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

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.)

:)

http://news.yahoo.com/photo/060203/ids_photos_wl/r1363645636.jpg/print;_ylt=AvXKaty1K2wxPQynbAEj_MuaK8MA;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bXNtMmJ2BHNlYwNzc3M-

"Several of the original Danish cartoons are minted in the same style, beyond lampoon or caricature and well into the realm of pure defamation. Muhammad is seen with a huge knife and a wild thicket of a beard, flanked by two women entirely veiled but for their eyes; worse, and by far the most inflammatory, is one in which his turban holds a ticking bomb."

Is it 'defamation' to portray a murderer as a murderer? The Washington Post journalist is seemingly oblivious to the fact that Mohammed was indeed a vicious murderer. I think this one fact - which is simply beyond dispute - goes to the heart of the whole issue. To criticise extremist jihadist Islam is to criticise the justification they give for their extremism, which unfortunately turns out to be an undistorted reading the Koran and the hadith, the model example of the prophet's own conduct. So the doctrine of muslim fanatics cannot be analysed and condemned or ridiculed without offending muslims who are moderate, because moderate muslims are moderate soley by virtue of ommission; they revere their tradition in the form of the Koran and the prophet's life, but, being basically decent people, omit of necessity from that reverence the actual prescriptions of the Koran regarding infidels and the actual murderous conduct of the founder of their religion. Therefore, there simply isn't a way in which one can ridicule muslim supremacists without offending muslims in general.

For what it's worth, were I a newspaper editor, I don't think I would have taken the route taken by Jyllands-Posten. I agree that their motives look suspicious (at the very least), and I admit I don't know much about the Danish political context. The fact that one of the cartoonist involved covertly criticized Jyllands-Posten lends weight to the accusations that their motives were less than noble. At the same time, regardless of what the newspaper editors' motives were, it's not a case of the paper simply publishing offensive cartoons out of the blue in order to piss certain people off: the cartoons were framed as a response to legitimate issues of freedom of speech and resistance to intimidation.

I don't even particularly like satirical caricatures and political cartoons, since they generally don't illuminate anything, but they are still a form of speech. It's precisely because Muhammad is such an important figure, kind of like a public figure, but a deceased one, looming very large in the realm of ideas and beliefs, that it is crucial that he not be exempted from ridicule and mockery in a free society. (If it were really a matter of mocking someone's family, making fun of someone's Uncle Joe, then wouldn't there be a legal problem with that, assuming Uncle Joe wasn't a public figure?) Mostly stupid satirical cartoons aren't remotely as valuable as, say, historical studies of Muhammad's life or of the Qur'an, but I don't think they should be ruled out.

*

I think Islam is different in significant ways, which may make for irresolvable conflicts

This is getting into speculation, but one reason it may be so difficult to break the connection between religion and state in Islam is that the religion's founder created so many precedents as an actual political leader. While it does not stop rabid right-wing Christians from trying to take over the U.S., Jesus did not present a blueprint for a Christian state, nor did he leave instructions for his followers to sees power on that level. I think this matters, because there is always the potential for an impulse to go back to what the founder of a religion did (or back to what the key holy book says), and frankly I think when that happens in Islam the results are inevitably more explosive than they are in the case of Christianity.

(I am no apologist for Christianity, I remind everyone.)

*

But I'm not only concerned with Islam. I'm certainly more immediately concerned with the Christian Right in my country. Like gypsy, if I read him correctly, I'm also concerned that we could lose some of our freedom to freely express irreverence toward religion. If anything, I think public discourse in the U.S. handles religion with excessive reverence. I find it discouraging that not respecting someone else's beliefs can leave one open to accusations of bigotry. I don't think any one of us is required to respect beliefs we consider unfounded, irrational, etc. On a personal level, I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to taunt people for their beliefs. There has to be a public sphere where people can get under each other's skins. (Again, I don't think the best way to criticize a religion is by lampooning it. I think of the "satirical" article I once read in a Christian magazine, possibly Guideposts, in which Zen Buddhism was represented by a figure named "Ben Zuda." Brilliant stuff.)

*

I love the responses (to online articles about the Muhammad cartoons) I've seen from Muslims saying, "We honor all the prophets," as if everyone who matters gives a damn about "the prophets"; as if evangelical (and maybe any any type of reasonably orthodox) Christians can accept Jesus as just another prophet; as if Islam accepts self-declared prophets (surrounded by a community of convicted believers) who have come since Muhammad. How much do Muslims honor Bahaullah?

*

(Incidentally, since gypsy mentioned his newspaper man angle, I wonder if some of this is coming from my librarian side, since librarians are forever fighting for to protect their ability to make offensive materials of various sorts available, as a matter of principle.)

I have to say that the decision by other European papers to print the cartoons "to demonstrate their support for free speech" seems pretty weak. If I were a Nazi I'd be sending cartoons and opinion pieces to newspapers around Europe this week.

How is this pseudo-tolerance? That sounds like tolerance to me. Tolerance doesn't require encouragement or participation or even an attempt at understanding.

