Here at SM headquarters we have quite an intricate system for vetting which stories make it to our website. Most of our stories are unearthed by the army of ex test-monkeys (retired from military, space, and medical research) that we house in our basement. They are the ones who scour the internet all day and feed important stories to our bloggers, while we spend most of our time at our full-time jobs. We also have the tipline, by which dedicated readers send in tips. Later, in our conference room, we ask ourselves three main questions about a prospective post:
- Can I do this story justice/am I knowledgeable and interested enough to write about it without sounding ignorant?
- Does the story have an angle highlighting South Asians?
- Does the story have an angle of interest to North Americans?
The reason you haven’t seen us post on this topic before is because not all of us were convinced that we could answer yes to all three questions. After attending the SAAN Conference this past weekend (which will be summarized in my next post), I have become convinced that we have missed the relevance this issue has to our community, and that the answer to all three questions is yes. I am speaking of course of the controversy surrounding a Danish newspaper’s decision to publish a picture of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb as his turban.
Arab foreign ministers have condemned the Danish government for failing to act against a newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
At the Arab League conference in Cairo, they said they were “surprised and discontented at the response”.
Islam forbids any depiction of Muhammad or of Allah.
The Jyllands-Posten newspaper published a series of 12 cartoons showing Muhammad, in one of which he appeared to have a bomb in his turban. [Link]
I see great irony in this situation that doesn’t seem to have registered in the press (as far as I know). Muslims around the world are protesting this cartoon (often violently) because it is forbidden in Islam to depict the Prophet, especially in such a vulgar manner as this. Muhammad, in his boundless wisdom, wanted to make sure that his image would never be used or treated as an idol, and that men would never worship him as one. In Christianity for example, many most sects now worship Christ as God, instead of seeing him as only a mortal prophet. It was the message of Islam, and not Muhammad the man, that was to better the world. By violently protesting this cartoon, it could be argued that Muslims around the world are acting as if an idol has been desecrated. Using violence to protest this “desecration” legitimizes that which the Prophet cautioned against in the first place. He has become an idol to be defended and avenged in the eyes of many.
Part of the reason that we haven’t already written about this issue is that it hasn’t had nearly as much impact in the U.S. as it has had in Europe and the rest of the world. Do Americans even care or understand what this is all about? Why am I not hearing more about this from the desi community? Before I go on, I want you to take a careful look at some pictures. Don’t read text that follows the pictures until you guess which country each was taken in:
| 1. |
 |
| 2. |
 |
| 3. |
 |
| 4. |  |
Muslims offended by the [Philadelphia] Inquirer’s decision to reprint a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad that has inflamed the sensibilities of their co-religionists across the world picketed the newspaper this morning…
Most American newspapers have decided not to reprint the cartoon. Newspapers in Europe have, as a gesture of free press solidarity with Jyllands-Posten, run the caricature as well as 11 others pillorying the prophet. One image depicts Muhammad halting a line of suicide bombers at the gates of heaven with the cry, “Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins…”
One demonstrator, 54-year old Aneesha Uqdah of Philadelphia, argued that precedent exists for newspapers to withhold some information to prevent harm: “If a woman was a rape victim, you wouldn’t publish her name,” she said…
The demonstrators carried signs that read, “Freedom of Speech, Not Irresponsible Speech,” “No to Hate” and “Islam = Nonviolence…” [Link]
Speaking outside his home in Bedford, Mr Khayam, 22, said: “I found the pictures deeply offensive as a Muslim and I felt the Danish newspaper had been provocative and controversial, deeply offensive and insensitive.
“But by me dressing the way I did, I did just that, exactly the same as the Danish newspaper, if not worse. My method of protest has offended many people, especially the families of the victims of the July bombings. This was not my intention.”
Downing Street today described the behaviour of some Muslim demonstrators in London over the last few days as “completely unacceptable”. Some demonstrators carried placards calling for people who insult Islam to be killed. [Link]
There is a tension in the Islamic world between the desire for democracy and a respect for liberty. (It is a tension that once raged in the West and still exists in pockets today.) This is most apparent in the ongoing fury over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a small Danish newspaper. The cartoons were offensive and needlessly provocative. Had the paper published racist caricatures of other peoples or religions, it would also have been roundly condemned and perhaps boycotted. But the cartoonist and editors would not have feared for their lives. It is the violence of the response in some parts of the Muslim world that suggests a rejection of the ideas of tolerance and freedom of expression that are at the heart of modern Western societies. [Link]
Awsome post Abhi.
Ah, just sent you something about this before I saw the story posted.
Hari Kunzru the writer's has written about the issue on our blog today:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/279
Considering he has been pretty vocal FOR freedom of speech (most recently campaigning against the Religious Hatred law), he has taken a broadly similar stance as I have on the issue.
I.E., the right to freedom of speech and expression is paramount. But what that comes responsibility and taboos that some people don't really like to touch. Sexualising of young girls, the holocaust, dressing up like a suicide bomber for e.g. In a way that twat, pictured above as a suicide bomber, did a very foolish thing (and doesn't recognise the irony of having freedom of expression to do what he did) - he also makes the point that dressing up as a suicide bomber is very taboo - and therefore will evoke the exact same reactions as drawing a caricature of Mohammed with a bomb on his head.
Of course in retaliation British people didn't run around burning stuff, but that is another point.
Another point worth mentioning.... JP, the newspaper that published the cartoons, previously passed up on publishing cartoons on Jesus, which kinda re-enforces my point that there are certain taboos people are happy to break, and not others.
I'm deeply saddened by the immaturity of the protestors, and the way Muslims are shooting themselves in the foot as far as tolerance in the Western world goes. What next? A jihad against anybody who eats ham, since Muslim tradition prohibits it?
Or to put it in a nutshell, I would support freedom of speech regardless, but I would have some respect for the incident in question only if there was a noble or actual point to be made. I don't really feel JP, the Danish paper, was trying to make any point other than just break some Muslim taboos because it felt like it.
Good post!
Abhi: I think you are inadvertently infantilizing the mutineers by censoring the 'bomb in Muhammad's turban' part of the cartoon.
I do respect your right to control the content of your website, but I think you should have a little more faith in the mutineers.
good post, but, pre-Islamic roots of some of their cultures, you have a problem with arabian paganism?* :) instead of trying to point culturalist fingers let's just say it is what it is. i don't think there is an "authentic" islam that is "true" to a set of teachings, i've read translations of the koran, and it is vicious or pacific, depending on the passage. the weight you give to the interpretation function is all individual (or social).
also, please see this post over at my blog. and the comments might interest some (please skip the first 20, some of them are nuts).
* the key here is that the pre-islamic cultures of various islamic cultures differ, it would seem unparsimonious to posit a culturalist argument that roots this violence in pre-islamic substrate, and just by coincidence all the cultures who transitioned from non-islam to islam shared this commonality, while those that transitioned from non-world world to christianity/buddhism/hinduism did not share this preexistent prediliction. in other words, if you are making a culturalist argument, i think the most parsimonious explanation would be that it is something about islam. of course, that's not good public relations, nor do i buy an easy and simple culturalist argument.
I would urge everyone to read the novelist Hari Kunzru's article on this issue, which Sunny mentions above.
Incidentally Sunny, it is great that you are attracting people of the calibre of Hari Kunzru to write for you - great stuff.
AMfD, I have no problem with posting the full picture. If I do however, half the comments on this post will be about whether or not I should have posted the picture, instead of the more substantive issues that we could be discussing.
also, i think we should distinguish between ethnicity and religion when it comes to caricature: ethnicity you can not control, religion, like any ideology, is a set of beliefs and it is up to the individual. and in fact, i have seen caricatures of christianity in danish newspapers in blogs in response to the contention that the attack on islam is special or specific, many europeans just think religion is weird.
I may protest things that offend me, but never through violence.
/Saheli stands up in her cubicle and claps.
Let me just say that these cartoons are incredibly idiotic, obnoxious (and perhaps worst in the Sepia scale of things) and BADLY DRAWN--but, BUT damn. No violent response to speech. My sister gave me a lecture about this when I was 3 or 4, and it only took me about a day to absorb the lesson. (There was a hilarious incident in the interim involving a missing watch and a bloody nose, but that's a story for less serious times.) If you want send in contemptuous, spiteful letters, urge boycotts, make fun of people, hurl vicious Captain Haddock inspired insults, and cross the street to walk on the other side when you run into the idiot-cartoonist, all the more power to you, but . . .but. . .that's it. It's really very simple. A child may respond to speech with force, but it is the responsibility of being an adult--really, of being older than5--to respond to speech with speech, and only to force with force.
A link from Pickled Politics:
Jyllands-Posten previously rejected Jesus cartoons
A Muslim perspective (anti-cartoon)
A good pro-cartoons perspective.
Actually I agree with Al Mujahid and would say that the picture with the top half blanked out is simultaneously tittilating and censorious. I would have thought it woul dbe better to either publish in full or not at all.
I appreciate what you're trying to do but there's just way too much hemming & hawing here over a situation that's ultimately pretty cut & dry.
If this incident were about whitefolks burning embassies, threatening bombings, and killing because someone desecrated Christian symbols (how about Kanye West's current Rolling Stone cover? Or Piss Christ? Or Marilyn Manson?) -- you'd call them racist, religiously intolerant nuts.
There are a lot of very religious Christians out there (some argue that a few have taken over the White House) who are offended by these things. But they aren't out burning embassies and walking around with faux suicide bomb vests. And when they do things along this vein but on a FAR smaller magnitude we're quick (rightly) to condemn them.
How about this, as someone on the blogosphere put it, if an apology is to be delivered, it should be delivered from the largest Christian church in Saudi Arabia. Oh wait, they don't allow.....
All you have to do is click on it to see the whole thing. I tried to have it both ways.
wingnut
Who is hemming and hawing? I don't think Abhi could have made any clearer his view that the violence is wrong and he condemns it absolutely. So far on this thread nobody has deviated from this.
Am I the only one who saw a racial angle in these cartoons? Maybe my sepia tinted eyes see a race angle when none exists. But there is something unnerving about these vintage Orientalist caricatures from a racial not religious angle. The turban, the covered women, the big black beard, the camel.
after undergoing a crushing but informative debate on this topic on my blog, which you are welcome to check, i have the following to share: my blog, by the way is at eteraz.wordpress.com - we have gone away from the cartoons specifically and moved onto 'civilizational' conflict - but this was not meant to be a soliciting kind of email (before abhi gets mad). i have the following to say:
i'm going to make a subtle point here and i hope the commentators will appreciate the distinctions.
there are two levels of this debate, and i fear they are being conflated.
1 - freedom of speech: this is the more general point. can you mock a religious figure in a paper? yes. can you make caricatures of a man of whom people do not make caricatures. yes! can you? oh yes. in answering yes to these questions, europe, the west, americans, are all absolutely correct.
2 - incitement of hate-crimes: this is the more difficult point, and i'll be blunt about it: *european muslims* (and i'm limiting this to them) have a rightful reason to fear that mockery of their beliefs will lead to an increase in violence against them. american muslims generally dont have to worry about hate crimes. that's why we don't really care how many muslim villains you put into hollywood movies. hell, we go along with everyone else to watch these movies. consider 'the seige' - a horrible movie if there ever was one - all about stereotyping arabs and muslims - it couldn't even recognize that not all arabs are mulims or that not all muslims are arabs - still, i recall when it came out, me and fellow muslims were eating popcorn and buying soda by the ton at showings. why? because we were at top 10 colleges; we were lawyers, and as a consequence we have faith in the american system. european muslims, on the other hand, don't have this kind of success in europe. there are a number of institutional, economic and psychological reasons -- IN WHICH BOTH THE EUROPEAN ESTABLISHMENT AND THE IMMIGRANT MENTALITY are complicit. as a consequence of these wide scale failures, the european muslim minority fears reprisals when their beliefs are so publicly mocked. the thought is: "if they can mock our most holy man, they surely won't stop at anything if they come after us." this is a psychological insight about the place of the minority and can be best understood by understanding the black viewpoint in the american south in the 1970's (after the civil rights era but before economic improvement).
what's most unfortunate is that when the middle east becomes the main spokesman against these attacks, what they have really done is take attention away from the problems that european muslims face. point # 2 gets ignored. it becomes all about point # 1. law professors write about freedom of speech and forget about the ghettoization of a community immigrants that reminds me very much of the ghettoes of the deep south that remain to this day.
The timeline of the controversy is to be observed.
The cartoons were originally published in September 2005.
Danish Muslims went to the Middle East with a dossier of the cartoons to whip up support - and in the dossier were included three other truly bestial depictions of the Prophet that were not part of the original twelve cartoons.
So four months later the situation blows up.
Why?
Arab governments (especially Saudi Arabia) playing Islamist politics - flexing their musicles, hyping the situation - the whole spiralled out of control super fast.
It is similar to how in 1989 British Muslims toured Iran and lobbied the Ayatollah to do something about Rushdie - you know what happened.
The whole scene is INCENDIARY.
This is absolutely Rushdie II.
From Abhi's link:
A NYC court did remove a Mohammed statue from its edifice after a request by a Muslim group.
incitement of hate-crimes: this is the more difficult point, and i'll be blunt about it: *european muslims* (and i'm limiting this to them) have a rightful reason to fear that mockery of their beliefs will lead to an increase in violence against them.
i'm skeptical of this, the ones who are protesting and tweaking out don't seem to be very terrified. granted, that's just a superficial observation, but i'll go check out you site to see if there is anything more substantive to your contention that they have to fear hate crimes in relation to this sort of mockery.
re: AMJ and racial caricatures, i can see them too. the jewish analogy is apropos. but if you took out the context i think much of the racial character would disappear. intent is 9/10 of the problem. hell, ppl don't know what muhammad looked like really, the problem is that they said they are representing muhammad, the thought and intent mattered.
The picture in the post reminds me of almost nude pictures with strategically placed objects on body parts. And then they write a whole page describing what is not shown. :)
btw, i should blog as razib_the_atheist, alt.muslim has listed me as part of the "islamosphere." (control-f "support and revulsion" and click "support").
Tillykke!! Artig det at skrive, Abhi :)
I lived in Denmark for 10 months, '98-'99. Interesting time...
Conflict even back then between homogeonous Danish population believing that its socialst economy was being taken advantage of, and Arab/Iraqi kids who were born in Denmark to conservative Muslim guestworker parents. I mean, it was culture shock to me to see porn on regular TV. The kids were raised super strictly (I think some of us an sort of relate to this) at home by parents determined to uphold a strict moral code...and then outside their homes they'd be regarded with suspicion by the "easygoing" (as they like to think of themselves) Danes.
