All the examples I listed that I was asking you to address were not violent..I will just re-post them in hope you will recognize my argument:

And what violence did Denmark or the EU conspire ? Did Dane authorities complicity allow Danish nationals to storm and burn down any Arab embassies? Did the Danish or EU governments call for sanctions on Arab goods? Did they organize protests? Did they ask for Arab nation's ambassadors to go home? Did they request that Arab nations be excluded from international conferences? What complicity did they partake in?

You made a very big claim, you claimed that European countries were complicit with this crisis...so why not offer more than just a unfounded accusation? Why not explain why you believe this and what evidence you have that the EU and Danish authorities conspired to offend and anger Muslims.

What role did the Danish government or the EU governments have in all of this incitement?

The only problem with this argument is that its clearly wrong.

Everything here in Denmark indicates the opposite, that although some Muslims reacted very negatively, these were a minority numbering a few thousand. The vast majority understood that caricature was an aspect of Danish culture and accepted it.

Now, in the aftermath of the global reaction, we see that the provocation has had a very positive effect in that it has succeeded in forcing Muslims here to decide where they stand.

Sticking your tongue out a some one may be 'childish', but sometimes, when you are confronted with some one who has no sense of humour, the best thing to do is to stick your tongue out at them.


And here's another thing.... nearly 2 billion people?

Where does that come from? According to Islam online there are 1.3 billion Muslims on Planet Earth today (according to my Atlas, its 800 million)

And why does it matter how many Muslims there are? Does the amount of people 'insulted' equal the amount of Muslims we think are alive today?

Or is it just those Muslims who can't take a joke...? Because it seems to me, that about 80% of the Muslims here in Denmark didn't really care about these drawings and if your 0.005% has any validity then neither does the vast bulk of the Muslim world really care about the drawings...

So, just who are we talking about when we talk of upsetting the feelings of the Muslims... if not the extremist 100,000 who are apt to throw a temper tantrum, over a few drawings.... that oh so tiny minority of Muslims...

Link.

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

Another aspect of this whole matter is this recurring comparsion to the nazi's. An awful lot of people suddenly seem to think that because the nazi's used caricatures of Jews that any subsequent caricature of some one is 'insulting'.

This is an odd sort of morality. The nazi's also used aeroplanes to drop bombs on people and trains to cart peopl off to the death camps... do we refrain from using trains or aeroplanes (even to drop bombs on people)?

I don't understand what it is you want us to see... Are you saying the Danes are some how complicit in all of this? If so, how?


Sorry about the double posting I got confused and thought I was adding this post to the last one

Aren't all political cartoons really designed to illicit a response? They only real difference here wasn't the cartoon, it was the outrageousness of the response. That outrageousness was in fact exactly what was depicted in the cartoon, providing ample proof of its validity. The violence was not caused by the cartoon, it was caused by far too many in the Muslim community thinking this is the proper response to things. Again, go back to my analogies with domestic political satire. This cartoon is no more pointed or offensive than many I have....if such cartoons illicited a similar response from any other group, it would be that group's actions that would be under scrutiny, not the cartoon. Why is the cartoon here suddenly the focus? As I have said repeatedly, it is but a small side issue here, unless anyone wants to debate its relation to world events in relation to radical Islamic terrorism. In other words, there may be a 'but' in this debate, but it is so small and insignificant in relation to the real issue that it isn't even worthy of being discussed in this thread.



Is that the time when we want our journalists to pull back, or sally forth? This is an important issue. In general, isn't (or shouldn't) journalism be at the fore front of such issues, pointing their fingers at what they see wrong in society? (Nighttimer, help me out here!)? Again, the only reason this cartoon is even receiving press is because of the response, NOT the cartoon. The response is the issue...and was in fact exactly what was portrayed in the cartoon. In fact, in general, if you support free speech, you don't place restrictions on it...the response is up to the reader. Clearly, too many 'readers' have decided violence is the appropriate response. That fact is far more newsworthy than some unheard of newspaper printing a few cartoons.

Also the simple fact that the Danes were actively anti-Nazi seems to be overlooked by many. Europeans were in fact victims of the Nazi campaign and the holocaust too. But what does it matter now...hm? They are all Europeans now and how dare they stereotype and generalize so many!

And there was a pretty good reason I ignored them, because clearly you are trying to attribute things to me that I didn't say. You have made a habit of doing this with several people.


And sometimes if you hurl an insult at someone that person is going to come over and punch you in the nose. If you hurl the insult not expecting that as a possibility then frankly you aren't very smart.


Someone here used the number 1.8 billion I believe. What does it matter, there are still a very large number more Muslims around than are extremists yet to read some posters here Islam and all the people that follow it are evil.


I've tried to say this in several ways Moif and each time you and others have tried to justify specific things and have failed to look at the big picture. I suppose I have the luxury of doing that because I'm not emotionally involved in this topic. So let's try it this way.

It is a fact that islamic-western relations are putting it lightly "tense" in Europe in general and specifcally in Denmark. Do you dispute that?

