Do you think the drawings are offensive/hurtful?
Could be.

Do you feel a boycott is warranted in this case?
Everyone has a right to speak with their wallets.

Do you feel the Danish newspaper and/or the Danish government should apologize?
Maybe the newspaper. Certainly not the government. I can't believe that is even being debated. What did the government do besides allow free speech? That is something that should never be apologized for.

As for the hypocrisy of the Muslim community at large around religious insults, I tend to agree. Documentaries on rabbis being cannibles is no problem in Syria, but a cartoon of Muhammed in Denmark...burn someone's house down. There is absolutely no justification to EVER resort to potentially deadly violence because of what someone says.

I think situation is a little bit different and more serious than simply bashing someone's religion. People have cited plenty of examples of muslim/western tension both in this thread and others. Bucket has cited some examples in a previous post, Moif has cited them in this thread and others, we have things like the French riots and of course there is the ever looming spectre of terrorism.

All of that put together makes the whole atheist vs Religious Right thing, the red/blue divide, black vs. white or anything we have in the US look like the minor leagues in comparison.

This is a serious situation and it is causing real conflict in many European countries. Cultural relations are very strained and as we saw in France it doesn't take much to tip things over the edge.

Now assuming this is something that the various European governments actually want to work out then things like blatantly insulting the other side in a national paper isn't exactly the most productive way to go about it. It is irresponsible journalism and it is counterproductive to the interests of the Danish people if as they say they are trying to have a national debate and work things out.

Anyone who thought this was a good idea and would lead to productive results is just plain foolish.

Do you think the drawings are offensive/hurtful?
The muslims do have a right to be offended. But the demonstrations and the flag burnings have gotten out of hand. Over 15 years ago, some artist made the "P!ss-Christ" exhibit where a crucifix was put in a jar of urine. A lot of Christians got angry at that time but they didn't go burn down any art museums.

Do you feel a boycott is warranted in this case?
The muslims can boycott if they want. If they do boycott, they should simply boycott the newspapers that printed the cartoons.

Do you feel the Danish newspaper and/or the Danish government should apologize?
They don't have to apologize for anything. If the Muslims don't like their prophet being portrayed as a terrorist scum, then they should do a better job at cleaning out the despicable terrorists like Osama Bin Laden and work on improving the human rights in the Muslim countries.

Cube Jockey

Yes, but look at who has bemoaned the consequences here. Jyllandsposten has apologised for the insulting nature of their provocation and Carsten Juste (who is the only person directly responsible for the images) has said that if he'd understood just how far the anger would spread then he wouldn't have published the images.

Who else holds responsiblity? The extremist Muslim world is largely holding ALL Danes responsible with direct attacks against the Danish nation and people as a result. Am I responsible?
I should be hacked into pieces according to some sources, because why?
Because I'm Danish.

Tell me how am I supposed to react to this?

With understanding?


Aye, well there's the irony in all this. When I was critical of the west, of the USA and of Israel, I was largely regarded as being 'tolerant and level headed'. Now, I am critical of Islam my reputation has slid into the shadows...

For own part, the shift to the right was unavoidable. About 18 months ago I was working at a place that started bringing in lots of immigrants, 90% of whom were Muslims. This was my first personal contact with Muslims in any large numbers and it opened my eyes to several details that I had ignored/not perceived. The first was, all the Iraqi's were overwhelmingly in favour of the war in Iraq. They were overjoyed at the prospect of democracy in their country and delighted to see the end of Saddam Hussein.

But to a man they all hated the USA and welcomed the attacks on US troops. Of the others, some were from Somalia, Iran and Palistina, not one had a good word to say about the USA. They all hated it. When asked about Denmarks participation in Iraq and Afghanistan, they would either condemn it or just clam up.

I have some friends, actually a couple of brothers, who are from Turkey, and I happened to ask one of them about this. He also looked upon the USA with unfavourable eyes, and he was not suprised at the animosity I'd encountered. He explained to me the depth of anti western feeling that runs right across the immigrant/Muslim community. "Danes are alright" he said, "But Americans and British..."
In near all my personal encounters with Muslim men I have been left with the most unpleasant feeling that these people really hate us.

Then, a few months later came the news about Theo Van Gogh. At the time I didn't ask any one personally about it since I was not working at the same place as much any more, so I really don't know how those people felt about this. All my knowledge came via the internet and television.
What I saw then was smug satisfaction.
Lots of people spoke about the murder, and I noticed that about 90% of the Muslims interviewed made similar remarks to those you have made CJ. That Theo Van Gogh had no one to blame but himself. That his 'irresponsible insulting of Islam' was the cause and justification of his murder.

This sort of thing makes an impression. When you see a random woman in a headscarf, interviewed in the street, asked what she thinks about the murder of Theo Van Gogh and she says she is happy he was murdered (though she condems violence) then you have to start questioning what you believe.

We'd already seen similar rhetoric with the French headscarf ban and now we saw it, ten fold with Van Goghs murder. I remember one debate programme in particular where five Muslim woman, here in Denmark were all gathered together to watch Ayaan Hirsi Ali's film and comment on whether or not it really was so offensive.
When they'd watched the film, all five of them expressed their opinion that, (although they condemmed violence) Ayaan Hirsi Ali had to die for what she'd done.

So, by the time the riots kicked off, I had already been forced to re-evaluate my position. The riots (including those in Paris) were just the final straw. When I saw how little attention the riots received I was angry that so much criminal activity was being tolerated because no one wanted to rock the boat. When I then saw our main stream party politicians canvassing the area's affected during the day, talking to the rioters and trying to get their votes, during the day whilst at night those same people burned down schools and libraries shouting Allah u Akbar at the TV camera's, I lost any empathy I had for the silent Muslim majority and turned my back on the socialists and the hypocrisy they have come to represent.

Now, all of what I have just described means nothing to the debate at hand except to explain why I have shifted so far to the right as I have.

I had to question what I was arguing for, and who. Throughout the last few years, every so often, a moderate well integrated Muslim, either a scholar or a politician or just some one who'd intergrated well and appeared on television, would make a statement that ran counter to the entrenched Muslim position.

