'Aqoul: Cartoon Outrage: Salafist Entrepreneurial Behaviour, Manufacturing Incidents & the Problem of Moderation [Updated]

« "No Offend Chinese Women": Denmark and the Mutation of Organized Protest | In a Nutshell: Problems in US Guiding MENA »

February 06, 2006

Cartoon Outrage: Salafist Entrepreneurial Behaviour, Manufacturing Incidents & the Problem of Moderation [Updated]

There seems hardly any reason to provide links to this ever-escalating cycle of utter contemptible idiocy, so let me make this more or less purely opinion and my own personal analysis. I would be remiss, however, if I did not pimp our very own summary page on the Danish – Mohammed Cartoon Controversy.

I also would like to point to a fine round up of online commentary as well as highlight our dear Raf Bey’s contribution: “Why do the Syrians burn embassies but the Iranians don't?” In addition, to return a citational favour well-deserved, I point to Clive Davis’ blog commentary, and in particularly this most recent summary of rational commentary on the riots. One has to agree with his observation that the commentary he cites is “more helpful than one of Christopher Hitchens' thunderbolts on "the case for mocking religion".” Juvenile exercise of expression, but then we should be used to Hitchens being a cretin with regards to the MENA region.

Onward, then.

The Lounsbury Discussion on the Issue

[Update: reading Wikipedia I found an online link - no longer working - to the/an Arabic dossier on the cartoons written by the Denmark group of Imams. Having given it a speed read, it appeared to me that while the dossier was written post-facto to their official meetings, its Arabic text did clearly indicate the incendiary 'extra cartoons' were not published, but were ones received by certain unidentified protest leaders, post their public protests in Denmark. That makes the provence of the cartoons less doubtful to me. The dossier was not inherently unreasonable in tone, although certainly disputable, and clearly reflected an agenda, one which I continue to think reflects the Salafist extremist fringe]

[Update II: A very interesting note thanks to Clive's comment, Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons; they were apparently offensive and unfunny. Ahem. Well. In other notes re the same article, someone desperately needs to give Muslim activists a lesson in marketing: the European Committee for Prophet Honouring just sounds... silly.]

First, a comment on origin that goes to much of the looser commentary and reporting out there speaking to “Muslim rioting” as well as a finer and more useful understanding of the crisis than simply "West versus East".

Let me add, in advance, for the less literate and more knee-jerking reader, that an understanding of the crisis and its components does not mean excusing violence or anything of the sort (except to sub-literate dimwits every bit as dim and knee-jerking as the less sedentary embassy and consulate burners). Furthermore, criticism of offensive knee-jerking, tediously juvenile Islamophobic “let’s offend to prove a point” exercise in freedom-of-speech is not the same caving to pressure or supporting censorship – adults know how to exercise discretion (even temporary), above all in time of conflict and stress.

Mechanically gunning for confrontation is an extremists’ game. Renouncing the right to say things about the Prophet Mohammed is caving – and should not be done – showing good manners^* and intelligent discretion even in the face of stupidity is not caving, but rather fighting an intelligent fight. Certainly few of the moderate devout will desire to side with liberalism if liberalism appears to them to be about insisting on offending them without giving a reasonable pause and hearing.

*: Of course this may seem like ironic advice from me, given my combative nature and take no prisoners approach to disputes (at times). However there is a vast difference between intramural online disputes and deadly serious conflict.

Returning to then to the crisis, my general thesis regarding the current “cartoon crisis”, based less on substantial evidence than on my gut feeling and some bits and hints, is this is largely the deliberate provocation and manufacture of Salafiste extremist fringe that desperately wants to drive a wedge between the Islamic world and … well everyone else. The controversy has exploded at present, months after the original publication, because the Salafi extremist fringe in the Islamic community (or rather communities) saw the cartoons incident as a means of furthering their separatist no-friendship-with-the-infidels agenda. I note that the esteemed Roula Khalaf, in the Financial Times in Radicals ensure explosive reaction to cartoons provides substantive support for this, and my prior speculation in comments that Syrian provocateurs might be involved in the Beirut incident:

Muslim religious leaders in Lebanon condemned the violence, which took a sectarian turn, when a Christian church near the Danish mission was also stoned. Fouad Siniora, Lebanese prime minister, said the demonstration had been infiltrated by rogue elements carrying tear gas and determined to provoke trouble. Among the 176 people arrested in Beirut on Sunday, 76 were said to be Syrian...

