April 04, 2006
A Crack in the Cartoon Boycott?
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, April 4 — A group of prominent Muslim scholars has called for ending a boycott on a Danish food products company over the publication in Denmark of derogatory cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
Posted by Conor at 07:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 03, 2006
On Academic Freedom
NYU's President has written a statement on academic freedom.
Eugene Volokh responds:
Excellent words. But NYU's deeds in the cartoon controversy are not consistent with those words. These are, as people have pointed out, likely the most newsworthy cartoons in the history of cartooning. It's impossible to thoughtfully discuss the controversy over them, certainly with the concreteness and depth that an academic exchange demands, without showing them. Are they racist, as some say they are? Are they fair criticism or excessive criticism? Would much of esthetic or political value be lost by foregoing the representation of Mohammed in cartoons, movies, and the like? It's impossible to discuss this without displaying the cartoons and pointing out their details in the process of discussing them.Though some have argued that the cartoons are outside the bounds "of civil discourse," that is the very point that the cartoons panel was trying to explore; and it seems to me that no university committed to academic freedom can just categorically accept claims that any depiction of Mohammed, or even any depiction of Mohammed used in the process of condemning Islam, is outside "civil discourse" and thus censorable. Discussing them in front of not just a purely NYU audience, but one that includes both NYU students, faculty, and staff and members of the public, simply fulfills the university's traditional role as a creator of knowledge and debate for the public's benefit, rather than some insular community of savants speaking only among themselves. NYU's own rules, and I suspect NYU groups' consistent practice, specifically contemplates that student-group-run events may be open to the public.
The sentiments set forth in Sexton's statement would thus dictate that NYU unambiguously protect a student group's rights to display and discuss the cartoons. Yet the theoretical possibility of some violent reaction -- coupled, of course, with concern over "the sensibilities of its students" -- seems to have been enough to make NYU abandon its high-minded academic freedom principles.
Posted by Conor at 01:34 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 19, 2006
Islamic Radicals Appeal to Human Rights
Danish imam Ahmad Akkari is supporting an official complaint being lodged against Denmark at the United Nations. His argument: "...our point is that in failing to censure Jyllands-Posten, Denmark has committed a breach of its duties as a signatory of UN conventions on human and political rights as well as international agreements on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination."
Meanwhile Christians, Jews, Hindus, Gays, and women face human rights violations, political tyranny and discrimination across most of the Muslim world.
Will Western Civilization continue to allow farcical attempts by Islamic radicals to use our own tolerance against us?
Posted by Conor at 06:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 11, 2006
On Censoring Offensive Material
Of course I realize that some disagree, and see any even possibly pejorative reference to Mohammed — or for that matter any depiction of Mohammed — as a horrible emotional injury. But their subjective feelings, real as they may be to them, are not sufficient reasons for the rest of us to change the way we talk or write. "I'm offended" cannot be justification enough, either in law or in manners, for the conclusion "therefore you must shut up."
Posted by Conor at 02:07 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 04, 2006
A Principled Stand
Junaid Afeef, a Muslim offended by the Danish cartoons, is acting as the lawyer defending someone in trouble for publishing them. Why? He understands that freedom of expression benefits Muslims as much as anyone, and that they will suffer from its curtailment.
Posted by Conor at 04:01 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 23, 2006
The Pathology of the Tehran Times
Yesterday I suggested that given the outrage seen in the Muslim world it would be interesting to see the reaction to mosque attacks in Iraq, where Shiite and Sunni Muslims are blowing up one another's holy sites and killing one another.
The Tehran Times takes up this issue:
The serious crime of the terrorists who bombed the holy shrines of the tenth and eleventh Shia Imams, Imam Hadi (AS) and Imam Hassan Askari (AS), on Wednesday in Iraq was an insult to the sanctities of all Muslims.Yep, that's right, they're blaming the Danes. The mind reels. (Hat Tip Andrew Sullivan)Undoubtedly, it is a new plot which first of all can be considered as the continuation of the disrespectful move of the European newspapers that published cartoons of the Prophet of Islam.
Posted by Conor at 01:50 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
A Press Failure?
Alan Dershowitz and William Bennett have written an odd-couple op-ed in the Washington Post asserting that the press has failed us throughout the Danish cartoon affair:
Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind -- images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples, and that pierced the heart of the Muslim world as well as the U.S. military.I think that last assertion is correct, and I wish more newspapers would admit that they haven't published the cartoons largely because they're afraid someone will end up dead if they do.The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects -- stories that could harm our allies. And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it.
In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation's efforts -- and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike -- the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind.
But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London -- never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles -- included signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam." The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage.
The Boston Globe, speaking for many other outlets, editorialized: "[N]ewspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."
But as for caricatures depicting Jews in the most medievally horrific stereotypes, or Christians as fanatics on any given issue, the mainstream press seems to hold no such value. And in the matter of disclosing classified information in wartime, the press competes for the scoop when it believes the public interest warrants it.
What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation. They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists -- their threats more than their sensibilities.
Posted by Conor at 01:19 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 14, 2006
Riots in Antwerp
Did you hear about this through the mainstream press?
Last Saturday’s riots in Antwerp, when Moroccan “youths� went on the rampage in Antwerp’s historical center, destroying cars and beating up reporters, has led to frustration among police officers because the authorities prevented them from stopping the violence. Officers complained in today’s papers that they had been given orders to watch passively while young, rowdy Muslims were allowed to take revenge over... drawings published more than four months ago in a Danish newspaper.Thank you, Brussel's Journal.“We had to watch how they were ripping off car mirrors. We wanted to stop this vandalism but were ordered to withdraw,� an anonymous policeman says in today’s Flemish daily De Standaard. “An ambulance was told to switch off its siren because that might provoke the Moroccans.� Another anonymous officer told the press: “There you are watching this, while citizens can see that you are powerless.� According to an anonymous police chief the authorities decided, that “it was better to have a few cars vandalized than risk open war in the streets.� On Monday the city council, led by the Socialist mayor Patrick Janssens, decided that the city would compensate the damage to cars and property.
One of the victims of the violence was Fatima Bali, a city councillor of Moroccan origin. She was on a tram last Saturday evening around 6 pm, when the vehicle was attacked. “It was very frightening,� she said. “Stones were thrown at the tram. Passengers tried to hide under the seats. Everyone panicked. Windows were shattered, a stone hit a passenger’s head – a Moroccan by the way. I hope I will never have to go through something like that again.�
Posted by Conor at 05:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Bye Bye Free Speech
Let us imagine a Christian and a Muslim arguing on the streets of Brussels.
Christian: Jesus Christ is the only son of our Lord God.
Muslim: Jesus Christ is a great man and a prophet, peace be upon him, but he is not the son of Allah.