These people all constituted examples of Muslims who have adapted well into Danish society and what they were saying was clearly the opposite to what the rest of the Muslims were saying. They are/were calling on the Danes to wake up to the threat of extremism which was rife in the Danish Muslim population. They said, look at Holland and take note. We don't care about headscarves, we don't want Sharia, these cartoons don't offend us. We want freedom and Democracy!

These people are a minority but their arguments are pro Danish, pro integration and pro democracy.

I had to ask, why am I defending those Muslims who hate the west, don't care about democracy but advoocate Sharia, demand we accept this, that or the other cultural necessity required by their religion, refuse to speak out against honour killings or the gang rape of Danish girls...

Why should I defend these people who so oppose everything I believe in?

What do I have in common with these people?


We've had thirty years of what is called constructive debate and all its left us with is a mass of Islamic extremism.

I don't know what a responsible use of journalism even is. It seems to me that the western media often oversteps the boundaries of taste and its no problem. The only problem seems to be when the media challenges Islam. Then, suddenly, its a problem of 'ethics', of 'morality'.

Where was all this moral dilemma when Israel was taunted? when Christians were laughed at? Why do we have to give the Muslims special treatment?

Because they get violent? So what? Let them do as they must and we take note as to how this 'religion of peace' reacts and how the quiet multitude of Islam remains a silent witness to the excesses carried out in their name.

Why should we care what these people think or feel?


which translates to; I'm opposed to violence, but Theo Van Gogh got what he deserved.

The people being attacked had NOTHING to do with the drawings CJ. Why is that so hard for so many people to understand?

I'm held to account here for my views regarding Muslims in general, and thats okay, but no one seems to care when such a generalization is turned on the Danes. Our country is under attack by the same forces that attacked America and Great Britain and 'its our fault'. We have men like Jack Straw, ignoring the sheer hypocrisy of his words, making remarks that boil down to just that; 'its your own fault'.
Totally forgetting in his selective memory how the British government refused to acknowledge that the 7/7 bombers were motivated by the UK's involvement in Iraq.
If it really is our fault, then 7/7 was the Brits fault and 9/11 was the fault of the USA.

They used our technology against us on 9/11, our population against on 7/7 and now they've managed to use our principles against us too.

If the nations of the west don't put aside this ridiculous concern for the emotions and feelings of the very people who are trying to destroy us, then we are going to lose the war on terror AND the clash of civilisations also.


We gave Ayaan Hirsi Ali an award for her courage and defence of free speech and Abu Laban used that fact as a another means to attack us.

If we apologise for what Jyllandsposten did then we are capitulating to tyranny and lets not beat about the bush, we might not have said the word 'sorry', but the whole western world has done nothing but apologise since the temper tantrum began.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is correct (see the end of my last post) the west is cowed by Islamic violence and the extremists see it and take heart at our cowardice.

Jyllandsposten should be rewarded for their stance and to hell with what Abu Laban, Yusuf al Qaradawi or Sir Iqbal Sacranie have to say about the matter. These people are not our friends. They are the enemy who lurk in our midst.


And how long do you think would last if Jaime and Mike were personally, physically and ecnomically attacked for remarks made by individuals here on the forum?


Doesn't that depend on whether or not the insults are just base insults or also a basic truth?

The ploy seems to have worked. Its been expensive, yes, but Jyllandsposten has pushed the matter into day light and the moderate Muslims finally reacted in a move to counter the extremism of the imams.

I am very satisfied. I don't care whether or not the Danish economy suffers a blow. We will survive that. I'd rather be poor and free than rich and living in fear.


edited to add a missing sentence.

I just wanted to say, that I largely agree with moif.
There was a time when I also considered muslim integration to be a non-issue, but when you see 90-95% of all muslims interviewed on television condone violence in some form or another, what are you supposed to think? Add to that that television in Denmark does everything it can to shed a positive light on muslims.

I'd like to think that the majority of muslims in Denmark are "moderate", but there is simply no evidence to back up that claim. I was also shocked when I saw these 5 muslim highschool girls say Van Gogh got what he deserved - otherwise I would have thought they were just like any other highschool girl in Denmark, but that was certainly an eyeopener. If the first 5 muslims girls you pick at random all condone violence, then the odds are pretty good that this stance is hold by more than a small minority.

There are many many other "anecdotes" like this, and while its fair to claim that these doesn't conclusively prove anything, there is very few examples of muslims speaking out against such behavior, the notable exception being Naser Khader who lives under police protection, because almost every imam in Denmark have called him a traitor or worse.

However, it would be unfair to call me and moif anti-muslim. We are just anti-violence, anti-hate, anti-sharia, anti-tyranny, pro-freedom of expression and pro-democracy. That just happens to be incompatable with the beliefs of a large degree of muslims, and I fear, the majority of them. I hope I am wrong.

A national paper? It is a privately owned paper, why must the paper implement and reflect the objectives of the Danish government's political goals? Somehow I doubt you would support such subordinate behavior for American media outlets.

I think that those who argue for greater sensitivity or protection towards Muslims are exemplifying what is now commonly called "Rushdie Rules" and this is not some newly found insensitivity on our part, as this "clash" has been going on and occurring for some time now.

I think the most important factor to be aware of in regards to "Rushdie Rules" is that these threats of violence are not to be taken lightly, that many people involved with the Rushdie book have in fact been killed or attacked and that their murders or injuries were in fact a policy of the Iranian Govt. As have many others who dared to act offensively to Islam.

The condemnation and threats to the people of Denmark are nothing new, they are an extension of the violent suppression and censorship that is practiced in most Muslim nations with government approval. Dissidents and critics of Islam have been routinely killed or maimed in Muslim nations, now they wish to extend this fear and this power to other nations, it is nothing more than an export of a political idealogy..should we be accommodating to it?

We have never before allowed such violent forms of repression and totalitarianism to progress in our own societies, so why when it comes in this mystical exotic form are we more accepting? All things exotic are not foreign , and I can't see why we should treat this violent means of oppression any different.

