I don't know how many have heard of this story, even though I know it has been mentioned in other in other discussions here on AD. It has been a big story here in Denmark for some time now, and now its getting traction in middle eastern countries as well, and they have begun boycotting Danish companies.

I thought I could be interesting to get some input from this forum.

From Ireland online:



There is more info in this wikipedia article, where the drawings also can be seen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Drawings

Questions for debate:
Do you think the drawings are offensive/hurtful?
Do you feel a boycott is warranted in this case?
Do you feel the Danish newspaper and/or the Danish government should apologize?

Before I answer the questions for debate directly, let me say first of all that I support the right of these cartoons to be published, and I also support the right of anybody to peacefully protest against them, and to organize any boycotts they like. Fair is fair.

1. Well, they don't offend me personally. I can see that almost anybody who reveres Mohammed would be offended. I suggest that our Christian members imagine how they would feel if a cartoon appeared in the newspaper showing Jesus throwing a bomb at an abortion clinic. (Yes, I know that the position of the Prophet in Islam is not the same as the position of the Messiah in Christianity, but it was the best analogy I could come up with.) I would support the right of the newspaper to publish such an inflammatory cartoon, and I would support the right of Christians to write letters to the editor, cancel subscriptions, and to participate in any other form of peaceful protest. Threats of violence, riots, and other forms of non-peaceful protest would not be justified.

Are these cartoons really "harmful" to anybody? Well, not directly -- they're just ink on paper. However, it would be easy to predict that they would provoke a strong response. Although I do not blame the artist or the newspaper for any violence which might result -- that can only be blamed on those who engage in violent acts -- it has to be admitted that these cartoons are, in some sense, the cause of the violence. (This does not, of course, justify the violence in any way.)

2. I fully support the right of anybody to boycott anyone for any reason. It's a peaceful method of protest which has often been used by people of all beliefs. In this particular case, I don't think that a boycott is "warranted" because I don't think the cartoons are that big a deal. I still support the right of those who think it is warranted to participate in such a boycott. (It's hard for me to imagine joining a boycott against any form of artistic expression, no matter how stupid or offensive I might find it.)

3. Well, an apology is only necessary from the newspaper if they had no intention of offending anybody, and if they should have foreseen that the cartoons would be offensive. As far as I can tell, the cartoons were intended to be provocative (as many political cartoons are intended to be), so the newspaper should only apologize if they misjudged the impact of them. I don't think they did. I think they got exactly the response they wanted.

The Danish government has nothing to apologize for. For not censoring the cartoons? A government official might express regret that the cartoons were published, but that would just be a personal opinion, no different from that of anybody else.

I pretty much agree with Victoria, although I'd like to add one minor observation:

Compared to the cultural abuse that Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Apostles have been receiving over the last few decades, this is so incredibly mild that I can only reach one conclusion:

Either Muhammed, or those who followed after him, are truly wimps of the highest order. (I was going to use a term also applied to cats, but ...)

I look forward to watching the heads of Islamic radicals, and even moderates, if this incident is any indicator, explode when the multi-media art piece "Prophet Bathing in Pig Poop" opens.

Do you think the drawings are offensive/hurtful?

Apparently it is to some, but not me. I don't really care.

Do you feel a boycott is warranted in this case?

It's a free market, and I don't have any particular feeling about the issue.

Do you feel the Danish newspaper and/or the Danish government should apologize?

It's a free press, and I don't have any particular feeling about the issue.

So what does Kuwait buy from Denmark? How much market share? Does Denmark buy oil from Kuwait? Lots of questions here, but not much feeling whatsoever.

The fundy Muslims are as crazy as the fundy Christians. I'm not surprised, nor impressed.

Do you think the drawings are offensive/hurtful?

No, I do not think they are offensive / hurtful. I find this whole issue absurd and extremely childish. It clearly shows the agressiveness of Muslims. People, its a cartoon! It is satire! Grow up!

Do you feel a boycott is warranted in this case?

They can do whatever they want. I only hope that the rest of Europe supports the Danish and will begin to boycot all the products from these "wonderful" countries that do not understand the meaning of free speech and freedom of expression.

Do you feel the Danish newspaper and/or the Danish government should apologize?

Apologize? For what? Because some Muslims have no sense of humor? It clearly shows the intolerant attitude of this religion. Denmark is an open liberal and democratic country where everybody has the right to express themselves. I really do not understand why Muslims in the Arab world think they can rightfully attack these fundamental principles. Apologies towards religious fanatics should be the last thing Denmark should do!



The Muslims themselves are responsoible themselves for the Islamophobia in Europe. Extreme reactions like these are far more damaging than any cartoon could ever do! But that is something they can not /do not / will not understand. It is never there fault, always somebody elses .... blahblahblahblah.

The reason for publishing the cartoons were that a Danish writer was making a childrens book about Muhammed, but he couldn't get anyone to make drawings for the book, because the artists feared they would be targeted by violent islamists. The paper then decided to publish the cartoons to check if their fears were warranted, and they seem to have been. They did recieve death threats after the cartoons were published.

Do you think the drawings are offensive/hurtful?
They might be, although I don't proclaim to understand why. I have seen a lot more extreme cartoons involving jesus and god, and cartoons about jews in middle eastern islamist countries are a lot more extreme than these Muhammed cartoons could ever be.
People have to realize that in a free society they are going to experience things they don't agree with, and they can't always expect an apology.

Do you feel a boycott is warranted in this case?
Of course I don't, because the premise is, that the Danish government has to punish the paper and apologize to end this boycott. Something it has no possibility of doing. I of course support everyones right to engage in peaceful boycott, and in principle I don't even think we should be doing business with opressive dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, so I am not loosing sleep at night, even though several Danish companies like Novo, Arla and Grundfos are loosing millions of dollars a day in lost sales. I think we should stop buying their oil and turn to alternative energy sources the sooner the better (although we still technically are selfsufficient with oil, I am betting we are buying middle eastern oil too).

Do you feel the Danish newspaper and/or the Danish government should apologize?
No I do not, and I don't think they will. That would be the same as saying, that Denmarks says it was wrong to violate an islamic law, and we should never stipulate to any such thing.

I played with the idea of starting a topic on this issue as well but I didn't think it would interest any one here. Danmark is a small country and its politics usually don't make any waves beyond its own borders.

Those posters who are familiar with my views have noted a 'turn to the right' in later months however and several have commented on it. This issue is one part of the cause of that change in tack. (The other being the birth of my first child).


Yes, and I think this was a part of the reason why they were commisioned and printed. They were meant to hurt in order to provoke a debate.

These images don't hurt me, but I'm not the one they were mean to provoke either.

Jyllandspostens own official explanation as to why they published these drawings is that an author (Kåre Bluitgen), writing a book about Muhammed, for children, was unable to find an illustrator willing to put his/her name to any work that depicted the Prophet Muhammed.

Right here we run into the first problem with Jyllandspostens explanation. The reason why no illustrators would illustrate this book is because every body knows that it is forbid in Islam to portray the prophet Muhammed. Its common knowledge, thus Jyllandsposten knew very well what they were doing, and we all know they know.

