Muslim anger at Danish cartoons

[jeff]

Epee_Pox well summarizes my opinion on this; I don't see how I can improve upon his words regarding offensive speech.

pigeonmeister - besides the above I would add that while Danish Muslims have no official connection to Islamic governments and therefore cannot be held accountable for (in this example) Syria's actions, those very governments do foment offensive material, yet now complain about the Danish government's refusal to censor the offensive speech of private parties, material less inflamatory than what they themselves publish (which widely includes the anti-Semetic portrayals you mention. Where's the outrage then?). We are also talking about countries that severely restrict the ability of non-Muslims to practice their religions in the first place, especially if done visibly, so their protestations again are examples of demanding rights they do not confer on others. Odd: it's safer to be a Muslim in the West than in the Middle East, because you can safely be Sunni or Shiite in the US or UK, whereas that could be a risky proposition for a Muslim in the wrong Muslim-majority countries. The mere presence of infidels in the holy lands is an affront to Islam, formally speaking. Does that mean that all non-Muslims are obligated to convert or leave?

I disagree that the opportunity to highlight hypocrisy is gone - obviously not, since we're discussing it right now (as are others in the larger world). Had this incident not occurred there would have been no occasion to do so. I also think the MCB is deceitful, talking out of both sides of their mouths. They've frequently published anti-Semitic sentiments and smeared Holocaust ceremonies, so protestations that they are not bigots ring false.

As I said before, this is offensive material (it offends, therefore is offensive), and the same responses are available as if it were any other group subject to an outrage, such as those you mention. If a publisher of an anti-Jewish or anti-Christian smear received a death threat it would be just as wrong as for an anti-Islamic situation. There are many alternatives that are acceptable for peaceful protest, to make bigotry too shameful to be tolerated in decent company.

Consider other compromises that have to be made for civil pluralistic society. The Latter Day Saints (LDS) had to give up polygamy to be in the US; come to think of it, ditto for Muslims in the US. All the Abrahamic faiths had to drop stoning adulterers and killing homosexuals. Well, not all of them have figured out the last part, alas. Should we allow those behaviors today because some religions feel strongly about (eg) homosexuals?

[pigeonmeister]

Consider other compromises that have to be made for civil pluralistic society. The Latter Day Saints (LDS) had to give up polygamy to be in the US; come to think of it, ditto for Muslims in the US. All the Abrahamic faiths had to drop stoning adulterers and killing homosexuals. Well, not all of them have figured out the last part, alas. Should we allow those behaviors today because some religions feel strongly about (eg) homosexuals?

I live, and was born, in Birmingham. 15% of the city are Muslims (in some neighbourhoods the figure is 65% plus) My school was probably 25% Muslim. Many of the British born Muslims that I went to school with have parents who were not born in Britain- indeed it was not uncommon for kids to have to translate for their relatives at parents events. The point is that I promise you that their parents made compromises for living in the UK. They had to endure, like Sikhs, Hindus and West Indians the worst jobs, housing and all in the face of unashamed and vicious racism. They had to endure racist parody of their culture on TV, lack of political representation in Westminster, a racist police force and a society lubricated by alcohol and later sex. They endured all of this whilst working their arses off and observing a rigid social contract.

The idea that Muslims waltzed in without making any compromises is unfair. The children of these people grew up in a different context, whereby they didn't just want to keep their heads down, they were more confident in asserting their religious belief and they did feel British. Socially there were barriers that they were not going to compromise that have made integration difficult. When I was a teenager social interaction in school was defined by trying to get booze and trying to get laid- as such Muslims are naturally pushed together because they cannot do either. Even in the work place this is true- they physically can't go to the pub to 'watch the football' or just have a quick after work pint.

This whole reaction of the European Muslims is directly linked to a growing alienation of Muslims living in big cities in Europe and it is clear that as a community they are, on some level, retreating into themselves. In many ways Muslims of my generation are more overtly religious than their parents. Yet my generation of non Muslims are drinking more, having sex more, going out more, going to church much less, getting married less and generally becoming more and more liberal. As such we are moving further and further apart. In all seriousness it isn't all peaches and cream being a Muslim in Europe now. A sense of alienation breeds a sense of unity amongst your own, a sense hammered home by the volutary apartheid of communities which can contain schools which are 95% Muslim. You can drive through areas of Birmingham and literally not see a white face. Whole streets or a whole row of shops will be Muslim owned. I have played cricket and football against Muslim-only teams. In this sense the idea of Ummah (global Muslim fraternity) also become stronger.

Any issue of cultural integration/community relations MUST be seen in this context and I am not sure that it can be in areas of America, Scandiniavia or even other parts of Britain (my sister lives in a very very affluent part of Surrey and the village school is 100% white) Working class British Muslims often live a life which is totaly detached, physicaly, socialy, educationaly and religiously from non Muslims. The fact that Muslim faith schools are rapidly increasing is testament to this desire to detach from a society they feel wishes to exclude them.

