Thank you for this very valuable back story.

Dear Raf Bey:

A good find.

First, with respect to the Imams who did this road trip, I personally find them suspect. The mendacity of the folder and the explanation (avoiding a Theo Gogh affaire my ass), I find these fellows fit squarely into the framework of Salafi provocateurs. Their business is separation. I have read, and it may not be accurate, that none are residents, but imported Imams. I know in the French and Dutch contexts, and English, these guys have frequently been highly problemetic.

I would say your comment Well, "Islam" is a concept, not a agent. Thus it's not "Islam" that forbids anything, but the (human) authorities on Islamic law. is correct but a little too academic. Journos have to be a bit sloppy now and again for their audience.

A few further comments:
There is no provisio in Islamic law how to deal with non-Muslims who disparage a prophet, as they already are unbelievers.

I do believe under various 'pacts' covering the Dhimma that there were provisions for non-Muslims publicly disparaging the Prophet. I also recall reading they tended to be applied only in fairly flagrent cases.

Also, the legal authorities in the Muslim world are quite unanimous in their verdict(s) that Muslims living in non-Muslim polities (i.e., states) should adhere to the law of the one in which they reside or travel.

Bingo.

All in all, I see this entire thing as a production of the sort of people who ran the Londinistan radical mosques. It's a nice little show to play into the Salafi desire to blow up integration with the West. Anything that widens that chasm is in the interest of these Imams.

First, thanks very much for the Wiki link. Here's a link to bigger versions of the cartoons with translations.

http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=381&Itemid=74

Once again, I repeat my contempt for the craven western on-line media outlets who link to half-a-dozen pictures of violence cause by these cartoons but not to the cartoons themselves.

On to the substance of your post. These cartoons are not equivalent to anti-semitic cartoons for a couple of reasons. For one thing, anti-semitism has racial connotations that aren't present in "anti-Islamism." This is, admittedly, perhaps too fine a point to make in the current hysteria.

More fundamentally, a caricature linking Islam and the repression of women, social intolerance or even terrorism is no more "Anti-Islamic" than a caricature linking Fundamentalist Christianity with stupidity is "Anti-Christian." Both recognize the seeds of an uncomfortable truth. While only a minority of Christian Fundamentalists are intelligent design wackos, a large majority of intelligent design wackos are Christian Fundamentalists.

In any event, the root of the current eruption is not that these cartoons are "racist" or attack Muslims, it's that they depict and attack Muhammad. This is a point of principle on which the West cannot afford to yield. Satire seems to be a uniquely Western art form. It's quite apparent that the Islamic world, or at least the Arab part of it, doesn't really get satire. That would, however, be their problem, not ours. We simply cannot allow anyone, most especially not a bunch of half-literate religious extremists, to dictate what we can see and hear. In that context, Muslims can "explain" their hearts out. Their explanations may well have an impact on what is considered good taste, but it will, hopefully, never have an impact on what is considered legal.

In any case, long before they get to that point, the Islamic world has a lot of house cleaning to do. Islam today just demands satire. "Islam is a religion of peace! How dare you link Islam and terrorism! Apologize or we will kill you!" Right.

The more radical positions are being staked out by a minority of Muslim militants. Nonetheless, the Islamic world as a whole bears a great deal of responsibility. They need to speak up against the excesses of their own radicals. When Pat Robertson runs off the rails, he gets viciously mocked to the point where he is now largely a figure of fun and (for his religious brethren) embarrasment. There seems to be no such trend in the Muslim world.

It is probably factually incorrect, but it is neither racism nor xenophobia to argue that Islam is not compatible with Western Liberalism. Some variants indisputably are not. The current controversy, unfortunately, does nothing to provide any evidence to the contrary.

dear anonymous,

you wrote

These cartoons are not equivalent to anti-semitic cartoons for a couple of reasons. For one thing, anti-semitism has racial connotations that aren't present in "anti-Islamism."

that is simply not true. "western" anti-islamism is very much linked to racist/ethnicist attitudes. and some of those danish cartoons are quite in the vein of 19th century depictions of the "vile turk" - particularly the one with muhammad's turban as a ticking bomb. and don't make me use my "i'm an academic specialist in 19th century mideast history" card.

