Cartoon Clash of Civilizations

#74

omar_quraishi
Honesty is not your forte, obviously. I have not once argued here that freedom of expression is absolute. I consider the right to life to be absolute though and find it amazing that a man is sentenced to death in Pakistan for what he said. Pakistanis need to get a life.

The cases of Jesus vs Mohammad is not equivalent. Not publishing Jesus cartoons was out of of voluntary self-censorship not out of fear of attacks from Christians. If Christians were as ready to kill people for discussing their faith as Muslims are then cases would be equivalent.

As for holocaust denial or display of Nazi replica being banned, this is to prevent a number of European countries from glossing over the fact that with their collaboration millions of Europeans were persecuted and killed for their faith. It is hard to be outraged by the fact that Europeans aren`t allowed to gloss over their history which can well repeat itself with another community. More countries need to adopt this law against genocide denial I think.

I find it heartening that an Egyptian newspaper published the cartoons in October 2005 without resulting in ANY protest from the general public nor calls for boycott or revenge. This shows some level of orchestration of the protests this year.

dost mittar babajee -- actually the editor`s main defence (a flimsy one) was that the Jesus cartoons had been unsolicited while the Mohammad one`s had been commissioned by the paper himself -- on the face of it actually the argument is fine, given that the whole idea of commissioning is to publish such work and that there is no guarantee if any that unsolicited material will be published -- but since he cited freedom of expression as a key factor then the stand taken by him rings quite hollow --

#74 -- my dear mr majumdar -- clearly the publication of cartoons carticaturing Mohd caused a `fair bit of chaos` in europe as well -- in any case, none of the morons here (they know who they are) are dealing with the counter-argument that this isn`t really a case of freedom of speech --

raw moron -- of course its very convenient go `your way and me mine` when your argument fails to stand -- adios loser

# 87 ramaujan -- being articulate doesn`t necessarily mean one is not being devious or diverting attention from the topic -- the point here is not whether muslims have a virulent reaction or cant see anything wrong with themselves but that the cartoons clearly werent a freedom of expression issue because the paper which published them had earlier refused to print cartoons ridiculing Jesus -- if it was such a torch-bearer of a free press surely printing the Jesus cartoons in overwhelmingly Christian Denmark would have made more sense -- not surprisingly the morons of chowk fail to even address or deal with this contradiction

raw moron -- what are your views on denial of the holocaust/use of anti-semitic speech and freedom of speech

sadna dear -- since you seem to be in the questioning mood here, would you mind if i ask you a very simple question -- are cartoons making fun of Jesus or Jews in general protected by the freedom of expression principle -- please answer yes or no -- also may I ask you whether laws outlawing the use of swastikas or denial of the holocaust do not violate freedom of speech and freedom of the press

The whole Islamic world is protesting against the Cartoons published in a Danish Newspaper. The issues at stake are Freedom of Expression on one hand and the Right to Protest on the other hand.

The cartoons were first published about six months and were moving in the webspace. Nobody had in fact noticed them or commented upon them. I, for one, saw the cartoons first through a link provided by an Islamic Website, about two months back. There were no protests in that website. But suddenly, these cartoons appeared in many European Newspapers together and therefore the protests from the Muslims. Is there any conspiracy that these getting-obscured cartoons were given a fresh lease of life?? Can be Yes. Two recent incidents create suspicions. First one is the rise of Hamas in Palestine. With Hamas at the helm of affairs in Palestine, the relations between Israel and Palestine are going to be bad sey badtar. Second one is the most-likely confrontation of the West and Iran. The cartoons do not appear to be something of a redicule, they appear more to be sharpening of the daggers or an attempt to polarise the western population versus Islam.

Unfortunately, Muslims the world over become an easy trap for such machinations. When the situation requires patience, they become impatient. When the situation requires calm, they become violent. Coming down on streets, burning Flags and destroying properties is not the final solution. Even boycotting of Goods is not going to serve any purpose except that the Muslims are going to lose their remaining friends and well-wishers in the western world.

The Muslims only have protests in their hands, the west has the all powerful media. The whole episode is now being made to look as if the whole (fanatic) Muslim world is protesting against the innocent Right of Free expression so cherished by the western world.

To my mind, these violent protests/boycot etc. should end. They are not going to serve Muslim interests. The issue should be taken up on a higher plane by learned Muslims-Lawyers, Journalists, Human Rights Activists, Scholars, Diplomats etc. The Freedom of Expression itself should be questioned/debated as to what should be the extent of Freedom of Expression. The freedom of expression of one person resulting in the destruction of the house of the other should not constitute freedom of expression.

Another important point which needs a thorough debate is to what extent the Religions and Religious Icons can be discussed in the public forums. There is no harm if they are discussed/ debated within the religion because it will pave way for the reform of the religion, which is also necessary. But how far or to what extent can the followers of one religion can discuss the other religions needs to be debated.