Foreign policy has now become entangled into this dynamic, further increasing a sense of alienation. Muslims think that Westerners are not really that concerned with how many innocent Muslims are killed abroad- but if a Muslim kills innocents then it's news. This also increases the sense of Ummah.

So I think that the issue of hypocractic demonstration in Syria, Palestine and elsewhere is a diversion. The battle for 'hearts and minds' is largely lost there. The issue must be community relations in the West and the growing alienation of Muslims. Also given that alienation always breeds extreemism. Now in this vitaly important context- was the publication of this cartoon good judgement? Was this in the defense of personal and press freedom? If so then is the British press or individual any less free because our media took the pragmatic decision not to publish the cartoons?

One is tempted almost to believe that such are the Muslim community held ransom by extreemists, and with such ease. That it was virtually impossible for us not to feel: 'These Muslims are totaly unreasonable, hypocritical and they hate us and our society anyway'. So in essense this has served a purpose for those who want to push us further apart or even enter a race war.

I am also tempted to think that this is dirty war propoganda- whereby the Muslim community are being provoked into a response that would obviously lead to a hardening attitude against the Muslim World. An attitude that needs hardening in preparation, say for another imminent attack on an Islamic country?!! It wouild be too obvious/dangerous to plant this in the British press
- but an obscure Danish magazine..... that might work.

Is it not good community relations to be aware of the oversensitivites of your neigbours, and not try and expoit them for a reaction?

[D.O.A.R.]

There are some interesting opinion pieces on the cartoons at the following link. You have to scroll down to find the one I included below.

http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/


Re-reading William Manchester's "Alone"

In popular memory there was no interval between the end of the British policy of Appeasement towards Hitler and the new resolution ushered in by Winston Churchill. But in fact there was a phase known as the Phoney War during which Britain was technically at war with Nazi Germany without engaging in major operations against it. The Phoney War spanned the period from September 1939 to May 1940 -- the Fall of France -- and marked a time when though Appeasement had died its ghost had not yet been laid to rest. In addition to the natural fear of incurring mass casualties by confronting the Wehrmacht, some in Britain like Lord Halifax and perhaps Chamberlain himself, still Prime Minister, hoped that Hitler would not attempt the Maginot Line and turn his energies East.
Although today it is fashionable to think of Appeasement as the political embodiment of cowardice it was coldly calculated to bring the Dictators into conflict and -- so Chamberlain hoped -- into annihilating each other. By selling out Austria in the Anchluss, the Czechs in the Sudetendland and nearly betraying Poland over the Danzig corridor Chamberlain was tempting Hitler ever further east into what he hoped would be an eventual clash with the other monster, Joseph Stalin. He did not reckon that evil, while coarse, is surpassingly cunning. The announcement of the Molotov-Ribbentrop nonagression pact on August 23, 1939, just a week before Poland was finally invaded by both Hitler and Stalin, made plain to Chamberlain that he had been outwitted. If Britain intended to drive Hitler East, Stalin had instead turned Hitler West. Nothing remained to Chamberlain and Britain's enervated armed forces but to gather up the tatters of their strategy and huddle behind the army of France. Having staked everything on diplomatically containing Hitler while neglecting Britain's defense -- not provoking Hitler was a deemed essential for diplomacy to succeed -- Chamberlain had no Plan B. He had wagered all and lost. Churchill assumed the Prime Ministership the day Hitler raced his armies across France. Every catastrophe he had warned against had come to pass. And he was finally handed the reins in haste by the very men who had taken Britain to the edge of precipice, its armies trapped on the continent, its allies smashed, its air force outnumbered; desperate and alone.
It is an old and familiar story which bears repeating because it illustrates how far leaders can be trapped by webs of their own making. Like the politicians of the 1930s the leaders of the West after September 11 each made their own calculation. In America's case it took the shape of thinking that it could make common cause with the most enlightened elements of Islamic civilization against fundamentalist extremists who were vying for Islam's soul. The strategy for achieving this goal, though reviled as simplistic, was anything but: America would not pick a fight with Islam itself. Rather it would make itself Islam's friend, ally with its most moderate elements, overthrow its worst oppressors and enlist the aid of the Muslim everyman against the Osama Bin Ladens of the world. In practice it would build a web of relationships with intelligence services, soldiers, intellectuals and politicians in Islamic countries who would provide the information and in cases the manpower to hunt down fundamentalist villains. The War on Terror would be to wars what Smart Bombs were to bombs. It would destroy the miscreants while leaving the surrounding structure untouched. It may be that Europe's calculation was more cynical. But it was equally sophisticated. It would pursue a policy of Appeasement which like Chamberlain's was calculated to drive one nuisance against another, pitting America against Islamic fundamentalism in the hopes that one would wear the other out. And the key to Europe's establishing its bona fides with Islamic countries was to make nice at every opportunity; avoid giving offense; be lavish with aid; open to immigration and obstructive to America at every turn. Like the appeasers of the 1930s it paid for its diplomatic strategy by systematically weakening itself.
The crisis over the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed has ironically struck the weakest point of both strategies. At present the crisis is not a danger to the grand strategies of either. But as the days pass the danger grows that it may get out of hand; that some Islamic cell may detonate a bomb in Europe or some skinhead burn a mosque. And then the consequences may incalculable. For America an open antipathy between the West and Islam would destroy its carefully crafted attempt to ally itself with the Muslim street. It would place Washington in the intolerable position of having to choose between its old European allies and its newfound friends in the Middle East and Central Asia. For Europe the consequences would be no less disastrous because in following the policy of Appeasement its leaders have risked falling so far behind their publics that they now find themselves unable to steer the course of popular events. Europe is angry and Chirac, like Chamberlain after the Sudeten crisis, is too far behind the curve of popular opinion to seize its leadership. Chamberlain understood it and brought Churchill into his cabinet to bolster his credentials when he himself had none.
The Dutch blog Zacht Ei shows how far things have come in the space of a few days.
In a move which is both courageous and stupid, Dutch blogger 'Reet' (a Dutch colloquialism for '***') of the blog 'Retecool' (a Dutch colloquialism for, er, "really" cool) has started a Photoshop contest in which participants create parodies of Mohammed. The contest can be viewed here (a mirror can be found here).
A contest to humiliate Mohammed has been launched not in Texas, not in Israel but in the Netherlands. The Netherlands. Almost inconceivable. A smoldering match in a continent riddled with unassimilated Muslim enclaves. Now the European leaders who staked their careers on political correctness and oleagenous kowtowing to radical Islam find themselves unable to assert themselves. It's a moment when Nicolas Sarkozy or Hirsi Ali may count for more in dampening the anti-Mohammed wave than Chirac or Dominique de Villepin. The key challenge for the leaders of Europe is how to get out in front of their publics; hard because they are so far behind.
Yet the cartoon crisis has been cruelest to radical Islam because it has upset the timetable for the slow demographic conquest of Europe. It forced the crisis before the time was ripe to win an outright trial of strength. And it has deranged the carefully crafted plan to hold Europe politically neutral while the Islamists concentrated their force on their most dangerous enemy, the United States. Unless the Islamists can reverse or at least pause the process of confrontation it will find itself engaged on two fronts, against Europe and the United States simultaneously.
Like all historical comparisons this one is inexact. The world of the late 1930s can never be compared to the opening decade of the 21st century. Nazism is not Islam nor is Hitler Osama Bin Laden. But I think some valid correspondences still remain between the Phoney War and the period between September 11 to the present. Both are marked by an attempt to maintain a disintegrating status quo long after it became imperative to exchange it for a new model of relationships. Both are marked by miscalculation as political leaders find themselves struggling to overtake the tide of events. Both mark the end of the last boundaries between the familiar and the dark, unknown future. What did Churchill feel, one wonders, in those desperate days when he did not know the end yet went on?
‘I wonder what sort of a tale we’ve fallen into?’ said Sam. ‘I wonder,’ said Frodo.
‘But I don’t know. And that’s the way of a real tale… The people in it don’t know…’
‘The old stories! Why, to think of it, we’re in the same tale still! It’s going on. Don’t the great tales never end?’
‘No, they never end as tales,’ said Frodo. ‘But the people in them come, and go when their part’s ended.’
‘You and I, Sam, are still stuck in the worst places of the story,
and it is all too likely that some will say at this point: “Shut the book now, dad; we don’t want to read any more.”’

