Muslim Outrage, Cartoons, And CAIR
Cartoons of Prophet Met With Outrage:
Depictions of Muhammad in Scandinavian Papers Provoke Anger, Protest Across Muslim World
The caption under the January 31, 2006 Washington Post article reads as follows:
"A shelf in a Saudi supermarket has been emptied of Danish products in protest over cartoons in a newspaper in Denmark that depicted the prophet Muhammad as a terrorist."[Go here to Democracy Frontline to see some of the objectionable cartoons with some eighty-eight comments, and a follow-up article is here.]
[Update: And here are some cartoons from the Arab world.]
"PARIS, Jan. 30 -- Cartoons in Danish and Norwegian newspapers depicting the prophet Muhammad in unflattering poses, including one in which he is portrayed as an apparent terrorist with a bomb in his turban, have triggered outrage among Muslims across the Middle East, sparking protests, economic boycotts and warnings of possible retaliation against the people, companies and countries involved.Update from Infidel Bloggers Alliance:
"The cartoons were published in September in a conservative, mass-circulation Danish daily, Jyllands-Posten, and were reprinted three weeks ago in Magazinet, a small evangelical Christian newspaper in Norway. But the reaction has been widespread, and fallout over the images reached new levels Monday, with the European Union backing Denmark in the dispute and warning that a boycott of Danish products -- already being felt by some companies -- would violate World Trade Organization rules.
"Saudi Arabia has recalled its ambassador from Denmark and Libya has closed its embassy in Copenhagen, the Danish capital. Kuwait called the cartoons 'despicable racism.' Iran's foreign minister termed them 'ridiculous and revolting.'...
"People are inclined to see Islam and political extremism as two sides of the same coin," [Ulf Hedetoft, a political scientist at Aalborg University and director of Denmark's Academy for Migration Studies] said....
"The newspapers have issued explanations but have couched their apologies. 'We are sorry if Muslims have been offended,' Jyllands' editor in chief, Carsten Juste, told the Associated Press, adding that the newspapers actions were 'within the constitution, the Danish penal code and international convention. . . . It is not a dictatorship like Saudi Arabia that is going to dictate our editorial line here in Denmark.'...
"'The question here is how far do you show sensitivity and self-control over issues without falling into self-censorship,' said Medhi Mozaffari, a professor at Aarhus University in Denmark, who defended his government's stance not to apologize.
"'It's unthinkable that the prime minister would make an apology,' he said. 'This is Islamists putting democracies on trial to see how far they can be pressured.'"
"Newspapers across Europe are reprinting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons: 'Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage. France Soir, Germany's Die Welt, La Stampa in Italy and El Periodico in Spain all carried some of the drawings....'"As I expected, CAIR has now jumped aboard the ban-anything-offensive-to-Muslims train and on January 31, 2006 released a statement:
"...[CAIR is] seeking meetings with the Danish and Norwegian ambassadors to the United States to discuss the publication of cartoons in those nations that Muslims worldwide view as 'intentionally insulting' to the Prophet Muhammad and Islam...."It's no surprise that CAIR is taking this position. Last summer, CAIR was actively involved in engineering the firing of radio talkshow host Michael Graham. And according to Gindy and LA Sunsett, CAIR is after another radio host, Bill Handel, who in his usual style, made fun of the stampede at the Haj. Mr. Handel is noted for his acerbic satire, but let him mention something about Islam, and here comes the CAIR cavalry riding over the hill to defend the honor of Islam.
CAIR does not limit its rescue operations to radio hosts or to featured cartoons. CAIR also launches campaigns against letters to the editors. One example is here, and others can also be found on the CAIR web site.
Maybe the cartoons are insulting. Lots of things offend lots of people. But suppression of freedom of the press and freedom of speech is even more offensive. Beyond offensive! If those ideals are compromised, we will see the fall of Western civilization.
CAIR presents itself as a moderate-Muslim organization, a champion of civil rights. I don't see it.
posted by Always On Watch @ 2/01/2006 07:15:00 AM
60 comments
60 Comments:
I have been amazed at the temper tantrum eminating over some cartoons. However if one goes to Memri or Free Republic one can readily see cartoons of Jews and Americans that look lifted from the page of der sturmer.
I was waiting for 167 to start and cry. This would be amazing as he has posted some of the same anti Semitic images as the Arab world.
I started a post on my blog called Spanking Muslims as a parody. I have been getting hits for spanking Koreans something I never wrote but due to the wonders of google comes up as a hit. However I am begining to see that many on the Far left and some Muslims behave like spoiled kids in need of a spanking.
The rant is 3/4 comedy but all good satire is truth based.
I was waiting for trolls to be spanked but they avoided that post.
Sometimes an offensive cartoon tests our resolve and willingness to uphold freedom speech. So be it.
One of the facts of life in a free and pluralistic society is that people offend others. And sometimes they abhor the values of others. I’m sick and tired of Muslim militants trying to shut down debate. If it takes outrages cartoons (and these were far from that) then we need such speech, on occasion, to re-affirm our dedication to protecting all rights of free expression.
And as Beak notes, they are far more offensive in their hate-spewed writings on the Jews and burning of the American flag.
Excellent work!! I left my other comments at the post for this article at the IBA site, but excellent job in exposing the SCAIR tactics, a job which we cannot allow ourselves to stop doing. They are tyrants. Well done, indeed!!