Further it is a fact that Denmark, both as a government and a culture has been trying to resolve this conflict for a while unsuccessfully, but they still hope for a resolution that will allow for both sides to co-exist peacefully. Do you dispute that?

It is a fact that Jyllands-Posten commissioned and published these drawings deliberately to provoke a response. Do you dispute that?

Now after the fact we've gone through a lot of arguments from freedom of the press, etc. What it really comes down to is this paper decided they wanted to take a shot at Muslims and they did. Let's not wrap this up in "getting a national debate started" it was a group of people that had enough and used their position to publish this stuff.

You do not start a national debate by insulting the other side of the argument. I can and have given you all sorts of political parallels but you and otehrs have passed right over them. So I don't know why I am continuing to bother with it.


I think you know darn well there is a difference between satire and stepping over the line and insulting someone. I can't think of any examples at the moment because I'm not a cartoonist but I'm sure in terms of our country that would involve some very off color stuff or perhaps bringing a politician's family into it. How many people here at AD got all indignant when Cheney's lesbian daughter was mentioned in the debates? I seem to remember more than a few angry Republicans in both the forums and the chat room. Now imagine if someone designed some kind of cartoon around that and paraded it around every major paper in the country. There is a difference.

So... in other words, fear of being thumped should dictate when we stick our tongues out...?

Is that what you're saying?


Well, I'd say that it doesn't matter at all since I don't believe that the total number of Muslims is the total number of people taking offence... I'd say that the number of people taking offence is probably not much bigger than the number of extremists, but either way, its pure conjecture...


Well, Denmark is not really any more 'tense' than any where else in Northern Europe.

I also think it depends on your definition of 'tense'....

No. That is true.

No, this is not a fact as such... it is my interpretation of Jyllandspostens actions, but given that I believe it to be so I'll accept the contention..

No. I disagree with this entirely. This was not just some journalistic spat where Jyllandsposten lashed out at the Muslims. There were clearly established reasons given for the publication of the cartoon drawings and foremost amongst these was the gradual erosion of our (European) freedom of speech due to the self censorship of artists who feared the consequences in drawing anything that dealt with Islam.

The idea of asking an artists society for drawings of how they imagined the prophet Muhammad came from an editor at the newspaper called Flemming Rose, he put the idea to his editor in chief who in turn sought the backing of Jyllandspostens board of trustee's. There was a long period of debate in the newspaper as to whether or not the provocation was a good idea and not every one agreed that it was.
Of the 40 artists asked, only 12 responded... that is to say 28 artists either feared the consequences or refused to take part in the disrespect of a religion... and of those 12 who did respond, a couple didn't actually draw the prophet Mohammed, but took the opportunity to critize the newspaper (a fact which no Muslim has yet acknowledged to my ken).

Once the drawings had been handed in, Carsten Juste, the editor in chief of Jyllandsposten, asked the advice of a legal expert and also an expert on Islam. Both gave him the go ahead, but the expert on Islam warned him that the drawings might cause an upset amongst the Muslims. In later TV interviews this expert (I forget his name) has said he could not anticipate the global outrage. It went beyond his wildest imaginations.

To be fair to him and to the newspaper, the original publication only caused minor upset with only a single days protests bringing less than 4,000 demonstrators onto the street.
Some observors have since made much out of the fact that in the modern world, with its global media, such images can be beamed around the world in seconds and cause outrage, but in this instance the outrage took several months to happen and the reason why is because the Islamic Faith Society were fanning the flames for all they were worth.

At no point was there ever anything to indicate that Jyllandsposten were just acting as provo's. To claim they were just being abusive to Muslims, with no thought or care to the consequences is to ignore the context entirely.

Well... you are entitled to your opinion CJ, but I could easily say the same thing. I have repeatedly pointed out that the cartoons have had a positive effect first in that they have provoked a reaction in the Moderate Muslim community of Denmark, a point which I feel is laregly ignored by you and turnea.

And second, in that they have stood up to the extremism that would silence us forever.

It is important to stand up for your rights. It is not 'childish' to defend freedom but noble.

We ought all to be thankful and pay great attention to the fact that the people of Denmark have not attacked any one, nor burned any buildings, flags or books. That in Denmark, we voice or disatisfaction by means of fully legal drawings and words, not bullets and bombs. That in this nation, prejudism is not tolerated and those who would use or advocate violence are punished according to the law.

When you consider both sides in the debate, it is my opinion that we Danes, and I include our Muslims as Danes, have shown that we are able to stand up for ourselves in non violent ways and I believe we ought to receive recognition of that fact, not condemnation.


There is one other detail... You wrote:

Unless you are arguing that we Danes share in a collective responsibility for the actions undertaken by Jyllandsposten, then I still don't see how Denmark, or the people of Denmark or the government of Denmark, share in the responsibility for what has happened...


editted to add this afterthought....



