Growing up, I aspired at different times, to be a florist, a marine biologist, an archaeologist and a botanist. I worked for many years as an entomologist. I never thought I would become a writer.
Now I am a writer I am very aware of the importance of ideas, evidence, and freedom of expression in particular as a counter to the power of propaganda. I have written about the five basic rules of propaganda as defined by Norman Davies in a blog post titled ‘Interest versus Propaganda’.
Propaganda is perhaps easier to define than ‘free speech’ and usually much more subtle.
Free speech can be very offensive.
Explaining why e-journal Online Opinion did not publish the cartoons mocking Islam, but defending the right of others to publish the cartoons, Graham Young has written,
“If free speech defends only the right to be nice to others, then it is not worth defending itself. Free speech exists to protect the objectionable and the unreasonable, or it means virtually nothing.”
Today I read at Reporters without Borders that as a consequence of publishing those offending cartoons,
“At least eleven journalists are being prosecuted in five countries and six have been jailed. Some face long prison sentences if convicted. Two editors in Jordan have been charged with provocation and encouraging disorder. Four journalists have been jailed in Yemen and charged under article 103 of the press law, which bans publication of anything that “harms Islam, denigrates monotheistic religion or a humanitarian belief.”
I support the call from Reports without Borders for the imprisoned journalists to be released.
………………
The cartoons can be seen by linking to Tim Blair’s blog.
The last paragraphs of this blog post was changed and updated, following comment and advice from readers of this weblog including those offended by the cartoons, on the morning of 20th February and the cartoons and direct link removed.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
And silly Michael Leunig continues to rather poorly, play the martyr.
When it comes to product branding the leaders of Islam have done an excellent job, not.
Freedom of speech, or common respect for other’s beliefs? Are you assuming no moslems read your blog, otherwise a warning might have been appropriate in order not to offend. I see no reason why you had to put these cartoons up except to jump on the bandwagon and get your own publicity.
Hi Travis,
A couple of questions:
1. Who else in Australia has published the 12 cartoons, appart from Tim Blair?
2. How would you warn someone at a blog that something may be offensive and based on what criteria?
The opinion editor at the Courier Mail rejected a piece I wrote on tree clearing some years ago on the basis she considered it very offensive.
The original publication of these cartoons were only seen by a relatively small number of unbelievers who viewed them with little interest. Several months later they are brought to the attention of the Muslim world accompanied by suggestions of outrage. Protests erupt. The images are reproduced all around the world. Millions of the faithful are exposed to material they find higly offensive. Dozens of devout Muslims are killed by fellow Muslims in violent demonstrations. Allah does indeed work in mysterious ways.
Jen,
The reallly disturbing thing about these cartoons is that:
a) they were originally printed in an Egyptian newspaper back in October,
b) muslim and western art is full of depictions of the prophet going back hundreds of years.
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Hypocrisy seems to have no bounds with these people.
Jennifer,
With regards to who else has published them, does it really matter who else in Australia has done it when it has been world news for some weeks now?
Concerning a warning, I personally wouldn’t have read your piece if I had known the cartoons were featured. If you had have perhaps put in brackets underneath the title that they were there, I would have chosen to read your other stories instead.
It maybe one thing to have freedom of expression and speech, but I think the world knows now that many people find these cartoons highly offensive. Their religion is all to them, and to continue to publish them and ignore how these cultures feel is insensitive and achieves nothing. I am in no way supportive of the violence that has broken out around the world as a result of these depictions. However, I can see that these cultures have a sense of dignity and respect for their Prophet and beliefs, and I think the Western world should show some respect for these people themselves. What has this particular example of freedom of speech achieved (ie the cartoons generally, not just your piece above)? If people showed a bit more respect for others rather than worrying about their own egos and whether or not they can print such poorly-done cartoons, we might all get on with one another a bit better.
I don’t care whether you print them or not.
Just don’t send me the bill when you find your car upside down, your house on fire and a bunch of very large rocks being thrown at your very small minded head.
Travis
Give me a break, what about all the images of the prophet in the Islamic and Western art galleries all around the world. Go on be brave click on the web reference I gave you above.You might be absolutely staggered, like I was, by the range and number of images, all out there, all quite harmless. If their sensitiviities were as you described then why have they not complained about those before now. After all they have had over 600 years to complain about some of them.