I had more than one YOUNG Dane tell me that the immigrant/Iraqi kids were hoodlums who statistically commited more crimes than Danish kids etc. They'd jsut look at me funny when I commented that surely the incidence of capture for the Iraqi/Arab kid who stole a CD or keyed a car was higher because s/he would be so screamingly visible...that surely plently of Danish kids were up to as much mischeif, they jsut weren't getting caught.
Tension was high and rising back then. Soon after I left, the Danes voted in a hard-right government. haven't kept up with much, but this cartoon-thing doesnt' surprise me. I'm all for freedom of speech, but I'm willing to bet this was deliberately provocative.
Not that it's any excuse for all the stupid flag-burning going on.
At this point, it's a chicken/egg question. The Arab/Iraqi population grew in the 70-80 as Danes were so depopulated (and wealthy) they needed guest-workers to come in and do the menial jobs. They were pretty fair and open-minded back then (and they still, msitakenly or not, consider themselves to be) I gather, and tried to make the new immigrants comfortable, more or less. The new immigrants in turn, scandalized by porn on regular TV (no shit. I was pretty scandalized myself) and very lax/egalitarian sexual mores (this was pre-Sex in the City and one night stands were commonplace there) demanded concessions toward their beliefs to the point of asking for seperate-sex public schools. I don't think they got that particular request, but the demands really did get sort of ridiculous and the cultural tension was really high when I left.
The race issue has been such an ongoing debate in the States, a comparison to Denmark isn't possible. Denmark is a really homogenous country, with a thoroughly scandanavian culture...so the influx of Arab immigrants created cultural conflict that soon acquired racial overtones.
Hope any of this makes sense. It's impossible to generalize, and I met some really great people there. On the other hand, thai sex workers were the latest sexual fetish and many Danes assumed I was Thai (yes, they really did think all small browny people looked alike) and were whatchammacallit (clueless?bigoted?stereotyping?orientalising?racist?) enough to respond "ooh, spicy!" when I'd tell someone who'd asked me to bed/his room or touched me to FUCK off.
(adding to the lack of easy answers: what does it mean that some of the Danes hitting on me were blindingly hot and would never have looked at me twice if the context were changed to the US? Scandanavian women are still a fairly big 'sexy' draw in the US, but were considered played out and boring while I was in Denmark...so on one hand, I'm suddenly supposed to be really hot. On the other hand, I'm hot like the thai sex workers. At the end of the day, I still wasn't very flattered.)
Cic: ask Vinod about getting picked up in Iceland.
Abhi,
Thank you for a superb post - I was wondering when SM would put it on the table. Might I add that you have addressed it with equal parts sensitivity and social consciousness. I also appreciate that you haven't shown the entire cartoon in the post.
As an Indian-Canadian, I concur with the general view that there the resort to violent protest has resulted in paradoxically undermining the concept of 'limits' to freedom of expression that is being protested in the first place. The familiar "death to....." deathknell for someone who has allegedly upset Islamic sensitivities has become ubiquitous in recent times. As a non-Muslim and a non-supporter of institutionalized religion it puzzles me how Muslims all over the world can unite so rapidly and coherently in support of or against something. We don't see this happening on such a large scale in other religions (or do we? - this is a genuine question).
My second question for SM readers is: the concept of 'ummah' or Muslim nation is something that is quite unique to Islam in comparison wtih other religons/faiths, and helps them connect with each other in a way that few Hindus or Buddists or Christians do on a global scale. Knowing this, does it make it okay for a person or a publication or a group of people to knowingly upset Islamic sensitivities? I guess what I'm trying to get at is: have we come to a point where we need a different set of rules to respect Islamic sensitivities in present times, with so many political/religious/social aspects of the Arab/Islamic world having come to the West's attention in the form of the Iraq war, terrorism, democracy, and so on.... I wonder if anyone else sees this virtual distinction?
miss thailand has a danish father and was raised in denmark. re: complicated, no shit :)
ask Vinod about getting picked up in Iceland.
genetically islanders are basically a lot like 2nd and 3rd cousins all.
icelanders, i meant.
While i completely believe in freedom of speech, this episode resembles the growth of anti-semetic behaviour in Europe prior to world war II.
During those times there were cartoons which depicted Jews as rats. This was a prevelant attitude even among common folks. Which ultimately led to the Holocaust and during which all of europe turned a blind eye to it.
The current atmosphere is similar to those days, with all of the world supporting the notion that Islam is a violent and radical religion.
No need. I can well imagine ;)
While i completely believe in freedom of speech, this episode resembles the growth of anti-semetic behaviour in Europe prior to world war II.
During those times there were cartoons which depicted Jews as rats. This was a prevelant attitude even among common folks. Which ultimately led to the Holocaust and during which all of europe turned a blind eye to it.
The current atmosphere is similar to those days, with all of the world supporting the notion that Islam is a violent and radical religion.
i do think that it is unseemly trivilizing the anti-semitism of the nazis and comparing it to ANYTHING that is going on today. after all, europeans moot islamophobia laws, when did anti-semitic gov. moot anti-anti-semitism laws? many of europe's muslim communities are highly dependent on the welfare state, the germans incinerated jews, they didn't put them up in public housing. so
1) the comparison is specious and revolting, and not adding to the discussion
2) whether the reasoning is islamic or not, there is a strong correlation today between islam and violent and radical religion.
or should i join you in neverland too?
Maybe this is my immature side emerging but I can't seem to stop laughing every time I look at that cartoon. I don't see why people need to get all worked up about something so trivial. And I am not saying this just because I'm a Hindu. I would probably find a Ganesh being used for advertising an "all you can eat" outlet immensely hilarious!
many of europe's muslim communities are highly dependent on the welfare state, the germans incinerated jews, they didn't put them up in public housing. so
The Jews were independent too not long before they were barricaded to certain parts of the cities. At one point they owned about 60% of the manufacturing factories in the Germany.
My point is, if the Danish or the French for that matter start treating all Muslims as radicals and impose restrictions on them, the public wouldn't oppose it because they have been bombarded with images depicting all Muslims as terrorists.
My comparision was to the early parts of the growth of anti-semetism, the perception of the common people. Not to the later part of events. My point was it could lead to such events....
AFAIK Christians always regarded Christ as God as opposed to a mortal prophet. Am I missing something here?
I tend to think the cartoons were meant to be deliberately provocative. Otherwise, Europeans have generally been very politically correct and sensitive on the surface no matter what their attitudes are in private. All of a sudden it seems they need to rebel. Part of the reason for this could be the double standard as someone pointed out in one of the posts here. If Hindus or Christians express outrage at similar things they are generally mocked for being rednecks. In the case of Muslims there is much temerity and people tend to side with them publicly. As a result a lot of genuine problems never get aired, discussed or critiqued.
I find it funny that people who are outraged by the cartoons nevertheless think this is permissible just because of free speech. When will the west transcend normative thinking and learn to contextualize? These things keep coming up but no-one seems to think that this is worth addressing.
My point is, if the Danish or the French for that matter start treating all Muslims as radicals and impose restrictions on them, the public wouldn't oppose it because they have been bombarded with images depicting all Muslims as terrorists.
My comparision was to the early parts of the growth of anti-semetism, the perception of the common people. Not to the later part of events. My point was it could lead to such events....
many things could happen. i don't think conjuring the shadow of nazism on the most minimal of pretenses is judicious. there is racism and prejudice against muslims, but the relation between muslims & europe and jews & europe in different time periods is radically different. the analogy, i suspect, more likely to polarize and inflame or render implausible to those who you address.
I wonder how many comments Abhi has had to delete already...
AFAIK Christians always regarded Christ as God as opposed to a mortal prophet. Am I missing something here?
no. the historical literature, and analysis of the bible, seems to suggest that the divination of jesus as normative took a few centuries (read paul closely for example). the arian christians rejected the trinity and the divine jesus (at least fully divine). nestorians believed that mary gave birth to the man jesus, not the god (though jesus was god). in the modern era jehovah's witnesses are explicit arians, as are christian unitarians, they regard jesus as a prophet.
Not really, I may be a lapsed Syrian-Orthodox and now a wavering Episcopalian. Christ is indeed God. The concept of the Holy Trinity is hard to grasp but the nuns at St. Ladislaus (a Polish Catholic school) taught it best when they said "Think of the Trinity as a three leaf clover....all three parts are equally the same leaf."
So there is no blasphemy in saying or worship Christ as God.
Huh?
I guess nobody wants to talk about the real matter at hand. Under the post war era the west has hardly ever resisted from flexing muscles? but when there is such progressive aggresion there is voice to, similar to the ones above which keeps the many drunken pledges of renewing the crusade and finishing the job inside and hidden in louge or backyard parties.
It is suprising to see noone ever talked about why are we sitting on this time bomb which keeps ticking loudly everytime there small misunderstanding? There is a deeper unrest nobody seems to be comfortable discussing.
Why are people so aggressive even after centuries of crusade? west isn't so matured either just because major economic structure is fashioned under the Colonist west does seem claim its self righteous status on every topic of the world.
Freedom of speech equals to responsibility not a license to make sure everything which hasn't been said have the right to be said. Who decides what is need to be said is said or not? Who would see the world through the eyes of the kids who lost their lifes in this utter madness?
or let us just agree we are hero worshippers, we herd up agaisnt the winner
Jo jeeta wohi sikandar
Baki sare Bandar...darwin you win
can we all just agree that god is a delusion and religion is a virus? we'd all be better off.
MG: query whether it is the rest of the world portraying Islam as a violent religion or the nutjobs themselves who are engaging in these kinds of ridiculously barbaric displays that are doing that. i don't think islam needs much help in being portrayed as a religion of violence.
"can we all just agree that god is a delusion and religion is a virus? we'd all be better off."
Hear, hear! And it's a tool for the ruling class (priests) to keep people under their thumb. Never trust a man who says "trust me without question, or die."
"We are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts
well freedom of speech just like the ganesh toilet seats.
freedom to offend is important.
From the kashmir conflagration:
Ok why destroy your environment over an incident that happened in europe....
Why should your neighbors have to smell the stink of a burning tire
This is the kind of nonsense i dont get, The danes didnt even notice or care
Though the furor over the cartoons may be politically motivated, and is well organized, the sheer intensity and violence of people's reactions worries me. No political party or government can whip people up into a frenzy to the extent we've witnessed, in a matter of days, unless there is an underlying, latent core of belief and emotion that propels people to march down the street and torch embassies, throw knives and stones, etc.
It's as though sections of the Muslim world -- maybe bifurcated based on national or class lines -- have this low-grade, simmering anger against all things "Western". It doesn't take much to rile them, especially if they are cynically manipulated by anti-Western rhetoric. But I suppose the real challenge for us Western-based defenders of free speech is this: how do we reach these sections of the Muslim world and address the core of anger and/or resentment directed at the West? Because if we don't, then the jihadists, the radical mullahs, and the extremists always will. In the meantime the pressure cooker continues to simmer, and we'll continue to see such outbursts with increasing intensity and violence.
Sadly, the more I look at the world the more Huntingtonian it looks.
Not all Christians believe that Christ is God from what I remember. There was a vote taken several hundred years after his death that elected him God. Even the Da Vinci Code touched on this I think. This is a very complicated debate and I don't remember enough details to lay it out with any confidence. The best source to explain the facts however, is The History of God by Karen Armstrong. Absolute must-read.
I just don't get why people need to die over this? Isn't that sort of counterproductive to the whole ethos of Islam?
Besides, Kofi is on our side. What he says sort of echoes the irony of the protests, as Abhi so cleverly pointed out :)
Maybe not baiting Muslims with crude and crass representations of Mohammad as a hook nosed terrorist would be a good start.
I don't see why the onus is on us. Not to get into a "you-started-it" situation, but shouldn't the Islamic world (i'm grossly overgeneralizing here) learn to be accountable for its own actions? I think at that's really what is at the core of all of this - who's willing to be accountable...
Who is 'us'? Are Musims living amongst us part of our societies or not?
If someone asks what we can do to gain the trust of moderate Muslims I suggested that not baiting and alienating them by publishing crass and crude cartoons depicting Mohammad would be a good place to start - especially because it plays into the agenda of the Jihadis. If you don't think that is important, then don't worry about it.
The plot thickens...
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18066746-1702,00.html?from=rss
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad
".....non-iconic representations of Muhammad are traditionally discouraged. From the 16th century, however, Persian and Ottoman art frequently represented Muhammad in miniatures, albeit with his face either veiled, or emanating radiance ..."
just take a look at what has happened in the past. i wonder how things will shape up for the muslim world once technology overtakes the west's dependence upon oil.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/06/8367959/index.htm (did u see the GMC yellow cap ads pre-superbowl)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2005/12/01/8364595/index.htm (vinod khosla)
and i'm not baiting the muslims/arabs as some kind of backward, underdeveloped thugs who needed to be shooed back to their deserts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Averroes
this guy came up with my favorite philosphical paradox - omnipotence paradox(well i guess i like it as i can understand it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox
The actions of Iran and other fire-stoking Muslim countries are incorrigible and indefensible. I personally feel sorry for the Muslims living in the UK and other places who are absolutely wrenched and living in distress because of this shit.
Well the onus is on everyone really -- including moderate Muslims. Jay Singh, I completely agree, there is nothing constructive in adding fuel to the fire.
But the issue here is much bigger than free speech, or even ethical or appropriate speech (which is what you are referring to). The big issue is: how do we get through to the growing, increasingly alienated and disaffected sections of the global Muslim diaspora, so that peaceful co-existence isn't just a pipe dream? There's a lot at stake here and *everyone* has a role to play regardless of their religious or national identity.
Case in point: Iran's Hamshahri clearly is not going to promote greater understanding or help in conflict resolution by publishing Holocaust cartoons -- it's an "eye for an eye" approach and we all know where that leaves us.
most likely b/c there is not an entrenched muslim establishment in the US that would stoke the fires of north american muslims in order to solidify its own political strength. and that kind of self-serving manipulation, i'd contend, is what we are reading about in europe, lebanon, afghanistan, and wherever else violent demonstrations have occurred. it's mobs of people incited by 'muslim' leaders. today it's the cartoon, a few weeks back its the Qu'ran down the toilet, and any other time it's female athletes in shorts or state bans on hijab.
i think your understanding of these protests has been to treat them as representative of muslims-in-general. that's a huge mistake. you've given those images too much meaning. most certainly, all over the world, muslims are non-violently protesting the Danish publication's cartoon. the global economic boycott on Danish goods has been successful precisely b/c it is popular with muslims who don't identify with those creating violence. however, peaceful protests aren't captured in the AP and Getty archives.
the Philly demo was, tho. and your conclusion then is that an intrinsic cultural difference explains why a north american demo appears peaceful and other demos around the world appear insane? you argue that there's something distinctly American about civil disobedience and protest-- other cultures don't have our love for the underdog, they don't have the potent rationalism that guides are movements.... hmm. i'm sorry, but that notion is weak, man. and highly problematic in that it reeks of whitebread American Exceptionalism. why are you, essentially, ranking protest models, assigning them to different cultures, and then privileging the one that comes easiest to you? it's not exactly a productive project.
finally, i don't think that we can condemn as idol worshippers those muslims who are riled up about the cartoon. the modern anxiety with images of the prophet is not simply a vestige of anti-idolatry; it is more powerfully a symptom of Europe's domination over muslim culture, thought, and semiotics. the Danish cartoonist literally appropriated the Prophet's meaning--something so central to muslims around the world because it defines their own meaning/subjectivity.
in any case, my main point is that this latest flare-up in the press and around the world can't be reduced to easy differentiations. stateside, we shouldn't feel compelled to make those reductions.