It is rather easy to imagine both men as devout believers who are offended that, on one hand, Jesus is being made out as the son of God, and on the other hand, that Christ's divinity is being denied. Certainly both men are directly and publically contradicting a core element of the other's faith.
Now imagine the same debate taking place on the pages of a European newspaper--I suppose we'll have to assume a particularly brave editor--and consider the following (from the Brussel's Journal):
Earlier, in a joint statement, Mr Solana of the EU, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan and Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the Secretary-General of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) wrote: “We understand the deep hurt and widespread indignation felt in the Muslim world. The freedom of the press, which entails responsibility and discretion, should respect the beliefs and tenets of all religions."
Should it? Is the conversation above likely enough to cause offense that it ought to be kept from the newspaper? What about atheists? Should they be allowed to argue that God doesn't exist? Such an argument certainly doesn't respect the tenets of all religions. Should we throw them in jail if they make it?
It's a nice notion, the idea that we should all respect one another's religious beliefs. I subscribe to it in my personal life. Why needlessly offend my fellow humans by denmigrating their beliefs?
Anyone who gives the matter a moment's thought, however, will appreciate that religious beliefs conflict with one another and with non-religious beliefs all the time.
Kofi Annan & friends say we ought to respect all religious beliefs. So what happens when we run across a religious cult that calls for the ritual sacrfice of a virgin from every nation to placate the gods? Or what happens when a Frenchman truly believes that Christianity is a harmful form of mind control. Should the law prohibit him from speaking out about his beliefs?
The Brussel's Journal reports:
Today some 200 Islamic religious leaders demonstrated in Brussels’ European district. It was a peaceful demonstration, but the Muslims want Europe to adopt the religious taboos of Islam. They handed a letter to a representative of the European Commission condemning “the blasphemy and humiliation� caused by the Danish cartoons, demanding that the EU introduce legislation against “hatred and islamophobia� and that it ban “blasphemy and the showing of disrespect for all religions and their prophets� because “every excessive form of free speech stigmatizes people."Funny thing, the Danish cartoons didn't stigmatize Muslims in my eyes. The fact that 200 Islamic leaders are agitating to suppress free speech, however, stigmatizes Islam as a religion incompatible with Western freedoms. That's unfortunate because many Muslims don't feel that way.
Meanwhile many of us Westerners can help but comment on the irony that many Muslim nations won't even allow Jews and Christians to practice their religions... and yet it is Islamic leaders agitating for more rights in predoninantly Christian countries where they are completely free to practice their faith. In some European nations they're protesting the same governments that have subsidized Mosque construction with public dollars.
After their meeting with the representative of the Commission the Muslim delegation was received by the Danish ambassador, Karsten Petersen. “He thanked us for our moderation that invites dialogue and calm,� said imam Said Dakkar, the chairman of the Union of Brussels Mosques. “We have told him that we disapprove of violent demonstrations,� imam Said Mdaoucki of the Antwerp Mosque Federation added, “but we want to know how far freedom of speech is allowed to go. Can you ridicule someone’s values and beliefs? Is that freedom of speech?�Why yes, it is.
In a free society speech is the preferred way to show someone that you find their beliefs foolish. The alternative--violence--is all too common in societies where freedom of speech isn't allowed.
Unfortunately, Europe seems not to realize this.
Yesterday, during a visit to Saudi Arabia, EU Foreign Policy Coordinator Javier Solana promised that the EU will support a clause in an updated human rights charter of the United Nations to “protect the sanctity of religions and the prophets.�
Put another way, Europe may soon adopt a fundamental right to not have one's religious beliefs challenged. What an odd turn for the continent that gave us the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and Vatican II.
Posted by Conor at 04:21 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
February 12, 2006
"The Betrayal of Denmark"
The Brussel's Journal has another must-read post on the cartoon affair.
Posted by Conor at 06:06 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Mark Steyn: It's the Jihadists Who Are Offending Islam
Mark Steyn notes that some British Muslims are upset that a London sex shop is selling a blowup doll named "Mustafa Shag" since Mustafa also has the title "al-Mustapha."
If I were a Muslim, I'd be "hurt" and "humiliated" that the revered prophet's name is given not to latex blowup males but to so many real blowup males: The leader of the 9/11 plotters? Mohammed Atta. The British Muslim who self-detonated in a Tel Aviv bar? Asif Mohammed Hanif. The gunman who shot up the El Al counter at LAX? Heshamed Mohamed Hedayet. The former U.S. Army sergeant who masterminded the slaughter at the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania? Ali Mohamed. The murderer of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh? Mohammed Bouyeri. The notorious Sydney gang rapist? Mohammed Skaf. The Washington sniper? John Allen Muhammed. If I were a Muslim, I would be deeply offended that the prophet's name is the preferred appellation of so many killers and suicide bombers on every corner of the earth.It is surreal that given all the barbaric things Islamofascist jihadists are doing while invoking Islam the controversies that lead to demonstrations involve cartoons and blow up dolls.But apparently that's not as big a deal as Mustafa Shag.
For more, see the Sunday Times article How Liberal Britain Let Hate Flourish.
Posted by Conor at 06:00 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Fear Factor
Thursday, CNN broadcast a story on how common anti-Semitic caricatures are in the Arab press and illustrated it with —you guessed it — one virulently anti-Semitic cartoon after another. As the segment concluded, Wolf Blitzer looked into the camera and piously explained that while CNN had decided as a matter of policy not to broadcast any image of Muhammad, telling the story of anti-Semitism in the Arab press required showing those caricatures.Rutten favors publishing the cartoons to inform readers about the controversy. He also praises a newspaper for admitting an uncomfortable truth:He didn't even blush.
Among those who decline to show the caricatures, only one, the Boston Phoenix, has been forthright enough to admit that its editors made the decision "out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do. This is, frankly, our primary reason for not publishing any of the images in question. Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy."
John Temple, Editor of the Rocky Mountain News, writes:
I question whether we're being given the full story about why some news organizations aren't touching the cartoons.The missing word: Fear.
It would be impossible as a responsible editor with correspondents in the Muslim world to see the violent protests and not be concerned about endangering your own staff.
An alternative newspaper in Boston, The Phoenix, put it bluntly.
"Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history."
It's understandable other editors and publishers might not make a similar statement publicly, but it's hard to believe this concern didn't factor into their decisions.
Andrew Sullivan rails against media outlets that have failed to publish the Danish cartoons:
As of this writing no major newspaper in Britain has published the cartoons; the BBC has shown them only fleetingly and other networks have shied away. All have decided not to give you this critical information, without which no intelligent person can construct an informed and intelligent position on the matter. You’re on your own.The reasons given are conventional enough: the press doesn’t want to inflame matters further; the cartoons are indeed offensive, and no editor has to publish images that would appal readers; reprinting would merely play into the hands of extremists, and so on.
