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

[D'Olivier on 08.02.06 at 12:34]

"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.

Posted by sandgrownan on 08.02.06 at 11:51"

Why are they idiots? Did you even read the article? Charlie Hebdo (the name of the magazine) is printing the entire 12 cartoons as well as newly comissionned cartoons satirising Christianity and the Jewish faith as well. I think it's to bolster claims of freedom of expression.

(There is no internet link to the page, unfortunately).

If the fear is that newspapers that print this stuff is inciting violence, then I say that responsible newspapers shouldn't be afraid to print items without receiving death threats. I'm pretty sure that in the current situation that if it wasn't the Danish cartoons, it would be something else that would would cause the violence we see today. The cartoons were only an excuse, not a cause.

[ace on 08.02.06 at 13:32]

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

Well, I find it offensive to be referred to as an infidel, yet it seems to roll off the tongues of these religious zealots. It's like no-one even notices these days, we've beome so accustomed to hearing it.

S'okay though...I won't chop anyone's head off over it, or burn down buildings or anything of the sort.

I will just go about my daily business and ignore those damn heathens.

[SmokingGun on 08.02.06 at 14:49]

That was a very interesting post from the WSJ. Once again I have learned a great deal on Limey's site. What I find interesting is the parallels that I can see in this current crisis and the way people in Bermuda sometimes relate. Maybe we can all learn a little from this affair.

On another note I found it somewhat courageous of the young man who pranced around London dressed as a suicide bomber. Given the terrible bombings that have occured there recently I'm surprised a police officer didn't shoot him just to be on the safe side.

[sandgrownan on 08.02.06 at 15:37]

D'Olivier, they're fucking idiots because they've created exactly the situation Islamic extremists love to exploit. They're fuelling the fire.

Unlike nutjob Chrisitan zealots in the deep south, Islamic extremists love to strp bombs to themselves and board buses. As a rule Christian extremists don't - although I fear the time is coming.

[silencedogood on 08.02.06 at 16:10]

Sandrownan,

So our countries should just roll over whenever anyone threatens us because one of our citizens exercised a non-violent fundamental right in our country which offended them in their country when they heard about it 5 months later???

In that instance it's not really our country anymore is it?

They aren't just angry that the cartoons were created, they are angry that they were reprinted--how the hell are we supposed to even discuss the topic if we can't let people view them and make up their own minds? I refuse to walk on eggshells! If they want censorship and repression that's their choice. It doesn't have to be ours!

[silencedogood on 08.02.06 at 16:14]

One other thing, you show more respect on this blog for the militants in the middle east threatening to kill you OVER A CARTOON than to non-violent christians in the US who you call nutjobs! If religious people in the south started to wave guns around and storm Camden will you think better of them? Unbelieveable...

[sandgrownan on 08.02.06 at 16:16]

Not at all Silencedogood - I actually agree with your sentiments. What publications of the cartoons has doen is add fuel to the extremist fire. Its like not reading an email before hitting "send". The editors of those magazines should have considered their impact in the world we live in. I

In my view, we should just nuke Iran, make an example of them and see how quickly the rest of the middle east falls into line. it worked in japan.

[SmokingGun on 08.02.06 at 16:20]

"In my view, we should just nuke Iran, make an example of them and see how quickly the rest of the middle eats falls into line. it worked in japan."

Posted by sandgrownan on 08.02.06 at 16:15

Don't tell me Burch has been doing something else with those cement silos!! All the same I think Iran's nuclear program is a little further ahead of ours.....

[sandgrownan on 08.02.06 at 16:35]

Ah..as a dependent territory (or whatever the current terminology is) we could petition London. We're British subjects right?
I'm sick and tired of these idiots dictating how we live our lives. They want to live in the 12th century, I think we should help them along.

[sandgrownan on 08.02.06 at 16:52]

Perhaps we strap Burch to the missile...!

[tilti on 08.02.06 at 17:07]

Sandgrownan, I'm osrry that you don't agree with the opinions of Muslims in the middle east. Unfortunately it is all relative. I'm 'sick and tired' of how a lot of Bermudian idiots dictating how I live my life in the 21st century.

