I'm quite troubled over the cartoon controversy in Denmark, not because of the cartoons themselves, which I agree are offensive, but rather, because of the absurd overreaction of Muslims worldwide. We haven't learned from the Rushdie affair - this is yet another instance where we've gone out of our way to make ourselves look stupid.

For anyone living under a rock, here's what happened. Four months ago, on September 30th, 2005, a Danish newspaper called Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in ways that many Muslims deemed sacrilegious. The newspaper claimed - quite foolishly, I think - that the cartoons were "part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression" in Denmark. There were a few protests by Muslims and meetings with the Prime Minister of Denmark, but things came to a head on January 10th, 2006, when two Norwegian papers published similar cartoons that were then circulated in the Middle East. Since then, the response has been stupendous:

There were street demonstrations and flag-burnings in the Middle East. Libya joined Saudi Arabia in withdrawing its ambassador from Copenhagen. Islamic governments and organisations, including the Muslim Council of Britain, issued denunciations and a boycott of Danish goods took hold across the Muslim world.

The Danish Government warned its citizens about travelling to Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria, and withdrew aid workers from the Gaza Strip.

Last night EU foreign ministers issued a statement in support of Denmark, and the European Commission threatened to report any government backing the boycott to the World Trade Organisation.

By yesterday governments across the Arab world were responding to public outrage. Libya closed its embassy in Denmark and the Egyptian parliament demanded that its Government follow suit. The Kuwaiti and Jordanian governments called for explanations from their Danish ambassadors. President Lahoud of Lebanon condemned the cartoons, saying his country "cannot accept any insult to any religion". The Justice Minister of the United Arab Emirates said: "This is cultural terrorism, not freedom of expression." In Gaza, gunmen briefly occupied the EU office in Gaza and warned Danes and Norwegians to stay away. Palestinians in the West Bank burnt Danish flags. The Islamic groups Hamas and Hezbollah and the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood demanded an apology.

Supermarkets in Algeria, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Qatar, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen all removed Danish produce from their shelves. Arla Foods, a Danish company with annual sales of about $430 million in the Middle East, said that the boycott was almost total and suspended production in Saudi Arabia.

Those up in arms don't seem to understand that the newspaper is not government owned or produced. It is an independent newspaper, and as such the guarantee of freedom of expression allows it to do what it did. It may be in bad taste and it may be insensitive, but the newspaper has a point: freedom of expression allows individuals to express themselves in ways that may upset or offend others. Yes, that freedom is to be balanced with freedom of religion, but even so, adherents of any faith cannot expect that they will never be offended. That is the price we pay for the freedoms we enjoy. Some may claim this is a good time to bring out those old blasphemy laws, but I disagree. In fact, I would argue there are no justifiable grounds for blasphemy laws in liberal democracies.

In any case, why these Arab countries would see fit to demand that Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen apologize is beyond me. If one wanted to protest the publication of those cartoons, one could always cancel one's subscription to the newspaper. But to boycott products from the country? Burn Danish flags? Remove ambassadors to express one's displeasure? Those sorts of responses are just nonsensical. The government is not to be blamed for the idiocy of a private newspaper.

Why are we so exciteable anyway? Why even care what a newspaper thinks? The cartoons, horrendous though they may be, need not affect a Muslim's impression of the Prophet, for our tradition clearly shows him to be a man imbued with dignity, morality and goodness. The Prophet was ridiculed from the moment he started receiving revelation in Mecca more than 1400 years ago. The mockery - even the threats on his life - are well documented in the Quran and hadith literature. A few cartoons will do little to harm him - or us.

Some might argue that Islam bars any depiction of the Prophet. Even so, we Muslims cannot force other people to appreciate the Prophet the way we do. We live, for the most part, in free societies, and there are countless opportunities to share with others our own vision of the Prophet and to convince others that he is a man to be honoured and dignified. We can do so by living like the Prophet did, by behaving and speaking in the noble manner of the Prophet himself, and by showing ourselves to be the rightful followers of this blessed man.

The over-the-top reaction just shows me how much excess energy and strength the ummah retains worldwide. Frankly I wonder if Muslims are not doing a greater disservice to the Prophet when we close our eyes to the suffering and oppression in the rest of the world. There are bigger problems to tackle than the publication of 12 silly cartoons. Now, if we could only put our efforts to better purposes...

Nice try there Tommy boy but no cigar. Michelle Malkin is a token minority filipino you right wing whackos cart around to lend credence to your racist views. Nobody takes Malkin seriously with her insipid diatribes on immigration, her obsession with Mexicans is plain unhealthy. Then theres that hate filled scumbag Michael Savage with his stupid radio show calling for armageddon day and night. Most Jews detest him, and righly so. Seems to me you're the one with a fancy for low-brow reactionary white trash right wing culture. You're the fools who arent connected to reality which explains you're in Iraq over mythical WMDs etc. What kind of agnostic believes the Evangellical trash about moon gods and the sort? You lame liar, you have no idead what you're talking about.
I suggest you go fetch a six pac or two for the superbowl and leave the politics and history of the real world to those of us who arent spoonfed and mentally handicapped with nonsense from extremist conspiracy theory websites.
Typical of the breed.