i do think that the jyllands-posten may have been legally free to post these cartoons (i simply don't know anything about danish press law) but that it was a stupid and irresponsible decision on their part. all those issues that you've correctly highlighted can be addressed and a "how do european liberal societies deal with illiberal co-citizens?" discussion held without using that kind of imagery.

what good is a battle won when you're losing the war?

dear l,

as for those provisions on dhimmis - no contest. also - i'm aware that legal provisions & reality were & are not necessarily congruent: even in the case of a legal right to say about muhammad whatever a dhimmi inside the dar al-islam wanted, if he did so publicly he'd be tarred & feathered before a qadi could've stopped the mob. not that a qadi would've ...

i actually had non-Muslims OUTSIDE the dar al-islam in mind. i should've made that more clear.

--raf*

Anon

Afraid I can not agree with your characterisations.

On to the substance of your post. These cartoons are not equivalent to anti-semitic cartoons for a couple of reasons. For one thing, anti-semitism has racial connotations that aren't present in "anti-Islamism." This is, admittedly, perhaps too fine a point to make in the current hysteria.

I would disagree. Much anti-Islamic feeling strikes me as every bit as 'racial' as anti-Jewish feeling. Yes, Muslims are diverse racially, but the key image of Muslims is Arab/Iranian Middle Easterners who fit in a 'racial' category every bit as much as Jews (badly, but racialised bigotry is not logical).

The body of the cartoons are fairly innocent. Stupid, but not terrible. The head as a bomb, the knife wielder and the bomb and sword squad strike me as falling well within the scope of bigotted Islamophobia - in the context of the call for sketches depicting the Prophet, not simply "criticising" Islam or some such.

More fundamentally, a caricature linking Islam and the repression of women, social intolerance or even terrorism is no more "Anti-Islamic" than a caricature linking Fundamentalist Christianity with stupidity is "Anti-Christian."

Pure bollocks.

Pure and utter bollocks. The call was for a sketch of the Prophet. Linking automatically that to Islam as terrorism, etc. generically is most certainly anti-Islamic.

Both recognize the seeds of an uncomfortable truth.

No one is making a direct link on a specific subject, the other is taking a rather more generic call (albeit a stupid one) and linking the most extreme to the core of the religion.

The equivalent would be in a call for depictions of Jesus, one got a bunch of caricatures linking JC to Xian Fundies, ipso facto.

In any event, the root of the current eruption is not that these cartoons are "racist" or attack Muslims, it's that they depict and attack Muhammad. This is a point of principle on which the West cannot afford to yield. Satire seems to be a uniquely Western art form. It's quite apparent that the Islamic world, or at least the Arab part of it, doesn't really get satire. That would, however, be their problem, not ours. We simply cannot allow anyone, most especially not a bunch of half-literate religious extremists, to dictate what we can see and hear. In that context, Muslims can "explain" their hearts out. Their explanations may well have an impact on what is considered good taste, but it will, hopefully, never have an impact on what is considered legal.

This also is bollocks.

Arabic language cartoons do satire all the time. I find it pretty stupid usually, but claiming satire as a Western form is plain idiocy.

At the same time, yes giving in to the Salafi provocateurs is an error, it feeds their project of undermining any relations between Muslims and non-Muslims.

At this point, however, simply reprinting the cartoons is not necessary. They're out there, best to leave it at that rather than further fuel the simple minded outragge.

Regardless, the Danes should not apologise as such.

In any case, long before they get to that point, the Islamic world has a lot of house cleaning to do. Islam today just demands satire. "Islam is a religion of peace! How dare you link Islam and terrorism! Apologize or we will kill you!" Right.

Sure, and there are ways to do so without descending into quasi-racism as the bomb head cartoon did.

The more radical positions are being staked out by a minority of Muslim militants. Nonetheless, the Islamic world as a whole bears a great deal of responsibility. They need to speak up against the excesses of their own radicals. When Pat Robertson runs off the rails, he gets viciously mocked to the point where he is now largely a figure of fun and (for his religious brethren) embarrasment. There seems to be no such trend in the Muslim world.

Well, you seem to have missed the several assocations, as in the Canadian one that came out against the violence mongering. At the same time, such voices are being drowned out by the Salafistes.

Well, I dislike Raf Bey's suggestion the paper should not have published the cartoons period. That strikes me as giving into pre-publication censorship that the Salafine would love to impose.

At the same time, it was a dumb move - it seems to me motivated largely by a juvenile reaction to the stupid picture book project's problem. The issue could have been resolved with a simple apology for those cartoons that were bigotted (without an apology for publication) - as far as I could tell from reading the publication's initial reaction (and reactions so far) was rather snooty and dismisive.

At the same time, the Imams pimping the cartoons of unknown provenence (which screams agitprop) on a tour of the Arab world is equally offensive.

These cartoons are not equivalent to anti-semitic cartoons for a couple of reasons. For one thing, anti-semitism has racial connotations that aren't present in "anti-Islamism."

that is simply not true. "western" anti-islamism is very much linked to racist/ethnicist attitudes. and some of those danish cartoons are quite in the vein of 19th century depictions of the "vile turk" - particularly the one with muhammad's turban as a ticking bomb.

Well, let me clarify. There are certainly undereducated yabos in every country who think that Muslim=Arab=bad. Being aware that the vast majority of Muslims are not from the Middle East, much less Arabs, I don't immediately equate Islam and Arabs. But you're correct that some people, probably many people, do.

Having said that, Muhammad was, of course, an Arab, so I suppose it's fair to depict him as one. But the real gravamen of your complaint is that some of these cartoons appear to equate "Arab" with "terrorist" and that that is racist. I can certainly see how some viewers would take it that way. In fact, I suppose, technically speaking, that it is anti-semitism.

Nonetheless, what really has gotten people stirred up is the depiction of Muhammad, not the potential racial slight to Arabs and that is, analytically, a completely separate issue.

dear anonymous,

you misunderstood me. i never claimed that the brouhaha about the cartoons is because of racism. i wrote that

I would judge some of them as racist and meriting legal action against them. I would also sign a letter of complaint to the editor of Jyllands-Posten, who may be allowed by Danish law to post such material (after all, a few years ago the German authorities could not get a neo-Nazi radio station in southern Denmark be closed down, since Nazi propaganda was at that time not illegal in Denmark), because I think that they are propagating a picture of Muhammad (& Muslims in general) that is racist.

that's me & the reason why i, personally, think that legal action might be taken and the newspaper should've thought thrice before publishing them.

the protests in the muslim world is because the cartoons are seen as a defamation of the PROPHET muhammad. we are not in disagreement here. but also take into account that a number of the "other" cartoons included in the collection the danish muslims took with them to egypt contained imagery that was not exclusively anti-muhammad as "the last depicted a praying Muslim being raped by a dog". that is very much in the vein of classic anti-semitic imagery of the early 20th century.

--raf*

Raf Bey

I am not sure I trust the unpublished cartoons to be in fact genuine.

More fundamentally, a caricature linking Islam and the repression of women, social intolerance or even terrorism is no more "Anti-Islamic" than a caricature linking Fundamentalist Christianity with stupidity is "Anti-Christian."

Pure bollocks.

Pure and utter bollocks. The call was for a sketch of the Prophet. Linking automatically that to Islam as terrorism, etc. generically is most certainly anti-Islamic.

I don't think you quite take my point. Yes, of course it is "anti-Islamic." But it is no more "anti-Islamic" than pointing out the stupidity often inherent in Christian fundamentalism. In other words, it's well within the range of fair comment, not some off-the-chart vicious insult. Muslims are not uniquely fair game, but they are fair game.

Arabic language cartoons do satire all the time. I find it pretty stupid usually, but claiming satire as a Western form is plain idiocy.

I certainly yield to your direct knowledge of Arabic but I confess I doubt it. The MENA based English language publications I have seen do not typically contain proper satire.

Satire is not just invective or mockery.

This is not satire

http://yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=905&p=cartoon

Doonesbury is satire.

Good satire is not mere insult. In fact, it's not really insult at all. In the West, even the target may not be able to supress a snicker at a good satire. There are long, fairly tedious debates to be had on defining and classifying satire but most people in the West know it when they see it. More importantly, they understand its cultural context and know how to react to it.

I'm not convinced this is universal in all cultures. What may be an extremely witty satire in the UK or Denmark may come across as a bizzare insult in a different culture. As a very crude rule of thumb, if you get really upset about it, you don't get it.

Let's examine the various cartoons in order as depicted on this site.

http://www.geertwilders.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=381&Itemid=74

The first cartoon isn't satire. The second cartoon is satire. It's highlighting the rather bizzare use of religion as a tool of terrorism by some groups.

The third cartoon isn't a satire. It's a simple insult -- the crescent moon is meant to appear as horns.

The fourth cartoon is just a picture -- I perceive no commentary at all.

The fifth cartoon is excellent satire, but the target is Jyllands-Posten. You want a picture of Muhammad? Fine. But I know the game you're playing and I won't play by your rules. This is probably the best cartoon of the twelve.

The sixth cartoon is also satire, but barely. It's a commentary on the task itself.

The seventh cartoon isn't satire. The caption is a poem (say Wiki) about the oppresion of women. The juxtaposition of the crescent moon and the star of David seems like free association. At best this is a polemic, not a satire.

The eighth cartoon is also very good satire. In fact, it's an illustration of the argument Collounsbury used with his JV partner.

The ninth cartoon seems the most controversial. I think you could go either way. Everyone thinks the bomb is a reference to terrorism. I read this as a commentary on Islam in Denmark and the danger it may pose to Danish society. Muslims in Denmark are a ticking bomb waiting to go off (well, a lit bomb but you get my drift), the cartoon says. Overblown xenophobia? Perhaps. But Muslim assimilation, or the lack thereof, is viewed as a potentially serious problem in many European countries.

The tenth and eleventh cartoons are satire but they are targetting the editor of Jyllands-Posten, not Muhammad or Islam. Nicely done.

The final cartoon seems to be a commentary on women's rights. Satire, perhaps, but a bit weak.

These cartoons are a fairly mixed bag. But for the most part, they are well within the range of fair comment and most of them are satire, not insults. They were, however, largely perceived as insults in the Arab world.

Well, you seem to have missed the several assocations, as in the Canadian one that came out against the violence mongering. At the same time, such voices are being drowned out by the Salafistes.

Good for them. But not good that the Neo-Salafi's are able to drown out the voices of reason in the Middle East. This is, sadly, not the first time that they have done so.

Islam is not a "religion of peace." It is just a religion and it can be twisted to accomplish whatever ends its adherents choose. Some of the most vocal strains of Islam today are firmly opposed to the underlying principles of liberal democracy. It is absurd to argue that these strains are not "real Islam." That's simply the PC version of the no true Scotsman fallacy. I do not, of course, suggest that you make this argument but many people do make it. There are "pre-fooled," to quote a phrase, on both sides of the debate.

Fair points, all in all and interesting review of the cartoons as such.

I should say the point re Danes was not mine, but the inverse, to give credit where it is due.

Re the original cartoons - None of them seem particularly offensive to me. The horns one is a bit low, but it's not really striking enough to cause offence. The one with Mohammed's eyes blacked out is a bit close to the bone in its depiction of Mohammed, but I found the visual pun on the blacked out eyes (the normal way of protecting identities in photos, after all) and the niqaabed women who can't be seen apart from a stripe over the eyes clever enough to make up for the lazy stereotypes. Anyway, I don't see much cause for a diplomatic uproar in them.

I'm bemused at the fact that the cartoons offended a few when they were first published but that the response was largely what you'd expect in a democratic society - a demonstration, some sniping at the editorial team, etc. It was only when they were taken on a magical mystery tour to the Middle East that things kicked off.

The three additional, unattributed cartoons that were in the dossier may be viewed here.

[E: Have uploaded a copy to the 'Aqoul server. Original source here]

The additional cartoons are indeed pretty offensive. But they don't look like they originated with the paper.

The only one that's drawn is, frankly, completely amateur; the pig's snout one looks like a photo of someone done up in a weird costume that has simply had some text added to insinuate that it's a depiction of Mohammed; and the dog one is just a frisky dog photoshopped onto a picture of a prostrating Muslim.

I'm feeling very cynical about these additional pictures, now that I've seen them. It is not implausible to me that these submissions were illustrative of what some people thought other people might draw, were they so inclined to draw something, if you catch my drift.

I'm also intrigued by the fact that the magical mystery tourists are now equivocating. Akkari, the tour guide has declined to reveal the source of the additional pictures. Further, he seems to be arguing that putting the three pictures at the back of the folder is sufficiently clearly separated that nobody would have assumed that they all came from the same publication. He's not endearing himself to me particularly at this stage. And that's without being able to confirm reports that it was made less than clear by the magical mystery tour group that the Jyllands Posten was not owned by the government.

Maybe I'm too cynical, but I'm starting to suspect that a group of attention-seekers with an inferiority complex were insufficiently satisfied at the original reaction to the cartoons' publication, and decided to have another bite at the cherry with some additional, more inflammatory material that they bolted on. And now they're being disingenuous about it.

In other news, Danish imam Abu Laban, who is reported to have helped arranged the tour, is telling Danish media he's against the boycott, and telling Al Jazeera he's in favour of it. (link here).

As I read about people who, offended that Islam was being associated with terrorism, made bomb and death threats against civilians (even if the only link they had to the cartoons was being Scandinadian), I suddenly realised: Oh my G-d, we're living in The Onion .

P.-S.: No, "Scandinadians" are not people who are either Scandinavians or Canadians, they're just mispelled Scandinavians.

P.-P.-S.: Think the salafis will lump Finland in with Scandinavia?

I'm a dane living in London. At last a blog of muslims that explains by rational arguments. Sombody further up asked about danish press law. I'm not a lawyer. but i'll try to explain a few things about danish soceity as I see it, a dane not living there.
Last time Denmark made the world press was also because of our very free press law. Back in 1964 Denmark was the first country in the world to legalize pornografy. This made an uproar around the world, specialy in the US. This liberal press tradition has its origin in the Second World War and the way the German occupation occurred. We have a blasphemy law but it has not been used since 1938. The state prosecutor and the most senior proffessors of law have said that there is no libel case under danish law on the cartoons but I can understand that that would also be the case under UK law.
Denmark has no special law about holocaust denial etc…. One can buy Nazi stuff etc… Germany has often complained that German neonazis can gather completely legaly in Denmark. But Denmark does not have a nazi parti of any significance. This must be seen in the context that it was one of the few countrie were 90% of the jews escaped the holocaust hidden by danes and sailed over to neutral sweden. We have the samme liberal tradition on sex. At 15 one can have sex with who ever ones want. And about nudity. We don’t see nudity as being linked to sex. There is a right to be nude on all beaches. And even if sombody walks nude in town nobody cares. A few year a maroccan lady visited us up in our beach house in North Zealand. She went for a walk on the beach and came back all embarrased as she had seen a few people walking around naked. We had to explain I’m not sure she understood. For danes the absolut equality of the sexes is fundamental, Boy and girl schools are seen as offensive. I could go on. But this explaines some of the reasons why it is so difficult for the muslims to integrate in Denmark. Denmark was the second or third country in the world to give the vote to women. It was the first counrty in the world to recognise Gay partnerships. Even though 90% of Danes belong to the Danish stat church and pay an extra church tax for this I think only about 40% belive in a intervinig god (not sure about the english), and 40 % do not believe in any god. We even have some priests in the state church who do not believe in god. We are probably one of the most opposite countries to Middle Eastern values. And quiet different from the UK.
And one more thing: Danish is extrymly diffucult for foreigners to learn, the Queens husband who is french speaks a lousy danish so imagine how difficult it is for a Palestinians or somalis. Moving to Denmark from the middle east must be like coming from Mars to Venus. This is not in any way a scientific text i might be mistaken in some details it is an attempt to give a picture.

Joergen

First, we should be clear (speaking on behalf of my co-authors) that we're not all Muslims, and several of thus who are, well, are highly suspect by conservative standards if not actual apostates. It's not my business to speak to specific authors religions, although I suppose of the active authors the majority are at least Muslim in theory (if not practing).

We all do know the region though.

A few comments on your comment (knowing a good number of Danes):
For danes the absolut equality of the sexes is fundamental
Well, I would better put it 'a Danish vision of equality of sexes, while still maintaining some frankly sexist ideas' - but that is not criticism per se, merely observation on viewpoint.

I do agree that Danish and Scandinavian social liberalism -again knowing a good number of Danes I am more than slightly uncomfortable with the self-congratulatory ostentation about Danish social liberalism that seems to come with it - is clearly at odds with conservative MENA morality. Something which Scandinavian tourists seem hard put to grasp when they do tourism in the area (or elsewhere for that matter, thinking of Scandy tourists in Latin America). The phrase "trying to hard" comes to mind.

Now, this being said, you're absolutely right, coming to Danemark or Scandinavia generally has to be hard on all but the most socially liberal of Muslims - or for that matter Xians or others (e.g. having to explain naked beach going to the unprepared visitor would certainly be required for most North Americans).

What that should imply in the end, I am not sure, mind you. Certainly Danish rules for Danemark, and the Muslim living there should either accept it or go elsewhere. No doubt about that.

I personally, speaking as a 'Classic Liberal' of a realist bent, am less-than-fond of Danish social liberalism most unliberal bent (e.g. the concept of seperate boys and girls school as 'offensive' is most unliberal in its philosophy), as no doubt comes through on my observations above.

This being said, I believe the one point which I have sympathy for in re Danish Muslims (to the extent published news complaints reflect 'Danish Muslims' and not professional whinging extremists), and thus justify my taking a poke at Danish society to an extent above, is the tone deafness and imposed "liberalism" that seems to carry a certain kind of Danish liberalism forward.

Or put it in another way, it strikes me (to my intermittant observations on Scandinavians, Danes, and the like) that the ostentatious social liberalism has gotten rather ideological and intolerant of even the slightest conservatism. And unwilling to listen sympathetically to a bit of conservative whinging on.

However, this is mere colour commentary. Allowing a certain reasonableness for Danish Muslims being frustrated with Danes often ostentatious and sometimes rather illiberal 'liberalism' leading to a bit of deafness in no way justifies the behaviour of the Imams in question (lying scum as they appear to be) or in general Muslims being angry with Denmark. As a general matter, to reiterate, either one learns to love it (or tolerate it), or one fucks off.

BTW Joergen, thanks for the commentary and don't let me banging on about how annoying your fellow citizens are to me put you off. I abuse everyone given the chance.

Raf* & Lounsbury, or anyone else. I am not sure that what traditional Islam has to say on agreeing to live by other nations' laws when in non-Muslim countries applies. I would be more interested in Islamist, general or specific, interpretations here. And while I don't know for sure, it seems to me that any secular law seen as contravening Islam is seen as fair game, whether in a historically Muslim country or not.

Dear Mas

I am afraid I don't get your question. As a general matter, Islamic law has held that one should follow the law of the land that you're in. Historically Muslims in non-Muslim lands were there during conditions of 'peace' or at least neutrality, and Islamic law enjoined them not to break that - it was up to the properly designated ruler to do so for the community, and regardless not to be done lightly.

Secular law has nothing to do with it, as the traditional view enjoined not breaking non-Muslim law as a general matter, while keeping up with your own (as a Muslim) observence of proper Muslim behaviour (not eating pork if at all possible, etc. etc.).

Whether a foreign (non-Muslim) legal regime was (or is) secular really has fuck all to do with the traditional jurisprudence.

The secular law question, of course, is one that the Salafi Islamist movement goes nuts over, but that is in regards to Dar al Islam - although of course I suppose in their view they would apply it to the world, but then one is trotting down the trail to their messianic looney vision of things that hasn't much to do with old-fashioned reasoned Islamic jurisprudence and everything to do with their utterly nutters vision of the world.

Re abiding by the law of the land -

Generally, that's the principle, so far as I am aware.

I note that Salafist jurisprudence in the UK has generally turned on the point of whether Muslims were the beneficiaries of a covenant of security - if they are beneficiaries of such a covenant, they should abide by the laws of the land, the argument goes. If they are not, there is no obligation.

Abu Hamza has constantly maintained that he believed a covenant existed and that therefore it would be wrong for him to advocate attacks in Britain. However the way in which he has couched his jurisprudence that the covenant is very contingent and whether or not is has been broken is a matter of individual ijtihad. Personally, I believe he deliberately structured the jurisprudence that way for deniability - he knew he couldn't advocate terrorism and he knew that his constituents would excoriate him if he denounced it. In any case, some Muslims believe the decision to invade Iraq broke that covenant.

