The Danish cartoon controversy: A contrast in protests

Posted on by

Here at SM headquarters we have quite an intricate system for vetting which stories make it to our website. Most of our stories are unearthed by the army of ex test-monkeys (retired from military, space, and medical research) that we house in our basement. They are the ones who scour the internet all day and feed important stories to our bloggers, while we spend most of our time at our full-time jobs. We also have the tipline, by which dedicated readers send in tips. Later, in our conference room, we ask ourselves three main questions about a prospective post:

  1. Can I do this story justice/am I knowledgeable and interested enough to write about it without sounding ignorant?
  2. Does the story have an angle highlighting South Asians?
  3. Does the story have an angle of interest to North Americans?

The reason you haven’t seen us post on this topic before is because not all of us were convinced that we could answer yes to all three questions. After attending the SAAN Conference this past weekend (which will be summarized in my next post), I have become convinced that we have missed the relevance this issue has to our community, and that the answer to all three questions is yes. I am speaking of course of the controversy surrounding a Danish newspaper’s decision to publish a picture of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb as his turban.

Arab foreign ministers have condemned the Danish government for failing to act against a newspaper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
At the Arab League conference in Cairo, they said they were “surprised and discontented at the response”.

Islam forbids any depiction of Muhammad or of Allah.

The Jyllands-Posten newspaper published a series of 12 cartoons showing Muhammad, in one of which he appeared to have a bomb in his turban. [Link]

<

p>I see great irony in this situation that doesn’t seem to have registered in the press (as far as I know). Muslims around the world are protesting this cartoon (often violently) because it is forbidden in Islam to depict the Prophet, especially in such a vulgar manner as this. Muhammad, in his boundless wisdom, wanted to make sure that his image would never be used or treated as an idol, and that men would never worship him as one. In Christianity for example, many most sects now worship Christ as God, instead of seeing him as only a mortal prophet. It was the message of Islam, and not Muhammad the man, that was to better the world. By violently protesting this cartoon, it could be argued that Muslims around the world are acting as if an idol has been desecrated. Using violence to protest this “desecration” legitimizes that which the Prophet cautioned against in the first place. He has become an idol to be defended and avenged in the eyes of many. Part of the reason that we haven’t already written about this issue is that it hasn’t had nearly as much impact in the U.S. as it has had in Europe and the rest of the world. Do Americans even care or understand what this is all about? Why am I not hearing more about this from the desi community? Before I go on, I want you to take a careful look at some pictures. Don’t read text that follows the pictures until you guess which country each was taken in:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Give up? 1) London, 2) New Delhi, 3) Philadelphia, 4) Tehran
It’s almost funny to see the signs held up by protesters in Philly, as compared to the blood-thirsty mobs portrayed in the rest of the pictures. “No to hate” and “Distasteful,” vs. “Behead those who insult Islam” and flag burning.
Muslims offended by the [Philadelphia] Inquirer’s decision to reprint a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad that has inflamed the sensibilities of their co-religionists across the world picketed the newspaper this morning…

Most American newspapers have decided not to reprint the cartoon. Newspapers in Europe have, as a gesture of free press solidarity with Jyllands-Posten, run the caricature as well as 11 others pillorying the prophet. One image depicts Muhammad halting a line of suicide bombers at the gates of heaven with the cry, “Stop, stop, we have run out of virgins…”

One demonstrator, 54-year old Aneesha Uqdah of Philadelphia, argued that precedent exists for newspapers to withhold some information to prevent harm: “If a woman was a rape victim, you wouldn’t publish her name,” she said…

The demonstrators carried signs that read, “Freedom of Speech, Not Irresponsible Speech,” “No to Hate” and “Islam = Nonviolence…” [Link]