But there is still more to this. The real reason why no illustrators would illustrate this book is not because Danish illustrators are sensitive to the religious sensibilities of Muslims, but because of several previous incidents:

The first was in 1989 but is still rellevent today. Salman Rushdie, having written a book, was placed under a fatwa by the Ayatollah of Iran:Link.
This fatwa was bad enough, but what made it all the worse was that it was not ignored by the Muslims of Europe.

Link.
Mohammed Sidique and Sir Iqbal Sacranie are still prominent authority figures in the Muslim community of Great Britain today. By many, they are considered 'moderate Muslims'.

For most Europeans, the controversy surrounding Salman Rushdie soon died away, but the fatwa is still in force since the Ayatollah Khomeini died without retracting it. There have been moves to have it annulled, but this is apparently impossible.

Salman Rushdie issued an apology (in the manner which is demanded by those who protested the Jyllandspostens drawings) but to no avail.

Since 1989, several people have been murdered as a result of the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie. These include several translators and two prominent Muslim clerics who dared to suggest forgiving Salman Rusdie.

Another case which raised the stakes happened here in Denmark. During a lecture at Odense University, a professor, who is Jewish, read aloud several passages from the Koran. For this crime, several young men, of middle eastern appearance beat him up.
This case didn't raise much furor at the time, but it was noted. The police dropped the case due to lack of evidence.

Most appalling and rellevent of all though is that not more than a year previous to the Jyllandsposten affair, a Muslim fanatic murdered the Dutch film maker Theo Van Gogh in broad daylight for having participated in a film project that crticised the way Islam treats women. This incident sent shock waves through out Northern Europe and I can't emphasise enough the effect this killing had. In the Northern European mentality, Holland is widely regarded, fondly, as the bastion of European values. For many Europeans, Holland represents all that is good about Europe.

The Dutch are tolerant, open minded, easy going, apt to forgive others and care deeply for human rights. They have a massive cultural significance on the rest of Europe which goes much deeper than anything political. In my entire life, I have never heard a single person speak ill of the Dutch. Even when reading about the second world war, Holland is always described, by both sides, as being the best place and the friendliest people.

So, for this murder to have happened in Holland as it did, has a far greater significance than it would have had if it had happened any where else. That a Muslim, an outsider, welcomed into the heart of Europe, would, without compassion or regret, brutally murder a man, simply for stating his opinion has caused, I believe, a good many Europeans to reconsider their attitudes towards Islam and the impact this alien religion is now having on Europe.

I would add two further points. The first is very recent. Tim Jensen, an expert on the history of religion at Syddansk University, was consulted by Jyllandsposten, prior to the publication of the drawings and he advised them to think long and hard before going ahead with the project. So, there is no doubt in my mind that Jyllandsposten knew exactly what they were doing and what they were getting in to. This was a deliberate, calculated, provocation undertaken with the purpose of drawing a line in the sand in order to safeguard Danmarks tradition of free speech which many were beginning to feel was under threat.

Also. I am a Danish illustrator. No body asked me to illustrate anything, but I would not have accepted the original book commission simply because religious matters leave me cold.

I support Jyllandsposten and if I'd understood the nature of the drawings they were commisioning (and if they'd asked me) I think I would have undertaken the job.



No. A boycott of Danish companies is out of all proportion to the case in hand. The Danish state has no authority or means to punish Jyllandsposten, nor is it obliged to issue apologies for the remarks of private individuals or companies and most important of all, the Danish government must act in the best interests of the Danish people and it is not in our best interests to give into threats or intimidation by religious groups simply on the basis of their religion.

Jyllandsposten is a Danish newspaper and is thus subject to Danish law. It is not subject to Islamic law and is under no obligation, morally or legally to obey the laws of Islam.

On the other hand... Arla is the largest dairy company in Denmark (& 2nd largest in Europe) and its near monopoly of the dairy products industry is not in the best interests of the Danish people either. If losing 2 billion kroner a year from Saudia Arabia alone is enough to weaken Arla, or even destroy it, then I'll not shed any tears for it.


No.

Apologise for what? It is not illegal in Denmark to have an opinion. It is not even illegal to voice it or make caricature drawings about it. Caricature drawings have been a part of European culture ever since Gutenberg made the first printing press.

If any apology needs to be issued then it is by the imam of København, Abu Laban and the Islamic Faith Society of Denmark for the hate campaign they waged in order to get Jyllandsposten to bow to their ridiculous demands for an apology.

Link.

The Islamic Faith Society deliberately spread lies and disinformation about the matter to the Arab League, the OIC and every other Islamic body they felt would have the authority to enforce their demands. They added extra pictures to further entice anger over the picture and have made claims to represent the Muslims of Denmark, which they don't, and they invented fake Muslim organisations to add weight to their words in the Muslim world.

Of the nearly 180,000 Muslims in Denmark, only 3,500 cared enough about this topic to openly demonstrate it. Many Muslims when asked by the Danish media, disaproved of the drawings and called for an apology, but few supported the Islamic Faith Society's agenda.

Now that this case has led to an international confrontation, Abu Laban and the Islamic Faith Society have tried to distance themselves from the matter, claiming they never had any intention to hurt Denmark's economic interests. Abu Laban has even started pointing the finger at the Muslim Faith Society claiming he had nothing to do with it.

Todays head line at DR news reads;(My translation)


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


If it were only so.

To date, the Swedes, the UN and the EU have all had a go at the 'Islamophobic tone' of the debate in Denmark.

Link.
So much for European unity.

Link.


The Norwegians, one of who's newspapers also printed the images, have apologised and thus caved in to the pressure. It may be worth noting that Norway has a left wing government...
The original article
A translation.

And with regards to countries in the Islamic world understanding the principle of free speech; I am not holding my breath:

Link.


edited for spelling.

edited a second time to add the following:

Today has seen a lot of turbulence.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have recalled their Ambassadors. Libya has shut down its embassy. Iran has lodged a formal complaint. Jordan called in the Danish ambassador, as did several of the smaller Gulf states. Several Islamic organisations have organised demonstrations and a spread of the boycott.

In Denmark, the Liberal Conservatives (the biggest partner in the government) have distanced themselves from remarks made by the Danish Ambassador in Saudi Arabia (He'd said he thought the cartoons were ill conceived)
The nationalist Danish Peoples Party has called for the Danish ambassador in Saudi Arabia to be removed from his post.

The foreign minister, Per Stig Møller has decided to issue new guide lines as to which nations are now considered safe for Danes to travel in.

The opposition parties (mostly a broad spectrum of Socialists) have called for the Prime minister to intervene once again, but the PM, Anders Fogh Rasmussen didn't respond to any of this.
He was busy today accepting President Hamid Karzai's gratitude for Denmarks military and financial aid to Afghanistan. Karzai remarked he hoped the incident was a lesson to the future, but refrained from further comment.

Jyllandsposten was hacked, but is now back online.

There are rumours of death threats and suicide attacks but I've yet to see any real evidence of these.

Renger.

You mentioned support from other nations: Here are a couple of links that might interest you:

Muslim World League calls for UN interventions against disdaining religions

Where is the anger? (blog)

Palestinians burning the Danish flag.

And again....

....and again.

Its odd to see them burning the Danish flag. Now we're on the same level as Israel and the USA ...and all because of twelve cartoon drawings.

The more I read about this issue the more I feel anger and complete contempt for all those Muslims who think they can intimidate Denmark and Western societies. The E.U. and all the other countries in Europe should be ashamed for not openly supporting your country and the principles it stands for Moif.

