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. 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.

    The relative frequency to which it exists is less

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

    Thanks! But I know I am smart, since now you know about Google start using it, its free you know.

    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.

    Dude, what I wrote was a part of conversation that started after saira (comment #136) wrote on how an outraged and (probably)uneducated Muslim who is poor might react after seeing these images. She was speculating on a possible reason for the violent protests. Jehadis and Jehad came into picture when you jumped in.

  4. In Christianity for example, many most sects now worship Christ as God, instead of seeing him as only a mortal prophet.

    Just wanted to clear up some confusionÂ…

    Abhi, FYI those most of those same “sects” who worship Christ as God—which someone else already pointed out make up the majority of Christians—consider Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, etc. to be apostate because of their theological views. Furthermore, (about) the only reason Christians arenÂ’t considered Jews is because of the fact that Jesus specifically stated “I and the Father are one.” Traditional Jewish theology called that declaration apostate. If you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ (Messiah) and you believe that he is one with God—and was when he was on earth—then youÂ’re Christian. Otherwise, youÂ’re something other than Christian. IÂ’m not sure whatÂ…

    Razib, I would be interested to know what passages by the apostle Paul you are referring to. Paul was quite aware of his contemporaries’ views. In the opening of his letter to the Galatian church he repeatedly warns them of people preaching “other gospels.” He then goes on to detail the time he spent with the disciples trained by Jesus (Peter, Barnabas, etc.) to establish his legitimacy.

    As for the cartoon, was whatever jab newspaper was trying to make worth the reaction it caused? Doubt it.

  5. Came across this very juicy tidbit – warrants sharing. Guess which country is to chair the security council when the Iran nuke issue is tabled for hearing ? Yup. It is Denmark. Conspiracy anybody?

  6. Dude, what I wrote was a part of conversation that started after saira (comment #136) wrote on how an outraged and (probably)uneducated Muslim who is poor might react after seeing these images. She was speculating on a possible reason for the violent protests.

    And my point was that majority of Muslims living in Lebnan, Seria and UK were not poor. And the most violent protests have come from these countries. Most fundamentlism committed in recent times isnt by poor uneducated folks but by those with professional degrees. So Saira needs to think little bit differently and should look for different reasons.

  7. Dude, what I wrote was a part of conversation that started after saira (comment #136) wrote on how an outraged and (probably)uneducated Muslim who is poor might react after seeing these images. She was speculating on a possible reason for the violent protests. Jehadis and Jehad came into picture when you jumped in.

    If you were speculating on how poverty interfaces with Jihadism and violent protest I did not introduce it – you were already talking about it, Einstein. Duuuh.

  8. Having squandered their oil wealth, and failing to cultivate human capital at home, the failed states of the Middle East need to continuously remind their people how they have been screwed by the system. Anyone know the Arabic equivalent of “Blaming the Man”?

    Saudi Arabia, if I’m not mistaken, is beginning to demonstrate non-natural resources related growth. Dubai is marketing itself as the Singapore of the Middle East–and its economy is built primarily on services. The Arab nations as a whole may be poor by Western standards, but they are not that poor.

  9. Did anyone notice the silence of Indian media on the topic, while it made it to frontpages in other parts of the world? Probably because they would stand for ‘free-speech’, ‘free-press’ etc. which would inadvertantly offend the minority.

  10. ever heard of any incidences of buddhist extremism?

    AFAIK, nothing like Jehadi extremism

    1.) If rhetoric counts then you may find examples of Buddhist (Singhalese) monks spouting off against “Dravidos”.

    2.) Also, when I was in Sri Lanka (10 years ago), I have heard news of young monks (with shaved heads and robes) being recruited into army. This was a gimmick by the government to boost the enlistment during height of the war. It was interesting to watch monks carrying sub-machineguns.

    3). And some incidences of violence in Bodhgaya (Bihar) between Hindus and Buddhists, this was a while ago.

  11. From The Guardian:

    The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
    But the Jyllands-Posten editor in question, Mr Kaiser, said that the case was “ridiculous to bring forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons. “In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons. That’s the difference,” he said. “The illustrator thought his cartoons were funny. I did not think so. It would offend some readers, not much but some.”
    The decision smacks of “double-standards”, said Ahmed Akkari, spokesman for the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring, the umbrella group that represents 27 Muslim organisations that are campaigning for a full apology from Jyllands-Posten. “How can Jyllands-Posten distinguish the two cases? Surely they must understand,” Mr Akkari added.

  12. Is it just me or will any man from the east tell you that the east is tired of these 3 religions of hate and everything they have done to the indian and chinese civilizations.My solution to these “my god’s d**k is the original thang” is for the world to look at the religions of the east with hinduism and buddhism as the frontrunners.

  13. Vivo:

    ever heard of any incidences of buddhist extremism?

    If it’s a sarcastic comment and you’re saying there’s no such thing as Buddhist extremism – there is.

    If you’re alerting us of the existence of Buddhist extremism – what exactly are you trying to say?