[Gav]

BBC Comment by John Simpson:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4685886.stm

[Zilverzmurfen]

Ok, I still have not seen the cartoons discussed but just have a reflection...

I've heard the cartoons are depicting Muhammed -- the muslim prophet of "God", is that correct? As he is merely the prophet it would be the same as drawing cartoons of Jesus, right?

Had they (ei. the cartoons) depicted "God" herself/himself, then would it not be another matter completely..?

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE=Zilverzmurfen]
I've heard the cartoons are depicting Muhammed -- the muslim prophet of "God", is that correct? As he is merely the prophet it would be the same as drawing cartoons of Jesus, right?
QUOTE]

This is great example of how you cannot always judge others by your own standards. The idea that Chrisitians don't mind it if you draw cartoons of Jesus/God- so why are the Muslims bothered by a picture of Muhammad the suicide bomber, obviously goes to the heart of this problem.

[pigeonmeister]

BBC Comment by John Simpson:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4685886.stm

This was an interesting observation:

"In Syria, such violence is so rare that some people have wondered whether the attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies might not have been provoked by government agents, in order to discredit the beleaguered Islamists there"

Got me thinking- could a similar process happen in Europe. As the moderates get more and more frustrated that their views are constantly mis-represented and hijacked (after all the vast majority of criticism was well articulated and peaceful) could the Islamists become more isolated within their community? It wouldn't be the first time that a government had used agent provocateurs to accelerate a similar type of process either.

[jeff]

I live, and was born..