I really don't think that people understand the shit treatment these people have received over the last 60 years that has caused this reaction. They have had economic choice, freedom of mobility and citizenship taken away or threatened. Years of economic sanctions that have forced thousands into poverty. Now someone is mocking their religion, what typically no body can deny another individual of.

Stop hitting out against the effect and look at the cause here.

[sandgrownan on 08.02.06 at 17:12]

tilti - lighten up. As I said earlier, I think the cartoons are being exploited by extremists and by the same token a little common sense on the part of the magazine editors might have prevented this mess.

It's a crap argument too. There are people all over the world who have had "shit treatment" who don't riot and behave like lunatics at the drop of a hat. The difference here, is that these wankers are prepared to kill to make a point.

[J Starling on 08.02.06 at 17:41]

I would have to agree that the issue itself is a non-issue really, it is simply being drummed up and exploited by extremisits and politicians for various political ends. One remembers the fatwa against Rushdie and the riots in Pakistan at the time. These were largely organised by the military there to undermine the civilian government of Bhutto and to demostrate to the US the effectiveness of Muslim mujahudeen as proxy warriors against Soviet Afghanistan. Iran is using this situation to flex its strength in relation to the nuclear dispute. The Palestinians I think are showing their strength in anger at Isreal-US-EU concerning Hamas as a legitimate government (in reality a protest vote agaisnt the corruption of Fatah). The Syrians are increasingly worried about a conflict with the US and are trying to flex their muscles, giving the US a preview of what might happen under an occupation. The mobs in Beirut are no doubt a result of Syria flexing its muscles there too, testing the power structure. Elsewhere Arab and Muslim governments are finding this topic a convenient distratcion away from the very real problems of corruption and poverty faced by their citizens - blame the infidels, not the corrupt sheiks! Many of these groups are Islamofascist organisations, set up during the cold war and to a degree have devloped a life of their own (al-Quadea). Reaction begets reaction. Most of the newspapers printing these cartoons in Europe are right-wing ones (a lot being tabloids to boot), and they stand to gain from demonising Muslims and immigrants as a whole. The clash of civilisations is not inevitable however. While theres life theres hope. Life is beautiful. Al-haya al-jameela. Salaam.

[Triggerfish on 08.02.06 at 17:56]

"I really don't think that people understand the shit treatment these people have received over the last 60 years that has caused this reaction."

They have, in fact, received shit treatment since the Treaty of Versailles formalized the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the immediate post-World War One period. But to be completely fair, Tilti, most of the oppression that has been meted out to the masses has been from their own rulers -- not the West. With the single exception of Turkey's Kemel Attaturk-impelled "Great Leap Forward", most of the leadership in Islamic countries have rejected both democratisation and secularisation in favour of absolutism. The poor, exploited man on the Arab street should be unleashing his justifiable rage on the various domestic tyrants who have ruined his life and society -- not imaginary foreign dragons.

[Uncle Elvis on 08.02.06 at 18:16]

"With the single exception of Turkey's Kemel Attaturk-impelled "Great Leap Forward"..."

Thank you for bringing this up.

Attaturk was a great man, plain and simple. He did some shitty things, but he did them for the right reasons with a long-term plan of the betterment of his people in mind. He also took full responsibility for what he did.

One of the great leaders of the 20th Century.

[Bill Cook on 08.02.06 at 18:35]

It would seem clear to me that with the 5 month delay that manipulation was at work and it was successful.

Manipulation is a common tool in the pursuit of power and control which is at the bottom of most things.

The entire mid east was manipulated by the British ,French and the US to further their own interests.

With a biased western media its unlikely that the Muslims will ever appear in a good light as it suits the west to portray the Muslims and Islam as evil and themselves as the good guys.

This hypocricy is best illustrated by the treatment of the Palestinians who are de facto prisoners of the Israelis with the huge financial and military support of the US while calling the Palestinians terrorists.

When the world trade centre was attacked on both occasions those responsible stated publicly that the reasons were the treatment of the Palestinians with the support of the US.

Yet knowing this no steps have been taken to date to correct this situation in a realistic manner making criticism of the Danes for printing a cartoon somewhat nonsensical.