If it was as you suggested the why were these particular cartoons FIRST published in an Egyptian newspaper in October ie before the Danish paper came out. I thought Egypt was Islamic. How can it be OK for them, but not for others.
Ican get you the web reference for the Egyptian ones of you want, but it wont come with a warning to protect your misguided sensibilities.
No Travis it was a convenient time for the Islamic group to have a stir, and probably had more to do with Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
You also ought to get a grip and do some home work on just what is the level of violence by Muslims against others, and just what is the agenda behind all of this. You could be surprised, and actually learn something.
Oh by the way, go and have a look at the virulent anti semitic and anti western cartoons that are published on a daily basis by a whole variety of arab newspapers.
But you do have one point. I also dont see the point in continue to publish the same cartoons just to demonstrate a level of freedom of speach. Much better to use it to show how hypocritical and selective they are.
I am not surprised at the protests in islamic countries (after all you can be stoned for having bare arms) but I am surprised at their ‘liberal’ supporters in the West.
The cartoons are quite ordinary, really. Without the orchestrated outrage, no one would be interested in republishing them now. However the violence has raised the question of intimidation of the press. The Australian media has by and large ducked the issue, wrongly so, in my opinion.
I have to say Mike’s comment above seems particularly inane.
Good on you Jennifer, for taking a stand on principle.
Travis,
What should I have written as a warning? I thought about it. But any combination of words seemed to have the potential to be interpreted as condescending, inappropriate, offensive to some individuals? Sincerely,
In this debate I can sympathise with both sides.
I don’t see the necessity to publicly belittle anyone’s religion ( and let’s face it , Christianity is shown no respect at all by the Leunigs and co amongst the “progressives”) HOWEVER offence cannot and should not be constrained by anything other than good sense and taste.
Publishing the cartoons has now become a banner for free speech.
We tragically did not have a debate like this when racial and religious intolerance legislation was mooted and passed in Australia.
Faced with a choice between publishing or not offending , I would publish.
I’m with Rog though – the whole episode has shown Leunig up a real wuss. He can dish out offence but can’t tolerate a jot of it in response.
In this respect , the MSM have displayed undeniably similar double standards and they should be called for it.
This says it all
http://www.filibustercartoons.com/comics/20060204.gif
Malcolm,
Do 600 year old images have relevance to today’s issue? Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t you agree that some Muslims in a variety of countries are offended by these cartoons that have been reproduced in recent times? Do I have misguided sensibilities if I am myself Muslim and were offended by the cartoons? Perhaps the “stir” had more to do with the fact that Muslims around the world are feeling more and more isolated, rather than nuclear issues. I am not debating violence of Muslims against other Muslims, or whether it is Ok for Arab newspapers to publish anti-semitic and anti-Christian images. I am questioning whether it is common decency to continually reproduce images that are offending people all in the name of freedom of speech.
Just another question-sometimes Jennifer has deleted comments from the blog as she has decided they may be offensive (or sometimes off the topic). Aren’t those that write the comments exercising their freedom of speech, and hasn’t Jennifer decided that it is better not to have material up that some may be offended by?
What were they protesting against and why? From the economist “Islam and free speech, Mutual incomprehension, mutual outrage” Feb 9th 2006:
“A Danish imam, Abu Laban, may have started the whole thing by touring the Middle East to drum up outrage, including distributing far more offensive cartoons of the Prophet (as a pig, as a paedophile) which he said had been “received” by Muslims in Denmark. Iran’s supreme guide described the furore as a plot “concocted by Zionists angered by the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections”—though the Palestinian vote took place four months after the publication of the cartoons. In Syria, a police state allied to Iran where rioters have torched the Danish and Norwegian embassies, witnesses noted men with walkie-talkies directing the crowds. . . In neighbouring Lebanon, authorities say that one-third of the 400 people arrested for setting fire to the Danish embassy and vandalising the surrounding Christian district were Syrians. ..”
“Muslims worldwide have also grown keenly sensitive to what they see as western double standards. Freedom of speech is an admirable thing, says a Syrian member of parliament, but .. (why) does the West ignore Israel’s atomic arsenal while questioning Iran’s nuclear ambitions?