Very interesting article on CNN:


CNN Article

I'll be anxious to see what the European response will be, but I am optimistic in that I can't see any violence breaking out over this.

However, even if Europe holds strong and fails to take the bait on this, the impact within the Middle East may be huge. Already Iran has been doing everything possible to put down the Jews, and with Israel already on their toes about the Palestinian elections, this may fan the flames.

Anyway, what do everybody think about Irans little experiment?

Who could really be surprised about something like that? I doubt there will be any noticable response to these cartoons - they will largely be ignored, just like the muslims should have ignored the Muhammed cartoons, if they found them so offensive.

Objectively, making fun of the holocaust and claiming its all a zionist conspiracy, is of course much much worse than any drawing of Muhammed could ever be, but nobody is going to take the bait. These cartoons can't be much worse than the remarks that has already come out of the mouth of the so called "president" of Iran (Bush as a president is a beacon of democracy and freedom compared to him, and I loathe Bush).

Iran - so what they have been doing this since 1979 and nobody cares. Along with the rest of the Muslim countries routinely publish cartoons depicting Jews drinking the blood on Muslims, Israel as Nazis, etc. This is their daily routine. The best sellers list in all Muslim countries including Turkey include Mein Kampf and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Hatred and intolerance is the bread and butter of Islam.

In 1945, the anti-Nazi German pastor Martin Niemoller wrote the following:

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

By Dennis Prager Jewish World Review, 07 Feb 2006.

Denmark has had a very rude awakening and they are now considered as bad as the Jews. Welcome to my world Denmark each and every Dane has grown a target in the Muslim world.

Congratulations to the Muslim world you are creating more European Zionists than we could ever do on own. Keep up the good work. We can always use another 5 million pro-Zionists.

The news flash is not that there are extreme Muslims. The news flash to many Europeans and Americans alike is that the extreme can no longer be considered a small minority. Also, a second news flash is the level of hypocrisy.

There are many facts here. Only one is especially relevant, and that is that these angered Muslims are resorting to death threats and acts of violence over cartoons. Some posters here seem to be getting away from that frightening fact by mentioning one or more of the following:

a. The Danish newspaper knew what it was getting when it published the cartoons.

For one, I doubt the Danish newspaper expected the kind of widespread coverage this story received. And so, I doubt it expected international acts of religious violence. That said, this statement is extremely irrelevant. In fact, if the newspaper did guess the reaction beforehand, then the cartoons are especially on-point. All the cartoons have proven are that they harbor some truth.

b. The cartoons are offensive.

Yes, the cartoons are offensive. I'm offended by terrorist bombers killing innocent people. I'm offended by violent fanatics who commit murderers pursuant to their religion. That doesn't mean the cartoons shouldn't be published. In fact, it probably means that they should. Freedom of speech is not necessary to protect popular speech. It's needed to protect unpopular speech.

c. The newspaper didn't print a Jesus cartoon.

Whether or not this fact is true is irrelevant to what we're discussing here. The issue here is not whether there is an "equal-time"/fairness doctrine for political cartoons. Rather, the issue is that there are religious psychos foaming at the mouth, shouting death to the infidels, over such cartoons. Furthermore, I doubt any of us can state that Christian and Jewish symbols do not get mocked regularly in newspapers and political cartoons, and yet we have not seen even remotely comparable levels of viciousness coming from either of these religions.

I'm disappointed that some people are looking at this dilemna through ideological lenses. Whether you are liberal or conservative, socialist or populist, we should all be able to decry these violent fanatics. Not "Wedecrythem, BUT..." Instead, "We decry them, PERIOD." Then we can move forward to figure out how we can attempt to address the pressing problem. Because it only gets worse from here, folks.

I have to agree with the sentiments of those against the muslims on this one- but with one caveat- I don't really consider it a "muslim thing" as a "middle eastern culture" thing. My Gambian Muslim friends say those muslims calling for death of the Danes are "animals, not worth calling themselves Muslim"- same with my wife's best friend from Azerbijan- she is Muslim- and has nothing but contempt for the "Arab muslims"-

I have nothing but contempt for the entire middle eastern society- it is oppressive and nasty, and it is time for the western world to wake up and stop coddling this culture. War is what the western societies do best, and if they want war, we should bring it to them, with all it's power.

Members here know that I have always been against the Iraq war- not because of it's illegality or anything like that- but because not one American soldiers life is worth sacrificing to a society that will not revolt against thier leaders on thier own.

Look at Iraq now- they are all about laying down thier lives to kill Americas- where were they when Saddam was in power? Why didn't they waste thier lives and suicide bomb Saddam?

It is a cowardly and oppressive society- and we have propped them up for decades.

Sure, alot of what happens over there is our own fault- we need to come to terms with that- they way we (US and Britain) redrew the maps at the end of WW1 and 2 created alot of the turmoil there, without thinking about the ethnic issues involved- but it is time to apologize for that and withdraw all support.

Europe needs to kick those that don't abide by the laws of thier society out of thier countries.

France should have expelled each and every rioter involved in those troubles- right back to where they came from.

Denmark should do the same.

I am not usually one inclined to agree with Bikerdad or Aevens on just about anything- but above all, I am a pragmatic- and yes, whether we like it or not, we are at a cultural war, and we need to acknowledge it, and then fight to win. Win and leave no prisoners.

Middle Eastern cultures do not respect freedom, only power. If you do not punch them in the face, they think you are weak. This appeasment and kowtowing to thier values has to end if we, as a western culture= no matter which country you are from, must be willing to fight for OUR values- they are certainly willing to die for thiers!

Cartoons about the Holocaust are also surfacing in Holland. The AEL (Arabic European League) had a cartoon showing Hitler and Anne Frank lying in the same bed, suggesting the had sex, with the caption "put that one down in your diary Anne!"

So the response against the Mohammed cartoons leads to an attack on the Jews. Question: what have the Jews and teh Holocaust to do with the publication of Mohammed cartoons in a Danish Newspaper? It is just pathetic. (BTW the Jewish society has filed a case against the AEL, the normal thing to do in European societies when you feel offended by something and someone!)



