Seattle, Washington

  When Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris was put on an Al Qaeda hit list for her "Draw Muhammad Day" project, my inbox started filling up.

Since I'm one of the only practicing Muslims in the American comics industry, people assumed I had some kind of profound insight into the reasons these cartoon incidents keep flaring up. But the only explanation I have is too simple to satisfy anyone: they happen because hate sells. It sells in the West, where anti-Muslim hate groups feed on incidents of Muslim rage; it sells in the Muslim world, where extremists are only too happy to use examples of Western intolerance to win over new recruits. This is the reality we live in: any satirized depiction of the Prophet Muhammad feeds into a global propaganda war, whether the artist intends it or not. There is no longer any such thing as artistic immunity in the battle of images, and to think otherwise is fatally naive.

Molly Norris thought otherwise. But as soon as she realized what she'd gotten herself into, it was too late: by taking the offending images off her website and issuing a bewildered apology, she enraged the Islamophobes who were ready to hail her as a martyr to their cause. In the opposing camp, Al Qaeda spokesman Anwar Al Awlaki was unwilling to give up such a plum opportunity to rally support for his jihad. A tepid explanation was not what either party wanted. Extremists of all stripes need blood and conflict in order to survive. Molly Norris has no true supporters: in order to be of any use to either the Islamophobes or the jihadis, she must be a blasphemer whose life is in jeopardy. As a peacemaker she loses her utility.

This is the central tragedy of these endless cartoon scandals. No one is looking for a resolution. Drawing insulting depictions of the Prophet Muhammad has become a favorite pastime of hipster racists, whose bulbous-nosed bushy-bearded 'satire' resembles the anti-Semitic cartoons of the Third Reich. Thanks in no small part to the vigorous, often violent outcry from hardliners in the Muslim world, these artists are elevated to a kind of freedom-of-speech sainthood whether their work has any real merit or not. Death threats are issued, lives pointlessly imperiled, careers of pundits - never themselves in any danger - made overnight. Noted American Muslim leader Imam Zaid Shakir put it best: this isn't the clash of civilizations. It's the clash of the uncivilized.

Molly Norris never drew a picture of the Prophet Muhammad as a wild-eyed Semitic bogeyman. She drew a cartoon teacup, the sort of thing you might find in a children's picture book. Her intent was to inject a little innocent humor into an increasingly absurd conflict. What she didn't realize is that there is no room left for innocence or humor in what has become a cynical exercise in mutual provocation. In honor of Draw Muhammad Day, her legion of unasked-for followers posted cartoons that were more and more grotesque and hate-filled. The result was a threat against Norris's life from an al Qaeda spokesman - and fellow American - who does a better job of caricaturing himself than a cartoonist ever could. She disavowed her own comparatively innocuous cartoons, took down her website, and went into hiding. But the battle begun in her name rages on.

What Norris failed to understand is that by creating events like "Draw Muhammad Day", artists hurl rhetorical stones that go straight through their enemies and hit Muslims like me. Al Qaeda isn't hurt by Draw Muhammad Day. Its entire PR campaign is built on incidents like these. Without the Molly Norrises and Jyllands Postens of the world, Al Qaeda would have to get a lot more creative with its recruitment strategies. Artists who caricature the Prophet inevitably claim, as Norris has done, that they never meant to hurt ordinary Muslims, but ordinary Muslims are the only ones who are hurt. As a Muslim in the comics industry I spend more time than is good for my mental health defending the art and the religion I love from each other. Events like the fallout from Draw Muhammad Day make me think I'm wasting my time - the hate runs too deep on both sides. My conscience won't let me support the criminalizing of art, but neither will it let me support a parade of cartoons depicting lurid, racist stereotypes of Arab men and passing them off as satire of a holy figure.

Molly Norris claims she never meant for this event to become a hate-fest. As silly as that sounds - anyone who's spent more than half an hour on the internet could have told her how this would turn out - I believe her. If provocation was her objective, she could be basking in the light of notoriety as we speak. Instead she's being vilified not only by extremists like Al Awlaki, but by her own former supporters. She's learned the hard way that this conflict was never about her art or her ideas. As her fans turn their backs, looking for someone with a better stomach for scandal, it's clear that no one was ever really interested in what she had to say.

Very interesting to read your views especially as you are a cartoonist.

But, if you were trying to take the debate a step forward, I’m afraid it hasn’t worked (for me). I don’t know what to conclude from your comments (except you seem to be saying “a curse on both your houses”).

If, for the sake of argument, I was a non-Muslim cartoonist trying to earn an honest living, and I drew Mohammed to illustrate a children’s book, what should Muslims (that is Muslims like you) think or do about that?

If I was another non-Muslim cartoonist (also with honest intent) who drew a slightly satirical picture of Mohammed, and other great religious figures such as Jesus, for South Park, what then?