This is a direct attack on the basic principles of modern western democracies. This is unacceptable What the - - are those people thinking? It clearly shows how completely intolerant they are. Why, why should we want to help these people anymore? Let them choke on their own stupid religious rules, in their own underdevelopped countries. They have no right to force western countries to obey their archaic cultural practises. Acting though and agressive now, and crying for help and yelling discrimination a moment later... I have seen it too many times.

This is a fine example what European societies are facing for a longer time now. Suicide attacks in London and Madrid, Muslim youth fighting authorities and terrorizing neighbourhoods, absurd discussions about burqaas, chadors and niqaabs, Muslims contempt and hatred towards homosexuals, political/religious murders like Van Gogh, intimidating and threatening politicians and moderate/critical/ex- Muslims like Hirsi Ali or Abouthaleb..... and now cartoons.

I am getting so tired of this, and my patience is running very thin. Talking with these people is useless and a waste of time. I would almost argue for a complete ban on anything that reeks like Islamic intolerance.

European countries and the rest of the Western world should form one block against this wave of Islamic extremism that is not only threatening the rest of the world but also our own societies. It is time we take a stance against these ridiculous practises and attitudes.

We worked and fought hard for the societies we created, we should also be ready to defend them against threats like Islamic intolerancy.

Do you think the drawings are offensive/hurtful?

Offence and hurt (the emotional kind, anyway) are subjective.

All sorts of things that are water off this particular duck's back would give grave offence to someone else - something that was brought home to me by something moif mentioned about flag-burning.

I am not in the least bit offended by burned flags of any description - stars & stripes, union jack, welsh dragon; they're all mere bits of cloth that are just symbols of something greater to me. Yet to other people burning of a flag, most often burning of their flag, is a grave and serious offence.

We've seen that very subject debated at some length on these boards - some Americans are deeply offended and disgusted by the burning of the US flag. Other Americans are less concerned, feeling that it is only a symbol and that the act of burning it can be a legitimate expression of protest (even when they disagree with it. But no American I've ever heard of or seen is completely unmoved by seeing their flag burned, the way many Europeans would be.

To Americans, the flag is a real and personal symbol of their own identity in a way it simply is not for most Europeans. A predictable and reliable way to get on US TV News and get your protest coverage in the US media is to burn a US flag (it helps a great deal to be Muslim while doing it) But of these Muslim protestors who burn the Danish flag in this particular dispute, I predict mostly bemused raised eyebrows - there may be many ways to annoy a Dane, but the top of the list is not to burn their flag.

Like moif says, anyone who knows anything at all about Islam knows that any pictorial representation of Mohammed is completely forbidden and utterly to be condemned by all Muslims of good conscience. Let alone cartoons that depict the Prophet in an unflattering light.

A pretty much guaranteed way to annoy Muslims in a way that's seemingly as irrational to non-Muslims as burning the stars and stripes is to non-Americans is to draw unflattering pictures (visually or in words) of Mohammed.

Do you feel a boycott is warranted in this case?

I'm vaguely surprised that it's Kuwait that is making the most fuss, and not a more obviously fundamentalist Islamic country like Saudi Arabia or Iran.

And I personally wouldn't support a boycott, but then it wasn't a calculated insult to my sensibilities, as I'm not a Muslim. I can understand why a boycott is being proposed.

I can see why [m]moif[/b] and renger would be concerned and unpleasantly surprised by this, but to my mind this thing is no different to the whole "freedom fries" anti-French feeling that was deliberately whipped up in the USA in the aftermath of French ooposition to the Iraq War. And with rather more tangible justification on the part of offended Muslims - as moif points out (again), the cartoonists in this particular case must have known exactly what they were stirring up.

Do you feel the Danish newspaper and/or the Danish government should apologize?

The Danish government has absolutely nothing to apologise for (unless perhaps they own the newspaper).

The newspaper, on the other hand, should apologise. Freedom of speech does sometimes give offence by mistake, and freedom of speech does include the ability to do so deliberately, but I don't think that the measure of civilised society is necessarily the ability to deliberately give offence and not suffer any kind of consequences, be that trade sanctions, flag-burning protests in foreign countries, or just lowered circulation of a newspaper that's just demonstrated how down-right ill-mannered it is.

None of this excuses murders or literary agents and translators, honour killings of women, gang rapes or any of the other multifarious crimes of which some Muslims are from time to time accused or guilty, nor does it excuse those Muslims who condone or support such things. But nothing does excuse those things, which is why Western justice systems prosecute and convict in cases where such crimes occur. Western justice systems do not (alas?) have jurisdiction in places that do not prosecute such crimes.

But flag burning and voluntary trade sanctions, however ill-advised or ineffective, and are not yet crimes (despite the best efforts of some US legislators) so just as Muslims are supposed to "suck up" insults to essential tenets of their world-view in the name of artistic freedom, so should people who deliberatley hurl such insults "suck up" the likely legal responses. (I do not suggest they should have to put up with actual indimidation or physical harm.)

Julian.

It may interest you to know that the state prosecutor has already viewed the material published by Jyllandsposten and ruled that it does not violate Denmarks blasphemy laws.

I should add that Denmark has a very liberal attitude towards such things and for my own part I was rather surprised to learn we even had a blasphemy law.

I'm rather disapointed that you feel Jyllandsposten should apologise, especially given your reasoning. I feel that sometimes, in order to get something out in to the open, then you have to speak honestly, but bluntly.

Also if one's opinion is upsetting to other people, then one might otherwise choose to hold one's tongue and say nothing, but then one must accept the culture of silence that grows up around to eventually envelope one.

I feel Jyllandsposten has done Denmark a service in this matter (and the majority of Danes feel the same way if the polls are to be believed. There is already a culture of silence surrounding the actions and statements made by the Islamic world. Both in the Middle East and here in Europe and it is high time the silence was shattered.

In the last five years or more we have seen an ever escalating aggression from the Muslim world, targetting innocent people all across Europe and the world in return for events and actions these people have no influence over at all. We've seen the most foul examples of murder carried out against men, women and children and time and again had nothing from the Islamic world but accusations of western Islamophobia.

Whilst we witness Muslims murdering, rioting and raping, we tolerate this behaviour as the actions of a 'lunatic fringe', but all the while the vast majority of Muslims remain silent and aloof.

Where, for example, is all this Islamic anger when school children are butchered by Muslims in Russia? when Muslim terrorists blow up buses and trains in Madrid and London?

How is it possible that 12 drawings can bring forth so much Muslim condemnation but Achmadinajad's call for the destruction of Israel merits not one murmur of protest?

How is that people like Mohammed Sidique and Sir Iqbal Sacranie are interviewed on BBC radio 4 as if they were normal sane human beings who had never supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie?

Perhaps the answer to this lies not in Europe, but closer to the heart of the problem?

Link.


Also. I don't care if people burn the Danish flag. I am merely bemused that it took so little for the Palestinians to turn upon Scandinavians. You see, it doesn't matter to these people whether or not we are guilty of anything. We have all been judged guilty by association. All Scandinavians have been ordered out of Gaza, immedietely, on pain of death. Even the Swedes despite that no Swedish newspaper published the drawings and several held the same opinion you have just expressed with regards to the need for an apology.