You know what Moif, I completely agree with you on almost everything you said and wrote. I have been completely stupified by the fact the people from the left are defending the Muslim anger. What happened to them? Socialists defending religious feelings? It is the world upside down. A true democratic socialist should always try to minimalise religion and oppose every religious intolerancy. Wasn't it Marx who said: "Religion is opium for the people"? What the are these people thinking ... they are rejecting some of the basic ideals of socialism. Unbelievable.

Mohammed Image Archive

Here is a collection of artwork from down the centuries that depict Mohammed. This lays aside the claim that art such as this has never been used before. In fact, Mohammed has been depicted on the covers of books in France without any outcry.

That site also includes the 12 cartoons only one of which seems to be overtly critical of Mohammed (the one with the turban as a bomb).

This uproar was caused, I think, by the addition of 3 cartoons by prominent Islamic scholars in the Middle East: link THOSE images (pig-snout Mohammed, Mohammed "with" a dog, and devil Mohammed) were not published in the Danish newspaper nor anywhere else.

For those who haven't seen offensive Jesus artwork, you haven't looked very hard : you can get them in T shirt format in the United States. Offensive T shirts Of course, liberal anti-war protestors had no problems with What Would Jesus Bomb? T-shirts. Of course, the US government also funded offensive anti-Christian artwork (cited earlier in this thread).

In Denmark, they painted Jesus with an erect penis on a subway station.

Radical Islam is forcing Europeans to do things they would never allow Christians to force them to do. Case in point, last year a museum in Sweden removed erotic artwork that contained verses from the Quran : link

People have every right to be offended at what they read in the newspapers. People have every right to protest what they feel is unfair or biased in the newspaper. People do NOT have the right to threaten violence against those they disagree with. Further, people have NO right whatsoever to commit violence over a cartoon image.

Wikipedia has an article up about this issue. I find it comical that only one US newspaper (the NY Sun ) has reprinted the cartoons. I wonder why Americans aren't informed? I wonder why newspapers are fast becoming a thing of the past...

The reaction to these cartoons simply reinforce the idea that Islam is a violent religion. It reinforces the image of the one (of 12) cartoon that is offensive or insulting. Is telling the truth insulting now?

Amlord and Renger- I too agree with you nearly 100%- but to me, one of the great mistakes about religious sects is being remade again here- Comparing the religion of the middle east islam society to the religion of say, the Gambian African society is the same as comparing the religious right in America to the Quakers in America- very much different- with very opposite behaviors.

I can't stand religion - I think I have made that clear- but I think a good strategy , at the least, would be to divorce the religion of Islam from the society of the middle east.

Of course not, I'm seriously thinking about having my sig changed to:
"I do not, nor will I ever condone threats and/or acts of violence in response to the "Mohammed Cartoons""

That way I won't have to be asked this same rhetorical question every time I post in this thread.

Posters: "Do you support terrorism?"
turnea: No.

five seconds later...
Posters:"Do you support terrorism now?
turnea:No.

ad infinitum


Let's get the quote in full.

Now I don't think I'd be stretching too much to say this was an accusation of being anti-European.

If if is not, fine. I still find it both an attack on my character and singularly unconstructive.

Not to say that I'm at all upset about it so don't take this as a complaint against you personally.

I merely think this type of statement has typified much of this debate. Some posters complain about the widespread demonization of Europe by Muslims. Said posters then turn around and demonize anyone who dares contradict them as an authoritarian misogynist and/or a political sycophant.

That's all I'll say about the tone here as I hope it will be enough.


I think a condemnation of the offense would be all to be desired, though I don't think most governments have done so.

No legal action should be taken I agree. The freedom of speech is something that should be upheld absolutely. I simply argue that pleas for civility do not in any way infringe upon that right.


I agree, but does it not make some sense that many Muslims were just as offended by these cartoons as some in the Jewish community would be offended by the reprehensible actions of the AEL.

It has been suggested that the Mohammed cartoons where striking a blow for freedom of speech.

Are the Anne Frank cartoons doing the same?

Edited to add:
and Amlord there were at least two drawings that were offensive. Mohammed with the turban bombs and Mohammed explaining to the suicide bombers heaven was out of virgins.

??? It is not a question whether they are allowed to do this. The question is: if you have a problem with cartoons being published in European newspapers, why do think attacking Jews will solve anything? Attack European values in writings or cartoons ... but the Jewish people and the Holocaust have nothing, nothing at all to do with this entire issue. The Mohammed cartoons are not part of some sort of Zionistic attack on Islam, although some high Iranian officials and Muslims in the Arab world seem to think so.

Or what, someone will get offended? So?

It sounds incredibly callous of me to sound so nonchalant about other peoples’ sensibilities, but I see printing the cartoons no different than white supremacists freely advocating their views.


Who suggested this, Turnea? Certainly none of those in favor of free speech. As for the Anne Frank retaliation I maintain that Europe has done itself a disservice by contaminating free speech with progressive ideas and restricting it.


Can you hear what you’re not saying, CJ? If Christian Reconstructionists have any powers of observation they should add your deference to Muslim sensitivities as one example in their How To playbook. If burning down embassies and kidnapping western nationals will muzzle the media imagine what making overt threats against the judiciary can accomplish.

I remember reading an article by a conservative passing off the inclusion of Sharia in Iraq’s constitution as no big deal. Iraqis, according to the author, were simply acknowledging their religious roots. Hint, hint: Judeo-Christian principles have unjustly been excluded from the legislative process. Why, exactly, should fundamentalists in other religions keep a lid on extremism when we lower the bar for Islamic practitioners?

I feel for our nationals getting blindsided by this avalanche but I’m not willing to trade our freedoms at home for a shaky tranquility abroad.