If I was yet a third non-Muslim cartoonist (with just as much honest intent as the other two) who drew a definitely satirical picture (ugly Arab but not obscene, as that goes into other territory), what then?

Who is to tell you (Muslims like you) or me what is acceptable, what is good or bad taste?

I really would like to know.

S Lartius >>> But, if you were trying to take the debate a step forward, I’m afraid it hasn’t worked (for me). I don’t know what to conclude from your comments (except you seem to be saying “a curse on both your houses”).

What is there to conclude? The comment is simple, hatred and other inflammatory forms of expression are hijacked by ideologues who too happily stoke fires of hatred on both sides of the cultural divide. Any commentator or artist must expect that their intentions will be warped by the situation and should understand the consequences of it. Get it?

>>> Who is to tell you (Muslims like you) or me what is acceptable, what is good or bad taste?

Common sense generally. The objectives of the piece mostly. Things meant to cause offence are .. offensive? What is there to discuss? Racist generalisation about communities, hate speech and incitement to do harm are ... offensive and in bad taste.

All your "Ifs" are about as productive and honest about what happened, and as eager "to take the debate a step forward", as a Nazi who wants to continue to depict his big-nosed Jew problems under the guise of freedom of expression. It leads me to ask the question about those on the free-expression bandwagon "If they were sincere and fair ..?"

It also doesn't surprise me at all that people who were loud advocates for cartoon day are also conspicuously quiet about the censorship of Frances Guy or Octavia Nasr ~

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TFmI-tgOGuoJ:blogs.fco.gov.uk/roller/guy/entry/the_passing_of_decent_men+frances+guy+decent+men&hl=ar&gl=lb&strip=0

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jul/08/octavia-nasr-cnn-tweet-fired

or even Israels censorship of the Palestinian crisis ~

http://blogs.alternet.org/movingtrainmedia/2010/06/01/israeli-raid-censored-journalist-ban-gives-israels-official-story-head-start/

The intro to the article states, "There is a central tragedy to these endless cartoon scandals, such as the one involving the Seattle cartoonist, Molly Norris, who penned the comic sparking an Everybody Draw Muhammad Day. No one is looking for a resolution."

My response to the assertion that "No one is looking for a resolution" is that there is no resolution to be found. How is it even logistically possible to prevent these cartoon scandals when potentially millions of people on the planet can create and distribute drawings to millions everyday?

I think it is far more likely these controversies will die out when even the most hardened screws like Anwar Al-Awlaki will see the utter futility in targeting artists. Honestly... will people like him and his followers start targeting arts and crafts stores with the same ferocity as military bases and in-flight passenger planes? Will we see grand bonfires of flat bed scanners? Will there be mass beheadings of renegade cartoonists with their own x-acto knives? Or maybe truck bombs driven into the Louve or the Met? Fact of the matter is there is a lot of art that exists in the world that could be considered offensive to the Islamic faith. That includes some very early paintings of the Prophet Muhammad… that was made centuries ago by practitioners of the Islamic faith.

The author claims that extremists like Al-Qaeda are not harmed by such cartoon campaigns, but I disagree. I have even less respect and less concern of the success of such groups who are now embarked on absurd assassination missions against cartoonists. Such disproportionate responses ultimately do not endure and do not deserve to be feared. They truly seem more pitiful and ridiculous than scary. I also have hope that as much as the author claims these scandals could enhance recruitment efforts to their ranks, I have hope that most people would not want to waste their lives hunting down... glorified doodlers.

What I do find offensive is the author's assertion that cartoonists of inflammatory religious drawings are the same as individuals who see fit to persecute/and or kill them. That's not a "clash of the uncivilized"... it's not even close. An artist (regardless of their taste or sophistication) who uses a pen or a brush as their exclusive weapon is a heck of a lot more civilized than a terrorist, a would-be assassin or a suicide bomber.

The real tragedy is the expectation that the freedom of visual expression must be sacrificed on behalf of the whims of religious zealots, madmen and other enemies of creativity.

My best suggestion to people who are passionately against offensive artists/art is for them to go buy sketchbook or take an art class and learn how to outdraw them.

To Ghulam: To be perfectly honest, people like Octavia Nasr haven't been censored. No one has locked her up, there are no legal penalties awaiting her if she restates her views. She has been fired from CNN, which may be regrettable or even uncalled for, she can still however speak out on blogs, websites, on other TV shows, on the lecture circuit, etc. She can even speak her convictions and admirations on any street corner in the U.S. on a soapbox if that is her desire (without fear of legal reprisal). After all she lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

You stated above there are consequences for some actions of artists that they must expect. As a journalist on a major network she must also understand the consequences for some of her actions. Get it?

