems too literal: I think that Mohammed's image was used to personify Islam, not to suggest that he was himself a terrorist. And while it may be true that fear of a growing Islamophobia in the West explains the violent reaction, as some Arab and Muslim commentators have suggested, that kind of reaction is only going to strengthen the mistrust.

It was insensitive of Jyllands-Posten to publish the cartoons, and I'm not surprised that many Muslims are mad. However I don't believe it should be illegal to print such caricatures, for the same reason that I think Germany's Holocaust denial laws are wrong: free speech should mean having the freedom to insult too.

However just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

Comments

[J Starling on 07.02.06 at 18:07]

It is interesting to note that the cartoons were printed some five months ago, but are only now becoming an issue. I had to jump through hoops to find links to view the cartoons. Some are pretty benign, and in fact seem to indicate that Islam is diverse, multi-racial and multi-cultural. One or two are down-right distatseful and obviously racist. From my reading of the Quran Islam appears to subsrcibe to the Mosiac law about not showing any graven image of any living thing - it is not related just to the Prophet. Hence the beautiful patterns of the Al-hamdra in Spain. I think the cartoons show how Islam is percieved in the West, and some of this is unfortunate, but awareness is the first step to dealing with the problem. The media feeds on sensationalism however. The majority of Muslims oppose terrorism and Al-Queada, but moderates don't make headlines. Thus Islam itself is caricatured in our media. It would be like judging Christianity on a few fundamentalist Christians such as Pat Robertson. But why not the furore when first published in September 2005? What has changed in the last five months? Can it be that the Muslim world is just releasing some of their emotions stemming from their humiliations in the last centuries? Like the Frnech riots sparked by two electrocutions, necessity sometimes expresses itself in accident, and this is but the tip of the iceberg.

[Two Cents on 07.02.06 at 18:09]

After all the talk of boycotting Denmark by Muslims worldwide, I had a look on Statistics Denmark's website, and as I thought, approx $37,000.00 of goods are exported to Bermuda.
I am guessing that's a combination of Danish Bacon & Carlsberg Beer (and no NOT Danish Pastries), however they import a massive $260.00 from Bermuda (god knows what...any ideas ??). Granted we have a small Muslim population, so should they choose to boycott, I am sure the Danes won't be trembling in their boots or losing any sleep.

[tilti on 07.02.06 at 18:35]

limey, freedom of speech is a trademark of western journalism, but it is hardbly applied fairly across the board.
Western news sources are free to depict blacks, Hispanics and Jews satirically, but by and large they don't. Presumably this is due to both respect for those groups and a fear of the unnecasary consequences that would result; even if those consequences may be less violent.
What was unique about Muslims that the editors decided to waive caution and publish distateful and disrespectful images of Mohammed?

A seperate piont on the issue is the journalists quip that they were providing accurate assesments of their views on the Muslim world. The actual response that was created was an exodus of western journalists out of Lebanon and increased tensions in the region only a week after the Hammas election. It may be an issue of free speech, but it wasn't well thought out and it wasn't tactful and is one of those instances where the principle of the matter has round housed the reality of the situation in the middle east.

[silencedogood on 07.02.06 at 19:00]

Great topic for discussion. I read about 8 articles on this topic before I found the actual cartoons. I can see how they might be mildly offensive, but I'm comming from a viewpoint of free speech.

Most of the people protesting the cartoons come from a background of anything but. From what I've read the Danish muslims were largely ignored and then sought international support for the cause and financial backing.

Politics definitely plays a role. Some governments are certainly going to stoke the fire for all its worth to drum up anti-western and anti-us sentiment. I read of one report where people where protesting at the US embassy (maybe they saw an official eating a danish?) Syria was said to allow protestors to fire bomb the danish and austrian embassies for a few hours prior to dispersing the crowd. It is believed that is in retaliation for Europe condemning their role in the Harari assasination. Iran...well, that should be obvious.

I think the whole issue really boils down to do we believe in free speech or not. A particular paper may not publish jesus cartoons, but they have the right to just as people have the right to be angry about it. But hurt feelings shouldn't dictate freedoms.

The protestors in London saying blow up the west or behead the cartoonists aren't exactly painting a moderate image of islam. But contrast that with the statement made by a jordanian official of "who offends islam more, the cartoonists or suicide bombers killing in the name of islam" (paraphrased) So, points of hope in a scary region.

It's critical that europe signals their support of a fundamental right. If europe backs down on this, they will back down on anything.

[Uncle Elvis on 07.02.06 at 19:25]

Look. I'm all for freedom of speech, but, as a cartoonist, myself, I know there are lines.
If I had portrayed Black folks as "Golliwogs" in my strip, I would have been roundly denounced. And rightly so. However, I would have expected it and would have been willing to take the heat.
This attitude of "What? Why are people so mad? It's just Freedom Of Speech..." is disingenuous.
These guys knew what they were drawing and they know what they were printing and the bloody well knew there would be a firestorm about it.
The reason it took months? Two thoughts on that:
1) It didn't take the first time, so they brought (or more likely BOUGHT) the subject back up.
2) It finally hit the internet. A bunch of bloggers heard about it and it made the rounds, it just took some time. I heard about this yesterday and got to the cartoons on the first link. My first impression was... They're not very good, are they?