First off, a paper is not the government’s voice. Secondly, it is arguable the paper wanted to instigate a national debate by printing the cartoons. It has since apologized unnecessarily IMO, as in the case of Newsweek. Should the media muzzle any pseudo-controversial print or image to make certain it doesn’t stand a chance of possibly provoking the Mid East into riots and fires? As much as I’d like to make Ann Coulter shut up…

Another day and nothing much changed. The Danish PM, Anders Fogh Rasmussen gave another pointless press meeting and told the world press, yet again that the Danish state and people have no say in what an independent newspaper prints in a free and democratic nation. Link.

He might as well as saved his breath. I watched the press meeting live, flipping between the two main Danish channels and BBC World. It was no surprise to see that on BBC World a British Muslim expert sat beside the news reader and was given free reign to slag Denmark off as a right wing 'anti Islamic state'. He said; "Until Denmark changes its racist laws then it doesn't matter what Rasmussen or the people of Denmark say". It seems the British just can't get enough of Muslim extremists. I noted that Abu Laban was interviewed again by British TV today as if he was just another imam.

In the mean time, in a suburb of Århus (where I live) the mainly Muslim population of Gjellerup gathered in a pro Danish demonstration organised by the Multicultural Society. The demonstrators had invited the international press, specifically the Arabic satellite channels like al Jazeera but apparently these did not turn up.

Other prominent Muslims, here in Århus have tried to correct the Arabian media in their own way. Amongst others a Muslim social democrat MP called Hüseyin Arac has been waging his own campaign, speaking to the Turkish media.
(translated) Link.

Another prominent Muslim from Århus is the Egyptian Enan Galaly who owns several hotels in Denmark and in Egypt. He has given interviews to the Egyptian media and called upon Egyptians to improve their image rather than react with boycotts.

With luck, these initiatives, as small as they are may bear fruit. We shall see. I have a feeling that the international response is too far gone for anything we do or say to have any impact now. Personally I'm far more interested in the domestic situation.
Despite the static from abroad, the cartoons have provoked a positive reaction though most people try to avoid mentioning them, preferring to move past them. I'm especially encouraged by the demonstration in Gjellerup which was the epicentre for last years rioting.

Jyllandsposten has been taken to court again, this time by a christian, on the charges of blasphemy and treason to the state of Denmark. If he wins his case, then by default all satire regarding religion will effectively be outlawed.

Across the left side of the political spectrum there has been a lot of anti EU criticism. The Socialist People's Party and the Social Democrats have criticized the lack of response by the EU and have also had a go at the leader of the Danish People's party. Pia Kjaersgaard for comments she has made in recent days calling Abu Laban a liar and a traitor to Denmark (which he is). I'm not fond of Kjaersgaard, but in this instance she is correct. Her party is trying to find ways to have Abu Laban arrested for treason and if possible kicked out of the country.

Suffice to say that, just as before all this began, our politicians, both here in Denmark and in the EU are useless. The government is doing all it can to save the money that will be lost from the boycott and the EU appears to be sitting on its hands. All the other politicians are busy squabbling over petty differences (none more so than the leftists) and, as always the initiative to push forward change is coming from the grass roots.

Thankfully, we have a strong sense of democracy in the people and given the impetus created by all the furor surrounding the drawings , the people are beginning to deal with the subject.


edited for spelling (of course)

This is from a Dane in Denmark
The reson that the drawings were shown, were that the newspaper found a lot og censorship, mainly selfsensorskip all over Europe
The issue startel with Saloman Rushdi in the U.k.
Later Theo Van Gog in the netherlandt
And many more
The paper wanted to show the world that freedom of speact can not be bendet (not even the slightes bit)
And I think that the western world faces a major problem if we give in to the muslems i this case
What vil be the nex thing that is leagal in your or my contrie that affends them

The shortform of all this is: In Iran let´s have the iraniens decide
In Denmark lat´s have the Danes decide

With kind regards

lope
A Danish citizan

I could not agree with this sentiment more.. This is not about ideology but about a very violent arm of muslims around the world, also showing this is more than just a small percentage of them as well.

Who said anything about trading freedoms? I have stated already that I believe the right to free speech and expression is absolute. I'd say that is fairly well backed up by my long posting record here.

What I also said is that free speech has consequences and just because you are free to say something doesn't mean you should or that it is wise.

I could walk around calling our President every obscenity in the book every chance I got - do you think that anyone on the other side would care to engage me? Do you think that would be a constructive way to prompt the national debate on his effectiveness?


See my response to Bucket on this one.

I have worked in several yearse in Middel east, and know something about the peoble there

They do not deal in absolut truth

In Denmark muslims say " We belive in the freeedom of speach, but

and there are alwas a but
Dont affend the profet or other buts of the same kind

wkr
Lope from Denmark

My response is to shrug my shoulders. Iranian anti-semitism is nothing new. If any one drew such a picture here then he'd be charged by the police and quite rightly so. I don't see any comparison between lampooning a religious ideology and mocking the mass murder of 11,000,000 human beings.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I learned a new word recently. Dhimmi. Of course, thanks to Marx (or was it Lenin?) and his 'useful idiots' I already understood the principle, but its only recently that I grasped the depth of irony surrounding the socialist capitulation to Islam.

You already know this but I'm going to make reference to it anyway.

(Translated) Link.
Suffice to say, I doubt very few Danes will become zionists as a result of whats happened. The political mind set is just too entrenched here. I certainly won't be a convert to the zionist cause though my defence of the Palestinian cause has certainly given up the ghost. As far as I'm concerned you can do what ever you all feel is necessary. The Palestinians have made their position crystal clear.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I totally agreed! Well said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There may be some truth in what you say, I did see a Senegalese Muslim rapper react to the photographs with laughter, but really it makes no difference to me. The whole international thing is just so far out of proportion that its left me indifferent to the differences between this Muslim or that.
Really, what difference does it make? We can't educate the whole world as to how Danish democracy works, so why bother?

Steady on CR, your scaring the kids

I don't think war is any kind of answer to this... at least not war in the classic sense. I think its fairly obvious there is a war being waged against us and we should take a long hard look at who is living amongst us and bring down the full force of our laws upon them.