The complicating and disturbing factor from what I have witnessed fo far seems to be that there is a deeper cultural inferiority complex at play. Historically it was the duty of Muslims to invade non-Muslim lands if they refuse to embrace Islam and also refuse to become ahl dhimma, ie continue to practice their religions while agreeing to live under an Islamic government and paying a jizya ( a tax paid by non-Muslims to their Muslim government). At the risk of becoming too historical, (yes I do know that the jihad ayas were recalled) it is my view that the entire premise of non-acceptance of secular liberal law is that Muslims generally still have a belief that the dhimmi position was never meant to apply to them and that historically and doctrinally it should be the inverse if one harks back to the days when Islam was at it's zenith. Hence my previous points re cultural arrogance. A loose fundamental simplistic world view is that the earth is Allah's and that Muslims have a duty to propagate his rule. While sitting back and barely coexisitng in a non-Muslim society is just about palatable, sitting back and seeing as they believe it, their holy duty of annexing non-Muslim lands so blatantly declared a failure strikes at the very heart of the Islamic and Arab world's insecurity regarding the complacency of Muslims today and further enhances the view that something must be done. This sense of falling short of civilisational heritage in my view is the provenance of such over-compensatory reactions.

I personally, speaking as a 'Classic Liberal' of a realist bent, am less-than-fond of Danish social liberalism most unliberal bent (e.g. the concept of seperate boys and girls school as 'offensive' is most unliberal in its philosophy), as no doubt comes through on my observations above.

I think you've hit on the seeds of the real conflict here. You, as am I, are a firm believer in the marketplace of ideas, To quote Justice Holmes,

Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition.... But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.

The Danes, when pressed, would broadly agree with this. Many Muslims, probably a large majority, would not.

This is the idea I was getting at above when I suggested that this is a point on which the West cannot afford to compromise. The marketplace of ideas is one of the foundations of the economic, political and social success of modern liberal democracy.

The freedom to ignore ideas you don't like is inherent in the concept of the marketplace of ideas. To the extent, however, that Muslims, insist on either legally or violently suppressing ideas they don't like, their particular strain of Islam really is incompatible with liberal democracy and we have serious problem.

The Lounsbury

Reading this blog I immidiatly understood that it was an odd mix. I just wanted to explain a few things as how I saw Danish society as a danish expat in London: a much more diverse place, much less provinsial.
A British ambassador once said about Denmark: it is not a nation but a tribe. Untill very recently an extrymly homogenious society.
On the surface the laws in Scandinavia are very liberal. But there is a very strong non-written social code that foreigners don’t see at first. It’s a society were one has to conform. The liberal tag on scandinavia is a tag foreigner have applied to us.

Joergen, on the contrary, I think it is a rather even mix. It may be made up of rather odd people I will concede that much.

The point you make regarding liberalism being thrust upon Scandinavia is one worth addressing. I think that what other contributors were trying to say is that that 'ostentatious social liberalism' in itself is somehow intrinsically damned. On a purely reductionist level, that 'tribal' expectation to conform is the twin of the Islamic conservative one if under a guise that does not immediately smack of repression. To plagiarise, it is not liberty that most men love but license.

Regarding Marketplace of Ideas
The freedom to ignore ideas you don't like is inherent in the concept of the marketplace of ideas. To the extent, however, that Muslims, insist on either legally or violently suppressing ideas they don't like, their particular strain of Islam really is incompatible with liberal democracy and we have serious problem.

Yes, a serious problem. But building the marketplace in the West took (and is taking) some time. I don't expect markets to mature overnight.

There are paths, one has to have a reasonable idea of the development a market can make in a certain period.

Re Joergen, thanks for your follow-on and I wanted us not be misunderstood (or worse, appear to be pretending to a devout status few of us could even pretend to play).

And yes, the issue of Scandinavia just for the first time digestig large 'visible' minorities is a serious issue. As well as a natural one. Lots of aspects to this.

Re Meph's note on cultural arrogance and the like:
Yes, I do agree in large part, although it strikes me the discomfort for the "average Mohammed" comes largely from the deep sense of being challenged bec the region is so clearly fucked-up by its own standards. Economically weak, divided, etc.