<

p align=left>

How can you, as an average American citizen, not agree with the level-headed logic of the woman in the quote above? Common sense alone would convince most Americans that the cartoon is inappropriate, partly because there is nothing American’s admire more than peaceful protestors willing to risk jail and personal injury for a cause which they believe is just. Such truth and justice is infectious. The civil rights movement was based on such Gandhian principles, which were adopted by Dr. King. Most South Asians in America have adopted this ideal ideal as well. No matter how much Muslims in America, including South Asian Muslims, disagree with this cartoon, I cannot imagine them violently protesting it like in Europe and around the world. Almost every non-white American has experienced racism or intolerance in their lives. The way we deal with it is the polar opposite of other minority populations around the world. We fight every bit as hard as those elsewhere, but our battles are guided by the belief that America can be changed by its own citizens for the better. We don’t instinctively burn flags or cry out for blood. We get angry, we get focused, and then we work for our cause. By contrast, look at this nutjob in London. He felt that he could make his displeasure for a Danish cartoon known…by dressing up as a suicide bomber. He not only hurts his cause, but he endangers (through stigma and suspicion) the lives of all those he thinks he is defending:

Speaking outside his home in Bedford, Mr Khayam, 22, said: “I found the pictures deeply offensive as a Muslim and I felt the Danish newspaper had been provocative and controversial, deeply offensive and insensitive.

“But by me dressing the way I did, I did just that, exactly the same as the Danish newspaper, if not worse. My method of protest has offended many people, especially the families of the victims of the July bombings. This was not my intention.”

Downing Street today described the behaviour of some Muslim demonstrators in London over the last few days as “completely unacceptable”. Some demonstrators carried placards calling for people who insult Islam to be killed. [Link]

<

p align=left>

Fareed Zakaria writes in the latest Newsweek about how the Bush Administration may have misjudged their ability to affect change in the Islamic world:
There is a tension in the Islamic world between the desire for democracy and a respect for liberty. (It is a tension that once raged in the West and still exists in pockets today.) This is most apparent in the ongoing fury over the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in a small Danish newspaper. The cartoons were offensive and needlessly provocative. Had the paper published racist caricatures of other peoples or religions, it would also have been roundly condemned and perhaps boycotted. But the cartoonist and editors would not have feared for their lives. It is the violence of the response in some parts of the Muslim world that suggests a rejection of the ideas of tolerance and freedom of expression that are at the heart of modern Western societies. [Link]
So where do I stand on this issue. After much thought I decided that I must stick to the principles I believe in as an American, most importantly the freedom of speech. Freedom means the right to publish hate-speech, as long as it doesn’t incite violence against someone. In this case, the newspaper has apparently incited violence against itself. You should not have to fear for your life, or the lives of your countrymen abroad, simply for drawing a picture. I am not being a hypocrite or inconsistent with past beliefs. I also support the right to place Ganesh on a beer bottle, and Rama on shoes, or any other “blasphemy” you can think of. I may protest things that offend me, but never through violence. This behavior you see around the world is not Islam. It would seem that many Muslims have just decided to turn their backs on the teachings of the Prophet and return to the pre-Islamic roots of some of their cultures. Especially under poor socio-economic conditions, a false sense of justice, blood feuds, intolerance, and tribalism has taken over. These pre-Islamic norms are what must be protested.

<

p>

There are about a dozen other angles to this story that I am going to leave for the readers. I caution however that we need to keep this dialog constructive going forward. I will be moderating the comments a lot more closely, so please keep it clean and flame free.

243 thoughts on “The Danish cartoon controversy: A contrast in protests”

  1. Well, by not meeting and just LISTENING to their grievance Rasmussen essentially showed the Islamic community the finger. He made a diplomatic faux pas so surely you can understand why those whose feelings the Danish govn. doesn’t give a hoot about would take their business elsewhere?

    i think you must essentially concede then though that rasmussen’s snub isn’t going to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

  2. you seem very .. awake at this hour

    I have the advantage of my time zone 🙂

    This was because of underlying principles in conflict – the right to speech & blaspheme on one side, and the mandate the kill the blasphemous on the other.

    Let me reiterate – those that promote violence are the WORST group in this furore. I hate them. I hate them, hate them, hate them. Happy?

