 |
February 13, 2006"At Least People's Ears Have Pricked Up..."What they [the bombers] did was good. They have warned that we are here, we Muslims. People have taken notice that we are here. They died so that people would take notice . . . big meetings and conferences make no change at all. With this, at least people’s ears have pricked up.” Radical Islamists of this ilk--those supporting violence against their fellow citizens--are nothing but fifth-columnists. They must be incarcerated and/or deported. But the challenge is to create conditions whereby fewer Muslims in the West are tempted by such fanatical radicalism and resort to violence. And my cautionary notes advocating that we don't cheerlead cartoon depictions of Mohammed as a ticking bomb are not some Munich-like appeasement redux, but rather an attempt to advocate judicious and responsible editorial judgment in the context of a wide-ranging ideological struggle against radical Islam--one being fought, not only in the Islamic world, but also very much in a West grappling with how best to integrate their Muslim minorities. Part of this battle means trying not to gratuitously humiliate religious minorities living within your midst. Yes, freedom of expression is a fundamental tenet, and worth defending to the last. And while we may detest the imagery of neo-Nazis marching about Skokie, say, many of us will hold our noses and defend the right of such odious bigots to express themselves. Still, everytime we pen an essay, or draw a cartoon--we are weighing whether we are giving offense to someone based on race, or sex, or religion or something else. We practice judgment, a modicum of self-censorship, you might say. And putting aside the often absurd excesses of political correctness and hate speech regulations at the academy and such, aren't we being hypocritical if we pretend such self-censorship doesn't occur myriad times every day, though countless office conversations, op-eds being penned, blog posts being published, and so on? Further, and putting aside the obvious ginned up nature of many of the (grotesque and unacceptably violent) protests in the Arab world, or how regimes like Bashar Asad's so transparently allowed the burning of the Danish Embassy to let the street blow off some steam, or how the cartoons were supplemented by other more offensive ones by Danish Islamists intent on stirring up a bigger fuss, and so on--can't we nevertheless understand, particularly in pre-Enlightenment* societies that haven't developed any sophisticated understanding of free speech norms--that depicting Mohammed in such an insulting manner will cause genuine rage? And shouldn't we, just perhaps, choose not to revel in rubbing the Islamic masses noses in it--especially when we are attempting to deny Islamist radicals more propaganda fodder for recruiting and such? And, here in the West, while we must demand of any Muslims living in our modern democratic societies that they fully ascribe to fundamental tenets like freedom of expression-- shouldn't we neverthless ask that editorial judgment be exercised, that purposefully inflammatory anti-Muslim cartooning not be mindeessly cheer-led in (seemingly) every blog in the land? *There seems to be some confusion, in previous threads, about my use of the word "pre-enlightenment". By that I mean that the countries of the Islamic world did not go through the Enlightenment, the era of Voltaire, Diderot and other thinkers who advocated the prime importance of reason. So, to put it more plainly, having satellite dishes, cell phones, E-mail, Danish flags at the ready and all the rest of it--well, it doesn't mean I'm wrong in my description of these societies as being pre-Enlightenment ones. Indeed, one might say that the very core of the massive foreign policy challenge facing America today, one that may still fail dismally, is to attempt to help midwife the Islamic world towards modernity, towards enlightenment values of rationality--the very foundation of creating sustainable democracies--and thus lessening the allure of nihilistic and apocalpytic messianism of the al-Qaeda variety. And what the radical Imams in Denmark were likely seeking to do (and why they supplemented the already offensive cartoons with a few more for added insurance), was to secure a propaganda victory in the Muslim world against Enlightenment values of freedom of expression. Put differently, if your first introduction to such tenets are insulting depictions of your leading religious figures, you're not off to a great start representing the 'enlightened' West as model of progress and wonderful alternative to your present reality. Or, put even more simply, it's not going to get you any love or street cred in Najaf or Fallujah or Beirut or Cairo. Maybe that's not our goal, you protest, as we must be principled and uncompromising in the defense of our most strongly held ideals (no to Islamo-bullying, the latest earnest rallying cry!). But has our somewhat haughty, self-righteous and indignant reaction to this entire cartoon fiasco really helped us, on a pragmatic, brass-tacks level, in achieving our larger goal of trying to bring more Muslim moderates into our camp, of spreading Enlightenment values to the region? Or are we instead helping to do the opposite, by inflaming passions in the region and within the mosques of Europe, the better to facilitate the machinations of the Imam Alis busily plying their noxious trade, of radicalizing Muslim youth in the service of a perverse version of Islam, of some utopic caliphate rising again after some massive clash of civilizations? Posted by Gregory at February 13, 2006 12:32 AM | TrackBack (2)Comments
But if they get this hostile over a cartoon what hope is there they'll ever embrace Enlightenment? I mean...it was cartoon. And it wasnt even that offensive. Posted by: thefewandtheplenty at February 13, 2006 01:09 AM | Permalink to this comment
As usual, I couldn't agree more. I couldn't help but notice the similarity in your nuanced position on this issue with that of many of us that disagreed with you on the torture meme. Yes, of course freedom of expression is important, yes, you have every right to be outraged by the petulant arrogance of Rumsfeld and Co., but careful attention to the time/place/manner of your exercise of those freedoms is also a virtue that needs to be considered.
Tyrannical regimes in the broader Middle East have cynically exploited the cartoon controversy in order to try to discredit liberal democracy. "See! This is what happens with their freedom! So please allow me to retain absolute power over your lives." I am not a civil libertarian, and I don't believe in an unlimited freedom of expression. For example, in my opinion, Imam Hamid Ali's words quoted above ought to be sufficient evidence for imprisonment. (In case anyone asks the basis of my own "double standard", it is that Imam Hamid Ali advocated violence against other Britons, whereas the Danish cartoon, however offensive and inappropriate, did not advocate violence against Muslims. If a newspaper advocated violence against Muslims, I would favor prosecution and punishment.) Still, the hard fact is that in a free society, people do have the right to offend. To counter the tyrants' arguments, however, we should use public diplomacy to highlight the fact that in a free society, people have the right to peacefully protest the perceived offense. We should highlight the upside of freedom. Instead of pretending that there is no prejudice against Muslims in the United States, why not show off the many ways in which ordinary Americans, both Muslim and non-Muslim, have used their freedom of expression in order to take a stand against such prejudice, and in favor of American ideals? For example, I don't know much about Mandy Moore, but I was personally moved by the fact that she volunteered to appear in a public service announcement promoting tolerance of Arab- and Muslim-Americans in the wake of the terrorist atrocities of September 11, 2001. I think this is a story worth telling around the world. Why would a seemingly superficial non-Arab non-Muslim American teenage pop singer make such an announcement? Because she is an American. Why not produce a public service announcement with Zainab al-Suwaij, the praiseworthy founder of the praiseworthy American Islamic Congress, who can use her freedom of speech to explain that she has more freedom to practice and proclaim her religion here in the U.S. than she had in Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Posted by: Arjun at February 13, 2006 02:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
Just imagine after the Amman suicide attacks, the Muslim world had the same outrage, because as I understand, being a Muslim, and killing yourself in these suicide attacks is one of the worst crimes if not worst than the cartoons. Then add on top of that killing other Muslims. No, we were exposed to a few week street protests and yet, the suicide bombings continue and we have academics, yes even in my liberal university, who claim that this is the action of a people deprived of an army. But still, shouldnt they be mad over the fact that they have many Muslims, carrying out these anit-Koranic actions of killing themselves. Now the cartoons were committed by non-Muslims and so the protests are going on. Well, I feel that the suicide of oneself is as bad as if not worst than the cartoons in the 'peaceful' relgion of Islam Posted by: Robert at February 13, 2006 02:52 AM | Permalink to this comment
We're in a bind. We don't want to give up freedom of speech. But it's no use asking people to be sensible. There's a strong cadre of americans who believe that we are already at war, that there is no alternative to a probably-multi-generational war against islam. They believe the enemy cannot be reasoned with or bargained with, that there is no alternative to victory. And so they will do whatever helps them spread the belief in the West that the war is here and must be won. And so they want to create muslim incidents that will persuade americans to give up trying to be nice to moderate muslims. They have a de facto alliance with the muslim agitators who try to stir up hatred against us. They create incidents for the muslim extremists to use, who then create incidents for them to use to stir up hatred against muslims. Many of the anti-islamic agitators are not zionists. If as some people think we really are heading for an inevitable confrontation with china, we have no business getting bogged down in an avoidable war with all of islam. So these people are traitors. They are at war with America. They cannot be reasoned with or bargained with, there is no alternative to victory against them. .... Well, maybe that approach is flawed. But it doesn't work to treat them as just so many freedom-loving americans who care about civil liberties. I don't know what to do. Posted by: J Thomas at February 13, 2006 03:32 AM | Permalink to this comment
Should people being going out of their way to offend? Of course not. Should people go out of their way to shout defiance at people parading through LONDON and other Arab cities demanding the heads of those who defame Muhammed? Hell yes. Your approach is a good idea in how to behave nicely. You are forgetting, however, that the Enlightenment figures that we cherish didn't take a softly, softly approach, and risked their lives frequently (and sometimes fatally). It wasn't all that long ago that Scotland was executing people for heresy. And not too soon before Adam Smith was publishing his works. We are in a war to the knife, and while gratuitous provocations are stupid, showing just what the enemy is prepared to kill over is a good bet. One should note that a cartoon poking fun at the media's non-coverage has been decried by CAIR, and that a burqa'd woman in Kenya was protesting with a sign that said "Freedom = Terrorism" (see Volokh.com). As for being a traitor because I am distracting from the coming conflict with China: if I felt that the criticism was serious, I might think about it, but I and my confreres advocate massive increases in military spending such that handling China would be trivial. Further, getting the war with the Salafasists out of the way ensures we are not attacked in our rear when dealing with a real opponent. Though my methods with the Salafists are prone to be rather vigourous. Roman policy in the centuries before Caesar provides many lessons, including the necessity of vigourous application of force. Alexander teaches to deal with minor problems before major ones. And so with the Salafists! Posted by: Hey at February 13, 2006 08:51 AM | Permalink to this comment
The French have been calling elements of UK Muslim society (a lot of it centered around London) "Londonistan" for about a decade now with quite good reason. Despite some recent improvements by the Blair government (notably convicting first Abu Qatada and now Abu Hamza) the situation remains much the same. Why anyone is surprised by sentiments like those of the quoted imam existing in such an atmosphere is quite beyond me. Posted by: Dan Darling at February 13, 2006 09:06 AM | Permalink to this comment
After invading and occupying a Muslim nation, then killing and torturing hundreds of thousands on a handful of lies....and you want to "mid-wife" the Enlightenment? Good Luck!
