I don't think we have any discussion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons....

xpost: M White, honestly, I don't think it's easy to read the Qur'an in terms of contemporary geopolitics (or at all, frankly; it can be kind of opaque.) The period the Qur'an comes from is so different from our own, where there's national sovereignty and at least ideally some international protection of human rights. I have definitely encountered (smart, historicist) interpretations of it that state that Muslims living under non-Muslim rule must conform to the laws of the nation in which they live: Khalid abu-Fadl makes such an interpretation, I think. I'm sure there are many crazy interpretations, too, though.

i know. it's just that you and nabisco are choosing a somewhat different value to defend than me. which is fine. but when i see the bush administration joining the chorus of people condemning the cartoons, it doesn't give me a warm fuzzy feeling.

right, no, that's not pollyanna-ish, it's essential. and ok, newspapers printing cartoons that insult the prophet aren't a great step in that direction. but neither is publishers feeling intimidated about what might happen to them if they violate someone else's religious taboos. especially when those taboos' most vocal, vociferous defenders are also wedded to a reactionary worldview that subjagates women, castigates jews, etc. etc. it's all very complicated.

1.) cherish free speech;
2.) agree that a newspaper has the right to criticise Muslims;
3.) largely think that the paper's effort was sub-par at best; and
4.) condemn people who call for death threats or who confuse the Danish government with a privately owned newspaper

Am I at least right about this?

horseshoe are you in the U.S?

Do you as someone raised Muslim have a conception of how modernity and Islam can be made compatible? You know how, after the Reformation, there evolved brands of Xtianity that were more conducive to progress than others. I have a prejudice that Islam and perhaps pre-diaspora Judaism, so closely regulate daily life and conduct, law, and government that they aren't as well suited to pluralism and limited government as a religion that can be subsumed by some as 'Belief in jesus is the only way to heaven, and, uh, would it kill you to love each other a little?' I recognize that, while having read a lot of the Koran, I understood very little and that more than just the book of words, the believer's traditions and relationship with it is paramount? Is their a recognizable form of progressive Islam equivalent to that seen in Xtianity and Judaism? If so, do we hear them less 'cause they're not funded by the Saudis or something.

I think all forms of religion (or at least monotheistic religion) are really problematized by modernity (fundamentalisms are a reaction to that), so no, I wouldn't distinguish between Islam and Christianity on that score.

There is no institutionalized progressive Islam in the same way as reform Judaism, no. (There are progressive Muslims.) The reasons why are pretty complicated, I think, having to do with the power of tradition, the lack of a centralized clergy, and with geopolitics. In those Muslim countries with pretensions to theocracy, any "progressive" interpretations of religious scriptures are treated with great hostility. And at the level of lived Islam, I think a lot of people are suspicious of beliefs that seem to contradict their understanding of scripture--people are quick to call such interpretations apostasy. The thing is, religion is tradition, at a certain level, so it gets hard to separate the unproblematic traditions from the noxious ones. I do think pluralist societies like the US have enabled the closest thing to what you're talking about, like the PMU: http://www.pmuna.org/ (I also have heard that there are some interesting Muslim organizations in South Africa, but I know less about that.)

Obviously the corrupt governments of many Muslim countries have a lot to answer for in this regard. But again, I'm no expert; I think books could and have been written on these issues.

Yup bout right.

If the Danish government should apologise for what was printed should not the governments of various Arab and Asian countries apologise for the overreaction?

so should we draw some qualitative distinction between protests in minority-muslim countries and protests in majority-muslim countries (countries where the media is routinely filled with jew-bashing)?

i understand the eagerness to decry euro-western racism and hegemony, but i think that's a really simplistic way to look at all this.

i.e. in the u.s. the issue of whether or not arab folx respect "speech" at the moment is kind of moot, given that you've already decided they hate "freedom" or they don't in a far more general sense and given that free speech and pluralistic values haven't been high on the right-wing's ideological checklist for sometime anyway.

Am I drunk? What's it to ya, buddy?

how is the u.s. not pluralistic, tho? i think it's more the obverse. because the u.s. is more comfortable and confident in its pluralism than western europe, the society has been sensitized to the point where it's a little hard to imagine any major newspaper publishing those cartoons. and sure, american fundamentalists can imagine being offended by disrespect for their faith, but as this thread demonstrates, plenty of american liberals can find offense too. not that i'm positing america as some multicultural utopia, but i think it's kind of weird to suggest that it's less pluralistic than western europe.