At the same time there is little understanding, in many Muslim countries, either of how Western democracies function, or how they have evolved historically towards enshrining maximum personal freedom. Danish protests that there are no laws empowering the government to intervene are met with disbelief. In both Yemen and Jordan, editors who republished the cartoons (which have now appeared in 22 different countries) were promptly arrested and their newspapers shut down. ”
Someone I know, visiting Iran, found themself in the middle of rabid protests under a frightening barrage of questions by the protestors, but the protestors were very interested in hearing ‘our’ position, ie their questions and responses were reasonable and they wanted to understand western motives. Most of the protestors don’t understand our democratic processes and they are responding to limited information manipulated for politic ends.
The riots were kickstarted by an extremist minority. Similarly a minority extended the troubles by publishing the cartoons as though it proves free speech. Publishing the cartoons does NOT prove free speech, it only proves willingness to offend certain beliefs, particularly those do not represent your main constituency. And since when have our newspapers (or blogs or nations) been a benchmark of unbiased free speech anyway?
IMHO there’s a moral obligation on those who publish the cartoons to rationalise their decision in a way that shows they have thought deeply and carefully about this complex issue and appreciate the consequences. There were some good editorials in Australian newspapers explaining their decision not to publish. I haven’t seen their equivalent from those who have chosen to publish.
For sure Travis. I found it incredibly ironic that only a day earlier Jennifer had deleted a comment as “offensive” (not off-topic, but offensive) because it told someone to not get furious and to go drink camomile tea. 🙂 But Jennifer hasn’t stated that this blog is for free speech, as she’s said, it’s her blog. There’s nothing to prevent you setting up a blog devoted to free speech comments on Jennifer’s blog though.
Travis,
Are you asking that I remove the cartoons because you find them offensive?
I could have simply provided a link which readers may or may not have choosen to link to?
Thinksy,
Are you suggesting that I should delete the cartoons because they offend you OR are you suggesting they are defamatory?
And what don’t you understand about my post (it is my explaination and written from the heart) – the bit about propaganda or how free speech can be offensive?
PS Thinksy, as Ian Castles has remarked you have a habit of making up what other people have said .. where have I written or inferred:
“stated that this blog is for free speech, as she’s said, it’s her blog”?
..and what exactly do you mean?
Given the extent to which I try and be inclusive, I consider your comment misleading and offensive.
I refer to an earlier exchange where you remarked ‘this is my blog..’
Ian C was WRONG to ever claim that I make up stuff, can you prove where he said this or whether his unproven accusation was correct? Ian has made a profession of political posturing, he places his sentences very carefully so that he presents a position that largely rests on the quotations of others, therefore few can challenge him because he can easily deny ever having said whatever they seem to attribute to him because he’s careful to say as little as possible in his own words.. but I don’t think you want to open that can of worms on this thread do you? You shoudl delete your own comment above for being off-topic and offensive to at least one reader.
Jennifer did I claim to not understand your post as you allege? Or are you “making up what other people have said”?
Above you have misquoted me as saying that you “stated that this blog is for free speech”.. you left off the initial “hasn’t” thereby making up a new meaning to what I said!!
Thinksy,
1. Could you please provide the date, time and blog post where I suggest that this blog is not about ‘free speech’ but rather ‘my blog’.
2. I interprete the following comment “There were some good editorials in Australian newspapers explaining their decision not to publish. I haven’t seen their equivalent from those who have chosen to publish.” .. to be dismissive of my explaination.
And are you asking that I remove the cartoons because you consider them offensive OR are claiming to write on behalf of others and are you asking that I remove the cartoons on their behalf? I am having trouble understanding exactly what you request ..
Jennifer, please read more closely. I did NOT say that you have said that this blog is NOT about free speech! (jeez) However, I’m not aware that you’ve claimed that this blog is open to free speech. In saying so, I have NOT said that you don’t allow comments from both sides of a topic. In fact, on earlier threads I’ve stated that I don’t think that you censor your blog. Please try to read more closely as you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve written above and accused me of making misleading statements which I have not done and hence this entirely silly flow of comments.
Where did I ask you to remove the cartoons? Are you “making up what other people have said” again?