    But the fact remains, that by not even acknowledging that muslims could have been offended (before it recently grew out of proportion), the Danish PM was indifferent to the cultural sensitivity of his trading partners. How can you not see that?

  3. i think you must essentially concede then though that rasmussen’s snub isn’t going to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

    Why must I concede that? Rasmussen’s initial snub is what took the problem out of Denmark and into the Middle East.

  4. Rasmussen’s initial snub is what took the problem out of Denmark and into the Middle East

    this isnt much different from saying that world war I broke out only because of the assasination of archduke ferdinand and completley ignoring the whole host of underlying/systemic/root (as vinod said) causes…its simply refusing to acknowledge the bigger reasons for why this happened and pinning the blame on Rasmussen.

  6. Manish

    I just don’t buy the line that this issue is all a manufactured diversionary hype by the right and the extremists – if everybody is talking about it, if the issues ask us deep questions about our polity and ideas, if everyone has an opinion – it is the issue of the time.

    It was simmering since 1989 – since September 2001 it is close to defining our time. I don’t think you can deny that – even if you think it is all an artfully manufactured conspiracy to distract us.

  7. I feel the Muslims are to blame for these cartoons, things like 9\11,Bin Laden, Saddam, Kashmir, Beslan dont bring good memories in people minds. These cartoons are the impressions of Islam in people’s mind due to the sad, unfortunate incidents done in the name of the religion. Whats done is done, Muslims should now focus on improving their image rather than screwing it up further with violent attacks like the ones in Syria, Lebanon, Iran and other places.

  8. Since I’ve already posted a few comments on this subject on Pickled Politics and SM participants may therefore have already read my views there, I’ll keep things relatively brief in the interests of not repeating myself.

    This behavior you see around the world is not Islam. It would seem that many Muslims have just decided to turn their backs on the teachings of the Prophet and return to the pre-Islamic roots of some of their cultures.

    Possibly, possibly not. It would be wise not to confuse Sufism with orthodox Islam. There are injunctions in the latter which command Muslims to kill anybody who ridicules or insults Islam’s prophets.

    By violently protesting this cartoon, it could be argued that Muslims around the world are acting as if an idol has been desecrated. Using violence to protest this “desecration” legitimizes that which the Prophet cautioned against in the first place. He has become an idol to be defended and avenged in the eyes of many.

    Not exactly. What many Muslims are “defending” is Mohammad himself, along with his “honour”. Plus, as has already been stated, they believe they are acting according to the principles of orthodox Islam in the sense that any pictoral depiction of Mohammad (regardless of whether it is offensive or not) is a capital offense.

    I agree that the timing of the publication of these cartoons does, at first glance, look like a suspiciously deliberate attempt to fan the flames of an already furious inferno, but I don’t buy any “right-wing conspiracy theory” (although extreme right-wingers with their own agendas to promote will certainly use the violent Muslim reaction to justify their own aims).

    However, there are 3 points I’d like to make in conclusion:

    1. We have a right to exercise “freedom of speech” — not an obligation to do so. Re-printing those cartoons purely for the principle of freedom of expression, gratuitously, knowing that they are incredibly offensive and yet “doing it anyway”, demonstrates a serious lack of strategic thinking along with suicidal stupidity and stubbornness. It also plays right into the hands of OBL and his fellow jihadists who wish to promote the idea amongst Muslims that “the West” has no respect or sensitivity towards them as human beings or their religious beliefs.

    2. The “eye-for-an-eye” Holocaust cartoon contest being promoted by Iran is quite pathetic. It smacks of a schoolboy-type immaturity on the part of the culprits involved, and it certainly isn’t going to do them any favours with regards to their relationship with Israel and, of course, their image in the eyes of the rest of the world (especially when you consider that Iran is already potentially the next target for military action due to their nuclear ambitions etc).

    3. Ironically, the psychopathically violent reaction of Muslims worldwide just corroborates the point some of the original cartoons were making, along with confirming other people’s worst fears of the irrationality and fanaticism of Islam’s followers. Basically, they’ve fallen into their own trap and are hanging themselves with their own rope.