Luscious Moon
Do you have any idea how to do that? I don't, apart from generalities like, 'encourage democracy', 'support liberals' and blah blah blah
Let's face it - it is the biggest issue of our age. At the moment, knowing the racist crap my Muslim friends have to put up with in the aftermath of this stuff, the dire things this does for race and religious relations, I feel sad for them - and that they are not helped in their attempts to marginalise the Jihadis by goading them with really crass and offensive representations of Mohammad - playing straight into their hands.
I find it funny that people who are outraged by the cartoons nevertheless think this is permissible just because of free speech. When will the west transcend normative thinking and learn to contextualize? These things keep coming up but no-one seems to think that this is worth addressing.
It wont let me post under my name for some reason.
Ennis, let me try again although I'm not sure I'll succeed. Let's say you believe people should be civil. You also believe in the right to free speech. Now you have to balance between the two. You end up saying that free speech is an inviolable right and even hate speech is fine. This to me defies logic. That means one is willing to set all principles and all practicalities aside simply to worship at the altar of free speech. The ACLU's defense of the KKK comes to mind. Is this the best we can do? Must we deny ourselves the simple act of being human, being subjective, and find it necessary to dogmatically stick to the same stance in each and every instance? This is just a blog. This is not a court of law. It is of not much significance if people simply state that it was wrong of the Danish newspaper to publish those cartoons if they feel that way. There's no need to take cover behind the free speech thing. But I think it is this culture that compels people to forever *religiously* stick to one position or the other or else be branded a hypocrite. In India people are better able to contextualize. This type of thinking actually takes away from the debate as the discussion can never approach the shades of grey but only pitch black against white.
Hardly. Terrorism has been around since the dawn of civilization. It's the biggest hype of the decade. It's the new red scare, stoked by fundamentalists on both sides for political advantage, Dubya chief among them. Keep the people in fear and they will keep you in power. And it breeds a new punditocracy (Zakaria, Aslan) invested in further cranking the hype.
Easily bigger survival threats: North Korea nukes, Iran nukes, asteroid impact, war with China. Easily bigger economic threats: math/sci decline, culture of entitlement, competition with China.
The leadership knows this. The political wing stokes fear of terrorism while the military wing continues to plan for a conventional war with China-- not terrorists.
Beware the pundit-political complex :)
Most responsible muslim voices are calling only for peaceful protests. It is true for most muslim blogs writing on the issue, the MCB in Britain, even Qardhawi, etc. The morons in Beirut and Damascus did more harm than the cause the protests were for. The Irani newspaper is going down the wrong road. Abhi, great post. I agree that the philosophy is taking a backseat with respect to symbols when protests turn violent.
I don't think I ever claimed to. But you help me prove my point. Broadly conceived, goals such as the ones you suggested are understood to be the prerogative of the West (Europe and N. America), which would put the onus on 'us'. But they don't get us very far in the short-term. That is what I mean by saying that there is an onus on the Islamic world themselves for some introspection, a reformation of sorts that they never had. That would lead to creating a sense of accountability to self and to the global community.
I agree that it certainly is one of the critical issues these days. However, I just don't see why the West needs to tiptoe around Muslim sensitivities, when clearly, other religious sensitivities are fair game for the media. When I was a little girl, I had a beautiful hard-bound Oxford World Atlas in which Israel was blacked out on every single page that it was present in whole or part. Of course, this was purchased in the Middle East, because there weren't any other atlases that were available. I didn't get to hear the other side of the story until I left the region. I don't see Jewish people going up in arms about it.
I'm afraid I just don't see this as an issue of 'let sleeping dogs lie'. I refuse to apply a double-standard, and that might well be my personal choice and if so, its fine.
"Maybe this is my immature side emerging but I can't seem to stop laughing every time I look at that cartoon. I don't see why people need to get all worked up about something so trivial. And I am not saying this just because I'm a Hindu. I would probably find a Ganesh being used for advertising an "all you can eat" outlet immensely hilarious!"
May be taking offense and being violent because of such provocations is just as much a part of the Muslim Experience as "being blissfully oblivious to percieved infractions against religion " is that of Hindu Experience.
" good post, but, pre-Islamic roots of some of their cultures, you have a problem with arabian paganism?* :) instead of trying to point culturalist fingers let's just say it is what it is. i don't think there is an "authentic" islam that is "true" to a set of teachings, i've read translations of the koran, and it is vicious or pacific, depending on the passage. the weight you give to the interpretation function is all individual (or social)"
It may be pointed out here that islam prohibits the translation of koran. One may have read the translations of koran but it still is a translation which is limited in its abilty to reproduce the original by the translators own notions priori or apriori. The present day interpratation of islam makes it the violent religion with come across.
There couldn't have been any other motive (I'm speculating, of course) for publishing the cartoons other than to titillate and pander to the base emotions of their audience. Having said that, I find it absolutely shocking that some of the same people who day in and day out talk about "wiping Israel off the face of the earth" now have the cheek to say they are offended by this. Hypocrisy indeed.
I don't know, may be this is trivial, but the fact is, the notions of free speech as understood and accepted in the West have not yet been accepted elsewhere. This seems to me to be a fundamental problem here. Even in a democracy like India, most people would agree that these were offensive cartoons and the administration may have actually initiated action, with legal sanction, against the publication. I don't think there is a universal agreement on what constitutes free speech, and although I think the Western ideal in this regard is worth emulating, that is not the majority view. Many moderate Hindus (some of whom are vehemently anti-BJP), for example, thought MF Hussain was wrong in depicting Hindu godesses the way he did and wanted these to be banned (even if they didn't support violence). There are a multitude of factors at work here as pointed out already, but this is important, I think.
As for the protests taking a violent turn in certain places, first of all, these are places where the law-and-order situation is not quite on par with the Western world. Even more important, all these are places where religious/ethnic politics has huge stakes and so it always makes sense for certain vested interests to show that they are doing something about it, that they are 'defending Islam'.
There is hope.
Hmmmm, reading abhi's thoughtful post and the subsequent comments made me think about this line in Diane Johnson's Le Divorce (the setting is an American woman in bed with her French lover, discussing a Simpson's cartoon on French television): How strange to be culturally threatened by a cartoon.
Well, that's the first thing that went through my head. Sorry. I'm afraid I haven't much sympathy for the Christians upset by Piss Christ, or the Hindu's upset by whatever upsets the saffron brigade, or this group of thugs. How strange to be culturally threatened by a cartoon. Yes, yes, religion and blasphemy and racism and provocation. But, really. How can one cause a provocation if the other refuses to be provoked? It's all about control. It's always about control for these types.
Let speech be free.
MD, how do you feel about flag burning? Or politicians who want to outlaw it?
I don't think much of them, Ennis. It's political posturing: that's all it is.
Personally, as a liberal muslim I found 5 out of the 12 cartoons very offensive. I saw these images before this brouhaha around Oct/Nov last year and at that time attributed it to typical Danish xenophobia (of which I was well aware - heck even their Queen "We must show our opposition to Islam" Margarethe is somewhat Islamophobic).
But as things stand right now between the over zealous freedom of expressioners and the violent mobs in Lebanon & Syria, I think neither are defendable. Insensitive right wing media out to make a quick buck vs ignorant Islamists out to get power? I'll support neither thanks. Tabish Khair's opinion piece in the Guardian pretty much sums up how I, as a moderate, peace loving muslim feel.
The New Zealand Herald's Saturday editorial gives a very good reason for not reprinting the cartoons. To quote them:
"When any right is invoked, it can be hard to keep your head. As soon as an issue is framed as a test of press freedom, the temptation is to publish for no better reason than to assert that freedom... But in this country, and most others where newspapers have strutted a hairy chest on this issue, Muslims are a small minority of the population and we are free to offend their religious sensitivities if we want to. The only question to consider is, why would we want to?"
"We ask the question, would we insult Christians simply to prove that we have a right to do so?"
One of the biggest myths about all of this is that Islam prohibits the drawing of Mohammed. The link below feature numerous paintings and drawings of Mohammed, most of them painted by Muslim artists from the Middle Ages. As time went one, Mohammed would be drawn, but often the face would be veiled. It was only with the onset of mass publication technology that the prohibition against depicting Mohammed came into full force. Because, if history has shown us anything, is that God or other religious figures are made in the image of man.
Somehow Jesus, over time, went from being a Jew with skin of burning brass and hair like a wooly lamb to a blonde, long-haired blue eyed son of God. Buddha went from becoming a North Indian male to his common depiction know as an East or Southeast Asian. If there was a real Moses, would he have had the longevity to walk through a desert for 40 years? Unlikely, but its one heck of a story.
If Mohammed were allowed to be drawn according to an individuals will and ideas well, maybe he would look Asian, seeing as how Indonesia is the worlds largest Muslim nation. Or maybe black, since Islam is spreading quickly in Africa. But that would mean if you can imagine Mohammed in different guises, then you run the risk of debating his teachings. And that is what the religious despots fear.
As has been pointed, these cartoons have been out for months, but it is only now, one year after the hopeful Arab spring, that forces desperate to cling onto to their power need to distract the masses. Hey, it worked for Khomeini in the late 80s thousands of Iranians dead from war, country is isolated, and the economy is in the toilet pass a death sentence on a British author to keep the masses in line. And considering the low level of education in much of the Middle East, this is not that hard. Somehow, a region is driven to outrage not by the carnage wrought by car bombs exploding in a mosque during Ashura, but by the sketchings in a language that none of them can read (few of them are literate in Arabic, to boot)
A number of pundits have pointed out the Islam needs to undergo its own Reformation. What they forget is just how violent that period was.
Of all the essays currently written about this, I think Andrew Sullivan had the most concise take on it.
Your Taboo, Not Mine Time Magazine, Feb 13, 2006
These double standards reveal something quite clear: this call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others and intimidation of free people.
Christopher Hitchen's had this take on it - Cartoon Debate
"The prohibition on picturing the prophetwho was only another male mammalis apparently absolute. So is the prohibition on pork or alcohol or, in some Muslim societies, music or dancing. Very well then, let a good Muslim abstain rigorously from all these. But if he claims the right to make me abstain as well, he offers the clearest possible warning and proof of an aggressive intent. This current uneasy coexistence is only an interlude, he seems to say. For the moment, all I can do is claim to possess absolute truth and demand absolute immunity from criticism. But in the future, you will do what I say and you will do it on pain of death."
Mohammed Image Archive
Personally, I think I'm going to express solidarity with Denmark, and go buy some Carlberg Beer
In Christianity for example, many sects now worship Christ as God, instead of seeing him as only a mortal prophet.
Nice chrisitianity slam..for your information Christ is not a mortal phophet.He was the Son of God...
Im not sure what you gained by your inaccurate comment.
This is not a Christianity slam. If you look at the history of Christianity you will see that the idea of Christ has evolved over two thousand years. What he represents has also changed.
Hi Im Roy, just start the journey in the blog-world. New . so learning the tricks in peeping in others blog without any prior permission (sorry for that!!). Heii, why not take a look to my blog: (http://comeonroy.blogspot.com/) & tell me where I need to improve. Most important, maybe you can also get something new & interesting stuff ..maybe!!
Hoping to hear you..
Roy
From Wikipedia:
I felt nice reading this post. Thank you for upholding common sense in a crazy world. Keep up the good work SM.
This was on Pickled Politics 2 days ago so probably you all have seen it, but for some reason this little fact from Aqoul has stood out among all the other stories I've read the past few days.
Between seeing embassies in flames on the news, and coming home to a boyfriend who obsessively watches Hitler documentaries in an attempt to understand the past, I can't help but form very dark thoughts about the way Europe is going to start responding to Muslims in the near future. It appears like secular people are reaching a breaking point with the fundies, while the media happily fans the fire. I live in a Pakistani neighborhood, how can I not feel the slightest bit freaked out to see images of arseholes calling for massacres in central London? And this is from someone whose boyfriend is a recovering Muslim, and who has edited a Muslim documentary for a director who works for a Shi'a foundation, so I'm not likely to make sweeping generalizations but I still admit to feeling very worried and scared about this clash of cultures.
The number of sects who believe Christ as God outnumber those who do not by about 90% (I am pulling this number out of my ass here), but put the Catholics, all the Protestants and Orthodox and that is a whole bunch of them.
The vast majority of the Christian denominations, and certainly the major ones like Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptist, Methodist, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox ,Syrian Orthodox believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ as part of the holy trinity.
Abhi said:
In Christianity for example, many sects now worship Christ as God, instead of seeing him as only a mortal prophet.
Abhi, you are certainly entitled to this view, but in fact it is a view not widely shared by the vast majority of Christians. I acknowledge that minor Christian denominations may subscribe to this view, but it is a tiny minority.They are fully entitled to their beliefs, but it is a fallacy to think that this is a widely held tenet among believers.
I never meant to imply it was widely held belief in modern day Christianity. I do know however that in the first few centuries following Christ's death, it was hotly contested whether or not he was divine. It was the rise in the power of the Papacy that firmly tipped the balance and encouraged people to become believers.
That is a blatant lie. Fortuyn was assassinated by Volkert van der Graaf, a white collar left-wing environmentalist (he was a native dutch).
"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."
Cartoons depicting jews is different to cartoons depicting Mohammad, Moses, Jesus etc. Do the Arab media run cartoons of Moses or even King David? There are thousands of cartoons about MUSLIMS - that's fine. But one cannot expect friendship after (willfully) insulting a sacred person. After all, would you continue friendship with someone who called your mother a dirty whore?
I for one am glad that we've finally made a "cultural stand" and declared a value (Free Speech) that can't been "toleranced" away. Bravo Danes.
Probably not. But I'd be unlikely to burn down their embassy or threaten 'em with suicide bombers either. World of difference.