Here, Muslims are at bigger fault than others. They openly refuse to accept the existence of other religions on the premise that it is not permissible in the religion. All the prophets be it Moses or Jesus or anybody have become irrelevant after revelation of Quran to Prophet Mohammed-this is the contention of Muslims. Muslims here must remember one thing--This is their belief. It is not the belief of other religions. Moses will remain the Prophet of Jews, Jesus Christ will remain the Prophet of Christianity, Buddha will remain the prophet of Buddhists and Rama, Krishna will remain prophets for Hindus--no matter how many time Quoran contradicts this.

And well if the Muslims think that the only way to settle this is Jehad, then well, I think you better get prepared for it as the time appears to be fast approaching. Great Events always have humble beginings and who knows the publishing of these Cartoons in an obscure newspaper of an obscure country is yet another humble begining of a great event.

The other fellow has already cast his Die, are the Muslims ready??.

1 - Purportedly, Danish newspaper had anti-immigrant extreme right connections - also, they chose not to publish jesus cartoons..

Although, their exercise of free speech (which by the way include freedom to provoke, offend and shock others etc. etc.) was 100% legitimate under Danish Law.

2 - Danish imams tried their best to stoke this controversy and then came the Saudis and Syrians.

The fundamental question though is about personal values of every individual:

Do we as individuals (who live in pluralistic societies) really believe and are we absolutely commited to the Enlightenment values
OR

are we going to give in to moral relativism when it comes to islamist thugs and their hideous agendas?
There is a clear, distinct line right there and the answer is a simple yes or no.

I will quote Ayaan Hirsi Ali here who made this crystal clear:

``When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don`t allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they`ll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.``

The cartoons themselves are relatively mild. In fact they were published (without permission) in a prominent egyptian newspaper in October 2005. This happened many months ago in a muslim country and there was no reaction.

http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boycott-egypt.html

It appears that this episode was engineered by radical danish imams using the september 2005 publications and their own concoctions/lies as triggers.

---

The Danish editor who published the drawings of the prophet Muhammad that have sparked worldwide protests said the furor was deliberately stoked by a group of Danish imams who toured the Middle East with a portfolio that included images never printed in his paper, among them, drawings of the prophet having sex with animals.

Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the Danish paper, Jyllands-Posten, said a group of men he called ``radical imams`` traveled to the Middle East several months after his newspaper`s Sept. 30 commentary on self-censorship, which was accompanied by cartoons of Muhammad, ``to stir up the crowds by telling lies.``

He said the group carried a 45-page portfolio that contained not just the 12 cartoons published in his paper but several more incendiary drawings whose origin was unclear. They included depictions of the prophet with the face of a pig, and having sex with animals and children. (NOTE: The origins are now clear. Yesterday an American blogger discovered where the ``pigsnout Muhammad`` comes from. It has no relation to Muhammad whatsoever, it is not even a cartoon, but a fax image of a photo of a French clown performing at a pig festival.``)

``All of that gratuitous rubbish was trumped around to trigger a campaign of senseless hatred,`` Rose said.

---

Fallout of the Drawing controversy.

I believe that Iran would suffer the most as a result of this controversy. The Iraq war was a difficult sell in Europe. There were major peace or Anti war demonstrations in Europe before the attack on Iraq. But I think this time around the situation would change. The political landscape in Europe is entirely different than what it was before the Iraq War. Germany has a new chancellor and France is weakened by the recent riots there.

If the Iran crisis deepens, the likelihood of Europe opposition to attack on Iran would be minimal. The Europeans have been effectively neutralized.

The German Chancellor is already trying to place herself in the forefront of the Iran issue and it is most likely that Germany would emerge as the most vocal supporter of the any US action in Iran. Germany might play the role that UK played in the Iraq war. Interestingly, The German and French papers quickly re-printed the drawings but UK papers did not follow suit enthusiastically.

“The embassy attacks, plus world-wide threats, protests, and economic boycotts, have gone far to convince European public opinion that the war of civilizations between the west and the Muslim world is indeed inevitable.”

I think it is in the interest of Iranian and other Muslims to bring the rhetoric down and stop these violent demonstrations. Any untoward terrorism incident following these demonstrations, would bring a quick response on Iran.


Some news reports suggest that the editor of Jyllands Posten who ordered the publication of the cartoons Flemming Rose, has extensive connections to Daniel Pipes, another madman who runs Campus Watch, a neo-McCarthyite witch-hunting organization which vilifies American professors who criticize Israel or show sympathy for the Palestinians.

Flemming Rose provided details of his conversation with Daniel Pipes in an article published in 2004. They talked about the need to mobilize Europe for the war of civilizations against the Moslem world. Rose wrote: ``Pipes is surprised that there isn`t greater alarm in Europe over the challenge that Islam represents thanks to falling rates of fertility and a weakened sense for its own history and culture.`` (Flemming Rose, ``The Threat from Islamism, Jyllands-Posten, October 29, 2004)

Re: # 92 raw

Now that does it :)..... All these years - we have been told that Islam doesn`t allow images ....now you are saying that it does....... ???