You suggested that I made up stuff above where I said that Jennifer said it’s her blog. I didn’t make this up. I refer you to the eco-terrorism thread where you wrote:
“..this is my blog and I encourage descriptive english..”
So, as I said, you said this is your blog.
Thinksy,
Thanks for clarifying your thoughts/comments.. my interpretation had been somewhat different.
Travis,
The 600 year old images are extremely relevant in the context of Muslims supposedly being offended by all images of their prophet. They say that it is idolatry. It is the same line they propogate as being the basis of the offence concerning the Cartoons.I see no difference between the multitude of images now in art galleries, and these cartoons,and I bet they dont either.
Under normal circumstance I would agree with you that to repeat something that is already known to be offensive when, it conveys no real advantage to do so, is just dopey.In this case the Muslims are being extremely hypocritcial in claiming they are offended by some modern occurrence when they themselves have made thousands of images.
One would have thought that they could at least set an example. But what we are learning about Islam, is that this is just the way it is with them, and why many say it is time the Muslims spent more time fixing up their own house.
Friends,
I am likely to be the only person on this string who has actually read the Koran cover to cover.
While the book touches on a great many topics, its main theme is why and how often it is good to kill Jews and Christians. The main reason why it is good to kill Jews and Christians is because they base their religions on false writings and teachings. It is good to kill them as often as there’s a good reason to.
There are important exceptions to the general rule of killing them. A lot of rules apply, for instance, if you take Christians or Jews as slaves. A man must have sex with his wife or wives at least as often has he does with his slave or slaves, and wives and slaves must be tended with an eye to their welfare. Also, it is lawful to make a contract with a non-Muslim, but it may extend no longer than five years, and on the stroke of midnight of the last day of the last year, the non-Muslim partner to the contract must be killed if found in the same city as the Muslim partner.
So with various exceptions, what we have in Islam is an intolerant religion.
The question then becomes, does a self-consistent tolerance demand tolerating the intolerant? Or, does a self-consistent tolerance mean insisting that everyone should be tolerant?
Until you figure that one out, it’s going to be hard to explain your standpoint.
Schiller.
Malcolm,
If Samuel L. Jackson calls himself a “M.F. Nigger” (sorry, I tried to put it politely there), I bet he thinks that is OK, but if you called him the same, or referred to any of his Afro-American friends the same, I bet he/they would be offended. Surely it is more acceptable that the Muslims depict their Prophet in any way they want than that outsiders do it in an offensive way. I hope you get the general gist of what I am trying to say. There would be countless other examples.
Isn’t this thread about THOSE cartoons, not the Koran or what Muslims do to other Muslims or to Christians and so on? Or is this really abut tit for tat and getting even with another culture that has received much bad press due to the fanatical element?
Schiller, your assumption that you are the only one to have read the Koran cover to cover may be short of the mark.
In conditions of excessive heat and dryness, total fire bans are sensibly invoked. In these incendiary times, it would be prudent (at least voluntarily) to adopt total fire bans of a religious and racial nature. Otherwise are we not merely playing with fire?
The last paragraphs of this blog post was changed and updated following comment and advice from readers of this weblog including those offended by the cartoons on the morning of 20th February and the direct link removed.
Actually, in summary most Oz newsmedia online though not giving a direct link as Jennifer has done, gave viewer directions in a breaking news item.
Where to look, ie, Tim Blair’s site. It broke at about two pm, silly southern time. So if not published by major media and they weren’t, justifiably as editorial choice from an inflammation point they did direct readers to take a google taxi ride to Mr Blair’s blog, so of course free speech or more importantly freedom of information was given.
They chose not to print in view of incitement to violence across the globe, but in a connected world they did provide direction, freedom of information and also sensitive editorial practice.
Now if the idiots who keep parading Abu Graib pictures which are not cartoons but an extremely serious matter dealt with years ago with people involved sentenced to very hard t&c in a military prison, Say free speech when it is nothing more or less than a commercial decision with no relevance and claim defender of liberty but did not show cartoons because of fear of backlash then they are nothing more or less than hypocrites, because they know those pictures are inflammatory and last weeks news.
As far as the moslem point of view of offensive where was their moral outrage across the globe as junior Jet pilots slammed thousands of kilos of high explosive jet fuel into buildings full of innocent civilians yelling God is Great.