  14. Buddhist extremism did not even rise until after 300 years of continous rape and pillage conducted by the various carperbaggers that looted the east.Essential tenet of buddhism “world is painful maya” == accept a lotta of BS from marauding scum..

  15. Why don’t we ever hear the excesses of hindu/buddhist expansion?? Answer: The only tolerant religions that have history as their witness

  16. Brownfrown,

    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.

    did u see all of them, there was a point there was a cartoonist hunched over who tried to hide his cartoon watching his back. that was the point, there was also one where mohammed was telling followers to stop bombing we have run out of virgins. I found the remark somewhat funny and incisive. Even if you did not, dont blame the publishers. The danes did not go to kashmir and dropped leaflets allover. Yet people there were acting like hooligans on the streets in kashmir.

  17. Its was interesting to see the depiction of Mohammed over the ages sent of KXB, especially by the church and european artists. Was Hinduism or Hindu gods ever part of their paitings? Is it because they never considered it as a threat?

  18. From Wikipedia:

    Most Christians affirm the Nicene Creed and believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate,…

    I realize wikipedia is now considered the ultimate source of TRUTH by most; Did you know that you that the Mormons and the jevovah witness are considred cults. Christians dont consider the Mormons and Jevovah Witness as fellow chrisitians..

    Take a look at wikipedia list of cults.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cults

  19. Not to support colonialism and “marauding”, for even a second, oh, Non-Thinker, but are you actually suggesting there wasn’t violence and pillaging under Hindus and Buddhists in India and China? CHINA?? One of the most gleefully violent civilisations out there (both before and during and after Buddhism). And we from Browntown have our own violence to contend with – we just don’t like talking about it too much. Maybe its your gender exlusive language that got my hackles up in the first place, but do your research before you fall into such easy essentialist traps about the differences between “east” and “west”.

  20. I did see all of them, GGK and while the one with the artist hunched over was interesting, in an in that absurdist self-referrential kind of way. Okay so these Danish artists are going to draw a bunch of offensive racial stereotypes as thier little art project and they are going to incite the wrath of a bunch of people. Wow. That’s so… incredibly juvenile. As for the virgins in heaven – yes of course… they are all kind of amusing but incisive? Come on. A 15 year old can come up with that joke. Considering how much damage is coming out of this whole thing – I just don’t get why they would bother with these in the first place. Oh I know… because they are immature jerks.

  21. Considering how much damage is coming out of this whole thing – I just don’t get why they would bother with these in the first place. Oh I know… because they are immature jerks.

    Bull the immature jerks were the ones burning tires on the street. If u dont see this i suggest you bury your head in sand.

  23. “Okay so these Danish artists are going to draw a bunch of offensive racial stereotypes as thier little art project and they are going to incite the wrath of a bunch of people. Wow. That’s so… incredibly juvenile.”

    No, believing that race is involved is juvenile. Islam is not a race, but a school of thought. Like all schools of thought, it is subject to criticism and satire.

  24. No, believing that race is involved is juvenile.

    No, its not exaclty juvenile if you look at the profile of the Muslims in Denmark. There’s racial unease all over Western Europe right now and to think that these cartoons had nothing to do with the Non-European immigrants and the racial tensions is naive.

    I actually dont find the cartoons offensive per se if I see them in isolation and not put them in the wider context of the rising xenophobia in Denmark.

    The Muslim reacion is as usual insane. Its just a freaking cartoon. I can understand why some Danish Muslim might feel offended, but there is no need for the Indonesian/Lebanese Muslims to blow their lid and come unhinged.

    My inbox has been inundated with moronic chain emails from Muslim cousins and relatives whose hysteria is comparable to the hysteria of the right wing blogsophere. This is the kind of crap I am receiving: “THIS IS A SERIOUS MESSAGE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE TO START TAKING ACTIONS AGAINST DANISH PRODUCTS SUCH AS NIDO, ANCHOR, LAURPACK OR ANY DANISH PRODUCT. YOU HAVE A FATHER,MOTHER, AND SISTER, WHAT WILL YOU DO IF SOMEONE HUMILIATES THEM. THEN REMEMBER THIS GOD’S MOST BELOVED PERSON ON THE WHOLE UNIVERSE AND TOMORROW HE WILL ASK YOU WHAT HAVE YOU DONE. SPREAD THIS MESSAGE OR SEND SMS TO WHOM EVER YOU CAN AND LETS DO SOMETHING FOR OUR PRECIOUS AND BELOVED PROPHET MOHAMMED (PBUH)”

    Oh please! Give me a break. Its just a cartoon.