I grew up in Brooklyn, where *most* of the families I knew were immigrant families going back at most 2 US generations, including my own (my grandparents came from the Old Country, did not speak English till they were adults, and never without an accent). I live now in a section of New Jersey with a large Asian population (slighly different meaning to "Asian" here than in UK - here it implies Chinese, Japanese, or Korean origin) and the nearest supermarket is of little use to English speakers. My immediate neighbors are immigrants from Columbia and Ireland. So, I have direct understanding of the immigrant experience that I expect exceeds yours. Where I'm from, it's the norm rather than the exception.

The idea that Muslims waltzed in without making any compromises is unfair.

And nobody expressed such an idea.

The children of these people grew up in a different context, whereby they didn't just want to keep their heads down, they were more confident in asserting their religious belief and they did feel British. Socially there were barriers that they were not going to compromise that have made integration difficult. When I was a teenager social interaction in school was defined by trying to get booze and trying to get laid- as such Muslims are naturally pushed together because they cannot do either. Even in the work place this is true- they physically can't go to the pub to 'watch the football' or just have a quick after work pint.

Just as true for any other immigrant group. Devout individuals of all the major religions aren't permitted to "get laid" (IMO, one of the biggest defects of the major religions!), not just Muslims. Individuals of other religions are also prohibited from going to bars, or worldly activities in general. In other words: nothing that adds a particular burden for this minority not experienced by others. And hardly the fault of anyone.

Let me tell you from experience - simply setting up an office party is pretty challenging when some attendees have strict dietary restrictions for religious reasons, cannot use food utensils ever used with other dishes, cannot use alcohol, cannot use foods that might have been prepared with meat, cannot shake hands with a female, etc.

This whole reaction of the European Muslims is directly linked to a growing alienation of Muslims living in big cities in Europe and it is clear that as a community they are, on some level, retreating into themselves. In many ways Muslims of my generation are more overtly religious than their parents. Yet my generation of non Muslims are drinking more, having sex more, going out more, going to church much less, getting married less and generally becoming more and more liberal. As such we are moving further and further apart. In all seriousness it isn't all peaches and cream being a Muslim in Europe now. A sense of alienation breeds a sense of unity amongst your own, a sense hammered home by the volutary apartheid of communities which can contain schools which are 95% Muslim. You can drive through areas of Birmingham and literally not see a white face. Whole streets or a whole row of shops will be Muslim owned. I have played cricket and football against Muslim-only teams. In this sense the idea of Ummah (global Muslim fraternity) also become stronger.

No kidding. We can take as given that the process of societal integration in Europe is not in the best condition. Of course, in the US the single-ethnicity minority neighborhood is old news (as we've been multi-ethnic for much longer), whether for reasons of involuntary segregation or 'everybody in the community moved to the same neighborhood'. So, whether you're talking about Harlem, Bedford-Stuyvesant, Coney Island, Ft. Lee, or Edison you can easily find neighborhoods with no 'majority ethnicity' faces, or with all signs in Hindi, Arabic, or Korean, all in easy driving distance from where I live. To paraphrase your sports reference: I have fenced all-African-American teams, and my own high-school team was "majority minority".

To your point about observance: it's been widely noted that many young Muslims are alienated from both surrounding society and from their family's traditional culture, leaving them without a comfortable grounding in either. This can be both a source of trouble, for obvious reasons, and (I digress) a source of artistic inspiration (eg: Henry Roth, Saul Bellow, VS Naipal, Hanif Kureshi, and many others).

Anyhow, the core situation is definitely neither new nor unique to Muslims, and entitles that community to violence no more than it entitled others.

Any issue of cultural integration/community relations MUST be seen in this context and I am not sure that it can be in areas of America, Scandiniavia or even other parts of Britain (my sister lives in a very very affluent part of Surrey and the village school is 100% white) Working class British Muslims often live a life which is totaly detached, physicaly, socialy, educationaly and religiously from non Muslims. The fact that Muslim faith schools are rapidly increasing is testament to this desire to detach from a society they feel wishes to exclude them.

Depends on what geography you're talking about. There are parts of the US that are lily-white, but frankly, as a nation of immigrants, I think we have a little more perpective on this than the UK, and both good and bad experiences. Why is Detroit, with a large Muslim population, not the sams as Birmingham? With the notable exception of black/white race (the unhealed consequences of slavery and Jim Crow) the melting-pot or 'glorious mosaic' model of the US has been far more comprehensive and far more successful than Europe's.

Foreign policy has now become entangled into this dynamic, further increasing a sense of alienation. Muslims think that Westerners are not really that concerned with how many innocent Muslims are killed abroad- but if a Muslim kills innocents then it's news. This also increases the sense of Ummah.

And their misperception is who's responsibility? And this differs from other ethnicities sensitivities, how? Or it exculpates murder for what reason?

So I think that the issue of hypocractic demonstration in Syria, Palestine and elsewhere is a diversion. The battle for 'hearts and minds' is largely lost there. The issue must be community relations in the West and the growing alienation of Muslims.