The sad irony of this is that for decades the Palestinians have been more than happy to make use of Denmarks liberal laws to publish their own constant stream of anti Israeli and anti western propaganda and no one ever threatened them to apologise.

I guess its not as much fun when for once, Islam is the butt of free speech.

Do you think the drawings are offensive/hurtful?

I have no idea, I can barely see them or get a feel for their portrayal. I think they are very benign and frivolous tho in the whole realm of hateful, hurtful things said or done that warrant international condemnation and attention. In fact considering all the hateful, hurtful things happening in the world and the Muslim nations choose this issue to unite on is kind of hateful and hurtful in and of itself.

Do you feel a boycott is warranted in this case?

I guess anyone can boycott anything. I just have a problem with it being pursued through government channels. I think this is a real inappropriate means and manner of addressing the issue. The government of Denmark is not responsible, nor should be treated as such or expected to suffer as such.

Do you feel the Danish newspaper and/or the Danish government should apologize?
Only if the newspaper feels they should, no one should make them. And I don't feel the Danish gov should apologize for having a free press ...what the press does and what independent papers do is no business of the government, least in functioning, progressive and liberal nations.

Me too, as it goes - I thought that Britain, with our established church, was the only EU country that still bothered with such anachronisms. And it's easy for me to say, not being religious, but my preference would be to abolish the legal protections that remain for Christianity than extend them to outher faiths, given that I personally think they are all nonsense, but that's probably just me.

Though if Danish blasphemy laws are anything like British ones, it's no surprise that blasphemies against Islam are found to be legal, since our blasphemy laws exclusively protect Christianity.

I'm rather disapointed that you feel Jyllandsposten should apologise, especially given your reasoning. I feel that sometimes, in order to get something out in to the open, then you have to speak honestly, but bluntly.

Bluntness usually gives offence, even if accidentally. I cannot think that it would have been impossible to speak harsh truths to Muslims about the numerous cultural flaws that they have imported from their home countries* by addressing those habits themselves, rather than deliberately choosing a target that is axiomatically provoking to any practising Muslim.

*and let's not get into the same old discussion about how few of them are actually Islamic or Koranic in origin, how honour killings and genital mutilation are more centred on their geogrpahic origins and not on the religion of the people who carry them out, etc

Also if one's opinion is upsetting to other people, then one might otherwise choose to hold one's tongue and say nothing, but then one must accept the culture of silence that grows up around to eventually envelope one.

It isn't an either / or choice. One might choose to express one's opinion without being deliberately insulting. If terrorism, honour killings and gang rapes are the problem, as you repeatedly say they are, then why not draw cartoons of rapists, suicide bombers and knife-wielding male relatives? Why pick on Mohammed? Especially as he's about the only Islamic target that's absolutely cast-iron guaranteed to completely overshadow any political message in righteous indignation.

Nobody now remembers The Satanic Verses for anything except the 'insults' to Mohammed. I doubt very much that more than a tiny fraction of the outraged Muslims actually bothered to read it, and Rushdie (being a lapsed Muslim himself) knew perfectly well what was likely to be the response when he wrote it. He may not have expected the state-sponsored death threats he received, but he certainly would not have expected pan-Islamic adulation.

The point is, any message he may have had about the ills of Islamic societies will have been lost because he put in into a book with something so outrageous to Muslim sensibilities that he cannot possible have expected it to be taken seriously or read with open minds.

These cartoons are the same. Unless the artists and their publishers were colossally stupid - which seems unlikely - they must have known that the only message that would be picked up by the Muslim community in Denmark or anywhere else was not suitable for repetition on a family website such as .

From a freedom of speech perspective, one is certainly free to call people names or tell them where one thinks they shoud go and the manner in which they should travel, up to and including aerial copulation with rotating pastries. But one should not then be surprised if the lucky recipients of such fragrant missives take less than kindly to them.

I feel Jyllandsposten has done Denmark a service in this matter (and the majority of Danes feel the same way if the polls are to be believed. There is already a culture of silence surrounding the actions and statements made by the Islamic world. Both in the Middle East and here in Europe and it is high time the silence was shattered.

I couldn't agree more. But shouldn't we start out politely, since our culture is supposedly so much more civilised and advanced than theirs is? This is the equivalnt to tying a letter to a housebrick and throwing it at the intended recipient. The letter may have some pithy things to say, but nobody will ever read it because they'll be trying to stop the bleaading the brick caused when it cracked them on the skull, and looking for something to throw back. Sure, the people of Denmark (who all apparently think the same way) have got the attention of the Muslim world, but are they listening? I very much doubt it.

In the last five years or more we have seen an ever escalating aggression from the Muslim world, targetting innocent people all across Europe and the world in return for events and actions these people have no influence over at all. We've seen the most foul examples of murder carried out against men, women and children and time and again had nothing from the Islamic world but accusations of western Islamophobia.

So talk about that. Draw cartoons about that. Publish them. What does Mohammed have to do with that?

Whilst we witness Muslims murdering, rioting and raping, we tolerate this behaviour as the actions of a 'lunatic fringe', but all the while the vast majority of Muslims remain silent and aloof.

Why shouldn't they. When a white Danish man rapes a Danish woman, do you prostrate yourself in abject apology at your own guilt? No, of course not, because you haven't raped anybody. Silence is silence, not evidence of silent support or silent condemnation. Nobody knows what the silent majority of Muslims think, and more than any other silent majority.

Where, for example, is all this Islamic anger when school children are butchered by Muslims in Russia? when Muslim terrorists blow up buses and trains in Madrid and London?

Here, here, here, here,
here, here,
and here.

That's just a small selection I got from Googling "muslim condemnation of..." and adding "terrorism", "Chechen terrorism", "July 7 attacks", and "honour killings". I daresay that had I Googled "Muslim support for..." and the same things I'd have got as many links. But it is sheer folly to pretend that apparent Muslim silence over Muslim-led outrages is a function of Muslim support for them and not Western media ignorance or exclusion of stories that don't sell newspapers or increase ratings in our increasingly paranoid and xenophobic countries.

But I'm not sure what this line of argument is supposed to achieve. We're talking about cartoons that insult Islam itself, not just Islamic terrorists, rapists and murderers. Why should we expect "good" Muslims to join us in condemning things we don't like if we can't tell the difference between insulting "good" and "bad" Muslims? It's not like there have been any formal Rushdie-style fatwa death threats against the cartoonists or the publishing newspaper. (At least not yet.)

Isn't this in itself a sign of some small degree of progress in the Islamic world? Rushdie got death threats, and now we're tlaking about possible trade sanctions. Isn't that a small advance? (I concede it is pretty small. At this rate, we might get to the point of someone being able to make a film like Life of Brian about Islam in about 150 years with outrage only comparable to the levels the Python team faced in 1979/80)

How is it possible that 12 drawings can bring forth so much Muslim condemnation but Achmadinajad's call for the destruction of Israel merits not one murmur of protest?

Beats me.

How is that people like Mohammed Sidique and Sir Iqbal Sacranie are interviewed on BBC radio 4 as if they were normal sane human beings who had never supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie?

Again, it beats me.