Ther can be little doubt that the Muslims harm themselves by their reaction which to my mind is due to being easily manipulated by the fanatical leaders who stir them up and encourage suicide bombers rather than boycotts.

[Uncle Elvis on 08.02.06 at 18:50]

I agree with you, Mr. Cook, but I disagree that criticizing the Danes for printing these in nonsensical.

It makes sense, as you say, to assume that radical Muslims are going to freak out over something like this and, thus, harm all Muslims on an image level.

with that assumption, it is, at best, misguided and, at worst, sinister manipulation, for a paper, know for its Right-Wing, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim views, to print something like this.
They SHOULD be taken to task for this.

"With a biased western media its unlikely that the Muslims will ever appear in a good light as it suits the west to portray the Muslims and Islam as evil and themselves as the good guys."

With the Commies out of the picture, who is Hollywood gonna cast as the bad-guys? *grin*
They tried it with the South Africans, but that didn't take...

[Bill Cook on 08.02.06 at 19:06]

No I did not mean to infer that the cartoons were trivial I think they were ill considered and harmful but by comparison to the immorality of support for a clearly illegal state with such devastating consequences were the lesser of two evils.

Free speech is fine until you shout fire in a crowded theatre etc etc.

[SmokingGun on 08.02.06 at 19:15]

Uncle E - with all due respect, the problem is the extreme fanatics have attacked the country of Denmark and it's people, not the newspaper itself. I walked past the front of the building a dozen times over the past few days and I saw not one gathering of people there to make a statement. If you can't even get a group of Muslim followers to protest in the huge Nyhavn Square in front of the newspapers HQ then it's obvious there is an alternative agenda.

[Uncle Elvis on 08.02.06 at 19:28]

Mr. Cook,

Agreed.

Smokes,

I agree with you, as well. I'm not supporting the protesters nor the overreaction. What I'm saying is that I'm not surprised that there is an uproar. Yes, the level that it has escalated to is insanity, but I'm not surprised that people found this incredibly offensive.

Put me in the same camp as Mr. Annan. I think the cartoons were offensive and incredibly poorly-thought-out, but I'm praying for an end to the violence.

Another point, from, of all places, Hardball with Chris Matthews.

OSAMA SIBLANI, PUBLISHER, ARAB AMERICAN NEWS: I don‘t think it‘s appropriate. The problem that I have with the cartoons, that they were published in September in a Danish newspaper. The Muslim community have objected, 11 Arab ambassadors in Denmark requested a meeting with the prime minister, they were turned out. They were reprinted again in another publication, in Norway and in Denmark and now they‘re spread all over Europe. This is where the insult comes from, from repeating to insult—the insult of people over and over again, knowing that they have insulted 1.3 billion Muslims, they should have really stopped and apologized from the beginning

[D'Olivier on 08.02.06 at 19:39]

"with that assumption, it is, at best, misguided and, at worst, sinister manipulation, for a paper, know for its Right-Wing, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim views, to print something like this.
They SHOULD be taken to task for this."

You seem to be an expert in an obscure Danish newpaper that no one ever heard of until a few days ago. A summary of their views is in the link below, and it paints a slightly different picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten

[D'Olivier on 08.02.06 at 19:53]

The link I supplied above also is linked to the cartoons themselves, and the context with which it is presented. I'd say look at the cartoons, look at how it was brought about in the first place, consider that it was produced five months ago and then make a judgement. I'm pretty sure that a lot of the so-called commentators are make judgements on something they've never seen, imagining them to be much worse than they actually are. And it's through these judgements that stereotypes are based.

To reply to Bill Cook, this isn't an example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre, since there was no theatre to begin with, and the drawings had to be dragged out to the various influential leaders, saying, "Hey, look at this! No one's reading this backwater paper, but I'm sure we'll cause some havoc by getting some people together, call CNN and burn some embassies down!"

[Bill Cook on 08.02.06 at 20:12]

D'O

Silly me thinking there was a theatre, when there was no theatre to begin with.

I was confused with "the world is a stage" etc etc.

Do I need to see a drawing of Mohammad with a bomb on his head to understand that such a depiction is insulting ?

You could agree that there is no good or bad only consequences and these were perhaps predictable ?