The one argument you haven’t heard is the one you hear off-camera. Many editors simply don’t want to put their staffs at risk of physical danger. They have “offended� Muslims in the past and learnt to regret it. In New York the editors of a free alternative paper, the New York Press, decided they wanted to run the cartoons so their readers could have a grasp of what this huge story is about. The owner refused. The staff quit en masse. The editor claims the owner gave him a simple explanation: “I’m not putting lives in danger. We’re not getting things blown up.�
None of these arguments is risible. An editor has no responsibility to publish anything he doesn’t want to. A publisher has every right to protect his own staff from physical danger. But what all the arguments amount to is simple: the press is refusing to do its job.
The fundamental job of journalists is to give you as much information as possible to make sense of the world around you. And in this story, where the entire controversy revolves around drawings, the press is suddenly coy. You can see Saddam Hussein in his underwear and members of the royal family in compromising positions. You can see Andres Serrano’s famously blasphemous photograph of a crucifix in urine, called Piss Christ. But a political cartoon that deals with Islam? Not our job, guv. Move right along. Nothing to see here.
Posted by Conor at 05:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Counter-demonstration
It's getting harder and harder to stand up for free speech in Europe.
Posted by Conor at 05:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 09, 2006
Don't Print 'Em
Rossputin argues American newspapers should not reprint the cartoons.
Posted by Conor at 08:40 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
What's Next
Bruce Bawer weighs in on the Danish cartoons, putting the whole affair in context:
Many Europeans agree with Kofi Annan that freedom “should always be exercised in a way that fully respects… religious beliefs, “ and with Sunday Times (UK) columnist Simon Jenkins that the main question here is “whether we truly want to share a world in peace with those who have values and religious beliefs different from our own.� What’s called for, they say, is “respect,� “restraint,� and “responsibility.� And, above all, “sensitivity.� For them, this is simply a case of the powerful mocking the faith of the weak.On the contrary, what’s happening here is that a gang of bullies—led by a country, Saudi Arabia, where Bibles are forbidden, Christians tortured, Jews routinely labeled “apes and pigs� in the state-controlled media, and apostasy from Islam punished by death—is trying to compel a tiny democracy to live by its own theocratic rules. To succumb to pressure from this gang would simply be to invite further pressure, and lead to further concessions—not just by Denmark but by all of democratic Europe. And when they’ve tamed Europe, they’ll come after America.
After all, the list of Western phenomena that offend the sensibilities of many Muslims is a long one—ranging from religious liberty, sexual equality, and the right of gay people not to have a wall dropped on them, to music, alcohol, dogs, and pork. After a few Danish cartoons, what’s next?
Meanwhile the New York Times reports on how Islamic elites intentionally turned the Danish cartoon affair from a local controversy in Northern Europe into a worldwide jihad. The notion that the Danish newspaper editors should have anticipated all this is getting more absurd every day.
Posted by Conor at 03:48 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Forget About Offending Radical Muslims; Let's Assert Our Values and Win Over the Moderates
A bloody clash of civilizations with the Islamic world isn't inevitable.
A great many Muslims haven't any desire for it, and the vast majority of Westerners want to avoid it too. Islam, Judaism and Christianity have co-existed peacefully at various times in history; it can be so again, especially as many Muslims voluntarily choose to leave Islamic countries for the Western world, where opportunities abound and freedom of religion is ubiquitous.
Westerners must understand, however, that avoiding a clash of civilizations isn't primarily a matter of tip-toeing around Muslim sensibilities. To avoid a clash of civilizations, our mindset and our strategy must change from a defensive attempt to refrain from insulting Muslims to an aggressive attempt to win over moderate Muslims to our side.
If we aren't willing to make the case for our values who will be?
* * *
We must understand this:
Radical Islamists aren't upset when Europeans are seen as offending Muslims. Rather, they celebrate any offense taken. Their goal is to provoke a clash of civilizations. When Muslims are somewhat offended by cartoon images of Mohammed they don't lament the fact that their prophet has been blasphemed; they create more offensive images to further inflame whatever masses will go along.
Radical Islamists are betting that despite their military inferiority they will triumph in a clash of civilizations. It is why they blow up American naval vessels and crash airplanes into skyscrapers. It is why they behead Westerners, unleash suicide bombers on European capitals and flush their own Korans down toilets to create the illusion of Western abuse. It is why they stand on the streets of London holding signs that say "The Real Holocaust is Coming."
We know that radical Islamists resort to these most depraved tactics. We know they've desecrated their holy book and spread forged images insulting to their own prophet to gain a tactical advantage.
Even knowing this, however, we seem to take their outrage at face value when they provoke the burning of embassies, the kidnapping of foreigners and the threats of mass murder. Sure, we don't condone those things. But we treat them as the response of Muslims angry about cartoons rather than the handywork of provacateurs searching for any pretext to stir up an angry factions ready to riot on command.
Radical Islamists firebomb buses full of Muslim children in Iraq. They allow Saudi women to burn alive rather than evacuate them from a burning building without their burkas. They send their own children off as suicide bombers.
Yet we somehow believe that they've suddenly cultivated sensibilities so delicate that Western insensitivity is at the root of all this mayhem--that if only we wouldn't have offended their suddenly delicate sensibilites with cartoons they wouldn't have stirred up the radical fringe of the Muslim masses with propoganda tours, organized protests and violent actions a few months in the making.
Ask yourself which is more likely: are such men genuinely outraged by the cartoons, or did they see a strategic opportunity to stir up the masses? Now ask yourself if our strategy ought to be aimed at 1) avoiding genuine offense or 2) finding a way to win over moderate Muslims so that when the inevitable attempts to stir up violent resentment come they are seen for what they are: a radical fringe unrepresentative of Muslims, and thus unable to provoke a clash of civilizations.
The former strategy is foolhardy. Islamic radicals stand ready to use any pretext to inflame the masses--no perceived offense is too trivial, and if actual offenses are in short supply made up offenses will suffice. We are talking about societies where the official media report that food aid packages dropped by the United States contain poison, and where the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are disseminated as historical documents.
Additionally, our own freedom of expression ensures that some Westerner will offend some Muslims at sometime in the future.
Does anyone believe for a moment that we can censor, whether officially or unofficially, all speech that Islamic radicals will be provoked by? What kind of a strategy is that?
* * *
Here is the reality we face: Many thousands of Muslims are truly offended by images critical of their prophet. Any American who finds that reaction unreasonable ought to be reminded how many thousands of Americans feel when they see someone burning the Stars and Stripes. Sure we ought to respect the religious symbols of different cultures; of course we shouldn't gratuitously insult Muslims.
Neither should we assume, however, that all Muslims are deeply offended by the images, or that those who are support violent extremism as the reaction.
Many American thinkers have long identified such assumptions as a pitfall to avoid in the War on Terrorism. If you fight against violent extremism you can attract moderate Muslims to your side. If you fight against Islam you will send many moderate Muslimes to the other side.