"I don't know what to do." That, in a nutshell, is why Bush is in the whitehouse and the democrats stand outside protesting. The only thing worse than a bad decision is no decision. Posted by: moron99 at February 13, 2006 04:22 PM | Permalink to this comment
Hey, yes, you are a traitor to the USA. You are trying to get us into an unnecessary war, trying to get us to spend our way into oblivion, trying to spread hatred and bloodshed. The world would be a far better place if you and the subhumans who are exactly like you in other countries would all go off by yourselves to, say, antarctica and commit mutual suicide, than when you try to get your countries to commit mutual suicide with you. You don't deserve to live. You are a bad person.
What you mean "we," kimosabe? There is a good reason the cartoons that served as a pretext for demonstrations in Europe and government-sponsored civil disorder elsewhere appeared in a European newspaper and not in a North American one. The reason is that large numbers of Muslim immigrants, relative to the native population, have come to Europe more than they have entered the United States. "We" are not responding to the discontent this has produced; Europeans are. It is important to understand that some of this discontent would exist even without the terrorism issue (though the terrorism issue has no doubt focused it considerably). It is therefore not particularly useful for Americans to hold forth about what "we" need to do to avoid giving Muslim extremists in Europe excuses to stir up trouble -- because the excuses will be there regardless of anything Americans do. They will be there as long as large numbers of Muslims are in a Europe that can neither expel them nor force them to assimilate to European culture, at least not in a reasonably short timeframe. Another thing Americans might bear in mind is that we are not well placed to declare what are or are not "perverse" versions of Islam. The urge to do that -- to assume that Islamic values are hostile to terrorism or even that they are compatible with a civilized modern society -- is indulged at some risk of self-delusion. Muslims must decide if terrorism, intolerance or other values that cannot be reconciled with civlization are central to their religion or not. Then they must act on their decision, which means suppressing advocates of terrorism, intolerance and so forth in their midst without waiting for Western authorities to do it for them. I'd like to be wrong about this, but it certainly looks as if prominent Muslims in Europe and the Middle East are quite a long way from this point -- and that people who think that all we need for a quiet life is to tread a little more carefully and not be so insensitive are kidding themselves. Posted by: Zathras at February 13, 2006 05:07 PM | Permalink to this comment
The point is that the decision to print anything -- cartoon images of Mohammed, me giving a hand gesture to BD, or anything else -- is MY decision to make and not anyone else's. Until that is understood, shock and awe may well have to be the offensive literary norm. Gentility and considerations of tastes of others are luxuries that civil societies can afford. But truly civil societies do not tolerate the outrageous idea that sensibilities of one side matter more than those of others and permit threats and murder to assert the claim. Society is built on levels of operation not widely taught in schools. At the most basic level, unfettered conversation is essential. Those who oppose that believe in power rather than reason and, thus, do not believe in society. Ours is the choice of either convincing those who believe in power of the value of reason or defending ourselves from them. I prefer the former and am prepared for the latter. This is the race for civilization which we are engaged. Civilization does not ask for much, but this little bit it must insist upon. Posted by: sbw at February 13, 2006 05:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
That, in a nutshell, is why Bush is in the whitehouse and the democrats stand outside protesting. The only thing worse than a bad decision is no decision. Moron, you are right. Elements of the GOP are waging an undeclared war on the USA, and Democrats have been acting as if it's politics as usual. It may be too late to fight back, they may already have won, it may not be possible to keep them from turning the USA into a third-world country with a small aristocratic elite and a mass of peasants. I sure don't know what to do about it at this point. Patriotic americans don't even have a Formosa to retreat to. And that's why they're winning, they're pushing for total victory and nobody has a plan to stop them. In the context of arab protesters, though, doing nothing may be a completely viable plan. Let europeans enforce their laws. They can apologise for giving offense and still enforce the laws. The apology might do some good but it's just words. Of course any little indication of politeness to muslims will enrage our crazier americans, but that's no big deal either. We can apologise to them for being polite to muslims and that might do some good, and it's still just more words.
First, I would not put the generic problem quite as Greg, but I think it does touch on the essential challenge - creating or sustaining a dialogue and basis of trust with what I decided to call "the pious middle" in the Islamic world - the neither secular nor jihadi majority. Greg has it right in his last paragraph, to quote Put differently, if your first introduction to such tenets are insulting depictions of your leading religious figures, you're not off to a great start representing the 'enlightened' West as model of progress and wonderful alternative to your present reality. While I am not a fan of general cultural generalisations of the nature of "Enlightenment" - given that such values seem to be largely only genuinely held by a small minority even in the West (as a general matter it doesn't strike me that very many really are ready to stand up for their own ox being gored), although the institutions are there to protect liberal values - certainly the point is clear, gratitiously offending religious sensibilities (and one should recall that right into the last century the same kind of expression aimed at Xianity would get censored in Europe) does nothing to build the case or spread the values, quite the contrary. If there were a strong point of criticism to defend with the cartoons, well I pesonally would be more inclined to support the Danes, but the cartoons were puerile. Second, it is to be expected, I suppose that so much commentary (and specifically blog blithering) revolves around an undifferentiated Muslim Mass Mind "they." Nevermind that millions of Muslims - the overwhelming majority - did not bother to protest the cartoons, or did so peacefully. No, a few hundred agitators brand you. And the denunciations from the Muslim side of the fence of the violence - passed over such that later one can ask the fundamentally dishonest question "where are ...."? In general posed mendaciously by those who actually have zero clue as to what is or has been said. This aside, not suprrised to see Zathras with a bit of soft, understated religious bigotry. Another thing Americans might bear in mind is that we are not well placed to declare what are or are not "perverse" versions of Islam. Well, the commentator may not be, that is to be sure, but then that doesn't stop the same commentator from making back-handed swipes at an entire culture and religion, does it? The urge to do that -- to assume that Islamic values are hostile to terrorism or even that they are compatible with a civilized modern society -- is indulged at some risk of self-delusion. Almost amusing, the twist to this phrasing. There is little reason to "assume" anything about vast sweeping cultural "values" given history rather teaches that values are mutable and both Islam and Xianity have proven quite capable of generating both reasonable values and murderous ones, depending on the circumstances. It is equally clear, should one wish to look, that millions of adherents to Islam rather peacefully engage with modern economies and societies without any particular psychoses - beyond those one typically finds. Positing in the sly, backhanded way, incompatibility with civilisation is merely dressing up ordinary religious bigotry in nice clothes.
Greg 1. I havent drawn any cartoons, nor have I mocked Islam. I have however attempted to express my support for Denmark, and its people. You see realpolitik isnt just about "moderate Muslims", its also about US - European relations. We may not have exactly the same attitudes toward religion, or free speech as our European friends do - but if we fail to support them to the hilt now, they will feel betrayed. That will hurt us deeply in a conflict where, I think we agree, unilateralism will ultimately lead to disaster. 2. American newspapers of course have the right not to print these cartoons. OTOH at some point the cartoons are so newsworthy in themselves, that to continue to not print them begins to go beyond taste, and to approach censorship. 3. Who are the moderates we want to reach, and how? Gerecht makes some interesting points in the WS. Dont we want to reach out to those muslims in the west who have reached the point where they have assimilated western ideals and want to poke fun at their own culture? How does apologizing for a fairly innocuous cartoon reach out to them? And how do we begin to to tell those relatively moderate muslims in the ME (who are certainly not close to that point) that freedom involves NOT blaming an entire country for the actions of one newspaper, if we act as if actions of a newspaper are something for governments to apologize for? IF we decry violence, but are sympathetic to a boycott of denmark, what does that tell them?