The way I look at it, portraying Prophet Mohammed in a negative light like this is... just bad. You don't do it. Whatever your thoughts on religion, or on Islam in general, have some respect.
Oh, you'll say, but what about Jesus? How come it's ok for us to make fun of Him?
Ok. You have a point. There's a difference, though. Christians make fun of Him. We try to humanize Him and make him our friend, as we probably should. Christ's message was one of peace and love (unless you read the rantings of Revelations, then... WHOA!). He embodied the God in Man and the Man in God. There is a humanity in Christ's story and we feel like we know him. It's ok to bust balls with friends.

Muslims, however, do not look at Prophet Mohammed in the same way. He is Holy. He is Sacred.

Prophet Mohammed is a serious thing.
Oh, what a friend we have in Jesus.

Throw in the ban on graven images and idols and the turmoil in the world today and... why are we surprised about this again?

[SmokingGun on 07.02.06 at 19:36]

"however they import a massive $260.00 from Bermuda (god knows what...any ideas ??)" - Two Cents.

Actually I do. And I carried them in my bags this past week-end:)

My God, a short trip from the Devil's Isles to pay a visit to a little Muslim girl in Copenhagen and the whole world's topsy turvy over Mohammed. How ironic that my hotel room was only steps from the newspaper's offices which even more ironically happens to be opposite the Hotel d'Angleterre which, if my memory serves me correctly, was used as Gestapo HQ during World War II. Hmmmm...

Well to sum up the recent situation I can only say one thing. People in glass houses should not throw stones.

Yes indeed the newspaper, it's editor and anyone who decided it OK to print cartoons that they must have known were offensive are at fault for causing pain to many people. Freedom of the press does not mean freedom from restraint or conscience. Would a newspaper feel it OK to post cartoons of the holocaust without repercussion?

Should freedom of the press be the biggest concern? Should other papers around the world exacurabate the problem by printing copies of the cartoons just to make a point? I do not think should. I do think they should report all aspects of the situation and they should call upon all the governments of those countries burning the embassies and boycotting Danish goods to make a stand and protect Danish property. They should explain that this is not about Denmark, it is about an industry that needs to learn restraint and bring back integrity and honour to it's core values. It's about the media and the propagandists that flame and finance it. It's about the Aljazeers financed by the oil barons getting the word out of where, when and what to wear. It's about the Imams desperate to hold onto the past in a world that finds them less and less relevent. It's about controlling with fear or facing the fear of losing control.

Freedom of speech or freedom of the press is an important part of a free, democratic thinking and progressive society. In many of the countries that Muslim people are upset they do not have that. They think the papers are totally controlled by their governments or religious leaders. In their world it must have been Denmark that did this, not one single editorial department of some obscure newspaper printed in a language spoken by Vikings. They know no better and are being manipulated by their leaders.

What bothers me the most is the fact that Denmark is and always has been one of the most open minded and concerned countries in the world. During WWII they helped the Jews escape the Nazis, in modern days they help so many people of different religions escape a pitiful existence. This is born on the shoulders of all Danes who pay exhorbitant taxes to pay for the immigrant population who often start out on the welfare system. Muslims partake in a good and decent life courtesy of the people of Denmark.

I will purchase as many Danish products as I can. Not because I support freedom of the press but because I support the people of Denmark who have been set up and deserve an apology from those that have chosen to hijack their goodwill and nature by manipulating the press and their people to create distrust amongst people of different faiths and cultures in an effort to control their own agendas.

[RedOnion on 07.02.06 at 19:40]

Elvis, before this happened, were you aware that any image of any type of a Muslim prophet was unacceptable? I certainly wasn't aware of that little detail, and the average person wouldn't know all the details of other religions. It illustrates that it is so easy to offend someone in all innocence, without malice. It's how the offended person(s) deals with it that makes the difference.

Do we have to study other religions in great detail before we open our mouths or put pencil to paper to avoid the risk of insult?

[thisgrassman on 07.02.06 at 19:50]

History is repeating itself - yes? Anybody remember Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses? This author was condemned to death by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

I wonder if this cartoonist now has to spend the rest of his life looking over his shoulder?

[Uncle Elvis on 07.02.06 at 19:56]

Actually, yes, I was.
I even knew it before I gained two brothers-in-law that are Muslim.
I knew it before I got the star and crescent tattoo on my arm.

"Do we have to study other religions in great detail before we open our mouths or put pencil to paper to avoid the risk of insult?

A cartoonist, expecially a political cartoonist, would. It's their JOB to know these things. If they don't research the subject of their pieces, they have no place being published.
Trying to let them off out of ignorance is not really an argument. Would it be ok if a professional political cartoonist that didn't know Bush's policies or that Kerry was a Democrat or that Al Gore was boring as a stump got printed? Hell, no.
Cartoonists research. They find things out. They know their subjects and know them well.
Don't believe me?
Try writing one cartoon a week. Not even a day, not even drawing it, just write one. You can research all you want. Delve into your chosen subject. Become an expert on it. After about the tenth, you'll come up short. You'll be dry of ideas.

Now picture that same job being done by someone ignorant of the subject.