The cartoons have touched a raw nerve across the Arab and Muslim worlds, with protests and boycotts erupting in various countries. But the most violent incidents were recorded on Saturday in Syria, where the Ba’athist regime is staunchly secular and protests are rarely held without government approval. Damascus has been under intense international pressure, and has been fighting allegations of involvement in last year’s killing of Rafiq Hariri, Lebanon’s former prime minister. The regime may be seeking to rally domestic support by portraying itself as the champion of Arab and Islamic causes.

Note the denunciation (and there have been others, as well as highly reasonable calls for restrained protests) for those calling for Muslims to denounce the violence, it is happening – as too often many calling for such really have no clue as to Muslim reaction nor worse yet, really have an interest. There needs to be more of course, but most of those posturing in this regard are not doing so out of real principle of knowledge (or a sense of how to build and really support denunciation of violence).

Regardless, Khalaf’s reporting as well as other data points – such as the affiliation of the Imams from Denmark, which seems to be Salafi extremist, the observations of tight coordination within the demos, the rather small numbers involved in most demos (an example of real demos with mass support, e.g. the Amman demos after the terror bombings, the demos in Casablanca after those terror attacks) and generally the language one can observe in most, rather underlines the relative marginality and limitation to the hard-core Islamist-Salafi circles. Palestinian territories of course is a lawless mess that needs little fundamental explanation given the dominance of free-wheeling gangs of ‘militants’ – usually an euphemism for idiot young hooligans dressing their young guys idiocies in some ‘cause’.

The importance here is multiple.

First, the easy characterisation of “Muslim Anger” blended in with unbounded violence that one can get from much reporting (and even more frankly Islamophobic commentary, especially online blogging) is exaggerated. Overall, it strikes me that the idle reader (or slanted reader) can easily get an impression of massive protests everywhere and “millions” in the Muslim world out there are howling for blood. Rather, it is largely the usual extremist suspects howling for blood.

Are there too many? Yes, but getting the impression millions of Muslims are storming embassies and calling for death is an exaggeration that plays into the hands of the extremists who of course desperately want this to be true. Responses predicated on that play into their hands.

The issue is serious and the fact that something so trivial should actually seriously upset a good level of not-generally-extremist people – which it has – does indeed, as I said elsewhere, earlier here, speak poorly to the MENA region and the wider Islamic world’s …. public or political culture shall we say? At the same time, it is very easy to deeply exaggerate the situation and speak in sweeping terms of “millions” of Muslims backing head-chopping for the cartoonists and gliding over the fact that most of the truly deep idiocy has happened in certain areas for reasons very specific, as Raf Bey said, to those countries.

There are three key ingredients here:

(i) Weak governmental forces unable to restrain the violent Islamist fringes / or for tactical political reasons are playing with fire (see Syria);
(ii) Well-networked Salafist extremists ideologically opposed to any connexions with the non-Islamic world and looking to find hooks to boost their own support – they know how to push buttons to their own advantage, and by the reaction in the West it is clear those buttons are not only Muslim;
(iii) Lack of robust liberal tradition in the region (not that this is any way unique to the Islamic world, see the note regarding China), and a serious disconnect between (quite recent) secularisation in the West and traditional religious feeling in the region (and, one may note again, elsewhere).

Well, four. I would add global communication technology.

There is meaning to this analysis:

First, there is no reason for the despairing inevitable World War of Civilisations handwringing, although clearly certain parties very much wish for the same;

Second, the problems posed are in many ways tractable. Perhaps in the long term, but tractable. They are more tractable if the West – which is the stronger actor here, and the one that can and should take the initiative – takes the initiative while young addled twits and older manipulators in region go banging about like morons. Short-term restraint being one. Tackling discrimination while also working to smash the bloody minded extremists is another (and not tolerating either the bloody-minded agitators such as the little clique of agents provocateurs we’ve seen in London, for example).