  25. more to abhi-do we or should care about relativity and respect for religion espesh when respecting those rights does not harm anyone?

    i can understand the slippery-slope of this argument, but where, if at all, does respect for religion, religious, racial, cultural differences stand if there are no boundries? would we support hateful posters of lynchings of black people during jim crow? would we support the ugly images of muslims immediately after 9/11 that supported violence against muslims? do we lose all context when it comes to speech? as many have pointed out, we are in an explosive environment that should give at least european governments pause before they support blasphemy against a religion already under attack by the western world.

    abhi why i find your argument misplaced, and what i find hilarious about the freedom of speech heraleded across the atlantic, is the irony that europe has stricter restrictions on free speech and puts a primacy of other values over speech when its the other way around. that is, britain can DEPORT Muslims for “hate speech.” that is, france can BAN the veil from french schools. if we are already dealing w societies where other values trump freedom of speech because they claim a more nuanced existentialist debate, why cant europe learn to accomodate respect for other religions?

    rights is just used one way or the other. tho im a human rights activits, i feel as many have pointed out an essential need to contextualize if there is ever to be mutual understanding, respect and peaceful resolution to this deep rooted conflicted. the danes were playing w fire.

  26. An unexpected interview from Salon.com:

    Feb. 7, 2006 | Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a member of the Dutch Parliament, is one of the most sharp- tongued critics of political Islam — and a target of Islamic fanatics. Her provocative film “Submission” led to the assassination of director Theo van Gogh in November 2004. The murderer left a death threat against Hirsi Ali pinned to van Gogh’s corpse with a knife.
    Thirty-six years old and a member of Holland’s neo-liberal VVD Party, Hirsi Ali was born in Somalia, where she experienced the oppression of Muslim women firsthand. When her father attempted to force her into an arranged marriage, she fled to Holland in 1992. Later, she renounced the Muslim religion. Though she spent a brief period in hiding following van Gogh’s murder, Hirsi Ali has returned to Parliament and is continuing her fight against Islamism. She recently published a book, “I Accuse,” and is working on a sequel to “Submission.”
    In an interview, she spoke about the upheaval over the publication of controversial Danish cartoons, arguing that if Europe doesn’t stand up to extremists, a culture of self-censorship and fear of criticizing Islam — one that she says already pervades Holland — will spread across Europe. Hirsi Ali, you have called the prophet Mohammed a tyrant and a pervert. Theo van Gogh, the director of your film “Submission,” which is critical of Islam, was murdered by Islamists. You yourself are under police protection. How do you think the Danish cartoonists feel at this point? They probably feel numb. On the one hand, a voice in their heads is encouraging them not to sell out their freedom of speech. At the same time, they’re experiencing the shocking sensation of what it’s like to lose your own personal freedom. One mustn’t forget that they’re part of the postwar generation, and that all they’ve experienced is peace and prosperity. And now they suddenly have to fight for their own human rights once again. Why have the protests escalated to such an extent? There is no freedom of speech in those Arab countries where the demonstrations and public outrage are being staged. The reason many people flee to Europe from these places is precisely because they have criticized religion, the political establishment and society. Totalitarian Islamic regimes are in a deep crisis. Globalization means that they’re exposed to considerable change, and they also fear the reformist forces developing among émigrés in the West. They’ll use threatening gestures against the West, and the success they achieve with their threats, to intimidate these people. Was apologizing for the cartoons the wrong thing to do? Once again, the West pursued the principle of first turning one cheek, then the other. In fact, it’s already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when [Dutch comedian] Rudi Carrell derided [the Iranian leader] Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit. In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the prophet Mohammed, titled “Aisha,” was canceled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don’t notice how much abuse we’re taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn’t give an inch. What should the appropriate European response look like? There should be solidarity. The cartoons should be displayed everywhere. After all, the Arabs can’t boycott goods from every country. They’re far too dependent on imports. And Scandinavian companies should be compensated for their losses. Freedom of speech should at least be worth that much to us. But shouldn’t Muslims, like any religious community, also be able to protect themselves against slander and insult? That’s exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren’t preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they’re just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don’t allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they’ll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless. What will be the upshot of the storm of protests against the cartoons? We could see the same thing happening that has happened in the Netherlands, where writers, journalists and artists have felt intimidated ever since the van Gogh murder. Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam. Significantly, “Submission” still isn’t being shown in theaters. Many have criticized your film as being too radical and too offensive. The criticism of van Gogh was legitimate. But when someone is killed for his worldview, what he may have done wrong is no longer the issue. That’s when we have to stand up for our basic rights. Otherwise we are just reinforcing the killer and conceding that there was a good reason to kill this person. You, too, have been sharply criticized for your dogged criticism of Islam. Oddly enough, my critics never specify how far I can go. How can you address problems if you’re not even allowed to clearly define them? Like the fact that Muslim women at home are kept locked up, are raped and are married off against their will — and that in a country in which our far too passive intellectuals are so proud of their freedom! The debate in Holland over speaking Dutch on the streets, and the integration programs for potentially violent Moroccan youth — do these things also represent the fruits of your provocations? The sharp criticism has finally triggered an open debate over our relationship with Muslim immigrants. We have become more conscious of things. For example, we are now classifying honor killings by the victims’ countries of origin. And we’re finally turning our attention to young girls who are sent against their will from Morocco to Holland as brides, and adopting legislation to make this practice more difficult. You’re working on a sequel to “Submission.” Will you stick to your uncompromising approach? Yes, of course. We want to continue the debate over the Koran’s claim to absoluteness, the infallibility of the Prophet, and sexual morality. In the first part, we portrayed a woman who speaks to her god, complaining that even though she has abided by his rules and subjugated herself, she is still being abused by her uncle. The second part deals with the dilemma into which the Muslim faith plunges four different men. One hates Jews, the second one is gay, the third is a bon vivant who wants to be a good Muslim but repeatedly succumbs to life’s temptations, and the fourth is a martyr. They all feel abandoned by their god and decide to stop worshipping him. Will this latest upheaval make your work more difficult? The conditions couldn’t be more difficult. We’re forced to produce the film under complete anonymity. Everyone involved in the film, from actors to technicians, will be unrecognizable. But we are determined to complete the project. The director didn’t really like van Gogh, but he believes that, for the sake of free speech, shooting the sequel is critical. I’m optimistic that we’ll be able to premiere the film this year. Is the Koran’s claim to absoluteness, which you criticize in “Submission,” the central obstacle to reforming Islam? The doctrine stating that the faith is inalterable because the Koran was dictated by God must be replaced. Muslims must realize that it was human beings who wrote the holy scriptures. After all, most Christians don’t believe in hell, in the angels, or in the earth having been created in six days. They now see these things as symbolic stories, but they still remain true to their faith.
  27. i can understand the slippery-slope of this argument, but where, if at all, does respect for religion, religious, racial, cultural differences stand if there are no boundries? would we support hateful posters of lynchings of black people during jim crow? would we support the ugly images of muslims immediately after 9/11 that supported violence against muslims? do we lose all context when it comes to speech? as many have pointed out, we are in an explosive environment that should give at least european governments pause before they support blasphemy against a religion already under attack by the western world.