Now consider how the Danish cartoon affair has brought us to a dangerous moment where a clash of civiliations is more likely than before.
Jim Geraghty writes:
I know, from my experiences, that there are significant numbers of Muslims who have no beef with the West, who want to live the American dream, who can practice their faith and coexist with other religions. I’ve documented their efforts to take back their faith from the bin Ladens of the world. But apparently they are too quiet.I wonder how many Muslims understand how the actions of the embassy-torching maniacs define their faith to so many. I wonder how many don’t know, how many don’t care, and how many do know and care but are too scared of the consequences to stand against the violence committed in their name. I’m trying to articulate my positive experiences with Muslims over here to my readers, but it’s not as powerful and penetrating an image as screaming lunatics burning down embassies and threatening to behead anyone who they believe has insulted them. And frankly, I’m not all that wowed with the reaction of moderate Muslims. I’m not sure how much further I want to stick my neck out defending a faith community that won’t loudly and firmly police or rebuke its own members.
Geraghty's sentiment is both understandable and increasingly common (see the numerous examples in his post). Certainly I wish that more moderate Muslims--the silent majority I desperately want to court--begins to be more vocal about their own views, undercutting Islamic radicals who attempt to speak in the name of Muslims everywhere.
While those moderates cannot escape blame for their relative silence, however, we must acknowledge that the Western response to the cartoon affair is hardly making it any easier on them. We are implicitly allowing the Islamic radicals to speak for all Muslims every time we accept the premise that uncontrollable outrage is "the Muslim response" to these cartoons, or that all Muslims are offended by them, or that apologizing to Muslims will stop the violence.
Western Civilization must be clear that freedom of expression isn't a value we're willing to compromise on, and that we won't tolerate attcks on us for exercising it no matter how offensive its content. Nor are we willing to compromise on the equality of women, the freedom to choose one's faith, the depravity of anti-Semitism or the separation of church and state.
If we aren't willing to categorically defend these values when they are challenged how can we expect moderate Muslims in oppressive communities to do so?
If our first reaction to arson, violence and threats of mass murder is to credulously condemn the cartoons that supposedly provoked them--implicitly accepting the notion that angry Muslims rather than radical Islamists are the root cause of all this--how can we expect moderate Muslims to bear the burden of refuting our mistaken notions?
If we are unwilling to make the case for Western values and their compatibility with moderate Islam how can we expect moderate Muslims to make it?
Thus far, our behavior and that of moderate Muslims has been disappointing. Before we give up on them, we ought to see what happens if we defend and articulate Western values ourselves. Confident assertions attract more allies than half-hearted defenses.
Posted by Conor at 02:47 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Why We Shouldn't Ban Flag Burning
Eugene Volokh explains why the United States shouldn't ban flag burning, applying lessons learned from the Danish cartoon case. It's an excellent post--read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Volokh offers another excellent post here.
Posted by Conor at 12:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Why We Shouldn't Ban Flag Burning
Eugene Volokh explains why the United States shouldn't ban flag burning, applying lessons learned from the Danish cartoon case. It's an excellent post--read the whole thing.
UPDATE: Volokh offers another excellent post here.
Posted by Conor at 12:19 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 08, 2006
Violent Response to Cartoons not Representative of Islam
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal contributes reporting that suggests even more strongly that the reaction to the cartoons was orchestrated by governments hostile to the West.
Amir Taheri puts the whole cartoon affair in context:
"The Muslim Fury," one newspaper headline screamed. "The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe," said another. "The clash of civilizations is coming," warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly--though not exclusively--in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged.Not very representative, he asserts:But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators?
Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims "suicide martyrdom" as the highest goal for all true believers.Nor should we assume that all those offended represent the true "Muslim position."The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion...
Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.
A faith with a billion adherents isn't so easy to generalize about.
Posted by Conor at 06:09 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
A Slow Burn, Apparently
This blogger, based in Egypt, says a local paper published the Danish cartoons back in October, outraging no one.
Posted by Conor at 06:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Editorializing about the Danish Cartoon Affair
My employer, the San Bernardino Sun, has written an editorial about the Danish cartoon affair. I think its argument has both strenghts and weaknesses.
The unfortunate cartoons and caricatures of the prophet Muhammad that have sparked reprisals in the Muslim world are not a matter of free speech, or even censorship. What it comes down to is an issue of press responsibility and sensitivity to religious beliefs. And, above all, good taste.
In my view this controversy is about good taste and free speech--in fact, I don't see how one can view this controversy as anything other than a manifestation of the tension between the two, exacerbated by a cultural divided and fanned by opportunistic Islamic extremists.
To say that this isn't about free speech ignores the fact that government actors have condemned the publication of these cartoons in some European countries, that Islamic organizations are demanding that the cartoonists and publishers are charged with hate speech and that several editors have been fired for publishing the cartoons.
It is about free speech, among other things.
A Danish newspaper's cartoons that depict the prophet Muhammad with a turban shaped like a bomb can only be insulting. Especially when the Islamic religion forbids rendering any image of Muhammad as blasphemy.Doesn't that oversimplify this controversy? After all, it isn't true that such a cartoon can "only" be insulting, even if it is very insulting indeed. I submit that it is insulting and that it reflects the reality that many Europeans believe Islam has been co-opted by radicals who use the words of the prophet Mohammed to justify terrorism. The relationship between the Islamic faith and terrorism is surely an important topic to discuss given the numerous terrorist acts that have been committed and threatened with Islam as their supposed justification. That doesn't mean debate about the topic should be insulting or offensive. It does mean, however, that insulting cartoons discussing the matter aren't "only" insulting--they are also relevant, whether or not they should have appeared.
So, why are other newspapers in Europe clamoring to reprint them? Though freedom of the press is a cherished democratic principle, it does not sanction gratuitous images that are blatantly offensive.But other European newspapers face a decision far harder than balancing free speech and good taste! These cartoons have triggered mayhem across a whole region of our world. Can readers understand this important story without seeing the cartoons that caused the uproar? Plausible arguments can be made on both sides of that question, but acting as though it doesn't exist is unfair to the European newspapers who have decided to publish the cartoons to better inform their readers.
Yes, the Danes are proud of their freedom of speech laws. And they had a right to print what they did. But should they have? Papers in this country probably would refrain from fomenting further discord, because while we revere the ability of newspapers to print the outrageous, we also, first and foremost, respect the feelings and beliefs of others.I don't think it's true that the press first and foremost respects the feelings and beliefs of others. In fact, I hope it's not true. The press ought to respect printing the truth first and foremost. If there is information that readers need to participate in a free society it ought to be published--and it typically is published--whether or not it hurts feelings or offends beliefs.
Ask an orthodox Catholic how they feel about reporting on the molestation of children by priests. Quite a few are very upset with the press over those stories. Other orthodox Catholics feel the press has done the right thing investigating that story.
