I agree with J Keating on this. I would be especially worried if this incident set a precedent in America for the press to censor itself out of fear of offending religious fanatics – because there are too many religious fanatics in America (most nomimal “Christian” fundamentalists) who would just love to see such a precedent set and then expanded.

By the way, I wonder what happens to Muhammed in that cartoon (the one shown here) after the bomb explodes? Does he then wear a white handkerchief around his head and go around shouting:

“MY BRAIN HURTS!” ??

February 9, 2006 @ 11:20 pm | Comment

I like the idea that every nation of the world that believes in freedom of the press should print the cartoons as a show of solidarity with the Danes and then let the Muslims decide if they want to boycott the world community.

Well, let me start. I like the idea that the media of all free nations have the freedom to run these cartoons. But i don’t believe they should. The cartoons have been seen all over the Internet and anyone who wants to see them can do so. But let’s not forget, we are fighting a war – a war in which we have staked America’s future, to defend and liberate Moslems. For years to come, we will have to work side-by-side with these people, and if they associate America only with Abu Ghraib and the Danish cartoons, our troops are at greater risk. I simply don’t see the purpose of adding fuel to the fire. Sure, the rioters are irrational and manipulated, and their leaders love having a spark like this to ignite the masses and take their eyes off the problems and sins of their own governments. And sure, their depictions of Jews go infinitely further than the Danish cartoons. But what’s the point? And what do we achieve by fanning the flames?

Furthermore, as anyone familiar with Michelle’s and Chuck Johnson’s and John Assrocket’s blogs know, little boy george gets huge political mileage from the anti-Moslem hysteria. To encourage it adds to the general climate of fear and loathing and elevates the status of our dear leader. It heightens the image of the world being laid waste by deranged Muslims, and reinforces the idea that we need a tough leader who’ll stand strong and stay the course. Why do you think the warbloggers are going crazy now, demanding that all the media print the cartoons, and branding those that don’t as cowards and traitors? It’s a god-send for the GOP, a free and powerful political tool for keeping fear alive. And fear is all the GOP has to run on; their achievements in the past five years are less than zero.

So on multiple levels, I see little to gain and much to lose in our media dwelling on these images. Yes, I respect their right to publish them if they choose. That goes without saying. But it’s my personal belief that the wise choice would be not publishing the cartoons. No one benefits, except Bush.

February 9, 2006 @ 11:35 pm | Comment

Another interesting perspective:

In the minds of many Muslims in Europe, the cartoons were intentionally inflammatory, published to further humiliate an ethnic and religious minority that has been socially and economically repressed for decades. Indeed, it seems as though the cartoons were deliberately meant to provoke precisely the reaction they did. One of the Danish cartoonists, Lars Refn, admits as much in his own illustration, which does not depict Mohammed but rather a schoolboy who has written across a blackboard, “Jyllands-Posten’s journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs.”

No one doubts that the press should be free to satirize. But freedom of the press cannot excuse the promotion of noxious stereotypes. Jewish groups were furious when the Chicago Tribune published a cartoon in 2003 that portrayed a hunched and hooknosed Ariel Sharon salivating before a pile of money doled out to him by George W. Bush, ostensibly as an incentive to maintain the peace process. (“On second thought,” the avaricious Sharon is depicted as saying, “the path to peace is looking brighter.”) And rightly so.

As international human rights law recognizes, in any democratic society freedom of the press must be properly balanced with civic responsibility, particularly at a time when the world seems to be engaged in a “war of ideology,” to use President Bush’s words. Extremist groups and some political leaders in the Arab and Muslim world are eager to exploit any opportunity to propagate their belief that Islam is under attack by the “West” and thus rally Muslims to their murderous cause. The cartoons were published months ago, in September 2005; the protests against them turned violent only after extremists began circulating fabricated and far more offensive cartoons of the prophet (for instance, Mohammed with a pig’s snout), which were not part of the original Jyllands-Posten bunch. Until then, the protests had been mostly contained to Denmark and the Netherlands and had taken the form of a reasonably peaceful and highly effective economic boycott.

Of course, the sad irony is that the Muslims who have resorted to violence in response to this offense are merely reaffirming the stereotypes advanced by the cartoons. Likewise, the Europeans who point to the Muslim reaction as proof that, in the words of the popular Dutch blogger Mike Tidmus, “Islam probably has no place in Europe,” have reaffirmed the stereotype of Europeans as aggressively anti-Islamic. It is this common attitude among Europeans that has led to the marginalization of Muslim communities there, which in turn has fed the isolationism and destructive behavior of European Muslims, which has then reinforced European prejudices against Islam. It is a Gordian knot that has become almost impossible to untangle.

February 9, 2006 @ 11:46 pm | Comment

Jean-Francois Revel (1970):

“Democratic civilization is the first in history to blame itself because another power is trying to destroy it.”

February 10, 2006 @ 12:30 am | Comment

People whose lives are barren and insecure seem to show a greater willingness to obey than people who are self-sufficient and self-confident. To the frustrated, freedom from responsibility is more attractive than freedom from restraint.

The frustrated follow a leader less because of their faith that he is leading them to a promised land than because of their immediate feeling that he is leading them away from their unwanted selves. Surrender to a leader is not a means to an end but a fulfillment.

But enough about LGF.

February 10, 2006 @ 12:45 am | Comment

One interesting point to note is the fact that the same Danish newspaper refused to publish cartoons of Jesus before, for fear of offending, as was pointed out in the Guardian newspaper.

I think that is a very important point, don’t you?

February 10, 2006 @ 1:09 am | Comment

Brilliant, Vaara.

Ivan, I view the situation as a hornets’ nest, with few good alternatives. Containment strikes me as the best one, as opposed to regime change or other direct interventions. Containment doesn’t mean cowardice or refusing to report the truth about what Moslem extremists are doing. But publishing the cartoons – I just don’t see it as necessary or useful for anyone.

February 10, 2006 @ 1:12 am | Comment

I do not support your decision to reprint the cartoon no more than anyone would support printing some caricatures of Holocaust.

These cartoon greatly deeply undermines the cause for free speech for people who lived in country that does not have free speech.

I think supporting free speech doesn’t mean re-posting the cartoons. Free speech is not an end to itself but a mean to “free thinking.” And in the world of free flow of ideas, the cartoons themselves are pretty lousy ideas.

I think criticizing the cartoons themselves are a better way of supporting free speech than reprinting them.

February 10, 2006 @ 1:12 am | Comment

Actually, Falen, I tend to agree with you. However, this wasn’t my post, and I included the cartoon at the request of the guest blogger, who believes they should be shown. As I said, these are all over the Internet, and the demand that newspapers and magazines print hard copies is, in my perspective, ill advised.

February 10, 2006 @ 1:17 am | Comment

Richard,

As I’m a great fan of George Kennan (who authored the original doctrine of Containment against Communism -and the Hawks thought he was too soft) I’m right with you on using containment with the Muslim fanatics.

Still, you know me – I take a pretty extreme line on free expression, perhaps especially when it comes to things like satire.

February 10, 2006 @ 1:26 am | Comment

Richard, I think you are bending over backwards trying to placate and distance yourself on this one.

Examine what is happening; a newspaper prints cartoons; the Muslim world explodes and calls not for a boycott of the paper but for a country, and all its products and the destruction of that country’s embassy and the killing of random people related or not related to that country.

This is in effect saying every country is responsible for what every newspaper in it prints and if that country does not muzzle its press to conform to the taboos of a certain religion or group it must suffer the consequences.

The reason why the paper did not print some anti-Christian cartoons (if that allegation is true) I would venture is because they feared their populace would boycott the newspaper–which is the right of any offended group to do. But this is not what happened here. There is a line between boycotting a paper, and the furor and hate expressed towards a people and a country that has nothing to do with that paper.

Printing the cartoons does two things; one it says this is the cartoon that is responsible for the furor; do you think it is that insulting? Is a taboo like this something that the world should be held hostage to?

Second by all doing it, it says to the fanatics, if you are going to persecute one country because it did not muzzle its press to conform to your standards, then you will have to persecute us all. (They may still want to do so, but the more moderates in their group will see the taboos they are involved in)

Has everyone seen these which are available on the internet? I remember someone asking a short while ago on your post where to find them. Also a lot of the world does not use the internet for informatin.

You know I am no Bush fan, but the above matter of one group calling on all countries to be responsible to keep all their press on a leash supercedes whatever mileage he would get out of this.

We are fast going down a slope of extreme political correctness and dictatorship of fringe elements if we let this one pass.

Finally, go back and look at the way you handled the hate issues and cartoons that came up in the Chinese/Japanese furor. You didn’t handle it the same way, nor did you try to distance yourself.

February 10, 2006 @ 2:31 am | Comment

When you get down to the final analysis, we all live our lives by faith whether we are followers of a particular religious persuasion, agnostics, or atheists.

As an atheist, I don’t live by faith. I have no experience with it, having been an atheist since the age of 11.

Michael

February 10, 2006 @ 2:47 am | Comment

Also, in the long run I think the Bushies would get more mileage out of a climate of timidity in the face of religious fanatics. Religious fanatics are a huge part of Bush’s base.

February 10, 2006 @ 2:49 am | Comment

*************
People whose lives are barren and insecure seem to show a greater willingness to obey than people who are self-sufficient and self-confident. To the frustrated, freedom from responsibility is more attractive than freedom from restraint.
**************

I am at present writing a book with a fundamentalist pastor whose deconversion I assisted in. Her own assessment of her Church agrees with this. Many, many of her flock come from abused families, and have formed abusive ones now that they are adults.

Michael

February 10, 2006 @ 2:55 am | Comment

Jerome, I admit I’m distancing myself because in this case we don’t see eye to eye, though I respect your point of view. I’m all for condemning the brain-dead rioters who are letting themselves go insane over some cartoons, just as I condemned the Chinese rioters who went crazy over a harmless skit by Japanese students. I just don’t get the purpose of reproducing the cartoons. And it’s not like I’m alone on this. I can drop lots of links to bloggers who think likewise, even ultra-pro-Bush fanatic Hugh Hewitt, who wrote:

“There are hundreds of thousands of American troops deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and across the globe among Muslim peoples who they are trying to befriend. The jihadists like nothing more than evidence that these troops represent a West intent on a new crusade and a new domination of Muslims. Idiot cartoonists make our troops’ jobs more difficult, and the jihadists’ mission easier.”