I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I bet if you take the time to look through their extensive archives, you'll find plenty of cartoons that dealt with such issues as Cheney's daughter, the Catholic church and all the other topics which might possible offend some one here....

http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/

Try looking at Daryl Cagle's image from 04/10/02 for example... or 04/23/02 or 04/09/03

I would particularly recommend 04/26/03 and 12/22/05

AND if you like irony... 01/03/06

Yes, there is...I explained as much in my first post. This doesn't detract from the fact that the cartoon itself is still only a small side issue. If a cartoon of Cheney's daughter had been published, and Republicans then went on a rampage burning and threatening everyone....what would be the bigger issue? The insulting cartoon, or the outrageous response? The response would be the issue, and would deservedly be decried. Now suppose further that said cartoon had actually been about just such a reaction. What grounds would there then be to complain? When your very actions validate the issue, you leave yourself with no grounds for complaint. You use this line of logic yourself here, in defense of free speech, stating that its practioners shouldn't be upset at the consequences. Well, the same applies to the Middle Eastern community, which either initiates or seems to condone terrorism as responses to situations. You can't continue to conduct and condone such activities and expect to have much grounds to complain when someone publishes a cartoon about it, especially when your method of complaining just validates the very thing you are complaining about. Essentially, we have a journalist stating that Muslims support terror too much. Their response: threatening to blow him and anyone who supports him up. This does nothing but validate the cartoon. In short, if you don't like having your culture portrayed as supporting terrorism, well, then perhaps you should stop so openly or silently supporting it before calling out journalists who state as much.

Note: I am not saying that most Muslims support terrorists. I am saying that those that don't are far too silent on the issue. Further, given this, that they should look in the mirror before blaming others for the stereotypes that then get propogated. If the only voice speaking out conducts terrorism, then that will be the only voice that is heard.

No kidding. And, somehow I doubt that anyone would say they were also culpable and "had it coming" for their provocation. This argument is hard to believe, especially considering how very caustic the interlocution between the parties has been lately. No one has been insulted? I've been insulted and I'm not even a Democrat or Republican. Sorry, poor comparison, try again. There is actually an age at which you don't punch a person on the nose for sticking their tongue at you. I think it's about nine.

The blogger from Healing Iraq summarized this issue aptly:

In regards to the discussion over whether only a small minority of muslims can be considered "extremist" I would like to revert attention to this study, involving muslim countries:

http://www.css-jordan.org/new/REVISITINGTT...TREETReport.pdf

Especially interesting is page 52, where there is graphs showing support for sharia law. The sampled states include Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine. Except for Lebanon there is a great deal of support for sharia law being the only source of law. I certainly consider blind devotion to sharia law as extremist, and by following that line of thinking, I would be hard to convince me, that only a minority in these countries hold extremist attitudes.

That being said, I am optimistic, like moif, that we have started a on new rewarding course of debate, at least here in Denmark, because moderate muslims are beginning to stand up and be counted. Only time will tell if these moderates have support from the majority of the local muslim community. I am not confident that they will, but I can hope.

I think that the Danes themselves have a good claim to the type of case made here by moif and Carlsen (and as Danes themselves, this is not that surprising).

However, I think that the newspapers & magazines elsewhere in Europe (and the rest of the world) that have reprinted the cartoons this year are on shakier ground if they claim to have been trying to stir up domestic debate.

As for the nose-punching example, the comparison might be instructive. Clearly, punching people on the nose in response to verbal abuse is a sign of weakness and culpability, not strength.

However, it flies in the face of reason to suggest that there is no difference between punching someone on the nose who has been quietly going about their business with no sign of abuse is exactly the same as punching someone on the nose that has poked their ongue out, called you names, insulted your family/race/religion, etc. One is evidence of total psychopathy, while the other MAY be that, but could just as easily be simple hot-headness, or the breaking of a dam under the pressure of constant and longstanding abuse, or just the perception of such things.

In any case, the puncher could expected to be arrested and charged with whatever the local legal equivalent of battery or actual / grievous bodily harm happens to be. But, while applying ice, cotton wool and bandages to the bleeding nose of the unfortunate victim, the degree of sympathy in each circumstance might be "you poor thing" in one case and "well, you did kind of provoke the other guy / you should have seen that coming / maybe you'll think twice before you call people names next time".

Please note that ALL these possible responses are very different from being one of the puncher's friends and spitting "you had that coming" at the bloody-nosed.

There is absolutely no moral equivalency between exercising free speech and committing violence. None. Which is what you are saying unless by "just as" you mean "not as much as" . Had the reaction not contained violence, THEN we can talk of equivalency.

And to say that someone shouldn't speak up because someone's sensibilities might be offended is absurd. Should Rosa Parks have kept quiet because she might hurt some white folks' feelings of pride? Should Martin Luther King Jr. have kept his dream to himself because it did not mesh well with certain others' vision of America? Come on, that's a bit of a stretch.

Political speech is going to be offensive to somebody. Criticizing the actions of others (in this case, the criticism was as much on the Danish press as on any Muslims--it was a statement about self-censorship) is going to hurt someone's feelings. Having hurt feelings never justifies violence, however.

Note these cartoons which are about the response to the cartoons. These are much more inflammatory than anything published in Denmark. A can of worms has been opened, and it's about time.