I think that what bothers me most about this is the reaction of the American right.... imagine, if instead of a "publish the cartoons" and "buy Danish" campaign, the American right had treated these cartoons like they treated the ideas of Ward Churchill...... what we have here is a "teachable moment" --- and what the international Islamic community is learning at this moment is that the people who are most vociferous about making "free speech" claims when it comes to publishing cartoons which portray Muhammed as a terrorist are the same people who do everything in their power to punish anyone who suggests that George W. Bush is a terrorist. Gregs idea that Islamic societies are "pre-Enlightenment", and that we should be working toward bringning the Muslim world to an understanding of the values of the Enlightenment, is sound ---- the problem is that the people who are running the USA, and those who support Bush, are just as "pre-Enlightment" as the Muslim world.... The civilized world isn't just up against a bunch of "pre-enlightenment" Islamic radicals, its up against a USA leadership that has rejected the lessons and wisdom of the Enlightment despite having been born into a post-Enlightmentment world. Posted by: p.lukasiak at February 13, 2006 10:29 PM | Permalink to this comment
'"buy Danish" campaign, the American right had treated these cartoons like they treated the ideas of Ward Churchill......'
I am so tired of people trying to lump Islam into one big homogenous mass. I am tired of those who try to portray them as an inherently flawed culture. I am equally tired of people who try to justify their actions based on the thinly disguised pretext of cultural equivalency and sensitivity. Bullshit. The crips and the bloods have come forward claiming to represent their communty. They have handed you a list of demands. Half of you want to debate how society should strive to meet thier demands and half of you are so offended by the demands that you want to level the community. Both of you have been played for the fool. You have legitimized the crips and bloods claim that they do, in fact, represent the community. Here's the bottom line -
Collounsbury is clever enough to have figured out that I regard him as an habitual and too eager apologist for the grosser outrages of the Arab world, and so regard charges of bigotry coming from him as having especially little weight. The question is still worth asking: why ascribe to all Muslims the views and propensity to violence of a small minority? Perhaps it would be more precise to phrase the question differently: why should not regard Muslims willing to use violence to impose their views and the much larger number of Muslims who are not differently? Where you stand on that depends on where you sit. As I pointed out upthread, discontent with Muslims largely unrelated to terrorism exists to a greater extent in Europe than it does in America because Muslims -- many of them from very poor regions -- have become a much bigger and more socially disruptive presence in many European countries than they have in the United States. The issue of fault is irrelevant to this discussion (FWIW most of what fault there is European governments'); the point is that population shifts very often generate anxiety and discontent. Concern about terrorism can be the focal point of this discontent's expression, but it is not the main reason for the discontent itself. In the United States, on the other hand, terrorism is the main concern. Our Muslim immigrant population is not (in most parts of the country) large or alien enough to stir much resentment of its presence. But everyone remembers 9/11, and most people remember coverage of Muslim (actually Arab -- in America the fact that most Muslims are not Arabs is imperfectly understood) terrorism dating back at least to the Munich Olympics in 1972. If pressed, Americans will allow as to how it makes no sense to assume that all Muslims approve the actions of a few terrorists. They will also be aware that terrorism had to come from somewhere; evidently Palestinians, say, did not disapprove of terrorism enough to suppress Palestinian terrorists themselves. There is some sense, frankly, in that crude assessment, unfair as it certainly is to many Muslim individuals and some entire Muslim communities. In some parts of the world there are many Muslims who while perhaps not approving of terrorism in the abstract are willing to find endless excuses for it, or at least to look the other way as long as they think the target deserves it. Moreover -- this is at least as significant -- there are governments in Muslim countries that either do now or have in the past (or both) supported terrorism; they have the monopoly on power in their countries, and Americans not unnaturally expect something more than words before they will believe that a nation like Syria or Iran is notable for something other than supporting terrorism. [A digression here: the whole thrust of the demonstrations, riots, death threats etc. against Denmark has been precisely to hold the Danish government and people responsible for cartoons published in one private newspaper. Granting that people in a country like Syria, where the government has controlled the media for many years, may assume that this must be true everywhere, Danes at least might be forgiven for viewing as one-sided the argument that the West sins by holding many Muslims responsible for the actions of a few.] No serious person in the West doubts that assassinations, car bombs and riots over newspaper cartoons do not mix well with modern civilization. They can't be allowed; it isn't just a matter of what one thinks is right, but one of stepping on a threat to one's way of life. It is quite true that most Muslims in the West and even most Arabs are sympathetic to this idea in the abstract -- but as hard as this must be for Muslims in the West to hear, this isn't good enough. Action is required; in this case, ostracism by Denmark's Muslim community of those Danish Muslims who shopped the offending cartoons around the Middle East would be a good start. If for Europe's Muslim immigrants this means turning away from their fellow Muslims in the Middle East, whose response to perceived insults may often be much different, well, that's what it means. Posted by: Zathras at February 14, 2006 01:17 AM | Permalink to this comment
It strikes me as more than slightly hysterical and overdone to characterise being moderately critical of some European idiocy with respect to the cartoons as "betraying" Europe - above all if one pays attention and notes that the truly liberal media in the United Kingdom has said more or less the same thing as Greg. Tribal knee-jerking ( as well as bizarrely navel gazing pseudo-questions about 'Muslim moderates ) in response to crises (although gracing this storm of stupidity all around that is the cartoon controversy with the word crisis seems more the slightly ridiculous) is neither real solidarity nor even particularly useful. Storm of stupidity, as Abu Aardvark put it, is rather apt. On the side of most of the protests, and on the part of most of the commentators in the US. Lounsbury
Moron, it's the muslim crips and the "conservative" bloods. They say they're ready to fight and everybody else has to pick sides. If I have to pick sides and follow orders by one or the other I'll take the bloods, they're closer to being my people and they live here. But they're both hateful and I don't see that I have to join either one of them.
Greg, I offer my sincere apologies to you if you detected any haughtiness in my defense of the right of free speech and artistic expression in Western democracies over the global days of rage against the publication of the twelve cartoons in The Jyllands-Posten. And, of course, you are right that Westerners must avoid at all costs a sense of moral superiority in their rhetoric, which would further alienate Muslims in this international debate. (As for self-censorship, I am the proverbial bull in the china shop when I open my mouth, which is a personal failing and character defect that I will try to work on.)
This seems so much like a crazy Star Trek episode. The guy in a turban from another century (or planet) projected on the video screen promising death to our ship. And we appear to be up against an uncompromising religious ideology that operates much like "The Borg". If it's their way or the jihad-way, I want to ask myself, what would Captain Kirk do? Posted by: dp at February 14, 2006 04:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
Naser Khader, a member of the Danish Parliament, recently founded a moderate anti-violence organization called Democratic Muslims (Demokratiske Muslimer). He and other members of his organization met with Prime Minister Rasmussen today to discuss their mutual interest in opposing Muslim extremism and supporting Muslim integration in Denmark. I think this was an excellent gesture on Naser Khader's part, and on Prime Minister Rasmussen's part. For me, at least, this is reason enough to endorse the purchase of Havarti. Posted by: Arjun at February 14, 2006 04:37 AM | Permalink to this comment
Perhaps if I try again somebody will comprehend. j thomas our enemy is not republican or democrat. you may not agree with one or the other and both make mistakes. But neither one would intentionally harm the country. You are delusional to think otherwise. Our enemy is not muslims. Our enemy is not Islam. They have the potential to be our greatest allies. Our common enemy is the radical imam who operates within western society. He has politicized Islam. He needs to be swiftboated. Posted by: moron99 at February 14, 2006 04:55 AM | Permalink to this comment
Wow, the vast difference between the commentary and the comments on this site is nothing short of amazing. Rather, then bloivations, i just have a question. why these cartoon's and why now months after their first publication? from what I understand the newspaper that first plublished them is a little virtually localized paper in Denmark. How do a few political cartoons shown in a small paper create such an uproar when South Park with a huge international audience which was 10X more offensive and disrespectful of everything not ever hear a peep? Self-censorship, cultural respect, fine I agree with you on all of that. In some VERY limited ways I can even understand the reactions. But this is about more then just free speech; though it crealy is about that, too. No, there seems to be something more here. This is not the first images of this kind to be shown in wide public view; why these pictures why now??? Posted by: Randall Bennington at February 14, 2006 07:20 AM | Permalink to this comment
All this misses the point. There is no we, for starters. I make a decision to publish my work and "we", whoever "we" are, doesn't come into it. When I or anyone else publishes anything controversial, they do so in the full knowledge that free speech does have consequences. They might be sued for libel, for example. A topselling tabloid regards that as a risk worth taking. However, the decision to publish the cartoons could hardly have been made expecting the consequence to be bloody worldwide rioting and sacking of embassies. Everyone ought to know by now that the confrontation has nothing to do with cartoons anyway. It is a clash of wills, and "ours" has wilted. Haughty? I don't think so. Craven equivocation is the more widespread reaction. Posted by: Dave F at February 14, 2006 11:20 AM | Permalink to this comment
Moron, I understand your position. It sounds reasonable. And certainly the mass of Republicans don't want to hurt the country. It's the radical republican leadership that is stripping the country's assets of all sorts, intending no good for us. They are the ones who are at war with the USA. They are the enemy, far more than weak muslims who are mostly powerless. When you say that radical imams need to be "swiftboated", you are wrong. We don't need to lie about them, either to our people or their people. Nor do we need to make up lies about the radical Republicans. The truth is enough to damn the latter utterly.