CAIR and the other Islamicists may think these Danish newspaper cartoons insolent, but at the same time, they do draw attention to the shame the average Muslim should feel for the acts of terror and jihad perpetrated in the "name" of Islam and that give it ill repute. There needs to be a deliberate propiganda campaign to ridicule the terrorists and their supporters with comedy AND lament and draw attention to the pains of the victims of terrorist acts through tragedy. But then, some discrimination IS necessary so as to drive a wedge between the average devout but non-violent Muslim, and his more radical jihadi terrorist counterpart. Perhaps in this respect, some of these cartoons fall short of the mark.
Plato, "Laws"
ATHENIAN: That is just what we must endeavour to show. And let me ask you a question:--Do we not distinguish two kinds of fear, which are very different?
CLEINIAS: What are they?
ATHENIAN: There is the fear of expected evil.
CLEINIAS: Yes.
ATHENIAN: And there is the fear of an evil reputation; we are afraid of being thought evil, because we do or say some dishonourable thing, which fear we and all men term shame.
CLEINIAS: Certainly.
ATHENIAN: These are the two fears, as I called them; one of which is the opposite of pain and other fears, and the opposite also of the greatest and most numerous sort of pleasures.
CLEINIAS: Very true.
ATHENIAN: And does not the legislator and every one who is good for anything, hold this fear in the greatest honour? This is what he terms reverence, and the confidence which is the reverse of this he terms insolence; and the latter he always deems to be a very great evil both to individuals and to states.
CLEINIAS: True.
ATHENIAN: Does not this kind of fear preserve us in many important ways? What is there which so surely gives victory and safety in war? For there are two things which give victory--confidence before enemies, and fear of disgrace before friends.
CLEINIAS: There are.
ATHENIAN: Then each of us should be fearless and also fearful; and why we should be either has now been determined.
CLEINIAS: Certainly.
-FJ
FJ,
There needs to be a deliberate propiganda campaign to ridicule the terrorists and their supporters with comedy...
Funny that you should mention that! See this, and other items at the same site. Let's see if the idea takes off.
Was anybody else as disappointed as I was when George Bush once again called Islam a peaceful religion being hijacked by extremist? I believe he knows the truth but doesn't say so for political reasons. If he doesn't then he is the wrong man for the job. I believe he should tell the truth about Islam. When is telling the truth the wrong thing to do?
" For there are two things which give victory--confidence before enemies, and fear of disgrace before friends."
American Crusader--
I agree on both points!! The koran DOES insult Christianity among other religions (well, pretty much all of them...) and yes, I WAS disappointed by Bush saying that again about Islam. However, I loved his message to the people of Iran. Did anyone else take this as an indication that Ahmadinejad is next on the list?
Free speech is definitely getting to them... Islamic Attempt to Limit Free Speech but I still don't think an untargetted blanket attack against Islam and all its' practictioners and/or symbols is the way to go.
-FJ
I know it's SOMEWHERE around here. . .Le'me see. . .Ah! There! I found it!
Here we go: "I have been made victorious with terror!" (quote of Muhammed, from Buhkari).
"I shall terrorize the infidels!" (Mohammed, from the Koran).
"Wipe out the infidels to the last (Mohammed, from the Koran).
"Killing disbelievers is a small matter to us" (Mohammed, from Tabari).
Oh, and then there's this, of course:
"You have in the Messenger a beautiful pattern of conduct to follow" (the Koran).
Yeah. Right.
Now, re: the cartoons (depicting the prophet Muhammad in unflattering poses, including one in which he is portrayed as an apparent terrorist with a bomb in his turban)--am I missing something here?
I think that this is an acid test for the Muslims living in the West. Can they accept living in a pluralistic, largely secular West, and accept that there are no boundaries to freedom of expression? Or can they not? If the answer is the latter, then I guess it's time for them to move on!
Freedom of expression cannot be partial: You either have it, or you don't. It's as simple as that!
I have taken the step to publish the most controversial photo of the Prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb about to go off. I am heartened by the fact that respectable European newspapers such as Die Welt have also made a stand against this idiocy.
Make a stand for freedom of expression yourself before it's too late! If you lose it, you'll never get it back.
Support Denmark! If they lose this fight, then we all lose our freedom to express ourselves, too.
And here are some cartoons from the Arab world.
I'm also adding this link to the article itself--Update.
Bush's reference to a "noble religion" was deeply disappointing to me as well. I hope he knows better.
Interesting development from Europe.
Die Welt and France Soir re-printed the cartoons.
Apparently there are several others.
Another challenge for the Muslims.
Boycott the whole Europe or not?
Thanks for the link.
Felis,
After I got home from work this evening I saw the good news, and I've posted an update to this blog article itself:
Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage.
France Soir, Germany's Die Welt, La Stampa in Italy and El Periodico in Spain all carried some of the drawings.
Political cartoons played a role in the American Revolution and, to an even greater extent, the American Civil War.
To all:
I work a heavy schedule on Wednesdays. I'll be back tomorrow or on Friday.
In the meantime, I've posted a couple of updates to the blog article.
Those links to the cartoons from the Arab press are so vicious and hateful, everything else pales in comparison. The Islamic appologists always turn the light away from their world ... whatever charges they make apply 100 fold to their own culture.