DrM, once again, anybody who disagrees with you is a racist. I'm not going to play that game. Grow up. I don't agree with everything these bloggers say, either. I am generally fairly left-wing on most social issues.

Also, DrM, I am Thomas22 not Timothy. I have not posted anyting regarding 'Evangelical trash about moon gods and the sort?' Nor have a given any response to such literature. I think you need to re-read the posts more carefully.

The history and practices of ancient Semitic religions in the area are very fragmented and I would hesitate to state that Allah is equivalent to the Canaanite Baal. It must be noted that the word 'Baal' means 'lord' or 'master' in Semitic languages and is a title that was frequently applied to many dieties. Drawing judgements from such limited evidence is difficult. I would caution skepticism in drawing an claims of relations between Allah and any Canaanite dieties. Our knowledge of Canannite/Phoenician religion is based on only a few writings by Greeks and Hebrews and a few archaeological finds (Carthage, Ugarit, etc).

It does appear to be true that the idea of a god known as 'Allah' predates the arrival of Mohammad. I think even most Muslims would acknowledge that. I think I have heard Muslims state that they believe that some sort of 'corrupted knowledge' about Allah was present before Mohammad. Fine. Whatever works.

I doesn't really matter to me. I am more interested in religion as it practiced in the here and now. Islam, fairly or unfairly, has a very violent reputation today.

I have been reading instead of talking. Wondering if there is any way to add to a "discussion" that has spiraled out of control. Then I saw this little tid bit!

"Then theres that hate filled scumbag Michael Savage with his stupid radio show"

I though to myself: "Sh!t me and DrM actually agree on something!!!!!!"

It is a start.

When we get done yelling at each other I would like to say that Allah loves us all. Each and Everyone of us.

Allah is loving.

Allah is forgiving.

Allah is understanding.


Allah al Ackbar and Molotov Cocktails should never go todether.

"Allah al Ackbar and Molotov Cocktails should never go todether."

Total agreement here.:)

Stupid Cartoons, Even Stupider Reaction - this headline says it all for me.


Allah al Ackbar and Molotov Cocktails should never go todether - I believe this too


Thomas - First admit that there is reason for people to take offence. Secondly try and understand that when you're part of a minority culture that is held back by social stigmatization in a nation state, you aren't affected as an individual as the ordinary citizen is because even the institutions of that country are perceived as hostile to you .. "fairly or unfairly"

Yes .. it is great to be a leftist, liberal, secular and open minded (it carries certain value I think). But don't be that on behalf of an outside culture. Your model of thinking is built, and designed for and is specific to a non-minority European person in a western country. It is a limited knowledge and will continue to be. Non-western nations are choking on these insights and impractical solutions (not just muslim nations).

Lastly, if you don't want your individual rights policed, then don't police the religious beliefs of muslims. I believe that the "unbiased" skepticism of your sort is actually opportunistic and unfair and can delude from the whole perspective. You're right, hating muslims is not a crime. But what happens when that results in a war on terror and millions of people outside the "free" (I prefer spoilt) countries are affected. When Israeli diplomacy strangles even a little harder .. When the rights of muslims are curtailed a little tighter in non-muslim countries .. Its not legally incitement.

Robert Spencer says he is highlighting
"... the hatred that is directed against the United States, because I believe that the efforts to downplay its depth and extent leave us less equipped to defend ourselves.."
when every 3rd world country in the world has well developed anti-american ideologies and movements. If this is a voice of truth - then its very one sided, doesn't evaluate its own methodology and is being used as tool to arm the global American power struggle.

Latest update, the police in England have now obtained full details of the miscreants who incited religious and racial hatred outside the Danish embassy. These people will be dealt with in concordance with the Law of Great Britain. The toll will be great on these people and deservedly so, some will be given no choice but to leave the country.
So it should be, these Muslim extremists will not be allowed to defile and mock our democracy. I told you so....watch and see it happen over the coming months.
And as for the vast majority of law abiding British Muslims, I am sure they will be heaving a huge sigh of relief over this.
Incite hatred, get deported, goodbye, farewell, adieu, and bloody GOOD RIDDANCE!! Peace!

In response to Ghulam:

First of all, certainly people can be offended. However, civilized people protest by something like this by boycotting products that advertise in the offending paper, letting media outlets know how this offends the Muslim community and writing letters to the editor, among other peaceful an sensible measures. They do not make death threats, bomb threats, threat lives, advocate 'holocausts' and genocides, commit arson, burn flags (thus indicating hatred for the people of an entire country, not simply with the offending cartoonists and publications), or rampagelike a bunch of Neaderthals.

We must remember here people. That we are talking about cartoons. Just cartoons! No cartoon can be offensive enough to justify the response we've seen.

Second of all, I am not out 'police' anybody's religious beliefs. I've already indicated I could care less. The skepticism I was urging was in regards to the hypothesis that Allah is derived from a Canaanite diety referred to as Baal. I don't think most Muslims would agree with this hypothesis anyway. In any event it is an historical or scholarly question, one of which I have every right to exercise skepticism towards.