I must also point out that what happened to Octavia Nasr is a far cry from what has happened to Molly Norris, who is facing a virtual death sentence for starting an internet phenomenon with a drawing of a stylized teacup.

Ghulam

(1) >>>>> “Any commentator or artist must expect that their intentions will be warped by the situation and should understand the consequences of it. Get it?”

No I don’t get it. So everyone is to shut up, no criticism, just in case some extremists don’t like it.

You and Willow make out that Muslim extremists and their opposites are just as bad as one another. Yes, a very nice generalisation, but I am not aware of non-Muslim extremists (and I wonder how many there are!) coming out on the streets in their tens of thousands over a picture (which is what we are talking about) and even being prepared to murder for it.

(2) Am I to assume from your answer that you condemn the drawing of Mohammed in a children’s book?

My “common sense” tells me that there is nothing wrong with that (or the other “ifs” that I postulate).

And none of them are ”Racist generalisation about communities, hate speech and incitement to do harm …… ”

There might be some “bad taste” from time to time but the vital word you omit is ridicule. If your ideas, what you believe in, (and this goes for me as well) can’t stand up to ridicule then your ideas and beliefs aren’t much good.

(3) I can’t speak for all the other now silent advocates but regarding your links, the first one is in a script I don’t understand. I’m sorry for the CNN lady, but if she broke her contract of employment or went against CNN policy (perhaps they don’t want their news staff to make/broadcast news/opinions as individuals) she has only herself to blame. Regarding the "Israeli censorship of the Palestinian crisis" why don’t you or Willow make a satirical cartoon. I would be delighted to see it, and let you know how good I think it is.

Basically, lets look at the false premise of both of your responses:

>> My response to the assertion that "No one is looking for a resolution" is that there is no resolution to be found.

Basically westerners don't respect the sanctity of Muslim minorities in their countries in the same way they have come to respect the sanctity of Jews or African-Americans or Latin American peoples. Thats's why when you alienate the six million Muslims or the 1.5 billion people who are trying to cope with the invasions of their lands, you don't consider a need for resolution ... because your basis of engagement with these communities is HATEFUL. Awlaki is just your clarion call for what has been a broad attack on Muslims. You use him as scapegoat to purposefull ignore the sentiment and actions of the majority.

>>> The author claims that extremists like Al-Qaeda are not harmed by such cartoon campaigns, but I disagree.

Your failure to understand is actual premised by your intentions ~ which are negative, confrontational, humiliating and destructive. What do I mean .. The author is making the simple point that AL-Qaeda (maybe 15000 people) is not belittled by such attitudes, its moderate Muslim partners (1.5 billion people) are being insulted. You ignore the effects on the majority to consider your effect on the minority .. and lets face it .. these cartoons attacking the religion only make recruitment for Al-Qaeda easy ... which is something you like because you want to fuel the extremism and normalise your view of the majority.


>>> What I do find offensive is the author's assertion that cartoonists of inflammatory religious drawings are the same as individuals who see fit to persecute/and or kill them.

You are right, cartoonists who incite people to hatred and murder (of which there are plenty white christians on this bandwagon) are no the same as the murderers who feed off of their hatred. That's why you're so outspoken about the murders, torture, attacks and sexual assaults that are being promulgated by the American military or its private contractors or Jewish volunteers or in the Israeli army or the CIA. Because you are well aware that just because the governments made those actions possible and promoted that type of behaviour ... they didn't make the actions right.

>>> You stated above there are consequences for some actions of artists that they must expect. As a journalist on a major network she must also understand the consequences for some of her actions. Get it?

Firstly ~ what was her action? She expressed positive sentiment about a Muslim cleric who stood by the Palestinian cause. woohoo .. say something nice about people who are straightforward about Israel .. and you'll lose your job, and probably any possibility of working ever again, your car and your house ... but you still have your dignity and freedom of expression.

So does your country guarantee peoples freedom of expression but entitle companies to discriminate against people who hold opinions in private? This is like firing a black person in the sixties who spoke out against segregation .. its not normal or ok to "attack" (and firing people is attacking them) and publically censure them for holding them. Its a violation of their basic human rights. Ger it?

>>> That's not a "clash of the uncivilized"... it's not even close.

It is the clash of the uncivilised, but a racist commentator like yourself who makes muslim life cheap and promotes lies that encourage murder and emobolden imperial ambitions .. just like Awlaki does .. consider your incitements as purely Polemic. So its very close, and the marwa-el-sherbinis of this world, and the dead on the Gaza flotilla, Dilawar and co. and the dead of Fallujah will attest to it.

Lartius >>> No I don’t get it. So everyone is to shut up, no criticism, just in case some extremists don’t like it.

Noone says shut up. If you're racist two-faced hatemonger who likes to push peoples buttons, or attend nazi white-supremacist gatherings (generally evangelist churches) out of intellectual fervour, or you live on a Zionist settlement and want to kill all those filthy Muslims .. then please say what you want to say. If you don't like someones father, hate his leaders, despise his beliefs ... let it come out. Because that's OK.