I republished some anti-Japanese ads made in China a few weeks ago. If I felt this might trigger a global crisis, I would certainly have reconsidered. I think I’ve been completely consistent in my position on the cartoons: It was certainly the Danish magazine’s right to print them, just as it is the right of American publications. But just because they can do it doesn’t mean they should do it.

We are fast going down a slope of extreme political correctness and dictatorship of fringe elements if we let this one pass.

I’m sorry, I really don’t understand this. I’ve heard the news reports describing the cartoons in detail, and I’ve heard thunderous (and deserved) condemnation of the the riots, including my own condemnation. It just strikes me as common sense that when the stakes are so high (as in, thousands of American lives at stake) we should be cautious about tossing matches into the sea of gasoline. That doesn’t mean we should fail to report the story and reveal the shocking truth of what’s going on. We’re not “letting this one pass” – it’s been covered like no other story this past week. But again, I don’t see the purpose of printing the cartoons. I don’t think they should have been printed to begin with. The fact that the rioters never said a word about anti-Semitic cartoons that were far worse doesn’t seem like a reasonable argument to me, as I would rather we not descend anywhere near to their level.

February 10, 2006 @ 3:04 am | Comment

The argument for reproducing the cartoons is that we don’t want to show we give in to the threats of fanatics. Terrorism (and threats of violence and assassinations) only works if people are terrorised. 911 certainly didn’t make me more afraid of taking the plane.

If the cartoons really were offensive, I could understand that we’d refuse to republish them so as not to fan the flames. But they aren’t ! They’re *nothing* compared as to, say, what South Park can come up with !

This is still in the shadow of Theo Van Gogh. Do we really want our satirists to fear for their lives ? Or do we want to show our support for them ?

Clinton’s criticism of the cartoons certainly nocked him down a few notches in my esteem.

The best argument *against* reproducing those cartoons would be that they’re not very funny – it’s better to make some new ones instead.

February 10, 2006 @ 5:10 am | Comment

Of course we don’t want satirists to fear for their lives. I’m not sure how printing the cartoons will help protect them. We learned with the Salman Rushdie death threat the kind of lunacy we’re up against. Does that mean we should appease them and treat them with kid gloves? No. But I don’t see the point of printing cartoons that are clearly intended to mock a religion – any religion – and provoke, as the cartoon publisher himself admitted. (He said he wanted to be a “provocateur.”)

February 10, 2006 @ 5:19 am | Comment

Here’s why the cartoon was offensive:

First of all, in Islam, it is a big offense to make any image of the Prophet, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, anything related to religion. Any pictoral depiction of religious stories or subjects is unacceptable to their faith.

Second, the cartoons surrounded a story by a person who was writing a children’s picture book about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.

Third, the sticking point of that story was that the author could not find ANYONE to draw pictures of Muhammad for her picture book. Presumably the author had asked a number of people in the Muslim community and they were all unwilling.

The impression left, then, especially if the cartoonist claims that he is trying to draw an offensive cartoon, is one of profound disrespect for the Islamic faith. Here you have a person trying to create a children’s book about Islam, and the result is mockery.

I’m not defending whatever violence has resulted from this, but it doesn’t hurt to try and understand the Muslim faith. I’ve also heard that there were strategically-minded Muslim clerics behind these riots, and that they made careful decisions about when, how, and to whom they should publicize the cartoon in order to cause maximum chaos.

February 10, 2006 @ 6:50 am | Comment

You can’t use whether or not someone is offended as a measure for free speech. Everyone is offended by something. The whole point of free speech is the right to say what is UNPOPULAR. No one needs protection of the law to say what is inoffensive and popular.

Unforturnately, half of the free world has forgotten this basic point. It is quite fitting that Bush is blaming the press in this case. His fundamentalist colors shining through once again.

February 10, 2006 @ 7:05 am | Comment

To Michael, as I see it, just as it is impossible to prove the existence of God and therefore one has to act in faith; so also it is impossible to prove that there is no God and therefore one has to act in faith to be an atheist. One can bring up arguments why certain notions of God are silly etc. but not categorically prove God does not exist.
We all live our lives based on our experiences and our interpretations of them; we have to have faith that our interpretations are the absolute reality.

Richard, I can understand your reasons on how this makes it all the more difficult for the troops in Iraq etc. but you did only offer the condemnation and premise “I’m all for condemning brain dead rioters who are going insane over cartoons etc.” after you were challenged on it; then you went on with your argument about the troops etc.
Usually you always premise your position with such acknowledgements; this time you didn’t.

I find it interesting that most who weigh in with pretty heavy rhetoric on issues like the Chinese/Japanese debates have been silent. Usually those defending the Chinese side are told to “get a life.”
I do remember Skystreaker saying something like “Come on, its only a cartoon.” (Interesting also is the fact that the Chinese boycott of Japanese goods didn’t last that long.)

Ultimately I still think that when one group tries to impose its taboos on the world, and expects each government to muzzle every newspaper under them according to those taboos, the response has to be if you are going to blame one country (Denmark and/or Norway) for that you will have to blame us all. If you are going to condemn and boycott all that country’s products, you will have to condemn and boycott all of our products. That is the quickest way to show holding such beliefs will ultimately isolate anyone in the world community.

February 10, 2006 @ 8:28 am | Comment

As Vaara wrote earlier, the Jyllands-Posten refused to publish some cartoons of Jesus some years ago. This obviously underlines the fact, that the intended purpose was provocation, but it should be noted, that the cartoons have afterwards been published by another Danish daily (Politiken) and received absolutely zero response.

In the Danish press as a whole there is very little charicature of Christ and christians, but I think that is mainly because most taboos have already been broken. Some years ago a lousy film was made, partly with public funding, showing a reborn Jesus partying heavily with numerous naked women. That DID create some public outcry and the obligatory protests from the pope, but only a small minority was really annoyed. So, no artist has seen much to be gained from further picking on the christians.

That doesn’t mean you should accept the motivation given by Jyllands-Posten. I see it as another strike in a rather harsh debate on immigration. That is why few Danish papers have chosen to reprint the cartoons, though they obviously defend free speech as such.

I don’t like Jyllands-Posten at all, and I definitely think you should defend free speech AND critisize their original publication. A changing of laws seem unacceptable to me, but hopefully this whole affair has underlined the need for mutual respect, even among conservative editors.

February 10, 2006 @ 9:19 am | Comment

I see a real difference between satirizing religion, which is an abstract, unprovable concept, and satirizing the Holocaust, which was about real deaths of real people. I’d feel the same way about making fun of Iraqi bombing victims. These are real people, whose tragedies left behind devastated families and loved ones.

As for religion? I’m not a religious person. I don’t understand the sort of blind faith that leads one to rage over cartoon images.

And yes, I do realize that the riots aren’t just about “cartoons.” They are also about oppression and wounded dignity and all kinds of stuff like that. I think Richard’s comparison to anti-Japan rage is a good one. There are legitimate reasons to rage, but it’s about way more than just the legitimate issues.

And I think this whole thing is yet another example of the tragedy that is Bush’s war in Iraq. That didn’t cause Muslim rage, but it sure as hell stoked it.

And for my final, “on the other hand” statement, I think Islam, Christianity and Judaism, in their extreme forms, are all pretty much the same – based on the oppression of women and extremely dangerous and destructive in the modern world.

February 10, 2006 @ 11:58 am | Comment

>>I see a real difference between satirizing religion, which is an abstract, unprovable concept, and satirizing the Holocaust, which was about real deaths of real people

I don’t get what all of these calls for “responsibility” really mean. Should it be illegal to satirize the Holocaust or Islam? Or does the call for “responsibility” mean one should avoid offending people? It is difficult not to offend someone when using satire.

Does anyone see the impossible irony here? Muslim extremists are killing people, burning buildings, and threatening to bomb people over a political cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb on his head.

I think they just made they cartoonist’s point.

February 10, 2006 @ 12:26 pm | Comment

I personally don’t think it should be illegal to satirize anything. But calls from those who are offended by the Muhammed cartoons saying that papers won’t print cartoons satirizing the Holocaust, well, these two things to me are very different. Just like the LA radio host who was reprimanded for making fun of the Muslim pilgrims who were trampled to death during the Hajj. These aren’t abstract concepts, they are real people who left mourners behind. If I were a publisher, I’d be much less inclined to publish something making fun of the real deaths of real people than I would making fun of religion.

Watch just about any episode of THE SIMPSONS if you want to see Christianity lampooned!

February 10, 2006 @ 12:56 pm | Comment

There are two losers and 1 winner on this issue. The first loser is of course the muslim world. Many European countries and their populations have shown significant sympathies to the Muslim world and do not tend to classify all Muslims as terrorists like many Americans do. But this burning of the Danish embassy is going to erode a lot of those sympathies, and will only make Europe stand closer to the US in antagonizing the Muslim world.

The second loser is Europe. Most terrorists have focused their antoganism mainly on Americans and UK. This cartoon incident will make the terrorists expand their targets to all countries in Europe, including previously neutral countries like Denmark and Switzerland. So I’ll not be surprised that a suicide bomb incident takes place in Denmark or Switzterland someday. And Europe as a whole willl hate the Muslims more in return, and the feud will increase.

The winner of this issue is of course George Bush and his right-wing pro-war religious base. They can now proudly make the case that all Muslims are barbarians and more wars is the only way to calm the Middle East. And from a religious perspective, they can say make this issue about “Christianity VS. Islam”, like the Crusaders.

The best strategy for China right now is to remain neutral on this issue on the international stage. But domestically, try to lean towards the Muslims and portray the West as totally insensitive to the feelings of weak groups.

February 10, 2006 @ 3:23 pm | Comment

The best strategy for China right now is to remain neutral on this issue on the international stage. But domestically, try to lean towards the Muslims and portray the West as totally insensitive to the feelings of weak groups.

Why on earth is smearing the US like this a good thing for China? Are they a “weak group?”

February 10, 2006 @ 4:21 pm | Comment

You can’t use whether or not someone is offended as a measure for free speech. Everyone is offended by something. The whole point of free speech is the right to say what is UNPOPULAR.