Cartoons blamed on "Israeli plot"

I think someone needs to explain to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei how a calendar works. These cartoons were published months before Hamas came to power in Palestine.

You've said this a couple of times. HERE is a link to an English translation of a letter written by Danish imams to their middle eastern bretheren (the red text is commentary from a blogger). The original danish / arabic is HERE. What was designed to "provoke a response" was the Danish imams' letter and subsequent tour of the muslim world. This letter and their sermons in arabic featured "cartoons" and artwork that were not only never published, they were completely fabricated. One of them see here, was actually a photoshop of a French guy in a pig-calling contest. No kidding.

These cartoons were published in Egypt last October. Was that to "provoke a response?" If so, why the 5 month delay before the riots?

As bucket noted and to which you responded...

Why in your 1 - 2 - 3 answer to you only address the Danish and EU countries "adding fuel to the fire" and not the (unelected) Arab leaders who are (again) exploiting their own ignorant populace via religion? Why is it necessary to point out the completely obscure Fred Phelps "god hates fags" to point out that these are a "tiny fraction of extremists." Most of the time Fred Phelps protests, it's just him and his family. Every time a "protester" is quoted, for example at a military funeral, their name is "Phelps." That there are millions of muslim extremists is beyond dispute. Also, how often do Christian masses worldwide burn down embassies, call for assassination and take over government offices wielding machine guns? Only one religion has these features, and its prophet is the guy in the cartoons.

The fact is that Iranian "president" Ahmadinejad is exploiting the anti-Danish sentiment because he knows that Denmark is up for the rotating UN Security Council Presidency. From today's NY Post


Anders Fogh Rasmussen seems to get it, as he recently un-invited a bunch of radicals to an "anti-terror" conference. Good for him.



Would you care to explain where you found the 0.005% figure? Here is a comment on the Danish Islamic Society that sponsored the fake cartoons and called for the boycott in the Muslim world. Even if we only count the 1000 weekly worshippers out of 200,000 Danish muslims, that's 0.5%, or 100 times greater a figure than the one you quoted. And that's in DENMARK, where people actually have a free press and a chance for education. Why would I believe that the figure isn't higher in, say, Syria? Even taking my low figure, 0.5% of 1.3 Billion Muslims = 6.5 Million extremists. If 19 extremists were able to kill 3,000 Americans, what fraction of Muslims as extremists would be cause for concern?

Yes, indeed... well.. if there is any Danish hero emerging from all this, it has to be Naser Khader. The more I see of him the more impressed I am. I noted another member of the Moderate Muslims, Kamran Tahmasebi from Århus, spoke out against the extremists today;

(translated) Link.




Maybe, maybe not. A lot of people have risked their jobs and even their lives over this. I don't think they'd do that for anything less than a matter of principle. I certainly wouldn't. I think we ought to respect the fact that a good many people understand all this to be an important matter of principle.

Today I read that the editorial staff of an American newspaper resigned in protest because they were forbidden to show the images...
Link.




One last point (I'm in a rush) before I go... I read this today... it certainly puts a few things in a new light...

Link.





edited for spelling

I found a link finally Lesly, this has been circulating around today...

Palestinian Cartoons

And altho. the explanation claims that it is not specifically Moses or Jesus in the caricatures, it is without question highly religious in nature. I at first thought that was Jesus on the Cross, and I am not a Christian, that is just what that image evokes in our culture.

Carlsen, this is a good link, but perhaps I can shed some light onto these results, and why they're not that extreme. In Islam, there is no separation of church and state...they are one and the same. So, asking a Muslim whether or not they supported sharia law being the only source of law would be a lot like asking a Christian whether they believed the whole Bible, or only parts of it. It is not surprising at all that so many answered yes to such a question...rather, I think it surprising that so many didn't. This doesn't imply extremism, to me, given its context within Islam. This is one of the reasons why they fear/hate/insert appropriate term the 'West'...it is completely different in this regard, and therefore difficult to see how it could coexist with Islam. Coming from the West, where church and state are separate and distinct, and therefore multiple religions can coexist within the governmental framework, it is difficult to really grasp the Muslim mindset on this. This is possibly also why Muslims seem to be having such difficulty integrating into Western society in Europe....having multiple religions coexist side by side just really isn't possible in the system they come from, whereas it easily fits into ours.

Why is it so difficult to understand? Is history so vague that we can't connect to who we once were?

Maybe its an American thing or maybe its just me but I have no difficulty in understanding the Muslim perspective, because we once had that same perspective under the rule of Christianity. There was once a time when we thought and acted much as the Muslims do and everything we are today, all our laws, customs and freedoms and culture came from that.

I don't think its very hard to understand Islam at all and I am quite surprised that so many find it difficult given that I am an agnostic, and I wonder if maybe this is one of the reasons why so many people in the west don't seem to appreciate the dangers posed by Islamic ideology whilst I see them clearly.

Do I have a better understanding because I have no difficulty in getting my head inside that extremist religious perspective? Is it because I read so many books about history or am I just wrong?

I don't know, but I do know that nothing the Muslims do surprises me because its all there, described like a prophecy, in the history of Europe and the history of the Middle East. All you have to do is read about it.


The problem here is, what is extremism? How can we identify how many extremists there are unless we establish that?

According to Wikipedia, 'Islamism' is the Islamic variant of 'extremism'.

Link.

So, an Islamic extremist is any one who believes that Islam is more than just a religion, but is also the political system that should govern the legal, economic and social imperatives of the state.

By that measure Carlsen's article is correct.

But there is more to this. The biggest promoter of Sharia in recent decades has been the Muslim Brotherhood...

Link.
My emphasis.

How is this true when clearly the western nations offer so much more freedom than any Islamic state? It can only be true from a spiritual point of view... that the west is a corrupting influence on the Muslim.

Clearly this means that any one who advocates sharia is an extremist. There is no way around this conclusion.

Meanwhile...

The leader of the Danish Islamic Faith Society, Abu Laban has been connected to Sunni Islam's most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi. Qaradawi is a high standing member of the Muslim Brotherhood and a firebrand of anti western rhetoric on al Jazeera. He is also described as being a close personal friend of 'Red' Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London...

Link.
Ironic indeed, but it gets worse yet... for the EU, that 'alliance' of European nations that utterly failed to stand by one of its member nations from direct attacks of extremism is now giving serious consideration to introducing a 'code of media conduct'.

Link.
So, not only do we fund these extremists, but we even support them with our friendship, our political collaboration and financial sponsorship and now, if Commissioner Franco Frattini (a man with his own religious axe to grind) has his way we will not only bow down to the demands of Islamic fundamentalism, but to all religions.

Religious extremism is not just an Islamic problem. It is a human condition. It exists in all cultures and always has. For the past few centuries Europe and much of the western world has prospered because it was able to keep religious extremism at bay but the battles of the past have faded into memory and we risk falling back into the collapse of civilisation as our western democratic nations are eroded from within by religious forces who show no interest and never have, in the values and freedoms of democratic rule.

If we don't stand up for our freedom then religious extremism will destroy it and replace it with intolerance and tyranny just as it did in the past and just as it does in the Islamic world.

And when that view was held then, by the majority...was it extreme? No.

The problem here is, what is extremism? How can we identify how many extremists there are unless we establish that?



No, an Islamist is any one who holds such a view. If the majority holds that view, or even a large minority, then, by definition, it is not extreme. Such a viewpoint is only extreme when examined within a Western framework, in which church and state are separate.




How does this immediately equate to extremism? A viewpoint is only extreme if held only by fringe elements. Carlsen's link clearly indicated this was not the case...therefore, by definition, such a viewpoint isn't extreme.

But, I think we are having a semantic discussion here, which goes beyond the debate topic. Perhaps it might help if I indicated what I think characterizes extremism....not just holding such a viewpoint, but in also thinking violence and force should be exercised on those who hold a different viewpoint. One could easily hold the above viewpoint, not advocate violence, and be considered a moderate. The use of violent means to enforce that view on others is the defining characteristic, IMHO.



This, which I think is the real 'meat' of your post, I completely agree with. Note that religious extremism would only destroy it if violent means to enforce it on others would be exercised, which is one of the reasons why I make the distinction.

To be fair I think one should see the commentary that went along with the above. Like us they make distinctions between rigid fundamentalism and a broader interpretation of their sacred text.


A key question for me would be whether they thought Sharia Law should apply to the rest of the world, even if it was in some flexible form.

Hobbes.

We stand, all of us, on the brink of infinity, always alone. By the measure of what it is to be a human being then there is only one perspective. That of the individual.

If we look at history however, then we are looking at the sum total of humanity, and by that measure we can identify an entire culture or ideology to be 'extreme' by the standards of history.

To me, the religion of Islam is extreme. All of it. By its very nature.

Muslims. That is to say, individuals who describe themselves as Muslims are not extreme just because they are Muslims... but if they accept Islam to the degree where they wish for sharia law, then they are extremists in my perception of that word.

They may not be extremists within Islam, but since I am not within Islam either, then my perspective is that of the far bigger picture (that of history)

This is why it is important to distinguish between Islam, and its practice. In principle, it is completely accepting of Judaism and Christianity, and it preaches tolerance. It is in practice that it is corrupted...that practice has more to do with cultural and political issues than with religious ones, which is why it is important to make the distinction. In short, Middle Eastern terrorists would probably hate us whether they practiced Islam or not...Islam is just a convenient tool. It is their culture that creates the extremism, IMHO, not the religion. Why was there so little anti-Western activism (before al Queda started creating it) in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim nation, if Islam were the problem? It is not...the culture, politics and social issues in the Middle East is the problem.

So, what do the Arabs have in common with the Indonesians and the Pakistani's if not Islam? ...and how are so many different ethnic groups in Denmark all able to identify with Abu Laban if not through their religion?

What indeed is glue which binds together al qaeda or the Muslim Brotherhood?

Isn't it rather the case that all ideologies (think of christinity, socialism and nazism) are inevitably subject to curruption regardless of culture, but some are more so than others?