Should the truth and the relevance of the information determine how the press treats it, or the relative levels of offense taken by affected actors? And which actors? It isn't as if all Muslims are offended by the cartoons, and mong those who are there are the mildly offended and the gravely offended. Whose feelings count?
Still, printing the cartoons, in no way, should provide cover for physical retaliation. The minority of Muslims who have taken out their anger by torching embassies are Islamic radicals, who are countered by the clerics who have repudiated such extremism and by other Muslims who show their dismay through peaceful protest, and costly boycotts.It seems important to note that the boycotts are targeting entire nations for the actions of a dozen cartoonists and a handful of newspaper editors. In my view we ought to repudiate the idea that it is okay to punish an entire nation for the speech of a few of its citizens.
And while we empathize with Danes held hostage by the turmoil, we also feel strongly that amends are in order.What kind of amends? It makes a big difference!
Danish publishers are holding out, claiming that to retract the cartoons or apologize would amount to censorship. But really, it would be simply acknowledging that by blindly running such parody without regard for how it hurts others, they had made a grave mistake by ignoring common decency.Who says they ran the parody blindly, without considering how it might hurt others? My understanding is that they anticipated some controversy but decided to print the cartoons anyway.
Posted by Conor at 01:06 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
One Case for Publication
Tony Blankley argues for publication:
Those who argue for republication of the Danish cartoons are not "instigating" a clash of civilization. Nor are they pouring gasoline on a fire. Rather, they are defending against the already declared and engaged radical Islamist clash against the Christian, Secular, Jewish, Hindu, Chinese world by expressing solidarity with the firemen.If anyone has seen a great argument against publication please alert me to the URL, as I'd like to link to it.In this case, the firemen, perhaps surprisingly to some, is the European press. French socialist newspapers, The BBC, and other major secular European media stand shoulder to shoulder with a right-wing Danish newspaper against what they correctly see is an unyielding demand by radical Islam that Europe begin to start living under Sharia law.
Posted by Conor at 12:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 07, 2006
The Irony of It
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.How ironic that some in Europe council speech restrictions as a token of respect for immigrants who have fled such countries.
Posted by Conor at 10:12 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Fake Cartoons
Eugene Volokh is demanding a fatwah.
Posted by Conor at 09:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Multiculturalism and Islamism
James Pinkerton says that multiculturalism can destroy a society:
It's time for all of us to recognize that different cultures have different values. For the West, broadly speaking, the highest value is freedom, including freedom of religious expression. But for the Muslim world, the highest value seems to be Islamic piety. To draw such a distinction between West and East is not to endorse cultural relativism; it's simply to take note of cultural reality.The counterargument is that people in Muslims do thirst for liberty, but the majority's voice is silenced by a violent majority that has leveraged its barbarity to seize power. Unfortunately I can't say with certainty which view is correct.Not everyone thirsts for liberty. Plenty of people around the world, maybe most, thirst instead to restrict liberty. And so, if Muslim crowds can't kill the Muhammad-mocking Danish cartoonists for "blasphemy," they will settle for burning Western embassies, at least for now.
Even the government of Afghanistan - where Danish forces have contributed to Western "democracy-building" - joined in the protests. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who would not be in power save for Western intervention, added his voice to the chorus: "Any insult to the Holy Prophet is an insult to more than 1 billion Muslims, and an act like this must never be allowed to be repeated."
It should be obvious that our effort to influence Muslim public opinion in a positive way has reached a dead end. That is, we advocate democratization but get Islamization. That process empowers the likes of Hamas in Palestine and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran.
I can say that American officialdom is taking the wrong position.
Thomas Kleine-Brockhoff writes:
In this jihad over humor, tolerance is disdained by people who demand it of others. The authoritarian governments that claim to speak on behalf of Europe's supposedly oppressed Muslim minorities practice systematic repression against their own religious minorities. They have radicalized what was at first a difficult question. Now they are asking not for respect but for submission. They want non-Muslims in Europe to live by Muslim rules. Does Bill Clinton want to counsel tolerance toward intolerance?On Friday the State Department found it appropriate to intervene. It blasted the publication of the cartoons as unacceptable incitement to religious hatred. It is a peculiar moment when the government of the United States, which likes to see itself as the home of free speech, suggests to European journalists what not to print.
Posted by Conor at 02:30 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
It's Unhelpful to Gratuitously Offend
I agree, of course, that freedom of expression is a fundamental, bedrock value that we must defend and uphold without reservation. And yet, I would note a couple things. One, while we post-Enlightenment sophisticates like to pat ourselves on the back for being so wondrously accepting about 'art', like a "Piss Christ", or such--as we merrily plod about the Chelsea art district looking for bargains and a good lunch on 10th Avenue--we shouldn't be so shocked that pre-Enlightenment societies aren't quite as accepting about crude depictions of their leading religious figures. Second, depicting Mohammed as a beturbaned bomb is rather unhelpful--particularly in the context of a global struggle against radical Islamism--not least because we are attempting to stoke a greater schism between moderates and radicals in the Islamic world, and equating the venerable Prophet as something of a bomb-wielding terrorist is counter-productive on this score.The whole post is good.
Posted by Conor at 03:29 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Battle for Moderate Muslims
The only way that Islamofascism can be defeated and the world’s Muslims live in harmony with other faiths in today’s interconnected world is for questions of faith to be discussed without fear. Fundamental questions need to be debated among Muslims about the use of violence against unbelievers and those Muslims who dare question any scriptural teachings. The rest of us must be permitted to express opinions as well.Muslim immigrant and Dutch Member of Parliament Hirsi Ali (who now lives in hiding under death threats) makes the point convincingly:
“A free discussion of Islam remains rare and dangerous, certainly in the Islamic world, and even in our politically correct times in the West… Apostasy is still punishable by long prison sentences and even death in many Islamic countries such as Pakistan and Iran…�“You cannot liberalize Islam without criticizing the Prophet and the Koran…You cannot redecorate a house without entering inside.�
Those who seek the same goal as the Islamofascists, the global reign of Islam as the unchallenged religion of humanity, understand Hirsi Ali’s point very well. For them it is essential that ordinary members of the umma never see fundamental questions raised and never start raising them on their own.
For once degrees of individual autonomy are granted on spiritual questions, and the right to question and make up one’s own mind becomes established, the top-down pattern of divinely-sanctioned authority inherent in the ideal of a Global Caliphate collapses.
“Moderate� Muslims by definition are people who recognize some limits on scriptural injunctions to spread the faith by violence. Questioning religious injunctions from others and deciding for oneself the best answers is the only way such moderation will spread in the umma.
By seeking to establish a global norm – a custom enforced by social sanction, not law – that Sharia restrictions shall apply even in non-Muslim lands, the Islamofascists are engaging in prophylaxis: preventing the “disease� of free discussion and debate over topics they wish to control exclusively from ever gaining traction and possibly spreading to their own constituency.