No question. But as I said, just because they can print something doesn’t always mean they should. Just because the American Nazi party is free to hold a march doesn’t mean it’s a good thing. I’ll fight for their right to do so, but I’ll condemn them for it as well. Luckily, free speech works both ways.

February 10, 2006 @ 4:23 pm | Comment

Something else just occurred to me, about how bloody hypocritical the Muslim Fanatics are being about this:

It’s NOT about violating the Muslim rule against depicting “the Prophet”.
In Islam, depictions of ANY of the prophets are strictly forbidden – and that includes Jesus, one of the highest prophets of Islam.

They haven’t been rioting about all the paintings of Jesus in the Louvre, have they?

“But THIS picture of Muhammed was OFFENSIVE!” Exactly. THAT is what they’re rioting about – it has NOTHING to do with the prohibition of making ANY picture of Muhammed – what they are rioting about, is what KIND of picture it is.

Which, paradoxically, means they’re practicing a kind of idolatry.

In sum, this is about a pack of superstitious barbarians who want to impose their IDOLATRY on the rest of the world. I’ll have none of it, and in fact I want that kind of barbarity to be pushed back further.
Publish and damn anyone whose idolotry is “offended.”

February 10, 2006 @ 4:31 pm | Comment

PS, More simply, my take on this cartoon is that it doesn’t attack a religion; it attacks an idol. Good.

Mao was another idol. So was Hitler. All idols ought to be smashed.

February 10, 2006 @ 4:35 pm | Comment

AND, lest I be accused of hypocrisy, I say if the cartoon figure of Jesus on “South Park” was ever portrayed in the most shameful way – having sex with animals or whatever – I wouldn’t care.

Because, I know the difference between God and a Cartoon. That’s the difference between religion and idolatry.

February 10, 2006 @ 4:39 pm | Comment

All anti-Muslims are laughing stealthily now because the gun-toting dickheads belling out Quran fell squarely into the trap of the cartoonist who had knew what was gonna happen.

February 10, 2006 @ 4:39 pm | Comment

While I agree with everything Ivan says and believe very little, if anything, is sacred, I also worry about the consequences of making America look like one huge Little Green Footballs. Is that a wise thing to do? Just food for thought. I say call them on their barbarism, show the picture of their beheadings if you’d like (that is hard news, and must be told). But I fear many on the right are trying to fan the flames of a war on Islam which, while such a war might be warranted, could have very dire consequences for us and everyone else in the long term, especially at a time when we claim we are bringing liberty and freedom to the very people we are infuriating. I see it as a strategically bad move, and I credit the US government for seeking to distance itself from the cartoons.

February 10, 2006 @ 5:11 pm | Comment

Ivan, I am with you, smash all idols; if that is ever possible.

February 10, 2006 @ 5:40 pm | Comment

I should qualify; smash all idols that people want to impose on others. This includes the Oscars, though I wouldn’t mind getting one.

February 10, 2006 @ 5:46 pm | Comment

Why on earth is smearing the US like this a good thing for China? Are they a “weak group?”

In relation to the US, China is a weak group.

I am willing to entertain the idea that this whole thing is planted by the neocons of the Bush administration as political preparation for an invasion of Iran. The trick is very simple:

1)Deliberately provoke the other side
2)Get the other side to go ballistic and violent
3)Use the other side’s ballistic and violent reaction as justification for whatever you plan to do

February 10, 2006 @ 5:51 pm | Comment

Who, compared to the US, is not a “weak group,” pray tell? But that doesn’t mean England, for example, or Japan should be designated “weak groups.” They are very strong, but weak in comparison to the strongest.

Your thinking, as usual, is warped. You really think the neocons worked with the Danish children’s book writer to choreograph a vast conspiracy to attack Iran?? Iran hasn’t even come up in the context of this mess. Try again.

February 10, 2006 @ 6:04 pm | Comment

“1)Deliberately provoke the other side
2)Get the other side to go ballistic and violent
3)Use the other side’s ballistic and violent reaction as justification for whatever you plan to do”
Hasn’t point one already been more or less taken care of by 1.) the very existence of the western world or, if you aren’t willing to go that far, 2.) U.S. military bases in the Islamic world?
As for points two and three, isn’t the other side presently going “ballistic and violent” all throughout Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine on a daily basis? And Isn’t it the case that the current administration has shown that it doesn’t need a real pretext for invasion when it can fabricate one?
And, as was mentioned in the previous post, why would the obnoxious and inflammatory doodlings of a Dane be the U.S. neo-con weapon of choice for inflaming latent tensions? Finally, this whole incident is just drawing attention away from the nuclear crisis in Iran. A more relevant issue and more potent cause for conflict than banning Scandanavian cheese out of anger over offensive drawnings of an imaginary friend could ever hope to be. China Hand, you need a close shave with Occam’s razor.

February 10, 2006 @ 6:22 pm | Comment

Actually, Richard, your concern about fanning the flames of hatred and chaos in the Muslim world, is the main point where I see SOME possible reason to refrain from publishing the cartoon.

But then I step back and realise: The Muslim fanatics’ flames of hatred are already at nuclear bomb level. Publishing a cartoon is not going to fan any flames, except in the most negligible ways. On the other hand, I think refraining from publishing them, just to show some sensitivity, will not earn us any respect at all, and will attract all the more contempt.

February 10, 2006 @ 6:31 pm | Comment

Oh and China Hand is shit once again. (Reminds me of the South Park episode where Cartman discovers how to eat through his ass and then shit out of his mouth.)

No I will not be “balanced” when it comes to absolute nonsense like China Hand spews. Nonsense deserves contempt. (And so do violent religious fanatics.)

February 10, 2006 @ 6:32 pm | Comment

typo error, I mean to write, “China Hand is TALKING shit once again”

But what I typed was pretty close to the truth even with the typo error

February 10, 2006 @ 6:35 pm | Comment

There is a solid group of movers and shakers around the world that see global instabilities for what it is and not a zero-sum game. Frustrating as it is — both to the insiders and civilians – what hurts one’s enemy usual is not very appealing to oneself as well. The pluses far out weight the minuses as no side can claim to be ‘Yu Weng De Li’. China is on a tough spot indeed; does it have more to gain to bluff some of its cards or fold at an appropriate time to win another day. Honestly, there is no winner for this occasion – except perhaps for those that care not for the kind of a world their children will inherit.

February 10, 2006 @ 6:39 pm | Comment

Sometimes my compatriots and friends need to realize that China is only referred to as the middle kingdom for namesake only. The world does not, need not, and should not revolve around China and its very whim and pulse – it is another topic for another nation in another time. For those that care about China, don’t draw her into an argument for personal attention. China’s gains and promises are determined by more cunning and knowing individuals than myself and those of the readers with a realistic appreciation/wariness of its leadership. There are plenty of problems domestically with China – even in an atheistic, firearm-controlled, censorship environment. One does not need to think hard to imagine a different chaos if China started to play with fire.

February 10, 2006 @ 7:05 pm | Comment

Ah, now, HERE is a cartoon which illustrates my point about pushing out the boundaries of free speech PRECISELY BECAUSE the Bushies and American religious fanatics REALLY would just love more censorship:

http://www.ucomics.com/tedrall/2006/02/06

February 10, 2006 @ 7:24 pm | Comment

richard: Yeah, not fanning the flames and hatred, not putting our troups in trouble, not stirring up shit …

But. People are calling for the cartoons to be made *illegal*. And, it seems at least some european politicians are following suit (not to mention british and american newspapers, apparently). Reprinting the cartoons is affirming that NO, those cartoons are not “irresponsible”, there’s nothing o go crazy about. If nobody had republished them, it’d be much easier to pass laws (or “voluntary guidelines”) against mocking religion.

We should all bellow it, loud and proud: it shouldn’t be illegal to mock *anything* – free speech doesn’t cover only speech that doesn’t make anybody unconfortable. >:-@

I’m more concerned with protecting free speech in Europe than with protecting our troups. And, I’m confident a fair share of those troups feels the same; I don’t think many of them are thinking “Oooh, I hope Europe passes anti-blasphemy laws so my job become ssafer”.

I’m actually more concerned about the people who want to boycott denmark and have anti-blasphemy laws passed than the people that are burning embassies. It’s not the violence I don’t like, it’s the censorship.

February 10, 2006 @ 9:54 pm | Comment

Self-censorship can be just as harmful as government censorship. The free press shouldn’t muzzle itself out of fear or a desire to protect us. That isn’t its job. Don’t expect newspaper editors to be diplomats or gatekeepers or our protectors — there is already too much of that going around. Of course, people can disagree with their editorial decisions and criticize them. But if you are going to criticize them, criticize, don’t try to muzzle them.

February 10, 2006 @ 10:34 pm | Comment

I’m fairly divided on this – I certainly think the first point is that we can’t compromise on free speech and that the right to publish the cartoons needs to be defended. I also don’t think the cartoons in question added much, if anything, to debate and seem aimed to cause gratuitous offence. So far, I can see the argument that they shouldn’t be banned but that it would be better for the media to exercise restraint.

But at least one publication in Britain – ‘The Liberal’ – was told by the police, upon posting one of the cartoons on its website accompanying an editorial taking a hard line on free speech, that the safety of its staff and editors wouldn’t be guaranteed. The Liberal subsequently removed the picture.

We had similar scenes relating to religious extremism when the play ‘Behzti’ was taken off the stage in response to riots and threats of violence – again, the police seemed much more concerned with getting the theatre involved to remove the offence than with upholding the right to free speech. Don’t we need to show some degree of solidarity with the idea of a free press when we get to the point where governments start condemning the media for causing offence and where police stop protecting their right to express their views in a free society?

As I say, I’m not exactly sure how far I go on this; but I do think, admittedly as an atheist and a rationalist, this tendency to put religion in a special category which we can’t offend too much is one which needs to be checked – and I think that when we get to a point where people die in embassies in the Middle East because a newspaper exercised its right to free speech (maybe not very maturely but that’s not the point) we need to take a strong line.

February 10, 2006 @ 10:51 pm | Comment

“I should qualify; smash all idols that people want to impose on others. This includes the Oscars, though I wouldn’t mind getting one.”

You know how ironic that statement sounds?

I thought the whole point in the Muslim world of not portraying Mohammed was so that he would not become a idol. Muslims detest idols. So do christians for that matter. Idols are often seen as heathern-dance-around-flamming-totem kind of religions.