    Fire, I am having a hard time deciphering your argument because of a lack of commas and periods in the right places. Lynchings of black people have nothing to do with this controversy. The comparison is ludicrous. The Danes were not playing with fire. Only the editors of one small-time newspaper were. In a free society they have the right to without fearing for their lives. The only people playing with fire are the torch wielding mobs that you now see plastered across every front-page.

  28. Apologies for my lack of proper use of commas and grammars as english is not my first language. I do not think that that has anything to do with my post and am sorry to see english grammar brought into this argument.

    There has been violence towards Muslims throughout Europe, and those cartoons reflect ugly attitudes in an ongoing cultural war. The Danish and other European governments did not issue the images, but at the same time, did not do anything to apologise or make a statement against them.

    There are two sides to every story, and what makes me sad is that people in the West dont see how or why there would be rage. I am not trying to justify the violecne; there is no justification for the savage and arbitrary violation of your government against my people in Iraq, Pakistan or throughout the middle east. We watch every day helpless. Now the west is up in arms because we try to fight against symbols that represent what the us, britain, so many countries use so they can bomb us arbitrarily, with no sense.

    Perhaps my english is no good to convey my point. Tariq Ramdan, a scholar BANNED from the US for his teaching, put my thoughts on freedom of speech best in this essay. It is about civility. All violence is wrong. But this is a war, and governments must take all responsibility for the inflammatory things done in war whether it be hooding and humiliating the masculinity of our men in your prisons, innocent or not, defecating our koran in your prisons, or holding people indefinitley. How to speak out against such things in a broad way? This, to us, represents the disresepct and humiliation we are treated with. I agree violence is wrong. But do not use my grammar to obsfucate the complicity and responsibility that powerful governments must take when such a war is waged so savagely.

    New Perspectives Quarterly 02-02-2006

    CARTOON CONTROVERSY IS NOT A MATTER OF FREE SPEECH, BUT CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY

    Tariq Ramadan, the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, is a philosopher and leading spokesman for Muslims in Europe. Famously, the U.S. has denied him a visa to come to American to teach at the University of Notre Dame. His most recent book is “Western Muslims and the Future of Islam” (Oxford University Press, 2003). He spoke with Nathan Gardels from Switzerland on Thursday.

    By Tariq Ramadan

    Nathan Gardels: What is your response to the challenge to European Muslims presented by a number of European papers republishing defamatory cartoons from a Danish daily (Jyllands-Posten) of the Prophet Mohammed?

    Tariq Ramadan: There are three things we have to bear in mind. First, it is against Islamic principles to represent in imagery not only Mohammed, but all the prophets of Islam. This is a clear prohibition.

    Second, in the Muslim world, we are not used to laughing at religion, our own or anybody else’s. This is far from our understanding. For that reason, these cartoons are seen, by average Muslims and not just radicals, as a transgression against something sacred, a provocation against Islam.

    Third, Muslims must understand that laughing at religion is a part of the broader culture in which they live in Europe, going back to Voltaire. Cynicism, irony and indeed blasphemy are part of the culture.

    When you live in such an environment as a Muslim, it is really important to be able to take a critical distance and not react so emotionally. You need to hold to your Islamic principles, but be wise enough not to overreact to provocation.