Oh, and it's THE Muslim Prophet. Using "a" is like saying Elvis was A king of rock and roll. *grin*

[RedOnion on 07.02.06 at 20:07]

There you go, I showed my ignorance of other faiths by using 'a' instead of 'The" See how easy it is?

But I take your point, if you are a cartoonist I guess you have an obligation to determine the impact of your depictions.

Still question the 4 or 5 months delay in the reaction to the original cartoon, Iran said it is an Israeli conspiracy cos they are pissed that Hamas won the recent election, but the cartoon was first published months before the election so that can't be right.

I've been an avid researcher of Bermuda history for 30 years, and still have much to learn. At this rate it will be about 600 years before I get to study religions I have no connection to. Hope I don't insult anyone along the way.

[Uncle Elvis on 07.02.06 at 20:14]

One way that I think about the delay is this.

When was the last time you talked about Danish newspapers? When was the last time you hit a Danish site?

Having said all that has been said about them knowing and understanding the repercussions, I firmly believe that they did this as... not a publicity stunt, per se, but sometihng similar. They WANTED controversy. They WANTED people to notice.

As a wise man once said. "Follow the money." Who gains from this?
Something this mind-slowingly stupid MUST have been done for a reason.

I just think it went unnoticed the first time around.

[Uncle Elvis on 07.02.06 at 20:15]

"When was the last time you hit a Danish site?"

Besides the obvious! *grin*

[SmokingGun on 07.02.06 at 20:22]

"Still question the 4 or 5 months delay in the reaction to the original cartoon," - Red Onion

Apparently the Imam in Denmark that first complained took it around the Middle East drumming up support for his attack. This was carefully orchestrated over some time and Denmark was set up. The same Imam said one thing to the Danes and another thing to those he visited in the Middle East. When confronted with evidence he was going around looking to incite people he claimed he didn't know he was being recorded and it was all off the record chit chat.

This guy has been in Denmark for 20 years and he refuses to learn or speak to anyone in Danish. Me thinks he may have outstayed his welcome.

[tilti on 07.02.06 at 20:29]

Elvis, actually Mohamed was 'a' Muslim prophet (not 'the' Muslim prophet). Islam is an Abrahamic religion and they beleive that Abraham, Moses and Jesus were all prophets too, only that Mohamed was the final and most perfect prophet. Tricky stuff, too bad that the vast majority of people don't realize that Islam has its roots in Jewish tradition and they remain extremely similar at their core.

[Uncle Elvis on 07.02.06 at 20:44]

Tilti, I agree with you one hundred percent.
But I stand by the "The". As you said, Prophet Mohammed was the final and most perfect. Befitting of a "The", I'd say. *grin*

"Tricky stuff, too bad that the vast majority of people don't realize that Islam has its roots in Jewish tradition and they remain extremely similar at their core."

The same thing could be said about Christianity, in many cases.

[NoVote on 07.02.06 at 20:53]

Not really sure that I understand why Muslim's are offended by these cartoons, but I respect the fact that they may be.

What I really fail to understand is why they were published in the first place. I have always lived under the impression that cartoons are supposed to be funny...and having viewed these I couldn't even muster a glimmer of amusement.

Danes must have a very strange sense of humour. Otherwise the editor responsible has caused a lot of unecessary trauma with absolutely no benefit!

[Njegos on 07.02.06 at 21:02]

I did a little research on Jyllands-Posten and discovered, rather unsurprisingly, that this newspaper has an impeccable right-wing pedigree dating back to the 1920s. According to Wikipedia:

"A 2004 report by the European Network Against Racism, funded by the EU, concluded that the Danish media devoted an excessive proportion of their time to the problems posed by immigrants, and most often Islamic immigrants, while often ignoring the problems that these immigrants face. They hold newspapers such as Jyllands-Posten to blame for the rise of the anti-immigrant right-wing in Danish politics.

As part of this study, Jyllands-Posten was singled out as one of the most anti-immigrant of all Danish papers. Over the 3 month period studied, from September 1 2004 to November 20 2004, 19/24 of Jyllands-Posten's editorials on "ethnic issues" were negative, 88/120 op. ed. pieces on "ethnics" were negative, and 121/148 letters to the editor on "ethnics" were negative."

This tends to support the view that the cartoons were part of an anti-immigrant strategy rather than a capricious blunder.

Uncle Elvis' interpretation of the "slow burn" is reasonable. Denmark is permanently in the slow news zone.

We all know what the Roman Catholic church has been through in the United States recently. Would any newspaper have dared to portray Jesus as a paedophile to make a point?

[SmokingGun on 07.02.06 at 21:09]

They probably should not even be referred to as cartoons. They were "graphics" created to make a point that it was difficult for a writer to find someone who would draw depictions of Mohammed for his book because people knew it was offensive to Muslims. Therefore in my book the editor who decided to publish them in the first place would have known they would offend.

I find it difficult to comprehend why people in the muslim faith feel it necessary to react in such a vicious and destructive manner here. To be so upset about this issue and yet we hardly hear a squeek out them when innocent people are beheaded or blown apart in the name of Islam certainly leaves one scratching one's head as to if their sensibilities are in keeping with the perfect one's wishes.