Moron, I mostly agree with you. The enemy is not the mass of republicans or democrats, or the mass of religious people or secular humanists. The enemies are the Republican leaders and the fanatical imams. They are each trying to get support by demonising the other. The imams are pointing to the US threat to get muslims who would otherwise despise them to give them reluctant support. And the Republican leadership is pointing to the muslim threat to get americans who would normally be horrified by them to give them support. "Swiftboating" the muslims is a strategy for the corrupt Republican leaders. For you to do it is playing into their hands. Posted by: J Thomas at February 14, 2006 01:13 PM | Permalink to this comment
"Must not gratuitously insult"? Here "gratuitous" means, "for no reason", "absent provocation", "due to motives of vile prejudice" which in today's PCBS climate any targeted group will automatically allege. There are no "merits" to this case. In a free-speech environment, "gratuitous" has no meaning-- no-one decides what is or is not "gratuitous", no-one fosters or represses statements accordingly. In this particular case, "gratuitous insult" including grievous bodily harm originates solely with Islamofascist/Muslim fanatics, willing to do or say anything --anything at all, from advocating child-molestation to kidnaping and murder-- with impunity guaranteed by reason of their monomaniacal excretions of Prophetology... rightly understood, no more than a degraded self-righteousness seeking to compensate a millenium of cultural, economic, social failure in every context by dragging everyone else in the world to their own brutal, nihilistic levels. As an American, and indeed as an adult human being, my absolute right is to state what I think, in whatever terms I wish, and if some shrinking violet, some poor innocent Imam or benighted Mullah bursts into tears-- so be it. When even one, just one, of these deliquescent creeps starts acting like a civilized, rational Homo Sapiens rather than some scimitar-swinging dolt, maybe we can agree on just who is "gratuitously insulting" whom. Islam in its Wahabi mode, and most probably others, is contemptible and pathetic. "Insulting?"-- how is it possible NOT to "insult" cretinous Wahabist barbarism?
The issue doesn't seem complicated: It is never insult to point out an idea one believes to be in error and to explain why. It is a sign of respect for the other individual and an opportunity for discussion. The problem is that sometimes people fail to differentiate between themselves and the ideas they hold. Moving to the next level, not only is it fair to illustrate some types of Islam tolerating violence. It is equally fair to point out how unacceptable is the violent objection to the initial criticism. Now, where am I mistaken?
"It strikes me as more than slightly hysterical and overdone to characterise being moderately critical of some European idiocy with respect to the cartoons as "betraying" Europe" Was greg being criticial of European idiocy? I thought he was critical of those of us who support the Buy Danish campaign. Frankly its not clear to me what Greg wants and from whom. I think if the US govt, or US citizens, dont make it clear to the people of Europe that we back them, regardless of what we think of the JPs editorial decision, then we betray them (and BTW, in the original context, and looking at the actual content of the cartoons, I dont see JP as being particulalry idiotic)
Which media would that be? The Indy? Besides, in this regard, UK is closer to the US reaction than the continental one. Why that is, would a worthy topic of discussion. Posted by: liberalhawk at February 14, 2006 04:52 PM | Permalink to this comment
J thomas, your partisan glasses fit you a little too snugly. Take them off for a few minutes every day. Then, when you first put them back on the difference is more noticeable. Swiftboating is to find a deception that your opponent has engaged in for personal profit and to mercilessly expose it in front of people who have not yet decided to follow him. Kerry exagerated his accounts of vietnam in order to present himself as a war hero. He was called on it. Because he exagerrated his initial accounts there were topics that he could not discuss. If he did discuss them then it would only open more doors for his attackers. The swift-boaters were clever enough to realize where Kerry could and could not defend himself. Knowing this they also knew where they could exagerate their response because Kerry was defenseless. There is much more to swiftboating someone than making up lies. The entire process of swiftboating can not begin until your prey tells lies of his own that render him defensless against the assualt. The radical imams of europe have engaged in deception. The global network of radical imams willingly participated in the decpetion. They have therefore left the entire network of radical imams open for swiftboating. The target audience for this swiftboat assault are the european muslims who have not yet decided whether or not to take action against the politicization and radicalization of their religion. jeesh. am I the only one who thinks these things are so obvious that they barely warrant explanation??? Posted by: moron99 at February 14, 2006 04:59 PM | Permalink to this comment
Moron Some months ago when the media published pics of Abu Graib some right wing bloggers and pundits said to publish said pics was treason, cause of what it would stir up. They went on their usual rants about liberals and dems and the media as traitors. J thomas evidently thinks it funny to turn this around on them. (you stir up anger, youre a traitor, etc) It sorta was funny, the first time. Now its just boring, and quite humorless. It also ignores the fact that in at least one instance the treason cry was againg Newsweek for publishing a rumor that turned out to be false, about Koran flushing. hope this helps. Posted by: liberalhawk at February 14, 2006 05:03 PM | Permalink to this comment
J Thomas,
The point is that the decision to print anything -- cartoon images of Mohammed, me giving a hand gesture to BD, or anything else -- is MY decision to make and not anyone else's. Until that is understood, shock and awe may well have to be the offensive literary norm. Gentility and considerations of tastes of others are luxuries that civil societies can afford. But truly civil societies do not tolerate the outrageous idea that sensibilities of one side matter more than those of others and permit threats and murder to assert the claim. Society is built on levels of operation not widely taught in schools. At the most basic level, unfettered conversation is essential. Those who oppose that believe in power rather than reason and, thus, do not believe in society. Ours is the choice of either convincing those who believe in power of the value of reason or defending ourselves from them. I prefer the former and am prepared for the latter. This is the race for civilization which we are engaged. Civilization does not ask for much, but this little bit it must insist upon. Posted by: sbw at February 14, 2006 05:58 PM | Permalink to this comment
First, "Moron" (an unfort. pseodnym): Our enemy is not muslims. Our enemy is not Islam. They have the potential to be our greatest allies. Our common enemy is the radical imam who operates within western society. He has politicized Islam. He needs to be swiftboated. Now, as to this: There are no "merits" to this case. In a free-speech environment, "gratuitous" has no meaning-- no-one decides what is or is not "gratuitous", no-one fosters or represses statements accordingly. This is pure tripe. Free speech environment? Well, leaving aside the pure meaninglessness of the phrase, the assertion that gratitious has no meaning in the context of free speech is pure tripe and the worst kind of abusive posturing. Free speech of course is about a right to expression - although it is bounded and not absolute (like all rights). Yelling fire in theatre, for example. Legal limitations have always existed on free-speech, which is reasonable and rational, although anyone attached to liberal (in the classic sense) values should wish those restrictions to be as minimal as possible. Of course in the legal context one may very well have standards of judgement with respect to gratitiousness or necessity of speech (for example, the yelling fire in theatre for its own sake is clearly gratitious if there is no fire and endangers others), and there are always judgements being made as to the value of statements in contested areas. That is normal and natural (again certainly one desires that they be minimal), the mechanical rote posturing of the comment aside. However, Greg's comments were not about legal restrictions - he clearly is against censorship - but in the realm of character and politeness, of values and adult self-restraint (out of due respect, not fear). Gratitious here has much meaning, for regardless of one's right to insult others, most properly socialised adults certainly learn that while they have a 'right' to say many things, gratitiously insulting others, and especially other groups, has a cost and is often inappropriate. As such, one learns to refrain from gratititously doing so. Without due cause, especially, with respect to groups. There are, of course, as well, good reasons for insulting whole groups (say radical Salafi murderers). Judgement. Good judgement, not blind knee-jerking posturing. That is the question Greg raised here. And it is the judgement excersised in the UK media, for example. Certainly one should not refrain from criticising Islam out of fear - but one should refrain from gratitiously insulting potential friends and allies out of the simple and basic standard of mutual respect and common decency. In this particular case, "gratuitous insult" including grievous bodily harm originates solely with Islamofascist/Muslim fanatics, willing to do or say anything --anything at all, from advocating child-molestation to kidnaping and murder-- with impunity guaranteed by reason of their monomaniacal excretions of Prophetology... rightly understood, no more than a degraded self-righteousness seeking to compensate a millenium of cultural, economic, social failure in every context by dragging everyone else in the world to their own brutal, nihilistic levels. I rather tire of the idiocy of the word "Islamofacist" but on a purely factual level the statement is stupid and false. I can personally attest many decent utterly moderate Muslims were offended by the cartoons - as well as they should have been. The insult was certainly gratitious - portraying the Prophet Mohammed in the generally offensive manner of many of the cartoons, which stooped to rather ugly ethnic imagery, hardly made any real point other than an ugly bit of sweeping religious bigotry. Gratitiously insulting all Muslims (or most) to get at the murderous Salafiste