Now, a final comment, a more generic one, regarding a certain category of calls for “Muslim liberals” [usually in the sense of classic liberals, not the US sense] or “Moderate Muslims” to “speak out” / “protest” / “marginalise” the extremists.

It is a bit pat, and rather an easy call to make. On one hand, I know that a goodly number of persons making such statements know fuck all about moderate Muslims and really haven’t a clue, a rather nastier category exclude the idea (of moderates, Islam is evil for them) even if posturing otherwise. On the other hand, this is often genuine.

The core issue really becomes trust, then. Leaving aside the already Westernized, who represent that liberal elite I frequently am somewhat disdainful of as a political group (even though they are in fact my best friends and family, so to speak) there is that vast devout middle that is at once horrified of the bloody-mindedness of the Zarqawis and the Emirs who turned Algeria into a killing field, but also distrusts the West. Distrusts the West for the feeling that somehow the West, in its entirety, is “against” them and their form of piety, and perceives the West as being intolerant of their practices (which may be a bit Victorian, but ex-Saudi Arabia are rarely as horrid as often thought from media coverage, from a Westerner’s perspective).

In short, the moderate pious ‘middle’ is stuck in the middle and hasn’t the reflexive confidence in those calling for them to stand-up, that would make such calls sensible. (Of course let us leave aside the issue that neither side generally has a fucking clue as to what is actually being said, except by the loud-mouthed obnoxious extremists all-around. The bad impression is one hard to unmake – a human trait, probably a useful one, but the bloody minded Salafist extremists burning diplomatic buildings, even in the minority, make a smaller impression than the millions of Muslims ignoring the whole bloody thing, not burning things and simply going to work – and the leaders being reasonable. Reasonable is often boring. Look what blogs get read.)

There is, of course, the further queer catch-22 that moderation is boring, bad copy, and generally doesn’t make an impression. Frankly, for the newspaper man, the Headline, “Millions of Maghrebines don’t particularly bother to do anything about Danish cartoons” is, well, boring. And you skim right over it. As a general matter as a fairly temperate person when it comes to protesting (I don’t do it myself), I find it a bother. I recall being stuck in Washington for the idiot anti-Globo Lefty Moron protests. I, as a highly moderate classic liberal, did not counter-protest. I went to work, made snide remarks about idiot Lefty Idiots, called up my World Bank amigos and mocked them, and, well went about business.

This is not to say there are not far, far, far too many of the bloody minded extremists in the MENA region – although I wilfully assert that the core issue behind a good 75 percent of their idiocies is socio-economic sickness of a very particular historical nature, and not ‘Islam’ and solving most of those problems gets things down to manageable levels. This is among the many reasons I work in the region, the others being private and largely related to my own personal insanity and obsessions, which does tend to grow on you – or not.

To close on this matter, a quick citation to The Financial Times (which might also be called the Lounsbury Bible, or perhaps to abuse things further, Lounsbury Hadith):

Divergence from western values is not deviance by Patrick Chabal

ahem.

Well, not so final comment, some random other observations I jotted from the past few days:

Protests Over Muhammad Drawings Intensify

In Sudan, some even urged al-Qaida terrorists to target Denmark.

"Strike, strike, Bin Laden," shouted some in a crowd of about 50,000 who filled a Khartoum square

What is odd is that if you corner some of the same persons, they will shiftily deny Bin Laden "strikes" anyone.

Embarrassments, the lot of them.

Clerics in Palestinian areas called in Friday prayers for a boycott of Danish and European goods and the severing of diplomatic ties. Tens of thousands of incensed Muslims marched through Palestinian cities, burning the Danish flag and calling for vengeance.

One has to ask, from where are the Danish flags coming?

Not as if one has much call for Danish flags on a general basis.

My answer. The Salafi jihadist circles that love pimping these kinds of gatherings

Indeed, in the Telegraph, Charles Moore says precisely that, and more:

Why were those Danish flags to hand? Who built up the stockpile so that they could be quickly dragged out right across the Muslim world and burnt where television cameras would come and look? The more you study this story of "spontaneous" Muslim rage, the odder it seems.

The complained-of cartoons first appeared in October; they have provoked such fury only now. As reported in this newspaper yesterday, it turns out that a group of Danish imams circulated the images to brethren in Muslim countries. When they did so, they included in their package three other, much more offensive cartoons which had not appeared in Jyllands-Posten but were lumped together so that many thought they had.

It rather looks as if the anger with which all Muslims are said to be burning needed some pretty determined stoking. Peter Mandelson, who seems to think that his job as European Trade Commissioner entitles him to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, accuses the papers that republished the cartoons of "adding fuel to the flames"; but those flames were lit (literally, as well as figuratively) by well-organised, radical Muslims who wanted other Muslims to get furious. How this network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative journalism.

Indeed it would, the agitprop, deliberate distortion and lies the Salafi seperatists engaged in, and via what networks to provoke the reaction is something that should attract some attention.

But returning to the CBS arty, we can count on Sistani for reasonableness:

Iraq's leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, condemned the publications as a "horrific action."

But in remarks posted on his Web site, al-Sistani referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community whose actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

Muslim ire increases, but 'day of anger' has few takers

FROM Zanzibar to the Maldives and from Sudan to Indonesia, protests against the cartoons of Muhammad spread to the furthest corners of the Islamic world, with imams denouncing them during Friday prayers.

However, many of the demonstrations were only attended by a handful of people, and calls for an international “day of anger” went largely unheeded. Despite some imams in the Middle East demanding the beheading of the cartoonists, violence was limited.

In many ways, it strikes me the real story here is not the demonstrations, but what was clearly a planned campaign among Salafi-Jihadi (well I speculate on the Jihadi aspect) circles to try to use this in a general international agitprop campaign.

Posted by The Lounsbury at February 6, 2006 12:04 AM
Filed Under: Ethnic Minorities , Islam & Politics , Islamism , Levant , MENA Region General , North Africa , Op-Ed , Political Development , Press Freedom , Religious Minorities , Society & Culture

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.aqoul.com/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/2354

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Cartoon Outrage: Salafist Entrepreneurial Behaviour, Manufacturing Incidents & the Problem of Moderation [Updated]:

» THE MUSLIMS IN THE MIDDLE? from Clive Davis
One thing that makes me nervous about some of the people making the loudest anti-Muslim noises in the latest culture war is that they're the same folk who were desperate to interpret last year's riots in France as an intifada [Read More]

Tracked on February 6, 2006 07:45 PM

» [Sigh] Those Danish Cartoons from grumplestiltskin
With this controversy a-ragin’ all around us, I feel like I should add my two cents. However, others have done the work for me, and much more intelligently and comprehensively than I ever could. For said intelligent and comprehensive commenta... [Read More]

Tracked on February 7, 2006 08:53 AM

Comments

L- Many nails hit on the head with this. A further development that links into aforementioned desire to drive a wedge between the West and Islam is the official reaction of scholars and clerics across the Arab world and particularly in the Gulf. Even relatively liberal modern Anthony Robbins/life coach like preachers (mostly in Egypt and who have a huge following amongst that lost moderate middle you isolate) have reacted in a way that seizes upon the 'infatuation of Muslim youth with the West' and presents the cartoons as evidence that your adopted family does not accept you so nail your colours firmly to the mast of Islamic civilisation and loyalty.

Whether this no links to infidels in the West campaign is one cynically employed to further personal/group ambitions or a deep spiritual doctrinal belief that this severing is genuinely believed to be in the long term interest of the Islamic word (or even both), in my view requires further examination

Posted by: Meph at February 6, 2006 11:17 AM

So very disturbing how well this would fit into the plot of the book I am writing.

Posted by: secretdubai at February 6, 2006 12:16 PM

First, I think you're probably correct that neo-salafi agitators are probably actively engaged in fanning the flames -- they'd be pretty stupid if they weren't. But, in a sense, that is neither here nor there.

If the only issue here were quieting unrest in the Islamic world, I'd agree with you. But I think there is more at stake here.

Let's be clear. Bomb threats, death threats and embassy burnings are a species of terrorism. A low grade species of terrorism perhaps but terrorism nonetheless. You will not curb this bad behavior by rewarding it. I do not advocate, therefore, pussyfooting about in an effort to avoid offending delicate Muslim sensibilities.

Like it or not, this is a "clash of civilizations" but it need not be a fatal one. I suspect, however, it is more a clash between certain subcultures in Islam rather than Islam as a whole. Muslims in many countries, as you point out, don't seem particularly arsed.

That said, there are certainly social realities that underlie the average Muslim's reactions where Muslims do get upset. As absurd as it seems to us, I can see why many people in Muslim countries want to hold Denmark as a whole responsible for the action of a Danish newspaper. "Freedom of the Press" is an oxymoron for many. Indeed, the concept of truly private economic actors and the rule of law is a nonsense for most of them. This is not, therefore, at time to capitulate but, rather, a time to educate.

The EU, with one voice, ought to explain, civily but forcefully, just how freedom of speech in a modern liberal democracy functions and how bad taste and rudeness are not against the law.

Dear Muslim World,

Yes, we agree these cartoons were in bad taste and, if it had been up to us, we wouldn't have published them. But as the government, it wasn't up to us. People here are free to be as rude as they like and there's nothing we can do about it. You think the caricatures of Mohammed were bad, you should see the cartoons they draw of us!

Anyway, as much as we'd like to apologize, we can't because we haven't done anything to apologize for. Here in Europe, people are free to write and say what they like and it's none of the government's business. You might think it an odd system, but it works quite well for us and we wouldn't have it any other way.

Sincerely,

Europe

I note, in passing, that the Danish Prime Minister has essentially adopted exactly this position. But it would be awfully nice if Barroso and the Austrians would get on board.

There are at least two reasons for trying to use this as a teaching opportunity. First, the West cannot and will not gauge its actions in terms of whether they will annoy Syrian Muslims. As absurd as this sounds, it's happening right now with respect to the current controversy. The neo-salafis can find any number of provocations in the Western press on a daily basis, should they put their minds to it. Best to lance this boil at the outset and establish the principle that the Western press does not have a Muslim-safe filter and never will. Tariq Ramadan, America's favorite Swiss terrorist, put it quite well. "I condemn the calls to boycott or to kill. Muslims have to get used to living in a global world."

Second, this has potentially serious consequences for Muslim immigration. Anyone, Muslim or not, emmigrating to a foreign country needs to understand the social system under which they'll be living. You can argue, perhaps, whether assimilation is desirable. But adaptation is unquestionably necessary. Anyone in the Islamic world who is furious about these cartoons and furious that the various governments can't and won't punish the newspapers who published them should probably stay right where they are. There's no margin in misleading these people by making apologetic noises.

Very fair point. 200 million Indonesians do nothing at all but 200 trash an office building lobby and make headlines. Nonetheless, there are certain areas where there is widespread unrest.

The core issue really becomes trust, then. Leaving aside the already Westernized . . .there is that vast devout middle that is at once horrified of the bloody-mindedness of the Zarqawis and the Emirs who turned Algeria into a killing field, but also distrusts the West.

I'm not sure I buy this analysis. Ultimately, neo-salafi terrorism isn't the West's problem, it's Islam's. The West only has to deal with the occasional bit of terrorist overflow. The Muslim world has to deal with these nutters every day. IIRC, more than ten times as many ordinary civilians have been killed by insurgent attacks in Iraq as American soldiers. The vast majority of Islamic terrorism is strictly intramural. The West can't end Islamic terrorism. At the end of the day, only Muslims can end Islamic terrorism. To do that, they need to take a stand and deal with it in their own communities.

I think the real reason more ordinary Muslims don't take a stand is that they're scared to death of most of these people. I suspect bad things tend to happen to people who get too vocal in their opposition. Keeping your head down is a wise survival strategy. The same thing happens in Southern Italy with the Mafia.