Los Angeles Times February 4, 2006
Tim Rutten:
Regarding Media
Drawn into a religious conflict

Protests Over Cartoons Spread

THERE'S a difference between a piece of journalism that unavoidably provokes and one that is merely provocative. So which were the cartoon caricatures of Muhammad published in European newspapers from Bulgaria to Madrid this week? ...

[E: Don't paste entire articles into comments. Use the hyperlink to view]

Lounsbury, I'm afraid you did miss my question. The Islamists differ in interpretation from traditional Islam on a number of questions. When considering how a Muslim "should" respond or act in some situation what framework he is operating in or using as reference becomes important. And if it is an Islamist framework then what they have to say on his obligations when in a non-Muslim country becomes the question, not what traditional Islam has to say. I had not meant my reference to secular law to distract from that question, though I can see how it might have, but I had not at any rate been assuming that whether or not a law was secular had been a factor in development of the traditional interpretation

Waterboy, thank you, that is the sort of response I was looking for

Continuing the question, does anyone know the justification used for the demands and actions that we have seen

Mas:

Well sorry I suppose, but I spend half my time whacked out on these damnable chemo mgmt drugs, so perhaps I am growing dimmer.

It was not clear, regardless, from the question if you were posing an Islamist question or an Islam question. Sometimes people don't know the diff.

Moving right along, which demands and actions?

Mas, if you are enquiring as to the religious theological demand to defend the prophet and the actions to do so that is a theological question that is better answered through a Quranic (and hadith) survey of verses and sayings that many sheikhs and scholars are citing as the reason why this the duty of every Muslim. (A survey I am working on now if that is indeed your question).

In terms of the prohibition of the depiction of the prophet, that is a universal prohibition in Islam that covers all Abrahamic prophets. The fact that there were satirical caricatures further added fuel to the flame fanned by those who feel that the flounting of the prohibtion (which does happen frankly and is tolerated) crossed the line to render the 'demands and actions', religious duties. Cynically of coure it is clear to most that that is not the only contributory factor, if one that has been employed to mobilise.

Lounsbury, no problem. Hopefully my response to Bint ash-Shaitan below will clarify my question.

Bint ash-Shaitan, I can from "general knowledge" understand defence of the Prophet, likewise prohibitions against depicting any of the prophets, much less mockery. I would certainly find your survey of interest.

What I do not understand is what basis they claim in applying that prohibition to, or at least demanding it from, non-Muslims in lands not under Muslim rule.

I do not mean to imply by my question that the legal/theological underpinnnings are the sole or even the most important factor here. But I would expect some such basis or rationale, and Raf*'s and Lounsbury's comments raised the question for me. It just happens to be the sort of thing I find of interest.

Mas,
I direct you to Meph's latest posting on the message of religious figures in the Arab world that contains some information so as not to become redundant. I will add in the comments section some translations of fatwas that attempt to apply the prohibition to non-Muslims.

i strongly oppose those who had created cartoons of prophet muhammad (peace be upon him).that means the people who created cartoons doesnt wants peace in the world where all religious people are living inthis world as one family these people wants to divide the family that will never happens allah will punish them one day .at last i really say that this issue has hurt every muslims heart.there is a limit for any thing . but for these people there is no limit why??????????????????????????????????????is there nobody to make such law in the freedon of media who are interfering in the religious matters .i think it is beyond the limit so atlast i strong oppose this .

Ghouse:

Some of the cartoonists may have desired conflict, some may have simply been indifferent. There is no particular reason for God to punish the cartoonists, as non-Muslims they were under no particular obligation not to portray the Prophet Muhammed - and indeed in Islamic history some Muslim artists have in fact portrayed the Prophet. If you step back and stop lapping up the agitation, you'd understand there is nothing in particular in sharia that would make merely portraying the prophet, by non-Muslims outside Dar al-Islam, anything more than a triviality.

Calling for a law against "interfering in religious matters" merely indicates you do not understand freedom of expression or in fact Islamic law.

God should punish those all around exploiting a triviality for violent ends that have nothing do with anything but their lust for power.

Bint, thanks, I got back to this site this morning and saw her comments, as well as yours here.

My Arabic, by the way, while a bit weak and rusty, remains somewhat serviceable.

Mas, excellent, in that case will just post the links to the sites since I have been tardy in my translation duties due to being sidetracked by local frivolity.