fringe is not only counter-productive, it rather betrays a nice rich vein of bigotry that rather reminds me of the now unfashionable anti-Catholic bigotry I used to hear from my fine Protestant relations. Indeed the phraseology is strikingly similar. Of course, the moderate sorts I know have not been out burning and acting like juvenile murderous cretins, but they don't make very good press. As an American, and indeed as an adult human being, my absolute right is to state what I think, in whatever terms I wish, and if some shrinking violet, some poor innocent Imam or benighted Mullah bursts into tears-- so be it. Ah, the stand on principle, even if it is a juvenile stand rather reminiscent of what one hears from 16 year olds. Of course, again, there are not absolute rights, and I for one find your Americaness profoundly uninteresting. But that is neither here nor there. What is relevant is the gratitious eagerness to insult a wide-swath of Muslims, the ordinary going to work sort who have not been out burning and threatening (that would be tens of millions, versus the few thousands of cretins), without a second thought. All because you are emotionally worked up about the cretins and can't or don't wish to distinguish. Hmmm, rather sounds like the cretins doesn't it? Emotionally worked up, unable or unwilling to differentiate, out to draw lines in the sand..... This being said, I would emphasise that again there is a difference between showing self-restraint out of strength of character and fearfully backing down on a point of principle. When even one, just one, of these deliquescent creeps starts acting like a civilized, rational Homo Sapiens rather than some scimitar-swinging dolt, maybe we can agree on just who is "gratuitously insulting" whom. What fine imagery. Good to see that the full panalopy of reaction is out there. Islam in its Wahabi mode, and most probably others, is contemptible and pathetic. "Insulting?"-- how is it possible NOT to "insult" cretinous Wahabist barbarism? Emphasis added. Well, at least you show your actual colours. In the meantime, Greg's point remains. Pity so few commentators here seem to have understood it. Pity also that under the pretext of 'defending free speech' so much sweeping, knee jerking emotional reaction taking swipes at all of Islam and Muslims is going on. Really not terribly different in psychology than the other side of the coin, except more comfortably seated before a computer. Lounsbury
The fact is that Islam, as a worldview, as a habit of mind, that is, as a religion, is incompatible with freedom and modernization. It's not just the "extremists". Ataturk saw that clearly in 1919. Why are we so reluctant to proclaim that fact today? Nothing has changed. Islam is if anything more defiant than it was ninety years ago because science and reason have made the world a manyfold better place and are giving the lie to the assertions of Mohammed that his writings were the truth. How can one call oneself a Muslim without asserting that Mohammed's writings were and are true? And how can one do so and not lie? The enemy of enlightenment, reason and toleration is on the run. He cannot be tolerated because he will deny toleration to everyone he can intimidate. Pursue and exterminate him. Posted by: Robert Speirs at February 14, 2006 08:44 PM | Permalink to this comment
Robert, there is just as much within Islam to justify western society as totalitarian. It is not the book of the Koran that is flawed it is some of the clerics people doing the interpretation. Now, if we take your approach then we have automatically made an enemy of every muslim. We have, in effect, increased our enemy tenfold, given him a large immigrant population within our borders, and alientated our two most influential representatives within his ranks. Our better option is to agressively strengthen the bond between ourselves and these potentially allies while agressively attacking the moral integrity of our enemies. But ... it does not good to attack his morality in comparison to western standards. It will only strengthen his standing amoung non-western followers. We must attack his morality based upon valid interpretations of the Quran. We must show that he is one of the reviled hypocrits, we must demonstrate that according to the teachings of the prophet that he is not providing right direction, we must cast him into the role that mohammed has provided of those who would come into Islam only to hurt it for their own gain. It is a role that the radical imams easily fit into. What we have to offer to muslims is that we are not bound by taboo. We can and will question authority. We can and will say that the imam has no clothes. That is our strength. That is what we can do to help the "moderate muslim" who follows Allah more devoutely than Palestine. Posted by: moron99 at February 14, 2006 09:47 PM | Permalink to this comment
Re: Skokie - interesting that the "Nazis in Skokie" episode is mentioned right off the bat. Anyone care to recall the circumstances there? I'm writing from about 2 miles away, and would remind all that Skokie, at the time of the march, was a center of population for jewish holocaust survivors. It still is to some extent, even 61 years after liberation. Anyone recall the Nazi marchers intended message for that local population? Now - how does that bear the least resemblance to the current situation? Is the Danish Air Force dropping cartoon leaflets on major centers of Islamic population? Do the cartoons threaten immediate physical violence to the recipients of the message? Exactly what "human right" do the cartoons threaten as alleged by the protestors? There is precious little comparable between the activity in Skokie, and similar free speech activity, and the goals, motivation and intent of the Islamic demonstrators and their leaders. Their actions are provocative proproganda, organized and borderline warlike, pure and simple. No rights are involved and none are alleged - it's obedience to force clothed in religion, sometimes. Most of the time it's not. Why shouldn't a free Danish citizen feel entitled to metaphorically "provoke" a newspaper reader? Why shouldn't a thousand free cartoonists sketch repeated "insults"? Why should blasphemy be a crime? What planet do Islamic leaders think they live on? What planet do they live on? Theirs or ours? Posted by: Interested Conservative at February 14, 2006 11:46 PM | Permalink to this comment
I love when things are declared facts. The fact is that Islam, as a worldview, as a habit of mind, that is, as a religion, is incompatible with freedom and modernization. And this is based on what knowledge of the religion or history? Queerly one saw exactely the same delcarations made with respect to the Catholic Latins and the Asians. With about as much knowledge. It's not just the "extremists". Ataturk saw that clearly in 1919. Attaturk saw no such thing. Attaturk wanted to break the old Ottoman system, and was a radical nationalist in the early 20th century mold. That has fuck all to do with today's situ. Why are we so reluctant to proclaim that fact today? Becuase it is nothing more than facile ill informed bigotry. Nothing has changed. Islam is if anything more defiant than it was ninety years ago because science and reason have made the world a manyfold better place and are giving the lie to the assertions of Mohammed that his writings were the truth. Islam is an abstraction. Abstractions are not actors. Abstractions can't do anything nor actually have attitudes, really. Human beings are actors. Now, if some Muslims are... 'more defiant' - in relation to what? As one reflects, this is nothing more than silly hand-waving without real substance, other than religious bigotry encapsulated in "the assertions of Mohammed that his writings were the truth." Leaving aside the objective question of the "truth" of religious writings, none of the particular grievances that come up on the side of the Islamists or even generically among Muslims with respect to the West seem to have anything at all to do with the "Truth" of Islam (with perhaps the sole exception of the natural dominance of Islam in the world). Islamic theology doesn't have much problem with integrating evolution etc. - indeed with few exceptions teaching science as science in schools in the Arab world has posed near zero controversy. No, the issues raised are all about power and the perception in the Islamic world (right or wrong) that Muslims are getting screwed over by the West in very material ways. Now, I would personally argue the objective view would have to simultaneously admit US support of vampire regimes contributes to some real grievances, and that the Islamic world hangs a lot of its own current issues - ones terribly typical of developing nations all over - on its old colonial masters. Regardless, if you have but the merest passing real acquiatance with actual issues, you would see what an utter bigotted crock it is to try to characterise these issues as this commentator has. How can one call oneself a Muslim without asserting that Mohammed's writings were and are true? One can't. However, taking the Quran as truly divine in origin is not the same as reading it in contradiction to material science. If there is one sin the Islamic world has been largely free of, it is the strangelhy warped literalism of Xian fundamentalism with respect to issues of science. But then one rather supposes the commentator is projecting one group's sins (the one the commentator has some knowledge of ) on another group (which the commentator is grossly ignorant of, but nevertheless is fearful). And how can one do so and not lie? The enemy of enlightenment, reason and toleration is on the run. He cannot be tolerated because he will deny toleration to everyone he can intimidate. Pursue and exterminate him. Fine language that. Nothing like religious bigotry to bring out florid if nonsensical language. Posted by: collounsbury at February 15, 2006 12:00 AM | Permalink to this comment
Re this comment by SBK: Is rather beside the point. If "you" are an editor, yes, in the UK, Europe, USA, Canada it is 'your' decision to print something and there should be no censorship. However, the right to publish and childishly insisting on being insulting are not the same thing. Until that is understood, shock and awe may well have to be the offensive literary norm. Gentility and considerations of tastes of others are luxuries that civil societies can afford. But truly civil societies do not tolerate the outrageous idea that sensibilities of one side matter more than those of others and permit threats and murder to assert the claim. Lurid language, and in the same irrational emotional mode as the protestors. Respect and rationality are not luxuries, they are fundamental to a functioning society. Kowtowing to the idea it should be forbidden to publish something offensive to an ethnic or religious minority is not the same as having the good taste and discretion, of one's own will, to decline to do so without good reason. Being gratitiously offensive with respect to the Prophet Mohammed makes not one real point, other than one doesn't respect the said group's sensitivities in the least. Certainly insistently rejecting the idea that it should be illegal or that one does not have the right per se is absolutely required. Insisting on actually offending (not only those who are violent, but also the majority who expressed themselves civilly and peacefully) for no greater purpose than a juvenile insistence on one's rights RIGHT NOW!! advances no cause except confirming the idea free expression means disrespecting others. It seems fairly elementary to understand self-restraint is not the same as giving up rights. Posted by: collounsbury at February 15, 2006 12:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