I'm personally pretty tired of the various shades of the "we've brought this upon ourselves" argument. It's a cheap way to avoid the underlying clash cuz there will ALWAYS be someplace where *we* should "start". It's like saying the old USSR would be our friends if we just played nice with Cuba, Vietnam, N. Korea....
Ultimately, we have to confront the underlying, cultural conflict. Ours is a culture / philosophy (free speech, capitalism, empowered women, "tolerance", yadda yadda yadda) with global ambitions whether we admit it or not (try holding back the tide of Globalization and shielding your kids from Britney). So is theirs (submission of all, ultimate triumph of Dar al Islam, death for apostasy/blasphemy, yadda yadda yadda). (and no, I'm not talking about all Muslims - there are some fantastic ones out there... and it's unfortunate how a minority has hijacked their name... )
BUT, even a doctrine of "tolerance" ultimately prescribes certain things that folks MUST be, well, *intolerant* about - e.g. "free speech", "free association", women's political views, etc. The conflict (to use Brooksian language) is essential, not accidental.
I have been reading this thread with great interest in addition to Desicritics and Pickled Politics.
One thing: Danish Government should not responsible or is supposed to police cartoons and press.
Probably, Cicatrix is correct that the cartoons are an extension of xenophobic under-currents. Others have been saying that too. That is too bad, since in WW 2, the King of Denmark and other genteel citizens wore "Yellow Star" to say they all were Jews in defiance to Nazis. Times have changed.
Maybe, a lot of violent expression is extension of deeper problem of ghettoization of muslims in Europe.
But still, freedom of speech is non-negotiable.
I was checking Prophet Muhammad images through centuries provided by KXB, they are quite intriguing.
Why else would people in third world countries go on a violent rampage against Denmark?
They've also gone on the rampage against US and Austrian (among others) embassies/institutions. What explains that? The State Dept has actually condemned the cartoons.
It doesn't much take in certain parts of the world for protests to turn violent, e.g., Kashmir.
If not the cartoons, it would have been something else (Muslim youths killed while being chased by cops?, a movie an Islamicist doesn't like?, a book he doesn't like?)
Since when was maintaining principles and being diplomatic mutually exclusive?
"late last year, the Danish prime minister refused to meet a group of Arab diplomats who wished to register their protest. In most other countries they would have been received, their protest accepted. The government would have expressed "regret" and told them it could not put pressure on any media outlet as a matter of law and policy. In their turn, having done their Muslim duty, these diplomats might have helped lessen the reaction in their respective countries. By not meeting them, the prime minister silenced all moderate Muslims just as effectively as they would be later silenced by militant Muslims around the world."
It's from the Guardian link I posted earlier.
I hope you enjoy it :)It was the rise in the power of the Papacy that firmly tipped the balance and encouraged people to become believers.
i don't think this is so, the papacy wasn't that powerful when the nicene creed was accepted (the papacy as we know it is really, i think, due to gregory the great in the late 6th century). to be pedantic, i suspect is the tilting of the balance from jewish christianity to gentile christianity and the decline of the jewish fraction amongst the believers that allowed jesus to be easily divinized, god-men were a common feature in the pagan religious zeitgeist (and god-men born of virgins at that), and one jews frowned upon. the divine status of christ was common by the time of bishop iraenaeus (180) and pretty normative by the time of the greatest early christian philosopher, origen (early 3rd century). it was surely the majoritarian position by the time that the athanasian creed was accepted as official by the grace of constantine in 325.
on a point of irony, though the indian orthodox church has associations with monophysite jacobite christianity, which emphasizes the unitary nature of christ (rejects chalcedon), there is work that suggests its origins lay with nestorian christianity, who tended to strictly separate god and man (mary was not the mother of god, but of the man). so the subtle shadings don't matter much :)
p.s. abhi, please do not rely on anything that the da vinci code says regarding early christianity, i've seen even agnostic biblical scholars savage it for its disortions of the subtle dynamics of the early church and theology.
- that the whole thing was the product of Rasmussen not taking a meeting
- OR, that by not taking the meeting Rasmussen's committed a wrong and is thus equally bad
either way, we're in pretty violent (pardon the pun) disagreement. Just cuz no one's a saint doesn't mean that everyone's an equal sinner.
This mess was NOT because of a meeting snub.
This was because of underlying principles in conflict - the right to speech & blaspheme on one side, and the mandate the kill the blasphemous on the other. Rasmussen's meeting or lack thereof is but a fly on the ass of the proverbial elephant in the room here.
Poking vicious fun at people of other religion is horrendously bad, especially for people who want to call themselves civilized.
However, I cannot help but wonder why it is ok to print Ganesh and Shiv on flip flops and toilet seats / toilet paper while this causes several people to die. Or do we not consider Hindus human beings anymore?
Poking vicious fun at people of other religion is horrendously bad, especially for people who want to call themselves civilized.
it is bad only if you privilege religion. word to religionists, not everbody does! i certainly don't, though prudentially i respect it because people might kill me if i keep shitting on their ground of being.
Again, another personal analogy - would you go back to a store where a service rep racially offended you and their manager didn't give a damn?
(ugh I wish I could spell 'bengali' correctly once in while :\ )
Well, by not meeting and just LISTENING to their grievance Rasmussen essentially showed the Islamic community the finger. He made a diplomatic faux pas so surely you can understand why those whose feelings the Danish govn. doesn't give a hoot about would take their business elsewhere?
i think you must essentially concede then though that rasmussen's snub isn't going to be the straw that broke the camel's back.
But the fact remains, that by not even acknowledging that muslims could have been offended (before it recently grew out of proportion), the Danish PM was indifferent to the cultural sensitivity of his trading partners. How can you not see that?
this isnt much different from saying that world war I broke out only because of the assasination of archduke ferdinand and completley ignoring the whole host of underlying/systemic/root (as vinod said) causes...its simply refusing to acknowledge the bigger reasons for why this happened and pinning the blame on Rasmussen.
Abhi,
It gets more interesting, the guy you show in the post.......
'Suicide bomber' is freed drug dealer
He might go to jail again for parole violation
Manish
I just don't buy the line that this issue is all a manufactured diversionary hype by the right and the extremists - if everybody is talking about it, if the issues ask us deep questions about our polity and ideas, if everyone has an opinion - it is the issue of the time.
It was simmering since 1989 - since September 2001 it is close to defining our time. I don't think you can deny that - even if you think it is all an artfully manufactured conspiracy to distract us.
I feel the Muslims are to blame for these cartoons, things like 9\11,Bin Laden, Saddam, Kashmir, Beslan dont bring good memories in people minds. These cartoons are the impressions of Islam in people's mind due to the sad, unfortunate incidents done in the name of the religion. Whats done is done, Muslims should now focus on improving their image rather than screwing it up further with violent attacks like the ones in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and other places.
Since I've already posted a few comments on this subject on Pickled Politics and SM participants may therefore have already read my views there, I'll keep things relatively brief in the interests of not repeating myself.
Possibly, possibly not. It would be wise not to confuse Sufism with orthodox Islam. There are injunctions in the latter which command Muslims to kill anybody who ridicules or insults Islam's prophets.
Not exactly. What many Muslims are "defending" is Mohammad himself, along with his "honour". Plus, as has already been stated, they believe they are acting according to the principles of orthodox Islam in the sense that any pictoral depiction of Mohammad (regardless of whether it is offensive or not) is a capital offense.
I agree that the timing of the publication of these cartoons does, at first glance, look like a suspiciously deliberate attempt to fan the flames of an already furious inferno, but I don't buy any "right-wing conspiracy theory" (although extreme right-wingers with their own agendas to promote will certainly use the violent Muslim reaction to justify their own aims).
However, there are 3 points I'd like to make in conclusion:
1. We have a right to exercise "freedom of speech" -- not an obligation to do so. Re-printing those cartoons purely for the principle of freedom of expression, gratuitously, knowing that they are incredibly offensive and yet "doing it anyway", demonstrates a serious lack of strategic thinking along with suicidal stupidity and stubbornness. It also plays right into the hands of OBL and his fellow jihadists who wish to promote the idea amongst Muslims that "the West" has no respect or sensitivity towards them as human beings or their religious beliefs.
2. The "eye-for-an-eye" Holocaust cartoon contest being promoted by Iran is quite pathetic. It smacks of a schoolboy-type immaturity on the part of the culprits involved, and it certainly isn't going to do them any favours with regards to their relationship with Israel and, of course, their image in the eyes of the rest of the world (especially when you consider that Iran is already potentially the next target for military action due to their nuclear ambitions etc).
3. Ironically, the psychopathically violent reaction of Muslims worldwide just corroborates the point some of the original cartoons were making, along with confirming other people's worst fears of the irrationality and fanaticism of Islam's followers. Basically, they've fallen into their own trap and are hanging themselves with their own rope.
To clarify the British angle for the benefit of our US-based desi cousins, here are some statistics from today's Times newspaper here in the UK:
46% of British Muslims ‘think the Jews in Britain are in league with the Freemasons to control the police and government’.
30% of British Muslims do NOT believe Israel has the right to exist.
37%, more than one in three, about half a million people, think the Jewish community in Britain is a ‘legitimate target’.
7% think suicide bombs in the UK would be justified. This comes to approximately 100,000 people supporting the concept.
Approximately 500 people were surveyed, with about 1/3 being from the London area.
I just saw a bunch of illustrations of the Prophet apparently made by Islamic artists during medival times. I would post the link to it but I'm not sure if the SM staff wants me to do so. I'll wait till they give the ok. Or you can just go to Instapundit.com scroll down and you'll find it.
However, there is still hope:
"Moderate British Muslims plan rally against extremism over cartoons"
Europe has already curtailed free speech in some cases.
COUNTRIES WITH LAWS AGAINST HOLOCAUST DENIAL IN EUROPE:
France
Austria
Germany
Switzerland
Belgium
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Poland
Slovakia
While the last thing anyone on this forum - even when they are trying to not immediately and completely condemn "Islamists" (what IS that?) supports is violence, it's difficult to ignore the fact that not only are the demonstrators reacting to long-simmering issues (which Vinod-at-Large has pointed out a few times) but also the fact that those "issues" are a long history of subtle and overt racism, baiting, imperialism and all kinds of injustice. Do a few cartoons automatically equal global riots? Of course not. And to suggest that they do over estimates the punch packed by these cartoons (they aren't even all that great) and the menal blance of hundreds of thousands of peole (and you can't tell me that they are ALL suffering from delusional paranoia). I find this arguement that "we" are merely defending "free speech, capitalism, empowered women, "tolerance""(when did we all become cheerleaders for Bush?) while "they" support things like "submission of all, ultimate triumph of Dar al Islam, death for apostasy/blasphemy" (post 85) is just a perpetuation of what has created this kind of anger in the first place.
We may say we support all these things, but we don't. We're hypocrites and even if, sitting in our comfy suburban/hip urban homes, it looks like that's what we're about, let's take a moment to think about the child labour, the union busting, the gender pay inequity, the bigots against gay marriage, the pornographic, the secret coups, the propping up of monsterous regimes, the pharmaceutical companies withholding drugs from the people who are the most vunerable and who go after goverments that try to rectify this with reverse-technology, the environmental devestation, the ghettoization of low-income (usually brown or black or yellow) immigrants, the obesity, the over indulgence, the energy sucking, tree-felling, Wal-mart loving, mass-producing, invading countries under all kinds of lies that we know are lies universe we also support. You want to talke about free speech? Ask someone who doesn't support "capitalism" and who holds large-scale demos (peaceful ones - not riots) what happens when the FTAA or some other bastian of our free world is in town to represent. They get charged by riot police, pepper-sprayed, tear gassed and jailed under false pretences.
So to pontificate that "our" values are being undermined makes me laugh. We undermind our "values" constantly. When you set up a situation where not only do you continously violate all these so called ideals on one hand and yet paint yourself morally superior because you apparently have them on the other, it's (to put it mildly) irritating enough to the "others" you're off-setting your identity against. When, after years of stregnthening this divide, of having a perhaps puzzled public as to "why do those other people hate us so?" and governments, never as naive as we think, know why they do, to bait this already incited and angered population is not just an excercise of your god-given right to spout verbal diarrhea, it's adding insult to injury and it's just plain stupid.
The Muslim demonstrators are a rabid crowd. And rabid crowds, as we saw in Paris a few months ago and then in Australia later on, don't necessarily listen to reason and they come off as looking crazy - and yes, they are crazed. But as anyone who took the time to read about what was going on in Paris and then on the Australian beaches knows, there were some long-brewing, very complex issues of injustice, marginalisation and hate that sparked them both. If we can read the complex histories that gave rise to those equally frightening clashes, why do we have SUCH a blind spot whenever the conflict involves the "west"/Hindus on one side and "Muslims" on the other? The rioters may be crazed but they are not crazy. People (and I'm excluding sociopaths) don't do things because they just wake up as a collective whole wanting to wreck havoc and devestation. They do them out of anger and out of desperation and because, like it or not - we've created an us-v-them scenario and we're at war. We call it terrorism, riots, we scratch our heads. They call it imperialism, neo-imperialism and invasions. Those cartoons weren't even funny. They weren't smart, they weren't interesting. All they reflected was a bunch of half-baked ideas about "Moslems". I fail to even see the purpose of them - other than the fact that racist cartoons in newspapers are a long tradition. And since they can't quite as easily draw caricatures of oh, I don't know, "Japs" or "Hindoos" or "commie Ruskis" or haha "starving Africans" these days, let's all shit on Muslims because they're terrorists anyway and not too many people are all that sympathetic to them and we need someone to demonise.
The next time some Danish newspaper wants to sanctimonously defend free speech it should maybe actually pick interesting artists or tackle issues that it's familiar with on a deeper level than "those Muslims are craaaaaazy - they're brown and they wear turbans and they have funny ideas about heaven and we can't draw thier prophet". Yes, a total knee-slapper, dead on.
The craziest Mo-fo in this whole fiasco is this British Asian kid Omar Khayam who went to the protest rally dressed as a suicide bomber!
Though sadly, Mr Creative had to apologize in front of the national media the next day. I am presuming his dad's chappal led to this apology.
Haha.
Any FREEDOM, even the freedom of speech comes with significant responsibility. The freedom to bear arms is a good example. While I may carry a weapon I must handle it responsibly. Same applies if I carry a pen. Freedoms are not blank checks.
Hmmmm, I wish I hadn't included the examples of Piss Christ or Hindu fundamentalists (okay, maybe that is an apt analogy what with the rioting and all) in my last comment. You can't equate peaceful and non-peaceful protest which is the whole point of abhi's post.
brownfrown - interesting comment, but it's unlikely that the rioters are rioting against the evils of global capitalism or against Wal-Mart............way to project your Western normative...........
debauchery
You don't know how crazy that Mofo is - he was on parole from a six year jail term for sell crack - he's a drug dealer!