DM,
There is a merit to warpster`s argument. Irrespective of the Danish newspaper`s motives (which IMO not very idealistic), the real issue is how a particular group reacts to these kind of provokings. And the Islamic society, except for a few vocal moderates, is not faring very well.


I empathize with many muslims, when they say their religious feelings are offended. God knows even I would be offended if my religion is ridiculed. The reaction does not even have to be passive.


But the reaction cannot be violent (like some of the threatening posters) or unreasonable/ridiculous (like demanding that entire Denmark needs to apologize or that the editors should be handed over to an Islamic country for trial by Sharia).



Thanks,
Avkrishna

warpster#85:

``I dont see how muslims can coexist in pluralistic societies if they are not willing to be open to satire and criticism.``

I think that it is too simplistic a statement in the context of the present controversy. The cartoons were published by the Danish newspaper not for satire or to be funny but with the clear intention to provoke and offend. The cartoons were republished in the European papers, on the other hand, as a reaction to the protests and burnings and in sympathy with the Danes; you could call this a reaffirmation of their cultural values on their part.

aquarius#86:
``In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.``

The editor of the Danish newspaper, Fleming Rose, had a two-point response to this accusation:

1. He was not the editor when the earlier incident happened.

2. The Mohammad cartoons were published in the context of an atmosphere in Denmark where their freedom of expression was constrained by the fear of the terror created by Muslims. The editor of the newspaper, therefore, solicited cartoons to deal with this atmosphere of fear head-on.

PS Bina Shah

I suggest you make it a habit of stating your pov fearlessly without waiting for a sympathetic or honest audience.

There are many benefits of this. For one, that is necessary if a society is to attain any sort of freedom of expression being discussed here. For another, it is much easier to misinterpret your silence than it is to misinterpret your words. In this case, your evasion can be (possibly wrongly) interpreted to mean you don`t wish to speak against a death sentence handed out for blasphemy.

Of course that might even be true in which case this whole discussion should be about respect for the Prophet not about Western norms of freedom of religion or speech.

The fact remains, by publishing a cartoon, a newspaper in Europe advertantly or inadvertantly took a stand against death for blasphemy. I salute that newspaper for it. In contrast people in Pakistan who are nursing their feelings after being offended by that newspaper should just lump it - they are not going to die from being offended. The guy sentenced to death gets more meaningful support from the newspaper`s stance on cartoons than from his compatriots` hurt feelings.

Re: # 92
Many thanks R_D, another excellent article by Mr Taheri.

this article gives some interesting background info on Mohammad`s iconography historically and avoids framing the issue as pro- or anti-freespeech.

---

article link


CULTURE CLASH

Bonfire of the Pieties
Islam prohibits neither images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion.




BY AMIR TAHERI
Wednesday, February 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

``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.

But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The ``rage machine`` was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood--a political, not a religious, organization--called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood`s rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party`s 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut.


The Muslim Brotherhood`s position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.
There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued ``fatwas`` against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is ``an absolute principle of Islam`` is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous:

A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M`eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet`s capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century); Kamaleddin Behzad`s miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century); a painting, ``Massacre of the Family of the Prophet,`` showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century); and Kamal ul-Mulk`s portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century).

Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great ``lawgivers`` of mankind.

There has been other imagery: the Janissaries--the elite of the Ottoman army--carried a medallion stamped with the prophet`s head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet`s son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God.

Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. 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.
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. Sa`adi`s eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the ``dry pious ones.`` And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.

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.

Mr. Taheri is the author of ``L`Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes`` (Editions Complexe, 2002).

#89
Huh? Your article is about the offense caused by cartoons about Mohammad. This guy`s been condemned to death for such an offense yet I`m the problem here. Good for you.

``Next you`ll be asking me if I approve of the suicide bombing that took place in NWFP on Ashura. This kind of sly trickery really doesn`t impress me much and I wish you`d give it a rest.``

No she did not ask you about suicide bombing but anyone can. If there is only one correct answer to a question, then say it out loud. Certifying yourself as one of the `inteliigent people` does not impress anyone at all. Actually somebody to speculate on what Allah did with his angels during the earthquake seems utterly childish.

However once you claim to have that knowldedge, it is logical to ask your opinion about Allah`s will about Danes and Muslims losing lives over cartoons. Are there more than one correct answer to my questions? If so, please tell us all. Do you want me to repeat the questions? Are you strong enough to look at the cartoons now?

In a country, where millions can not afford hydrogenated oil, to complain of addiction to imported Danish butter smacks of spoiled rich feudal brats. Does Pakistan need Maoists?

You have had too much of Lurpak butter for one lifetime. Give it a rest.

Re: # 79

Sadna, I never quite understand the point of your questions. You ask intelligent people to ``give comments`` on issues that really have only one correct answer, as if hoping that they`ll trap themselves into saying something that you can gloat upon and twist in your next interact. Next you`ll be asking me if I approve of the suicide bombing that took place in NWFP on Ashura. This kind of sly trickery really doesn`t impress me much and I wish you`d give it a rest.