Hmmm.. Thanks for that startling piece of critical analysis there Robert. Your strongly put, well supported argument condemning Islam as a backward medieval religion has convinced me that all muslims are incapable of integrating in Western Society and we ought to ship them all back to turkmenistan or wherever tomorrow. Your quality argument and analysis must obviously come from your undoubtedly indepth knowledge of the Quoran, and indepth socio-political analysis of the Islamic world. Thank you so much for taking the time to share your wisdom with us. When will Greg create a guest blog spot for you here? Posted by: Aran Brown at February 15, 2006 12:46 AM | Permalink to this comment
The issue doesn't seem complicated: It is never insult to point out an idea one believes to be in error and to explain why. It is a sign of respect for the other individual and an opportunity for discussion. Insult is in the ear of the listener. If you are trying to get an opportunity for discussion and the other side feels insulted, isn't it proper to tell them you intend no offense and reassure them you mean no offense by pointing out your respect for them? On the other hand, if you do intend offense you can show that by offending them some more, with no such reassurances. Can you say you think offense was not intended? And yet muslims in denmark apparently made no response, and muslims in egypt made no response, and months later somebody with an axe to grind pointed out how much offense was intended (and added other cartoons from a second source) and used it. And the general response is we ought to try to offend them some more. It's legal to insult people. But arguing that you aren't trying to do that would seem a bit dishonest. Now, suppose you go in a bar and you pick the biggest, meanest, drunkest guy there and you try to insult him. That seems at least brave. But say it's a little scrawny drunk guy that nobody likes. A whole lot safer, easier, and more chickenshit. And then say that some of those people who don't like him start saying, "He's mad enough to get a gun and start shooting people! We've got to 'take care of' him before he can get that gun!" How much more chickenshit can we get?
The tenure of this discussion has drifted from personal insults to political grandstanding, to gross generalization and in the process, upon reading the entire thread, we are like a lot of ships passing in the night. I think the “core” of Greg’s comment was that if we are going to extend an appeal of the qualities of our (Western) way of life to moderate Islam, we are going to have to restrain our free speech expressions at this particular time so as to have any credibility. The cartoons, he appears to argue, went beyond the “current” pale in that instead of reaching out to the forces of Islamic moderation, they became ammunition for the radical elements to argue that the West is all wrong. From this, we have traveled to a maze of commentary that ranges from the “threat” to the republic posed by the far right to the swiftboaters, to Oxford professors etc. Fun, I will agree, but have we truly focused on the subject at hand. Firstly, in measuring both the magnitude of the “insult” to Islam and the predictability of the reaction within Islam, it is essential that one actually looks at the cartoons. From the heat of many of the posts, it seems to be an assumption that they were so egregious that anyone could have anticipated the violence of the reaction. I disagree. Most of the cartoons were rather mild and indeed reflected the fear of the cartoonists that were they to get too aggressive, they might be murdered. The two that seemed to be arguably the most offensive depicted Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and another where God tells Mohammed to stop sending the martyrs as they have run out of virgins. These latter two, by any Western standards constituted legitimate social/political commentary and one could argue that their legitimacy was confirmed by the reactions of the rioters. What aggravated the situation was the addition by the Imams of several additional cartoons that depicted Mohammed with a pig’s face and depicted Mohammed involved in sexual exploits with animals. These were the true craven images. These latter were coupled with text that claimed that the Danes were attacking Islam in various ways including the claim that Danish Muslims were being required to rewrite the Koran to eliminate any references to Mohammed and, as I understand, to align it more precisely to Christian and Jewish texts. The Imam’s additions were so calculably intended to offend Muslim sensitivities that they overshadowed whatever potential offence lay in the original cartoons. Are the rioters reacting to the cartoons as published or as aggrandized by the Imams? There is no way to know. And here lies the problem. If we are attempting to use this incident as a measure of how sensitive we should be to Muslim sensitivities, it doe not present a meaningful standard. Of course, any sane Westerner would prefer a dialogue with Islam (however that could be imagined) as a means of explaining our values, where they came from, and how they are compatible with moderate Islam. But we don’t have and can’t have any credible spokespeople who can compete with the Imams and if the Imams are not going to conduct themselves in what we perceive to be a responsible fashion, I see that we have little choice. I have no doubt that this same conflagration will occur over some other perceived slight. The radical forces of Islam must be very pleased how they were able to manipulate Muslim public opinion and achieve the results that we all disdain. So, while I agree strongly with Greg that dialogue is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I fail to see how it is going to be achieved if we want to preserve out own values of free speech and free commentary on one hand, and want to defer to a constellation of n indiscernible sensitivities on the other. The lesson I have learned is that there are snakes in the jungle and because I could get bitten wherever I go, I had better stay out of the jungle entirely. That is not the way I want to live. On another note, I notice and welcome quite a few new contributors. One of the characteristics that has marked this BD has been the civility of the discussion and the efforts of the posters to be careful in the formatting of their posts. Please use the preview function. I urge everyone to adhere to the very highest standards in both regards so this blog will remain the rather remarkable forum that it has been. Michael
...there were topics that he could not discuss. If he did discuss them then it would only open more doors for his attackers. The swift-boaters were clever enough to realize where Kerry could and could not defend himself. Knowing this they also knew where they could exagerate their response because Kerry was defenseless. There is much more to swiftboating someone than making up lies. But it does involve making up whoppers. A lot of people saw the swiftboat lies and disregarded everything else they said. If you stick to the truth that won't happen, it will be an embarrassment but it won't be utterly polarizing. The more Republican leaders demonstrate that they have no interest in truth, the more opposition they create. That aside, you intend to get muslims to listen to you instead of other muslims, and you claim that these radical muslims have done deception. What deception is that? Is it that 3 of the cartoons weren't published in that danish paper? OK, where did they come from? If the imams made up those cartoons themselves and said they were done by westerners then that's deception. If they came from some other western publication then it isn't particularly. I haven't researched that, have you?
What planet do Islamic leaders think they live on? What planet do they live on? Theirs or ours? I've never seen a better summary of the controversy. Well done!
collounsbury: Respect and rationality are not luxuries, they are fundamental to a functioning society. Kowtowing to the idea it should be forbidden to publish something offensive to an ethnic or religious minority is not the same as having the good taste and discretion, of one's own will, to decline to do so without good reason. The difference between your position and mine is that I describe the underlying warp and weft of the carpet while you describe the knotted wool that gives texture and depth. A quality rug requires both. No curriculum I know teaches that the warp and weft -- the underlying fabric of successful civilization -- is humility -- the possibility one might be wrong. As I said above, it presumes a willingness to listen for the wisdom others may offer and to stand far enough apart from your own ideas to be willing to change them. You, on the other hand, stand up for a concept that follows immediately from humility -- the concept that other people live their lives as acutely as you do and thus deserve the same respect you deserve. A lot can be built from both. Our job over the next several years is to race to explain civilization's minimum requirements to ourselves and those who would use science to obliterate others because of their beliefs. Collounsbury, we have to put together the compelling argument to explain that religions that may suffice for ordering one's internal affairs do not work well dealing with others who don't share that compelling belief. That is why those of differing religions or none at all have to fashion something different that will work. It can be done. And if it proves unsuccessful, the only alternative is to defend against the challenge of those whose convictions mean more to themselves than society does. In fact, I am a small daily newspaper publisher. In fact we did not publish the cartoons but told readers where they could find them online. But we editorialized on the bedrock right to offend. Later, when sites in Sweden were shut down for displaying the cartoons, we offered to host the images they could link to in protest of the censorship.