Consider Buddhism, in its most extreme form, just how easy is it to corrupt? Not very I'd say, regardless of which culture was practicising it.

My point is, how much does it take for Islam to become corrupted? (and thus dangerous)
Not much I'd say. Its an ideology almost designed to allow corruption, thus I deem it an extreme ideology.

I'm opposed to ANY religion where its believers feel they have found the One True Way and any that believes differently is a heretic. But this is not a religious discussion and America's Debate is not a religious board.

There are several problems here. As a journalist and writer, I believe in the right of a free press. That is an absolute for me. That does not mean that journalists have the right to slander, trample over the rights and beliefs of others with reckless disregard or publish whatever they like without responsibility or consequence.

There is no getting around the fact that the non-Muslim world and the Muslim world find themselves in a classic culture clash. The division is not simply between Muslim "extremists" and "moderates." The division for Muslims is also between those who wish to take a seat at the table of the secular world outside of the Islamic faith and those who are the religious fascists who will not be satisfied until all the world bends the knee to their beliefs.

There are anti-Muslim bigots who see the protests against the Danish cartoons as the proof that Islam is a violent and bloodthirsty religion that can never peacefully co-exist with other faiths. I don't believe that is the case. The vocal minority whose resentments against Europe and America can be inflamed by radicals can be very loud and terrifying in their ferocity. But this kind of anger cannot be substained over a extended period of time. At some point, most folks just want to get back to their normal lives.

What we SHOULD be wondering is how do people of good will, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike take this "teachable moment" and turn it into a chance to understand the other side.

I can't pretend to understand your obvious anger and resentment toward Islam, Moif. I'm sure from your perspective you feel your homeland has been invaded by a hostile force. I submit to you that you are going to have to find a way to deal with these newcomers. Certainly, there will be those who refuse to assimilate and remain openly hostile to their host country. Here in my city there is a lot of tension and problems between American Blacks and Somalis. We both live here though and while we may never become real friends, there has to be a way not to live as adversaries.

1.) Yes I do, I think that the only thing we have in common with each other anymore is that we all breath the same air... granted it isn't much but it's still enough to bind us together. This kind of discrimination against a group of people is simply deplorable.

2.) That's like shooting a rabbit with a cannon. Something should be done, but I do not feel a boycott is the best way to go.

3.) Yes. The private newspaper ran the cartoon, they should be held accountable. The government themselves? That may perhaps be going a little overboard since they do not have strict laws regarding what you can or cannot run in the newspapers if I believe.

What discrimination are you referring to?


Well, do you have any suggestions as to what they could do instead?


Why and for what should the paper be held accountable?

Hey all!

Im from denmark!

Just some thoughts on this!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im disappointed about the official statement from the president of US, when he states that freedom of the press doesnt include offending others. I thought "the leader of the land of the free" would stand 100% behind freedom of expression, but it seems that dependency of middeleast oil and the situation in Iraq weights more than freedom itselves!

I dont know the constitution in USA, but the danish constitution states that there is freedom of expression within the laws. This doesnt mean you cannot provoke others. Actually I think the press in a free country should be provocative in order to have an open and free debate on different issues. The correct response to a provocation which is outside the law - is by court - not burning, killing, threatning or other totaly meaningless ways. This is how this should have been handled by the offended muslims. But then again - they seem to have another agenda!

Now we have 12 cartoons, resulting in burned ambassades, killings of people in the middleeast and threats on the lives of danish people and soldiers. And as im a officer in the Royal Danish Air Force, fighting the "american war" in the middleeast (<- provokation ), i feel a bit betrayed by the presidents statement.


I think its important to stand on the side of the PM of Denmark and the Jyllands-posten (the newspaper printing the cartoons) - because they are both on the right side of the borders of freedom - protecting it - with threats on their lives!

So, how do you reconcile that belief with the tradition of satirical, caricature-art that is as old as journalism itself?

It seems to me that if you start imposing moral considerations, outside of the law, then that is self censorship and it is exactly the point which was being addressed by Jyllandsposten.


Well I don't see this as a question of race or even religion. I see this as a question of ideology and I will not simply accept an ideology that threatenes the freedoms I believe in, no matter who is peddling that ideology or what their moral basis is.

In the last three weeks I have seen my country portrayed by Islamic voices, from right across the spectrum of opinions, as a nation of Islamophobic racists and the global media, spear headed by the BBC has gone out of its way to perpetuate this notion giving air time almost exclusively to angry Muslim voices, from Britain and also across the globe.

Even in documentaries and debate programmes from Denmark, the BBC has focused almost entirely on the Muslim opinion and ignored the context of these drawings. Even now, as the storm abates, as I write this, a British Muslim on BBC World is comparing Denmark to Germany in 1935.

I'm sorry you see me as you seem to do, but the truth is some what more complex than the problems between American Blacks and Somalis. As I pointed out to turnea earlier in this debate, the problems faced by the Danes are not divided along racial or religious lines, but ideological. There are plenty of Muslims in Denmark who agreed with Jyllandspostens right to print the pictures. Even some who hated the images. Here is one such woman demonstrating for free speech in Sweden:

(Translated) Link. My emphasis.