  9. To clarify the British angle for the benefit of our US-based desi cousins, here are some statistics from today’s Times newspaper here in the UK:

    46% of British Muslims ‘think the Jews in Britain are in league with the Freemasons to control the police and government’.

    30% of British Muslims do NOT believe Israel has the right to exist.

    37%, more than one in three, about half a million people, think the Jewish community in Britain is a ‘legitimate target’.

    7% think suicide bombs in the UK would be justified. This comes to approximately 100,000 people supporting the concept.

    Approximately 500 people were surveyed, with about 1/3 being from the London area.

  10. I just saw a bunch of illustrations of the Prophet apparently made by Islamic artists during medival times. I would post the link to it but I’m not sure if the SM staff wants me to do so. I’ll wait till they give the ok. Or you can just go to Instapundit.com scroll down and you’ll find it.

  13. While the last thing anyone on this forum – even when they are trying to not immediately and completely condemn “Islamists” (what IS that?) supports is violence, it’s difficult to ignore the fact that not only are the demonstrators reacting to long-simmering issues (which Vinod-at-Large has pointed out a few times) but also the fact that those “issues” are a long history of subtle and overt racism, baiting, imperialism and all kinds of injustice. Do a few cartoons automatically equal global riots? Of course not. And to suggest that they do over estimates the punch packed by these cartoons (they aren’t even all that great) and the menal blance of hundreds of thousands of peole (and you can’t tell me that they are ALL suffering from delusional paranoia). I find this arguement that “we” are merely defending “free speech, capitalism, empowered women, “tolerance””(when did we all become cheerleaders for Bush?) while “they” support things like “submission of all, ultimate triumph of Dar al Islam, death for apostasy/blasphemy” (post 85) is just a perpetuation of what has created this kind of anger in the first place.

    We may say we support all these things, but we don’t. We’re hypocrites and even if, sitting in our comfy suburban/hip urban homes, it looks like that’s what we’re about, let’s take a moment to think about the child labour, the union busting, the gender pay inequity, the bigots against gay marriage, the pornographic, the secret coups, the propping up of monsterous regimes, the pharmaceutical companies withholding drugs from the people who are the most vunerable and who go after goverments that try to rectify this with reverse-technology, the environmental devestation, the ghettoization of low-income (usually brown or black or yellow) immigrants, the obesity, the over indulgence, the energy sucking, tree-felling, Wal-mart loving, mass-producing, invading countries under all kinds of lies that we know are lies universe we also support. You want to talke about free speech? Ask someone who doesn’t support “capitalism” and who holds large-scale demos (peaceful ones – not riots) what happens when the FTAA or some other bastian of our free world is in town to represent. They get charged by riot police, pepper-sprayed, tear gassed and jailed under false pretences.

    So to pontificate that “our” values are being undermined makes me laugh. We undermind our “values” constantly. When you set up a situation where not only do you continously violate all these so called ideals on one hand and yet paint yourself morally superior because you apparently have them on the other, it’s (to put it mildly) irritating enough to the “others” you’re off-setting your identity against. When, after years of stregnthening this divide, of having a perhaps puzzled public as to “why do those other people hate us so?” and governments, never as naive as we think, know why they do, to bait this already incited and angered population is not just an excercise of your god-given right to spout verbal diarrhea, it’s adding insult to injury and it’s just plain stupid.