[tilti on 07.02.06 at 21:13]

Not really sure that I understand why Muslim's are offended by these cartoons, but I respect the fact that they may be.
No vote

Muslims are offended by the fact that it is against Islamic teaching to depict Mohamed or any living thing for that matter, that's why Islamic art is all geometric shapes. This isn't specific to Islam, many a tussle was had by Christians in the iconoclasm debates that lasted hundreds of years and split the Christian empire. That the cartoons were satire makes the issue all the more disrespectful

[Phil on 07.02.06 at 21:43]

tilti

Muslims are offended by the fact that it is against Islamic teaching to depict Mohamed or any living thing for that matter, that's why Islamic art is all geometric shapes.

I imagine if the images had portrayed Mohammed in a positive light we wouldn't have seen the violence that we have. After all, non-Muslims are under no obligation to abide by Islamic teaching. Just because I eat pork doesn't mean that I'm being disrespectful towards Jews.

The problem isn't the images per se, it's that they're offensive.

[Two Cents on 07.02.06 at 22:05]

Salman Rushdie & "The Satanic Verses"
Wow ...I forgot all about him and all the hubbub associated with his book...I guess you're right history does repeat itself.

"Rushdie's second book was even less popular than his first, it was called "Buddah Was a Big Fat Bastard""

-Bruce Smirnoff
Comedian
(That still makes me laugh)

[Uncle Elvis on 07.02.06 at 22:17]

Exactly, Limes.

It's one offense, that they could let slide, with a worse on on top.

You pork analogy is on, but this is like... eating a ham sandwich with bacon and cheese at Temple.

(Which, by the way, would be as offensive to Muslims as it would be to Jews. The sandwich part, not the Temple part.)

[tilti on 07.02.06 at 22:25]

Limey,
I don't know if the speculation is relevant as the images did portray Mohammed in a bad light. Still, though, I think you are wrong, any depiction of Mohammed is not allowed and would cause an uproar. It isn't by chance that there are no icons in any Muslim group in any of the countries that practice the faith.

Your example of Jews and bacon may not be fitting as Jews see themselves as a distinct group who alone were given commandments by God. They neither expect people to act like them, nor do they encourage others to adopt their ways. More apt would be early colonial Christians who did force other peoples - from North America, India and Africa - to abide by their religous traditions and moral standards.

I am all for free speech, but think it is wrong to expect it to take hold overnight.

[Njegos on 07.02.06 at 22:40]

Have a look at the Mohammedan Image File which contains an interesting revelation:

Yet when a delegation of Danish imams went to the Middle East to "discuss" the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars, the imams openly distributed a booklet that showed 15 images -- not only the original 12 cartoons,but three fraudulent anti-Mohammed depictions that were much more offensive than the ones published in Denmark. It is now thought that these three bonus images are what ignited the outrage in the Muslim world.The newspaper Ekstra Bladet obtained a copy of the booklet and presented the three offensive images on its Web site (though not in an easy-to-find place).

Does this exonerate the editor?

[Njegos on 07.02.06 at 22:41]

(Warning: it appears to be the slowest website in the universe)

[tilti on 07.02.06 at 23:14]

After all, non-Muslims are under no obligation to abide by Islamic teaching. - Limey

Limey, I keep coming back to this thought. Why, if non-Muslims are under no obligation to abide by Islamic teaching, are Muslims expected to abide by western teachings? We constantly measure these people against our own cultural yardstick and set up their failure when they cannot change at a rate that we see as sufficiently swift.
You're right, you wouldn't offend a Jew by eating pork, but most Westerners are offended by the gender division in Islamic countries. It is their religion and their culture - and western criticism only acts to divert attention away from the fact that being a single mother in almost every western country remains a ticket into extreme poverty.

[Phil on 07.02.06 at 23:43]

tilti

Why, if non-Muslims are under no obligation to abide by Islamic teaching, are Muslims expected to abide by western teachings?

The ban on images of Mohammed is, as I understand it, a religious stricture, not a cultural one. I would not expect any Muslim to abide by Christian teachings. I might expect a Muslim living in a Western country to respect Western cultural norms (just as I would expect a Christian living in a Muslim country to respect their cultural norms). However, I wouldn't expect a Muslim living in an Islamic country to abide by Christian teachings or respect Western cultural norms. Similarly, there's no reason to expect Christians living in a Christian country to abide by Muslim teachings or respect Islamic cultural norms.

[Thaao Dill on 08.02.06 at 00:48]

i think the larger issue here is not the protest itself, rather, the extremity thereof.

as a mild connoisseur of offensive concepts, it seems as though the ultimate sanctions motivated by blasphemous materials are so much more acceptable in the muslim world as opposed to other societies. again, that's due to several ongoing social and cultural issues, and is a relatively new phenomenon(see the crusades) but, i'm not sure if reactionary anger based murder attempts and threats, however understandable are ever justifiable.

the new york times could, as it did in the mid 80's, print a crucifix soaked in urine, and christians would and did clearly protest, petition, and take the issue of free speech to the highest court in the land, as opposed to stomping around the office building with ak 47's calling for the blood of the editorial staff.

i don't think that this sort of extremism is specific to islam, or even at all validated by islamic teachings. however, i don't understand why it doesn't seem as though the muslim community and their supporters are condemning the violence as much the images that motivated them. i could be wrong, of course, but it feels like the dead forest ranger is being missed for the trees, and their unnecessarily provocative caricature, to mangle a metaphor.

what's worse, when you get right down to it? an insensitive cartoon, or hotblooded murder?

the blasphemy is inexcusable, but, the blasphemy doesn't justify shooting.