Of course, their actions fueled the debate. And as "Cubed" shows, the truth isn't on Islam's side.
Speaking of propaganda, anyone seen Toles cartoon in the Monday's Washington Post. I understand the JCS sent a letter to the Post expressing their outrage. I'm not surprised. It depicts a quadruple amputee laying in a hospital bed, with Rumsfeld designating his status as "combat hardened". Where is this cartoons equivalent in the Arab papers condemning bin Laden and the terrorists? Oh that's right, a free press is a "western" standard. It is only to be used AGAINST us.
I'm sure it will make Arab press soon enough.
-FJ
AOW,
Bill Handel is not backing down:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/01/golden-balls-award-and-winner-is.html
If a double standard is allowed to exist between the muslim world and the the rest of the world, the backlash could be enormous. By continuing to back down to organizations like CAIR and the likes, will only serve to inflame the emotions of Americans. Anti-muslim sentiment will rise, not only here, but in Europe too.
Those handful of Muslims that really do value freedom and the better life afforded to them in their new countries, will be in danger. We really won't be doing them or ourselves any favors by allowing these people to dictate what is and what is not acceptable, in a country that has welcomed them with such open arms.
Blackmail and propaganda is one front used by the enemy, to sell their warped ideology.
Good post, AOW.
In answer to Duck's question "what did Graham say?"
Shortly after the London bombings, Graham had one of most animated shows on the air. In the course of the discussion, he said, "Islam is a terrorist organization." When he refused to apologize, he was fired.
Below is Graham's written explanation:
THE TRAGEDY OF ISLAM
I take no pleasure in saying it. It pains me to think it. I could very well lose my job in talk radio over admitting it. But it is the plain truth:
Islam is a terror organization.
For years, I've been trying to give the world's Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, along with the benefit of my typical-American's complete disinterest in their faith. Before 9/11, I knew nothing about Islam except the greeting "asalaam alaikum," taught to me by a Pakistani friend in Chicago.
Immediately after 9/11, I nodded in ignorant agreement as President Bush assured me that "Islam is a religion of peace."
But nearly four years later, nobody can defend that statement. And I mean "nobody."
Certainly not the group of "moderate" Muslim clerics and imams who gathered in London last week to issue a statement on terrorism and their faith. When asked the question "Are suicide bombings always a violation of Islam," they could not answer "Yes. Always." Instead, these "moderate British Muslims" had to answer "It depends."
Precisely what it depends on, news reports did not say. Sadly, given our new knowledge of Islam from the past four years, it probably depends on whether or not you're killing Jews.
That is part of the state of modern Islam.
Another fact about the state of Islam is that a majority of Muslims in countries like Jordan continue to believe that suicide bombings are legitimate. Still another is the poll reported by a left-leaning British paper than only 73 percent of British Muslims would tell police if they knew about a planned terrorist attack.
The other 27 percent? They are a part of modern Islam, too.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations is outraged that I would dare to connect the worldwide epidemic of terrorism with Islam. They put it down to bigotry, asserting that a lifetime of disinterest in Islam has suddenly become blind hatred. They couldn't be more wrong.
Not to be mean to the folks at CAIR, but I don't: Care, that is. I simply don't care about Islam, its theology, its history — I have no interest in it at all. All I care about is not getting blown to smithereens when I board a bus or ride a plane. I care about living in a world where terrorism and murder/suicide bombings are rejected by all.
Was Graham's on-air statement extreme? Maybe. Lots of talkradio statements are. But why didn't CAIR rebut the statement instead of organizing a campaign to get him fired? Wouldn't a reasoned debate have been more effective? By not rebutting the statement, CAIR leaves open two possibilities:
1. Graham was correct, so there is no possible response other than muzzling him.
2. CAIR itself has ties to terrorism and/or to "extreme Islam."
On point two, see this:
"Ibrahim Hooper...told the Minneapolis Star Tribune on April 4, 1993: 'I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.'
"Randall Royer, CAIR's communications specialist and civil rights coordinator, was indicted on charges of conspiring to help Al-Qaeda and the Taliban to battle American troops in Afghanistan. He later pled guilty to lesser firearm-related charges and was sentenced to twenty years in prison.
"Ghassan Elashi, the founder of CAIR's Texas chapter, was convicted in July 2004 along with his four brothers of having illegally shipped computers from their Dallas-area business, InfoCom Corporation, to Libya and Syria, two designated state sponsors of terrorism. In April of 2005, Elashi and two brothers were also convicted of knowingly doing business with Mousa Abu Marzook, a senior Hamas leader and Specially Designated Terrorist. He continues to face charges that he provided more than $12.4 million to Hamas while he was running the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF), America's largest Islamic charity.
"Bassem Khafagi, CAIR's community relations director, pleaded guilty in September 2003 to lying on his visa application and for passing bad checks for substantial amounts in early 2001, for which he was deported. Khafagi was also a founding member and president of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA), an organization under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for terrorism related activities.
"Rabih Haddad, a CAIR fundraiser, was arrested on terrorism-related charges and deported from the United States due to his subsequent work as executive director of the Global Relief Foundation, a charity he co-founded; in October 2002, GRF was designated by the U.S. Treasury Department for financing Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. According to a CAIR complaint, Homam Albaroudi, a member of CAIR's Michigan chapter and also a founding member and executive director of the IANA also founded the Free Rabih Haddad Committee.