Nobody has the right to say 'only your behavior over here is subject to criticism, not my behavior over there", and nobody has the right to say "the issue is how YOU must accomodate OUR alienation". That begs the question of conflicting moral and political claims, and who must adopt to whom, even before the conversation starts. That's a position of submission, not discussion between peoples who all have rights.

It's not just a question of being sensitive to others or repudiating hypocrisy - it's essential to not let other dictate behavior to you which they ignore for themselves, nor to tolerate racism and violence wherever it occurs.

Racist images are widespread in Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt media: when the US has complained about it we've been told that it must be permitted for reasons of "freedom of speech", an obvious falsehood because the media in those countries is closely managed by the authorities. So, we're supposed to violate our laws and censor our press, while they continue to publish their racism? Submitting to that is appeasement, and it does nobody a service to truckle.

Is it your position that the governments of the West should censor anti-Muslim images and that the governments of the Islamic world should be free to promote racist images? Is it your position that valid response to racism includes violence, but only if it's a response to images offensive to Muslims, but not to others? If you feel there should be different rules for different people I'd like you to spell it out explicitly so we can all know what's in-bounds.

Also given that alienation always breeds extreemism.

Well, no it doesn't...

Now in this vitaly important context- was the publication of this cartoon good judgement? Was this in the defense of personal and press freedom? If so then is the British press or individual any less free because our media took the pragmatic decision not to publish the cartoons?

Was it good judgement? A good question, to which the answer is "no", if the scope is specifically about "does it cause offense", but "yes" if the question is "does this highlight the issues of public speech". Was this in defense of freedom? Yes - the publisher did this deliberately (I'll elaborate below). Is British press less free due to self-censorship? Definitely yes.

One is tempted almost to believe that such are the Muslim community held ransom by extreemists, and with such ease. That it was virtually impossible for us not to feel: 'These Muslims are totaly unreasonable, hypocritical and they hate us and our society anyway'. So in essense this has served a purpose for those who want to push us further apart or even enter a race war.

Unfortunately, I do think the Muslim community is held ransom by extremists. The religion has been hijacked, while most people just want to get on with their lives and see their kids grow up. Do you really think that most of the people looking to create a war between cultures are those in the West? Look at the mission statements of the various Islamist organizations - they're very clear about their desires.

I am also tempted to think that this is dirty war propoganda- whereby the Muslim community are being provoked into a response that would obviously lead to a hardening attitude against the Muslim World. An attitude that needs hardening in preparation, say for another imminent attack on an Islamic country?!! It wouild be too obvious/dangerous to plant this in the British press - but an obscure Danish magazine..... that might work.

Is it not good community relations to be aware of the oversensitivites of your neigbours, and not try and expoit them for a reaction?

Is it not good community relations to be aware of your own oversensitivity, and try to curb it and not exploit it to drum up hatred?

I think you have the shoe on the wrong foot, and are blaming the wrong party. It's just an excuse, both personally and politically to disavow responsibility for one's actions with a "he made me do it" excuse. "My violence is acceptable - he provoked me." Conspiracy theories are equally unimpressive. Are you suggesting that Blair or Bush planted this in Denmark hoping to fan the flames of Muslim sentiment to provoke a world wide conflict? If so, then come out and say it.

Things started differently. From the New York Times magazine, yesterday, on how a Danish newspaper started this controversy: "The newspaper's culture editor, Fleming Rose, says he intended simply to test cartoonists to see if they were self-censoring their work, out of fear of violence from Islamic radicals. He cited a Danish comedian, who sid in an interview that he had no problem urinating on the Bible, but that he would not dare to do the same on the Koran. 'Some Muslims try to impose their religious taboos in the public domain.', said Mr. Rose. 'In my book that's not asking for my respect. That's asking for my submission.'"

Let's make a direct comparison: some years ago, an "artist", Andres Serrano, created and exhibited a work called "Piss Christ" that included a crucifix submerged in urine. That's about as offensive as you can possibly get to a Christian. Many people were offended - heck, *I* was offended, and I'm not a member of the faith - and there were angy protests. And don't forget the Madonna made with elephant dung. Come to think of it, don't forget Madonna herself, she of the racy videos (including kissing the come-to-life church icon) and bogus facade of Jewish kabbala. Good ways to piss off several different groups. But there were no calls for assassination, no torched embassies, no riots, etc.

The Muslim community had the right to be offended, just as the Christian community was offended by those incidents. If their response had been marches and boycotts without the violence, and if their religious and civic authorities prevented the offensive images they want others to prevent, then I would totally support them. If they demanded respect in the media through peaceful means they would have seized an opportunity, but instead they went down the usual path of violent rhetoric and actions

I'll quote the NYT article again "whether his exercise had achieved his stated aim - of forcing citizens to think about their submission to someone else's taboos - it was clear that it had helped extremists on both sides who would keep Europe and the Muslim world from understanding each other".

[jeff]

This is great example of how you cannot always judge others by your own standards. The idea that Chrisitians don't mind it if you draw cartoons of Jesus/God- so why are the Muslims bothered by a picture of Muhammad the suicide bomber, obviously goes to the heart of this problem.