Sentencing a man like Abu Hamza to seven years (out in two) is just a joke. A really bad one. You can't fight a war on terrorism if your not prepared to kill the enemy. Hamza got caught, fair enough, he doesn't have to die, but he ought to serve so long and hard a prison sentence that he won't see freedom this side of twenty years!

It won't happen. Even though Abu Laban has clear links to terrorist groups and its been proven he deliberately lied and continued to lie in order to damage Denmark as much as possible, the socialists will not permit his extradition. Indeed they've even gone so far as to attack the leader of the Danish People's party for suggesting it.

Abu Laban, like his counterparts in Britain, and all across Europe is protected by human rights laws. Denmark has tried to impose very hard laws restricting who can enter the country and who can get statehood because these rights mean once one of these people is here, we just can't get rid of them again.

Its another example of how the extremists use our own laws against us.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The socialists have gradually redefined themselves to be the side that stands for all that is decent. I see it all the time. Their supporters regularly refer to conservatives and nationalists as nazi's and whilst sometimes, in some examples, they have a point, the problem is they never leave off it.

During the weekends demonstrations, the only people in Denmark to act with violence were the Muslim youths and left wing autonome who attacked the police after these blocked them from clashing with the nationalist Danish Front.
Some 200 socialist provos and Muslim youths were arrested during the day in numerous clashes.

I've seen the autonome in action before. Up close and personal. They claim to be fighting back against the 'nazi's', but when I see some 600 Autonome trying to reach 30 nationalists I have to conclude the dangerous element is not the 30 middle aged, balding, pot bellied nationalists but rather the raving violent youths in ski masks and Palestinians style scarves putting the boot into the police whilst they wave banners proclaiming Anders Fogh to be a war monger.

The sheer hypocrisy of this position never fails to impress itself upon me. The self proclaimed tolerant screaming for the blood of those they charge as intolerant.

With regards to the Palestinians. They see them as a people oppressed by imperialism who must be defended against the evil Israeli's so, they will continue to support the Palestinians, even as these use them for their own terrorist purposes.

I don't see anyone looking at this through ideological lenses. In the 122 posts now in this thread I don't think I've read one person defending the actions of the muslims who resorted to violence, not one. If you can find a post that does that please do share it, and don't pull something out of context either.

I see one side that is completely and totally emotionally involved in this debate and going off on muslims in general as well as extremist muslims. The other side of the debate is saying "wait a minute, you sort of did bring this upon yourselves with cartoons specifically designed to provoke a response. Well, you got a response."

If the actions by extremist muslims really surprise anyone then you haven't really been paying attention to international politics and current events. These people will use anything they can as a rallying point for their supporters, to gain new supporters and to show off their power to the world. The fact that they can gain supporters says little about the islamic faith and a whole lot about the conditions that exist in the middle east. If that is a surprise to anyone you must have been asleep for the past 5 years if not the past decade.

The problem existed well before these cartoons were published, several people in this thread have established that in this thread and others. What we are seeing here is an escalation of the conflict. These things start with insults, then move to protest, then violence and eventually war and that is true for both sides.

Escalating the conflict does not help solve the problem.

Now if you just want to prove yourself right or satisfy your desire to lash out and speak out then that's fine at least admit to that. But if you are genuinely interested in improving muslim-western relations things like this aren't the right way to do it.

So beat on your chest and proclaim the righteousness of Jyllandsposten all you want, it doesn't get you on the path of solving the problem that got you here in the first place.

You're asking me to support a statement I never made. I never said that there are people in this thread defending the action of the violent Muslims. Look at what you yourself quoted of me. I wasn't even refering to those in this thread.

The point I was making, and still stick behind, is that some people are skirting over the real problem here and instead trying to make a "double-fault" argument. Sorry, I don't by it. In one sense, it's a darn good thing these cartoons were printed because they have opened the eyes of a lot of people who bought into the baloney that there are only a handful of fanatical Muslims.

There is something very wrong with the values of Islam as it is currently being practiced in the Middle East (and then in the countries where they emigrate). This is not to say Islam is a fundamentally evil religion by any means. But there's definitely a real problem with the practice of it. The proof is in the pudding. It's becoming harder to argue against reality.

I would counter that the real problem is that people are trying to make this a single-fault argument and placing the blame on the wrong people to boot.

Nothing in this debates questions suggest that debate is restricted to the most dramatic of the problems involved.

There is no "real" problem. It's all a problem.


So what's your evidence to the contrary?

Be careful in how you lay out the argument, I really want to see whether this line is as assumption ridden as I see it.

I'm not ignoring the responses to my previous post by the way I just think this is a key issue and I'd like to focus on it for a moment.

Let's see, three burned embassies, a torched consulate, death threats, threats against everyone from the same country as newspapers that published the cartoons : link

Although no one is doing it openly, the idea behind the sentiment that we shouldn't provoke militant Islam is the same thinking Neville Chamberlain had before WW2. Appeasement is simply not an option with these types of reactionaries. They will make a punishable-by-jihad offense out of everything and anything.

The cartoon at the top of this page is quite close to how I see this situation. The following excerpt is pertinent:



Nobody cares if Jesus is mocked. Why should we care that Mohammed is mocked? Because his followers are more likely to blow us up? Ah, but that only points out the truth behind the cartoons. Clearly a Catch 22 for the "let's not incite" them crowd.

Bottom line: speech should not result in violence. It is absolutely inexcusable. Nobody here has gone that far, but it isn't too far fetched to imagine that it could be stretched that far.

"Outrageous!!" (somebody is bound to say). Yet violence HAS occurred over freedom of speech. People have died over freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing Islam.

"But the majority of Muslims are peaceful" you protest. Let the peaceful ones kick out the nutjobs then. Until that happens, the vocal "minority" is the only face we will see because it is the only face that is trying to kill us.

I'm sure there were normal, peaceful Germans under the Third Reich. It would probably be fairly easy to say that the majority of Germans would not approve of the Holocaust. But that does not mean that the vocal minority, who holds power, should not be called to account. And excuse us if we can't tell the peaceful ones from the jihadists when the peaceful Muslims will not stand up and be counted!