"Siraj Wahhaj, a CAIR advisory board member, was named in 1995 by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible unindicted co-conspirator in connection with the plot to blow up New York City landmarks led by the blind sheikh, Omar Abdul Rahman.
"Ihsan Bagby, a future CAIR board member, stated in the late 1980s that Muslims' can never be full citizens of this country,' referring to the United States, 'because there is no way we can be fully committed to the institutions and ideologies of this country.'
"Omar Ahmad, CAIR's chairman, announced in July 1998 that 'Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran . . . should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.'"
BTW, after Graham was fired, CAIR backpedaled and tried to say that the organization had nothing to do with the firing. But at the time of the fracas, the Graham story was all over CAIR's web site, along with the names, address, and phone numbers of all of WMAL's sponsors. CAIR may have removed that info from their site; they removed the hijab-doctoring, and when Spencer called their hand, CAIR restored the story. But the Google archive version was still available, and CAIR ended up looking foolish--and worse.
It's interesting to note here that the Danish newspaper issued an apology, which was accepted. After a short time, the acceptance of the apology was retracted because it was "ambiguous." [This according to a brief item in the February 1, 2006 in the WaPo] What is a sufficient apology?
Ouzian,
I know the temper of arabs/muslims, I grew up there...
they never like freedom of speech... they view it as a threat against their rotten realities inside...
IMO, freedom of speech is one way to reform rotten realities. There is no change without criticism.
Beak,
I have been amazed at the temper tantrum eminating over some cartoons. However if one goes to Memri or Free Republic one can readily see cartoons of Jews and Americans that look lifted from the page of der sturmer.
"Temper tantrum" is a good way to refer to what has been going on with the Muslim reaction.
In the blog article, I've posted an update, a link to some cartoons from the Arab media. And, yes, some are reminiscent of what happened in Nazi Germany.
The rant is 3/4 comedy but all good satire is truth based.
And the basis in truth is what gets under their skin, IMO.
Crusader,
Freedom of Speech works both ways. They teach hatred in their schools and they practice hatred every day...
I'm not holding my breath on reciprocity.
I believe he [GWB] knows the truth but doesn't say so for political reasons.
GWB needs to be sure that he understands the Islamic definition of peace:
"...Sayyid Qutb, one of the twentieth century's foremost adocates of violent jihad, taught (without a trace of irony) that Islam is a religion of peace. However, he had a very specific kind of peace in mind: 'When Islam strives for peace, its objective is not that superficial peace which requires that only that part of the earth where the followers of Islam are residing remain secure. The peace which Islam desires is that the religion (i.e., the law of the society) be purified for God, that the obedience of all people be for God alone, and that some people should not be lords over others. After the period of the Prophet--peace be on him--only the final stages of the movement of Jihaad are to be followed; the initial or middle stages are not applicable.'
"In other words, Islam is a religion of the peace that will come when everyone is Muslim or at least subject to the Islamic state. And to establish that peace, Muslims must wage war."
Do Norquist and Forte prevent that understanding?
Jason,
In your first comment to this blog article, you said, One of the facts of life in a free and pluralistic society is that people offend others. And sometimes they abhor the values of others. I’m sick and tired of Muslim militants trying to shut down debate.
And just why do they refuse to debate? Because they can't effectively rebut? Seems so.
Cubed's points are well taken and go to the heart of the matter. The Koran and the ahadith do not allow for a pluralistic society. Not seeing that fact is to fly in the face of reality.
There will be no reform or secularization of Islam if criticism and debate do not occur. After all, a problem has to be recognized before remedies are effected.
Mark,
The loss of freedom of speech would bring down Western civilization.
All sorts of things offend all sorts of people. The way to deal with these offense is not to issue a fatwa, a bomb threat, censorship, etc.
FJ provided a link about Norway's consideration of passing an anti-blasphemy law. Can you imagine the fracas if all sorts of blasphemy laws were enacted? Who would be able to speak or to print much of anything? The concept of separation of church and state would disappear.
Maccus Germanis,
Does GWB know that his statement about "a noble religion" flies in the face of Islam's tenets? I'm not sure.
I am still waiting for the hordes to come forth and stop the "perversion."
At another thread, Jason posted the following comment, which is applicable to some of the discussion here:
The [February 1, 2006] NYC rally [against Islamofascism] was somewhat disappointing—about 2 dozen turned up. Unfortunately, I couldn’t stay long and meet everyone. It would have been nice to chat. Years from now, we could have reminisced how we were one of the few that were there in the beginning.
I saw one heated exchange between an Iranian fellow who was trying to say that it is not Islam that's the problem … others weren’t buying it even though the organizers wanted the focus to be of Islamo-fascism. But, in person, I enjoy a good argument and I would have liked to debate the fellow. But I had to get back to work.
The UAC, who organized these rallies, attempted to involve Muslims in opposition to radical Islam. How many Muslims appeared? If few, what does that tell us?
And I didn't see a word about the UAC rallies on CAIR's web site either.
Contrasting reactions to the latest cartoons lends some insight as to the fundamental difference in beliefs and culture...
American Thinker article
-FJ
Always On Watch:
The separation of church and state would be no more, as you rightly say. But then, that's what these Islamofascists want, isn't it?