*shrugs*

gotdamn, but i feel so republican some days. eesh.

[Martin on 08.02.06 at 07:30]

I see that the French have come to the rescue (!!) this morning, with a low circulation magazine republishing the cartoons.

Now - don't get me started about the French, or we will be here all week...but what on earth were they thinking about? As if France has not had enough trouble recently with racial issues.

I guess the right to publish goes to the heart of "liberte, egalite and fraternite" and as we all know, principles are principles.

[Bill Cook on 08.02.06 at 07:32]

To non Muslims and esp non religious people, Islam seems to encourage extremism to the point of fanatiicism.

Over reaction is the norm to what appears to be unpleasant, but not life threatening provocation in so many instances.

The demands to constantly pray and submit with the absence of modern education, ensures almost total control over the masses, who as a result have one outstanding thing in common POVERTY.

Ignorance of the tools to survive will perpetuate this poverty and will leave much of the Muslim world in need of foreign aid and emmigration to wealthy western countries to seek a better standard of living than the Muslim world can provide.

There is an element of hyprocricy in taking help from the infidel while expressing distain for his culture and religion etc.

As it presently stands, it is nigh impossible to live side by side with Muslims, with the present mind set and resentment and often hatred expressed by muslim immigrants and emigration should be severly restricted until a better understanding and acceptance, tolerance of their adopted countries is reached.

This was clearly evidenced in London with the brutal cowardly bombings of the innocent, bearing in mind too, that London saw the biggest anti war demostrations in history take place regarding the war in Iraq.

Londoners would not be blamed for feeling betrayed and full of resentment for this influx of a group bent on their destruction.

If they had restricted their protests to boycotting Danish products, this would have been acceptable just as I and others have urged the Palestinians to request others to boycott Israel rather than use suicide bombing to achieve a just settlement.

[D'Olivier on 08.02.06 at 09:07]

I fail to see how these cartoons can be considered offensive (apart from the fact that under Islam, the Prophet shouldn't be portrayed in his likeness).

Yes, I've seen the cartoons, I know the context in which it was published (The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book "Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv" ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life").

The artists drew their view on Islam, and the images are pretty mild in comparison with the depiction of Jews drinking blood in a cartoon in a Saudi paper in December 2005. Those Saudi cartoons were presented to the Saudi ambassador to the US on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer this past Sunday, Feb 5, 2006. I saw a glimpse of the program, and i can't recall what the ambassador's reaction was, but he was pretty uncomfortable after being confronted with three such cartoons that were printed in the Arabic press.

There's a massive double standard taking place here, and not a little manipulation of the population by some Arab leaders (witness the toching of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Syria whilst the police stood by). I also think that quite a few people are branding the cartoons offensive when they haven't actually seen the drawings and relying on third-hand reports, and I suspect a lot of the world leaders and commentators are denouncing them without actually looking at them, which only increases the rhetoric around the issue. It's pretty unfortunate, but at least some dialogue is going on.

[SarahT on 08.02.06 at 09:08]

"The ban on images of Mohammed is, as I understand it, a religious stricture, not a cultural one."

Phil the problem is that this statement itself is evidence of what tilti is talking about - this is you projecting a Western perception on to Islamic countries, that perception being that there is a difference between religion and culture. The problem with Islam - for the West, at least - is that it's not just a 'religion' as we understand it, it's a way of life, and there is no difference between religion, society, culture, etc - at least, theoretically. You don't really practice Islam, you live Islam. That's how you can have Islamic law and political Islam and all that - Christians and Jews don't have that, not in the same sense. You see? So the ban on images of Mohammad is not just a religious ban, it's a ban, period. These cartoons are offensive, there's no question about it - all the more so because they actually depict Mohammad with a bomb in his turban. Now mainstream (Danish) media has managed to insult all those moderate Muslims out there who don't believe in suicide bombings and offensive jihad by equating the Prophet with such things. Seyyid Qutb would've been thrilled.

That being said, not only do I totally agree with the rest of your statment, I also totally agree with those who are wondering why such a fuss should be made over this and not over those who insult Islam by suicide bombings and so on. And to everything Uncle Elvis has said so far, I say, EXACTLY! If you don't know what you're talking about, don't go on the record with it. If you're putting an opinion or a viewpoint out there, you have a responsibility to make sure it's an informed one. Otherwise it all just becomes way to Orwellian.

[Raptor on 08.02.06 at 09:12]

Although Mohammed is “a” Muslim prophet, it is far more correct to say he was “the” prophet, as he is regarded as “the seal of the prophets,” i.e., the most important and final one. My Bahai friends tell me of their relatives in Iran being persecuted and killed because their Bahai prophet came after Mohammed chronologically—so it was a sacrilege to Muslims that the Bahai prophet should be called a “prophet” at all.