I agree with this, generalizing it to say that nobody can act as the judge over what other people find offensive. "That shouldn't offend you, it doesn't offend me" is not a good answer.

What has to be done is handle the intersection in civil society between conflicting rights (right of free expression vs. right to not be oppressed or attacked)

pigeonmeister - if you haven't read it before, get a copy of Lenny Bruce's How To Talk Dirty and Influence People, for (IMO) an essential view on this subject. If you never heard of him: he was a US comedian whose career was destroyed because of free-speech issues and his insistence on his right to say what he felt like saying.

[Slim]

I live, and was born, in Birmingham. 15% of the city are Muslims (in some neighbourhoods the figure is 65% plus) My school was probably 25% Muslim. Many of the British born Muslims that I went to school with have parents who were not born in Britain- indeed it was not uncommon for kids to have to translate for their relatives at parents events. The point is that I promise you that their parents made compromises for living in the UK. They had to endure, like Sikhs, Hindus and West Indians the worst jobs, housing and all in the face of unashamed and vicious racism. They had to endure racist parody of their culture on TV, lack of political representation in Westminster, a racist police force and a society lubricated by alcohol and later sex. They endured all of this whilst working their arses off and observing a rigid social contract.

The idea that Muslims waltzed in without making any compromises is unfair. The children of these people grew up in a different context, whereby they didn't just want to keep their heads down, they were more confident in asserting their religious belief and they did feel British. Socially there were barriers that they were not going to compromise that have made integration difficult. When I was a teenager social interaction in school was defined by trying to get booze and trying to get laid- as such Muslims are naturally pushed together because they cannot do either. Even in the work place this is true- they physically can't go to the pub to 'watch the football' or just have a quick after work pint.

This whole reaction of the European Muslims is directly linked to a growing alienation of Muslims living in big cities in Europe and it is clear that as a community they are, on some level, retreating into themselves. In many ways Muslims of my generation are more overtly religious than their parents. Yet my generation of non Muslims are drinking more, having sex more, going out more, going to church much less, getting married less and generally becoming more and more liberal. As such we are moving further and further apart. In all seriousness it isn't all peaches and cream being a Muslim in Europe now. A sense of alienation breeds a sense of unity amongst your own, a sense hammered home by the volutary apartheid of communities which can contain schools which are 95% Muslim. You can drive through areas of Birmingham and literally not see a white face. Whole streets or a whole row of shops will be Muslim owned. I have played cricket and football against Muslim-only teams. In this sense the idea of Ummah (global Muslim fraternity) also become stronger.

Any issue of cultural integration/community relations MUST be seen in this context and I am not sure that it can be in areas of America, Scandiniavia or even other parts of Britain (my sister lives in a very very affluent part of Surrey and the village school is 100% white) Working class British Muslims often live a life which is totaly detached, physicaly, socialy, educationaly and religiously from non Muslims. The fact that Muslim faith schools are rapidly increasing is testament to this desire to detach from a society they feel wishes to exclude them.

Foreign policy has now become entangled into this dynamic, further increasing a sense of alienation. Muslims think that Westerners are not really that concerned with how many innocent Muslims are killed abroad- but if a Muslim kills innocents then it's news. This also increases the sense of Ummah.

So I think that the issue of hypocractic demonstration in Syria, Palestine and elsewhere is a diversion. The battle for 'hearts and minds' is largely lost there. The issue must be community relations in the West and the growing alienation of Muslims. Also given that alienation always breeds extreemism. Now in this vitaly important context- was the publication of this cartoon good judgement? Was this in the defense of personal and press freedom? If so then is the British press or individual any less free because our media took the pragmatic decision not to publish the cartoons?

One is tempted almost to believe that such are the Muslim community held ransom by extreemists, and with such ease. That it was virtually impossible for us not to feel: 'These Muslims are totaly unreasonable, hypocritical and they hate us and our society anyway'. So in essense this has served a purpose for those who want to push us further apart or even enter a race war.

I am also tempted to think that this is dirty war propoganda- whereby the Muslim community are being provoked into a response that would obviously lead to a hardening attitude against the Muslim World. An attitude that needs hardening in preparation, say for another imminent attack on an Islamic country?!! It wouild be too obvious/dangerous to plant this in the British press
- but an obscure Danish magazine..... that might work.

Is it not good community relations to be aware of the oversensitivites of your neigbours, and not try and expoit them for a reaction?

This is just a series of excuses for more poor behavior once again. Total lack of personal responsibility. It's always someone elses fault. What was it that set France ablaze? Oh yes, some hoodlums tried to evade the police and electrocuted themselves. Time to light up France.

This time its a few cartoons. What next? Someone being accidentially served bacon? Sorry, but the world doesnt practice Sharia law. Muslims want their culture to be tolerated? Then they should start practicing some tolerance. It's a friggin cartoon. Get over it. I dont recall riots over Pi$$ Christ.