In other news from London, crazy mullah Abu Hamza is convicted of inciting racial hatred and murder!
Crazy Mofos!
Sarbpreet
Nad example. A gun can kill. A pen cannot. Unless you stab someone with it. Lets ignore that though, and say that there is no comparison. If you think about it, you shall realise how ridiculous this comparison is.
Correction - 'Nad example' was of course meant to say BAD example.
Hey, Hindu fundamentalists have a history of rioting, making death threats, destroying film sets, harassing and vandalising artists and their work, and burning down libraries.
Hey, Hindu fundamentalists have a history of rioting, making death threats, destroying film sets, harassing and vandalising artists and their work, and burning down libraries.
Are you being facetious or is there any evidence for the above?
Good point by Radhika - I think she means, apart from the wrecking of Deepa Mehta's movie set, the threats harassment and vandalisation of MF Hussain and his artworks, the burning down of libraries in Maharasthtra, the harassment, vilification, intimidation and death threats to the American academic Wendy Doniger and other assoret atrocities.
Let's get one thing straight - what is happening with these Islamic cartoon protests is wrong - but I think Hindus should also reflect on the tendency amongst people to riot, slash, burn, intimidate and generally cause mayhem and silence freedom of speech all in the name of responding to 'offence' caused to Hinduism.
Let's not forget Sikh extremists throwing stones at a theatre in Birmingham and threatening novelist Bharati Mukherjee in America for writing about Khalistanis too.
Just a reminder that FASCISM is a toad that lurks in the corner of the Hindu (and Sikh) living room too - amidst all this schadenfreude at the discomfort of Muslims.
Looking at the reaction of our desi conservatives like Vinod_at_large and KXB (they want to buy Danish now), and the reaction in general from the as usual completely crazed Right Wing Net Punditry community,
I saw this interesting comment via Washington Post from a blog which is right on:
The Mahablog:
The bottom line is this: Shackleford is at least coming very close to admitting what many on the far Right clearly seem to believe, but are not willing to openly state. That is, we are not simply fighting terrorists and radical extremists, but are in fact engaged in a holy war against Islam.
This, IMO, gets to the heart of why the Right Blogosphere is obsessed with this story, the way they were obsessed with the recent French riots. They want a holy war against Islam. They are itching for it. Not that any of them would volunteer to fight, of course See also Jazzs post The Bloodlust of the Unhinged Right Wing.
Meanwhile the Right Blogosphere has gone foaming-at-the-mouth, hair-on-fire crazy over the cartoon controversy. Theyve worked themselves up to a screaming pitch about the mad dog Muslims who are fixing to massacre Europe. They have gone off the insufferable self-righteousness scale because most American newspapers will not republish the cartoons, and those newspapers and the State Department and, of course, liberals are all wussie sell-outs of democratic principles.
Can we say theyve come unhinged? I think we can.
MD - of course the rioters aren't protesting Wal-Mart (I wish). I was just using examples of the hypocracy that exists on our side when we start condemning the 'barbaric' practices of others - especially when we use that moral highground and skewed logic to Take Over the Wooooorld!!! (economically or with information-techonolgy or bad sitcoms or "secularism", you know what I mean). And even if every last rioter isn't aware of the intricacies of global capitalism I think it's fair to say there's a deep-seated, almost intangilbe rage towards this hegemonising culture who seems out to antagonise/villify/continue invading thier own... possibly to sell them some more Americana.
Btw - there's a lot that's ripe for reform in many many Muslim countries. Same goes on this end though.
debauchery
Post that at Pickled Politics - watch the explosions and indignation.
Post what Jay?
Out of curiosity, will there be a 'Fatwa' declared on the artists? It'd be interesting to see how their lives have changed now. I assume that they have pretty high level security now.
The thing about the right desperate to turn this into generalised Islam Bashing - some of the right wingers there are sensitive to such accusations.
K, I will, my mischievous little provocateur!
There already have been fatwas declared. For example, didn't some imam in the Middle East (Lebanon ?) say that they want "nothing less than the heads of those responsible" ?
And yes, all 12 artists in Denmark are now under police protection.
Jay Singh,
I believe the most appropriate term for such people is "pakhandee". The same applies to everyone else involved in screaming retribution against Europe and "the West" as a whole, including the ex-Al Muhajiroun types.
The majority of Muslim people need to stop dancing to the tune of a few politicians. If someone pokes the lion, he/she doesnt need to kill the whole jungle.
zfr.:
Thank you! As I read the original post this disturbed me; I scoured the comments hoping that someone else thought the same.
I've been to large protests in the US in which the vast vast vast majority of the protesters marched peacefully while carrying signs much like the ones in Philly, yet somehow it's always the angry flag-burning minority which attracts the eye of the photo editor. The one in Philly seemed like a small scale, community-organized protest which was unlikely to have any of the angry crowd because it was so self-selecting. I'm sure someone on this forum knows someone who was involved with organizing it - eh eh?
One last quibble:
Because it's not level-headed logic. Rape survivors' names are kept secret in order to protect their identity and for their safety, because of the social stigma surrounding rape. This makes it easier for survivors to begin the difficult task of moving on and enables them to disclose whatever information they want to whomever they choose. This has absolutely nothing to do with having the good sense not to publish distasteful material. But then again, I'm no average American citizen...
Innocent question: for the non-muslim mutineers, can someone please explain how one is to infer that the cartoon (above) is of the Prophet Muhammed, and not just a random (if still somewhat racist) caricature? I sense that this is somehow critical to the matter.
Very thorough and well done summary, Abhi.
I am a Muslim in America and had, until now, avoided seeing the cartoons. When I saw it on this site, I cringed. My veil of education and the ability to voice my opinion the U.S. (and have it heard) prevented the thought of violence from ever occuring. But I did cringe, and I did feel the need to respond, peacefully.
Now transport me to a country where a Muslim like myself is likely poor, uneducated, and not heard by the government it is trying to reach out to. Countries where overzealous religious leaders want their peoples voices heard but does not have the constituency to do so peacefully and intelligently.
I am not even remotely condoning their actions or violence. Simply transposing my situation to try to understand where this outrage is coming from. Many posters on this thread have neglected to take into account the various backgrounds muslims come from, there are political and cultural differences involved in the disgusting responses to the cartoons. Please don't lump all muslims together when analyzing why they are reacting the way they are. I was as baffled by their responses as everyone else until i attempted to understand why it was happening. There is always a reason behind these things, always a direct cause.
DesiDancer,
The cartoons were originally triggered by a request involving an illustrated children's book, where Mohammad was part of the story. Many of the artists were hesitant or indeed outrightly afraid to draw Mohammad due to the Islamic prohibition on the matter. Apparently a Danish newspaper subsequently ran a contest for artists to show how they viewed Mohammad (in the interests of addressing the questions of "self-censorship" and "freedom of expression"), and the 12 controversial cartoons were what resulted.
A Danish commenter gives a detailed background to the story on the Pickled Politics blog here. (Post number 15).
The current issue of Time magazine has an interesting article entitled "Your Taboo, Not Mine".
It makes an excellent point in the following paragraph:
"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?"
This is exactly what I've been thinking. No riots or death threats against OBL and his allies in response to 9/11 and subsequent similar atrocities ? Is an offensive cartoon about Mohammad really far worse than the ongoing jihad against the West -- and innocent civilians worldwide -- which has been conducted in the name of Islam during the past few years ?
Now transport me to a country where a Muslim like myself is likely poor, uneducated, and not heard by the government it is trying to reach out to. Countries where overzealous religious leaders want their peoples voices heard but does not have the constituency to do so peacefully and intelligently.
>>In Lebnan, Seria and UK Muslims are poor?
They're poor in Indonesia and Nigeria.
A lot of people have been saying:
With freedom of speech/ expression comes responsibility.
Agreed. Respect for others is indeed expected and should be practised.
However,
Who monitors it? Danish Government. No.
Freedom of Speech = Freedom to Offend
They're poor in Indonesia and Nigeria.
>>I thought they torched the buildingds in Lebnan and Seria. And one Londoner in pictures above was asking for cartoonists head. All these people are poor? And since they are poor they should be dumb/insensitive/EastToTurnFanatic too as IQ and poverty are related to eachother. Cool.
Oh yeah - the poverty of the UK - Third World country.
One of the London suicide bombers - his father was a successful businessman and he drove a Mercedes - the poverty thing is a complete straw man - Jihadis are comfortable - hell, some of them are rich drug dealers and lawyers doctors etc
Fine. So we agree that killers come from all sorts of backgrounds and all kinds of religions from all corners of the world.
How many people here believe that this is about sacrilege?
I don't.
A couple of years back, I forget which it was, Time or Newsweek carried a very "respectful" depiction of Muhammad. The said copy was banned in various Muslim country's and widespread protests were held.
What I mean to say is that they [the protestors] want to take away my right to depict Muhammad in any way at all.
And I for one refuse to relinquish that right.
And by the by, the "peaceful" protest by the Philedelphia Mulsims is a bunch of crock.
Where were they when Theo Van Gogh was killed in their name?
Where were they when thirteen school girls were allowed to be burnt to death in a high school in Mecca, Saudi Arabia because they were sans purdah.
Where are the protests when Muslim are ethnically cleansing minorities from Muslim lands?
etc, etc, etc.......
Tom
Yeah congratulations you know how to google - you are smart.
Dude - people who use the poverty excuse for Jihadism are the worst sort of ostriches - none of the UK Jihadis come out of 'poverty'. Poverty is not the reason for this - ideology is. Those who claim poverty is an engine are either disingenuous or wearing blinders.
Can we say theyve come unhinged? I think we can
With a deadline looming in the background, having worked non-stop since yesterday this bit of levity could not come at a better time.
The right-wing nuts are becoming unhinged? So a couple of guys posting on their own blogs is now equivalent to torching embassies, calling for a 9/11 in Europe, running Holocaust denial cartoon contests, and general murder and mayhem.
Lets call this for what it is victimology par excellance. Having squandered their oil wealth, and failing to cultivate human capital at home, the failed states of the Middle East need to continuously remind their people how they have been screwed by the system. Anyone know the Arabic equivalent of Blaming the Man?
Within Europe, you have substantial Muslim immigrant groups that fail to assimilate, arguably to preserve their culture, yet do not mind the ample public assistance programs that such kaffir nations provide. Interestingly, non-Muslim immigrant groups, such as Caribbeans, Africans, Sikhs, and Hindus do not feel the same compulsion to vent their own frustrations with the threat of violence.
A few weeks ago, a number Sepia posters were feeling all smug at the foolishness of some Christian groups attempting to introduce intelligent design into American school curriculums. So one superstition is deserving of mockery while the other needs to be respected? Why? It has little to do with the innate value of Islam (which in its current petrified state is of declining value), and more of the willingness of some Muslims to engage in violence, while the majority Muslim community silently stands by.
Boston globe had an excellent editorial [link]
My point exactly DesiDancer. These cartoons have less to do with freedom of speech than deep-seated racism. What do the cartoonists choose to caricature? Some kind of inconsisentcy inherent to Muslim culture/Islam perhaps? A subject they've done some research on? Something on which they have something intelligent to say? No. They choose to go for cheap humour, painting Muslims as hook-nosed insane bearded brown men in turbans. They depict the prophet as Apu's slightly more sinsiter neighbour, a Peter Sellers in brownface feeding the birdie poisoned num-nums, a Soup Nazi or Babu having an especially murderous day. I'm surprised more people on this forum aren't outraged by the level of racism that has carefully gone into each of these depictions and to this project as a whole. Freedom of speech = freedom to offend... but why, in this case? What purpose do these racist caricatures serve?
The relative frequency to which it exists is less
Dude, what I wrote was a part of conversation that started after saira (comment #136) wrote on how an outraged and (probably)uneducated Muslim who is poor might react after seeing these images. She was speculating on a possible reason for the violent protests. Jehadis and Jehad came into picture when you jumped in.
ever heard of any incidences of buddhist extremism?
Just wanted to clear up some confusion
Abhi, FYI those most of those same "sects" who worship Christ as Godwhich someone else already pointed out make up the majority of Christiansconsider Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. to be apostate because of their theological views. Furthermore, (about) the only reason Christians arent considered Jews is because of the fact that Jesus specifically stated I and the Father are one. Traditional Jewish theology called that declaration apostate. If you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ (Messiah) and you believe that he is one with Godand was when he was on earththen youre Christian. Otherwise, youre something other than Christian. Im not sure what
Razib, I would be interested to know what passages by the apostle Paul you are referring to. Paul was quite aware of his contemporaries views. In the opening of his letter to the Galatian church he repeatedly warns them of people preaching other gospels. He then goes on to detail the time he spent with the disciples trained by Jesus (Peter, Barnabas, etc.) to establish his legitimacy.
As for the cartoon, was whatever jab newspaper was trying to make worth the reaction it caused? Doubt it.
Came across this very juicy tidbit - warrants sharing.
Guess which country is to chair the security council when the Iran nuke issue is tabled for hearing ?
Yup. It is Denmark.
Conspiracy anybody?
Dude, what I wrote was a part of conversation that started after saira (comment #136) wrote on how an outraged and (probably)uneducated Muslim who is poor might react after seeing these images. She was speculating on a possible reason for the violent protests.
>>And my point was that majority of Muslims living in Lebnan, Seria and UK were not poor. And the most violent protests have come from these countries. Most fundamentlism committed in recent times isnt by poor uneducated folks but by those with professional degrees.
So Saira needs to think little bit differently and should look for different reasons.
If you were speculating on how poverty interfaces with Jihadism and violent protest I did not introduce it - you were already talking about it, Einstein. Duuuh.
Having squandered their oil wealth, and failing to cultivate human capital at home, the failed states of the Middle East need to continuously remind their people how they have been screwed by the system. Anyone know the Arabic equivalent of Blaming the Man?
Saudi Arabia, if I'm not mistaken, is beginning to demonstrate non-natural resources related growth. Dubai is marketing itself as the Singapore of the Middle East--and its economy is built primarily on services. The Arab nations as a whole may be poor by Western standards, but they are not that poor.
Did anyone notice the silence of Indian media on the topic, while it made it to frontpages in other parts of the world? Probably because they would stand for 'free-speech', 'free-press' etc. which would inadvertantly offend the minority.
AFAIK, nothing like Jehadi extremism
1.) If rhetoric counts then you may find examples of Buddhist (Singhalese) monks spouting off against "Dravidos".
2.) Also, when I was in Sri Lanka (10 years ago), I have heard news of young monks (with shaved heads and robes) being recruited into army. This was a gimmick by the government to boost the enlistment during height of the war. It was interesting to watch monks carrying sub-machineguns.