These people are taking us into a 'new dark age', as I state in my book, The Dawning of a New Dark Age. (Sorry for the plug, AOW!) But then, they're living in the dark ages anyway. They have only ever been able to come out to the West because of petrodollars.
This religion, if one can rightly call it that, is really a death cult. It should be kept at bay!
FYI, I have posted many other caricatures on my website this morning. If you wish to take a look, please click HERE.
CAIR is a dangerous subversive terror supporting orginization that should be rounded up period. The fact that so many media outlets gives this group any credence is very telling.
I own a DVD copy of Last Temptation of Christ. Bought it in a bargain bin.
Don't tell me our little block party was most sucessful in "wiberal Massawchoosits?"
Kinda obviates voter fraud up there, don't it?
Many of the spokesman the right so vehemently opposes are in fact sustained by the right.
You flatter yourself, Ducky. Is this from the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?
Duck,
which media outlets give CAIR credence? I find that they get much more publicity from far right bloggers than any mainstream outlet.
CAIR operates mostly behind the scenes. But CAIR did take on Fox's 24 and get the plot line changed. CAIR funds attorneys who defend Muslims on trial for terrorism, funds library projects, funds Koran distribution, etc. I think that CAIR's latest legal adventure is a lawsuit against Robert Spencer, but I don't know all the details.
AOW, any idea why I can't rent "The Last Temptation of Christ" in a large percentage of video stores?
Not a clue. Maybe it wasn't renting well? Also, I've noticed that some movies frequently run on cable are not available at a wide range of video stores.
A while back, I couldn't find Moscow on the Hudson and had to get in on loan from another video store. I hardly think Moscow wasn't easily available because Righties or Lefties protested it.
BTW, I never protested The Last Temptation of Christ. In fact, I never protest movies. If I don't like 'em, I don't watch 'em. Free choice as a consumer and all that.
I confess that I'm not much of a movie fan. I used to watch movies more frequently, but then "life" intervened--caregiving and work. Blogging, too. Hehehe.
I was watching the NBC evening news and they were showing the Danish flag being burnt and torn apart but they didn't want to show any of the cartoons because they felt it might be offensive.
FJ,
That cartoon you mentioned--the one of the maimed soldier--is all the talk of the news tonight. I saw the cartoon in the newspaper and thought it was in the poorest of taste.
Every other month, at the local VFW. I get together with some of the ambulatory wounded from Walter Reed. Of course, I haven't seen soldiers as maimed as what the cartoon depicts. Still, I HAVE seen men with missing limbs, severe head wounds, etc. In fact, at the last gathering, I danced with a brain damaged nineteen-year-old whose only words were "I'm from Brooklyn"; he uttered these words with different intonation as his answer to every question put to him.
I don't like seeing wounded men used as politizations. My take may be personal on that one.
PS: As of yet, I've seen no Arab or Muslim-satire cartoons on the evening news, but Toles's drawing has appeared over and over. A double standard? It's okay in Toles's view to draw such a cartoon, but don't draw one pointedly criticizing Islamofascism.
Cartoons spark outrage huh.how bout the deaths of 3,000 Americans from the WTC..did that spark OUTRAGE!!!..o gosh I cant take any more of this blatant insanity!
AOW: You always have so many insightful commenters. I wish I had time to read them all.
Your post points the way to the heart of the problem within the Moslem and more particularly the Arab world.
This inferiority complex which demands that no offense be made against the prophet (peaces be upon him) yet no respect for the religious rights or symbols of other cultures and no standard for speech as it relates to other cultures.
beakerin has the idea to spank them all. Oh, but that would be TORTURE! I have something else in mind.
I'm offended by the cartoon of one of our troops as an amputee in a hospital bed put out by a cartonist in this country. But I'm not planning to burn down anything, or invade his home armed to the teeth.
It's time we start being honest about who and what these Moslem crazies are and start treating them like the rabid dogs they are.
I agree somewhat with Mussolini, but I would substitute the word "leftist" where he says "liberal." There's nothing liberal about the opposition to the spread of democracy.
Whatever "liberals" remain in American politics are either neocon grafts to the realist Republican tree or aging Reagan Democrats like Zell Miller.
The remaining majority of those that are "left-of-center" are as far left of "liberals" as east is from west. The left in America is comprised solely of people who begin each day sighing about the number of people their socialist scheming hasn't killed yet, which gets them worked up in a lather of hatred that "progress" in the genocide is taking too long.
Mark pointed out I think that this is an acid test for the Muslims living in the West. Can they accept living in a pluralistic, largely secular West, and accept that there are no boundaries to freedom of expression? Or can they not?
Bassizzzt said, So here's another example of exactly what Andy Whitehead of Anti-CAIR is going through. CAIR runs up lawsuits against freedom of speech writers a dime a dozen.
Mussolini said, your life is over and you are a hate-crime criminal if you criticize Islam.
Storm said, There are no islamofascists. There are followers of Islam and the rest of us. [That's an interesting statement in light of the Iranian fellow who showed up at Wednesday's UAC rally against Islamofascism and stated that the rally was against all of Islam. UAC plainly stated that the rally was not against all of Islam and invited Muslims to participate.]