    The Muslim demonstrators are a rabid crowd. And rabid crowds, as we saw in Paris a few months ago and then in Australia later on, don’t necessarily listen to reason and they come off as looking crazy – and yes, they are crazed. But as anyone who took the time to read about what was going on in Paris and then on the Australian beaches knows, there were some long-brewing, very complex issues of injustice, marginalisation and hate that sparked them both. If we can read the complex histories that gave rise to those equally frightening clashes, why do we have SUCH a blind spot whenever the conflict involves the “west”/Hindus on one side and “Muslims” on the other? The rioters may be crazed but they are not crazy. People (and I’m excluding sociopaths) don’t do things because they just wake up as a collective whole wanting to wreck havoc and devestation. They do them out of anger and out of desperation and because, like it or not – we’ve created an us-v-them scenario and we’re at war. We call it terrorism, riots, we scratch our heads. They call it imperialism, neo-imperialism and invasions. Those cartoons weren’t even funny. They weren’t smart, they weren’t interesting. All they reflected was a bunch of half-baked ideas about “Moslems”. I fail to even see the purpose of them – other than the fact that racist cartoons in newspapers are a long tradition. And since they can’t quite as easily draw caricatures of oh, I don’t know, “Japs” or “Hindoos” or “commie Ruskis” or haha “starving Africans” these days, let’s all shit on Muslims because they’re terrorists anyway and not too many people are all that sympathetic to them and we need someone to demonise.

    The next time some Danish newspaper wants to sanctimonously defend free speech it should maybe actually pick interesting artists or tackle issues that it’s familiar with on a deeper level than “those Muslims are craaaaaazy – they’re brown and they wear turbans and they have funny ideas about heaven and we can’t draw thier prophet”. Yes, a total knee-slapper, dead on.

  14. The craziest Mo-fo in this whole fiasco is this British Asian kid Omar Khayam who went to the protest rally dressed as a suicide bomber!

    Though sadly, Mr Creative had to apologize in front of the national media the next day. I am presuming his dad’s chappal led to this apology.

  16. Any FREEDOM, even the freedom of speech comes with significant responsibility. The freedom to bear arms is a good example. While I may carry a weapon I must handle it responsibly. Same applies if I carry a pen. Freedoms are not blank checks.

  17. Hmmmm, I wish I hadn’t included the examples of Piss Christ or Hindu fundamentalists (okay, maybe that is an apt analogy what with the rioting and all) in my last comment. You can’t equate peaceful and non-peaceful protest which is the whole point of abhi’s post.

    brownfrown – interesting comment, but it’s unlikely that the rioters are rioting against the evils of global capitalism or against Wal-Mart…………way to project your Western normative………..

  19. Sarbpreet

    Any FREEDOM, even the freedom of speech comes with significant responsibility. The freedom to bear arms is a good example. While I may carry a weapon I must handle it responsibly. Same applies if I carry a pen. Freedoms are not blank checks.

    Nad example. A gun can kill. A pen cannot. Unless you stab someone with it. Lets ignore that though, and say that there is no comparison. If you think about it, you shall realise how ridiculous this comparison is.

  21. Hmmmm, I wish I hadn’t included the examples of Piss Christ or Hindu fundamentalists (okay, maybe that is an apt analogy what with the rioting and all) in my last comment. You can’t equate peaceful and non-peaceful protest which is the whole point of abhi’s post.

    Hey, Hindu fundamentalists have a history of rioting, making death threats, destroying film sets, harassing and vandalising artists and their work, and burning down libraries.

  22. Hey, Hindu fundamentalists have a history of rioting, making death threats, destroying film sets, harassing and vandalising artists and their work, and burning down libraries.

    Are you being facetious or is there any evidence for the above?

  23. Are you being facetious or is there any evidence for the above?

    Good point by Radhika – I think she means, apart from the wrecking of Deepa Mehta’s movie set, the threats harassment and vandalisation of MF Hussain and his artworks, the burning down of libraries in Maharasthtra, the harassment, vilification, intimidation and death threats to the American academic Wendy Doniger and other assoret atrocities.

    Let’s get one thing straight – what is happening with these Islamic cartoon protests is wrong – but I think Hindus should also reflect on the tendency amongst people to riot, slash, burn, intimidate and generally cause mayhem and silence freedom of speech all in the name of responding to ‘offence’ caused to Hinduism.

    Let’s not forget Sikh extremists throwing stones at a theatre in Birmingham and threatening novelist Bharati Mukherjee in America for writing about Khalistanis too.

    Just a reminder that FASCISM is a toad that lurks in the corner of the Hindu (and Sikh) living room too – amidst all this schadenfreude at the discomfort of Muslims.