Re Michael's comment: I think the “core” of Greg’s comment was that if we are going to extend an appeal of the qualities of our (Western) way of life to moderate Islam, we are going to have to restrain our free speech expressions at this particular time so as to have any credibility. The cartoons, he appears to argue, went beyond the “current” pale in that instead of reaching out to the forces of Islamic moderation, they became ammunition for the radical elements to argue that the West is all wrong. Restrain seems a pejorative way to put it. Refrain out of good manners. Firstly, in measuring both the magnitude of the “insult” to Islam and the predictability of the reaction within Islam, it is essential that one actually looks at the cartoons. From the heat of many of the posts, it seems to be an assumption that they were so egregious that anyone could have anticipated the violence of the reaction. I disagree. Most of the cartoons were rather mild and indeed reflected the fear of the cartoonists that were they to get too aggressive, they might be murdered. The two that seemed to be arguably the most offensive depicted Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and another where God tells Mohammed to stop sending the martyrs as they have run out of virgins. These latter two, by any Western standards constituted legitimate social/political commentary and one could argue that their legitimacy was confirmed by the reactions of the rioters. Well, I find the idea that the reaction of the rioters 'confirms' the essential bigotry of the more offensive cartoons to be strained. A few hundred cretins (or even several thousands from around a billion Muslims) hardly confirms anything at all about an entire religion. It strikes me that the moderate pious Muslim is put in a queer catch-22, legitimately offended by the cartoons (from the stand point of their religious feelings), yet discredited by a relative handful of loud-mouthed extremists on their 'own side.' If one expects moderate Muslims to differentiate between fringe bigots and Islamophobes, and a supposed majority in the West (although the hysterical hints of Islamophobia in the knee-jerking w respect to this incident and previously the 'Muslim' riots in France; I have a hard time not crediting a general presumption that underlying religious bigotry is not rather more general than many would like to admit), a similar courtesy should be extended. Or one can continue the dance of the blind. What aggravated the situation was the addition by the Imams of several additional cartoons that depicted Mohammed with a pig’s face and depicted Mohammed involved in sexual exploits with animals. These were the true craven images. These latter were coupled with text that claimed that the Danes were attacking Islam in various ways including the claim that Danish Muslims were being required to rewrite the Koran to eliminate any references to Mohammed and, as I understand, to align it more precisely to Christian and Jewish texts. I actually read the Arabic dossier that apparently was used by the Imams. First, they claimed - this in the Arabic dossier dated October 2005 - that the additional cartoons were recieved by some of them after their initial protests. This matched their account, and the Arabic text pre-dated the public controversy. Their text also, to my recollection, characterised the Danes as engaging in more and more discrimination against Muslims. I can't recall the Quran claim but frankly could have missed it. Their generic point seems to have revolved around generalised discrimination - the claims themselves in the context of what is documented in terms of discrimination elsewhere were not outlandish. Overall I did not find the dossier as inflammatory as I had expected. The Imam’s additions were so calculably intended to offend Muslim sensitivities that they overshadowed whatever potential offence lay in the original cartoons. Well, they certainly were a broader case than the mere cartoons. They were making a case (a not entirely implausible one) of rising discrimination. That being said, the group of Imams strike me as having engaged in a great deal of agitprop to blow up the situation. Are the rioters reacting to the cartoons as published or as aggrandized by the Imams? There is no way to know. And here lies the problem. Well, the further problem is you are assuming the rioters are some kind of spontaneous "Muslim" response, rather than the response of the Islamist activists. Given the across the Islamic world reactions have been relatively moderate (ex Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan: each with its particular dynamic that myself and my colleagues at Aqoul characterised as having little to do with the cartoons themselves), it hardly seems reasonable to brand "Muslims" with the game play of the Salafi extremists. If we are attempting to use this incident as a measure of how sensitive we should be to Muslim sensitivities, it doe not present a meaningful standard. Of course, any sane Westerner would prefer a dialogue with Islam (however that could be imagined) as a means of explaining our values, where they came from, and how they are compatible with moderate Islam. But we don’t have and can’t have any credible spokespeople who can compete with the Imams and if the Imams are not going to conduct themselves in what we perceive to be a responsible fashion, I see that we have little choice. I have no doubt that this same conflagration will occur over some other perceived slight. The radical forces of Islam must be very pleased how they were able to manipulate Muslim public opinion and achieve the results that we all disdain. Well, they can be pleased that they have managed to monopolise the media play despite not having been terribly successful in actually mobilising good numbers across the Arabo-Islamic world. Only in Pakistan, where the Islamist groups are particularly strong and the Paki government itself compromised have real numbers been seen. But despite the fact the numbers are not impressive, we get the radicals POV being reported as the Muslim POV. So, while I agree strongly with Greg that dialogue is a consummation devoutly to be wished, I fail to see how it is going to be achieved if we want to preserve out own values of free speech and free commentary on one hand, and want to defer to a constellation of n indiscernible sensitivities on the other. The lesson I have learned is that there are snakes in the jungle and because I could get bitten wherever I go, I had better stay out of the jungle entirely. That is not the way I want to live. Eh? This is nonsensical. It strikes me that one merely has to step back, and from a position of strength show a bit of restraint - based on manners - and engage the moderates in dialogue (and make that dialogue the center of public discussion, not ceding to the violent radicals). Throwing up one's hands and giving into the radicals exclusion of dialogue is the losing proposition. Posted by: collounsbury at February 15, 2006 02:44 AM | Permalink to this comment
Well done Michael - as ever a reasonable voice and someone who knows how to construct an argument - which is what this is all about. Which means I ought to apologise for my satirical/sarcastic earlier post, but unfortunately when I see such blatant ignorance or bigotry masked in ignorance I get frustrated as it lowers the tone of what really is a fine blog, amongst much of the dross out there... So my bad - still haven't quite shaken the impetuousness of youth! Point taken about the preview button though! Posted by: Aran Brown at February 15, 2006 02:54 AM | Permalink to this comment
J thomas, I am talking about immigrant muslims. A great many of them are as displeased about the politicization of Islam as we are. There are also many others who are displeased but we should focus the bulk of our efforts on muslims who do not live behind the censored curtain. Posted by: moron99 at February 15, 2006 03:03 AM | Permalink to this comment
According to the bigoted logic of the right-wing nationalists posting here… Roman Catholicism inevitably will lead to fascism? Posted by: NeoDude at February 15, 2006 03:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
Gregory said : "And my cautionary notes advocating that we don't cheerlead cartoon depictions of Mohammed as a ticking bomb are not some Munich-like appeasement redux, but rather an attempt to advocate judicious and responsible editorial judgment in the context of a wide-ranging ideological struggle against radical Islam--one being fought, not only in the Islamic world, but also very much in a West grappling with how best to integrate their Muslim minorities. Part of this battle means trying not to gratuitously humiliate religious minorities living within your midst." I disagree. If an artist can caricature Jesus, Buddha etc yet feels constraint or deference toward Muhammad because of fears of complicating the situation by whipping up generalized Muslim hysteria - then he is effectively saying that there is a hierarchy of religious priorities he needs to cowtow to. Top tier is Islam with its various "untouchable" icons and sacred personalities. Second tier is the Christian religion and others - drop a crucifix into a vial of urine, paint the virgin Mary with elephant dung - whatever! Have fun! Humiliate and enrage Christians as much as you choose - many of whom Greg are ALSO immigrants, and some from countries with a history of civil strife and terrorism. I'm sorry but there is no way we should endorse even that merest implication, because to do so makes us, however slightly, afraid to exercise our freedom of expression because of the reaction it might whip up. When satirists piss on Christ do they consider the possible ramifications? Yeah they do - and more often than not they say damn the torpedoes ... notwithstanding that a few nutbar Jesuits and unhinged evangelicals may be around and capable mounting revenge attacks ... or even that half the S. American continent may be plunged into a condition of catholic angst as a result of the blasphemy. No, no, no ... I'm with Malkin on this one. Stick it to them and let them deal with it. If they want to live in a democratic society, they have to realize there are fundamental rights and freedoms. If the exercise of same offends them, let them vote in reps who will work at getting laws passed that reflect their concerns. I would like to tip my hat this day to Ezra Levant, publisher of the Western Standard in Alberta, Canada - who had the guts to re-publish these cartoons even as the CBC and others wimped. Posted by: Aidan Maconachy at February 15, 2006 06:17 PM | Permalink to this comment
Collounsbury: I don’t know that we are that far apart. I also read the dossier and it was extreme. There was also confirmation somewhere that one of the three additional cartoons (and I actually understand that there were more than three) was constructed from a French press photo of a fellow in a “pig squealing” contest that was wearing a false pig nose. I think the Imams took great liberties with the truth and carefully framed their presentation to maximize offense. I would be happy to have a dialogue with the moderates. But I don’t know who they are and I don’t know how to reach them. And, it appears that none of the powers that be have any better idea. Moreover, the radicals deal with the moderates by killing them. I have read that more moderate Palestinians have been killed by Palestinians than Palestinians have been killed fighting Israel. I agree that “refrain” is a more appropriate word. But my thesis remains valid in that we have no meaningful gauge of where the sensitivities lie. That means that we must always err on the side of restraint and that ultimately is antithetical to the notion of freedom of expression. There is much to comment upon in the Muslim world and the minefield that greets us now is simply too broad for my taste. Michael Posted by: Michael Pecherer at February 15, 2006 06:50 PM | Permalink to this comment
I don’t know that we are that far apart. I also read the dossier and it was extreme. Extreme? As you wish. The dossier that I read, albeit quickly, was irritating and in some ways mendacious or deluded in its presentation, but did not strike me as meriting the word "extreme."