On the other hand, I think there's a real sense in which there can't be a pluralistic society. Other religions will be tolerated so long as they do not make absolutistic claims on the way society is to be organized. I recommend the short (but idea-packed) book, Holy Terrors: Thinking About Religion After September 11, which seems to me very relevant to this discussion.

Among demonstrations yesterday, 500 protesters gathered outside the Danish Embassy in West London after a two-hour march. Amid chants of “Denmark go to hell” and “Bomb, bomb Denmark”, protesters called for a jihad, or holy war.

Abu Ibrahwm, 26, of Luton, said: “The only solution is for those responsible to be killed. In Islam, the one who insults the messenger should be killed."

Protesters yelled: “Denmark watch your back” and “You’ll pay with your blood”. Banners read: “Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on its way”.

In Pakistan a Danish flag was burned at a demonstration in Lahore and there were other rallies in Islamabad and Karachi President Gen Pervez Musharraf said: “I have been hurt, grieved and I am angry."

In Jakarta, Indonesia, more than 150 Muslims stormed a building housing the Danish Embassy and tore down and burned the country’s white and red flag.

About 500 Bangladeshis protested in their capital Dhaka after prayers, chanting: “Apologise to Muslims!"

In Gaza, Palestine, militants threw a pipe bomb at a French cultural centre and shot at the building.

Thousands of Palestinian refugees marched through the streets of their camps in Lebanon, burning flags and urging Osama bin Laden to avenge Mohammad.

In the occupied West Bank city of Tulkarm, more than 10,000 Palestinians burned Danish cheese.

Not to go back into this, but Rockist, there's some language in your post that sends me right back to typing ARGH a lot and not understanding the way people think. I won't go point by point, but I want to focus on your use of the word "exempted." I don't think anyone is asking that Mohammed be "exempted" from ridicule or mockery. You later say: "On a personal level, I certainly wouldn't go out of my way to taunt people for their beliefs." That's what's being encouraged here. That's not an "exemption" -- that's a basic level of judiciousness and peaceful spirit that some of us are accusing the newspaper of lacking.

One interesting thing that's occurred to me here is how many people have disapproved of the images of, say, Pakistanis burning Danish flags. I count myself among that group; it's stupid, and I don't agree with them. But it's occurring to me now that the flag-burning is exactly equivalent, in terms of speech, to the original cartoons. A few Danes decided to address Muslim extremism by attacking a symbol held dear by all Muslims. And now a whole lot of Muslims have decided to address that Danish extremism by attacking a symbol presumably held dear by all Danes. And in that latter instance, I think most of us would have an easier time separating the right to speech from the quality of it -- it's a valid act of speech, alright, but that doesn't make it not-stupid, not-unhelpful, not-shitty.

Between those two equal acts of speech, I understand the desire to side with the one whose subtextual value is freedom, and not the one whose subtextual value is repression. But they're both shitty acts of speech, and their subtextual values aren't the only options. And I won't jump entirely behind someone who shares one of my values -- freedom -- if they seem to be enemies of some of the other things I value, including a whole bunch of cheesy stuff like truth, judiciousness, egalitarianism, generosity, and openness of spirit.

i mean, im not necessarily arguing that the european approach is even wrong, im just interested in the way it appears to differ to the american approach. ive read that some mosques in america fly the american flag (is this true?), the equivalent happening in britain is unthinkable (though of course our attitude towards our flag is a whole other can of worms)

thats interesting about african-americans. in england most muslims have traditionally been pakistani, and, perhaps similarly, familiar and 'unthreatening', perhaps it is rose tinted to suggest that integration was successful, but it appeared to be. over the last, maybe 15 years, this seems to have changed, perhaps because the british approach has changed. i think earlier immigrants were perhaps encouraged to view themselves as british (and, of course, came from british empire states), i think the british approach has abandoned this now. perhaps there isnt an approach anymore. but i think it has led to more recent communities seeming alien and unknown to the british public , very much 'the other', and, of course, vice versa

(theres also an argument that radicalization of british muslim youth (as opposed to recent immigrants) is a reaction to what might be seen as excessive accomodation and cowtowing by their parents)

how does all this play out in america though?

"All hell will break loose, if those extremists burn the Qur’an," Raed Halil, the head of the European Committee for Defending Prophet Muhammad, told IslamOnline.net over the phone from the Danish capital Copenhagen."

To clarify, I mean on a person-to-person level. But I think there has to be room for mocking belief in the public sphere. (I don't know if a newspaper is the place for it.) I don't know, I might conceivably end a discussion about religion by saying something like "I think it's all a lot of shit," or at least say something like that on an internet board. But maybe if I were being serious, I wouldn't see much point in making a comment like that. But I'd still like to reserve the "right", if only to blow off steam, because I can't manage to be as cool-headed and as deeply rhetorical as you.

If the pope issued a fatwa encyclical on not portraying Jesus in a mocking manner, I'm not sure it would be out of line for newspaper cartoonists to respond with cartoons that included such mockery.

i see that american newspapers have decided against it, but america doesnt have the equivalents of the euro tabloids?

the question is...will fox news show the cartoon?