But when people proactively take your sentiments to the next level, or start arming themselves, start promoting wars, start clamping down on religious freedom or silencing dissent (ironic) ... don't say "it wasn't me". Because it is, it's very much you. ANd if people respond in protest, they are free to protest. And if they ban you from their countries, they are free to do that. And if they stop buying your countries products because you're considered a hero in your country .. you know what .. they are free to do that too. Don't dilly dally with the standard. When you play by those rules, you must accept your careful nurturing of the consequences of those sentiments. Marwa knows the consequences, Dilawar knows the consequences, Rachel Corrie knows it .. if the innocent bear the brunt today, what's some angry criticism in response?

Me .. I prefer to respect peoples beliefs first, exercise my rights to humiliate small-minded bigots for their views, and I support those who respect me.

>>> I can’t speak for all the other now silent advocates but regarding your links, the first one is in a script I don’t understand.

The British foreign affairs ministry deleted her condolences on the passing of a Muslim cleric. Its been censored fully now that the google cache is deleted.

>>> There might be some “bad taste” from time to time but the vital word you omit is ridicule. If your ideas, what you believe in, (and this goes for me as well) can’t stand up to ridicule then your ideas and beliefs aren’t much good.

When was the last time you saw a white man painted black with shoe polish and with thick white lips going "yes ma'am, no ma'am"? When was the last time you saw a depiction of a greedy big nosed Jew with slits for eyes counting his money before he goes to bed .. why are these depictions not in the modern media anymore? What is the reason for their exclusion despite the ever-present racial tension against these racial groups? Why were they so common 50 years ago but not present anymore? Ridicule vs incitement ... its moot.

>>> Yes, a very nice generalisation, but I am not aware of non-Muslim extremists (and I wonder how many there are!) coming out on the streets in their tens of thousands over a picture (which is what we are talking about) and even being prepared to murder for it.

Typical response ... especially when compared to Crows "mass beheadings comment". People come out in the tens of thousands to make a statement. No mass beheadings of dissenters has happened or ever has. Its a strawman argument. But in the west, Muslims are constantly harrassed, ridiculed and discriminated against by both the state and society with little or no comment by you. When was the last time you joined a mass rally in favour of the victims of your societies excesses?

Your guys problems isn't just that you want Muslims to sit on their hands when their religion is unfairly attacked and racist assertions are made ... you guys want Muslims to be silent, happy even .. maybe even run road-shows in their countries of their icons humiliated.

BTW ~ in case you didn't know .. all of this is happening in the backdrop of a war thats claimed 1 million peoples lives, and the colonisation of a small but important asian country.

>>> non-Muslim extremists (and I wonder how many there are!)

Extremism is such a politicised word. But if you had to use a definition of extremists like ... someone who resorts to extra-judicial methods, murders or abuses, secretly plots to destroy the "other", resorts to destructive methods to secure a right or promote a value when there are plenty of peaceful methods available ..

Then I'd have you know western extremists far outnumber Muslim extremists. The only difference is that they get paid by their governments or funded by broad civil society, while the Muslim extremists are a marginilised band of idiots. Talking about generalisations ... 10,000 protestors who did what exactly?

Was just thinking its quite ironic that Crow resorts to the most strawman posts.

Ghulam >>>>> Me .. I prefer to respect peoples beliefs first,

Well, you certainly don't respect mine, casting all manner of unwarranted aspersions on me and what I say.

>>>>> Noone says shut up.

Well in so many tortured words that is exactly what you are telling me.

>>>>> When was the last time you saw a white man painted black with shoe polish and with thick white lips going "yes ma'am, no ma'am"? When was the last time you saw a depiction of a greedy big nosed Jew with slits for eyes counting his money before he goes to bed .. why are these depictions not in the modern media anymore? What is the reason for their exclusion despite the ever-present racial tension against these racial groups? Why were they so common 50 years ago but not present anymore? Ridicule vs. incitement ... its moot.

That is racism. If you are a Jew/Latin American/African you can't choose not to be.

A satirical cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb as a turban is making a political and anti-religious point. The bombing could stop.

And what about a drawing of Mohammed in a children’s book? What is wrong with that? Or a portrayal on South Park along with Jesus and other equally important religious figures for laughs not “incitement”?

I don’t think any Christians tried to blow anything up or assassinate a book illustrator.

Really Ghulam?

When I said there is no resolution to be had I was clearly referring to these interminable cartoon scandals. My whole post was directly related and structured around the latest cartoonist threat.

As far as my uncivilized quote I think you left out the full context, which is a growing problem these days (I'm talking to you too, Andrew Breitbart!)