I don't want to imply this is only a Muslims versus modernity issue. I know not all Muslims embrace these views. More to the point, it's not only Muslims who do. You see it among the haredim in Israel. And I see it with an increasing frequency here in the US. Is it just me or does it seem that more and more often there are public controversies in which 'blasphemy' is considered some sort of legitimate cause of action -- as if 'blasphemy' can actually have any civic meaning in a society like ours.

However, as a Jew I've seen plenty of offensive cartoons from all over the world. I've suffered plenty of "deliberate provocations," and I'm not out burning anyone's flag, and I'm certainly not out calling for anyone's head on a pike.

Sorry, but that's bullshit. Muslims are generally much more tolerated and integrated into society in the U.S. than in Europe.

it seems to me (though im not sure) that it is easier for muslims to integrate into a christian country (US) than de facto atheist countries (northern europe).

thats partly why i couldnt see this flying in america, the way it has in europe (where there is an anti-religious bent running through society, making lampooning of religion much more likely).

the failure of much of europe, when it comes to islam, seems to be a, sort of, 'psuedo-tolerance' , a kind of a 'ok do your own thing, over there, just dont bother us with it' approach. and i think, coupled with our seeming desire to attack religion, it makes for an uncomfortable situation.

many argue that anti-islam, isnt really another manifestation of anti-religiousness, or pro-secularity, but the 'acceptable' face of racism, a sort of disingenious racism. i think theres a lot of truth in that, we seem very concerned with being able to attack muslims, but not jews/sikhs/hindus. on the one side i can see the logic in this, as muslims, like christians are not so entwined with any particular race, but i think thats a black and white way of looking at things, and doesnt really map onto reality

i guess what im interested in here, is the integration of muslims into america, and why it (seems?) to work better than in europe.

also, great thread, i found myself changing minds back and forth on this as i read, but nabisco won out in the end

the biggest and most important difference is that america provides jobs for its immigrants, europe doesn't to the same extent. having a job is vital to get integrated into a soceiety instead of living in suburbs where you have no contact with mainstream society.

I fear more and more every day that we're going to see a large-scale war with the "Islamic world." They overreact to a newspaper, westerners overreact to the overreaction, clarity and sanity gets lost. We have no sense of exactly how many people in the muslim world are reacting this way, because all we get are the most sensational photos. This serves to justify and confirm people's suspicions about Islam. Meanwhile radical Islam grows more and more emboldened. I'm not sure how the situation can be defused.

right, but -- back to the point again -- it's only restraint or good judgment if it's done for reasons of sensitivity, awareness, a general sense that people in a pluralistic society should show each other respect, etc. if the restraint is imposed because of fear -- of death threats, of bodily harm -- then that IS self-censorship. and that's what the newspaper was reacting to, however hamhandedly. i think too many people are discounting the climate that's been created by racial tensions, cultural tensions and the rise of islamic fundamentalism in europe -- and that rise has been facilitated by the racial and economic conditions, sure, but it's not ONLY because of them, any more than the rise of american christian fundamentalism is only because of economics (see all the giant suburban megachurches). and if you think rising fundamentalism needs to be confronted, which i do, then i don't think the newspaper's actions are so easily written off.

and, i'll also say again, i'd really like to read a translation of the essay that accompanied the cartoons, because i think that's an important piece of context.

i just think that if the message that comes out of this is, 'oh, better not offend muslims,' that's not going to be a good thing.

1. What exactly are the emotions of the Muslims protesting in the street, other than mass hysteria: are they HURT because their beloved one has been made fun of - in which case the hurt could simply be avoided by not looking at newspapers in the first place ? are they ANGRY because it seems like insulting Mohammed is insulting every one of them ? or are they just DOING THEIR DUTY because the Quran says that noone on the face of this planet is to make fun of Mohammed and they got to enforce this law ? The third opportunity is by far the scariest...

2. What do you think would the response of the Muslims on the street be to the following deal: European countries will make laws forbidding to make fun of Mohammed in public, and in exchange Muslim countries will grant equality to their Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Jewish citizens before the law, OR in exchange Muslim countries will make laws against hate speech like the one frequently seen in the last days. Would anyone accept ? If not, wouldn't it at least make a great argument which would lead some Muslims towards greater understanding of the European position ?

http://www.kurier.at/mmedia/03.02.2006/1138990274_3.jpg

http://retecool.com/comments.php?id=13539_0_1_0_C

Here's another American website making complete fun of Christians:

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/

(Notice, no one is threatening hostage taking over this one.)