[Uncle Elvis on 08.02.06 at 20:19]

Ok.. here goes.

"...obscure Danish newpaper..."

The country's most popular newspaper is obscure?

"...no one ever heard of until a few days ago...

I'll cop to this. I hadn't heard of it. However, even scanning the news stories on this subject points out their views pretty well. Even the link which "paints a slightly different picture" says, "Since then the paper has regarded itself as an independent newspaper that is somewhat right of the middle". It goes on to say, "Though the newspaper has often been critizised for being too hard on immigrants, it has also given space to positive aspects of immigration. In an EU-competition for Diversity and against discrimination in 2005 it won the second prize for a row of articles describing the positive aspects of immigrants in Denmark"

I never claimed to be an expert on this. Not once.
However, where exactly was I wrong with "know[n] for its Right-Wing, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim views"? And how does your link paint the paper in a different light from what I said?

[Uncle Elvis on 08.02.06 at 20:24]

And the analogy of "Fire in a theatre" holds.

Here's why:

Yelling "Fire" in a theatre will cause unneccesary uproar and chaos. Printing these cartoons... TWICE... will do the same thing. The goal of both is the same thing. Both have to be done with the intention of doing so.

To argue that there's no literal theatre is semantics.

[J Starling on 08.02.06 at 20:49]

This is not a single issue problem of the Danes publishing these cartoons. Their publication was unneccessary, their repetition outright provocation. The reaction by the Muslim world, as reproted in the media, is out of proportion and extreme in my understanding, and admittedly brings them ill repute. If the intention of republishing these cartoons was to spark a debate on Islam and secularisation it was done poorly. If only the Muslims would turn to their own corrupt regimes and overthrow them. If only the imperialists would stop propping up these regimes. A democratic Islamodom would no doubt be hostile to American imperialism, so this is cynically prevented , in the national interest of the USA. I don't know the answer, but I think the Euro press should cease reprinting and let the issue slip silently into the night "this too shall pass."

[Njegos on 08.02.06 at 23:21]

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?

The problem is that many people who lecture Muslims on violence are more than happy to use it against the Muslim world when it suits them which doesn't exactly put on high moral ground. We drone on about the need for proportionality (not that we are much good at it) and apply it to events in isolation, like "silly" cartoons, without grasping the cumulative impact of humiliation. Returning to the status quo ante after every incident is simply wishful thinking. A volcano is rumbling.

Some feel that we have a duty to encourage and strengthen the "moderate" wing of Islam. I am not sure what this means. Someone who burns down an embassy is an extremist but what about someone who demands a boycott of Danish goods? Is he a moderate? If by moderate, we mean people who share our free speech values and are willing to turn the other cheek then I can tell you that we are talking about a very small minority in the Middle East. If you don't believe me, then look around at recent elections. Moderates are losing out everywhere. Our big mistake is to believe that moderation equals majority. If it sounds good, then everyone must want it. If only.

Furthermore, moderation is just as prone to exploitation as extremism. I read Amir Taheri's WSJ article posted above. Taheri is an very educated man who has written many books on the Middle East. As an Iranian monarchist, he represents a point of view that is extremely popular in the White House and Downing St. He is also a former editor of the Kayhan newspaper which, at the time of the Shah, was basically a propaganda organ. (I know because I lived in Iran at the time.) Taheri argues forcefully that the reaction to the cartoons is the result of a perversion of Islam. The truth of his assertion, however, is irrelevant - it is what the hawkish editors at the WSJ want opinion-makers to hear as we gear up for our next battle with the Evil Empire. We are going to war against a perversion of Islam. Unsurprisingly, Taheri is a client of Benador Associates, a PR firm with very close ties to prominent neoconservatives.

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 am sure that the article reflects your views. Nor do I doubt that your scholarship on Islam will emerge as the debate unfolds. But "a perspective of understanding the religion and culture"? Ok, the writer is shocked by the reaction and clearly sympathises with Jylland - Posten. Like millions of other people. Have I missed something?

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.

Why beat around the bush? It's about occupation and resistance. That's why Israelis don't jump at every cartoon. They can swat the Palestinians whenever they want.

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.