    For Muslim majority countries to react emotionally to these cartoons (with boycotts) is to nurture the extremists on the other side, making it a test of wills. On one side, the extremists argue that, “See, we told you, the West is against Islam,” and on the other side they say, “See, Muslims can’t be integrated into Europe, and they are destroying our values by not accepting what we stand for.” This way of opening a debate on emotional grounds is, in fact, a way of closing the door on rational discourse.

    What we need now on both sides is an understanding that this is not a legal issue, or an issue of rights. Free speech is a right in Europe and legally protected. No one should contest this. At the same time, there should be an understanding that the complexion of European society has changed with immigrants from diverse cultures. Because of that, there should be sensitivity to Muslims and others living in Europe.

    Gardels: Did publishing these cartoons go beyond the limits of free speech?

    Ramadan: There are no legal limits to free speech, but there are civic limits. In any society, there is a civic understanding that free speech should be used wisely so not as to provoke sensitivities, particularly in hybrid, multicultural societies we see in the world today. It is a matter of civic responsibility and wisdom, not a question of legality or rights. In that context, I think it was unwise to publish these cartoons, because it is the wrong way to start a debate about integration because it inflames emotions, not courts reason. It is a useless provocation.

    How does one imagine that the average Muslim in Europe who opposes terrorism will react seeing the Prophet Mohammed depicted with a bomb in his turban? Publishing these cartoons is a very stupid way to address the issue of freedom of speech.

    Gardels: Why do you think so many European papers feel obliged to republish these cartoons?

    Ramadan: Now it is a power struggle. Who will have the final word? Who is right? Who will have the upper hand? If it was stupid in the first place to publish these cartoons in Denmark, it is even more emotionally stupid to do it now. What do we want, to polarize our world or build bridges?

    Look, let’s have a true debate about the future of our society. Muslims have to understand there is free speech in Europe, and that is that. On the other side, there needs to be an understanding that sensitive issues must be addressed with wisdom and prudence, not provocation. Just because you have the legal right to do something doesn’t mean you have to do it. You have to understand the people around you. Do I go around insulting people just because I’m free to do it? No. It’s called civic responsibility.

    Gardels: In defending its publication of the cartoons, an editorial in the German daily Die Welt said, “The protests from Muslims would be taken more seriously if they were less hypocritical. When Syrian television showed drama documentaries in prime time depicting rabbis as cannibals, the imams were quiet.” What do you say to that?

    Ramadan: Die Welt is not wrong to say this. We Muslims must be self-critical. At the same time, hypocrisy in the Arab world doesn’t justify insulting Muslims in return. Your teacher should not be the wrongdoings of others, but your own principles.

    (c) 2006, Global Viewpoint Distributed by Tribune Media Services, INC. (Distributed 2/2/06)

  29. Bengali: even their Queen “We must show our opposition to Islam” Margarethe is somewhat Islamophobic

    Not true, the Torygraph misread “modspil” (response) as “modstand” (opposition). See Citatfejl bag vrede mod Margrethe (link in Danish).

    Kush Tandon: since in WW 2, the King of Denmark and other genteel citizens wore “Yellow Star” to say they all were Jews in defiance to Nazis.

    Not true either, the jews in Denmark never wore a yellow star. The nazis came for the jews a month after the collaboration policy of the Danish government broke down over other issues (widespread unrest and the government’s refusal to introduce capital punishment against terrorists). See Snopes.

    for_debauchery_in_ cartoons: I actually dont find the cartoons offensive per se if I see them in isolation and not put them in the wider context of the rising xenophobia in Denmark.

    The cartoons must be seen in the context of Danish xenophobia (which is real, no mistake about that). But there are no riots in Denmark, in Denmark muslims demonstrate peacefully against the riots. The riots are in the middle east, and the context of the riots is middle eastern politics and culture.

    FIRE!!!!: france can BAN the veil from french schools.

    Denmark is not France. Americans tend to lump Europe together, assuming a cause in one country can explain a reaction in another. All European countries are screwed up in different, unique ways.

    if we are already dealing w societies where other values trump freedom of speech because they claim a more nuanced existentialist debate, why cant europe learn to accomodate respect for other religions?

    Why should we have more respect for Mohammad than we have for Jesus Christ? The right to blasphemy is well established in Denmark, even though some point out that we have a paragraph in the constitution against it (it is not a serious constitution, things like that are just ignored if it is obsolete).

    There was an epic media debate from 1973 to 1989, about Jens Jørgen Thorsen’s Jesus terrorist porn movie. It was finally made, with financial support from the government. Racist or not, the turban-bomb cartoon pales in comparison.

    In 1984, Thorsen painted a mural at a railway station, showing Jesus on the cross with a hard-on. It was painted over (blog post in Danish) on order from the minister of traffic, Arne Melchior. So there is a limit. Jyllands-Posten supported the minister in an editorial.

    Madurai Vivekan: The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny

    It was an unsolicited cartoon someone sent the paper, and they made up a polite excuse not to print it.