  24. Looking at the reaction of our desi conservatives like Vinod_at_large and KXB (they want to buy Danish now), and the reaction in general from the as usual completely crazed Right Wing Net Punditry community,

    I saw this interesting comment via Washington Post from a blog which is right on:

    The Mahablog:

    The bottom line is this: Shackleford is at least coming very close to admitting what many on the far Right clearly seem to believe, but are not willing to openly state. That is, we are not simply fighting terrorists and radical extremists, but are in fact engaged in a holy war against Islam.

    This, IMO, gets to the heart of why the Right Blogosphere is obsessed with this story, the way they were obsessed with the recent French riots. They want a holy war against Islam. They are itching for it. Not that any of them would volunteer to fight, of course … See also Jazz’s post “The Bloodlust of the Unhinged Right Wing.”

    Meanwhile the Right Blogosphere has gone foaming-at-the-mouth, hair-on-fire crazy over the cartoon controversy. TheyÂ’ve worked themselves up to a screaming pitch about the mad dog Muslims who are fixing to massacre Europe. They have gone off the insufferable self-righteousness scale because most American newspapers will not republish the cartoons, and those newspapers and the State Department and, of course, liberals are all wussie sell-outs of democratic principles.

    Can we say theyÂ’ve come unhinged? I think we can.

  25. MD – of course the rioters aren’t protesting Wal-Mart (I wish). I was just using examples of the hypocracy that exists on our side when we start condemning the ‘barbaric’ practices of others – especially when we use that moral highground and skewed logic to Take Over the Wooooorld!!! (economically or with information-techonolgy or bad sitcoms or “secularism”, you know what I mean). And even if every last rioter isn’t aware of the intricacies of global capitalism I think it’s fair to say there’s a deep-seated, almost intangilbe rage towards this hegemonising culture who seems out to antagonise/villify/continue invading thier own… possibly to sell them some more Americana.
    Btw – there’s a lot that’s ripe for reform in many many Muslim countries. Same goes on this end though.

  28. Out of curiosity, will there be a ‘Fatwa’ declared on the artists? It’d be interesting to see how their lives have changed now. I assume that they have pretty high level security now.

  29. Post what Jay?

    The thing about the right desperate to turn this into generalised Islam Bashing – some of the right wingers there are sensitive to such accusations.

  31. Out of curiosity, will there be a ‘Fatwa’ declared on the artists? It’d be interesting to see how their lives have changed now. I assume that they have pretty high level security now.

    There already have been fatwas declared. For example, didn’t some imam in the Middle East (Lebanon ?) say that they want “nothing less than the heads of those responsible” ?

    And yes, all 12 artists in Denmark are now under police protection.

  32. Jay Singh,

    You don’t know how crazy that Mofo is – he was on parole from a six year jail term for sell crack – he’s a drug dealer! In other news from London, crazy mullah Abu Hamza is convicted of inciting racial hatred and murder!

    I believe the most appropriate term for such people is “pakhandee“. The same applies to everyone else involved in screaming retribution against Europe and “the West” as a whole, including the ex-Al Muhajiroun types.

  33. The majority of Muslim people need to stop dancing to the tune of a few politicians. If someone pokes the lion, he/she doesnÂ’t need to kill the whole jungle.

  34. zfr.:

    you’ve given those images too much meaning. most certainly, all over the world, muslims are non-violently protesting the Danish publication’s cartoon. the global economic boycott on Danish goods has been successful precisely b/c it is popular with muslims who don’t identify with those creating violence. however, peaceful protests aren’t captured in the AP and Getty archives.

    Thank you! As I read the original post this disturbed me; I scoured the comments hoping that someone else thought the same.

    I’ve been to large protests in the US in which the vast vast vast majority of the protesters marched peacefully while carrying signs much like the ones in Philly, yet somehow it’s always the angry flag-burning minority which attracts the eye of the photo editor. The one in Philly seemed like a small scale, community-organized protest which was unlikely to have any of the angry crowd because it was so self-selecting. I’m sure someone on this forum knows someone who was involved with organizing it – eh eh?

    One last quibble:

    One demonstrator, 54-year old Aneesha Uqdah of Philadelphia, argued that precedent exists for newspapers to withhold some information to prevent harm: “If a woman was a rape victim, you wouldn’t publish her name,” she said.
    How can you, as an average American citizen, not agree with the level-headed logic of the woman in the quote above?

    Because it’s not level-headed logic. Rape survivors’ names are kept secret in order to protect their identity and for their safety, because of the social stigma surrounding rape. This makes it easier for survivors to begin the difficult task of moving on and enables them to disclose whatever information they want to whomever they choose. This has absolutely nothing to do with having the good sense not to publish distasteful material. But then again, I’m no average American citizen…

  35. Innocent question: for the non-muslim mutineers, can someone please explain how one is to infer that the cartoon (above) is of the Prophet Muhammed, and not just a random (if still somewhat racist) caricature? I sense that this is somehow critical to the matter.

  36. Very thorough and well done summary, Abhi.

    I am a Muslim in America and had, until now, avoided seeing the cartoons. When I saw it on this site, I cringed. My veil of education and the ability to voice my opinion the U.S. (and have it heard) prevented the thought of violence from ever occuring. But I did cringe, and I did feel the need to respond, peacefully.

    Now transport me to a country where a Muslim like myself is likely poor, uneducated, and not heard by the government it is trying to reach out to. Countries where overzealous religious leaders want their peoples voices heard but does not have the constituency to do so peacefully and intelligently.

    I am not even remotely condoning their actions or violence. Simply transposing my situation to try to understand where this outrage is coming from. Many posters on this thread have neglected to take into account the various backgrounds muslims come from, there are political and cultural differences involved in the disgusting responses to the cartoons. Please don’t lump all muslims together when analyzing why they are reacting the way they are. I was as baffled by their responses as everyone else until i attempted to understand why it was happening. There is always a reason behind these things, always a direct cause.

  37. DesiDancer,

    The cartoons were originally triggered by a request involving an illustrated children’s book, where Mohammad was part of the story. Many of the artists were hesitant or indeed outrightly afraid to draw Mohammad due to the Islamic prohibition on the matter. Apparently a Danish newspaper subsequently ran a contest for artists to show how they viewed Mohammad (in the interests of addressing the questions of “self-censorship” and “freedom of expression”), and the 12 controversial cartoons were what resulted.

    A Danish commenter gives a detailed background to the story on the Pickled Politics blog here. (Post number 15).

  38. The current issue of Time magazine has an interesting article entitled “Your Taboo, Not Mine”.

    It makes an excellent point in the following paragraph:

    “And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of shrines?”

    This is exactly what I’ve been thinking. No riots or death threats against OBL and his allies in response to 9/11 and subsequent similar atrocities ? Is an offensive cartoon about Mohammad really far worse than the ongoing jihad against the West — and innocent civilians worldwide — which has been conducted in the name of Islam during the past few years ?

  39. Now transport me to a country where a Muslim like myself is likely poor, uneducated, and not heard by the government it is trying to reach out to. Countries where overzealous religious leaders want their peoples voices heard but does not have the constituency to do so peacefully and intelligently.

    In Lebnan, Seria and UK Muslims are poor?

  41. A lot of people have been saying:

    With freedom of speech/ expression comes responsibility.

    Agreed. Respect for others is indeed expected and should be practised.

    However,

    Who monitors it? Danish Government. No.

    Freedom of Speech = Freedom to Offend

  42. They’re poor in Indonesia and Nigeria.

    I thought they torched the buildingds in Lebnan and Seria. And one Londoner in pictures above was asking for cartoonists head. All these people are poor? And since they are poor they should be dumb/insensitive/EastToTurnFanatic too as IQ and poverty are related to eachother. Cool.

  44. Many Muslims living in these countries are poor

    Oh yeah – the poverty of the UK – Third World country.