I think that even if the images of Mohammed had been “positive,” there still would have been outrage/violence from those who have been causing it. "No images of the prophet Mohammed" is a very strict part of Islam. The printed images, even if positive, would be almost like attempting to take control of the prophet and all that he stands for away from his followers.

Certainly, that the published images are offensive is a bigger problem. It's inconceivable to me that the publishers did not know what they were doing. And it's predictable that the whole thing would play right into the hands of fanatics.

[silencedogood on 08.02.06 at 09:55]

Oh, you'll say, but what about Jesus? How come it's ok for us to make fun of Him?
Posted by Uncle Elvis on 07.02.06 at 19:25

It's not elvis. Do you really believe that true christians make fun of Jesus? Give me a break! Muslims believe Jesus was a prophet also so don't let them read LIB or you might have issues too!

I think you are confusing the fact that you or others on this blog might make fun of Jesus and that mockery does not result in bombings or death threats even when it pisses people off.

All,

I was going to write more in response to the comments above but read this article in Time (which is taken from a blog) captures my thinking completely:

"The iconic image of last week was in the Gaza Strip. It was of a Palestinian gunman astride the local office of the European Union. All the diplomatic staff had fled, tipped off ahead of time. The source of the militant's ire? A series of satirical cartoons originally published in Denmark. Yes, cartoons.

A Danish paper, a while back, had commissioned a set of cartoons depicting the fear that many writers and artists in Europe feel when dealing with the subject of Islam. To Western eyes, the cartoons were not in any way remarkable. In fact, they were rather tame. One showed Muhammad with his turban depicted as a bomb--not exactly a fresh image to describe Islamic terrorism. Another used a simple graphic device: it showed Muhammad surrounded by two women in full Muslim garb, their eyes peering out from an oblong space in their black chadors. And on Muhammad's face there was an oblong too, blacking out his eyes. The point was that Islam has a blind spot when it comes to women's freedom. Crude but powerful: exactly what a political cartoon is supposed to be.

The result was an astonishing uproar in the Muslim world, one of those revealing moments when the gulf between our world and theirs seems unbridgeable. Boycotts of European goods are in force; demonstrators in London held up signs proclaiming EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO MOCK ISLAM and BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST; the editor of the French newspaper France-Soir was fired for reprinting the drawings; Afghan President Hamid Karzai condemned the publication; and protesters set fire to the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus. The Egyptian ambassador to Denmark expressed disbelief that the government would not prevent further reprinting. Freedom of the press, the Egyptian explained, "means the whole story will continue and that we are back to square one again. The government of Denmark has to do something to appease the Muslim world."

Excuse me? In fact, the opposite is the case. The Muslim world needs to do something to appease the West. Since Ayatullah Khomeini declared a death sentence against Salman Rushdie for how he depicted Muhammad in his book The Satanic Verses, Islamic radicals have been essentially threatening the free discussion of their religion and politics in the West. Rushdie escaped with his life. But Pim Fortuyn, a Dutch politician who stood up against Muslim immigrant hostility to equality for women and gays, was murdered on the street. Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who offended strict Muslims, was killed thereafter. Several other Dutch politicians who have dared to criticize the intolerance of many Muslims live with police protection.

Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're blasphemy--the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning to deal with being offended.

Blasphemy, after all, is commonplace in the West. In America, Christians have become accustomed to artists' offending their religious symbols. They can protest, and cut off public funding--but the right of the individual to say or depict offensive messages or symbols is not really in dispute. Blasphemy, moreover, is common in the Muslim world, and sanctioned by Arab governments. The Arab media run cartoons depicting Jews and the symbols of the Jewish faith with imagery indistinguishable from that used in the Third Reich. But I have yet to see Jews or Israelis threaten the lives of Muslims because of it.

And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others and intimidation of free people.

Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance--and they have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech? Nonnegotiable."

[Raptor on 08.02.06 at 10:04]

Excellent article. Well put.

[tilti on 08.02.06 at 10:18]

I think that while I agree the violence is deplorable, beleiveing that the uproar is solely due to a handful of cartoons is akin to thinking that the first World War was started because Ferdinand was assasinated. The cartoons were just the spark that lit a resentment that had been growing.

Bill wrote how Europenas feel betrayed for generoulsly allowing the Muslims to come to Europe. That really isn't the full story though. Muslims were bought into Europe post WWII to do menial jobs that Europeans didn't want to do in the booming economy of the 1960's. They were housed together outside the city limits, given minimal access to education and denied full citizenship rights in a lot of countries. If they were Bermudian they'd be sitting on a wall, but despite the cards stacked against them, a lot of them have raised families, put their kids through university and become contributing members of society.

Now there are 2nd generation Muslims all over Europe - most of whom are more Western than Muslim - and you have National Parties in all European countries wanting to 'ship them back to their homeland.' They aren't Morrocan, or Saudi anymore. Most of them are French, or Dutch, or German and still remain treated as second class citizens. I've worked in two restaurants in Holland - both times the dishwashers were Dutch Muslims - born in Holland, speak three languages and with a full highschool education, while all the chefs were white, Dutch and lazy. I'd be pissed too, if all of a sudden there was an outlet to run my anger through I might jsut jump on that bandwagon.