    Yes, Jyllands-Posten in general IS racist and hypocritical, but it is not racist or hypocritical to defend their right to be that. I think they made a mistake from a free-speech point of view (because they are hypocrites, and probably also because they are new to the cause), by messing up two issues:

    1) Whether anything in the Koran applies to non-muslims. It does not, but some muslims don’t accept that, hence the problem with getting illustrations for the book about Mohammad. I can drink alcohol and eat pork during the Ramadan, and I can make a drawing of Mohammad (or Jesus, another prophet in Islam) if I want to. Seen in the context of Islamic theology, there is no risk that Jyllands-Posten is going to start worshipping Mohammad as an idol. The idolatry is purely on the side of the flag-burners.

    2) The right to be disrespectful and offend religious feelings, even if they are muslim. Even if Muslims accept the point above, i could imagine they might take offense from the turban-bomb drawing. It could be argued that this was another fight for another time, but really, where should the limit be? I think the “we have run out of virgins” cartoon is both disrespectful and funny.

  30. I do not think that that has anything to do with my post and am sorry to see english grammar brought into this argument.

    I’m not trying to offend you, I simply can’t properly respond if I don’t understand what you are trying to say. Now I understand you.

    The Danish and other European governments did not issue the images, but at the same time, did not do anything to apologize or make a statement against them.

    Nor should they have to. In a free society it is not the government’s job to apologize for the actions of its private citizens who are exercising their freedom of speech.

    I am not trying to justify the violence; there is no justification for the savage and arbitrary violation of your government against my people in Iraq, Pakistan or throughout the middle east. We watch every day helpless. Now the west is up in arms because we try to fight against symbols that represent what the us, Britain, so many countries use so they can bomb us arbitrarily, with no sense.

    The way I read it you are trying to explain the violence. You immediately launch into a defense of how Muslims around the world are being arbitrarily persecuted, which isn’t the case. The corrupt governments of the Arab world are the ones persecuting “your people” around the world. They are the ones that should be protested.

    To me, this is about freedom. I want to live in a society where I am free to speak my mind as long as I don’t incite violence against someone. I want to be free to insult anyone I choose without fearing for my life. I never want to live under a government that punishes me because they are afraid I will insult someone in another country. I have no sympathy for the Danish newspaper that started this but I fully support the Danish government.

  31. post 161 : Vivo:

    ever heard of any incidences of buddhist extremism?

    If it’s a sarcastic comment and you’re saying there’s no such thing as Buddhist extremism – there is.

    If you’re alerting us of the existence of Buddhist extremism – what exactly are you trying to say?

    well i can’t recall incidences of buddhist extremism although i wouldn’t be surprised dif there are some. not a sarcastic comment. when i say buddhist extremism i mean the extremism has to have something to do with buddhist beliefs. It’s not enough for the extremism to be only by someone or a group of people who happen to be buddhist. we all hear about muslim extremism, past christian(and perhaps present) extremism, and hindu extremism. it’s just when i think of buddhism i think of a peaceful religion. there isn’t much to justify violence in buddhism as far as i know. i don’t have in depth knowledge of the religion.

  33. comment 182: I didn’t see an incidence of buddhist extremism. it looks like they dont know who was behind it.

  35. Saturday’s protests turned violent when monks and their followers clashed near the venue with police who used tear gas, water cannon and rubber bullets to disperse them. The demonstrators were angered that the concert coincided with the first anniversary of the death of [Buddhist monk] Gangodawila Soma, who campaigned against Christian conversions of Buddhists. [Link]

    … police had clashed with protestors earlier in the evening and arrested over a dozen men who attacked cars and fans that were walking to the venue of the concert held amid tight security. [Link]
  36. I want to be free to insult anyone I choose without fearing for my life.

    You have bad hair

  37. Okay I don’t want this to turn into attempts-at-bashing-Buddhism and I’ll have to dig through about a billion boxes to find the sources I want to back me up, but there are definately historical instances of violence by and under Buddhists. Japanese Buddhist monks hired mercenaries and fought other monastaries, Tibetans fought the Chinese and were known to be a martial people. Indian Buddhists attacked Hindus a few years ago while the Western hippie Buddhists looked on, mouths agape. Ashoka, India’s most famous Buddhist only became “white Ashoka” or peaceful Ashoka two years after he converted to Buddhsim – some argue because it took that long to properly subdue all the people that needed subduing. Ever hear about the connection between the Kyoto school and its uncomfortably close relationship WWII facism?

    Suffering, compassion and wisdom may be well and good while you’re on that meditation cushion. Or I guess if you genuinely are a second Gandhi. But generally, people are violent. People like power. People act crazy when you put too many of them together or convince them that someone else is keeping power away from them… the particulars of whatever religious tradition the claim to adhere to have very little to do with it.