Here it is once again:

"What I do find offensive is the author's assertion that cartoonists of inflammatory religious drawings are the same as individuals who see fit to persecute/and or kill them. That's not a "clash of the uncivilized"... it's not even close. An artist (regardless of their taste or sophistication) who uses a pen or a brush as their exclusive weapon is a heck of a lot more civilized than a terrorist, a would-be assassin or a suicide bomber."

No blanket condemnation of whole communities, nothing remotely racial was inserting into my statement. The only thing I was pointing out was that in a contest of civilized manners a cartoonist is leagues above someone who you know... kills people unjustly with an IED, a gun or a knife because they don't like provocative or bad drawings.

Is my opinion on this matter really that controversial and unreasonable Ghulam? Is such a sentiment really beyond the pale? Is it really imperialist to say that if you don't like someone's art that maybe you should try outdrawing them instead of hunting them down to the ends of the earth?

One last thing before I leave (because I have a busy schedule today): I think it fair to say I am not in the same league as Awlaki. At this point he is way beyond any mere commentator or occasional blogger like myself.

I am afraid you will find yourself a very lonely voice on this website (or anywhere else for that matter) in the claim that a commentator like me is anything like the "celebrity" Awlaki. For starters, I have never propositioned at anytime in my life "working girls" : )

>>coming out on the streets in their tens of thousands over a picture (which is what we are talking about) and even being prepared to murder for it.

You've obviously never been to India, or the rest of non-Muslim Asia for that matter. Stuff like that happens alot over there. But, then again, I'm not surprised since the media only highlights Muslim crazies. Ah, we must be the fad of the moment for now...

Well here is a news item that concerns both cartoon threats, Awlaki and his nascent followers (strange coincidence I know):

"A 20-year-old Virginia man who had made threatening statements about the television show “South Park” was arrested on Wednesday and charged with supporting Al-Shabab, a Somalia-based terrorist group, after he allegedly tried to board a flight to Africa with his infant son.

The man, a Muslim convert from Fairfax County, Va., named Zachary A. Chesser, had been in e-mail contact with Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born radical cleric now hiding in Yemen, prosecutors said. Mr. Chesser was briefly in the news in April after he posted on the Internet a statement that the makers of “South Park” might be killed for portraying the Prophet Muhammad in a bear suit.

In an unrelated case on Wednesday, another American convert to Islam, Paul G. Rockwood Jr., 35, of King Salmon, Alaska, admitted that he had been radicalized by reading Mr. Awlaki’s tracts on the Web and had prepared a list of 15 people he believed should be killed for “desecrating Islam.”
----------------
It seems I may have to slightly revise a statement I made from yesterday regarding the utter futility of threatening "offending" cartoonists (sigh).

Moths to the flame I guess.

more info can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/22/us/22terror.html

Lartius ~ Ghulam >>>>> Me .. I prefer to respect peoples beliefs first,

>> Well, you certainly don't respect mine, casting all manner of unwarranted aspersions on me and what I say.

No, unfortunately, it only sounds like an aspersion when the full extent fo your bias are exposed. Unfortunately, it IS difficult to distinguish between a disagreement and an insult. AND that's very much the case with the cartoons. The line is blurred intentionally.

>>> That is racism. If you are a Jew/Latin American/African you can't choose not to be ... A satirical cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb as a turban is making a political and anti-religious point.

That kinds of sums it up. Making a racist caricature of religious figure isn't religious if you can pretend you're making a point. Muslims won't choose to be non-Muslim anymore than an ordinary American can choose to be non-American. Plus look at the depiction ... its a racist caricature of an Arab man aka a disney version of Shylock. Why not Osama with a bomb for a turban? It would be both relevant and correct. Instead, they choose to be insulting and racist instead of just making the religious or political point.

>>> And what about a drawing of Mohammed in a children’s book? What is wrong with that? Or a portrayal on South Park along with Jesus and other equally important religious figures for laughs not “incitement”?

Dude. I watch South Park. I saw the super-friends episode. I don't care about childrens books. I and the millions of Muslims out there who watched it, didn't join a march or go around burning caricatures 9 years ago when the episode first aired. A few months ago ... a whole TWO Muslims guys made rather stupid comments on their site, which CNN publicised as "widespread Muslim anger". In response to which the we have the cartoon day i.e. lampoon the beliefs of 1.5billion people ... in response to which, the rather justified outrage at the cartoon day.

>>> I don’t think any Christians tried to blow anything up or assassinate a book illustrator.

You're living in a dream world .. or better yet .. your mind reads like highlights of CNN America bulletins. Christian soldiers are right now awash in the middle east.

>>> A satirical cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb as a turban is making a political and anti-religious point. The bombing could stop.

Do you even know the background of these seemingly political cartoons targetting Islam .. the Danish newspaper with ultra-right leanings had a competition to depict Mohammed with the specific aim at bullying the minority Muslim population in the country and parade their Christendom. Just makes such a difference when you can see things for what they are rather than what you want them to be.

CROW >>> "What I do find offensive is the author's assertion that cartoonists of inflammatory religious drawings are the same as individuals who see fit to persecute/and or kill them. That's not a "clash of the uncivilized"... it's not even close. An artist (regardless of their taste or sophistication) who uses a pen or a brush as their exclusive weapon is a heck of a lot more civilized than a terrorist, a would-be assassin or a suicide bomber."
CROW >> No blanket condemnation of whole communities, nothing remotely racial was inserting into my statement.

You intentionally blur the line between the less than a handful of people (less than 10) who SAY people should be killed, with the virtually non-existent people who can and will kill (as many as there are known active serial-killers in the US), with VAST majority fo Muslims people who have been offended and express it through thoroughly legal and appropriate ways. Like the Bush paradigm of "with us or against us", you do promote that expressing a sense of offence is the same as committing a crime in its name. The same way you've generalised about Muslims supporting and promoting terror, or those who attended Awlakis mosque (or all those killed when the US government bombed a random village to assassinate him) when you first started posting here. So i think the context is very much in place, along with your continuous posts that seem to think Muslim concerns are just null and void.

And hell yeah, I've got a right to protest. AND tens of thousands of people should denote some serious offence. Don't think for a second that if you support the messages of that infamous cartoon day, that sought only to offend Muslims, that you'll find a happy and willing supportive hand in the Muslim world. Resolution that the article discusses, is the resolution you care least about.

>>> Is my opinion on this matter really that controversial and unreasonable Ghulam? Is such a sentiment really beyond the pale? Is it really imperialist to say that if you don't like someone's art that maybe you should try outdrawing them instead of hunting them down to the ends of the earth?

In the light of the greater truth. I can show you more instance of people dead/tortured/abused because they disagreed with the United States, dead/tortured/abused for opposing the Israeli occupation (in very many multitudinal legitimate ways), oppressed for not being the "favoured" party on a trade agreement or stuck in an endless debt cycle, dead because of that monstrous military-industrial complex. .. your opinions aren't just unreasonable, they're deluded at to whats unfolding and the ways to influence it.

I'm always amazed at the shock Americans have when their own citizens become such extreme converts in the light of Uncle Sams excesses and their own prejudice. Crow is even shocked at being compared to Awlaki, when voices like his resulted in more dead than Awlaki could have ever dreamed off.

I suppose the freedom of expression chat is wasted, when you suppose its OK to fire someone who is sympathetic to Muslims. But the question that remains, all philisophical questions aside:

DO EITHER OF YOU SUPPORT THE MESSAGES ABOUT MUSLIMS, ISLAM AND ARABS IN GENERAL THAT ARE MADE BY THE CARTOONS? AND DO YOU SUPPORT THE SACRELIGIOUS AND OFFENSIVE TACTICS USED AGAINST MUSLIMS, ESPECIALLY IN THIS INCREASINGLY ISLAMOPHOBIC EUROPE?

Forget your misunderstandings about freedom of expression, incitement and all the rest. Forget medium, what say ye about the message and how do you support or oppose it?

>>>> Muslims won't choose to be non-Muslim anymore than an ordinary American can choose to be non-American. Plus look at the depiction ... its a racist caricature of an Arab man aka a disney version of Shylock. Why not Osama with a bomb for a turban? It would be both relevant and correct. Instead, they choose to be insulting and racist instead of just making the religious or political point.

I note your use of won’t rather than can’t.

The depiction of Mohamed was simply that of an angry Arab, and a rather good depiction at that. (The expressive face reminded me of the Arab Sheik in Ben Hur who though at times angry was portrayed as a kind and decent man.)

The point was that Osama and all those of his ilk use Islam to justify what they do. I suggest to you that is a poor reflection on Islam even if most Muslims wouldn’t dream of doing what he does.

You are wrong in pretending there is some minute minority of Muslims who get it all wrong and that the West is hyper overreacting.

Take, for example, the demand for sharia courts in the UK
http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/2010/01/one-law-for-all-yes-and-no.html

Take, for example, a critical reading of Esposito’s book “The Future of Islam”.
http://libertyphile2.blogspot.com/2010/06/espositos-future-of-islam.html

Meant to add this:

Take, for example, “Iran imposes media blackout over stoning sentence woman”
http://thelibertyphile.blogspot.com/2010/07/iran-imposes-media-blackout-over.html

A leading Muslim figure here in the UK (representing a good proportion of British Muslims), said that though stoning is sanctioned in Islam it is really a metaphor for disapproval.

I am not making this up. Think of the possibilities of this for ridicule and satire.