[SarahT on 08.02.06 at 10:18]

silencedogood - it's all true - and I would like to amend my earlier statement to say 'these cartoons are offensive but the offense doesn't justify this kind of reaction' - but please let's keep in mind that every example cited by that aritcle was the actions of Islamic extremists. Radicals, as the article said. The majority of the Muslim world does not support them. We all need to get off our high horses and stop letting the few speak for the many!

[Raptor on 08.02.06 at 10:32]

Tilti, I agree that poverty and lack of opportunities are big factors in all this. But also many of the leaders are well educated and from established families. And there is a sizeable number of Muslims being trained in more extreme views of their religion.

When I lived in Berlin there were large numbers of Turks. I learned they had been called the equivalent of “slaves from the east,” and then later that was changed to “gast arbeiters,” guest workers. One was shot to death by police when reaching for his passport, and the police were praised.

SarahT, With the level of violence and fanaticism we’re seeing, it’s unfortunate that the few ARE speaking for the many peace-loving Muslims. It’s been a real issue that not enough has been heard from peaceful mullahs and their followers, from Muslim leaders who abhor violence, etc.

Those cartoons are mostly comments on the violence perpetrated by the fanatics. They are the ones placing the bomb on Mohammed’s head. However, I read a passage in college where Mohammed counseled his followers not to fight among themselves in civil war but to save that physical fight for converting infidels. Christians had to distort Jesus’s teaching to justify the Crusades, but seemingly Mohammed was more war like. We’re all having to learn more about Islam pretty fast.

[SmokingGun on 08.02.06 at 10:44]

Njegos - I believe you are correct. I heard that a lot in Denmark. That is one of the things that the Muslim leaders did in order to manipulate and fan the flames. And that is where the focus from the media around the world should be. Not reprinting the cartoons but getting to the root cause by showing that these people are constantly being decieved by their own so called leaders. It is all the more reason for why there needs to be freedom for the press but freedom with the sensibilities of restraint and accountability. If the "fake" cartoons are proven to have been planted by the Imams then that will give reason for the followers of Islam to demand these people change their ways.

The Muslim followers do very little for themselves in establishing credibility for their faith by following the ways or allowing the continued actions of the extremist and fanatical tyrants. If I were an Imam I would start calling for a peaceful sit in on all places of worship and start getting the "vast majority" of Muslims who abhore the way Islam has been hijacked and abused by the fanatics to demand they change ways or be turned in to the authorities. That's if there really is a vast majority.

[Njegos on 08.02.06 at 10:49]

Silencedogood:

I think you are confusing the fact that you or others on this blog might make fun of Jesus and that mockery does not result in bombings or death threats even when it pisses people off.

Is it acceptable to insult another man's god as long as it doesn't result in violence? Would it be OK for an editor to publish a new cartoon each week indefinitely?

I feel that the Time article is rather glib and written by someone who doesn't really have time or inclination to consider the Muslim point of view. Phrases like "yes, cartoons" and "astonishing uproar" and "the government of Denmark has to do something to appease the Muslim world" strike me as rather sensationalist. I would also point out the Pim Fortuyn was not killed by a Muslim extremist but by a deranged animal rights fanatic who claimed that he was motivated by Fortuyn's alleged attacks on defenseless members of society.

"But I have yet to see Jews or Israelis threaten the lives of Muslims because of it."

Not sure Palestinians living under occupation would agree with you. Do you not believe in a connection between the Muslim attitudes towards Jews and the occupation of Palestine?

Here is something else: Flemming Rose wrote this favourable piece on Daniel Pipes who, as you may know, runs one of those infamous neo-conservative think-tanks (Middle Eastern Forum) in the US that seem to out-number Burger Kings. Pipes is also in charge of Campus Watch that "exposes" anti-Israeli basis at US University campuses. Is there more to this man (Rose) than meets the eye?

[Njegos on 08.02.06 at 10:52]

Sorry. Here is that link

[Triggerfish on 08.02.06 at 10:53]

I respect the Islamic prohibition against any and all depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. But the fact is this is not a ban found in the Koran. Rather it is a custom that has evolved from Koranic injunctions against idolotry - hence the complete lack of most visual arts (paintings, statues, etc.) in many Islamic societies until the 20th century and a corresponding overemphasis on forms of expression that eschew the human form (or even animals, for that matter) -- calligraphy, architecure, etc. Even the suspicion that Mohammed was depicted in an extremely reverential movie entitled "Mohammed, Messenger of God" led to a Washington DC theatre being seized by armed Islamic extremists in 1976 and threats to blow up cinemas in many Islamic countries. Produced and directed and scripted by Muslims in full accordance with Islamic beliefs, Mohammed was neither depicted on screen nor was his voice heard. In fact, the same applied to his seven wives, his daughters and his sons-in-law. So the story of the rise of Islam was told through the eyes of Mohammed's uncle, Hamza,(played by Anthony Quinn).

[Raptor on 08.02.06 at 11:35]

This is my favourite quote of the morning, from USA-Today online, in an article about the cartoons:

“There were several other small protests across Afghanistan on Wednesday, including one in Kabul. Hundreds of university students, including women, marched peacefully through the capital, chanting ‘Death to the Danish! Death to Americans!’"