  38. but abhi, you have so much freedom you dont understand what it is like to be without. it is so simple for americans to celebrate speech over every other value when they are not being attacked on a daily basis, where they do not live in the hatred or under fear of tortorious jail at the drop of a feather because another country wants their oil. are you living in a country where a bomb could go off arbitrarily at any moment by the hands of a powerful government whether it be yours or mine?

    i am not defending my governments; i am not defending the violence; i understand the value of valuing pure freedoms. but freedom must be understood in stages. civility as mr. ramdan says. i believe in human rights. but i also believe we live in dangerous times where many people hate muslims, and vice versa. we feel hated. does that mean anything to you? just because you are not on the receiving end does not erase the damage it does, the damage we feel every day.

    violence is not the answer either way. but you diminish the role that governments, charactertures, symbols play in that violence. and the eu stands up. i recently read this:

    Last night EU foreign ministers issued a statement in support of Denmark, and the European Commission threatened to report any government backing the boycott to the World Trade Organisation.

    the world is at war. if i was in america in 1800 i would not want signs all up in america glorifying the lynching or ugly lips of blacks, insulting them as slaves, nor if i was a jew in 1942 would i want a sign insulting jews and their noses in germany mocking their legitimacy. or russia with kurds. and i would not want anyone mistaking you for muslim, calling you a sand n#($*@ and hitting or killing you like so many have been.

    these are countries with power. my government too has power as well and abuses it in many ways, but as edward said wisely tried to explain to the west these are racist images steeped in a methodology of hate and oppression; not insults, like i call you “ignorant” or “naive.” had it stayed in denmark, maybe ok. but it was flaunted in products to hurt, to maim, in a war so out of control.

    inshallah, i wish you the respect for peace i do you, even though if you are hindu we have always been at war. i dont believe in what the iranian government did in retaliation-solicit hate for jews-but that is what your “freedom of speech” is asking for.

    the pen is mighter than the sword my friend, and liberty must be seen through a more nuanced eye if we want peace and civility.

  39. Fuego, these were images published in another country. These weren’t published in an Arab country, these were published in Denmark. They travelled from Denmark b/c a group of Danish muslims took these images, plus a few that were more offensive but had never been published, and brought them to the Middle East. These images were originally published over a year ago. It’s a very different scenario from the one you’re describing.

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

    Tis a sad sad sad thing that some folks still find it far easier to blame “the right” for “coming unhinged” than the folks who are actually killing, burning embassies, threatening suicide bombings and the like…

  41. fuego,

    it is so simple for americans to celebrate speech over every other value when they are not being attacked on a daily basis, where they do not live in the hatred or under fear of tortorious jail at the drop of a feather because another country wants their oil.

    why this victimization complex?? Is that part of the reason why many Muslims in many Islamic countries make minorities and non-Muslims “live in the hatred or under fear of tortorious jail” etc. – becuz they feel their “brothers” have been made to live like that in some other places? Tit for tat, eh?

  42. Vick: Actually, if you take the GDP per capita of people in Syria and Lebanon compared to that of other muslim countries in the Middle East such as Bahrain or Saudi Arabia, it is less than half in both countries. Afghanistan, where the recent riots broke out, falls under this category as do Please check the CIA factbook or any other economics site for verification. Granted, the UK is not a poor country but there are poor and uneducated muslims there as well as more peaceful and educated muslims, such as those holding protests AGAINST the violent response from other Muslims. Egyptians and Jordanians are protesting peacefully. As I stated originally, the biggest mistake here is to lump the response of all muslims together when we are each responding in a completely different manner.

    Jay Singh: More important than the above fact is that I didn’t cite poverty as an excuse for Jihadi’s. I mentioned poverty, lack of education, and the inability to be heard by the government or international community as reasons behind why people act this why. NOT AN EXCUSE OR A JUSTIFICATION. Please, please, please do not make it seem like us level headed muslims are looking for excuses to justify something so deplorable when we are just as against it as you are. This is a discussion board and I was placing a non-incendiary comment. Thank you.

  43. fire/fuego-

    Don’t hate on abhi. If you believe in freedom, the first amendment and freedom should be a universal right. It is the basis of freedom.

    This has been a devicisive and difficult debate historically within the aclu. The aclu alienated a lot of people by supporting by the KKK. But at the end of the day, in this age, we must support all freedoms.

    It is just very sad that it has come to this and anger must be directed towards symbols. But even in struggles for justice, we must fight for basic liberties and rise above. It sounds like that was Abhi’s original purpose in making this posting.

    On the other hand, it is sad that Ramdan was denied a visa on the basis of his speech! And he makes such important points too, which can’t be easily dismissed.

    PS everyone should watch the colber report on his perspective tonight! Hysterical!

  44. Wow, this raging debate really makes me wonder what that new movie Comedy in the Muslim World will do. Jeeeeeez…….polarization…..

  45. Wow the level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the diaspora is incredible. Do we have any sense of history at all? It’s like we’re working with a four day memory loop.

    V.A.L:

    Tis a sad sad sad thing that some folks still find it far easier to blame “the right” for “coming unhinged” than the folks who are actually killing, burning embassies, threatening suicide bombings and the like…

    “Tis a sad sad thing” that we have so quickly distanced ourselves from a long history of racism and have scurried over to the other side because it’s so easy to say anything against Muslims and get away with it. Do you think people on the right have any more respect or fraternal love for non-Muslim desis than they do for the “rabble” of today (i.e. the Muslims)? Let’s not delude ourselves. India’s a rising economic power and the fact that Indian immigrants are considered “model minorities” and means we’re okay(ish). Right now. But let’s not take that handout, thanks.