My pleasure

[Njegos on 08.02.06 at 23:33]

Latest from the Independent: Chirac condemns 'overtly provocative' cartoons

[Njegos on 08.02.06 at 23:49]

Seems like a good time to introduce a blog belonging to Brian Anthony, an American teacher living and working in Damascus. He is refreshingly perceptive:

In the Axis: A Blog From the Middle East With Brian Anthony

[D'Olivier on 09.02.06 at 05:27]

"Ok.. here goes.

"...obscure Danish newpaper..."

The country's most popular newspaper is obscure?"

In Denmark, no. Compared to the rest of the world, a most resounding yes.

[D'Olivier on 09.02.06 at 05:33]

"D'O

Silly me thinking there was a theatre, when there was no theatre to begin with.

I was confused with "the world is a stage" etc etc.

Do I need to see a drawing of Mohammad with a bomb on his head to understand that such a depiction is insulting ?

You could agree that there is no good or bad only consequences and these were perhaps predictable ?"

There are always consequences to people's actions, but not necessarily predictable ones.

And yes, you do have to look at the cartoon within its proper context 1) to see whether it is true or not (that the guy did draw a bomb in that cartoon and 2) look at the article behind the cartoon to see why the newspaper was being so provacative.

[D'Olivier on 09.02.06 at 05:38]

"And the analogy of "Fire in a theatre" holds.

Here's why:

Yelling "Fire" in a theatre will cause unneccesary uproar and chaos. Printing these cartoons... TWICE... will do the same thing. The goal of both is the same thing. Both have to be done with the intention of doing so.

To argue that there's no literal theatre is semantics."

We are dealing with how a cartoon is interpreted by the Islamic extremists, moderates and the Western World, so semantics is front and centre in this debate.

And yes, there is no theatre. My arguement is that there was no audience there to offend when it was first printed, and someone (or someones ) brought to the attention of radical Muslims who took action.

For your analogy to hold, those cartoons would have to have been printed in Saudi Arabia. Then it wouldn't be yelling fire, it would have been akin to detonating a nuclear bomb.

[D'Olivier on 09.02.06 at 05:45]

"I never claimed to be an expert on this. Not once.
However, where exactly was I wrong with "know[n] for its Right-Wing, anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim views"? And how does your link paint the paper in a different light from what I said"

I was reacting to your description of the paper itself. You didn't cite your source, since I'm pretty sure no on reads danish papers in Bermuda. All we have to go on are articles translated into English by third parties, so all we have are limited information.

Also, you made the statement that the paper was a right-wing, anti-immigrant paper, a one-dimensional stance. The wiki article mentioned that the paper printed articles that promoted the positive aspects of immigration into Danish society, not something you would expect from a right-wing paper.

The truth, as always, is never black and white, but shades of grey. (Apologies for the newpaper pun).

[Njegos on 09.02.06 at 07:56]

D'Olivier:

As per my earlier post (from 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."

Re-read the whole Wikipedia link. I think there is little doubt that Jyllands-Posten is a right-wing newspaper.

[Njegos on 09.02.06 at 09:32]

Has anyone noticed the physical resemblance between Flemming Rose , the controversial Danish newspaper editor, and Phillip Wells, the famous Bermuda-based blogger, journalist and IT wizard.

I wonder if, by any chance, they are related?

[silencedogood on 09.02.06 at 10:27]

Njegos,

I am not sure what this means. Someone who burns down an embassy is an extremist but what about someone who demands a boycott of Danish goods? Is he a moderate?

Yes.

(Israel)It's about occupation and resistance.
We agree.

(I know because I lived in Iran at the time.)

This explains so much...

[Phil on 15.02.06 at 14:00]

Not to be outdone by the Iranian anti-Semitic cartoon competition, an Israeli Jew has launched his own:

“We’ll show the world we can do the best, sharpest, most offensive Jew hating cartoons ever published!” said Sandy “No Iranian will beat us on our home turf!”

[SmokingGun on 15.02.06 at 14:10]

I think I just figured out why the extremists are all chanting "Death to Denmark". Because shouting "Death to Jyllands-Posten" just desn't have the same ring to it.

The funny thing is if you ever walk around Copenhagen and hear all the young Danes talking every once in a while you'll suddenly hear a "Fuck" or a "Shit". They seem to prefer to swear in English. I swear!