You didn't seem to have any trouble finding articles where Muslims condemn Muslim extremism either. So why aren't we seeing such messages in our media, to give us a fuller picture of the Muslims that live and work alongside us? Whose interests are served by only giving us a picture of Muslims as wild-eyed fanatics bent on murder, rape and destruction? Muslims themselves? Hardly.

Also. I don't care if people burn the Danish flag. I am merely bemused that it took so little for the Palestinians to turn upon Scandinavians. You see, it doesn't matter to these people whether or not we are guilty of anything. We have all been judged guilty by association. All Scandinavians have been ordered out of Gaza, immedietely, on pain of death. Even the Swedes despite that no Swedish newspaper published the drawings and several held the same opinion you have just expressed with regards to the need for an apology.

Yeah, well, clearly Danish newspaper editors do not have the monopoly on cultural ignorance and sweeping bigotry.

The sad irony of this is that for decades the Palestinians have been more than happy to make use of Denmarks liberal laws to publish their own constant stream of anti Israeli and anti western propaganda and no one ever threatened them to apologise.

Really? I daresay there are plenty of Israelis that thought that way, but - again - this wouldn't have sold many newspapers in Denmark since, like most other parts of Western Europe, Danes have historically not be reflexively Zionist. American comments along the same lines, despite their constitutionally protected freedom of speech, would not have been so blithely tolerated.

I guess its not as much fun when for once, Islam is the butt of free speech.
This is the nub of the problem. Islam is not bombing or raping anyone, any more than Catholicism is abusing any children in it's care, African tribal Christianity is drowning and dismembering children in the Thames because they are 'witches', Buddhism and Hinduism are bombing the crud out of one another in Sri Lanka, and so on.

Muslims are doing the killing and the raping. Catholics are doing the kiddie-fiddling. African animist-Christians are chopping up their kids. Buddhists and Hindus are knock lumps out of each other on an island that could and should be paradise.

Criticise and satirise the idiots doing things in the name of a religion, by all means. (I'm British, for heaven's sake, it's in my nature to laugh at the things I am afraid of or don't understand ) You might just make some sense to a few of them. But if their lunacy is justified to themselves by their religion, rightly or wrongly, and if their religion is something about which they will brook no dissent, then criticising their religion and not them is not going to produce a happy outcome.

They are idiots, after all.

With hind sight I think Carlsen missed out an important question regarding this matter and that is; What happens when two fundamental human rights collide with each other? Does one take precedence over the other?

Here we have one side arguing that these drawings are protected by the principle of freedom of speech whilst on the other hand we have the argument that they violate the principle of freedom of religion.

This question has been debated today by the EU council of ministers who have, so far, been unable to tackle it. Here is a (translated) article from todays DR news.

(My translation.) Link.

So much for European solidarity. Obviously our principles are only worth defending it our defence doesn't cost us any money. And too bad for the EU really, because it looks like, in some quarters, they are already guilty by association:

Link.

Norway isn't even a member of the EU.

In the meanwhile, cooler heads in the Islamic world are trying to use non violent methods of approaching the situation;

Link.

Its going to be interesting to see if that resolution is passed. If it is it basically means the end of Denmarks free speech laws.

In my opinion, the concept of freeing religion from criticism is nothing short of a giant step back to the high middle ages, but I guess, given the spineless attitudes on display here in Europe on this issue, a return to the days of the Hanseatic league and its sponsorship of religious fundamentalism is a real possibility.

I'm glad at least some one has, at last, taken the plunge and initiated the debate however and proud that the original initiative has come right here from Århus.

Its been long over due and its a shame it has to be this way but since our political leadership prefers to hide its head in the sand whilst the freedoms previous generations fought so hard to create are gradually whittled away then its up to the media and to private citizens to do what must be done. Enough is enough.

The people of Scandinavia didn't struggle so long and so hard to free themselves of the religious tyranny of the Christians just to let the Muslims, with their archaic sharia customs simply turn the clock back eight hundred years.

Because rapists, suicide bombers and knife-wielding male relatives are constantly in the media and make no impact on our Muslim community.

I believe the subject matter was chosen because it was going to provoke a response. Only by direct provocation was this matter ever going to get enough momentum to cause a debate. Nothing else has worked. Sometimes, you have to tell it like it is, even if you don't want to. When Charles Darwin formulated his theory of evolution he kept it to himself for as long as possible because he didn't want to upset the Christian world view. Why? What purpose did that serve?

Galileo Galilei told it like he saw it and we all know what happened to him at the hands of his religious masters. And do you suppose that when Martin Luther called upon the church to reform if he'd done so in a respectfull polite manner, anything would have happened?

Jyllandsposten does not sit in the lofty presence of these historical figures, but the principle behind the cartoons is the same.


What?

Do you really suppose that this is the beginning of the matter? that the debate in Denmark, amongst the Danes, has not been ongoing for years, even decades now? That a polite and respectful dialogue has not been attempted, many, many times and all to no result? This is not just a simple matter of some Danish journalists being rude Julian. This overture comes in the wake of a very long, barren debate, which in turn has followed murders, gang rapes and even riots and all to no avail.

After some fifteen or twenty years of trying to bridge the gaps what we've been rewarded with is our imam's calling our women sluts, whores and responsible for their own rapes. Abu Laban, the leading voice in calling for the international response against Denmark is a constant figure in the Danish media. His 'polite' contribution to the debate consists in constant attacks against Denmark, western civilisation and democratic values. His colleague, the imam of Odense (I forget his name) has rejected the notion of democracy and free speech entirely asking, "of what use are these to Muslims?". He also excused Muslim rapists, blaming Danish women for being prostitutes for not wearing what he considers appropriate clothing. Hows that for polite?

The problem is, there is no debate from the Muslim side. When asked, the leaders of the Islamic community here complain bitterly about Islamophobia, about the tone of the debate, about Danish racism but when ever a Muslim commits a crime, be it rape, murder or what have you, they won't say a single bad thing against them. On the contrary, they will assure their congregations, even boldly, to TV camera's, that its not really a crime to kill or rape an unbeliever.

When Theo Van Gogh was murdered, it wasn't just his murder that shocked Denmark, it was also the way our own Muslim community expressed satisfaction in it, even while they were distancing themselves from violence. We had Muslims on televions saying things like "I don't believe in violence, but I believe Van Gogh got what he deserved" or "Van Gogh was provocating Muslims so it was his wn fault."

His own fault Julian. Tell me what you think that means!

Say something these people don't like and they'll stone cold kill you. They won't apologise for anything, not insults, nor rape, nor riots, nor murder or massacres, but you hurt their feelings and they'll murder you.


Except there is no brick and no bleeding. Drawings don't hurt any one and all ths rubbish about hurting people's feelings is the sort of double standards which has led to the drawings being published in the first place.

Our Muslim community largely looks on in indifference (or often glee) as their young men rape European women, as suicide bombers kill communters in London and Madrid, whilst christian children are massacred in Beslan and Indonesia. They make no protest against the murderous actions of the many Islamic terrorist groups. Indeed, millions of kroner every month are moved out of Denmark to support these terrorists.

But.

Draw an image of Muhammed, and you've 'hurt their feelings...'


I'll tell you what Muhammed has to do with them. They were all carried out in his name.

Insha Allah. There is no god but God and Muhhamed is his prophet.

You can deny the connection if you want to, but its there, as plain as the nose on your face. Only one thing connects all the murders and terrorism. Only one thing connects these Syrians, Palestinians, Malaysians, Libyans, Egyptians, Kuwaiti's, Indians, Brits, Danes, Americans. Only one thing unites them.

Islam.


Ahh, so I see its really just our fault for not wanting to hear them?

Of course.

Its odd though, that of all the Muslim MP's in Denmark, and all the as yet unelected Muslim party politicians, not one has made any comment on this matter.

Sure you can Google up muslim condemnation of what ever atrocity you wish for. So what? Words are cheap. Its actions that matter. I've heard Mohammed Siddique interviewed on BBC 4 several times and every time he has said exactly what the interviewer wanted. The right thing.

That doesn't change the fact that he would like to kill Salman Rushdie.

"Van Gogh was provocating Muslims so it was his own fault."



I don't care about condemnation. I want DEBATE, preferably with results.


And who are the good and who are the bad Muslims Julian?

You point them out to us so we know who to talk to.


Yeah, but I'll be dead in 150 years and so, probably will my daughter.

I don't want to live in a nation which is gripped by fear of reprisals by Muslims. I don't want to be slaughtered in the street because I drew a drawing. I could quite easily be asked to draw an image that some how offends some extremist hot head who might just be living two streets away from me. I'm an aetheist illustrator. Why the zarking photon should I have to obey obscure religious laws that mean nothing to me?

I don't want my daughter to have to wear a hijab in case she gets raped either.

I don't want to wait 150 years for the Islamic community of Denmark to start acting like Danes. They chose to come here and they must abide by our morality, not the other way around.


I spend a lot of time researching things that interest me, so every so often I come across Muslims, here in Denmark as well as the outside world, who are appalled by what they are seeing happening in Islam. But for every one of these I come across tens, possibly hundreds of Muslims who are apparently quite satisfied with how Islam is.

And usually (as in nearly always) these moderate Muslim voices are posted on western media sites. They belong to Muslims who hold positions in western institutions and organisations. They are supported and held up by the western media as examples of Muslims who disagree with the entrenched Islamic position.

Little help it does them.

It isn't the western media that ignores these Muslims. Its the other Muslims who don't listen, don't care or get their weekly does of anti western agitprop from their local imam.


You know what Julian...?

I don't care.

I just don't have the time to sort out the silver from the dross. I have my own life to get on with. Like most Danes I am sick to the back teeth of the constant lecturing and moral posturing that admonishes us for not knowing the difference between the good and the bad Muslims.

The truth is, I can't see any difference between them. As I said earlier in this thread Mohammed Sidique and Sir Iqbal Sacranie are considered 'moderate Muslims', but dig a little deeper and its plainly obvious that they're not anything remotely what I'd consider 'moderate'. Moderates don't advocate murder.

I look at our own domestic Muslim MP's and whats most obvious about them is their silence.

Who is a 'good Muslim'? the one who agree's with me? the one who says nothing?

I have two developments to share as I have been following this story...

A poll shows that a large majority of Danes feel there is no need to apologize and are in fact against the idea.

The Danish government has broad public backing for it stance on the cartoons. An opinion poll showed that 79 percent of Danes think Fogh Rasmussen should not issue an apology and 62 percent say the newspaper should not apologize.
source

I think the favoring towards the Paper's apology is because the Danes live in a free society and understand the principle of freedom of the press that they also understand the lack of responsibility and role the government of Denmark played in the publishing of these cartoons.

Also moif you keep highlighting the lack of support EU has offered Denmark but I hope you are wrong, I hope the EU does stand up for freedom of speech, of the press, of political dialogue and freedom of religion. Because if one thing separates our form of government from the others more than anything else it is these principles.

I offer this comment from the EU Trade Chief in the hopes the EU will do the right thing.

EU trade chief Peter Mandelson met a Saudi minister at a meeting in the Swiss mountain resort of Davos on Sunday and "urged the minister to convey the seriousness of this issue to his government," his spokesman said.

"Any boycott of Danish goods would be seen as a boycott of European goods," said spokesman Peter Power.
source


EDITED TO ADD:

I found this for anyone interested in seeing the cartoons....
Face of Muhammed

Thanks for the link, bucket.

Now I revise my opinion.

And, in all cases, the only reason that Muslims are able to take such umbrage is that someone has labelled each drawing with the word "Muhammed". Without that - they are just brown-skinned men in turbans, which are not a universal symbol of Islam anyway - indeed, the angry-looking fellow with the curved dagger look's more like a Sikh - without the two women in burqas and the caption, you'd be hard pressed to know which religion was supposed to take offence.

The captioning, then, makes it abundantly clear that it's supposed to be Muhammed and therefore that it's supposed to give offence.

I'm sorry, but while I (grudingly) support the right of people to be deliberately obnoxious and rude, I can't say I'm going to shed any tears at any legal recourse that is taken by the people being so calculatedly provoked. (And so far, all of the responses to these cartoons have been legally ok so far as I can tell from the coverage here and elsewhere.)

But from my own secular Western perspective, these cartoons is that they aren't funny, and they don't say anything new or interesting.

Chris Riddell is a much better cartoonist, IMO. Better draughtsmanship, pithier points AND reliably funny. And not dim enough to confuse his targets with their beliefs.

Thats an interesting response Julian because what your essentially saying is you accept any legal backlash against these drawings but you don't accept that the drawings have any validity because you disaprove of them for, apparently aesthetic reasons.

I've seen other people make similar arguments about 'The Satanic Versus', (indeed you touched upon it yourself earlier) and about Theo Van Gogh's film. There seems to be some idea that since these works of art do not live up to a personal idea of easthetic validity, then they can be dismissed in a manner which appears to excuse what ever reaction they promote.

With regards to the value of Chris Riddell's 'much better' cartoons, I would point out that although his draughtsmanship may be superior, the context of his work is not as transparent outside his audience as you appear to believe. I don't understand half those drawings and none of them strike me as amusing except the tory wolf in sheeps clothing (...and I listen to BBC radio every day)

All political caricature exists within a cultural and political landscape and what appears to be meaningless, uninteresting or just not funny to you, does so because you do not have the cultural experience to understand the 'joke', if indeed there even is a joke.


Surely you already knew this since you made mention of the fact that I had said as much in my original post...?

This was ALWAYS about whether or not we, in Denmark, are allowed to draw the face of Mohammed. That is why the drawings are labelled.


The issue here is not the legal responses though.

The Danish/Norwegian dairy company Arla which has nothing to do with this matter is losing 10 million kroner day in lost earnings, but thats not my problem. Its not fair on them, I really don't give a toss about Arla.

The issue (as far as I am concerned) is the threat to the principle of freedom of speech. You might not see any threat in this matter but I can assure you it is real enough. Several prominent Muslim organisations are now attempting to establish a UN resolution which would forbid, not only such drawings as these but also anything which is deemed to make a mockery of, or criticize any religion.

At the same time, the Danish government is being pressured by many powerful organizations and people to apologise for something which, even you admit they do not have to apologise for. The Norwegian government has already apologised.
Today, even Bill Clinton joined in the choir of condemnation, comparing these drawings to the anti semitic history of Europe.

Its funny how the drawing of 12 pictures can have our entire country labelled 'shamefull' by some one like Bill Clinton and yet we are urged, by all and sundry not to regard all Muslims as bad.

But of course, we're held to a different standard because we're supposed to be 'better than them'.

Most poigniant of all though is the original matter of self censorship. If we are too scared to draw a picture of Mohammed, or anything or any one else, lest we be murdered, then that is as real a threat to the freedom of speech which we hold so dear.

That is what this is all about.

Also. Not all the responses have been legal. There have been several death threats made, cyber attacks (Jyllandsposten has been down all day), stones have been thrown at Danish trucks in the middle east and Arla employee's beaten up.
An EU office was 'bum rushed' by Palestinian gun men and all Scandinavians have been told to leave Gaza or suffer the consequences.

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


In the mean time, one of our domestic Muslim MP's has finally made a political move. Here is a translation from DR news:
(translated) Link.

So... if this is the kick start to a domestic initiative by the Muslims of Denmark, then it looks like the drawings might finally have the intended effect after all.

Too bad it took Khader four months to get in gear but I'm not going to complain about that now he's moving. I'm just glad he's finally decided to earn his pay.

Excellent.

It’s the end of the month. Gonna make it quick.

Do you think the drawings are offensive/hurtful?
The Wiki article’s illustration was a tad small. Bucket’s blog link is better. I have to say no, the pictures aren’t offensive. Or if you prefer, they are offensive to some and so what?

The art community has been asking itself “is it art” since everyday household items began wasting display space at art museums. To my chagrin and probably others, aesthetics no longer applies in some cases. With that out of the way...

I can see how the cartoons may offend Muslims. Again I ask, so what? If the only thing free speech in the form of art or literature does is provide the point of ignition for outrage among literalists there is a small chance some of that frenetic energy may turn to self-evaluation before it burns out. I’m not worried if it offends moderate Muslims. A healthy dose of cynicism that spreads like a cold immunizes religious people of any belief against the worst among their members.

Do you feel a boycott is warranted in this case?
That’s up to the boycotter to decide.

Do you feel the Danish newspaper and/or the Danish government should apologize
The newspaper should no more apologize for printing the cartoons than NBC affiliates need to apologize for airing The Book of Daniel, a few of which received death threats for making the mistake of being party to a depiction of Jesus who doesn't breathe fire and brimstone on gays.

Well, it seems that the paper have caved in and issued an unconditional apology for offending muslims, although it should be noted, that they do not apologize for the act of printing the drawings, since they believe they have that right.

Nevertheless I am quite disappointed by this change of stance from the paper. Although they paper is not one I usually agree with or support, I had hoped they would have more backbone than this, and I think, judging by various polls, that most Danes agree with me.

The real reason I think the paper chooses to issue this apology now is not because they truly feel sorry. It is because they fear that they will be hold responsible when the first violent acts occur against Danes abroad or here in Denmark by violent muslims - of course only by loony extremists, primarily on the left, but they don't want to risk even that. I wish they would have.

I usually vote left of center, but the "cave-in" attitude of the leftist parties in Denmark and the left-wing Norwegian government (which I otherwise support) on this matter and on radical islam in general is sickening. If anything I believe that the liberalism I stand for is the anti-thesis of organized religion such as islam, yet most left-wingers are afraid to criticize islam and they call other people racists when they do.

Totally irrelevant to this discussion, but I actually got physically ill yesterday watching people threaten Danes, burning Danish flags and talk about the "great crime we commited" - not because I feel offended by anything they did, that would by hypocricy, but because I lost a big part of my faith in humanity seeing that 12 drawings can cause such an unbelievable amount of hatred to flourish. Its simply so irrational that I cannot fully comprehend it - it simply does not compute. If something so innocent can trigger this reaction, what will it take to trigger world war 3? 24 drawings?

Carlsen.

I know how you feel. I just watched a Saudi Arabian news editor being interviewed on TV2. Apparently the apology by Jyllandsposten is not enough for the Saudi's and the man being interviewed insisted that nothing short of new Danish laws to limit freedom of speech would satisfy Saudi Arabia.

When asked what would end the boycott, he replied, in all seriousness, that Denmark should 'allow more intellectual dialogue, should allow the Danish public to be exposed to the Prophet Muhammed and to the Koran'.

Reading the apology by Jyllandsposten I think whats happened here is the paper has fallen on its sword in order to provoke further debate. That an apology should happen now can't be a coincidence and I think whats going to happen now is that a good many Danes are going to feel as you have. I think Carsten Juste is covering his bases of course, but I think he is doing it in such a way that will generate the most sympathy for his cause amongst the general Danish population.

Its going to be interesting to see how the apology affects the middle east. If the Saudi commentator is anything to judge by then its not going to make any difference and since the news that the Iraqi Muhajideen has warned of imminent attacks against Danish targets then we'll see for ourselves.

The bolded section reminds me of this thread.

Was Holland, like France, in the habit of practicing politically correct censorship before the Muslim diaspora?


IMO it looks like Hitler's ghost haunts Europe still, and regardless of good intentions, once the state is in the business of playing referee to make sure no one gets offended it is bound to backfire on the state when new groups join the game. I'm trying to figure out why Europe facillitates Muslim demands. This care taken to make sure no one is offended is my best guess.

Coupled with moif's citation of the Danish Muslim MP's comments, I think that's all that was ever necessary - the right to freedom of speech* is maintained, but the newspaper recognises that this caused serious offence and apologises for any caused outside of the specific intended context of the debate.

The Danish government doesn't need to get involved, and any Muslim leaders still fomenting some kind of retaliatory action are taking the mickey. Job's a good 'un.

I think the right to freedom of speech is absolute, with the usual 'fire in crowded theatre' qualifications, but I also think that people should feel free to condemn, and to react in any legal way to, gratuitously offensive speech.

It seems to me that, for the most part - excepting the few (happily) cases of law-breaking - this is exactly what has happened.

I hope (but don't necessarily expect) that this will be the end of the matter.

Not that I am aware of. Holland is very liberal about freedom of speech as far as I know.


Well, sure some states like Germany and France to a lesser degree have laws limiting freedom of speech regarding nazism, but that is hardly relevant to this case, since Denmark doesn't have any such laws. We have an extremely small nazi party here in Denmark (about 40-50 members) which even have their own radio station (don't know if they still do). They can say just about anything they please, as long as it isn't overtly racist, and nobody really cares. They are a laughingstock here in Denmark, and nobody gives them the time of day. Of course there are limits - they can not advocate racial violence and such, but then again, maybe they can. The islamist organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir recently distributed leaflets here in Denmark advocating murder of jews and Danish soldiers in Iraq, but a criminal case against them was dropped, probably out of fear of antagonizing muslims. Hizb-ut-Tahrir is banned in Germany btw.

Events have unfurled in a fairly predictable manner. After Jyllandsposten apologised the Danish Muslims expressed their satisfaction, until that is they saw the continued reaction in the Middle East. Now, the Islamic Faith Society is calling for another apology before it will work with the Danish authorities in order to end the boycott against Denmark. This stance echos several of the governments of Arabic/Muslim nations who have called for the Danish state to issue an official apology. Many have even demanded the Danish Queen make such an apology.

There have been numerous death and bomb threats. Jyllandspostens building, here in Århus was cleared yesterday after a telephoned bomb threat.