A quote from DR GHAYASUDDIN SIDDIQUI, MUSLIM PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN

'We have to realise that these are the same people, the fascist element within our community - these are the supporters of Bin Laden, Jihadism and so on and so forth.

I think in the Muslim world the debate has to begin about freedom of speech, the right of writers and comedians to discuss things because they have to realise its value. '

Live in our country, live by our way, a way that is called....freedom. Like it, or get out...simple.

>>DrM, once again, anybody who disagrees with you is a racist.<<

Nice try, but no cigar. Anybody who makes racist statements is racist, Malkin, Savage and Spencer have plenty of those. You dont consider them such because they never go after caucasians.

>>I'm not going to play that game. Grow up. <<

Oh yes you do. You didnt count on people being familiar with the extremists you linked too. Grow up.

>>I don't agree with everything these bloggers say, either. I am generally fairly left-wing on most social issues.<<

Ok, now you're just being pathetic. You claim to be an "far leftist agnostic," yet you listen and link to the most extreme and reactionary right wing white trash radio and websites.I think you're an inconsistent miscreant who cant even keep his story straight. Like I said before, go fetch a six pac or two for the superbowl and leave the politics and history of the real world to those of us who arent spoonfed and mentally handicapped with nonsense from extremist conspiracy theory websites.

Dear DrM,

I'm not going into the commentators/racism thing again. I don't agree with your incredibly broad definition of racism, that is all there is to it.

As far as calling me a "far leftist agnostic" what can I say? Once again you demonstrate you don't pay attention very well. I said I tend to be generally to the left on most things, I never stated I was a "far leftist."

I could show you other left-wing blogs I read, there are many of them. But why bore you? When it comes to this Danish cartoon controversy, I think you'll notice that the left is peculiarly silent. There is almost no commentary whatsoever. Only the right-wing blogs seem to be discussing it.

Actually, I will fetch some beer tonight for the Superbowl, DrM. I am from the Seattle area so I am rooting for the Seahawks. I will probably get some Guinness, some Widmer Hefeweizen and some of that Red Hook IPA.

Maybe you could use a few beers, DrM? Maybe you would lighten up, you seem as dour as the late Ayatollah Khomenei. Islam often seems to be a very unhappy, angry, serious, sullen religion. Why is that?

Is being Muslim considered being part of a certain Race?? Just a question. Or do muslims considers themselves to be a race apart from cuacasions, arabs, negroes etc,..?

I am reading online and watching this thing on TV. I have to say if Islam is about peace it sure has a different way of showing it. Most folks will have a hard time with this display of violence, burnings and the like over cartoons. Dr M you are angry!! I have to agree with you Ed, no one here with knowledge of Islam is answering your questions. Dodging them from what I see, or just plain resorting to name calling or flaming. I have a question....if a non-muslim is killed by a muslim what are the repurcussions under Sharia law??

According to my understanding, Islam is an ideology based on the Qur'an. Because the Qur'an was revealed 1,400 years ago, it has had its influence on significant number of generations. Some part of the world are overwhelmingly populated by Muslims but that does not make those races "Muslim."

I hope that the above made some sense.

So it sounds like Muslims consider themselves a race and not a religion?? I am really confused now... Or is it a race and religion??

"Or is it a race and religion??"

When one has 50+ generations to be Muslim one starts looking at it as a race. I am sure that some look at it as a race. :)

Thanks Liquat

>>Maybe you could use a few beers, DrM? Maybe you would lighten up, you seem as dour as the late Ayatollah Khomenei.<<

Not really, then again I see plenty of drunks both at work and in the comments section.

>>Islam often seems to be a very unhappy, angry, serious, sullen religion. Why is that?<<

I'm sure you would be peachy if you were lied and insulted about as often. More then anything, you're quite predictable with your silly arguments with referrals to your right wing conspiracy theory websites. Do yourself a favor and dont pretend to be a leftie. Michael Savage(Weiner) wouldnt approve.

Lol, I am reading back through this forum and I m glad to hear a voice that recognises my plight!! Thankyou 'just another voice'....if you actually look back at all of Dr M's posts you will find that he actually does not make one single constructive comment on the topic of this forum....in fact his name (Dr M) actually brings to mind a Bond villain...you can imagine him, his back to us, sitting in a high backed black leather chair, stroking his furry feline, making his despotic mad statements!!! Thanks Dr M, for providing at least some form of entertainment!! Night all!!

i don't have time to wade through all these posts yet (although i am sure they are all predictable to a degree), but i do have time to let you know that the new zealand print and television media has now published some of the "offending" cartoons along with reasoned explanations of their reasons for doing so. australian media are expected to follow very shortly. it should not be long now before we have a clear two sides lined up in the impending "holy war"

Was the publication of depictions of Mohammad always so offensive?

Apparently not. Check out this link:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Some Muslim sources depicted Mohammad without any restrictions on appearance. Other Muslim sources basically 'blank' Mohammad out. The fact that Mohammad could be portrayed without having to obfuscate his appearance in some cases, just goes to show you that the Muslim world was once a more tolerant place than it is today.