Nope just dancing in the streets and quiet winks.
And those are the images that are burnt into memory and truly horrifically offensive.
A student studying at QUT started joyfully mullah dancing in the refec when the images were on TV, the dance stopped when his face met an extremely hard object travelling very quickly, and the voice said there are probably Aussies in that building, probably an engineering student.
Because if it had been mathematics defenestration would have been discussed from L block. Back in the day.
Thanks, Schiller for that contractual insight, a bit like the “partnerships” with landowners that DNRM routinely enters into.
The real irony in all this cartoon drama is that the prohibition on making an image of the Prophet was implemented for an entirely different reason to the one being used today. The prohibition on making images was for the sole purpose of ensuring that people do not worship this image. The cartoons were clearly not for this purpose.
Jennifer,
I don’t think the removal of the actual cartoons from your above story has reduced its impact any, and I thank you for creating instead a link to them.
There are many translations of religious texts and many ways an individual can interpret these. The Old Testament makes mention of an eye for an eye. The best we can do is try and be better than those that cause harm and offense to others and lead by example.
Ian and Travis,
In todays Australian page 20,there is a short piece by Flemming Rose the culture editor for the Danish Newspaper in question. He puts a seemingly rational argument as to why they published.
Also I notice that some of the historical images in Art Galleries and books are also in the form of cartoons. So there are two reasons why your arguments are a little suss.
The argument also is not about tit for tat as you call it Travis, but about showing that the people who have objected, have done so with both violence, and a huge amount of hypocrisy, and who also have a well established history of this sort of behaviour.
To analyse this is so, one has to look behind the veil so to speak and analyse the geopolitical and religious agendas.What the Koran says is a good starting point
I find the removal of the cartoons offensive. Am I to remain a minority voice?
Travis and Co are mixing up freedom of speech with editorial decision to publish or not publish. We are all free to start our own blogs and set our own rules.
The fact remains that everyone should be free to express themselves and free to make the choice how best to express themselves. Sometimes it doesnt quite work out, someone gets offended, so be it, but the principle of freedom of expression must remain inviolate and not to be held to ransom by mob violence.
Rog,
Noone was holding anyone to ransom. The case was made (in this thread and offline) that the information could be made available, and support for the detained journalists given, without showing the images – which they found offensive. They are readers of this blog and I have respected their position, their argument.
Rog,
Since you find the removal of the cartoons offensive and there is a great clamor for tolerance of any view whatsoever that may be blessed by any rationale, then you should set fires to cars and buildings and incite riots. And those above who are open-minded, tolerant folks should heartily agree with your heartfelt approach to freedom of expression, even if you leave deaths in your wake. A few human casualties on the roadside are fine if your noble ideals let you be blind to them. What the hey.
Yes, I am not happy with lofty-minded cruelty and madness.
Schiller.
I find the notion that we should give a shit what muslims think offensive.
Neil Hewett says “In conditions of excessive heat and dryness, total fire bans are sensibly invoked. In these incendiary times, it would be prudent (at least voluntarily) to adopt total fire bans of a religious and racial nature. Otherwise are we not merely playing with fire?”
In other words “let’s not offend muslims or they might get violent”. What a spineless, appeasing attitude.
News flash: They are already violent. And in an update to that story – we have the means to easily defeat them military with minimal risk to our own civilisation.
So tell me again, why should we surrender to their wishes?
Let them start the fire if they so wish – and then let us extinguish it.
Unlike scholars and numerous muslim leaders who debate the range of interpretations, Schiller is absolutely certain that the Koran incites very precise actions against Jews and Christians. Which language version did Schiller read? The original has great subtleties and shades of meaning that don’t lend themselves easily to translation, particularly into modern language usage. Even if Schiller read the original, he carries an absolute interpretation of Kufr and how to treat Kuffar. Perhaps he would care to enlighten the many muslims who aren’t of this same certain opinion?
Yobbo why should the views and opinions of a sizable group of Australians should be ignored (ie not given a shit about as yuo say)? Should Australian policies and media ignore anyone who isnt anglo-saxon or christian – compatible?