The reason why these Muslims hold this position is because they understand the context in which the drawings were published and do not hold the preconceived notions of 'Danish Islamophobia' which so pollute the BBC and those other foreign voices who have weighed in on this debate.

You say you believe in freedom of speech. If you do then you must recognise that only the law can set the line as to what is and what is not acceptable. One mans joke is another mans insult and if we have to take every single possible emotional hurt into account then there would never be any more jokes in the world.

What bothers me the most about this whole issue is how the context of the drawings has been completely ignored and sidelined in favour of a debate regarding 'European Islamophobia'.

On the one hand we have Islamic extremists who spread lies and disinformation, support violence and terrorism, justify sex crimes, drug trafficking, slavery, murder, genocide, terrorism. Carry out numerous examples of these, with wide spread backing in the Islamic communities of Europe and the Middle east, ignore the laws and international conventions unless these support their cause and are generally undertaking a jihad against the west.

On the other we have some Danes who drew some pictures and some Danish MP's who brought in tougher immigration laws.

These are the extreme views on both sides and yet, its the Danes and Europeans who are accused of being 'insensitive, childish or rude'. It is Denmark, vastly out numbered by the Muslim population, who must stand alone against the tide of anger and intolerance which threatenes to kill and maim in its demands for 'respect'.
Muslims trading respect for fear.

Where was all this condemnation when Theo Van Gogh was murdered? It didn't exist! There were no angry Muslim voices on the BBC then. Kofi Annan did not issue statements that put the blame on any one then. Our Danish Muslim population expressed satisfaction! ...and you want me to find a way to deal with these newcomers.

Well, thats exactly what we are doing. If Muslims want to live here then they may do so but they must respect our laws and accept the cultural values upon which they are based.
This is not the Middle East. This is not Dar es Islam. This is Denmark. Our country is older than their whole religion and our values of equality, freedom and justice are founded in that history and we don't need to be lectured on these subjects by the British or the Germans or any other European nation with millions of skeletons in its closet. Let the British deal with their post colonial guilt in their own country!
Its not as if they live in harmony and cultural sensitivity!

We certainly don't need to take lessons in human rights from Muslims either. Islam has nothing to teach us with regards to freedom or respecting other people.

Link.

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

For Lesly:
Anti Christian and anti Semitic book titles at the Cairo Internaional Book Fair

There's something inconsistent here. If you believe in the RIGHT of a free press, then I expect you agree that journalists have the right to write whatever they like. Some people might get upset about what some journalists write, but if there's a free press, that's no good reason to impose restrictions.

There's much talk now of making it a crime in Europe to publicly criticize religion. That is NOT free speech. That's asking for someone to play the role of judge, to decide what may be published and what may not be published.

A solid victory for the fundamentalists when that happens.

To bring this into perspective, consider which is the more insensitive: printing perhaps inflammatory but clearly accurate cartoons, or the actions taken and threatened here by those supposedly offended? Clearly, it is those doing the burning, bombing, and threatening who are most insensitive, childish, and rude. Essentially, they're throwing a temper tantrum, but one involving bombs and killings. And, just as with ill behaved children, that behaviour will only continue and worsen as long as it is tolerated. As I have said repeatedly, the cartoons are but a small, minor side issue here, hardly even worthy of discussion. The vastly bigger issue is the tendency of many Muslims to resort to violence to voice their issues. Essentially, those arguing against the cartoons are stating that we should condone such violence...a position I see little logical support for. Do we really want to go down a path where those who resort to violence are treated differently, thereby justifying violence as the response most likely to achieve desired results?

Come now Hobbes I do hope you realize that this line of argument makes absolutely no sense.

Saying that, although the violent protestors are the greater offenders, the cartoonists too have done wrong is not the same as condoning the violence.

These sort of blatant logical fallacies have plagued this debate from the get-go.

I suppose I should shoot down another doozy. Claiming that freedom of speech does not directly translation to the justification of all speech....

Pointing out that just because someone has to right to say something stupid doesn't change the fact that it was the wrong thing to say.

Is not the vanguard of a fundamentalist destruction of the right to freedom of expression.

One has the right to say foolish things, sure.

One also has the right to criticize the fools who say them.

In this light it is the non-violent protestors who seem to be holding the moral high ground at this point.

Not their violent co-religionists or reactionary editors at certain newspapers.

But you can't just claim that the cartoonists have "done wrong". You have to prove that if you want to get taken seriously, and I haven't seen anyone put forward a good argument as to why they have "done wrong", less we assume every satirical drawing ever made is somehow "wrong".


I think its good that speech doesn't have to be justified, but I think it very clearly was in this case.


But again, why was it wrong? Argue your case.


And nobody have claimed otherwise, although many have pointed out the foolishness in protesting against Denmark as a whole, instead of the paper in question. That peaceful protest is certainly still valid and legal, but you won't get my respect when your protest is irrational and misdirected.