[ace on 15.02.06 at 14:21]

An 8 year old boy was among those killed in recent protests in Pakistan.

What amazes me is that this kid wasn't in school and that tens of thosands of people demonstrating aren't at work.

To the demonstrators:

It was a cartoon you bunch of boobs...get over it. Stop wasting time and lives over this! Do you really think Mohammed would be condoning this nonsense?

[Uncle Elvis on 15.02.06 at 15:35]

Actually, ace. From what I've read, possibly. (I have to add the "From what I've read..." so that I cite my source. Don't want to be seen as an expert.

If we take the cartoons as something offensive and sacreligious, possibly, Prophet Mohammed would condone the demonstrations. Probably not to the point it has escalated to, though.

D'Olivier, I point you to Njegos' post. The paper is definitely right-wing and definitely anti-immigrant. I stand by my statement.
You argue "that there was no audience there to offend when it was first printed". There was, hence the initial protests against it, which were ignored. As long as there is a Muslim population in that country, which there is, there is an audience. This was obviously designed to get a reaction from that audience. Hence, the analogy still holds.

[SmokingGun on 15.02.06 at 16:19]

"If we take the cartoons as something offensive and sacreligious, possibly, Prophet Mohammed would condone the demonstrations. Probably not to the point it has escalated to, though."

and yet.....

"There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else." " 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."

"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. "

"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."

I'm confused.....

[Uncle Elvis on 15.02.06 at 16:22]

Smokes, so am I. Hence the "possibly" *grin*

Just relating things I've read.

[SmokingGun on 15.02.06 at 16:48]

Uncle E - I know.

Sad but if someone were to publish a book with all the paintings, drawings etc. that have been around since way back when, the "modern" day muslim will still go berzerk.

There are 8 year old muslim kids being cured of cancer in Denmark and there are 8 year old kids in Pakistan being killed because of a cartoon.

Very sad.....

[silencedogood on 15.02.06 at 17:49]

Smokes,

The problem with discussing Islam is that so much of what is passed off as Islam these days is really just culture. Someone above stated that Islam is treated as a way of life which is very true but in those circumstances the "way of life" outside religion may blur into religion for many.

Example: Islam does not mandate that women cover up with burqas. It only mandates that they dress modestly. Veils were modest dress for the time period and region, mostly to protect women's faces from the elements, but now it's considered standard Islam in many countries. Yet, if it were, all muslim women would be wearing them--they aren't.

The core religion has not changed due to the fact that; unlike the bible which had passages destroyed, lost, reproduced, and so on; the Koran was compiled not too long after the prophets death and has remained the same since.

The culture has not been unchanging and is quite diverse, even today. All one needs to do is look at non-extremist muslims living peacefully in the west, or those in the middle east who tend to be more moderate, i.e. Jordanians, kuwaitis, turks or pre-civil war lebanese and then compare them with the wahabbi clerics in Saudi Arabia or the shiite clerics in Iran. They may not be as liberal as our society is, but relatively they are night and day.

If you read the Koran it states that it is the guide for humanity, so if you see a middle eastern protestor or government harping about something offending islam that isn't in there, it is 99% certain to be bunk (hadiths notwithstanding).

At the end of the day it gets back to a basic truth, politicians and the like will distort religion to their own ends and unless there are strong religious leaders who object to the viewpoint being put out by the powerful. There aren't always, especially in repressive societies, and the population is none the wiser.

Imagine if there had been no Martin Luther King. There might still be a significant number of religious people believing Christianity supported separation of the races or some other nonsense. Not that religion is the only thing that promotes people ignoring good sense, it just seems to be the most popular.

[SmokingGun on 15.02.06 at 18:15]

Silencedogood - you are so right. Let's hope they find their own MLK.

[silencedogood on 21.03.06 at 09:15]

Maybe they have one in the works--this guy sounds promising:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/03/20/reform.preacher.ap/index.html

I thought this quote was interesting in showing how repressive governments can lead to radicalism:

The Egyptian government, apparently nervous over his popularity, pushed Khaled out in late 2002, banning him from giving his sermons at Egyptian mosques.