Radical Islam is a threat. If these terrorists feel that Mohammed or Allah blesses their cause, then the cartoons are wholly appropriate in representing one faction's self-depiction of their prophet.

Those who defend the use of peaceful protests or economic protests are perfectly correct. If some Muslim in Indonesia or Iran or Iraq felt that these cartoons were targeted at their Mohammed, the proper response is to laugh off the ignorant Danes. The improper response is firebombing an embassy, threatening to kill people simply for being from the same country as the offenders,

Let's cut to the chase: 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam' When society is afraid to criticize an institution that has obvious problems, those problems cannot be resolved.

..and how does this prove that fanatical Muslims are not a fringe minority?

Cube Jockey asked the same question before, all of that certainly points to evidence that radical Islam poses a threat but we've known that for years.

What evidence do you have that addresses the specific claim I asked about, that of the relative popularity of fanatical Islam?


That is not the stance of anyone I've heard here.

My stance is that we should not provoke normal law-abiding Muslims by insulting their religion for the actions of a few of its adherents.


Drug dealers are a tiny minority in US society, yet I don't see concerned citizens rounding them up and handing them over to the police?

Why might that be?

Yes, see, that seems to me the problem in telling who is a moderate and who is a radical follower of Islam. "Normal law abiding" Muslims may feel offended by the cartoons, but they, as they are law abiding, have some legal ways to counter that and should do so. Possibly by filing a law-suit, raising a voice or by boycotting the newspaper and so on. As soon as these "law-abiding" Muslims agree with death-threats, embassy burnings and the like, they become radical and have to be dealt with in the ways that they find back into our society or they shall be expelled of it.
However that does not mean that the "ominous silent majority" disapproves the embassy burnings or the death threats. As has been said before in this thread, these are the ones we cannot put in one or the other category as long as they are silent. I am pleased to hear of demonstations against the radical islamists by moderate muslims & others, but that seems to be local phenomena. While there still is the sentiment of "they deserve what they get", our foundation of a tolerant society is put at risk.

The Western society needs to take the radicals a lot more serious and make that perfectly clear when dealing with the moderate ones. Once we can win the moderate Muslims for our culture and ethics, we can prevail as a multi-cultural society. But as long as Muslims feel that Islamic law takes precedence over secular law, there cannot be harmonic coexistence. One of the two has to go, so let's work on the one we feel we can live with.

Exactly. The problem in Denmark was that the extremists monopolized the debate. We'd have Moderate Muslims appearing in Danish TV debates but their voices would go unheard. The bulk of Muslims in Denmark watch their own satellite TV channels and largely ignore the Danish media so these would pay no attention to the moderates. Instead they'd be watching al Jazeera, based half way round the world, telling them what a bad place Denmark is.

In the mean time imams, many of whom have virtually no connection to Denmark, some can't even speak Danish, would be hammering home the dissatisfaction and contributing to the ever expanding gap between the two sides.

Successive Danish governments tried all kinds of social programmes and initiatives to get the Muslim population to integrate into the Danish society, but in later years, the rise of the satellite TV channels made this impossible. Efforts to bring the immigrant population into the Danish culture were/are further hampered by the British notion of multi-culture which dictates that an ethnic minority should be left alone, left to develop its own internal culture and respected for its differences... regardless of whether or not these differences are a direct cause for the ever widening gap between the immigrant and host populations.

Something had to change. All the initiatives and dialogue was not having any effect. The crime rate in those area's populated by the Muslim immigrant population was reaching astronomical heights and extremism was spreading ever deeper.
Finally it became apparent that this Islamic extremism had become a serious political and social problem. Theo Van Gogh's murder was a flash point. A warning of things to come and it was time for drastic action if this extremism was to be countered. We already have artists and politicians living under constant police guard because they spoke out against Islamic extremism and it was against all this that Jyllandsposten took the decision to print the cartoons.

In my opinion, this decision was a brave one. They knew what they were getting in to and they understood that they risked the same death threats that Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Naser Khader live under, but they felt they had no choice.

Yesterday, a former foreign minister of Denmark, Uffe Elleman Jensen, called for the resignation of Carsten Juste (Jyllandspostens editor) and thus let the whole world regard how craven and morally corrupt he is. Its no surprise that he has also criticized the Danish PM (this despite that he belonged to the same political party) over the Cartoon debate nor is it any surprise that it was the government of the later 1980's that Elleman Jensen belonged to that was instrumental in letting so many people from the Middle East into Denmark without bothering to deal with the issue of who these people were and what possible threat they might pose. If the politicians of the past, people like Elleman Jensen, had done their job in the first place then we wouldn't have al qaeda sympathizers like Abu Laban in positions of authority today.

Cartsen Juste should be given an award just as we gave Ayaan Hirsi Ali an award for defending free speech! What Juste has done is to provoke the debate which this country has been in dire need of for the last two decades.

Thanks to these drawings, we've seen the extent of extremism in our country, identified the ring leaders, provoked the Moderate Muslims to finally congregate into a political force with which true dialogue can take place and, today I hear that the Danish state will no longer include imams in political debates but will instead turn to the Moderate Muslim organizations.

This is victory indeed!
Religion has no place in politics and for too long the imams have had too loud a voice. Finally, the democratically elected Muslim representatives will speak up on behalf of their voters and the imams will be marginalised.


Why not? What is so special about Islam that it merits any different treatment than all the other religions?


edited for spelling

Turnea, you are arguing both sides of the issue here. You start off by asking how all the violence is not just from a fringe minority, and then indicate that the cartoons incited violence amongst the majority. Then you further argue that the minority could be holding the majority hostage through their violence in the drug dealer analogy. At the very least some clarification of your stance here is needed.

I think Amlord allowed in his post that there may indeed be a silent majority, so even if your point were concise and valid, I'm not sure it would have any relevance. Continued silence in the face of such actions could be tacit admission that such activities are acceptable. At the very least, as Amlord pointed out, if only one group is saying anything, they're the only ones everyone will hear. So, if indeed the silent majority is being falsely portrayed, it is quite simply their own fault.