As for the cartoons, why can’t we just criticise issues but do it smartly. I don’t see why the newspaper had to publish the cartoons to make a point. I mean, the cartoons weren’t even clever or funny, I see cartoons in my local paper that make me roll over backwards, these 12 do not. I just didn’t find the cartoons all that clever.

February 10, 2006 @ 11:05 pm | Comment

Jim, the media practices self-censorship all the time, as they should – they blurred the Abu Ghraib torture photos, and they didn’t show pictures of Daniel Pearl’s head on a platter, for example. Their role is to report the story, and in that respect there should be no censorship. But there is a line between telling the story and getting lurid. The media always struggle with how far to go, and in regard to their near-universal decision in America not to reprint the cartoons they demonstrated maturity and intelligence, not to mention good taste.

February 11, 2006 @ 2:23 am | Comment

Emile, anyone calling for the cartoons to be made illegal; is an ass. That is insane, and will never happen. (First I’ve heard of such a thing; is anyone seriously considering such a thing? It’s in blatant contradiction of the First Amendment.)

February 11, 2006 @ 2:26 am | Comment

Great cartoon, Ivan!

About the fanning of the flames – yes, they are fanned already. But they can’t, at least, point to America as being the instigator (though they could point to Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson, who’ve gone into overdrive trying to whip up a hystrerical reaction to the hysterical reaction).

February 11, 2006 @ 2:33 am | Comment

Yes, but Richard, you’re being logical.
And logic does not work with the Islamic fanatics.

“They can’t, at least, point to America as being the instigator.”

Well, if they followed any kind of logic, that would be so. But the Muslim fanatics are: fanatics. Madmen, ideological fantasists, the Islamic versions of China Hand.

I mean, don’t they already point to America as being the principal instigator of all evils in the world?
They already want to destroy America – and, as you might know (or at least contemplate), that is not mere Bushie propaganda. If anything, the Bushies don’t perceive just how deadly serious the Islamic fanatics are. Personally I am not privy to any classified information, but I do hear some extraordinary things through various grapevines, and my overall impression is that Al Qaeda and their allies are FAR MORE deadly serious and determined than the Bush administration realises.

They want to nuke us. And nothing is going to change their minds. So although on the one hand I appreciate your very logical concern for trying to keep the flames down and far away, on the other hand I know there’s not much point in even trying to reason with those enemies, or to appear reasonable to them.

All we can do is to contain them, and oh, OH God we need better intelligence organs to fight them behind the scenes. And more cooperation with allies and near allies, especially Russia – and I do NOT say that merely because of my personal Russophilia – strategically, we need to get closer to Russia.

February 11, 2006 @ 3:30 am | Comment

So what do we do? Our war in Iraq has generated a new and even more committed generation of fanatics, and our efforts in Pakistan have given Al Qaeda recruiters multiple orgasms. And here I thought Bush’s war on Iraq was going to make them all lovey-dovey with America. Instead, the enemy has grown a thousand-fold, and mutated into a more lethal strain than hitherto imaginable. Go figure.

February 11, 2006 @ 3:48 am | Comment

“What do we do?” Well, first of all, the Bush administration has complicated the problem almost beyond measure. However….

…as I suggested in my last comment, the MAIN things we should be doing should include reforming (and cleaning out, and training better) our intelligence services (in Human Intelligence most of all – too much technology and not enough pscyhology right now) – AND, more cooperation with the Russians. And that is not to be underestimated. The purpose of all of which must be:
To keep nukes out of the hands of the Islamic fanatics.

I’m serious, that’s job number one.
And that’s exactly why Bush’s war in Iraq was SO, SO counterproductive, a waste of time and energy. The real enemies are in Central Asia and Afghanistan and Pakistan and other remote places – all of which happen to be on the margins of the Russian sphere of influence. Which is also where a lot of nukes are floating about, not very well protected.

Thus, EVEN IF Bush were successful in creating SOME kind of “democracy” in Iraq, and in the Arabian peninsula, it STILL would not get the wild regions of Central and South Asia under control, and it STILL would not keep nukes out of the hands of Al Qaeda.

“Regime changes” will not protect us.
Smarter, shrewder intelligence will – pychological wars, wars of the mind – and we really need the Russians on our side for that.

February 11, 2006 @ 3:59 am | Comment

Are you aware we are going in the precise opposite direction, with Bush jamming the intelligence apparatus with political hacks like Porter Goss and Heritage Foundation shills? If intelligence is the answer, then God help us, because Bush is determined to gut the CIA of critical thinkers and those who won’t tow the party line.

February 11, 2006 @ 4:49 am | Comment

Richard, my friend,

OH, yes, yes. Oh yes I understand EXACTLY what you said in your last comment about Bush destroying America’s intelligence agencies, going in the opposite direction of where we should be going.

That’s exactly why I’ve been saying so much on this thread, about reforming and reviving America’s intelligence services, which the Bushies have almost destroyed.

February 11, 2006 @ 6:58 am | Comment

>>the media practices self-censorship all the time

Yes, that is the main problem with the American media. They are more concerned with not offending anyone (being popular and “comfortable”) than getting to the truth.

>>Their role is to report the story, and in that respect there should be no censorship.

Well, in this case the cartoons were the story. So how can you report the story without reprinting the cartoons?

I understand what you are saying, but it simply isn’t the function of the media to be a nanny or to base their coverage on strategic political grounds. That is a formula for overtly politicizing the media. i.e., “the media should not report news that will damage the country or inflame people.” Does that sound familiar to anyone on this China blog???

February 11, 2006 @ 7:22 am | Comment

“To Michael, as I see it, just as it is impossible to prove the existence of God and therefore one has to act in faith; so also it is impossible to prove that there is no God and therefore one has to act in faith to be an atheist.”

Surely God’s existence is a binary state; either the almighty IS or he/she/it ISN’T. Therefore, we have a question that has only two possible, mutually exclusive answers. Now let’s talk probability. What are the chances that an omnipotent mystery created the universe and everything that’s in it? As the history of the universe is beyond the scope of this post, I’ll cut to the last page:

p (no God) = 0.9999*
p (God) = 1 – 0.9999*

It can be mathematically proven that 1 – 0.9999* is equal to zero. Thus, to all ‘offended’ parties on the cartoon issue, I say this: go take a deep knee bend and reflect more rationally on the way you choose to expend your energy. Oh yes, and stop beating your women.

February 11, 2006 @ 8:33 am | Comment

To Stuart, I think they prefer to phrase the equation this way, surely atheism as a life style is a binary state. Either is correct or it is not. etc. etc.

Is it true you have stopped beating your wife?and/or girlfriend?

February 11, 2006 @ 9:13 am | Comment

(Forgive me, Richard)

Ivan after a few shots of vodka, says:

Vladimir Putin is right. Let’s stuff all of the Muslim Fanatics into the toilet -because they would do FAR WORSE to us if we ever gave them any chance.

The Islamic fanatics have NO mercy and NO decency. We must fight them with the same lack of mercy, by any means necessary.

Which (a bit more soberly) again, is why I say we should be cooperating more with the Russians to destroy those filthy barbarians.

February 11, 2006 @ 11:11 am | Comment

PS, if any Muslims think being a good Muslim means terrorising other people into submitting to the Muhammedan religion, then I say, Muhammed can eat my shit.

February 11, 2006 @ 11:15 am | Comment

The Islamic fanatics have NO mercy and NO decency. We must fight them with the same lack of mercy, by any means necessary.

From the standpoint from the US and European interests, I actually agree with Ivan on this point. Unfortuately, I care about Chinese interests. And at this stage, a feud between Muslim extremists and the West buys a lot of time for China to develop her economy and national strength, and not get politically harrassed by the US. In that sense, 9/11 and the Iraq War is the best thing that ever happened to China. The only reason the US is acting so tough on the Greens in Taiwan and publicly rebuking Chen is because the US needs China’s non-opposition on anti-terrorism, on Iraq, on Iran, and on North Korea of course. Of those issues are not tying the US down, it won’t be as nice to China.

I think it’s Winston Churchill who said : “There’s no mutual friendship between countries, there are only mutual interests”

February 11, 2006 @ 11:31 am | Comment

Here is a great article in the LAT on this situation. Rutten lays it out very clearly and points out the logical infallacies and manipulations going on – in this case, the cartoons were reprinted in Egyptian papers to show the outrage! So if it’s an outrage to portray the Prophet, does it not count when you’re, um, outraged?

Anyway, Rutten says it much better than I do.

February 11, 2006 @ 2:12 pm | Comment

Muslems are not forced to read Danish newspapers and clearly never knew of this until someone decided to inflame them. (Not hard to do because they are intentionally misdirected from their own corrupt governments.) First, political cartoons are intended to have bite–they are supposed to be the opposite of touchy-feely senstive. But if sensitivity is the issue, why do non-muslems not riot when they are called Infidels every day by Muslims? Is that supposed to be a complement that we accept? Not to mention, the daily barrage of cartoons with rabbis eating babies depicted in Muslem press. Seems that is just fine with the world. No one should ever give into violence and intimidation and stop criticizing what is obvioiusly a problem. The only question I have is why do Muslems not see they are only reinforcing the stereotype they claim to fight? Does this behavior give anyone a good image of them and result in greater understanding–or just intimidation?
Religion is the biggest gun in the world, and religious extremism the biggest threat to the world and the primary cause of wars.

February 11, 2006 @ 2:54 pm | Comment

“in Islam, it is a big offense to make any image of the Prophet, God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, anything related to religion. Any pictoral depiction of religious stories or subjects is unacceptable to their faith.”

This is blatently false and nothing more than islamofacist propaganda.

There is no excuse for the murderous behavior of these islamofacist fanatics.

February 11, 2006 @ 3:01 pm | Comment

“just as it is impossible to prove the existence of God and therefore one has to act in faith; so also it is impossible to prove that there is no God and therefore one has to act in faith to be an atheist.”

Why are we even engaging in a debate about the EXISTENCE of God when God by definition is metaphysical and beyond the physical bounds of matter that define EXISTENCE?

The only place where God ‘exists’ is in the nebulous imaginations of physical beings. Wether we choose to call this feeling or state of non-existence God or not is a matter of semantics and I see no reason why theists and atheists cannot peacefully coexist on the principle of mutual respect.