All religions divide the world into "believers" and "unbelievers." But the problem with Islam is the lengths to which it will go to be sure that all the world becomes Dar al-Islam. And until the whole world is Dar al-Islam, a state of war exists. Certainly Islamists view this war as a holy war. And the fact that hordes of Muslims are not coming to take back "hijacked" Islam is convincing many people that all of Islam falls in line with the concept of Dar al-Islam.
As Cubed pointed out--and as these cartoons illustrate--MTP is a figure of great reverence for Muslims. Indeed, MTP is the model for all the followers of Islam. And what did MTP say? "I have been made victorious with terror!" (quote of Muhammed, from Buhkari).
"I shall terrorize the infidels!" (Mohammed, from the Koran).
"Wipe out the infidels to the last (Mohammed, from the Koran).
Recently OBL's lieutenant stated that he is among "the Muslim masses," a statement which furthers the idea that even if the masses are not jihadists, the masses still support jihadism. Was Zawahiri just promoting his own agenda? Maybe. Maybe not. Certainly one reason that OBL has been able to escape the hunt for him is that other Muslims are helping him to hide. Why don't they turn him in? Fear of displeasing fellow Muslims? Fear of reprisals? Fear of not getting some virgins in Paradise?
In some ways, the cartoon flap is amusing (Many Westerners see the flap as an overreaction, hypersensitivity), but the separation of established religion and government is at stake, along with freedom of expression. If cartoons, offensive though they may be, are forbidden under what amounts to an anti-blasphemy law, other elements of shari'a law will also creep into Western countries.
Is Islam compatible with the ideal of separation of the establishment of religion from the state?
Yes, there is a definite Leftist double standard when it comes Islam. Out of mutual "sympathy" and "weakness" the Left will bend over backwards in attempts to placate offended "minorities", we see it in campus "speech codes", etc. (proving their ardent "civil rights is #1" talk really nothing but talk), but the moment you want to criticize or slam the empowered "majority", pull a Maplethorpe so to speak, the civil rights talk immediately comes back in full force.
Now I suspect that the reason this is so, is that the right leaning majority culture is "powerful" and therefore becomes, over a protracted period of time, essentially "non-violent" and willing to listen to reasoned argument, whereas the un-empowered and "rebellious" Left is not. The more "uncivilized" of them are more likely to start pulling innocent Germans out of cars and start beating them when offended... the "more civilized" members to try "shouting down" the majority's criticisms.
The only way to end this double standard is, I'm afraid, for the "majority right party" to be "so confident" in their beliefs, that they react in the very same manner as the left and threaten to, and occassionally actually, "slap" the rebellious offenders down.
It used to be that a moral "snubbing" was sufficient, making the physical "violence" unneccessary... but I'm afraid the right's moral self-confidence is not as strong and unified as it once was. For there is no social status in "high culture" anymore, the aristocracy is gone, and the desire of the "commoners" to emulate the elites no longer applies in many modern democracies. Therefore, moral "retaliation" and approbation no longer have the profound societal effect they once had.
I'm afraid that in the future we may be reduced to having to do what Hitler did in the thirties... violently fight the rival communists in the streets... as the only message the "Left" is capable of understanding... Raw, unmitigated exercise and demonstrations of physical and therefore "real" power.
-FJ
ps - So much for "civilized" behavior. The Left is an "urban" culture. They long to return to "nature"... to set themselves "free".
The right is rural/sub-urban. They daily see how "nasty" nature in a "free" state really is. They long for "order" and "civility."
Generation from opposites.
-FJ
Mussolini,
I hold the belief that fascism is another form of leftism, but that's another argument for another day.
And, I disagree that Islam can't co-exist with secular democracy. It does co-exist with secular democracy, through taqiyah (deception). Simply enforcing the already existing laws against domestic violence, child abuse, rape, extortion, theft, kidnapping, and murder would go a long way towards keeping Islam from being openly practiced in America.
No, that's NOT the choice. Those are the poles of a polemarch's polemic. The answer lies at some point in between those poles... imposing some limits on immigration and restricting their demographic, therefore democratic, influence... and not takin' their crap... slapping their radicals around when they step out of line... or look like they're about to. Returning the social "terror", so to speak, that will keep them "inactive" (although we could use propaganda to MUCH better effect so that we don't have to keep slapping them around - mix "carrots with sticks", so to speak.
The problem with the damn cartoons is that the majority of them represented a "blanket" and uncoordinated attack against Islam INSTEAD of specifically targetting Islamic terrorists and extremists and seeking to isolate them.
-FJ
FJ,
The problem with the damn cartoons is that the majority of them represented a "blanket" and uncoordinated attack against Islam INSTEAD of specifically targetting Islamic terrorists and extremists and seeking to isolate them.
I don't quite see the matter the same way that you do. I'll be posting a new blog article shortly (It may already be up by the time you see this comment). I've tried to go a bit deeper than just the Muslim [over]reaction. Patai's The Arab Mind, which I read some time back, gave me the idea of delving a bit deeper, and the WaPo article I needed fell into my lap today.
The immigration issue is clearly a part of this discussion--and should be.
...and of course the other damn problem with the cartoons lies in the "medium" itself. You don't see any paintings or graphical representations of animals and life in mosques because of the blanket prohibition against "idolatry". The attacks against Islam need to placed into words and texts, NOT drawn. Painted or drawn "pictures" of the prophet in our own religion used to be considered idolatry as well in medeival times.