    One of the London suicide bombers – his father was a successful businessman and he drove a Mercedes – the poverty thing is a complete straw man – Jihadis are comfortable – hell, some of them are rich drug dealers and lawyers doctors etc

  45. Oh yeah – the poverty of the UK – Third World country.

    Very smart logic! A poor person in UK cannot be deemed poor because he is living in a First world country. Googled and found this and this

    One of the London suicide bombers – his father was a successful businessman and he drove a Mercedes – the poverty thing is a complete straw man – Jihadis are comfortable – hell, some of them are rich drug dealers and lawyers doctors etc

    Fine. So we agree that killers come from all sorts of backgrounds and all kinds of religions from all corners of the world.

  46. How many people here believe that this is about sacrilege? I don’t. A couple of years back, I forget which it was, Time or Newsweek carried a very “respectful” depiction of Muhammad. The said copy was banned in various Muslim country’s and widespread protests were held. What I mean to say is that they [the protestors] want to take away my right to depict Muhammad in any way at all. And I for one refuse to relinquish that right.

    And by the by, the “peaceful” protest by the Philedelphia Mulsims is a bunch of crock. Where were they when Theo Van Gogh was killed in their name? Where were they when thirteen school girls were allowed to be burnt to death in a high school in Mecca, Saudi Arabia because they were sans purdah. Where are the protests when Muslim are ethnically cleansing minorities from Muslim lands? etc, etc, etc…….

  47. Tom

    Yeah congratulations you know how to google – you are smart.

    Dude – people who use the poverty excuse for Jihadism are the worst sort of ostriches – none of the UK Jihadis come out of ‘poverty’. Poverty is not the reason for this – ideology is. Those who claim poverty is an engine are either disingenuous or wearing blinders.

  48. “Can we say they’ve come unhinged? I think we can”

    With a deadline looming in the background, having worked non-stop since yesterday – this bit of levity could not come at a better time.

    The right-wing nuts are becoming unhinged? So a couple of guys posting on their own blogs is now equivalent to torching embassies, calling for a 9/11 in Europe, running Holocaust denial cartoon contests, and general murder and mayhem.

    Let’s call this for what it is – victimology par excellance. Having squandered their oil wealth, and failing to cultivate human capital at home, the failed states of the Middle East need to continuously remind their people how they have been screwed by the system. Anyone know the Arabic equivalent of “Blaming the Man”?

    Within Europe, you have substantial Muslim immigrant groups that fail to assimilate, arguably to preserve their culture, yet do not mind the ample public assistance programs that such kaffir nations provide. Interestingly, non-Muslim immigrant groups, such as Caribbeans, Africans, Sikhs, and Hindus do not feel the same compulsion to vent their own frustrations with the threat of violence.

    A few weeks ago, a number Sepia posters were feeling all smug at the foolishness of some Christian groups attempting to introduce intelligent design into American school curriculums. So one superstition is deserving of mockery while the other needs to be respected? Why? It has little to do with the innate value of Islam (which in its current petrified state is of declining value), and more of the willingness of some Muslims to engage in violence, while the majority Muslim community silently stands by.

  49. Boston globe had an excellent editorial [link]

    HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ”War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!”In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed…

  50. My point exactly DesiDancer. These cartoons have less to do with freedom of speech than deep-seated racism. What do the cartoonists choose to caricature? Some kind of inconsisentcy inherent to Muslim culture/Islam perhaps? A subject they’ve done some research on? Something on which they have something intelligent to say? No. They choose to go for cheap humour, painting Muslims as hook-nosed insane bearded brown men in turbans. They depict the prophet as Apu’s slightly more sinsiter neighbour, a Peter Sellers in brownface feeding the birdie poisoned num-nums, a Soup Nazi or Babu having an especially murderous day. I’m surprised more people on this forum aren’t outraged by the level of racism that has carefully gone into each of these depictions and to this project as a whole. Freedom of speech = freedom to offend… but why, in this case? What purpose do these racist caricatures serve?