In Palestine, more flag burnings have taken place and Danish PM Anders Fogh Rasmussen's portrait was burned along side GW Bush and Ehud Olmert.

The al aqsa martyrs brigade have issued several threats regarding Danish targets to be shot and/or bombed and Danish TV has shown large crowds in Gaza chanting "War on Denmark, Death to Denmark".

In Iraq a fatwa has been issued against the Danish troops stationed with the British in the vicinity of Basra and one person has already been killed (& 14 injured) in a bomb blast against six christian churchs said to be a direct retaliation to the cartoons. Christian students at the University in Mosul were threatened and beaten. Muslim students yelled "this is for the blasphemies of your Danish fellow believers." ...(details are still sketchy on these)

In Sweden an Assyrian/Swedish journalist and film maker called Nuri Kino has described the cartoons as an 'act of war' and welcomed the reactions.

In Britain, a government initiative to make changes to the controversial Racial and Religious Hatred Bill has been overtunred:Link.

In the USA, an blog movement appears to be promoting the purchasing of Danish produce as a reaction to the Muslim/Arabic boycott has gotten underway.

The German newspaper Die Welt has followed the French by printing the controversial images. They are apparently also promoting the sale of T shirts supporting Denmark.

Last, but not least I came across this site which shows how common images of Mohammed really are.
Not only have such artists as Rodin, Blake, Doré and Dali portrayed Mohammed in the past, but apparently it is possible to buy images of Mohammed from street vendors in the streets of Tehran...

If this is true, then just what is the fuss really about?



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

Hitler's ghost most certainly does haunt Europe.

Europe facilitates Muslim demands because we have no choice. If our society's are to be free then that freedom must extend to every one who lives here. Even the weirdo's who are bent on destroying everything we believe in.

I asked Julian earlier on which are the good Muslims and which are the bad ones. Its an unfair question of course since no one can answer it but it is essentially the reason why Europe facilitates Muslim demands, because we don't know which are which. We have to treat every one the same because if we don't then we are treating innocent people badly. This means a lot of people with unscrupulous designs against us have an advantage over us.

Take for example two prominent Danish Muslims I've mentioned before in this thread, the Danish MP Naser Khader and the Copengahen based imam, Abu Laban.

Naser Khader is a fairly popular politician belonging to the centralist Radical Party (opposition) who, due to his background and current position as an elected politician, ought be a prominent leader for the Muslims of Denmark, but who isn't. His current inititiative (now some two months old) to advance the cause of Danish Muslims supporting democracy and Danish values has so far gathered a pitiful 109 supporters. (Though some sources put his supporters at 130)

Abu Laban on the other hand is an unelected cleric who (unlike Khader) either cannot speak a word of Danish or chooses not to. He is the leader of the Islamic Faith Society whose membership is said to be 15,000+
When interviewed by the Danish media he explains (in English) that he never intended for a boycott against Denmark and intends to do all he can to end it.
When interviewed by Al Jazeera however, with its audience of 50 million, Abu Laban said:
(my translation) Link.

Naser Khader, having watched Abu Laban's interview with Al Jazeera pointed out that Abu Laban made no move to stop the boycott. On the contrary, Abu Laban deliberately encouraged what he called 'the positive boycott' of Denmark to continue.

Through out this entire issue Abu Laban and the Islamic Faith Society have waged a deliberate campaign of misinformation and direct lies in order to create a dichotomy which ultimately serves their own extremist Islamic agenda and this is the problem of which I spoke. Abu Laban is widely supported by the Danish Muslim minority where as Naser Khader is a lone voice often described by other Muslims as a 'cultural Muslim' (by which they mean he is only a Muslim when it suits him to be.)

The problem we face in Denmark is much the same as the problem we see right across Europe. No matter what the Muslims say, their own actions characterise them as a threat to our society. Muslim leaders who support integration or who advocate adopting a western approach to civil liberties and human rights are widely considered by the Muslim communities as fringe elements, or even in some extreme cases (such as with Ayaan Hirsi Ali) traitors who must die for their blasphemic opinions.

When Abu Laban and the other imams have so much support, despite their obvious (and years long) anti Danish/western stance then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that our Muslim minorities are opposed to those democratic cultural values which they perceive as an insult to their own.

Another aspect of this can be seen in France where the newspaper France Soir having published the drawings (and added its own) had an interview with an Egyptian born Muslim scholar who pointed out that most Muslims feel their Islamic laws should be valid in Europe because they believe that Europe, with its circa 20 million Muslims, now belongs in the 'Islamic world'. (This information came from a TV source and I have not been able to find any reference to it online. No doubt it is French and I do not speak French)

Whats worst of all about all this is its actually working. The Islamic Faith Society's tactics are paying off.
Herbert Pundik, the former editor in chief of the Danish newspaper Politiken has gone on record as promoting the idea that the people of Denmark should build a mosque in Copenhagen as a sign of good will towards Islam. The Grand Mayor of Copenhagen, Ritt Bjerregaard, has voiced her agreement with this idea, saying the City Council would be happy to find a good site for such a mosque.

Link.

It should be noted that the building of Danish state funded mosques has been a demand of the Islamic Faith Society for years. They regard the Danish state's support of the Christian church as discriminatory against Islam. Most Muslims and many Danes agree with this, but there is a considerable unwillingness in Denmark to subsidize Islam with tax payers money.

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

Enough of Hitlers ghost.

Time for a cup of tea I think...







edited to add a missing link.

Do you think the drawings are offensive/hurtful?
To Muslims it most likely, but since just about everything offends them, so what.

Most of the newspapers in Muslim countries routinely print like drawings against Christianity and Judaism, what is the difference?

The Muslim communities seem to feel free to insult every other society on the planet, but we don't dare say anything or they will be 'offended'.

Do you feel a boycott is warranted in this case?
Of the Muslim countries, yes, Denmark, absolutely not.

Do you feel the Danish newspaper and/or the Danish government should apologize?
Nope, but they have caved already. It has escalated already. All Danes and Norwegians have been ordered out of Gaza or they will be killed. So their apology will do no go.

Guess all the EU aid, especially from Denmark and Norway has created a high level of good will along the Palestinians.

Can anyone on this list shed some light on why a cartoon is more offensive to a Muslim than a Muslim that blows up innocent Muslims at a Muslim Wedding?

It's called hypocrisy, John Doe, but as is normally the case, people can't see it themselves.

I'm interested to see if this will bring the US, Canada and Europe closer together. Any thoughts on that?

It is with this note that I shall give my opinion on the matter.

I don't really think its necessary as the earlier posts of Julian and Victoria Silverwolf got my basic ideas just fine.

..but maybe I can bring something to the debate.

Like a good answer to the above question.

Muslims are people, just like you and me, the majority good and descent as people usually go.

So, like duh a terrorist killing innocent people in the name of their religion (which expressly forbids said actions) is likely to be more offensive that merely portraying a man they believe to be God's greatest prophet as a terrorist.

That said, both are plenty offensive.

Does that justify anger and protest?
You bet.

Does that justify, boycotts and diplomatic repercussions?
No, the Danish government is not responsible for this.
Does that justify threats of violence?
Of course not, that is more insulting to Islam than the cartoons themselves.

The paper did the right thing by issuing that apology.

Freedom of Speech is a law and a pillar of good government.

Courtesy is a virtue and should be a pillar of any good society.