And BTW have you seen "Life of Brian" and the stoning scene in that. "Life of Brian" which was parody of the life of Christ upset a lot of Christians and its portrayal of Jews wasn't that kind, but nobody got assassinated, no one was blown up, there were no riots.

Lartius >>> The depiction of Mohamed was simply that of an angry Arab, and a rather good depiction at that. (The expressive face reminded me of the Arab Sheik in Ben Hur who though at times angry was portrayed as a kind and decent man.)

Its just sad really. You're distracted by one cartoon and ignoring the social circumstances in that country (Denmark and its racist competition), then juxtaposing a wrong conclusion onto another event years later. You're obviously quite misinformed and seem to generalise from one extreme to the next when it comes to Muslims and Islam.

Needless to say, the Ben Hur example is a very good example of your information bias and orientalist bias. The Sheikh was played by Hugh Griffith presenting a white european caricature of Arabs, and probably Muslims too, even though there weren't any around during that time-period. So, yes, its basically a stupid example. When was the last time non-whites played whites? A little worse than men taking womens parts in plays wouldn't you say?

Your obvious prejudice, not unlike Crows, is that you can't critique western society with the same veracity and intellectual gymnastics. It shows that your liberal values are peppered by a healthy dose of prejudice and dogma. Three examples off of the top of my head:

wikipedia >>> The film contains themes of religious satire which were controversial at the time of its release, drawing accusations of blasphemy and protests from some religious groups. Thirty-nine local authorities in the UK either imposed an outright ban, or imposed an X (18 years) certificate (effectively preventing the film from being shown as the distributors said the film could not be shown unless it was unedited and carried the original AA (14) certificate). Certain countries banned its showing, with a few of these bans lasting decades. The film makers actually used such notoriety to benefit their marketing campaign with posters stating "So funny it was banned in Norway!"<<<<

~ Dixie Chix
http://blogcritics.org/music/article/music-review-the-dixie-chicks-taking/
http://www.holyobserver.com/detail.php?isu=v01i02&art=dc

~ Da-vinci code Tom Hanks
http://www.tressugar.com/Tom-Hanks-Prof-Robert-Langdon-Welcomed-Church-1713956

>>> but nobody got assassinated, no one was blown up

Really now .. who got blown up or assassinated, what riots because of the cartoons? Protests become riots, threats become actions, isolated incidents become waves of reprisals .. by sheer act of the imagination.

I don't want to get into an ideological discussion with you about shariah, liberalism and why Muslims use other Muslim shariah-wise arbiters in Islamic issues. Its a common tactic by western apologists to distract from topic under discussion by making wildly unrelated assertions. It should be clear our affairs have no precedent in English life, and any arbitration finding in English can be challenged in court. Jews and Christians and Hindus do pretty much the same with regards to their personal religious issues anyway. You make an issue when Muslims do it, because you want to imagine extremists with these large secret mass followings ... probably to ignore the evil actions of the west in recent years and centuries.

I think intelligent people like you choose to be informed by a common logic and the media bias, rather than a factual account and an objective analysis. Which is why I wait patiently for your response to my pertinent question, what do you say about the messages of that infamous cartoon day?

AND BTW, did you know that Muhammad was depicted in South Park 8years ago without much uproar at all. Do you get that?

.. and any arbitration finding in English LAW ..

Amongst your comments you said (in so many words) that the Muslims the West complains about are only an insignificant minority. And the fuss we make is unjust and based on our on prejudices.

The links I provide above illustrate that is not so. What do you make of the Islamic Republic of Iran that stones a woman to death for adultery? Quite a few people out there seem to go along with that!

Or Esposito’s promotion of the fact that “only” 7% of Muslims thought 9/11 was completely justified while ignoring those who though it largely justified. Altogether a rather large number of Muslims thought 9/11 justified.

Or the link concerning sharia which reveals the considered view of the UK Islamic Sharia Council that the evidence of a woman is worth half that of a man. (And, on the subject of sharia you should see: http://thelibertyphile.blogspot.com/2010/07/iran-cuts-off-hands-from-five-thieves.html)

You don’t say anything about that and pick on my reference to Ben Hur, your comments on which show your concern with “race”. I had thought of referencing Lawrence of Arabia. I remember scenes when Omar Sharif looked very cross with Lawrence, just like the turban bomb cartoon.

Here is my answer to your question.

Yes, I am completely in support of the Danish cartoons and what they communicate.

Some of them were in what some people might consider “bad taste” (e.g., fornicating with a pig), some of them were just funny (e.g., we’ve run out of virgins!).

The point I was making in my earlier comment was that these lie on a spectrum and who is to say where a line should be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not? It is a futile task.