I do agree that some restraint should be practiced when newspapers exercise their free speech. I also suspect that the publishers did not understand the beliefs in Islam that Allah should not be portrayed or desecrated, and the carryover that has to Muhammad (which isn't mentioned anywhere in the Quran, btw). However, none of this ignores the very basic fact that the reactions the cartoon has created do indeed validate the cartoon itself. I think the adage "Methinks they doth protest too much" definitely applies here. As stated above, this is not a 'violence is bad, but' situation. There is simply no justification whatsoever for the reactions the cartoon has generated; in fact the reactions validate the cartoon, and the West should be pointing this out at every opportunity. Until that point is driven home loud and clear, then the cartoon itself is only a side issue. This is really quite apparent: what is a bigger problem in the world today--radical Islamic terrorism, or a cartoon?

I think you're reading into it a little too much. I'm an infuriatingly literal person and understanding that usually helps when interpreting my posts.

I said the cartoon provoked the majority of Muslims, I didn't say it provoked most of the to violence.

Provocation does not equate to violence, some were merely provoked to disgust and I was to some extent seeing the dialogue degenerate to this point.

That remains the work of a fringe fanatical group.


You don't have to be an Islamic scholar to guess that drawing the chief prophet of a religion with a bomb in his head or greeting suicide bombers at the heavenly gates with a eternal-lifetime supply of virgins might be insulting.

Many seems so very eager to place blame on the entire Muslim community for the actions of a few of its members yet so reticent to blame the cartoonist for their own actions.

Stop making excuses for these people that is my primary request. They knew what they were doing and it was clearly it was the wrong thing to do.

Who are 'these' people?

I don't recall anyone making the claim that Jyllandsposten were unaware of the nature of their provocation. Indeed, their own apology includes this sentence:

Link.

Hobbes just made such a claim and it was his post I was addressing. There are others who profess to share his view such as Renger's first post where he categorically denied the cartoons were offensive, Carlsen who claimed it would be wrong for the paper to issue any apology at all. Lesly...

If I keep skimming I'm sure I'll pick up a few more, but is it really necessary?

I absolutely agree with this. However, I think the majority in Islam is far, far, far too silent. At some point, silence equates to acceptance. If that is correct, then there are all, in some way, 'guilty'. If that is not correct, then they need to speak out against such actions. Failure to do so, repeatedly, equates to complicity.



Most cartoons are insulting, that is their nature. While depictions of Allah fall into a somewhat different category due to the direct contradiction of religious practice, as I said above, I think this is a side issue.




I think this is debatable. Was it really? Or was it something that really needed to be done, to bring this issue to the front? I'm not sure it was the wrong thing. In fact, were it not for the special issue of depictions of Allah within Islam, I don't think this cartoon is that different from those you see in the political humor section of papers every single day. I think the only reason we're seeing the reaction we are is because the cartoons are in fact quite accurate...and every act or threat of violence simply corroborates this. In short, if the Muslim community finds this so offensive, their focus should be on eliminating the actions that led to the cartoon, not on continuing those same actions afterwards.

I would add, though, one mitigating factor I just heard on MSNBC this morning. Apparently, these cartoons were initially not a big deal. Some local imams saw the cartoons, and attempted to meet with Danish officials to discuss their issues with it. They were refused an audience. Later, they traveled through the Middle East on business, and discussed the issue there. I see two things from this: it was not really the cartoons that caused the problem, but rejection of being allowed to discuss their concerns with it. This strikes me as a poor decision from the Danish government (I don't know at what level this occurred). However, the response is still completely unacceptable, and I further don't know the direct role of the imams in causing it (ie...did they just state what had occurred, or directly discuss inciting violence in response to it). This changes the issue somewhat, I think, in that it was not the cartoon itself that caused the problem, but lack of a venue in which to air their concerns....further pushing the cartoon to the sidelines.

One simply has to repeat what Turnea wrote to counter this Hobbes. I'm sure that most Americans find the actions of drug dealers deplorable. You don't see many people working with the police to get them off the street or taking matters into their own hands.

I'm sure that Italian Americans don't particularly like being associated with the mob in our nation's collective consciousness yet you don't see them sending mobsters to jail.

Could it be that perhaps since these extremist muslims are a criminal and violent element that people feel afraid and powerless to stop them? You are placing an expectation on muslims in general that you yourself would not and could not live up to.


If this is accurate it doesn't exactly bode well for the side that believes the Danish share no part of the blame here.

Could it be that? Yes, it could (I argued just that in stating why there wasn't a revolt against Saddam). However, was it fear that made all those people dance in the street when they found out about 9-11? No, it wasn't. At some point, real consideration needs to be given to the potential truth that the reason violence is so rampant in the Middle East is that far too many people there think it is an appropriate response to things. I'm not asking the people there to take up arms and put down the militants (the analogy of putting drug dealers in jail). I am asking them to state, when asked, that violence in response to such offenses is not appropriate. You never really hear that. It's always, "but they did this first". That would be equivalent to most Americans stating, if asked about the drug dealers, 'Well, they needed the money'. That's not what you generally hear. Further, if it is indeed fear....that won't be solved until they eventually stand up against it. Cartoons such as this would be an ideal time to do just that. It would be quite easy to state that while the cartoon was offensive, and an apology should be issued, that rampant violence and threatened killings is not the appropriate response. But, in general, that is usually not what is said (although it was the words from a few this time, so maybe that is a start). I am beginning to think that what is going on is a sort of democratic revolt....the fanatic fringes couldn't continue to operate as they do without the complicity of the people. This complicity might be due to a great many factors, but it does seem that it cannot be denied. I think this is mainly cultural, and not religious, in nature. How much of an uprising was there in Indonesia, the world's most populous Islamic country? I haven't heard of any. It is an issue with Middle Eastern culture.



No, it doesn't, although, as I alluded to, it might also indicate direct complicity from the imams to initiate just such a response. Two wrongs making something very very wrong, as it were.