3). And some incidences of violence in Bodhgaya (Bihar) between Hindus and Buddhists, this was a while ago.
From The Guardian:
Is it just me or will any man from the east tell you that the east is tired of these 3 religions of hate and everything they have done to the indian and chinese civilizations.My solution to these "my god's d**k is the original thang" is for the world to look at the religions of the east with hinduism and buddhism as the frontrunners.
Vivo:
If it's a sarcastic comment and you're saying there's no such thing as Buddhist extremism - there is.
If you're alerting us of the existence of Buddhist extremism - what exactly are you trying to say?
Buddhist extremism did not even rise until after 300 years of continous rape and pillage conducted by the various carperbaggers that looted the east.Essential tenet of buddhism "world is painful maya" == accept a lotta of BS from marauding scum..
Why don't we ever hear the excesses of hindu/buddhist expansion??
Answer: The only tolerant religions that have history as their witness
Brownfrown,
did u see all of them, there was a point there was a cartoonist hunched over who tried to hide his cartoon watching his back.
that was the point, there was also one where mohammed was telling followers to stop bombing we have run out of virgins.
I found the remark somewhat funny and incisive. Even if you did not, dont blame the publishers. The danes did not go to kashmir and dropped leaflets allover. Yet people there were acting like hooligans on the streets in kashmir.
Its was interesting to see the depiction of Mohammed over the ages sent of KXB, especially by the church and european artists.
Was Hinduism or Hindu gods ever part of their paitings? Is it because they never considered it as a threat?
From Wikipedia:
Most Christians affirm the Nicene Creed and believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate,...
I realize wikipedia is now considered the ultimate source of TRUTH by most; Did you know that you that the Mormons and the jevovah witness are considred cults. Christians dont consider the Mormons and Jevovah Witness as fellow chrisitians..
Take a look at wikipedia list of cults..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cults
Not to support colonialism and "marauding", for even a second, oh, Non-Thinker, but are you actually suggesting there wasn't violence and pillaging under Hindus and Buddhists in India and China? CHINA?? One of the most gleefully violent civilisations out there (both before and during and after Buddhism). And we from Browntown have our own violence to contend with - we just don't like talking about it too much. Maybe its your gender exlusive language that got my hackles up in the first place, but do your research before you fall into such easy essentialist traps about the differences between "east" and "west".
I did see all of them, GGK and while the one with the artist hunched over was interesting, in an in that absurdist self-referrential kind of way. Okay so these Danish artists are going to draw a bunch of offensive racial stereotypes as thier little art project and they are going to incite the wrath of a bunch of people. Wow. That's so... incredibly juvenile. As for the virgins in heaven - yes of course... they are all kind of amusing but incisive? Come on. A 15 year old can come up with that joke. Considering how much damage is coming out of this whole thing - I just don't get why they would bother with these in the first place. Oh I know... because they are immature jerks.
right. i'm off to go do that now. i'll bring you back some.
"Okay so these Danish artists are going to draw a bunch of offensive racial stereotypes as thier little art project and they are going to incite the wrath of a bunch of people. Wow. That's so... incredibly juvenile."
No, believing that race is involved is juvenile. Islam is not a race, but a school of thought. Like all schools of thought, it is subject to criticism and satire.
No, believing that race is involved is juvenile.
No, its not exaclty juvenile if you look at the profile of the Muslims in Denmark. There's racial unease all over Western Europe right now and to think that these cartoons had nothing to do with the Non-European immigrants and the racial tensions is naive.
I actually dont find the cartoons offensive per se if I see them in isolation and not put them in the wider context of the rising xenophobia in Denmark.
The Muslim reacion is as usual insane. Its just a freaking cartoon. I can understand why some Danish Muslim might feel offended, but there is no need for the Indonesian/Lebanese Muslims to blow their lid and come unhinged.
My inbox has been inundated with moronic chain emails from Muslim cousins and relatives whose hysteria is comparable to the hysteria of the right wing blogsophere.
This is the kind of crap I am receiving:
"THIS IS A SERIOUS MESSAGE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE TO START TAKING ACTIONS AGAINST DANISH PRODUCTS SUCH AS NIDO, ANCHOR, LAURPACK OR ANY DANISH PRODUCT.
YOU HAVE A FATHER,MOTHER, AND SISTER, WHAT WILL YOU DO IF SOMEONE HUMILIATES THEM.
THEN REMEMBER THIS GOD'S MOST BELOVED PERSON
ON THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AND TOMORROW HE WILL ASK YOU WHAT HAVE YOU DONE.
SPREAD THIS MESSAGE OR SEND SMS TO WHOM EVER YOU CAN AND LETS DO SOMETHING FOR OUR PRECIOUS AND BELOVED PROPHET MOHAMMED (PBUH)"
Oh please! Give me a break. Its just a cartoon.
more to abhi-do we or should care about relativity and respect for religion espesh when respecting those rights does not harm anyone?
i can understand the slippery-slope of this argument, but where, if at all, does respect for religion, religious, racial, cultural differences stand if there are no boundries? would we support hateful posters of lynchings of black people during jim crow? would we support the ugly images of muslims immediately after 9/11 that supported violence against muslims? do we lose all context when it comes to speech? as many have pointed out, we are in an explosive environment that should give at least european governments pause before they support blasphemy against a religion already under attack by the western world.
abhi why i find your argument misplaced, and what i find hilarious about the freedom of speech heraleded across the atlantic, is the irony that europe has stricter restrictions on free speech and puts a primacy of other values over speech when its the other way around. that is, britain can DEPORT Muslims for "hate speech." that is, france can BAN the veil from french schools. if we are already dealing w societies where other values trump freedom of speech because they claim a more nuanced existentialist debate, why cant europe learn to accomodate respect for other religions?
rights is just used one way or the other. tho im a human rights activits, i feel as many have pointed out an essential need to contextualize if there is ever to be mutual understanding, respect and peaceful resolution to this deep rooted conflicted. the danes were playing w fire.
An unexpected interview from Salon.com:
Fire, I am having a hard time deciphering your argument because of a lack of commas and periods in the right places. Lynchings of black people have nothing to do with this controversy. The comparison is ludicrous. The Danes were not playing with fire. Only the editors of one small-time newspaper were. In a free society they have the right to without fearing for their lives. The only people playing with fire are the torch wielding mobs that you now see plastered across every front-page.
Apologies for my lack of proper use of commas and grammars as english is not my first language. I do not think that that has anything to do with my post and am sorry to see english grammar brought into this argument.
There has been violence towards Muslims throughout Europe, and those cartoons reflect ugly attitudes in an ongoing cultural war. The Danish and other European governments did not issue the images, but at the same time, did not do anything to apologise or make a statement against them.
There are two sides to every story, and what makes me sad is that people in the West dont see how or why there would be rage. I am not trying to justify the violecne; there is no justification for the savage and arbitrary violation of your government against my people in Iraq, Pakistan or throughout the middle east. We watch every day helpless. Now the west is up in arms because we try to fight against symbols that represent what the us, britain, so many countries use so they can bomb us arbitrarily, with no sense.
Perhaps my english is no good to convey my point. Tariq Ramdan, a scholar BANNED from the US for his teaching, put my thoughts on freedom of speech best in this essay. It is about civility. All violence is wrong. But this is a war, and governments must take all responsibility for the inflammatory things done in war whether it be hooding and humiliating the masculinity of our men in your prisons, innocent or not, defecating our koran in your prisons, or holding people indefinitley. How to speak out against such things in a broad way? This, to us, represents the disresepct and humiliation we are treated with. I agree violence is wrong. But do not use my grammar to obsfucate the complicity and responsibility that powerful governments must take when such a war is waged so savagely.
New Perspectives Quarterly
02-02-2006
CARTOON CONTROVERSY IS NOT A MATTER OF FREE SPEECH, BUT CIVIC
RESPONSIBILITY
Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim
Brotherhood, is a philosopher and leading spokesman for Muslims in
Europe. Famously, the U.S. has denied him a visa to come to American
to teach at the University of Notre Dame. His most recent book is
"Western Muslims and the Future of Islam" (Oxford University Press,
2003). He spoke with Nathan Gardels from Switzerland on Thursday.
By Tariq Ramadan
Nathan Gardels: What is your response to the challenge to European
Muslims presented by a number of European papers republishing
defamatory cartoons from a Danish daily (Jyllands-Posten) of the
Prophet Mohammed?
Tariq Ramadan: There are three things we have to bear in mind. First,
it is against Islamic principles to represent in imagery not only
Mohammed, but all the prophets of Islam. This is a clear prohibition.
Second, in the Muslim world, we are not used to laughing at religion,
our own or anybody else's. This is far from our understanding. For
that reason, these cartoons are seen, by average Muslims and not just
radicals, as a transgression against something sacred, a provocation
against Islam.
Third, Muslims must understand that laughing at religion is a part of
the broader culture in which they live in Europe, going back to
Voltaire. Cynicism, irony and indeed blasphemy are part of the culture.
When you live in such an environment as a Muslim, it is really
important to be able to take a critical distance and not react so
emotionally. You need to hold to your Islamic principles, but be wise
enough not to overreact to provocation.
For Muslim majority countries to react emotionally to these cartoons
(with boycotts) is to nurture the extremists on the other side, making
it a test of wills. On one side, the extremists argue that, "See, we
told you, the West is against Islam," and on the other side they say,
"See, Muslims can't be integrated into Europe, and they are destroying
our values by not accepting what we stand for." This way of opening a
debate on emotional grounds is, in fact, a way of closing the door on
rational discourse.
What we need now on both sides is an understanding that this is not a
legal issue, or an issue of rights. Free speech is a right in Europe
and legally protected. No one should contest this. At the same time,
there should be an understanding that the complexion of European
society has changed with immigrants from diverse cultures. Because of
that, there should be sensitivity to Muslims and others living in Europe.
Gardels: Did publishing these cartoons go beyond the limits of free
speech?
Ramadan: There are no legal limits to free speech, but there are civic
limits. In any society, there is a civic understanding that free
speech should be used wisely so not as to provoke sensitivities,
particularly in hybrid, multicultural societies we see in the world
today. It is a matter of civic responsibility and wisdom, not a
question of legality or rights. In that context, I think it was unwise
to publish these cartoons, because it is the wrong way to start a
debate about integration because it inflames emotions, not courts
reason. It is a useless provocation.
How does one imagine that the average Muslim in Europe who opposes
terrorism will react seeing the Prophet Mohammed depicted with a bomb
in his turban? Publishing these cartoons is a very stupid way to
address the issue of freedom of speech.
Gardels: Why do you think so many European papers feel obliged to
republish these cartoons?
Ramadan: Now it is a power struggle. Who will have the final word? Who
is right? Who will have the upper hand? If it was stupid in the first
place to publish these cartoons in Denmark, it is even more
emotionally stupid to do it now. What do we want, to polarize our
world or build bridges?
Look, let's have a true debate about the future of our society.
Muslims have to understand there is free speech in Europe, and that is
that. On the other side, there needs to be an understanding that
sensitive issues must be addressed with wisdom and prudence, not
provocation. Just because you have the legal right to do something
doesn't mean you have to do it. You have to understand the people
around you. Do I go around insulting people just because I'm free to
do it? No. It's called civic responsibility.
Gardels: In defending its publication of the cartoons, an editorial in
the German daily Die Welt said, "The protests from Muslims would be
taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian
television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis
as cannibals, the imams were quiet." What do you say to that?
Ramadan: Die Welt is not wrong to say this. We Muslims must be
self-critical. At the same time, hypocrisy in the Arab world doesn't
justify insulting Muslims in return. Your teacher should not be the
wrongdoings of others, but your own principles.
(c) 2006, Global Viewpoint
Distributed by Tribune Media Services, INC. (Distributed 2/2/06)
Bengali: even their Queen "We must show our opposition to Islam" Margarethe is somewhat Islamophobic
Not true, the Torygraph misread "modspil" (response) as "modstand" (opposition). See Citatfejl bag vrede mod Margrethe (link in Danish).
Kush Tandon: since in WW 2, the King of Denmark and other genteel citizens wore "Yellow Star" to say they all were Jews in defiance to Nazis.
Not true either, the jews in Denmark never wore a yellow star. The nazis came for the jews a month after the collaboration policy of the Danish government broke down over other issues (widespread unrest and the government's refusal to introduce capital punishment against terrorists). See Snopes.
for_debauchery_in_ cartoons: I actually dont find the cartoons offensive per se if I see them in isolation and not put them in the wider context of the rising xenophobia in Denmark.
The cartoons must be seen in the context of Danish xenophobia (which is real, no mistake about that). But there are no riots in Denmark, in Denmark muslims demonstrate peacefully against the riots. The riots are in the middle east, and the context of the riots is middle eastern politics and culture.
FIRE!!!!: france can BAN the veil from french schools.
Denmark is not France. Americans tend to lump Europe together, assuming a cause in one country can explain a reaction in another. All European countries are screwed up in different, unique ways.
if we are already dealing w societies where other values trump freedom of speech because they claim a more nuanced existentialist debate, why cant europe learn to accomodate respect for other religions?
Why should we have more respect for Mohammad than we have for Jesus Christ? The right to blasphemy is well established in Denmark, even though some point out that we have a paragraph in the constitution against it (it is not a serious constitution, things like that are just ignored if it is obsolete).
There was an epic media debate from 1973 to 1989, about Jens Jørgen Thorsen's Jesus terrorist porn movie. It was finally made, with financial support from the government. Racist or not, the turban-bomb cartoon pales in comparison.
In 1984, Thorsen painted a mural at a railway station, showing Jesus on the cross with a hard-on. It was painted over (blog post in Danish) on order from the minister of traffic, Arne Melchior. So there is a limit. Jyllands-Posten supported the minister in an editorial.
Madurai Vivekan: The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny
It was an unsolicited cartoon someone sent the paper, and they made up a polite excuse not to print it.
Yes, Jyllands-Posten in general IS racist and hypocritical, but it is not racist or hypocritical to defend their right to be that. I think they made a mistake from a free-speech point of view (because they are hypocrites, and probably also because they are new to the cause), by messing up two issues:
1) Whether anything in the Koran applies to non-muslims. It does not, but some muslims don't accept that, hence the problem with getting illustrations for the book about Mohammad. I can drink alcohol and eat pork during the Ramadan, and I can make a drawing of Mohammad (or Jesus, another prophet in Islam) if I want to. Seen in the context of Islamic theology, there is no risk that Jyllands-Posten is going to start worshipping Mohammad as an idol. The idolatry is purely on the side of the flag-burners.
2) The right to be disrespectful and offend religious feelings, even if they are muslim. Even if Muslims accept the point above, i could imagine they might take offense from the turban-bomb drawing. It could be argued that this was another fight for another time, but really, where should the limit be? I think the "we have run out of virgins" cartoon is both disrespectful and funny.
I'm not trying to offend you, I simply can't properly respond if I don't understand what you are trying to say. Now I understand you.
Nor should they have to. In a free society it is not the government's job to apologize for the actions of its private citizens who are exercising their freedom of speech.
The way I read it you are trying to explain the violence. You immediately launch into a defense of how Muslims around the world are being arbitrarily persecuted, which isn't the case. The corrupt governments of the Arab world are the ones persecuting "your people" around the world. They are the ones that should be protested.
To me, this is about freedom. I want to live in a society where I am free to speak my mind as long as I don't incite violence against someone. I want to be free to insult anyone I choose without fearing for my life. I never want to live under a government that punishes me because they are afraid I will insult someone in another country. I have no sympathy for the Danish newspaper that started this but I fully support the Danish government.
post 161 :
Vivo:
ever heard of any incidences of buddhist extremism?
If it's a sarcastic comment and you're saying there's no such thing as Buddhist extremism - there is.
If you're alerting us of the existence of Buddhist extremism - what exactly are you trying to say?
well i can't recall incidences of buddhist extremism although i wouldn't be surprised dif there are some. not a sarcastic comment. when i say buddhist extremism i mean the extremism has to have something to do with buddhist beliefs. It's not enough for the extremism to be only by someone or a group of people who happen to be buddhist. we all hear about muslim extremism, past christian(and perhaps present) extremism, and hindu extremism. it's just when i think of buddhism i think of a peaceful religion. there isn't much to justify violence in buddhism as far as i know. i don't have in depth knowledge of the religion.
Buddhist extremists attack concertgoers with a hand grenade, claiming the concert insults their religious holiday.
comment 182: I didn't see an incidence of buddhist extremism. it looks like they dont know who was behind it.
Article in Slate about allowing graven images in religions.
http://www.slate.com/id/2135670/
Okay I don't want this to turn into attempts-at-bashing-Buddhism and I'll have to dig through about a billion boxes to find the sources I want to back me up, but there are definately historical instances of violence by and under Buddhists. Japanese Buddhist monks hired mercenaries and fought other monastaries, Tibetans fought the Chinese and were known to be a martial people. Indian Buddhists attacked Hindus a few years ago while the Western hippie Buddhists looked on, mouths agape. Ashoka, India's most famous Buddhist only became "white Ashoka" or peaceful Ashoka two years after he converted to Buddhsim - some argue because it took that long to properly subdue all the people that needed subduing. Ever hear about the connection between the Kyoto school and its uncomfortably close relationship WWII facism?
Suffering, compassion and wisdom may be well and good while you're on that meditation cushion. Or I guess if you genuinely are a second Gandhi. But generally, people are violent. People like power. People act crazy when you put too many of them together or convince them that someone else is keeping power away from them... the particulars of whatever religious tradition the claim to adhere to have very little to do with it.
but abhi, you have so much freedom you dont understand what it is like to be without. it is so simple for americans to celebrate speech over every other value when they are not being attacked on a daily basis, where they do not live in the hatred or under fear of tortorious jail at the drop of a feather because another country wants their oil. are you living in a country where a bomb could go off arbitrarily at any moment by the hands of a powerful government whether it be yours or mine?
i am not defending my governments; i am not defending the violence; i understand the value of valuing pure freedoms. but freedom must be understood in stages. civility as mr. ramdan says. i believe in human rights. but i also believe we live in dangerous times where many people hate muslims, and vice versa. we feel hated. does that mean anything to you? just because you are not on the receiving end does not erase the damage it does, the damage we feel every day.
violence is not the answer either way. but you diminish the role that governments, charactertures, symbols play in that violence. and the eu stands up. i recently read this:
Last night EU foreign ministers issued a statement in support of
Denmark, and the European Commission threatened to report any
government backing the boycott to the World Trade Organisation.
the world is at war. if i was in america in 1800 i would not want signs all up in america glorifying the lynching or ugly lips of blacks, insulting them as slaves, nor if i was a jew in 1942 would i want a sign insulting jews and their noses in germany mocking their legitimacy. or russia with kurds. and i would not want anyone mistaking you for muslim, calling you a sand n#($*@ and hitting or killing you like so many have been.
these are countries with power. my government too has power as well and abuses it in many ways, but as edward said wisely tried to explain to the west these are racist images steeped in a methodology of hate and oppression; not insults, like i call you "ignorant" or "naive." had it stayed in denmark, maybe ok. but it was flaunted in products to hurt, to maim, in a war so out of control.
inshallah, i wish you the respect for peace i do you, even though if you are hindu we have always been at war. i dont believe in what the iranian government did in retaliation-solicit hate for jews-but that is what your "freedom of speech" is asking for.
the pen is mighter than the sword my friend, and liberty must be seen through a more nuanced eye if we want peace and civility.
Fuego, these were images published in another country. These weren't published in an Arab country, these were published in Denmark. They travelled from Denmark b/c a group of Danish muslims took these images, plus a few that were more offensive but had never been published, and brought them to the Middle East. These images were originally published over a year ago. It's a very different scenario from the one you're describing.
Tis a sad sad sad thing that some folks still find it far easier to blame "the right" for "coming unhinged" than the folks who are actually killing, burning embassies, threatening suicide bombings and the like...
fuego,
why this victimization complex?? Is that part of the reason why many Muslims in many Islamic countries make minorities and non-Muslims "live in the hatred or under fear of tortorious jail" etc. - becuz they feel their "brothers" have been made to live like that in some other places? Tit for tat, eh?
Vick:
Actually, if you take the GDP per capita of people in Syria and Lebanon compared to that of other muslim countries in the Middle East such as Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, it is less than half in both countries. Afghanistan, where the recent riots broke out, falls under this category as do Please check the CIA factbook or any other economics site for verification. Granted, the UK is not a poor country but there are poor and uneducated muslims there as well as more peaceful and educated muslims, such as those holding protests AGAINST the violent response from other Muslims. Egyptians and Jordanians are protesting peacefully. As I stated originally, the biggest mistake here is to lump the response of all muslims together when we are each responding in a completely different manner.
Jay Singh:
More important than the above fact is that I didn't cite poverty as an excuse for Jihadi's. I mentioned poverty, lack of education, and the inability to be heard by the government or international community as reasons behind why people act this why. NOT AN EXCUSE OR A JUSTIFICATION. Please, please, please do not make it seem like us level headed muslims are looking for excuses to justify something so deplorable when we are just as against it as you are. This is a discussion board and I was placing a non-incendiary comment. Thank you.
fire/fuego-
Don't hate on abhi. If you believe in freedom, the first amendment and freedom should be a universal right. It is the basis of freedom.
This has been a devicisive and difficult debate historically within the aclu. The aclu alienated a lot of people by supporting by the KKK. But at the end of the day, in this age, we must support all freedoms.
It is just very sad that it has come to this and anger must be directed towards symbols. But even in struggles for justice, we must fight for basic liberties and rise above. It sounds like that was Abhi's original purpose in making this posting.
On the other hand, it is sad that Ramdan was denied a visa on the basis of his speech! And he makes such important points too, which can't be easily dismissed.
PS everyone should watch the colber report on his perspective tonight! Hysterical!
Wow, this raging debate really makes me wonder what that new movie Comedy in the Muslim World will do. Jeeeeeez.......polarization.....
Wow the level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the diaspora is incredible. Do we have any sense of history at all? It's like we're working with a four day memory loop.
V.A.L:
"Tis a sad sad thing" that we have so quickly distanced ourselves from a long history of racism and have scurried over to the other side because it's so easy to say anything against Muslims and get away with it. Do you think people on the right have any more respect or fraternal love for non-Muslim desis than they do for the "rabble" of today (i.e. the Muslims)? Let's not delude ourselves. India's a rising economic power and the fact that Indian immigrants are considered "model minorities" and means we're okay(ish). Right now. But let's not take that handout, thanks.
Instead of remembering our own painful history, tied very closely to and mirroring what's happening to Muslims today, are we going to just jump in and vilify them too? It's sad that you can fall so quickly into this trap of demonization. What's sad is that these out of control mob situtations, are all that people see or remember unless you work hard to examine what exactly the conditions for that group rage are. And it's sad that these instances of extreme violence, a product of the anger and the frustration of MUCH more than a few stupid cartoons, just go to reinforce every righty's wet dreams about the evils of the "barbarians at the gate". Hey remember when it was your/my people who were considered cow-worshipping, idolatrous, effeminate, flying yogis at the gate who deserved to be colonised?
Anji:
That's a lovely sentiment, except everything's always about symbols. There's not much "rising above" to be done because there's never any getting away from cultural semiotics, which is what this whole furor is about. Those cartoons were a bunch of newspapers purposefully drawing a line in the sand and daring the "other side" to step accross it. And step accross it they did. The newspapers started it on a symbolic level - intentionally attacking a symbol they knew would incite anger (and hate mongering is not free speech by the way) and it's being responded to and retaliated against by more symbols - you know, flags, embassies etc...
Anyway, to me the cartoons are still nothing more than the continuation of racist history to prop up the aggrandisation and sense of superiority of the affluent west against the morally suspect and oh-so-mysteriously-evil east. Oh guess which side of that false dichotomy we'll never truly get away from, no matter how many of our fellow "others" we stab in the back when they're down?
Abhi,
Am a newcomer. To all readers who responded, islam is a religion of terror, hate and it is the duty of every muslim to kill a non muslim Q: 2:191 "kill the disbelievers wherever you find them; "slay them" Q:9:5
It relegates those who disbelief in quran to hell Q:5:10 calls them najis (filthy, untouchable) MuHaMad was a psycho, a paedophile (he married a 6 year old girl Ayesh and consummated the marriage when she turned 9).
It is IMPERATIVE that all non muslims be aware of what islam is, the danger islam is to humanity, to you. www.faithfreedom.org and www.islamreview.com are good starters to be informed about this evil cult.
Islam means submission, and the rabid violence by braindamaged zombies is a test of wills that says: Submit Or Else.
To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Do not take islam nor muslims lightly. When you visit the mentioned websites you can judge for yourself the Facts, Fallacies, Facades and the Deceit and Lies of islam.
Take care 4.7 billion non muslims.
zena
Ahhhh, the rich and varied cacaphony of opinion in a democratic society: how can anyone reading this crazy, mixed up, more than 100 comment thread not love free speech?
A few things: to whomever commented about my last comment (#121, Radhika), sorry I wasn't clear. Yes, hoards of silly people have gone around rampaging and rioting over perceived insults to religion, and they are certainly not all Muslim.
Saira - thank you so much for your comments.
FINALLY, BRAVO ABHI! Yes, in a free society you should be free to insult, not without consequence, but without the threat of violence.
Anyhoo, it's just a fu&^%$#% cartoon, innit? Sorry. All this attention has only spread these images more widely than they would have been initially, if this small paper had just been ignored. Good job, dullards.
Oh, and the dullards was directed at the rioters, what with the violence and all. Not at anyone on this thread, partners in free speech!
This post may be of interest:
The Sepoy Mutiny and the Danish Cartoons (Marginal Revolution)
Brownfrown:
I agree that culture is about symbols but then there is a bigger question about how we address cultural expression and how culture may thrive. I think it is always important to maintain ideals that rise above and define how things should be; ideally there should be a dialogue and a free exchange of ideas. That's why striving, as both Western and Eastern scholars have done during thisdebate, towards a higher understanding is important in this debate. History is not a four-day loop and this is a momentous incident we will all debate and ponder for generations.
To be truthful, when I boil those ideals down into this context I don't know which way I come out. I worked for the ACLU but I don't think I can fully defend the absolutist right to free expression. But I defend Abhi for taking a position in very important competing ideals in a complex world and in beginning this important conversation. I do see the important distinction between the west trying to define the east and the east defining itself. Someone mentioned victimization and I think that analysis is too limied and I agree that diminishes the heart of what is going on here.
Finally, you ask:
Anyway, to me the cartoons are still nothing more than the continuation of racist history to prop up the aggrandisation and sense of superiority of the affluent west against the morally suspect and oh-so-mysteriously-evil east. Oh guess which side of that false dichotomy we'll never truly get away from, no matter how many of our fellow "others" we stab in the back when they're down?
Never is a very strong word, that in the long term view never is a word progress cannot accept. We are not at the end of history. ya basta!
erm, probably nothing, as it contained minimal comedy or muslims.
Anji:
Sorry just to clarify: I wasn't suggesting history is a four-day loop :) I was commenting on the amnesia we all seem to suffer from when we're heaping the crap on another group - especially one that shares such a close history with our own.
As for the "never"... granted, it's a strong, pessimistic word. But it's going to be a long ass time before we've shaken that colonial legacy and the world's no longer a eurocentric, north v. south "us" v. "them" place - I'm sure we'll all be dead a few times over by the time we're all a big happy family.... And when that day comes and even if it feels like it's already here, it would be nice if we don't just dump our less sparkling, less fortunate cousins in the dust on our scramble up that mythical progress mountain.
I'm not directing these comments at you in any way - it's the lack of empathy that I hear all too often in connection to Muslims from the non-Muslim desi community that makes me want to scream.
by posting that picture, minus the bombs, you just offended millions of muslims around the world...if you wanted to give a objective view, you shouldn't have posted even that much, this is such a pro-hindu anti-muslim, pro india site it sickens me...as a muslim i am very offended by the fact that you posted that picture on the main page, and i think sepia mutiny is stupid for letting you...lets see how much violence erupts in hindustan when someone makes a picture of ganesh with a dick in his mouth or something...people don't understand because they aren't targets...this site is really not that HIP and really subpar
Just in case anyone's interested in seeing the views and frankly-psychopathic behaviour of one of the UK's most well-known Islamist fanatics (he was also at the forefront of that demonstration in London a few days ago -- Abhi has supplied some photos of the placards involved at the top of this webpage), when you have some spare time please try to check this out:
The name of the person concerned is Anjem Choudhary -- He was interviewed as part of a group discussion on a very high-profile BBC programme called 'Newsnight'. Please note in particular his behaviour towards the women on the panel, his total lack of manners, and inability to stop ranting even when the questions aren't directed at him or when the anchor asks him repeatedly to stop talking. This is what we are having to deal with.
Click here.
(You'll have to scroll to the bottom of the new page and click where it says "Click here to launch the Newsnight media player").
brownfrown,
word on the many many lives. but that does not nor should it stop the eternal struggle for turning the world right side up in our speck of a lifetime and celebrating the victories as they come. especially as so many suffer in real ways under the academic dichotomy you talk of. and solutions do not mean free to be you and me holding hands. they can mean many things.
the "diaspora" is a complex thing. we struggle to leave the coloniast past behind and forge new identities, and i dont think its fair to put the onus of understanding or action on people simply because of their past especially since that past was a struggle. granted, there is a path for liberating understanding; but there is an infinite amount of vision opportunity achievements available since it is just a mere speck.
also brownfrown-i hate the hate as well. posts like noo york and others are really sad.