Should the newspapers carry holocaust cartoon jokes to declare free speech? Pro-communist pieces? Both of these subjects are limited in Western countries. If we want unfettered free speech we should rally against the limitations of our own system. Of those who are arguing for free speech and publishing the cartoons, who protested against the sedition laws? Otherwise how can we show that we weren’t simply offending a minority group in our society simply because we wanted to and we could?
If newspapers refused to carry holocaust cartoons or pro communist articles for fear of violence from those offended, then to carry such items would be an affirmation of the right to free speech rather than an intent to offend. That is the situation with the Mohammed cartoons.
The fact that the protest spread outside Denmark, and involved threats of violence in Britain as well as actual violence in the Middle East, raised the ante somewhat, hence the solidarity publishing elsewhere.
That’s not offending a group because we can, it’s standing up for a principle. I hope Australian Muslims understand this. Muslims would not be the first group to be offended by something published in an Australian newspaper.
I find Bill Leak pretty offensive in the Australian, as do quite a few others to judge by the letters page. That doesn’t mean I should threaten him, or that he should stop drawing cartoons that offend me.
Thats what I SAID, seems like everybody is shouting, not listening.. ..
Thinksy,
As someone who is quite handy in two languages and gets along well with two more, and has done a number of translations from technical documents to poetry, I can assure you that the phrase “kill them” is susceptible of many different shades of meaning. In English alone, we have also have slay, murder, slaughter and execute. Regardless, the phrase, “kill them” is so unambiguous that the worst a translator could do is offer the wrong “flavor” of the manner of death suggested by the original.
Put in its historical context, it would be hands-down accurate to describe the Koran as the earliest example of “hate speech” and it is a quite shocking book to read. I recommend it to you all.
By the way, you may all be interested to know that in Muslim countries, the best-selling book by a foreign author is “Mein Kampf” and sales are brisk.
George Bush and Islamic Scholars may call Islam the “religion of peace” but nearly everything they say in support of the contention has nothing to do with the Koran, and either way, such claims look rather silly when the beliefs of Muslims lead them to kill over a cartoon.
Schiller.
Schiller nothing you just said supports your absolute and narrow interpretation of the Koran. It differs from the views of many Islamic leaders.
Considering the cartoon related deaths so far, have Muslims killed or been killed over the cartoons?
Now the Clintons have hopped on the bandwagon calling for criminal charges to be laid against those that publish (its OK to commit perjury but not OK to print a cartoon)
*Talking to newsmen here, former US President Bill Clinton said publication of blasphemous caricatures in the western media was a mistake and urged the concerned countries to convict the publishers*
http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=17101
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-02-20T194417Z_01_L19135626_RTRUKOC_0_UK-AUSTRIA-IRVING.xml
David Irving has been sentanced to 3 year jail in Austria for Holocaust denial.
Irving is a foolish repulsive individual, and the memories of those who died in the Shoa are even more important today than several years back (if one can be forgiven for relativism about an absolute horror).
But this is where freedom of speech matters-When it is unpopular to defend it. It is a dreadful mistake to send him to jail, and silence him, for many reasons.
Thinksy,
You asked “have muslims killed or been killed over the cartoons.”
The tally thus far is 45.
Not bad for a religion of peace
Malcom yes there’s a rising death toll over the cartoons. The point was Schiller talking about Muslims killing over the cartoon. The question was who has been killed and who has killed so far? ie don’t assume it’s all been murder by muslims of non-muslims.
Initally the death tolls that I read about over the cartoons were Muslims being shot before they could rampage embassies. Recently there was a number of Christians killed in Nigeria, not that it’s any excuse, but lots of horrible and often oil-fueled events are happening in Nigeria. It’s easy to infer what the death toll over the cartoons means, but it shouldn’t be assumed that the death toll so far is murder by muslims. What I’ve found odd is that the media often hasn’t distinguished between whether the muslims were killed during protests, or did the killing, but it could well be difficult to get accurate information.
If we’re all for unfettered free speech then should western nations all publish holocaust (anti-Jew?) cartoons now to oppose the sentencing of David Irving? He denied some gas chambers in a speech, a claim he subsequently revoked and now claims to be uninformed, but he still got a 3 yr gaol sentence.
Sorry, that’s Malcolm.