    Instead of remembering our own painful history, tied very closely to and mirroring what’s happening to Muslims today, are we going to just jump in and vilify them too? It’s sad that you can fall so quickly into this trap of demonization. What’s sad is that these out of control mob situtations, are all that people see or remember unless you work hard to examine what exactly the conditions for that group rage are. And it’s sad that these instances of extreme violence, a product of the anger and the frustration of MUCH more than a few stupid cartoons, just go to reinforce every righty’s wet dreams about the evils of the “barbarians at the gate”. Hey remember when it was your/my people who were considered cow-worshipping, idolatrous, effeminate, flying yogis at the gate who deserved to be colonised?

    Anji:

    It is just very sad that it has come to this and anger must be directed towards symbols. But even in struggles for justice, we must fight for basic liberties and rise above. It sounds like that was Abhi’s original purpose in making this posting.

    That’s a lovely sentiment, except everything’s always about symbols. There’s not much “rising above” to be done because there’s never any getting away from cultural semiotics, which is what this whole furor is about. Those cartoons were a bunch of newspapers purposefully drawing a line in the sand and daring the “other side” to step accross it. And step accross it they did. The newspapers started it on a symbolic level – intentionally attacking a symbol they knew would incite anger (and hate mongering is not free speech by the way) and it’s being responded to and retaliated against by more symbols – you know, flags, embassies etc…

    Anyway, to me the cartoons are still nothing more than the continuation of racist history to prop up the aggrandisation and sense of superiority of the affluent west against the morally suspect and oh-so-mysteriously-evil east. Oh guess which side of that false dichotomy we’ll never truly get away from, no matter how many of our fellow “others” we stab in the back when they’re down?

  46. Abhi,

    Am a newcomer. To all readers who responded, islam is a religion of terror, hate and it is the duty of every muslim to kill a non muslim Q: 2:191 “kill the disbelievers wherever you find them; “slay them” Q:9:5 It relegates those who disbelief in quran to hell Q:5:10 calls them najis (filthy, untouchable) MuHaMad was a psycho, a paedophile (he married a 6 year old girl Ayesh and consummated the marriage when she turned 9).

    It is IMPERATIVE that all non muslims be aware of what islam is, the danger islam is to humanity, to you. http://www.faithfreedom.org and http://www.islamreview.com are good starters to be informed about this evil cult.

    Islam means submission, and the rabid violence by braindamaged zombies is a test of wills that says: Submit Or Else.

    To be forewarned is to be forearmed. Do not take islam nor muslims lightly. When you visit the mentioned websites you can judge for yourself the Facts, Fallacies, Facades and the Deceit and Lies of islam.

    Take care 4.7 billion non muslims.

    zena

  47. Ahhhh, the rich and varied cacaphony of opinion in a democratic society: how can anyone reading this crazy, mixed up, more than 100 comment thread not love free speech?

    A few things: to whomever commented about my last comment (#121, Radhika), sorry I wasn’t clear. Yes, hoards of silly people have gone around rampaging and rioting over perceived insults to religion, and they are certainly not all Muslim.

    Saira – thank you so much for your comments.

    FINALLY, BRAVO ABHI! Yes, in a free society you should be free to insult, not without consequence, but without the threat of violence.

    Anyhoo, it’s just a fu&^%$#% cartoon, innit? Sorry. All this attention has only spread these images more widely than they would have been initially, if this small paper had just been ignored. Good job, dullards.

  48. Oh, and the dullards was directed at the rioters, what with the violence and all. Not at anyone on this thread, partners in free speech!

  50. Brownfrown:

    I agree that culture is about symbols but then there is a bigger question about how we address cultural expression and how culture may thrive. I think it is always important to maintain ideals that rise above and define how things should be; ideally there should be a dialogue and a free exchange of ideas. That’s why striving, as both Western and Eastern scholars have done during thisdebate, towards a higher understanding is important in this debate. History is not a four-day loop and this is a momentous incident we will all debate and ponder for generations.

    To be truthful, when I boil those ideals down into this context I don’t know which way I come out. I worked for the ACLU but I don’t think I can fully defend the absolutist right to free expression. But I defend Abhi for taking a position in very important competing ideals in a complex world and in beginning this important conversation. I do see the important distinction between the west trying to define the east and the east defining itself. Someone mentioned victimization and I think that analysis is too limied and I agree that diminishes the heart of what is going on here.

    Finally, you ask: Anyway, to me the cartoons are still nothing more than the continuation of racist history to prop up the aggrandisation and sense of superiority of the affluent west against the morally suspect and oh-so-mysteriously-evil east. Oh guess which side of that false dichotomy we’ll never truly get away from, no matter how many of our fellow “others” we stab in the back when they’re down?

    Never is a very strong word, that in the long term view never is a word progress cannot accept. We are not at the end of history. ya basta!