So "propaganda" trying to ridicule Islam in "pictures" will NOT have the desired effect of influencing or reaching the more devout Moslems... for they will disdain all forms of idolatry. It needs to be put into words and "voiced". Leave the "eyes" to "photographs" (at least I don't think THAT is considered idolatry... but I could be wrong).
-FJ
Hey Moose, sorry to hear about your son. Loved his name, btw.
-FJ
Hey always,
Sorry... didn't see your great "next" article. ;-0
Today's words of wisdom - "Don't ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up." - Robert Frost
-fj
FJ,
We're cross-posting. And I see from your comment that you know much of the cultural background. No surprise there, my erudite friend!
Anyway, I'm taking a break from the blogosphere for a few hours. I've got some lesson plans to do.
But before I go to do those lesson plans, I have to say that worrying about an undesired effect shouldn't be a criterion for free speech. Are the cartoons over the top? Maybe. But the Muslim reaction amounts to bullying, IMO. Arab newspapers print what they will without Westerners exacting violent retaliation.
Hey Moose,
Just 'cause everyman thinks HE deserves to be the boss, does that mean I need kill 'em all, so I can prove to everyone who the real boss is? I guess that way I don't have to believe in Sandy Claws. I'll MAKE my bossdom a reality. But it would be kinda lonely at the top, wouldn't it? Do you have the stomach to kill 1.5B Moslems?
Freud had an answer for the delusional believers in the "pleasure principle" like me. He gave them an equalizing dose of the "reality principle". A few smacks upside the head will be all it takes to get 'em singing "G_d Bless America" in perfect harmony. Even animals learn who the alpha males are once they've taken a few whoopins'.
You take the "reality principle" too far. Humans need both the "pleasure principle" as well as the "reality principle". Otherwise we'd all become nihilists and off ourselves.
-FJ
ps - Did you watch the SOU speech? How'd you like the "fasces" hanging on the back wall of the people's "House"? Fascism is neither left or right. It supports whichever party is in power. It represents the "POWER" of the leader to either BEAT (w/ sticks) or KILL (axe heads) those he feels deserve such treatment. The wielder of the fasces is the "judge" and his "lictors" will carry out sentence using either sticks or axe. As long as everyone behaves, he keeps 'em bundled up. But all he's got to do is nod, and the ropes come off the bundles.
The fasces represent the use of force supporting those in political power. Our modern liberals think the sticks and axes will always stay "bundled" (ie - the expansion of "Peace Studies" curriculum in our "liberal" universities). Iraq and islamofascist delusions are proving the point that every once and a while, the sticks and axes need get un-bundled and exercised. Otherwise the lictors get lazy.
-FJ
ps - And remember this, if your robe bears vermilion rope-marks, you won't get the triobolus either! (Aristophanes, "ECCLESIAZUSAE") See you on the Pynx.
FJ,
the other damn problem with the cartoons lies in the "medium" itself....So "propaganda" trying to ridicule Islam in "pictures" will NOT have the desired effect of influencing or reaching the more devout Moslems...
Back for a minute here.
"Ridicule"? Some of the cartoons do, but others are more satire. Maybe as much as discrediting. At least, that's how I see it.
I agree that "devout" Muslims will not be reached. But can the cartoons point out that the numbers of devout ones exceeds the present Western definintion of what constitutes a "devout" one or a "radical" one?
Okay, so Islam sees the images as a form of idolatry. But should Muslims be allowed to impose THEIR definition of idolatry on the rest of the world? And if out of respect for others' feelings, we allow that definition of idolatry to be imposed, what's the next forum of confrontation?
Yes, some of the cartoons are downright mean. But does that quality make them a hate crime?
I still think the problem is one of a clash of civilizations and of ideals. I don't have time to elaborate on that thought right now, but that's the way I perceive the matter.
Suppose I want a pig lawn-ornament in my yard--not to incite anyone but because I have a collection of pig knick-knacks. Can I not have one because the sight of such a lawn-ornament offends my Muslim neighbor? (I don't collect pigs, but I do collect turtles)
Back to those lesson plans. What a job! It's time to submit my course offerings for next year.
Beamish,
Bwahahahaha from both my husband and me!
It is chilling to see the gutless response of the media in the west.
A french newspaper fires it's editor. We are told that papers all over europe are reprinting the cartoons. Well here in the US NO ONE has reprinted the cartoons.
There isn't a single newspaper with the journalistic courage to post them! Shame!
They are entirely missing from the internet! I can't find them anywhere. Not a single site will post them out of fear from violent Moslems.
Maybe Islam has already won?
The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."
-FJ
From Michael Graham's web page:
...My point is, when you're talking about the only religion in the world currently linked to suicide bombings, honor killings, the stoning of homosexuals and a return to the electoral ideology of the Nazi Party, it's hard to avoid mildly judgmental terms like "strange," "disconcerting," and, "Holy crap, what the hell are these whack jobs thinking?"
If you can't use the words "strange" and "religion" in a conversation about Islam's influence on the world, then you can't have an honest conversation about Islam. That doesn't mean the conversation has to be negative. But the potential for negative, critical and harsh comments must exist for the conversation to be worthwhile. How can there be open, meaningful discourse with people who are ready to blow your brains out if Charlie Brown and Lucy misquote the Quran?...