Thinksy
Yes you are right, I was waiting for someone to finnesse the numbers. But to me they are all deaths attributable to the idiocy of the cartoons in the first place. But we dont know how many were muslims themselves, or muslims killing others, or opportunistic revenge killings for some equally odd ball reason.
As is the case all over the world Islam is on one side of the equation involving violence somewhere.
WhilstI am on a roll I would like to restate my veiws over this issue.
1. It is still hypocricyical for the Islamacists to carry on the way they have, when they published the cartoons in an Eygyptian newspaper first, and thereby setting the standard and saying it is OK.
2.The explanation by Flemming Rose yesterday is a reasonable response.
3. Muslims and Western Art is full of images of the prophet, giving a lie to the claim that it is blasphemy for anyone to portray him.
They have done themselves more harm than good out of this because the west is now even more aware of their mindset.We should at least be thankful for that.
Egypt is relatively liberal and long ago tolerated different religions side by side. As per my earlier post above, it seems some trouble-makers stirred up protests in the stricter Islamic countries by adding some incendiary cartoons and words of their own.
There is a huge rift within the Islamic nations that they need to find a way to address. The extremist few don’t do them any favours (nor do western extremists eg white supremists or repression of muslims help our cause any). There’s a huge gulf dividing our outlooks and I can’t see how further alienation or dismissive generalisations about Muslim people can possibly help.
David Irving has been falsely imprisoned; Austria has still to embrace “free speech”.
Thinksy,
You’re cornered. You have to come up with intellectual excuses for mayhem, incivility and murder. All of these are *very* hard to dress up and make them look pretty. This is heavy lifting.
Tell me, sir, do you wish to live in a civil society where “civility” means that someone can kill you over a cartoon they saw in the newspaper? Until you say explicitly, you would sincerely like to die in order to play a role in someone else’s “street theater,” I cannot take you seriously.
Life and death are in the balance and if the best you can do is quibble over vagaries of translation, you are part of the “banality of evil” that plagues us to misery.
Schiller.
Malcolm,
You wrote “They have done themselves more harm than good out of this because the west is even more aware of their mindset. We should at least be thankful for that.” What does this mean?
Schiller, your writings above regarding Thinksy are a good example of intolerance. No one here, as far as I can ascertain, is supporting what the fanatical Muslims have done in reaction to the cartoons.
Schiller still nothing you’ve said supports your absolute and narrow interpretation of the Koran. You dismiss it as quibbling now, but you clearly felt it was a substantial point when you hinged your categorical judgements of Islam on your certain interpretation of a translation of a subtle and complex original. In fact these interpretations of the meaning of the Koran are crucial as they give rise to great differences in behaviour between moderate and extreme Islamists.
I haven’t excused anyone’s behaviour, nor have I pointed an accusing finger at ‘others’. I am trying to understand the various forces at play. Troubles will amplify for as long as any side believes its position to be ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’; for as long as any side defensively holds absolute beliefs about the other and doesn’t even try to understand the situation that the ‘other’ is coming from.
I’m certainly not defending the protests or any killings. However there’s hyprocrisy in the intolerant attitudes of Westerners who label all muslims as intolerant; who argue selectively for free speech; and it’s bigoted to declare that we shouldn’t give a shit what muslims think when they are citizens of our democratic society, and a large nation in this small world.
(My last comment on this thread)
Travis,
You asked what did I mean by the phrase “They have done themselves more harm than good.etc”
It it very simple really, in that the world commmunity is now even more aware of the agenda of these people, and the medieval mindset of ignorance that lies behind it all.
If you doubt this then you should :
a)Observe what is going on over a period of time.For this blogs like Dhimmiwatch and Jihad Watch are a good source of news on the subject from around the world. It is mainly material written by others, and yes it may be biased, but at least it has a stated purpose and one knows this. But over all, the message portrayed is strongly founded.
b)Read books by Bat Ye’or and Oriana Fallaci,etc,There are others such as Ibn Warriq.
c)Read also, the Atlantic Monthly article about the old records found in Yemen concerning the origins and historicity of the Koran.
I am sure those more informed than I could provide even more persuasive material, to point to the fact that unless the religion of Islam undergoes radical reform, we are in for nothing but trouble. The cartoons however are a solid forwarning, and hence have done their agenda some harm.