Moral highground? haha. Even a majority of the peaceful protestors are calling for an end to western freedom of expression - that is certainly not what I would call the moral highground, unless you are a beliver in theocracy.


Nice throwing these two groups into the same category. They really have so much in common.

I agree entirely Hobbes.

Its exactly because we have tolerated such extremism in the past that we're in this situation today.

When Salman Rushdie was targetted, the west did not react with anything but words and its this inaction that translates to moral inferiority in so many Muslim minds. They see us as weak because of the very freedoms we cherish and even extend to them. They use our principles against us just as they used our aeroplanes and trains against us.
You can even see it in the Palestinian conflict where Hamas used the Israeli pull out of Gaza as an example of how they are 'winning the war' in order to generate more votes.

Link.

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


Your insistence does not change the reality that neither the artists nor the newspaper broke the law. Your moral line in the sand does not determine what is right or wrong for other people and it certainly doesn't apply above the law.


So, just how was it the wrong thing to say?

Because it hurt people's feelings? So what? Criticism hurts. There is no law against hurting people's feelings and nor should there be. Thats the whole point of freeom of expression.


Yup. Its just too bad that so many Muslims are not able to draw a distinction between a lawful protest against a newspaper and violent rioting, arson and death threats.


Yeah right.

Its almost funny to hear how the BBC describes the Indonesian government as 'moderate' whilst the Danish government has had to abandon its diplomatic missions and charity works and advise all Danes and Danish NGO's there to pull out immedietely due to the amount of death threats being made... all the while the peacefull demonstrations have the 'moral high ground'. Indonesia lamented the decision to pull out the Danish embassy staff saying there was "no good reason" for the decision.

Well of course there isn't if your so 'moderate' you refuse to see it. Whats a few death threats from Islamic extremists in this day and age!

In London the other day, Trafalgar square was filled with Muslims (and 'Red' Ken Livingstone) demonstrating against the cartoons. Speaker after speaker called for a 'moderate dialogue' and the British press clapped its Muslim community on the back.
Danish reporters however, interviewed the Muslims in the crowd and found the majority were more than willing to accept action against Denmark as a whole for the printing of the cartoons. Some went so far as to advocate violent action (as in terrorism) whilst others made statements which demonstrated clearly they had no notion as to the meaning of a free press by calling on the Danish government to punish the cartoon artists.

In what way does it not make sense? The reaction of those supposedly offended absolutely validates the cartoon. Therefore, are those stating the cartoonists did wrong really claiming that printing an accurate cartoon depicting the reality of the situation is really 'wrong'? How does this set of cartoons differ from political cartoons printed in the paper every single day? The only difference I see is that we have one group of people here who feel that violence in response to such things is the appropriate approach, and those saying that because of this violent response we should avoid pointing any fingers at them. If this is not condoning the violence, what exactly is it? If there is a logical fallacy occurring, IHMO it is on the part of those stating the paper did anything wrong.



Greater offenders in what degree, in your mind? If indeed the paper did anything wrong, which I am not conceding, the scale of difference here, to me, is mountainous, rendering any discussion of the cartoon itself completely irrelevant. To even bring the cartoon into the discussion is indicating that they are on somewhat equivalent grounds, which I completely reject...unless anyone here feels that going on a killing spree is an appropriate response to any real or perceived offense you may have received, requiring a complete apology from all those who might have issued the perceived offense (and, oh, btw, a slight admonishment for the killing spree)?




Was it really? In exactly what way? I would need to know two things here. First, exactly what differentiates this from all the political cartoons I see everyday, and second, exactly what part of these cartoons is even inaccurate? Otherwise, saying these cartoons were wrong is stating that anything that points to any perceived flaw of any group should never be mentioned, whether it is accurate or not...essentially stating criticism of any sort is not to be tolerated...particularly if the group the cartoon is directed at are known to resort to violence. This then indicates that any group that wants to be heard should commence violence immediately and continuously, in order to get their point across, hence condoning the violence.



Other than the response (which is the fault of the responders, not the cartoon)...what was foolish about this? This is how I draw the conclusion of condoning the violence. The only thing that differentiates this situation from the thousands of political cartoons printed every single day is that the group this set of cartoons is directed at have a propensity to respond to such criticism violently. Therefore, pointing the finger at the cartoon as opposed to that group is indeed condoning the violence. The problem here is absolutely not with the cartoon....it is with the group committing the violence. If you restrict the ability of anyone to criticize those actions, then you are indeed condoning them.


I would think it more beneficial to criticize the fools who think bombing and killing anytime you see a perceived slight is more appropriate, but I guess that's just me.



I have no problem with any of the non-violent protestors in this. It is those who seem to be far too forgiving of the violent ones that I disagree with.

Let me draw an analogy here. Say Johnny says something about Jimmy's family, which while accurate, Jimmy takes offense to. Jimmy then kills Johnny's family, and threatens to kill anyone who associates with them. Saying the cartoonists are at fault here is like then telling Johnny he really needs to apologize to Jimmy for causing all this violence. If there is a logical fallacy here, it is in that line of reasoning.