Anonymous,
Maybe Islam has already won? If so, the West had better not let that victory stand. What's at stake here is serious and could well determine the future of Western civilization.
By protesting these cartoons, these Muslims are showing that they want worldwide shari'a law, as in the caliphate.
Get your Muhammad cartoon fix here.
I suggest copying them and posting thjem to as many websites as you can, so all the search engines can find them.
FJ,
Thought you would be interested in this...
From Ibn Warraq, who left Islam:
Best-selling author and Muslim dissident Ibn Warraq argues that freedom of expression is our western heritage and we must defend it against attacks from totalitarian societies. If the west does not stand in solidarity with the Danish, he argues, then the Islamization of Europe will have begun in earnest.
The great British philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote in On Liberty, "Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being 'pushed to an extreme'; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case."
The cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten raise the most important question of our times: freedom of expression. Are we in the west going to cave into pressure from societies with a medieval mindset, or are we going to defend our most precious freedom --freedom of expression, a freedom for which thousands of people sacrificed their lives?...
This raises another more general problem: the inability of the West to defend itself intellectually and culturally....
On the world stage, should we really apologize for Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe? Mozart, Beethoven and Bach? Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, Breughel, Ter Borch? Galileo, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton and
Darwin? Penicillin and computers? The Olympic Games and Football? Human rights and parliamentary democracy? The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience....
There is more to the article which I've excerpted above.
Well always,
I have to admit that we are unlikely to get many members of the world's more "closed" societies to respect the value of "freedom of expression (FoE)" in the same way we do, since they are likely to already have an established a system of values which preclude it's (FoEs) "absolute" practice and are therefore under a moral obligation to defend and honor those established specific values and reject "absolute" FoE. (ie - Just look at what "glasnost" did to the USSR).
Freedom of expression (FoE)inherently keeps most values discussion from ever becoming completely "settled" (a firm and absolute taboo), and stable values (like those which form a religion) are the essential interest of any regime which wishes to "retain" political power and "stability".
This perhaps also helps explain why "open" democratic societies are inherently "progressive", short-lived, and eventually lead to an "erosion" and breakdown of established religions, culture and corresponding values.
"Criticism" and "Critical Theory" are the tools used to circulate and attempt to establish new systems of values and are the effective agents of change in open societies which value freedom of expression (FoE).(ie - Look at the Frankfurt School's establishment of "critical theory" and its' effect upon modern society in the western university... the font of Neo-Liberal "Hate Americanism" and modern critical studies like Afro-American Studies, Women's Studies" and "Queer Theories")
In a religious society, those self-same tools constitute the means by which heresy and heretical thinking gets spread.
But then, when the external "environment" changes and the stabilized hereditary values become detrimental to the continued survival of a nation or civilization, a "violation" and "modification" of those values becomes necessary... and only those who "adapt" will likely survive. The leader who adopts these innovations usually achieves fame should those innovations prove successful, ignomy if not.
And so we are currently experiencing a clash of cultural values. Islam is condemning the West for its' heresy, and the West is condemning Islam for it's intolerance towards FoE. It is essential for each culture to support and defend its' own values. But it is also rather "silly" for them to protest each "others" chosen values unless the "object" of such a protest is to foment external"conflict" with the other and/or appease local internal political consituencies.
From Wikipedia... Isaiah Berlin's writings on the Enlightenment and its critics — for whom Berlin coined the term the "Counter-Enlightenment" — and particularly Romanticism, contributed to his advocacy of an ethical theory he termed value-pluralism. For Berlin, values are creations of mankind, rather than products of nature waiting to be discovered, though he also argued that the nature of mankind is such that certain values — for example, the importance of individual liberty — will transcend cultures, which is what he meant when he called his position "objective pluralism." With his account of value pluralism, he proposed the view that moral values may be equally valid and yet incompatible, and may therefore come into conflict with one another in a way that is irresolvable. When values clash, it does not mean that one is necessarily more important than the other. Keeping a promise may conflict with the pursuit of truth; liberty may clash with social justice. Moral conflicts are "an intrinsic, irremovable part of human life ... These collisions of values are of the essence of what they are and what we are," (Berlin, 2002).
-FJ
...and I think what "Mill" was looking for in his example was a means of discovering and testing those transcendental values and lws that Berlin qualified/ categorized under the label of "objective pluralism".
Is Freedom of Expression, when pushed to its' extreme (ie as an absolute), one of those "objective" individual liberties that transcend all cultures? I don't think so. It might cause a stampede (yell fire in a crowded theater) or initiate a lemming-like march towards the sea in our own, and would likely destroy a closed cultural/religion like Islam who's adherents might begin to openly question and criticize the teachings of Mohammed.
I think freedom of expression always needs to be "conditioned" upon the achievement of some other end "object". But I think that we in the West have "lost" the ability to use that freedom (FoE)responsibly or collectively to achieve any external politcal end object, for it now currently an absolute neccesity for the successful continuance of our owned strained internal bi-polar political dynamic.
Fifty years ago might have proved to be a different case. Back then one didn't insist upon asserting the primacy of an individual right over the need to collectively survive or prevent harm. America was then full of political "pragmatists". Today, its' full of Left-leaning "idealists".
-FJ
Post a Comment
<< Home