It is quite understandable that caring, sensitive Westerners seek to avoid offending the religious sensibilities of any serious believers, Muslims included. Such empathy is normally a highly commendable impulse.But acceding to the demand that those most willing to use violence be allowed to control the discussion and stifle debate, among infidels and Muslims alike, is a betrayal of not only the moderate Muslims, but of all those who hope someday to live in peace with an Islam that grants legitimacy to religious dissent and to the claims of other faiths.
Posted by Conor at 03:09 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
The American Press
A debate has been raging within American newspapers about whether or not to publish the cartoons.
Posted by Conor at 02:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
"We Are Sorry"
A group of moderate Arabs and Muslims is asking for help circulating the following apology note. The Missing Link is happy to oblige. It is reproduced below in full:
In the middle of all the mayhem surrounding the Danish cartoons controversy, a group of Arab and Muslim youth have set up this website to express their honest opinion, as a small attempt to show the world that the images shown of Arab and Muslim anger around the world are not representative of the opinions of all Arabs. We whole-heartedly apologize to the people of Denmark, Norway and all the European Union over the actions of a few, and we completely condemn all forms of vandalism and incitement to violence that the Arab and Muslim world have witnessed. We hope that this sad episode will not tarnish the great friendship that our peoples have fostered over decades.
The problem with media representation of such issues tends to be that the media only picks up the loudest voices, ignoring the rational ones that do not generate as much noise. Voices that seek tolerance, dialogue and understanding are always drowned out by the more sensationalist loud calls, giving viewers the impression that these views are representative of all the Arab public’s view. This website is a modest attempt at redressing this wrong. We would appreciate it if you could forward the word to as many of your friends as possible.
We will note that we find the cartoons to be incendiary, insulting and very abrasive. We also take issue with the general stance of the Danish Newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which has a reputation for publishing inflammatory material. Yet, it would be wrong to take away their freedom of expression, regardless of how horrid their material is. We affirm our belief in freedom of expression and people’s right to express whatever opinions they hold. However, at the same time there is a need to realize that freedom of expression is a responsibility that should not be used to gratuitously insult people’s beliefs.
When confronted with such a situation, we deplore the use of violence in all its forms, as well as threats of violence and derogatory and racist remarks being thrown in the opposite direction. We condemn the shameful actions carried out by a few Arabs and Muslims around the world that have tarnished our image, and presented us as intolerant and close-minded bigots.
Anyone offended by the content of a publication has a vast choice of democratic and respectful methods of seeking redress. The most obvious are not buying the publication, writing letters to the editor or expressing their opinions in other venues. It is also possible to use one’s free choice in a democracy to conduct a boycott of the publication, and even a boycott of firms dealing with it. Yet an indiscriminate boycott of all the country’s firms is simply uncalled for and counter-productive. We would be allowing the extremists on both sides to prevail, while punishing the government and the whole population for the actions of an unrepresentative irresponsible few.
We apologize whole-heartedly to the people of Norway and Denmark for any offense this sorry episode may have caused, to any European who has been harassed or intimidated, to the staff of the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish Embassies in Syria whose workplace has been destroyed and for any distress this whole affair may have caused to anyone.
There is a strong tradition of friendship and cooperation between the Norwegian and Danish people and Arab people. Of most note is the continued support that these governments give to the Palestinian people in their struggle for freedom and liberation, and the brave stance that these governments have often taken to defend Palestinian rights. We sincerely hope these special bonds will not be broken. We hope that our Scandinavian friends would not be convinced by the actions of a few to believe that this is how Arabs and Muslims feel about them. There are racists, bigots and criminals in all countries, and it is the duty of the respectful and reasonable to reach out to each other.
Let us hope that instead of emboldening the bigots, this sorry affair will bring all open-minded, tolerant and reasonable people from the Arab, Muslim, Norwegian, Danish and European communities together to unite in a continued struggle of reason against prejudice, open-mindedness against bigotry and humanity against racism.
Posted by Conor at 02:10 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
A Holocaust Cartoon Contest
Islamic radicals, having had their cake, want to eat it too:
IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.It is shameful that European newspapers, if they decide to print the cartoons, will be subject to arrest. As several bloggers have remarked, Europe would be in a lot better position to defend freedom of expression if they didn't start criminalizing some speech long ago."It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.
He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.
"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.
Still, the Iranian newspaper editor apparently doesn't realize that:
1) Cartoons denying the Holocaust won't provoke any sort of violent reaction in the Western world.
2) It's hardly "turning the tables" when Middle Eastern media have been publishing offensive material about Jews, including Holocaust denials, for decades.(This cartoon makes the same point more succinctly.)
3) They've never "provoked" a violent response--or much of a response at all, really--before.
Posted by Conor at 01:07 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
European Pessimism
Since the beginning the Brussel's Journal has reported on the Danish cartoon affair. Today it's editor, Paul Belien, is sounding quite pessimistic:
It is 1933 again and the SA is marching in Europe. This time they are not shouting “Heil Hitler,� but a creed I will not quote for fear of provoking them to kill a poor priest somewhere in Turkey, Palestine or Lebanon. Six years from now it will be 1939 and our future looks bleak. A war is about to begin, but Europe is in even worse shape than it was in the 1930s. It will not only have to overcome its islamofascist enemy, but it is dying because, when it lost its own religion about two decades ago, it embarked upon a protracted suicide by ceasing to procreate. The coming of Allah to a continent with an increasing population of elderly natives is inevitable. The young Muslim hordes are arrogant. Who can blame them? They smell victory. The Danish cartoon case shows us what deep down we know is going to happen. Soon we will be slaves.I hope Belien is wrong--that a clash of civilizations can be averted, that a liberal Europe survives and that moderate Muslims stand in solidarity with European liberals to ensure that outcome.
Even before this affair, however, I sensed among Europeans a resignation to the opposite fate. Like Belien they are pessimistic; and like Belien they don't plan to give up their continent without a fight.
This attitude in a continent that has a history of extreme political movements doesn't bode well for the future. Few Americans realize that today's Europe has political constituencies ranging from pacifist to militant Islamofascist to neo-Nazi. If any one of the previous constituencies gain sufficient power catastrophe on the continent is eminent.
Can the vast middle set aside their differences, their malaise and their fear, allying to save Europe from civil war? Isn't it imperative that they at least try?
Posted by Conor at 12:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Danish Cartoon Affair: How Muslims Are Reacting
The Danish cartoon affair continues; thanks to the power of the Internet more relevant information and arguments emerge every day.
Global Voices has translated excerpts from Muslim blogs, underscoring the point that the Islamic reaction to the cartoon affair is quite diverse.
Captain's Quarters explores the idea that the protests against the cartoons aren't spontaneous. Juan Cole argues that they're not contrived.
Finally, Did you know this?