Noo York, your comment is really just an ill-conceived rant. First of all SM has AT MOST two Hindu bloggers. We are not "pro" anything but we are anti-ignorance. In actuality I am not sure really if any of our bloggers are Hindu. I for example don't believe in any form of organized religion. Second, this is my site so I don't need anyones permission to post anything I want to. Also, I don't care who I offend. As a lover of freedom I have the right to cause offense or temper that offense as I see fit. If there is a picture in India where "Ganesh has a dick in his mouth" I will STILL support the artist and harshly condemn any protestors that use violence. I'd probably post the picture on this site as well.
I am not particularly fond of how religion is practiced in the pre-dominanatly Muslim countries, nor am I am a religious fanatic. But those cartoons are a distinct dis-respect for that religion. How else will the ignorant and illiterate masses react? You can discuss or argue a point with an educated person, not with uneducated masses who can be manipulated by fiery speeches from hardheaded radicals. I would be offended too if they portray Ganesha, Krishna or even Jesus Christ in a disrespectful fashion. but am I going to go postal? probably not.....better sense prevails.
One has to realize that unemployment,ignorance, illiteracy and hopelessness is not a good thing. There is a lot of anger that is waiting to burst out in one way or the other. Why would a mother sacrifice a child as a suicide bomber? whhy would a 25 year old (who has some sort of reasoning power) walk into a crowd and blow himself up? Human life has no value, it is just another number for the statistician.
Considering the current situation with War, Nuclear power struggle, terrorism etc, just a bad decision to publish this, unless someone is looking into a crystal ball and seeing anything good coming out of this.
On PBS NEWS hour discussing this story, one of the commentator mentioned that the Danish News-paper in question had rejected some cartoons in past, that were "offensive" portrayals of Christianity.
I dont know if that is true or not. If true, shows the huge hypocracy of the "free speech" papers of Europe.
For the record, I personally think its in-appropriate to print cartoons that indirectly calling all muslims terrorists, at the same time I also strongly condemn the violent reactions by muslims all over the world. By violent reaction they are in a way justifying their portrayal.
As I just recently posted about this issue....here http://pretenpret.blogspot.com/2006/02/jesus-is-magic.html.
I also agree in freedom of speech. But there is a fine line we walk when allowed freedoms of any sort.
This cartoon issue although highly distasteful, squeezes by the technicality we call "freedom of speech".
But if there is a retaliation by the Muslim's with their own cartoons, how can this be condemed?
And yes, I disagree with the Muslim's response of violence and death.
Also unfortunately, when reducing a religion to such levels under the cover of "freedom of speech"...it is us Muslims that end up cowering from the backlash of the small minded and dim witted who use such cartoons to generalize our religion. I'm from Texas believe me I've experienced it!
Interesting Development in New York: "The editorial staff of the alternative weekly New York Press walked out today, en masse, after the paper's publishers backed down from printing the Danish cartoons that have become the center of a global free-speech fight.".
With all the socio-economic factors thrown around, do people take into consideration that such demonstrations have a very political agenda too? Mob dynamics are exteremly interesting. A 25yr old man by himself won't do something, but in a crowd of 10000, he becomes a diffent person. In nations where masses are somewhat ignorant, powerbrokers and irresponsible leadership use these incidents as way to hold on, consolidate, or rise to power. Why isn't there anger over bad infrastructure, over jobs, over economic opportunities (which still draws masses from the middle east and elsewhere to the west), etc.? The feudal lords (Kings and mullahs) ultimately don't like the spotlight on them. Despite what people say about the west, its leaders are scrutinzed far more diligently and viciously by the public and media.
If you want to be a big boy, then you have to start acting like one. What you see in the middle east is a lack of political and civic maturity, it will come in due time. The west just has to stick to its guns (pun intended) when it breaks down to upholding the fundamentals (free speech, civil rights, civic responsibility, education, etc)
RC - Yeah I watched the PBS Newshour with Jim Lehrer segment as well, and the spokesperson is, to my recollection, the director of Electronic Intifada. I've tried verifying his statement that the Danish newspaper rejected previous submissions depicting Christ in an irreverent manner, to no avail. Though I haven't looked up Electronic Intifada though. You know...being brown and all.
the nyt has great coverage today, confirming reports that rc mensioned of censorship. why cant we agree that there is a racialist angle here, as ali g would say? what's so wrong in admitting that
interesting quotes from nyt:
"If you have black hair, it is really difficult to find a job," said Muhammad Elzjahim, a 22-year-old construction worker of Palestinian descent whose parents moved to Denmark when he was 2 years old. He said he had studied dentistry for three and a half years only to find that "it was for nothing, because I couldn't find a job in my field."
....
Flemming Rose, the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, which first published the cartoons, insisted last week that his interest lay solely in asserting the right to free speech over religious taboos. "When Muslims say you are not showing respect, I would say: you are not asking for my respect, you are asking for my submission," he said.
Yet, The Guardian reported Monday that three years ago, Jyllands-Posten rejected several cartoons satirizing the resurrection of Jesus, saying they were not funny and would "provoke an outcry." The editor who rejected those drawings, Jens Kaiser, dismissed comparisons with the Muhammad cartoons, saying the paper had never asked for the cartoons of Jesus.
....
In some assessments, the situation rewards those at the extremes. "Islamic fundamentalists and European right-wingers both enjoy a veritable gift that can be used to ignite fire after fire," said Janne Haaland Matlary, professor of international relations and former deputy foreign minister of Norway.
http://nytimes.com/2006/02/08/international/europe/08islam.html?ei=5094&en=82254c07c2c36af3&hp=&ex=1139461200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print
and an interesting arts analysis on the history of images provoking violence:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/arts/design/08imag.html
i was at the grocery store yesterday picking up some dal and uncle bens; when a hand full of muslims came in and trashed the pastries sections..there tossed all the danishes on the ground..and ran over them with their shopping cart; what a crazy mess..chesse, jelly, and frosted sugar all over the place. PLEASE STOP THE VIOLENCE.
Something nobody has alluded to (except ALM in his new incarnation in one of the comments):
Cartoons or caricatures by definition are supposed to slightly grotesque, otherwise, they would not be cartoons or caricatures in the first place.
Maybe, to be to sensitive and politically correct, we should ban the art of cartooning/ caricaturing, totally or have cartoons about love, peace, and justice only. Not...
Then Jyllands-Posten problem, Tom Toles et al. will go away.
I don't think people are arguing with the racial angle. They are arguing with the fact that despite whatever an independentant publisher may put out, the violence and reaction isn't civil. The KKK, neo nazi groups, and other racist organizations publish literature and is offensive. The free speech pushes such groups into somewhat civil discussions and eventually highlights their logical fallacies. When they break the law (violence), they are pursued.
Civil and non violent protest disarms facist groups. But it takes discipline, commitment, and above all good leadership. The middle east has many soldiers that are willing to put their foot forward for whatever cause, but not many good leaders to help navigate that energy and focus it where it needs to be.
"Civil and non violent protest disarms facist groups. But it takes discipline, commitment, and above all good leadership. The middle east has many soldiers that are willing to put their foot forward for whatever cause, but not many good leaders to help navigate that energy and focus it where it needs to be."
Very well said, Gujudude
It takes a Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela
Yes. I remember Electronic Intifada was the name of the org. If we (browns) look up "Anything Intifada" we might get to the top of NSA's list who's watching who is searching what on the Internet. Thanks to GOOGle who wont turn over search records because from a brown perspective, we cant trust this administration that it wont mis-use the information.
Article in Salon regarding the cartoon troubles.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/08/denmark/
Salon is a bit of a left wing paper, but I don't think you can discount this report.
Especially as it's been confirmed by Guardina and IHT among other sources.
I've tried verifying his statement that the Danish newspaper rejected previous submissions depicting Christ in an irreverent manner, to no avail.
here is the link:
It is an offensive cartoon and it is in bad taste that the european newspapers re-published the cartoons over and over. But, so what? That doesn't justify all the ruckus created by islamists in parts of the world. This is a generalized statement: but, I've felt that muslim response to any perceived injustice often exceeds the original 'crime' itself. There is no reason to have this danish cartoon to be publicised all across the muslim world just to give a perception that Islam is under attack. I am happy to see some saner view points too from the muslim world.
Be that so, I heard today on NPR that the Danish newspaper's editor has contacted the Iranian newspaper which now has an ongoing contest for publishing 12 cartoons of the holocaust. He wants to run the holocaust cartoons in his paper on the same day the Iranian newspaper prints them.
I don't think that there is a big anti-muslim conspiracy here - i just provided the link because someone was asking for it. Iran doesn't even have the right to protest this when its president openly says that Holocaust never happened.
when its president openly says that Holocaust never happened.
Najeeb,
Could you please provide us with a source where Ahmad-d-nijad is claiming that 'holocaust never happened'.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as "a myth" ...
Thanks.
I think he was making a rhetorical point of:
If the Holocaust did happen and if it was as bad as the West claims it was, then why dont they give Holocaust survivors space in the West.
I havnt heard him denying the Holocaust itself. I might have missed his denial though as hes pretty crazy and I can see him denying the holocaust.
From the Salon Article found at:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/08/denmark/index1.html
The Danish government has protested that Danish Muslims and the Islamic countries have conspired in a misinformation campaign regarding both the paper's motives and the law of the land. Among the examples of preposterous misinformation are that the paper is run by the government, and that the government can do anything to regulate what is said or not said. While radical Islamists have exaggerated and exploited these themes to incite violent protest, the painful reality is that there is some truth to them. The paper is related to the government, not by ownership but by political affinity and history. And Denmark is no paragon of free speech. Article 140 of the Criminal Code allows for a fine and up to four months of imprisonment for demeaning a "recognized religious community."
I think it is interesting to note we haven't had protests in Canada and in fact leaders like Elmasry of Canadian Islamic Congress have actively asked for there not to be any demonstrations.
Globe and Mail has an article on this.
Pardon me if I'm posting too much on this, but I want to point out a statement:
The Danish right has only recently been converted to the free speech principle, and has its own idea of how to use it. In the past two years, the Danish People's Party has twice proposed to eliminate the blasphemy paragraph. Two of the party's members, Jesper Langballe and Soren Krarup, both pastors in the Lutheran National Church, have described Muslims as "a cancer on Danish society" in speeches in parliament. They want to be free to say it outside parliament too. The paragraph was not removed in part because of opposition from Lutheran clergy, who do not all share the two pastors' views.
i put this on the other site, now im putting it here because i just figured out why the whole debate is bothering me. my whole post is there, but it boils down to this:
We are no longer talking about free speech in a nation, a republi. We are talking about an international context. The UN Charter and subsequent international conventions adopted after WWII and reflect limitations of speech in global rights because they were borne out of WW II and the horrifying resounding reality that the persecuation of Jews and Kurds and Gypsies and entire races came both from actions and inflammatory speech, ie mein kampf, that persuaded entire peoples to kill others based purely on such racialized hatred. Thus, international law, out of the profound experience of how xenophobia can spin out of control, by words, charicatures of racialized images, puts limits on hate speech and speech that can inflame. These laws reflect a principled distinction between speech within a nation and speech between nations and peoples. These laws respect a difference between exchanging ideas and spreading hate.
comment 185:
I don't see anything concerning buddhists committing violent acts. i dont see the 1st quote at all.
Another aspect of this affair that doesn't appear to be getting much play in the press is the fact that "Islam prohibits neither images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion" according to Amir Taheri in yesterday's WSJ:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007934
I don't see anything concerning buddhists committing violent acts.
I havnt heard him denying the Holocaust itself. I might have missed his denial though as hes pretty crazy and I can see him denying the holocaust.
he's not the only crazy out there...
230 Anji. The UN? That impotent body that today displays the map of Middle East without Israel?
That stood by and talked and talked and talked while Rawanda was overflowing with blood and bodies of its citizens killed?
Where it is behaves like a eunuch unable to deal with Dafur? What impact did the UN make on the Arab world on the horrendous crime being committed by their fellow Arabs in Sudan? Kofi Anan described it as "collective massacre"
The UN failed with Bosnia Herzigovinia. It took the US and Nato forces to fight against Christian Serbs to aid Bosnian muslims.
Go back to Soviet Times. The UN fiddled and talked and talked and talked
while the Soviets carved up Germany, and swallowed Poland and Yugoslavia, Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Latvia Lithunia and Estonia.
The UN is a standing joke. As are the UNocratics within.
Read the UN Agenda 21 and
see what the UN has in store for the peoples of the world.
It appears that an Egyptian newspaper published the cartoons in October 2005.
See: http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html
for scanned images.
Apparently there was no protest back then. The spark was there, the fire did not result. If so, the common assumption that there is currently a lot of inflammability out there is not true. It seems likely the current ruckus has been deliberately created. If so, it is not an issue of religious sensitivities or of freedom of speech. It is rather how some governments and some non-governmental groups will do anything they can to foment trouble.
One more comment - the last part of Abhi's article is quite off the tone of the previous parts, which are excellent. Abhi here has bought into the Islamic myth of pre-Islamic jahilliya.
Flemming Rose born 3/14/1956 into a Jewish family in the Ukraine has a major in Russian language and literature from University of Copenhagen. From 1990 to 1996 he was the Moscow correspondent for the newspaper Berlingske Tidende. Between 1996 and 1999 he was the correspondent for the same newspaper in Washington, D.C.. In 1999 he became Moscow correspondent for the newspaper Jyllands-Posten and January 2005 the cultural editor of that paper (KulturWeekend). He fled Denmark where he was under police protection to Miami, Florida in fear for his life where he is currently in hiding.
ok, i dunno whether anyone brought up that caricatures of "Prophet Mohammed" and "Allah" were printed by two muslim countries in 2005.
Upon googling, i came across a site that has the caricatures of both "Prophet Mohammed" and "Allah" with face blured and non-blured.
So, when u guys do it(print caricatures of god), its not wrong?? and when non-muslims do it, its blasphemy???
Before u guys start sending me hate-mails, let me make it clear that ive nothing against Islam and its people.
Just wanted to bring out this topic and know ur opinion.
Peace!!!
Boons from pseudo-secular goons - Rs. 51 cr for beheading cartoonist!
I don't think this has anything to do with denmark and it's cartoons
Yes, non-violence is the way to go.
On a related note, San Francisco State University belives that stepping on Hezbollah and Hamas flags constitutes inciting violence and creating a hostile environment. The europeans are not the only enablers of terrorism.