The portrayal of Muslims and Arabs was no more or less unkind (racist) than portrayals we see all the time in the West of people (Scots for their meanness, for example. Or the French, the British are amazingly rude about the French), of individuals, of politicians, even the Queen gets extreme exaggerations (the British upper class “race”)! And, you obviously haven’t seen the latest production of Oliver Twist and the portrayal of Fagin!

You seem overly concerned with race. The satire of the cartoons is not aimed at race it is aimed at belief, aimed at behaviour, and there is an enormous difference. You can change or modify your beliefs or your behaviour (as you admit by the use of the verb “won’t” rather than “can’t”) but you can’t change your race, your looks, the colour of your skin. There are lots of ex-Muslims, some of them quite famous, there are no ex-black people, no ex-Arabs.

If you don’t like what the cartoons say you don’t have to look a them. They were not drawn by Muslims and they were not in your face, the Danish creators did not draw them on the wall of a mosque in Saudi Arabia or broadcast them on Indonesian TV.

You should consider carefully that if your beliefs can not stand criticism (here in the form of ridicule) or forbid it there might be something wrong with those beliefs.

Please read:

Yes, I am completely in support of the Danish cartoons (and any others of a similar nature) and what they communicate.

Lartius >>>> Yes, I am completely in support of the Danish cartoons (and any others of a similar nature) and what they communicate.

Cool, now that I know that your starting premise is criticism of Islam ~ lets look at the broader perspective of your view:

>> Some of them were in what some people might consider “bad taste” (e.g., fornicating with a pig), some of them were just funny (e.g., we’ve run out of virgins!) <<

1. At all costs of dignity of the Muslim community, and even promoting lies about the faith, and further promoting incitement of violence and prejudice against Muslims. All of whose real consequences are being known right now across Europe with infringement on religious freedom and government harrassment and civil society victimisation.

>> Or Esposito’s promotion of the fact that “only” 7% of Muslims thought 9/11 was completely justified while ignoring those who though it largely justified. Altogether a rather large number of Muslims thought 9/11 justified. <<<

2. Relying heavily on skewed facts. 99.9999% of Muslims have never endorsed the attacks, hundreds of Muslims died in those attacks. Many Muslims understand how it can happen. BIG DIFFERENCE. Though not much to you if its a number you can use. 46% of Americans believe Obama is muslim. Use that one with your census. Less than a thousand woman of the Millions of Muslims in France wear the face veil.

>> You seem overly concerned with race. The satire of the cartoons is not aimed at race it is aimed at belief, aimed at behaviour, and there is an enormous difference

3. How much more silly can you get. That is exactly what premises racism i.e. using false generalisation to identify behaviours and beliefs as less human, less legitimate, less entitled to rights on the basis of cultural affiliation. I think you should check up the definition of racism (wiki it if you must) and try harder to understand which western ideas prempted the broader non-racialist movements. How can an Englishman be racist towards a Frenchman? Purely because racism is a blanket term covering discrimination on the basis of notions of what society deems cutlural groups. What entails illegal racism though? The denial of fundamental rights, the attacks on basic human dignity. Nothing explains that more, than anti-semitism, a form racism that's only slightly related to biological race.

>> And BTW have you seen "Life of Brian" and the stoning scene in that. "Life of Brian" which was parody of the life of Christ upset a lot of Christians and its portrayal of Jews wasn't that kind, but nobody got assassinated, no one was blown up, there were no

4. Lying about your own camp, to make Muslims look so much worse. And then happily pretending you didn't. Not a double standard so much as a RACIST delusion of superiority.

>> of individuals, of politicians, even the Queen gets extreme exaggerations

5. Maybe so, but it doesn't promote illegal wars, legitimise funding occupations, promote sanctions on the poor, legitimise infringements on freedom of religion, clamp down on peoples charity work, or promote their harrassment by the state. So the differences in what you endorse is HUGE.

>> The point I was making in my earlier comment was that these lie on a spectrum and who is to say where a line should be drawn between what is acceptable and what is not? It is a futile task.

6. Endorsing rights for yourself, you don't recognise others entitlement too. When Muslims protested the cartoon day, they are equated with terrorists and fascists. When westerners promote their own dogmatic agendas against Islam, then its the freedom of expression boat. When the US and British government endorse torture, assassination, the death penalty and military tribunals for civilians .. its a means to an end .. because the real problem of Muslims in Britain is how one Muslim nation (Iranians or Saudis) treat adulterers. Its a futile task with you, because for you, your ends must justify your means.

> insert denials here <

7. What you don't discuss however is the most telling of your view. You don't mind when pro-arab journalists are attacked for expressing their view, don't mind that your presidents and prime-ministers are by all legal definitions "war criminals", don't mind lying about the tolerance of your society to show up your perceptions of our intolerance. Don't mind making a the punishment for theft in Iran the same issue as Muslim arbitration bodies in the UK. Don't mind the lesser right for the western Muslim, that the western and jewish Christian is entitled to.