While the debate rages, an important point has been overlooked: despite the Islamic prohibition against depicting Mohammed under any circumstances, hundreds of paintings, drawings and other images of Mohammed have been created over the centuries, with nary a word of complaint from the Muslim world. The recent cartoons in Jyllands-Posten are nothing new; it's just that no other images of Mohammed have ever been so widely publicized.This page is an archive of numerous depictions of Mohammed, to serve as a reminder that such imagery has been part of Western and Islamic culture since the Middle Ages -- and to serve as a resource for those interested in freedom of expression.
Posted by Conor at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 06, 2006
Sorry for Burning Down Your Embassy
This diplomacy would've been useful a few days ago...
Posted by Conor at 03:55 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 05, 2006
Danish Cartoon Update: Ordinary Muslims Respond
Ordinary Muslims are fed up with Islamic radicals, the Times Online reports:
BRITAIN’s leading Islamic body yesterday called on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, to press charges against the extremists behind last week’s inflammatory protests in London over the “blasphemous� cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.This photograph is representative of the London protests being condemned.
Meanwhile Brit Hume is criticizing the Muslim protestors on Fox News:
What is striking about this is what offends these Muslims who are protesting and these imams. Does the slaughter of innocent people in many parts of the world in the name of Allah offend them? Is that a sacrilege worthy of protest? No, not in the least. No, cartoons published five months ago in a -what- for people who live in Gaza and Damascus is an unknown and unheard-of newspaper--that's what's offending them. Not to mention, of course, the kinds of slurs against Christians and against the Jewish faith that are regularly spread abroad in the Arab world by the mass media and by these imams.That seems reasonable. As I've written before, I don't think it's unreasonable to be offended by the Danish cartoons. Clearly they've upset even peace loving Muslims sensitive to the portrayal of their prophet. What is unreasonable is the response among Islamic radicals to the cartoons, expecially given the fact that compared to those who terrorize and murder in the name of Islam the cartoons are a venial sin.This is really a disgrace. And it is a disgrace not least because of the obvious, howling double standard involved here. The really great sins are ignored. And this trivia is protested.
That certainly applies to this protest, in which Islamic radicals are responsible for two deaths.
Of course, the Islamic leaders who circulated fake cartoons more offensive than the originals didn't help matters. Nevertheless, no cartoon should trigger violence no matter what its content.
In days to come I hope to see Western free speech advocates and moderate Muslims standing in solidarity. Additionally, I hope I don't see any more knee-jerk responses intended to strike back at Muslims. The temptation is there to be unnecessarily antagonistic in flaunting our freedom to publish what we like. Surely we ought not shrink from any important issue or debate because it might offend. But neither should we offend as an end in itself.
UPDATE:
More interesting commentary from Matthew Paris:
People of faith and people of none cannot escape attaching themselves to claims that are inherently offensive — and at the deepest level — to other people.But offence implicitly offered, and offence actually taken, are two different matters. On the whole Christians, for example, take offence less readily than Muslims. The case for treating them, in consequence, differently is obvious, but we should be wary of it. It means groups are allowed to be as thin-skinned as they wish: to dictate for themselves how delicately we must tread with them — to create, as it were, their own definition of respect and require us to observe it. Those who do this may not always realise that that they create serious buried resentments among those of fellow-citizens who are more broad-shouldered about the trading of insult.
In the Arab world, protests are still confined to “the usual suspects� -- the several thousand who will always come out to provide a fresh “Muslim anger� segment for the international media. The violence in Gaza is also within the usual range, though the explicit targeting of the European Union offices portends something new. But we have yet to see how all this builds. My gut feeling -- albeit at a distance -- is that the “fire this time� is greater than previous apoplectic responses to e.g. the Satanic Verses, the Abu Ghraib prison photos, or the Newsweek reports from Guantanamo.Not that the provocation is greater. What we have instead is a wave that is building from lesser waves. Each new provocation, each new breakthrough event, such as the 9/11 hit, or the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections, adds to the height of what is actually becoming a single wave.
What should be apparent to every Western observer by now, is the ability of this wave, served by modern technology, including world television and Internet, to wash over national and regional boundaries in the Muslim world. Those boundaries were drawn by European Imperialists in the last two centuries, and have served as bulkheads or firewalls against just this sort of catastrophe. They were partly meant for that purpose, by a Europe that was once more vividly aware of the power an aroused Islam could exert -- on a once-Christian continent entirely surrounded by Islamic empires or sea, that several times came close to being completely overrun.
There is no reason to doubt that Muslims worry very much about depictions of Mohammed. Like many, chiefly Protestant, Christians, they fear idolatry. But, as I write, I have beside me a learned book about Islamic art and architecture which shows numerous Muslim paintings from Turkey, Persia, Arabia and so on. These depict the Prophet preaching, having visions, being fed by his wet nurse, going on his Night-Journey to heaven, etc. The truth is that in Islam, as in Christianity, not everyone agrees about what is permissible.Some of these depictions are in Western museums. What will the authorities do if the puritan factions within Islam start calling for them to be removed from display (this call has been made, by the way, about a medieval Christian depiction of the Prophet in Bologna)? Will their feeling of "offence" outweigh the rights of everyone else?
The still escalating confrontation over the Danish cartoons dramatically illustrates the now pathological reluctance of the leaders of Britain and America to face up to the blindingly obvious and the extent to which they have already run up the white flag in the face of clerical fascism. With holy war declared openly upon the west, with death threats being issued against cartoonists and editors, with Danes, Scandinavians and other Europeans being hunted for kidnap and in fear of their lives, with blood-curdling intimidation, with mob demonstrations, calls to behead westerners and rallying cries for ‘holy war’ by Islam against Europe, the governments of Britain and America are busy prostrating themselves before this terror, apologising for ‘causing offence’ and blaming the victims of this assault; while their intelligentsia earnestly debates whether it is wrong to insult someone else’s religion, for all the world as if this were a university ethics seminar rather than a world war being waged by clerical fascism against free societies and with people in hiding and in fear of their lives for having exercised the right to protest at religious violence and intimidation.
HINDUS CONSIDER it sacrilegious to eat meat from cows, so when a Danish supermarket ran a sale on beef and veal last fall, Hindus everywhere reacted with outrage. India recalled its ambassador to Copenhagen, and Danish flags were burned in Calcutta, Bombay, and Delhi. A Hindu mob in Sri Lanka severely beat two employees of a Danish-owned firm, and demonstrators in Nepal chanted: ''War on Denmark! Death to Denmark!"In many places, shops selling Dansk china or Lego toys were attacked by rioters, and two Danish embassies were firebombed.It didn't happen, of course. Hindus may consider it odious to use cows as food, but they do not resort to boycotts, threats, and violence when non-Hindus eat hamburger or steak. They do not demand that everyone abide by the strictures of Hinduism and avoid words and deeds that Hindus might find upsetting. The same is true of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons: They don't lash out in violence when their religious sensibilities are offended. They certainly don't expect their beliefs to be immune from criticism, mockery, or dissent.