However, when theists attempt to impose the metaphysical on the physical, the religious on the secular world, they are violating not only the EXISTENCE of nonbelievers, but the very basis of their own faith. On this principle alone, we should support the right of any paper, Danish or otherwise, to publish the cartoons.

In fact, we should start a BUY DANISH campaign in a show of solidarity for free speech and in defence of secular society. For a start, there’s nothing more satisfying than blogging with pot of tea and a blue container of Danish butter cookies.

February 11, 2006 @ 3:58 pm | Comment

China_hand sounds like Mao, and how the Japanese incursion into China helped the Communists buy time.

February 11, 2006 @ 4:08 pm | Comment

Tian Li,

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. And it wasn’t an excuse.

Are you one of those guys who tries to order pig feet in a Muslim restaurant?

February 11, 2006 @ 6:23 pm | Comment

But Matt, Mohammed actually has been depicted in some Muslim art, according to what I’ve read. So Tian Li might not be totally wrong.

Tian Li: “On this principle alone, we should support the right of any paper, Danish or otherwise, to publish the cartoons.”

I support that right, and I believe all of us here do.

February 11, 2006 @ 6:41 pm | Comment

I have no problem keeping the Danish cartoon to protect the rights to freedom of expression. But printing them all over Europe as some sort of symbolic way to tell Muslims to fuck off clearly means that you are acting on emotion and not on logic. Of course, as I said earlier, telling Muslims to fuck off is not necessarily a bad thing from US and European interests. If I were hired as a strategic advisor for US/European interests, I’d make 10 more such cartoons and make them 10 times more violent, then we can go in and bury those sand niggers. But of course I am not working for any gov’t, and I don’t like the US or Europe. So I will stand behind the Muslims in this case and say that this is proof how Europeans are religious imperialists who want to destroy Islam.

You may what I said makes me a hypocrite. But like I said, in the international arena, there are only naked interests.

February 11, 2006 @ 6:55 pm | Comment

Ivan, are you sure China Hand is a lot better than Hong Xing?

February 11, 2006 @ 7:01 pm | Comment

Richard,

I’d really like to see an example of that.
Then we could debate about whether the art is actually “Islamic.” This is a pretty important element of the present-day Muslim faith, however much we superior first-worlders find it barbaric. And where were all these Muslim artists for the author of the children’s picture book? None could be found, and that’s why the newspaper’s readership was indulged with mockery, when they actually could have learned something concrete about an alien culture.

Find a few concrete examples, and maybe I’ll concede your point a little. But I still think Tian Li is a bigot.

February 11, 2006 @ 7:04 pm | Comment

Matt, as you can see I’m cautious about this point because I really don’t know. I’ve heard this claim made on the news as a matter of fact, but I have never seen the examples. And as you probably know, you and I see pretty much eye-to-eye on the cartoons. The papers have the right to shjow them, but they also have an obligation to make it clear that they were intended to provoke. Mission accomplished, in the extreme.

February 11, 2006 @ 7:22 pm | Comment

Jerome said:

“Examine what is happening; a newspaper prints cartoons; the Muslim world explodes and calls not for a boycott of the paper but for a country, and all its products and the destruction of that country’s embassy and the killing of random people related or not related to that country.

OK, first thing: the Muslim world did not explode. At most I estimate about 100,000 participated in
demonstrations/riots/embassy urnings/attacking
foreigners. There are 1,000,000,000+ Muslims in the world. So we’re talking about all this media attention on the 0.1% whose behavior was beyond the pale.

This is in effect saying every country is responsible for what every newspaper in it prints and if that country does not muzzle its press to conform to the taboos of a certain religion or group it must suffer the consequences.

Besides the protestors, who else is going this way? The Arab governments? Please, they know they can’t tell European newspapers what to do. And how many of them are trying to make it a state-vs.-state issue? Lebanon fired the interior minister in disgrace, Egypt has said let it go… the only governments pushing it publicly are Iran and Syria, both of which are short on international credibility to begin with so they’re shoring up their nationalist appeal. I don’t see any threat of European nations muzzling anyone.

The reason why the paper did not print some anti-Christian cartoons (if that allegation is true) I would venture is because they feared their populace would boycott the newspaper–which is the right of any offended group to do. But this is not what happened here. There is a line between boycotting a paper, and the furor and hate expressed towards a people and a country that has nothing to do with that paper.”

Well guess what: the vast majority of the Muslim world isn’t part of the “furor”. They’re part of a peaceful boycott costing Denmark millions of dollars a day. I think its an overreaction, but that’s the vast majority of rational, non-foaming Muslims being peaceful, globalized, modern and organized.

But no one’s talking about the moderates, whose voices are all over the net if you look for them. All anyone pays attention to are the .1% of misguided and furious crazies. The cartoons made the same mistake – they focused on the psycho minority (some of the cartoons, anyway), not all the other reasonable people in the Arab and Muslim world.

February 11, 2006 @ 7:38 pm | Comment

> the Muslim world did not explode. At most I estimate about 100,000

So you would make the same argument about, say, protests against the invasion of Iraq in Europe? “a tiny percentage — misguided and furious crazies. ,” etc., etc. Hmm. I don’t think you would have said that.

>>I don’t see any threat of European nations muzzling anyone.

Canada, Malaysia, Sweden, and Ukraine and the EU have all either already muzzled this or are considering laws that would muzzle this sort of free expression. And the American media has been cowed.

>>Muslims being peaceful, globalized, modern and organized.

Uh, put down the crack pipe and back away slowly. The vast majority of the Muslim world is peaceful, modern, and globalized?? We’re talking about the Muslim world on the planet Earth, right? You could say plenty of positive things about the Muslim world, but “peaceful, modern, and globalized” are not among them. Maybe you meant: “violent, anti-modern, and backwards.”

February 11, 2006 @ 8:15 pm | Comment

Jim, maybe you’d feel more at home over at Little Green Cesspools or Anti-idiotarian Rottweiller. I think you’re a bigot, a Muslim-hater, and I don’t like it.

You can point to backwards Chinese people, Muslim people and fundie Christian people, and bigoted people from any ethnic group, but to paint the entire religion or nationality with a broad brush of hatred is unacceptable. For all those awful Muslims in America, I don’t know of a single example of terrorism carried out by American Muslims. Most are law-abiding, productive citizens. It’s the fanatics we need to worry about – Muslim and Christian alike, as well as fanatics like you.

February 11, 2006 @ 8:26 pm | Comment

So you would make the same argument about, say, protests against the invasion of Iraq in Europe? “a tiny percentage — misguided and furious crazies. ,” etc., etc. Hmm. I don’t think you would have said that.

No, I wouldn’t say that Jim, because its not the quantity that makes them crazy. It’s the burning shit down that makes them crazy. The protests against the invasion of Iraq never did that, far as I know.

Canada, Malaysia, Sweden, and Ukraine and the EU have all either already muzzled this or are considering laws that would muzzle this sort of free expression. And the American media has been cowed.

Oh my GOD, quick Western civilization needs some BALLS stat! Our pussification is staggering!

You almost had me there.

Canada: I’ve seen no action by the Canadian government – did I miss something?
Malaysia: not in Europe, last I checked. I did say Europe originally, didn’t I? Oh yeah, I did.
Sweden: You mean SD-Kuriren? Yeah, ok, they should have their website. Boo Sweden. They have a court system, let’s see how it sorts itself out before we say Sweden has fallen into “dhimmitude”. Oh, and LevOnline, the web provider, says they consulted the government but it was their decision. Or should the government force a private business to publish what they don’t want to?
Ukraine: I missed something there, all Google News tells me is that the cartoon was reprinted there.
EU: You mean the voluntary code of conduct for the media, or as I like to call it “How to Not Sound Like an Ignorant Asshole 101”?

Uh, put down the crack pipe and back away slowly. The vast majority of the Muslim world is peaceful, modern, and globalized?? We’re talking about the Muslim world on the planet Earth, right? You could say plenty of positive things about the Muslim world, but “peaceful, modern, and globalized” are not among them. Maybe you meant: “violent, anti-modern, and backwards.”

Let’s work on the definitions of the words:

Peaceful: when you take out all the jihadists, you still have, oh, I don’t know, AT LEAST 950,000,000 Muslims. I mean, if there were more than 50,000,000 Jihadists, you’d figure they have taken over Saudi Arabia or Iraq by now. That’s 95% NOT BLOWING SHIT UP.

Globalized: Let’s see, simultaneous protests, boycotts and media stories across the Muslim world? Costing Denmark millions a day? What definition of globalization are you working with?

Modern: Yeah, the bloggers, academics, NGO leaders, journalists and others across the Muslim world who have been talking sense this whole time are true cosmopolitans. But you probably haven’t read anything by them, since you were too busy cleaning out the havarti section of your local Dean & DeLuca.

“Maybe you meant: “violent, anti-modern, and backwards.”

Durka durka Muhammed jihad, motherfucker. I’m gonna put my own jihad on your bigoted ass.

February 11, 2006 @ 9:09 pm | Comment

INDC Journal, not a leftie moonbat blog, had a nice take on it:

http://www.indcjournal.com/archives/002331.php

February 11, 2006 @ 9:25 pm | Comment

For what it’s worth, Amir Taheri in the WSJ claims that “There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued “fatwas” against any depiction of the Godhead. … The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous:” and then there’s a list. Check out the article and an accompanying painting (?) of “The Prophet Muhammad riding Buraq” here: http://tinyurl.com/d4x2k

Also, if memory serves, there’s plenty of artwork featuring portraiture of Muhammad still floating around the muslim world even today (especially in Iran I think, but I could be mistaken…).

And, for what its worth, many arab intellectuals fighting for independence in the 20th century were secularist. Up near the top of Wikipedia’s entry for Baath Party you’ll find “Ba’thist beliefs combine Arab Socialism, nationalism, and Pan-Arabism. The mostly secular ideology often contrasts with that of other Arab governments in the Middle East, which sometimes tend to have leanings towards Islamism and theocracy.”

I’ll let you form your own conclusions.

February 11, 2006 @ 9:41 pm | Comment

I’m getting a headache.

February 11, 2006 @ 9:53 pm | Comment

nice one Biff

February 11, 2006 @ 9:56 pm | Comment

For images of Mohammed from Islamic sources, see

Mohammed Image Archive

It is alright to condemn Islam extremists and to defend the freedom of speech. However, those cartoons are insults to Islam. To republish those cartoons will only enrage more Muslims and glorify the abusive use of the freedom of speech. Furthermore, how can you advance the course of “freedom of speech” by making the other side mad? It will only advance the hatred.

February 11, 2006 @ 10:24 pm | Comment

>>That’s 95% NOT BLOWING SHIT UP.

This is some brilliant logic. Let’s see, how many Catholics tortured people during the Inquisition? How many Germans actually killed Jews? (“Nazis were peaceful — 95% of them didn’t blow anything up!”) The whole point is that we need to be worried about the raving lunatic minority — uh, they are the ones in control in that part of the world. You can cry “racism” all you want, but I have yet to see anyone claim that all Muslims are terrorists here. The cartoons in question were simply stating the obvious: the connection between Islam and terrorism. There is one. Have you noticed that in between rants?

And one of the reasons that there is a connection between Islam and terrorism is the fact that the Muslim world as a whole is a violent, anti-modern, and backwards part of the planet.

>>Durka durka Muhammed jihad, motherfucker. I’m gonna put my own jihad on your bigoted ass.

Is this more of that “peaceful” Muslim vibe you are going on about? Or just puerile name-calling to match your arguments?

February 11, 2006 @ 10:27 pm | Comment

Jim, the connection between Islam and terrorism is simply that there are terrorists who claim to be Muslim. There are also terrorists who claim to be Catholic (Northern Ireland), Protestant (Ireland again) Tamil (Sri Lanka), Buddhist (Aum Shinrikyo), Hindu (Gandhi’s assassin) and pretty much any other creed you care to name. Terrorism is one name for a set of asymmetrical tactics that target civilians and operate on fear. It is not a belief system. In none of these other cases of terrorism around the world did anyone seriously entertain the idea that the violent and reprehensible actions of these minorities who claimed to belong to a faith actually represented those faiths. Nor was it seriously considered an indictment of those faiths as being intrinsically backward or violent. Take your Nazi example: do you honestly think that Nazism is intrinsic to being German? Then why would terrorism be intrinsic to being Muslim?

Islam is not anti-modern by nature; there are simply those who interpret it so for their own political purposes. You can point to parts of the Qur’an that talk of slaying the infidel or oppressing women. I can point to passages that say the same thing in the Bible, but the passages don’t make Christianity anti-modern. It’s the reader who interprets the Bible in such a way as to put emphasis on, say, Leviticus, who is anti-modern.

There are millions of Muslims who balance the traditional elements of Islam with being educated and open-minded members of secular society, just as millions of Christians don’t abide rules like “neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee” (Leviticus 19:19). But you dismiss all those people, with whom we could be having a constructive dialogue to find a way to marginalize and eradicate groups like Al Qaeda. But none of them are going to want to spend one minute talking to you when you say “the Muslim world as a whole is a violent, anti-modern, and backwards part of the planet”, just like you wouldn’t be interested in talking to them if they said “the Western world as a whole is an imperialist, warmongering and immoral part of the planet”.

And that last bit? Was a joke from the movie “Team America: World Police”. But I guess you didn’t see that movie. And you are a bigot. Generalizing that 1 billion plus people are violent and backwards is the very definition of a bigot.

February 11, 2006 @ 11:26 pm | Comment

And try reading that INDC link I gave. Some of those violent and backwards people are trying to have a civil conversation with you, if you gave them a chance. Or even better, go start reading some of Ethan Zuckerman’s links to bloggers in the Arab world. Or how about the various voices in the Arab press who call for cooler heads and common sense – some at newspapers subsequently punished by their governments for not stoking populist anger? How about instead of condemning an entire “world”, using your energy to seek out and ally with those within that world who are decent and smart human beings?

Because you’re a bigot, that’s why.

February 11, 2006 @ 11:34 pm | Comment

Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre or in the tube.

February 12, 2006 @ 3:08 am | Comment

You give religion an inch and it takes…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2036285_1,00.html

February 12, 2006 @ 5:07 am | Comment

Right on, Dave. Good to see you back.

February 12, 2006 @ 6:12 am | Comment

I follow your argument on moderates until your example.
I made a distinction between boycotting the guilty paper and boycotting a country that the paper was in.
You state the majority are doing a peaceful boycott costing Denmark millions.
Peaceful or raucous this is saying we require each country to force every paper and every editor within in it to conform to our taboos. If you don’t we will boycott etc.
That is the imposition of one’s taboos on the public domain. I don’t call that moderate nor rational and I believe it goes beyond the simple free speech issue;

As many have pointed out this imposition is selective and inconsistent which makes the boycott all the more suspect.

February 12, 2006 @ 6:55 am | Comment

The above was directed to davesgonechina’s original argument on moderates

February 12, 2006 @ 6:55 am | Comment

Dave,

Is the West as a whole a less violent place than the Muslim world? Is the West as a whole more modern in outlook than the Muslim world? Is the West as a whole more developed than the Muslim world? I’m amazed to find out that I’m a “bigot” for stating the obvious, but I guess smears work better than logic for you.

>>Then why would terrorism be intrinsic to being Muslim?

Nice straw man. Where did I say “terrorism is instrinsic to being Muslim?”

There is a connection between Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism. (I stated the obvious again — must be more evidence of my “bigotry”). Radicalized Muslims have a system of belief that extols the virtues of suicide bombings, just as radicalized Christians blow up abortion clinics and are thouroughly anti-modern in outlook (Oh! Now I’m an anti-Christian bigot.) The difference, at the moment, is that radicalized Muslims are in control in most of the Muslim world (apart from Indonesia). And there are more radicalized Muslims than radicalized Christians by a factor of about 1,000.

So if I publish a cartoon of Jesus with a bomb at an abortion clinic, this must mean I am saying, “All Christians are terrorists.” Right? If i did publish such a cartoon, I think it would rightly point out the absurditity of the radicals interpreting their religion in this way. However, according to you, no such satire is permissible and is bigoted.

And if hundreds of thousands of Christians were protesting in the streets and burning down embassies and calling for beheadings — and millions more around the globe were starting boycotts of entire countries because of what a private newspaper published — I’m sure you would blame the problem on free speech and the publisher of the cartoon.

February 12, 2006 @ 7:33 am | Comment

>>Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you can shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre or in the tube.

Yes, of course, putting people in physical danger and political satire and commentary are exactly the same! Do you work for Xinhua? Because I hear this argument everyday in China.

February 12, 2006 @ 8:06 am | Comment

Jerome: I see where you’re coming from, but the boycott of Denmark seems to be a) a self-organized event not orchestrated by Arab governments, though exploited by them and b) more importantly, plugs into a widely held feeling in the Arab world that the West is out to get Muslims, or at least not give Islam a fair shake. Also, I’d point out that “this is saying we require each country to force every paper and every editor within in it to conform to our taboos. If you don’t we will boycott etc.” is what many did to South Africa during Apartheid – they boycotted the entire South African economy. The boycotts may seem totally out of proportion to the cartoons to us, but its not a tool that we ever felt was improper to wield. They are trying to tell us something, and the boycott is a non-violent and globalized way of sending the message. The question now is understanding the message and its context to form an appropriate response.

Jim, besides repeating how “obvious” things are, your argument seems to involve shifting terms every time you respond.

Nice straw man. Where did I say “terrorism is instrinsic to being Muslim?”

Here:

And one of the reasons that there is a connection between Islam and terrorism is the fact that the Muslim world as a whole is a violent, anti-modern, and backwards part of the planet.

Terrorism is violent and anti-modern. Islam is the bullshit excuse of some terrorists. I’ve noticed you switched from “Islam and terrorism” having an “obvious” connection to “Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism”. Which, though I’m sure you’re loathe to admit it, was my frikkin’ point. Fundamentalism is not Islam. But that’s not what you said. Repeatedly.

However, according to you, no such satire is permissible and is bigoted.

I didn’t say the cartoons were impermissable or bigoted. I implied the cartoons (or more specifically the Muhammed-bomb one – the classroom one is brilliant) seem to be the work of an ignorant asshole. And I didn’t say the cartoon or the cartoonist are bigoted, I said you are.

the Muslim world as a whole is a violent, anti-modern, and backwards part of the planet.

That, I repeat, is bigotry. Stating that any “world as a whole” is backwards is bigotry. It’s very simple. In English, Jim, we call it a “stereotype”. The ADL defines it as “A stereotype is a preconceived or oversimplified generalization about an entire group of people without regard for individual differences.” Saying “the Muslim world as a whole” is “violent, anti-modern and backwards” is the perfect specimen of a stereotype.

The difference, at the moment, is that radicalized Muslims are in control in most of the Muslim world (apart from Indonesia).

I’ll be sure to tell our allies in Pakistan, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Turkey and of course Iraq. Not to mention I’ll make sure to tell all the Central Asian ‘stan countries and most of North Africa that when Al Qaeda runs and hides in their countries, not to bother to cooperate with us because in our eyes

the Muslim world as a whole is a violent, anti-modern, and backwards part of the planet.

So if I publish a cartoon of Jesus with a bomb at an abortion clinic, this must mean I am saying, “All Christians are terrorists.” Right? If i did publish such a cartoon, I think it would rightly point out the absurditity of the radicals interpreting their religion in this way.

But that’s exactly how you DIDN’T interpret the Muhammed bomb-turban cartoon when you called the Muslim world “violent, anti-modern and backwards”. That comment suggests that you didn’t look at the Danish cartoon and say “yeah, thats about fundamentalists hijacking a peaceful religion”. No, you looked at it and said “yeah, Islam is violent and backwards”.

I realize that dittoheads like you can only frame this in terms of free speech, although I already pointed out that free speech does not seem to be in any real danger in Europe or the U.S. The issue is respect. The boycotts are a demand for respect. We don’t have to close any newspapers or censor anyone to start giving the Muslims who responded to this with the rational and civil responses of writing and boycotts more respect. But you’re too busy trying to hammer out a theory that terrorism arises out of Islam, rather than Islamic rhetoric arises out of terrorists. You’re letting the fundamentalists and the authoritarian governments frame this as an issue of censorship, when that’s not what the average Muslim is worried about. The average Muslim supports the boycott because people like you in the West go around saying Muslims are violent people.

I recommend you watch Morgan Spurlock’s tv series 30 Days on the F/X network. He sent a West Virginia Christian guy to Dearborn, MI to be Muslim for 30 days. In fact, why don’t you check the yellow pages, go to your local mosque and talk to them about, Jim?

February 12, 2006 @ 9:16 am | Comment

*******
Then why would terrorism be intrinsic to being Muslim?
*******

Because Islam, like Christianity, Communism, Nazism, and other systems of belief, an Authority system in which the believer vests moral authority in some transcendent value — “the will of Allah” or “the Laws of History” or “The Ten Commandments” — which is said to be an absolute. Abolute values are simply a rhetorical device for forcing the other side to shut up in debates about what is ethical for individuals and for society, and the natural next step from them is violence — legitimated by possession of Absolute Rightness. Hence, behind every claim to absolute values is a sword itching to come out. That is why Authority beliefs like Islam and Communism have racked up such high body counts. Violence is a structural feature of authority beliefs.

Moderates in both the Christian and Muslim world have responded to the inhumanity of these values by refashioning or ignoring them, by diluting the authority of the Authority, remaking their religions into projections of what is best in themselves. They are not violent because they have rejected the demands of Authority on them, for whatever reasons.

Freethinking atheists like myself have taken the next logical step, and dispensed with Authority entirely — we do not need any transcendet legitimating value to legitimate love for others, and service to them. That is why you often read headlines like:

Muslims burn Christian Churches, 8 dead.
Communists execute Muslims.
Evangelicals, Catholics, clash in rural villages, many killed.

but you will never see a headline like:

North Texas Church of Freethought attacks Austin Area Atheists, 6 dead.

Freethinking atheists believe stupid stuff like everyone else; but the difference between them and everyone else is that they don’t believe it because some Authority told them too. If the world were composed of freethinking atheists like me, it would be a far less violent place.

But to go one more step into even more controversial and offensive territory, it is even arguable whether Muslims are engaging in terrorism at all, for the territories that have triggered all the terrorism are disputed, and there is nothing entirely unreasonable about Palestinian claims to Palestine, Iraqi claims to Iraq, or Muslim claims to Kashmir. Your terrorist is my freedom fighter.

The anti-Muslim cartoons are stupid and offensive because they are caricatures that do nothing to illuminate real issues, the way really insightful cartoonists like Gary Trudea and Tom Tomorrow do. They should not have been published because the cartoonists who did them were incompetent and did not understand the issues they were satirizing. it’s not a censorship issue at all.

Michael

February 12, 2006 @ 9:30 am | Comment

Dave,

Do you understand the difference between two things having a connection and something being inherent in and equivalent with something else? I realize it is convenient for you to conflate these two things and label people who disagree with you “bigots,” but in your zeal to defend Islam, you are blinding yourself to basic facts.

I see that you ignored my three questions. Stating that the Muslim world on the whole is more violent, less developed, and less modern in outlook — and these are some of the reasons that fundamentalism is so prevalent in that part of the world — is a “stereotype.” I’m sure things like GDP are also “stereotypes” in your world.

There is a connection between Islam and terrorism just like there was a connection between Japanese nationalism and kamikaze pilots. Or between Christianity and the madness of the Inquisition. So, did I just say that all Christians are torturers and all Japanese are kamikaze pilots? I must have according to your “logic.”

>>”. No, you looked at it and said “yeah, Islam is violent and backwards”.

See if you can manage this distinction: the Muslim world and Islam. One is a geographical expression. One is a religion.

>>I realize that dittoheads like you

LMAO. I’m sure all who disagree with you are bigots and dittoheads. Let’s see…I voted for Kerry and used to work for the ACLU. I think that automatically disqualifies me from being a dittohead.

February 12, 2006 @ 9:59 am | Comment

The media in America DID censor itself. I have yet to even see the disputed cartoons without them being blurred. It’s fucking pointless for the media to report on the subject when they are not even willing to show us whats being argued over. Another example of the media in America failing to do its job!

February 12, 2006 @ 10:46 am | Comment

I see that you ignored my three questions. Stating that the Muslim world on the whole is more violent, less developed, and less modern in outlook — and these are some of the reasons that fundamentalism is so prevalent in that part of the world — is a “stereotype.” I’m sure things like GDP are also “stereotypes” in your world.

Your three questions are still based on an oversimplification. Which part of the Muslim world are we talking about? You’re still setting up a contrast that there is a superior West and a backwards Muslim world, and the defining reason the Muslim world is backwards in your statements is because they are Muslim. Now you’re mentioning development, but framing it the way you do you precludes the possibility that the violence has more to do with authoritarianism or poverty – things that exist in various parts of the world that aren’t Muslim. Your statement that the Muslim world is more or less these things in comparison to the West sets the discussion to be about how Western values trumped Islamic ones. The reality is that in both the West and the Muslim world there are fundamentalists and there are cosmopolitans. Your three questions frame this as West vs. Muslim, where West=modern, rational, peaceful and Muslim world=anti-modern, irrational, violent. That’s wrong. The reality is that there are modern, rational, peaceful cosmopolitans in both societies as well as dogmatists. My original point was that instead of making indictments of the Muslim world as being unable to produce cosmopolitans, we should be building relationships with those who share cosmopolitan values around the world, particularly in Muslim societies.

Since my original point was about finding a solution to the problem through a dialogue between reasonable people, I ask you Jim: what’s your solution? So far you’ve said the Western media has been “cowed”, so presumably you feel something needs to be done there, and that there’s a connection between Islam and terrorism. I’m unclear on how you think that connection works, though, or what solutions you think are necessary as result of that relationship.

And Emran Qureshi echoes my perspective in today’s NYT as far as how us non-Muslims ought to be responding:

Sadly, the recent polarization obscures a rich humanistic tradition within Islam — one in which cosmopolitanism, pluralism and a spirit of open-minded inquiry once constituted a dominant ethos…

No, the answer is not more censorship. But it would be nice if Western champions of freedom of speech didn’t trivialize it by deriving pleasure from their ability to gratuitously offend Muslims. They view freedom of speech much as Islamic fundamentalists do — simply as the ability to offend — rather than as the cornerstone of a liberal democratic polity that uses such freedoms wisely and responsibly. Worse, these advocates insist on handing Muslim radicals a platform from which to pose as defenders of the faith against an alleged Western assault on Islam.

To connect Islam, as opposed to Islamic fundamentalism, to terrorism, is to legitimate terrorists as defenders of the faith. Al Qaeda understands this, which is why Zarqawi recently said more than half the battle is in the media. If we define Islam as Ibn Al-Arabi, Rumi, Naguib Mahfouz, the bloggers found on Global Voices Online, the journalists of the Arab press who called for good sense, then we rob the terrorists of the religious shield they’ve exploited so well. But every time a careless generalization or stereotype is made that associates Islam, instead of Islamists or Islamofascists, with terrorism, we marginalize the millions of good people in the Muslim world and give centerstage to the dogmatic and violent minority. In essence we back their coup d’etat to commandeer Islam, by giving them something to point at and scream “see? The Westerners want to destroy you because of your faith, and we are the only ones to defend you.”

Michael: I’m partial to your view, but I’m not so sure of the superiority of freethinking atheists. No, you never had that headline “North Texas Church of Freethought attacks Austin Area Atheists, 6 dead.” But I fail to see how anyone can dispense with authority altogether, except through death. A freethinking atheist must still have a priori beliefs, or ideals, which are by definition authoritative. To believe otherwise sounds like either a morass of complete relativism, or to forget that any philosophical system is limited by its premises. Even freethinking.

February 12, 2006 @ 11:49 am | Comment

Go read the LAT article I linked to upthread. It’s a really excellent.

February 12, 2006 @ 11:51 am | Comment

Having some bottom-line beliefs, like, “do unto others” is a far cry from an “authority-based” belief system, stemming from some omnipotent God outside of one’s self.

Religious extremists of all sorts are hugely dangerous. They operate from an irrational belief system, which makes them easy to manipulate. Plus, okay, I know you all are probably tired of hearing this from me, but just about all of them are fundamentally based on the oppression of women.

(fixed my own typo)

February 12, 2006 @ 12:15 pm | Comment

It’s an interesting article Other Lisa, and I’m with Rutten that Wolf Blitzer is full of crap. But take these two sentences:

For one thing, reporting in this paper, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal has made it clear that what’s at work here is not the Muslim street’s spontaneous revulsion against sacrilege but a calculated campaign of manipulation by European Islamists and self-interested Middle Eastern governments. If the images first published in Jyllands-Posten last September are so inherently offensive that they cannot be viewed in any context, why did Danish Muslims distribute them across an Islamic world that seldom looks at Copenhagen newspapers?

Why did they distribute them? Because its a campaign of manipulation! Look, the imams and governments that used this as a political wedge are hypocrites. And I still believe the main issue with the cartoons is not the portrayal of Muhammed, but that it plays on the fear of a Clash of Civilizations, which simply empowers Al Qaeda. There’s plenty of precedent for portraying Muhammed in world history, and there are dirty jokes about him being told right now, even in Saudi Arabia. This isn’t about Muhammed. This about choosing to send a message that builds trust or a message that instills fear. Implying Islam is violent by nature instills fear. But that doesn’t mean banning the cartoon from the LA Times does anybody any good. It is simply timidity, when the media should be fiercely engaged in building a constructive dialogue, which doesn’t mean a lack of provocation. But it does mean provocation with forethought, so it isn’t a conversation killer.

February 12, 2006 @ 12:33 pm | Comment

muslims fanatics are not in the minority. if arab and muslims nations will have free and fair electins. the fanatic muslim party will win 90%. 10% of good muslims dond count for me!

February 12, 2006 @ 12:51 pm | Comment

That’s why I liked that article so much, Dave. He really lays everything out in a clear-headed way.

February 12, 2006 @ 1:50 pm | Comment

Dave, I also agree that this is about a “clash of civilizations.” And of course Arab and Muslim people have plenty of legitimate grievances, both against the West and their own governments. The problem is that this anger is so easily misdirected by extremists.

And another thing that gets lost in the discussion, generally in a welter of immigrant-bashing, is just how do European countries assimilate people who have some really different core beliefs? I’m talking about the uber-conservatives who believe in honor killing when their daughters get too uppity, as an example. I think it’s entirely appropriate for Danes to say, hey, these are our core beliefs, as Danes, and if you are going to live here, you have to abide by them. What right do Islamic extremists have to tell Danish people how to live?

The other side of that, of course, is that these supposedly tolerant societies have to do a better job of accepting immigrants.

How to do this? I don’t know…

February 12, 2006 @ 2:02 pm | Comment

I think it’s entirely appropriate for Danes to say, hey, these are our core beliefs, as Danes, and if you are going to live here, you have to abide by them. What right do Islamic extremists have to tell Danish people how to live?

Well, the question then is “Who is a Dane?”, right? Immigrants mix it all up. Once you start drawing lines about who is *really* Danish, you’re playing a dangerous game. Again, the clash here isn’t between Danish culture and Islamic culture. It’s between cosmopolitanism and traditionalism. Saying you’re fighting to preserve Danish culture in the face of a “medieval” immigrant culture, as the head of Denmark’s People’s Party said, is traditionalism. The fear of mixing, the fear of change. Preservation isn’t wrong in itself; preservation as a rearguard action against the “infidel” is. And neither the West nor the Middle East has a monopoly on either cosmopolitanism or traditionalism.

The editors of both an Algerian and Yemeni newspaper have been detained for republishing the cartoons. Those editors are on the cosmopolitan side – open debate, mixing, pollution of ideas – on this issue. On others, maybe they are traditionalists. But they are not “Western” for reprinting the cartoons. One can be Muslim and cosmopolitan at the same time, and those of us in the West have to understand that we don’t have a monopoly on defining cosmopolitanism.

The New York Times Magazine had Kwame Anthony Appiah’s article on cosmopolitanism a couple of weeks ago. I recommend it.

February 12, 2006 @ 2:32 pm | Comment

Again, the clash here isn’t between Danish culture and Islamic culture. It’s between cosmopolitanism and traditionalism.

. Dave, I’m engraving that on my own personal stone tablets. Exactly so.

Though wouldn’t you say, some “traditional” cultures are more tolerant, more open, than others?

February 12, 2006 @ 2:52 pm | Comment

Dave, didn’t that fellow write a book as well?

I’m reading the article, it’s great. So far I’d say his take sums up my own rather inchoate philosophy as well as anything I’ve read.

Reminds me a little of something I read, I think it was by Murakami. He wrote a non-fiction book about the Aun cult and the subway massacre. He talked about the difference between “closed” and “open” systems. Closed systems define their own reality and won’t let anything intrude from the outside that might challenge it. Maybe it’s not just cosmopolitan versus traditional, but open versus closed as well…

February 12, 2006 @ 2:57 pm | Comment

Yeah, traditional isn’t the best word for non-cosmopolitan. In studying ethnic nationalism, cosmopolitanism is contrasted with primordialism – the idea that ethnic identity is a timeless category you’re born into. Its a fixed identity that you have power to define or describe.

I guess that’s why I’m quick to defend Islam in the face of the cartoons. Some of the cartoons, and more importantly the counter-reactions of many in the West, have been essentializing – non-Muslims putting a fixed identity on Muslims. That’s no different than the jihadists in rejecting the fluid diversity in Islam, or any other creed, as defined by its billion plus participants. Towards the end of Appiah’s article, he mentions:

The ideal of contamination has few exponents more eloquent than Salman Rushdie, who has insisted that the novel that occasioned his fatwa “celebrates hybridity, impurity, intermingling, the transformation that comes of new and unexpected combinations of human beings, cultures, ideas, politics, movies, songs. It rejoices in mongrelisation and fears the absolutism of the Pure. Mélange, hotch-potch, a bit of this and a bit of that is how newness enters the world.”

A cosmopolitan looks at these cartoons, I believe, and looks away from the rigid dichotimies of a “clash of civilizations” and instead seeks out the mongrels. Which, ultimately, I think everyone is to some degree – Bin Laden, as Appiah points out, is a mongrel of sorts. Even Appiah’s “counter-cosmopolitanism”, which is Islamic fundamentalism, is a mongrel anyway, which means cosmopolitanism isn’t into these either/or choices even in defining its own opposite.

The NYT article is a manuscript from the book Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers. By the way, if you dig that, I’m currently reading Mountains Beyond Mountains by Tracy Kidder about Paul Farmer in Haiti. Good stuff.

February 12, 2006 @ 4:08 pm | Comment

dave you are maybe the fifth person who has recommended the Farmer book to me.

I think I will walk down to my local bookstore and do some browsing now!

February 12, 2006 @ 4:12 pm | Comment

Michael: I’m partial to your view, but I’m not so sure of the superiority of freethinking atheists. No, you never had that headline “North Texas Church of Freethought attacks Austin Area Atheists, 6 dead.” But I fail to see how anyone can dispense with authority altogether, except through death. A freethinking atheist must still have a priori beliefs, or ideals, which are by definition authoritative. To believe otherwise sounds like either a morass of complete relativism, or to forget that any philosophical system is limited by its premises. Even freethinking.

Perhaps, but those premises are not (a) an Authority for which (b) someone can speak. And further, they are revisable. They are not absolutes. There’s nothing to kill or die for in atheism, Dave, which is why we don’t. It is the presence of Absolutes coupled with Authority that always results in violence.

I agree totally with your analysis of the black hands behind this mess; that’s been my reading.

Michael

February 12, 2006 @ 4:29 pm | Comment

I’m in a hurry so I don’t have time to read all 108 comments… pretty impressive I must say. I’m a regular reader and I didn’t pick up any of this in any of your previous posts (probably because you’re being professional), but when I read “I consider myself a religious person” I was caught by suprise and wondering, what persuasion and how serious? Not to discriminate, just want to know a little bit more about the guy forming many of my opinions as of late.

keep up the good work
Jay

February 13, 2006 @ 3:09 am | Comment

Actually, this was a guest post by Jerome Keating; I can make an educated guess about his religion based on his name alone, but since I can’t be sure I’ll let him respond. (I’m Jewish-agnostic, by the way.)

February 13, 2006 @ 3:18 am | Comment

you muslims are blaming all the denish people for the cartoons.why cant we blame all islam for terrorism. and how do we know that the terrorists arnt working on behalf of the so called “peacefull muslims”?

February 13, 2006 @ 12:16 pm | Comment

islam is taking over our western sositety.we better do something about it! they are fighting with terrorism which making our leaders impotents to respond. we must chanch the laws. no more enemy human rights! what do you think?

February 13, 2006 @ 12:28 pm | Comment

I think, Monica, that you are either a troll or deluded.

Oh, wait…who’s that knocking at my door…? Could it be…ISLAMOFASCISTS??!!

Whoops, nope, just the mailman.

February 13, 2006 @ 2:42 pm | Comment

lisa:oh yes you must be a muslim then, or a dreamer or out of reality. dont worry you will think the same as i do in a little while. most people do think like me!

February 13, 2006 @ 4:00 pm | Comment

Hi Monica, nice to meet you. Are you playing games, or are you truly a bigoted fool with a gaping hole where your brain oughtta be?

February 13, 2006 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

to lisa: i am a genius! unlike you i do see the future and i do know that with muslims in our sosiety in those big numbers we are doomed! its 1+1 which makes a clear 2 to me. for you that will make 3. got it stupid!

February 13, 2006 @ 4:36 pm | Comment

Hoo-boy. Somebody’s off her meds…

February 13, 2006 @ 5:01 pm | Comment

Monica: American Math

(sorry sweetie, inside joke. go back sharpening your halberd for the crusades.)

February 13, 2006 @ 10:00 pm | Comment

“you muslims are blaming all the denish people for the cartoons.why cant we blame all islam for terrorism.”

What a beautiful summary of the Michelle Malkin school of stereotyping and hate. It’s pure schoolyard: But Mom, he started it!

Never mind the statement begs the question in the first place by stating “you Muslims”, as if all 1+ billion were protesting… some of them have jobs, yknow.

February 13, 2006 @ 10:03 pm | Comment

Dave, I don’t think Monica’s American, actually. I should look up her IP address…

February 13, 2006 @ 10:51 pm | Comment

Our Monica –

Location: South Africa [City: Johannesburg, Gauteng]

February 13, 2006 @ 10:59 pm | Comment

if Monica’s american, she’s the fobbiest one I’ve ever seen online.

February 14, 2006 @ 12:17 am | Comment

Oooh, what’s “fobbiest”?

I like it!

February 14, 2006 @ 12:32 am | Comment

fobbiest is how Fat Albert’s “Mushmouth” pronounces “I habeben’t de fobbiest”

February 14, 2006 @ 2:55 am | Comment

hahahahahahaha!

February 14, 2006 @ 3:12 am | Comment

Lisa,

Don’t you know Postal workers are more dangerous than most Islamofascists?

February 14, 2006 @ 4:50 am | Comment

to little lisa: you sounds so lonley and odd. GET A FUCK! sorry a life!

February 14, 2006 @ 1:50 pm | Comment

Ah, South Africa, that explains it. You probably use words like “Kaffir”, don’t you Monica? You sound like the Afrikaaner in Lethal Weapon 2 with your ethnic slurs.

February 14, 2006 @ 3:15 pm | Comment

Er…what?

I ham soo lonesly!

February 14, 2006 @ 3:56 pm | Comment

Lisa,

You lonesly? Me love you long time!
Only ten dollar! We invite dave too!

February 14, 2006 @ 4:15 pm | Comment

oh, no longer am lonesely!

February 14, 2006 @ 4:48 pm | Comment

and we invite Math! He measure us all.

February 14, 2006 @ 6:45 pm | Comment

Would like to know what the Japanese think of all of the furor going on about a cartoon? They are, after all Manga readers. They are probably laughing up their sleeves at what the westerners are doing…We should think of what Japan is doing…and China. They are laughing at us for doing what Arabs want us to do. We should be thinking of China…and Japan.

February 17, 2006 @ 7:29 pm | Comment

what do the Japanese think of this Manga?

February 17, 2006 @ 7:40 pm | Comment

japan?

February 17, 2006 @ 7:43 pm | Comment

The full story of these cartoons is VERY different from the disjointed scraps and selected items shown elsewhere and can be read in “Private Eye” dated 17 February – 3 March 2006. The saga began in total innocence with a Muslim woman wanting to write a book for her child about the prophet.

February 25, 2006 @ 1:16 pm | Comment