How about someone getting their head cut off in the name of allah? How about Iraqi children being killed by mortars and IEDs in the name of allah? How about planes being crahsed into the WTC in the name of allah? Why isnt the same level of outrage expressed by those "true" muslims that such acts of brutality are being committed in allah's name? After all, isnt this the religion of peace?

[Epee_Pox]

After all, isnt this the religion of peace?

No, Islam is the religion of "submission."

[Slim]

Now here's a nice gesture in the name of peace....


http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117....html?from=rss

[esskreemr]

This is just a series of excuses for more poor behavior once again. Total lack of personal responsibility. It's always someone elses fault. What was it that set France ablaze? Oh yes, some hoodlums tried to evade the police and electrocuted themselves. Time to light up France.

There is more to the situation than a 'total lack of personal responsibility'. The riots in France were mostly socio-economic based more than a clash of religion against society.

This time its a few cartoons. What next? Someone being accidentially served bacon? Sorry, but the world doesnt practice Sharia law. Muslims want their culture to be tolerated? Then they should start practicing some tolerance. It's a friggin cartoon. Get over it. I dont recall riots over Pi$$ Christ.

I actually agree with Slim on something... I need to take a good hard look at myself...

How about someone getting their head cut off in the name of allah? How about Iraqi children being killed by mortars and IEDs in the name of allah? How about planes being crahsed into the WTC in the name of allah? Why isnt the same level of outrage expressed by those "true" muslims that such acts of brutality are being committed in allah's name? After all, isnt this the religion of peace?

There are MANY condemnations of the violence, our media just refuses to pick them up.

The American Muslim Political Coordination Council

"American Muslims utterly condemn what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Americans in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1544955.stm

Syria's most senior Islamic leader described the attacks on America as a terrorist act, as ignoble as what he called the state terrorism practised by Israel.

Hundreds of Palestinians also rallied in the West Bank city of Ramallah to show support for Americans killed in the attacks, as well as condemn Israeli killing of Palestinians in Jenin.

And in Iran, Tehran's main football stadium observed an unprecedented minute's silence in sympathy with the victims.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/open-archive/message/10

With the recent escalation in suicide bombings against civilian targets in Israel and the continuing threat of Osama bin Laden terrorist attacks, the relationship between Islam and terrorism is, once again, the subject of rampant speculation.

Some Muslim scholars have proclaimed such acts of terrorism as jihad and considered the suicide bombers martyrs in the cause of God. Several non-Muslim commentators have gone so far as to suggest that Islamic law actually commands Muslims to wage terrorist attacks against infidels.

Ignoring for the time being that Muslims themselves often have been victims of terrorism, I am sure that there are a number of Muslims who do believe that terrorism, at some level, is justified. It is worth noting, however, that, at a minimum, this belief is at odds with Islamic law. The Islamic juristic tradition, which is similar to the Jewish rabbinical tradition, has exhibited unmitigated hostility toward terror as a means of political resistance. Within the first three centuries of Islamic history, Muslim jurists exhibited a remarkable degree of tolerance >toward political rebellion by holding that a political rebel may not be executed nor his property confiscated.

Classical Muslim jurists, however, were uncompromisingly harsh toward rebels who used what the jurists described as stealth attacks and, as a result, spread terror. Muslim jurists considered terrorist attacks against unsuspecting and defenseless victims as heinous and immoral crimes, and treated the perpetrators as the worst type of criminals.

Under the category of crimes of terror, the classical jurists included abductions, poisoning of water wells, arson, attacks against wayfarers and travelers, assaults under the cover of night and rape. For these crimes, regardless of the religious or political convictions of the perpetrators, Muslim jurists demanded the harshest penalties, including death. Most important, Muslim jurists held that the penalties are the same whether the perpetrator or victim is Muslim or non-Muslim. It is because of this tradition that pre-modern terrorists.

Here, in case you need a few hundred more...
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

[Slim]

No, Islam is the religion of "submission."

Yes, submit to Islam or die.

[Slim]

There is more to the situation than a 'total lack of personal responsibility'. The riots in France were mostly socio-economic based more than a clash of religion against society.



I actually agree with Slim on something... I need to take a good hard look at myself...



There are MANY condemnations of the violence, our media just refuses to pick them up.

The American Muslim Political Coordination Council


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1544955.stm


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/open-archive/message/10


Here, in case you need a few hundred more...
http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

A few words spinkled here and there is a far, far cry from what is currently taking place. To even attempt to suggest there is a similiar level of outrage is completely ignorant.

[Epee_Pox]

An interesting collection of art and controversy over depicting Mohammed. http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

[esskreemr]

A few words spinkled here and there is a far, far cry from what is currently taking place. To even attempt to suggest there is a similiar level of outrage is completely ignorant.

I don't think you trully understand what 'ignorant' means...

Muslim condemnation of protests:

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/arc...untain_out.php

As just one example, last August Fadi Abdullatif, the spokesman for the Danish branch of the militant Hizb-ut-Tahrir organization, was charged with calling for the killing of members of the Danish government. He distributed leaflets calling on Muslims in Denmark to go to Fallujah in Iraq and fight the Americans, and to kill their own leaders if they obstructed them. Police in Denmark have been on alert since the London bombings, after which at least three extremist Web sites warned that Denmark could be the next target. There are 500 Danish troops working alongside American and British troops in Iraq.

Not only does Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an organization banned in many Muslim countries, have a branch in Denmark, but Abdullatif has a history of calling for violence that he then justifies by referring to freedom of speech - the very notion the Danish newspaper made use of to publish the cartoons. In October 2002, Abdullatif was found guilty of distributing racist propaganda after Hizb-ut-Tahrir handed out leaflets that made threats against Jews by citing verses from the Koran. He was given a 60-day suspended sentence.

Abdullatif used the Koran to justify incitement to violence! And we still wonder why people associate Islam with violence?

Muslims must honestly examine why there is such a huge gap between the way we imagine Islam and our prophet, and the way both are seen by others. Our offended sensibilities must not be limited to the Danish newspaper or the cartoonist, but to those like Fadi Abdullatif whose actions should be regarded as just as offensive to Islam and to our reverence for the prophet. Otherwise, we are all responsible for those Danish cartoons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676524.stm

Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: "The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way.

"I condemn them without reservation, these people are less representative of Muslims than the BNP are of the British people."

He said that Muslims were angry over satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers but it was "outrageous" for anyone to advocate extreme action or violence.

"We believe it [the protest] should have been banned and the march stopped.

"It's irrelevant whether it's Muslims causing hatred or anyone else - freedom of speech has to be responsible."

http://islam.about.com/od/currentissues/a/cartoon.htm

Islamic traditions include a number of instances of the prophet having the opportunity to strike back at those who attacked him, but refraining from doing so.

These traditions are particularly important as we witness outrage in the Islamic world over cartoons, initially published in a Danish newspaper, that were viewed as intentional attacks on the prophet.

Peaceful and not-so-peaceful protests have occurred from Gaza to Indonesia. Boycotts have targeted companies based in Denmark and in other nations that reprinted the offensive caricatures.

We all, Muslims and people of other faiths, seem to be locked into a downward spiral of mutual mistrust and hostility based on self-perpetuating stereotypes.

As Muslims, we need to take a step back and ask ourselves, "What would the Prophet Muhammad do?"

http://www.freemuslims.org/news/arti...p?article=1281

The Free Muslims Coalition condemns the reaction of American Muslim Organizations and Muslim governments to the unfavorable depiction of Prophet Mohammad in European News papers.

Protests have spread across the Muslim world over the publication in European news papers of cartoons depicting Prophet Muhammad as a terrorist. Outrage over the cartoons has ignited demonstrations from Turkey to the Gaza Strip, and prompted a boycott of Danish products throughout the Middle East.

In Pakistan, hundreds demonstrated on Thursday, chanting "Death to Denmark" and burning Danish and French flags. In Egypt, President Hosni Mubarak warned that the decision by some European papers to publish the cartoons could encourage terrorists. Consequently, government ministers from 17 Arab nations have asked the Danish government to punish the newspaper for what they called an "offense to Islam" and some countries have even pulled their ambassadors from Denmark.

The controversy intensified on Wednesday when a French news paper, printed a new drawing on its front page showing Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy figures sitting on a cloud, with the caption "Don't worry Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here".

The response by Muslims to the cartoons is absolutely pathetic and depressing but revealing. The reason Muslims are responding with anger and threats of violence is because most Muslims live in countries where democracy and freedom of speech are alien concepts.

http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/of....v2rwne79.html

"We need to put forward our calm and compassionate side, our gentleness. It is enough to look at the Koran," he said.

And in Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said: "We are people who by the instructions of religion are bound to take the course of forgiveness ... we must have as Muslims the courage to forgive and not make it an issue of dispute between religions or cultures."

Influential Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan, who has a large following among young European Muslims, said the reaction in the Islamic world was "excessive" and that Muslims should take a more detached view.

"Muslims must absolutely learn to keep a critical distance. They have to get used to living in a global world. Their consciousness must be sufficiently robust to master their hurt feelings," he told AFP.

Sorry if these stories aren't carried by Rush or FoxNews.

Ignorance is not having the knowledge to use,
stupidity is not using the knowledge you have.

I've provided you with the knowledge, soooo...

[esskreemr]

I finally found a link that provides full-sized copies of them.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...e.asp?ID=21127

There are a couple humorous ones, but the majority are political statements.

[Slim]

I don't think you trully understand what 'ignorant' means...

Muslim condemnation of protests:

http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/arc...untain_out.php



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676524.stm


http://islam.about.com/od/currentissues/a/cartoon.htm


http://www.freemuslims.org/news/arti...p?article=1281


http://islam.about.com/gi/dynamic/of....v2rwne79.html


Sorry if these stories aren't carried by Rush or FoxNews.

Ignorance is not having the knowledge to use,
stupidity is not using the knowledge you have.

I've provided you with the knowledge, soooo...

I stand by my last statement.

[esskreemr]

I stand by my last statement.

Of course you do.