But radical Muslims do.
The current uproar over cartoons of the Muslim prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper illustrates yet again the fascist intolerance that is at the heart of radical Islam.
Posted by Conor at 11:10 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
The Question for Danes: To Be or not To Be
Mark Steyn has weighed in on the Danish cartoon controversy:
The cartoons aren't particularly good and they were intended to be provocative. But they had a serious point. Before coming to that, we should note that in the Western world "artists" "provoke" with the same numbing regularity as young Muslim men light up other countries' flags. When Tony-winning author Terence McNally writes a Broadway play in which Jesus has gay sex with Judas, the New York Times and Co. rush to garland him with praise for how "brave" and "challenging" he is. The rule for "brave" "transgressive" "artists" is a simple one: If you're going to be provocative, it's best to do it with people who can't be provoked.Note that Steyn labels it "militant Islam," not Islam in general. The distinction is important both because it is wrong to stereotype a whole religion based on the behavior at its fringes and because pretending all this nonsense is a "Muslim" reaction leads us to inaccurately frame this as a clash between Muslims and the rest of us, or an opportunity for multiculturalist understanding.Thus, NBC is celebrating Easter this year with a special edition of the gay sitcom "Will & Grace," in which a Christian conservative cooking-show host, played by the popular singing slattern Britney Spears, offers seasonal recipes -- "Cruci-fixin's." On the other hand, the same network, in its coverage of the global riots over the Danish cartoons, has declined to show any of the offending artwork out of "respect" for the Muslim faith.
Which means out of respect for their ability to locate the executive vice president's home in the suburbs and firebomb his garage.
Jyllands-Posten wasn't being offensive for the sake of it. They had a serious point -- or, at any rate, a more serious one than Britney Spears or Terence McNally. The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of "self-censorship" -- i.e., a climate in which there's no explicit law forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but nonetheless everyone feels it's better not to.
That's the question the Danish newspaper was testing: the weakness of free societies in the face of intimidation by militant Islam.
Steyn explains why that isn't so:
Very few societies are genuinely multicultural. Most are bicultural: On the one hand, there are folks who are black, white, gay, straight, pre-op transsexual, Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist, worshippers of global-warming doom-mongers, and they rub along as best they can. And on the other hand are folks who do not accept the give-and-take, the rough-and-tumble of a "diverse" "tolerant" society, and, when one gently raises the matter of their intolerance, they threaten to kill you, which makes the question somewhat moot.Read his whole column.
Posted by Conor at 02:16 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Opinion Roundup: 3 Views on the Cartoon Affair
John Leo argues for civility.
William F. Buckley says the Islamic establishment is already exerting pressure on the American media.
Zsofia Szilagyisays publishing the cartoons was a mistake.
(via Real Clear Politics)
Posted by Conor at 06:02 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The Soft Bigotry of Acting as Though It's Understandable That Islamic Radicals Want to Kill Danes
(Welcome Real Clear Politics readers. Updates on the Danish cartoon affair can be found on the main page--just keep scrolling.)
In an editorial about the Danish cartoon affair the Boston Globe asserts the following:
Just as the demand from Muslim countries for European governments to punish papers that printed the cartoons shows a misunderstanding of free societies, publishing the cartoons reflects an obtuse refusal to accept the profound meaning for a billion Muslims of Islam's prohibition against any pictorial representation of the prophet. Depicting Mohammed wearing a turban in the form of a bomb with a sputtering fuse is no less hurtful to most Muslims than Nazi caricatures of Jews or Klu Klux Klan caricatures of blacks are to those victims of intolerance. That is why the Danish cartoons will not be reproduced on these pages.(emphasis added)That's a remarkable comparison to make.
Nazi caricatures of Jews and Klu Klux Klan caricatures of blacks both asserted the inherent inferiority of their targets due to their race. Those caricatures also served a uniquely insidious function: helping along efforts to murder Jews and blacks.
In contrast, the Danish cartoons mostly just depicted Mohammed. Even the most offensive cartoon, which suggested a link between Mohammed and terrorism, neither asserted the inferiority of all Muslims nor abetted an effort to hurt Muslims.
I'm unsure how the Boston Globe editorial board gauged the relative emotional hurt felt by WWII era Jews, Jim Crow era blacks and modern day Muslims. It seems safe to say, however, that if modern day Muslims feel as hurt by the Danish cartoons as the Jews and blacks felt due to the Nazis and the KKK the offense they are taking is wildly unreasonable.
I find it far more likely that the world's billion Muslims have widely divergent views about whether the Danish newspaper should've been allowed to publish the cartoons, how offensive or hurtful the publication proved and the appropriate response, if any.
You'd think the fact that Muslim editors have themselves decided to publish the cartoons -- and that a faction among Danish Muslims is dissenting from the reaction of their imams -- would prove my point.
(In fact, you'd think the rather obvious fact that Muslims are distinct individuals whose shared religion doesn't suggest identical opinions, value systems or behavior would've made proving my point unnecessary.)
Instead the Western press is largely treating Muslim reaction to the cartoons as though it is monolithic-- Muslims are extremely offended and extremely pissed off, we're to believe. That's "the Muslim reaction" on "the Muslim street."
Everything is seen through that frame--one that allows the most vocal and/or violent Muslims to speak as if for all practitioners of Islam. In Muslim nations and Western Europe this unfortunate tendency isolates moderate Muslims who might speak out for free speech, and against the fundamentalists, more vocally if only we weren't so quick to assume their non-existence (thus weakening their position).
Meanwhile our generalizations mitigate the cognitive dissonance we might otherwise feel applying an insulting double-standard to Muslims, excusing barbaric behavior we'd condemn if perpetrated by a Westerner as understandable since a Muslim, provoked by offensive speech, is perpetrating it.
That phenomenon is quite pervasive.
Imagine the most offensive behavior imaginable--learning about the molestation of a child will suffice. Imagine a British newspaper publishing an image of the molestation. We'd cancel our subscription. We'd organize a boycott.
Yet none of us would, for example, set fire to the British embassy, or wander the streets of New York searching for a British citizen to kidnap and behead, or threaten to blow ourselves up in the Tate Modern.
Somehow, however, news accounts depict Islamic radicals perpetrating these actions as though they are understandable-if-wrongheaded "Muslim responses" to being offended. The coverage seems to tell us, Yes, the Muslim reaction to this is unfortunate, but after all, the cartoons were a provocation.
The Muslims who aren't rioting, who weren't offended by the cartoons, or who at least come down on the side of freedom of expression though they were offended?
A news consumer could be forgiven for a lack of familiarity with such Muslims, though they far outnumber the headline grabbing radicals who we won't condemn outright for fear of offending Muslims. It's a vicious circle held together by the truly insulting prejudice: