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...

I think a point you might have missed is that the Group of Muslim nations that called on Denmark to "Punish" the paper just further illustrates the HUGE disconnect that many Muslim nations have with democracy and a free press.

I congratulate the other papers that ran the cartoon to show solodarity with the Denmark paper.

I support a Muslim's right not to depict Muhammad and a support a free secular press' right to depict Muhammad in characature. You can have both. If there TRUELY is no compulsion in religion, then there should be no problem. Offense should never be meet with threats of violence.

Most educated Muslims do respect freedom of speech. Many inflammatory and derogatory statements have been made against Islam, the beliefs and customs. Although we disagree with these statements, they are not met with the same level of animosity. This was an insult to man more beloved than their families, kids, wife, and themselves. Love is an emotion as is anger and to expect calculated restraint is a misunderstanding of the human equation.

Muslims have an intense love of the Prophet that fills their hearts. It is hard for someone who is a Muslim and knowledgeable of the sacrifices Muhammad made for his community not to be extremely attached to him. If you talk to Muslims you will be able to gauge the level of this love and respect. In the West it is sad that we have lost respect for the sacred.

And as far as cartoons doing little harm, you should reflect on the power of imagery. What image comes to most people's mind when Jesus is mention. Proably a white man with long hair or whatever most people have seen. These images disgrace the dignity of the Prophet and will be the first thing non-Muslims visualize when they hear his name.

>>In the West it is sad that we have lost respect for the sacred.<<

This echoes a quote from a Reuters story on the controversy:

>>>>>
Sohaib Bencheikh, a moderate French Islamic theologian, said Western press freedom had overstepped its bounds. "The West has lost the sense of the transcendent and the sacred," he said.
>>>>>

This sounds like something with a nice, soft ecumenical tone, but let's re-read it, keeping in mind that "the" sacred is a pretty meaningless idea, since it is devoid of all content unless you understand it relative to the speaker.

So if I re-print the statement in a way that makes sense, it says "...Western press freedom has overstepped its bounds. The West has lost the sense of what I find transcendent and sacred."

Reading it that way, doesn't it seem the product of a cosmically arrogant ego to judge that the Western press has overstepped anything?

>>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.<<

The difference is people actually died in the Rusdie affair. Whats wrong with a non-violent boycott?

>>Those up in arms don't seem to understand that the newspaper is not government owned or produced. <<

What you dont understand is this is the latest in a long and protracted campaign against Muslims with far right shift of European politics. Events like these do not happen in a vaccuum. The paper printed the cartoons knowing full well it would have the support of the majority of the Danes with Islamophobia in full swing. Independent? Why dont they start questioning the Holocaust? Why? Because they'll be doing time behind bars.

>>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.<<

Ah, nothing like a little minimalism. Since he faced ridicule and trials in his mission....anybody should be allowed to defame him. It doesnt harm him, but sure makes Muslims upset seeing the Prophet(saw) who we love more then own parents defamed like this.

"Some might argue that Islam bars any depiction of the Prophet."

Not some, All.
I read the "apology" and I have to say, it was extremely phony and condescending. These racists didnt think we wouldnt be offended? Can you imagine if a paper published cartoons of a menarroh with dynamite sticks, and then claimed it had no idea that it would offend Jews?! Nonsense.
The reaction was mature and tempered. No bullets, no bombs, just the power of the pocketbook, and thats why the paper apologized. Its common sense. If a socialist hellhole like Denmark can pull this because of "freedom," we can sure as hell boycott their products and send a clear message that they can peddle their milk and cheese elsewhere. The boycott was an excellent of grassroots mobilization and should serve as a future model of engagement. The article fails to recognize the broader context of far-right slide of European politics and its culture war against the Muslims of the continent. Stupid cartoon, Smart response, dumb article.

>>If a socialist hellhole like Denmark can pull this because of "freedom," we can sure as hell boycott their products and send a clear message that they can peddle their milk and cheese elsewhere.<<

I for one had no idea that the Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten peddled milk and cheese!

Can a reaction be "mature and tempered" if it radically misunderstands the separateness of the Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, Arla Foods, Novo Nordisk (makes insulin - banned in Saudi Arabia), and the Danish government, and lumps them all together as one and the same?

"Can a reaction be "mature and tempered" if it radically misunderstands the separateness of the Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten, Arla Foods, Novo Nordisk (makes insulin - banned in Saudi Arabia), and the Danish government, and lumps them all together as one and the same?"

The reaction of boycotting and protesting had more to do with the Danish government's lack of condemnation and repudiation rather than the newspaper's action itself. Thus, when a government that represents Danish corporations and its people fails to act - it will face repercussions on a broad scale. Denmark's biggest newspaper and government don't exist in a vacuum - they are a reflection of Danish society and culture.

As to 'mature and tempered' reaction - I take it you thought the publishing of the cartoons was a 'mature and tempered' action from Denmark's biggest selling daily??????????? Please.

"The reaction of boycotting and protesting had more to do with the Danish government's lack of condemnation and repudiation rather than the newspaper's action itself. "

Do you really believe that? I don't think you do. It had to do with calls for "punishment" of the Paper from the Danish government.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/6362975C-60D7-4E26-A64E-2A7B1D561DA4.htm

"The official said the Danish government should punish the offenders."

>>The reaction of boycotting and protesting had more to do with the Danish government's lack of condemnation and repudiation rather than the newspaper's action itself. Thus, when a government that represents Danish corporations and its people fails to act - it will face repercussions on a broad scale. Denmark's biggest newspaper and government don't exist in a vacuum - they are a reflection of Danish society and culture.<<

Isn't this the kind of groupthink that Muslims want to avoid when it comes to others judging Islam as a whole for terrorist acts by individuals? One might as well say that "terrorists don't exist in a vacuum - they are a reflection of Islamic society and culture."

svanho: "Isn't this the kind of groupthink that Muslims want to avoid ..."

"Groupthink?" What? That sounds like a sound Psychological principle. Something explained by science and research.

You know Psychology is, at best, Western Propaganda or, at worst, Haram or Bidah.

Ben:

>>>The reaction of boycotting and protesting had more to do with the Danish government's lack of condemnation and repudiation rather than the newspaper's action itself. "

>>Do you really believe that? I don't think you do. It had to do with calls for "punishment" of the Paper from the Danish government.

Are you now telling me what I believe or not???? Please. You are mistaken and this is why. These cartoons were published in the fall - the Danish government was asked to condemn, repudiate, and disassociate itself from this action. It refused to do so - it hid behind 'freedom of expression'. After much to-ing and fro-ing to resolve the issue, nothing was accomplished. Then in the last month or so, various Muslim countries started pulling their diplomats out of Denmark, the enitre issue escalated and the protests/boycotts began. By the Muslims' governments actions to the Danish intransigience - this issue reached the Muslim's streets and thus the reaction you have. Had these governments not escalated the issue because the Danish government would not condemn/repudiate then this whole issue would have fizzled.

You are proving what you think. I am not guessing at it.

"it hid behind 'freedom of expression'-"

That is freedom of expression. Pure and simple. Also, freedom of the press. Similar but different from freedom of expression.

It is obvious from your "it hid behind 'freedom of expression'..." statement where you come down on the issue. We take two steps forward and then folks take three steps back.

"Had these governments not escalated the issue because the Danish government would not condemn/repudiate then this whole issue would have fizzled."

Freedom doesn't bow to threats. The Danes made the RIGHT CALL.

Svanho:

"Isn't this the kind of groupthink that Muslims want to avoid when it comes to others judging Islam as a whole for terrorist acts by individuals? One might as well say that "terrorists don't exist in a vacuum - they are a reflection of Islamic society and culture."

As usual - some individuals are unable to make appropriate and like comparisons. Islamic terrorism is condemned, repudiated and is disassociated from the religion. And the majority of scholars and lay people echo that. Had the biggest selling daily in the Islamic world made comments taunting another religion's key figure and if a collective Islamic government had then refused to condemn/repudiate that action - then you would have a like comparison. Obviously, this does not exist and could not exist given the Islamic world's diversity as compared to a nation of 5 million.

And anyway - I never claimed Islamic terrorism doesn't reflect anything about Muslim society. It reflects something about SOME Muslim societies - namely the Arabs. And there it reflects political and economic stagnation by corrupt dictators who are supported and kept in place by some in the West. Thus, the terrorism against the West - condemnable but if you want a reflection of Islamic terrorism and what it says about society - there you have it.

"Freedom doesn't bow to threats. The Danes made the RIGHT CALL."

What is the threat? The Danish newspaper printed its cartoons and its government refused to react. Then, Muslims protested, boycotted and withdrew their diplomats. If a few crazy individuals have done some violence, too bad but 'freedom of expression' has its consequences - and one who practises it must be AWARE.

From your arguments, it seems to me you belong in one of those Islam-bashing Christian websites - I am at a loss to understand what you are doing here. You would much more readily find like minded individuals in those above named websites.

Ben:

You are quite the amazing fellow:(

"That is freedom of expression. Pure and simple. Also, freedom of the press. Similar but different from freedom of expression.

It is obvious from your "it hid behind 'freedom of expression'..." statement where you come down on the issue. We take two steps forward and then folks take three steps back."

Freedom of expression has CONSEQUENCES. LIVE WITH IT! DON'T WHINE ABOUT IT.

"...who are supported and kept in place by some in the West."

The most convienent excuse of all time.

GM:

>>The Danish newspaper printed its cartoons and its government refused to react.<<

Just so I don't misunderstand where you're coming from, just how was the Danish government supposed to react? I mean, beyond their saying, "We regret that you were offended, but the Danish goverment is not the same as the Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten." I'm trying to think of something that would make sense for the Danish government to say, but the paper didn't violate Danish law, and no goverment printing press was used to print the cariacatures.

Are you saying that Danish law should be changed to prohibit the illustrations? Or are you saying that it makes sense for a third party to apologize for the actions of another party?

>>The most convienent excuse of all time.<<

Also the most truthful statement in the world of international politics. Freedumb seems to have become the common excuse to insult, degreade and terrorize others, particularly Muslims with the onslaught of Islamophobia. Then again, we are living in a world where the World Bank is run by a war criminal who doesnt have an economics degree, so I shouldnt be surprised.
You can come up with all the excuses (try debating the Holocaust and see what happens)you want, if the Danes want to behave like a bunch of mean spirited racist bastards, the least we can do is not business with them. Call it our "freedom" to spend our money elsewhere. Its called common sense. Never underestimate the power of the pocketbook.

>> 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.


The Gulf Arab states don't allow for freedom of their own people. Boycotts and Flag Burning may seem non-sensical to us, but to those people, that's all they can do.

Consumer power is all they have and the Arla Corp., story goes a long way to explain the effects of industrialist lobbying.

As for flag burning, it wasn't done in any of the Arab States, but was done in [the] some what democratic parts (i.e Palestine, Egypt and Pakistan ).

The effects need to be studied region-by-region - one can't and shouldn't just generalize it as one big Muslim phenonmenon akin to the Rushdie Affair.

Update: More EU countries publish pics -
With that in progress, lets see what happens next...

Good points Andalusian.

>>More EU countries publish pics<<

Nazi birds of a feather. Time to expand that boycott.