Nice to know that’s considered a “peaceful” activity!

[silencedogood on 08.02.06 at 11:44]

SarahT,

I agree and completely lament that more moderate muslims don't stand up the the hijacking of their religion, however--and this is a big however, their silence does mean they shoulder some of the blame.

I won't take it as far as Bin Laden or Carolyn Parish (Canadian MP), who blame all the "sins" of US foriegn policy on Americans, and say a moderate muslim's apathy equates being a suicide bomber--that's nonsense--but as with many fanaticisms they start with a grain of truth which becomes distorted.

In this situation too, it looks as though we can't see the moderates for the thousands of fanatics. I think Njegos raised a good point earlier (credit where credit is due) that in some instances governments have distorted the truth (in his/her example by including counterfeit cartoons).

So let me be clear that I'm not indicting Islam itself or all who practice it. From my experience with middle eastern cultures, they prefer not to air dirty laundry instead resolving things internally. Often this results in silence and can result in not addressing issues.

I think that moderates are rapidly losing the luxury of silence. Islam has a PR problem that needs to be fixed. I think moderates speaking out could help erode support for the fanatics also.

Njegos,

I think my comments to Elvis were clear that it's not "ok" from a moral standpoint to insult another man's god, especially when it is done intentional (which I don't believe was the case). But free speech has a downside too.

If you believe in the marketplace of ideas where you put forth opinions, ideas, etc. and let the best one win (which I assume you do because it's very in line with blogging!) that's going to result in some insults.

Taking offense has to be reasonable and protests arising from it have to be proportional. If offended, protest, but don't call for the death of others. Sticks and stones remember?

You are entitled to find the article glib, but please let me assure you that I am extremely well versed in the beliefs of Islam and to a lesser degree the middle east. I felt the article expressed my views on this topic otherwise I would not have pasted it in its entirety. So, glib or not, it is comming from a perspective of understanding the religion and culture (at least in reprinting).

I knew someone would bring up israel-palestine, but I hardly think that scenario is based on a cartoon--I'd say it's about real estate, bulldozers and suicide bombings.

And Pym Fortune--so let me get this straight, you are saying that an "animal rights activist" murdered him altruistically on behalf of muslims? A link please.

[sandgrownan on 08.02.06 at 11:51]

This is totally out of hand. I'll defend free speech alogside the next man, but in our troubled times an element of common sense has to prevail. And I read another French newspaper published the cartoons again today. Fucking idiots.

[tilti on 08.02.06 at 11:57]

I respect the Islamic prohibition against any and all depictions of the Prophet Mohammed. But the fact is this is not a ban found in the Koran. - Tigger fish

You seem to down-grade the importance of the matter by saying that images of the Prophet are not expreessly forbidden in the Koran. That isn't really the case, the teachings of Mohammed the individual (as opposed to the prophet) are just as central in Islamic tradition as Koran; they and the Koran are what constiture Islamic law in equal measure. In much the same way, the Oral Torah is just as central as the Torah in Judaism, or the life of Jesus are as central to Christianity as the 10 commandments. The two are inseperable and carry the same degree of importance.

[drew on 08.02.06 at 12:08]

First of all its a minority that are setting fire to embassies and becoming violent. The news cameras never focus on the majority who denounce it. They are the radicals that want a world Caliphate, who believe that Islamic law should out wiegh that of nations. This minority are dangerous men and should be delt with. Those in London with signs calling for terrorist attacks in Europe should be picked up and sent back from where they came from, I doubt any where British citizens. This is another problem, who lets all these radicals in? The last time I was in London I was astounded by the number of surley looking Arabs setting on their asses doing nothing but smoking cheap cigarettes.

[Raptor on 08.02.06 at 12:12]

This is good: top Muslim leaders speaking out for peace and making the front page of at least one paper:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-02-08-islamoutrage_x.htm

[Triggerfish on 08.02.06 at 12:18]

"You seem to down-grade the importance of the matter by saying that images of the Prophet are not expreessly forbidden in the Koran ..."

And you seem to be reading something dismissive in my comments that isn't in fact there. Keep an open mind. And consider what Amir Taheri has to say about both depictions of Mohammad and the ongoing cartoon crisis in today's "Wall Street Journal" (see below).

Bonfire of the Pieties
"The Muslim Fury," one newspaper headline screamed. "The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe," said another. "The clash of civilizations is coming," warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly--though not exclusively--in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged.

But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The "rage machine" was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood--a political, not a religious, organization--called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood's rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party's 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut.

The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.

There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous:

A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century); Kamaleddin Behzad's miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century); a painting, "Massacre of the Family of the Prophet," showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century); and Kamal ul-Mulk's portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century).

Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great "lawgivers" of mankind.

There has been other imagery: the Janissaries--the elite of the Ottoman army--carried a medallion stamped with the prophet's head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet's son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God.

Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims "suicide martyrdom" as the highest goal for all true believers.
The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa'adi's eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the "dry pious ones." And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.

Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.

[Raptor on 08.02.06 at 12:30]

Triggerfish, That's a fascinating article from The Wall St. Journal. Too bad the fanatics don't read it! And I don't think most of the madrasses are teaching the above either. Really a shame. It's helpful to separate the political from the religious.