February 06, 2006
The Danish cartoon controversy: A contrast in protestsNews
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]
abhi on February 6, 2006 06:22 PM in Comics, News, Photos, Politics, Religion · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
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?