Distrusts the West for the feeling that somehow the West, in its entirety, is “against” them and their form of piety, and perceives the West as being intolerant of their practices

I don't doubt that they do feel this but it has little basis in fact. Muslims have more religious freedom in the West than they do in most Muslim countries. What really bothers these Muslims, I suspect, is not that the West is intolerant of their practices, but that the West is tolerant of practices they find abhorent. I suspect there is an element of Salafism in this attitude and this worldview lends itself to the idea of a war between civilizations. Fortunately, most Muslims don't seem to share this view.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 03:54 AM

I *knew* that the 'pig' cartoon was a fabrication. Why would racist propaganda insulting the Prophet Mohammed depict him talking into a microphone? see here

Posted by: waterboy at February 7, 2006 02:11 PM

The latest conspiracy theory I've heard is that this is an Iranian-inspired spook job to rouse the masses and show the West that it can't screw around with the Muslim world any more. Which would fit with the pre-planning and also the Hojjatieh trope which is buzzing around (which has it that Ahmadinejad is a messianic nihilist who believes that the Mahdi will only return when the world is in utter chaos).

I'm deferring judgment. It's plausible, but a bit tinfoil-hat. The dangers of speculation...

Posted by: waterboy at February 7, 2006 02:24 PM

Hilarious! Nice catch, waterboy. Tragedy, once again, descends into farce.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 7, 2006 02:55 PM

Anonymous,
I agree with you wholeheartedly on the issue of Muslim immigration. The perception that these minorities do not integrate, attempt to learn the language or anything about their host cultures is a very real one and Muslims in the West have done nothing to change it. In the United Kingdom for example, the issue of poiltical inclusion of Muslims (even second and third generation) is a high priority for the Labour party. Muslims immmigrant's attitude towards Western countries that host them is arrogant, unrealistic and inflammatory. Some believe that it is the West's fault for not trying harder and not being aware of the vast difference between its values and Islamic ones. This is also a fair comment. Most Muslim settlers in the West are not political refugees but economic ones so not actually there out of fear for their lives of if you are such a good Muslim that your host nation offends you so much, piss off back home and live humbly but piously.

What really bothers these Muslims, I suspect, is not that the West is intolerant of their practices, but that the West is tolerant of practices they find abhorent. I suspect there is an element of Salafism in this attitude and this worldview lends itself to the idea of a war between civilizations. Fortunately, most Muslims don't seem to share this view.

I don't agree with you on that one. Judging from the very successful campaign that has sailed on the back of these cartoons there is, here in the Gulf and the Arab World, a clear lack of desire to be apologetic for the actions of the newspaper even on behalf of the boring moderate middle. Whether this inspires them to do something about it another question but a sense of irreconciliabilty does run high even among liberals.

And ironically, finally

On the contrary, this realisation exposes and highlights the much needed separation between what drives and creates Muslim opinion and what was/is/could be/should be undressed and unmanipulated Muslim opinion when the flames are not fanned. Neo-Salafi agitators would be stupid not to provoke, but we would be stupid if we were not then on that basis fair to those who have been provoked, aware that maybe there is some hope and that the clash of civilizations you mention is indeed not an inevitability if the false muezzins of the Salafist movement are pointed out.

Posted by: Bint ash-shaitan at February 7, 2006 05:49 PM

dear waterboy,

re: neandernews - even though the "pig" pic has now been traced to be Jacques Barrot, a pig squealing contestant at the French Pig-Squealing Championships in Trie-sur-Baise’s annual festival", it could still very well have been copied & sent to danish muslims with the subtitle "muhammad is a pig". i actually do not think that pictures like that & the other two "extraneous" images are NOT sent as hate-mail to muslims in europe.

i do think that the problems with the "danish cartoon protests" are: a bad judgement by the jyllands-posten editors who should've known better, a wrong choice of methods of protest the insult by danish muslims, and the obvious attempt by neo-salafists and and other islamists (the iranians are hardly neo-salafist - that ideology simply doesn't exist among shi'ites) to use this issue to further their own goals within the muslim world and and towards its relations with the "west".

--raf*

Posted by: raf* at February 8, 2006 03:57 AM

Interjecting myself as I have insomnia: I agree with Raf. There is nothing so far that suggests that the extraneous images are indeed fakes (ex the suspicious refusal to introduce the recipients, but that is weak beer, so to speak).

Also, I have had the chance to read the Arabic dossier, it does indeed refer to them as unpublished; given that it was written in Arabic for internal (Islamist activist) consumption in Oct 2005, I have to confess my earlier suspicions seem less than founded.

I would differ with Raf on the issue of the Danish editors. Should have known better? Well, in the context of deliberate provocation (and that was their goal), the cartoons were not the sort of thing that should have been published - and given their (or one of them) apparent concern about Jesus cartoons, stink of hypocrisy.

The issue of the Danish Muslims protests and the cartoons themselves rather go to the interesting question of the dynamic of Muslim minorities in Europe. I wish I knew more about the Danish situation, I can comment about France and even UK (although others here are stronger on that), but Denmark no.

Posted by: The Lounsbury at February 8, 2006 04:11 AM

Lounsbury,
European Committee for Prophet Honouring, maybe abbreviated to ECPH, loosely translated as Desist or Enough. Actually no, get the PR people in..

Posted by: Meph at February 8, 2006 06:14 AM

The pictures were ridiculous.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean insulting someone's religion.

The prophet peace be upon him is dear to us. And as Muslims, we aren't allowed to meant to draw pictures of other prophets e.g. Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and we are not allowed to disrespect other religions.

Posted by: be at February 8, 2006 07:46 AM

The pictures were ridiculous.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean insulting someone's religion.

Posted by: be at February 8, 2006 07:46 AM

Be,

I don't quite see why you are wasting your breath as nowhere on this post does it suggest that the cartoons were not ridiculous. Moreover, the fact that we Muslims aren't allowed to disrespect other religions does not mean that we don't so get off your high horse. Go and listen to Imams in some Muslim countries calling for the wives of Christians and Jews to be widowed and their children orphaned before you embark upon any holier than thou moralising.

Posted by: Meph at February 8, 2006 09:14 AM

Go and listen to Imams in some Muslim countries calling for the wives of Christians and Jews to be widowed and their children orphaned before you embark upon any holier than thou moralising.

Hear, hear. For that matter, I simply cannot fathom how anyone can consider violence to be an appropriate response to a drawing, no matter how offensive. (And particularly when the violence isn't even directed at those responsible for the drawing.)

Posted by: Eva Luna at February 8, 2006 12:45 PM

Uh Oh!

http://bareknucklepolitics.com/?p=809

Be, we take your point but at this blog, we try to be analytical. Let us, then, analyze your statement.

The prophet peace be upon him is dear to us. And as Muslims, we aren't allowed to meant to draw pictures of other prophets e.g. Jesus, Moses, Abraham, and we are not allowed to disrespect other religions.

This is a fine rule for Muslims but it is not a rule that everyone else recognizes. No one is arguing that Muslims should not be allowed to follow this rule. The problem is that many Muslims are attempting to force everyone else to follow this rule.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean insulting someone's religion.

In the West, yes, it does. No idea, religious or otherwise, is exempt from criticism and discussion. Some criticism might be in bad taste, but bad taste isn't illegal.

Muslims are perfectly free to expresses their annoyance and even disgust at these cartoons. That's part of the marketplace of ideas. But the line has to be drawn at violence. Burning embassies and making death threats because someone says something you dislike is a kind of terrorism and cannot be tolerated. To quote a phrase, the proper remedy for bad speech is more speech.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2006 02:56 PM

dear all,

actually, there are provisions in all sorts of "western" press/media laws that to put limits on freedom of speech, like "incitment to hatred, disrespect of other people's religions, call for war" etc.

hence - criticism & discussion is free, but insulting and slandering religions is - mostly - not. denmark is actually THE odd one out, it is the most permissible & least restrictive country in the "west".

in a host of others a number of the cartoons published in the jyllands-posten would be illegal.

--raf*

Posted by: raf* at February 8, 2006 05:30 PM

in a host of others a number of the cartoons published in the jyllands-posten would be illegal.

I'm not sure where you get this idea. To my knowledge, the cartoons have been reprinted in at least half-a-dozen EU countries, as well as Australia, New Zealand and the United States.

I'm sure some western countries have blasphemy/religious hatred laws that would have prevented publication but a majority?

Posted by: Anonymous at February 8, 2006 08:44 PM

February 06, 2006

Cartoon Outrage: Salafist Entrepreneurial Behaviour, Manufacturing Incidents & the Problem of Moderation [Updated]

Trackback Pings

Comments

Comment Subscription