Yes, I am well aware of that, however the construction from a pig squeeling contest actually says nothing about whether the photo was genuinely mailed or faxed to one or more of the Muslim protesters. Given the way the dossier was framed, and given the overall context, I am agnostic as to whether the added cartoons, etc. were faked or not. Either is possible, and nothing do date really gives evidence on way or another. At its base, the dossier's compliants about bias against Muslims, while overdone and with respect to freedom of the press completely lacking in an understanding of Danish or Western standards, was not implausible. Now, the oral presentation may very well have been more inflamatory - something I credit easily. As my little blog comrades and I at Aqoul have posited, the affaire stinks of Salafiste extremist agit-prop. I think the Imams took great liberties with the truth and carefully framed their presentation to maximize offense. I suspect so as well. I would be happy to have a dialogue with the moderates. But I don’t know who they are and I don’t know how to reach them. Well, they're my colleagues, for example. And, it appears that none of the powers that be have any better idea. Well, that may be the case, but if so, it comes from ignorance and a lack of an effort to seek out the parties. Moreover, the radicals deal with the moderates by killing them. I have read that more moderate Palestinians have been killed by Palestinians than Palestinians have been killed fighting Israel. Palestine is not the entire Islamic world. In most places in the Islamic world, moderates are not assassinated. Among the items that irritates me is the apparent utter inability of either side to manage the least bit of analytical thought and distinguish between parties. Understandable at some level, but at the same I agree that “refrain” is a more appropriate word. But my thesis remains valid in that we have no meaningful gauge of where the sensitivities lie. Well, I frankly am looking at this in entirely the context of the present situation. Permanently refraining from any depiction of the Prophet Mohammed is absurd (although at the same time I can't think of particularly burning reasons to portray him either, rendering this entire controversy yet more absurd). At this moment of crisis, refraining for a bit from throwing fuel on the fire of controversy (and doing so while underlining that this self-restraint is out of good manners and not an abdication of one's right to publish) strikes me as good tactics. As for guaging sensitivities as a general matter, that's in many ways impossible. Like guaging "Protestant" sensitivities. Islam is as plural, one could go rather mad trying to generalise meaningfully about Islamic sensitivities. It strikes me simply as an issue of when there is a moment of crisis being rational about what needs to be expressed. Had this controversy, for example, been about depicting Nasrullah of Hezbullah as a blood drenched Elmer Fudd, my position would be utterly different. Or largely diffrent. However, even moderate people I know have found the cartoons offensive (although as a general matter, not something to get worked up about).
Well, you're looking at this as a general proposition, I am looking at this in terms of this crisis alone. Portraying the Prophet (above all in abusive charicature) is pretty generally offensive, showing self-restraint in that context - above all as I frankly am at a loss as to what political insight one gets from going after the prophet versus a specific current figure - seems a rational tactical move. Posted by: collounsbury at February 15, 2006 08:12 PM | Permalink to this comment
How much "putting aside" can we do? Of course we should not gratuitously insult our fellow citizens. But we also need to be clear that those who seriously disregard our laws for whatever reason - including because their daughter dates a Christian, or someone attempts to convert to another faith, or supports the state of Israel, or depicts their Prophet - are not welcome to live here (here being the civilized world), at least outside of prison. No reasonable person should object to that. I'll take the multi-culti's admonitions seriously when they show some sign of willingness to face the larger issues. Posted by: Mahon at February 15, 2006 08:19 PM | Permalink to this comment
Recently the UK's House of Commons voted to amend the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill in a manner that strengthens rights to free expression ... the mealy mouthed genuflections of Jack Straw on BBC (re the cartoon issue) notwithstanding. The amendments actually removed "incitements" variously described as insult, recklessness and abuse. Definitely a step in the right direction. Speaking now as a Canadian - what concerns me most about our "hate law" provisions, is that their influence transcends mere legal safeguards. It creates a cultural atmosphere of fear and apprehension. Artists, writers and even town square orators become almost neurotically obsessed with 'the need to avoid giving offence'. Except in the case of the most extreme incitement - I simply do not believe that controlling discourse and artistic expression by artifical means creates any genuine understanding. On a national level such constraints inhibit the emergence of a powerful national identity, a REAL identity, that can only be forged through conflict. Show me any country that has achieved genuine greatness without internal class struggles and other types of energized engagement. When you slap laws down, you freeze the human spirit, and put people into a cultural deep freeze. Sure it might make for a "nice" sanitized environment - but who the hell wants to live a nice life in cultural morgue? I know I don't. Surely growth as a nation is about taking risks, tempting fate and engaging honestly with our differences - even to the point of offending one another. Anything less smacks of intellectual dishonesty. How can we propose that an atheist in Denmark who doesn't give a fig about Muhammad as a representitive of anything other than religious fantasies, should not be allowed to voice his opinions in the form of satire because of concern about "social fall-out"? People who advocate this are in effect coming close to recommending a form of cultural fascism. (I'm not relating these comments to Gregory's position I should point out). Freedom of expression in the past led to riots. Artists such as the Pre-Raphaelites horrified Victorian society with their extremely tame religious symbolism and depictions of lightly draped women. You simply cannot point to social fall-out as an excuse to muzzle people's rights to free and fair expression - unless you wish to introduce a cultural "order" in which the icons and sacred peronalities of Islam are accorded a special position of sanctity (because as we know Christian symbols are routinely trashed - "Piss Christ" being the most obvious example). Either you state baldly that you want to introduce such a preferential cultural regimen under law or you stand by our hard won rights and freedoms across the board. "Personal feelings" can't be insured, policed or guaranteed - nor should they be. When they are we enter the realm of emotional blackmail. Posted by: Aidan Maconachy at February 15, 2006 08:53 PM | Permalink to this comment
Collounsbury: Thank you for your thoughtful response. You are absolutely correct that there is a tendency to treat the entire Islamic world as monolithic and I suppose that I am guilty of that as well. I have had very little experience in the Middle East. I have, however, spent a good bit of time in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia, although not in all parts of the latter. Here in No. Calif, we have considerable Persian and Afghani populations and I have some contact with them as well. Most of these individuals are Muslim and most of the people that I worked with in Southeast Asia were Muslim. They certainly appeared to me to be religious people. I have a Koran that was given to me by a dear friend and I have read it several times. We frequently engaged in discussions about religious matters and they were certainly enlightening. They knew what I was and I knew what they were and we not only accepted each other whole heartedly, we embraced our differences. I can’t recall any discussion degenerating into an argument. We have maintained our friendships for more than 30 years. Accordingly, I should know better and to the extent I have over generalized, I apologize. In your last paragraph you used the phrase “. . . going after the Prophet. . .” and that perspective may get close to the heart of the controversy. Political cartoons use symbolism and in fact, that is the most universal characteristic of the art. I don’t think that the intention of the cartoons was to “go after” the Prophet or anyone else. Instead, the Prophet as depicted was used as a symbol of the characteristics of Islamic extremism much as the drawing of “Uncle Sam” with a white beard and striped pants etc. is often used as a symbol of the US when attacked in that context. I don’t think the attack is addressed to the symbol, but rather, the symbol is a shorthand for that which it symbolizes. Another example, throughout the Middle Eastern press we see daily cartoons ascribing atrocious characteristics to Jews and the image is always of the hook nosed, money grubbing, black garbed individual with a Star of David on their clothing. The Star of David is an important religous symbol to Jews and the placement on the clothing stems from the Nazi impositions during WWII. Clearly that image has become a pervasive symbol of the hated Jew in the Middle Eastern Muslim mind and little sensitivity is exhibited there. Two wrongs don't make a right, but the street proceeds in more than one direction. I can certainly understand Muslim sensitivities toward depictions of the Prophet although there are many such in Islamic art. And focusing on this particular incident – the Danish cartoons – is all well and good. However, if we are to have a dialogue that will result in light and not heat, each side has to examine its extremes, acknowledge their failings, and stand up for the rights and sensitivities of the other. Further, each side (and I am uncomfortable with so facile a division) must develop a thicker skin and allow for the insensitivities of the other. I find the latter rather easy as I have grown up in a multicultural society with folks from just about everywhere. As to the task at hand, frankly, I haven’t a clue how this can all blend together with a happy result for all perspectives and I spend much of my professional life mediating disputes. However, I am appreciative and grateful for the conversation here and I am learning. Michael
Mahon, time will tell. personally I think it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck. Specifically, the imam changes his story and then refuses to provide any information that could be used to confirm or deny it. Flying under radar is reports from handwriting experts on the additional three. I read a report that made a compelling case that the pedophile cartoon was created by someone whose native language flows from right to left. (are there any european languages that read right-to-left?). It probably is a duck but I have seen fake ducks before and have learned not to shout "DUCK" in a shooting range. However, I think the real test of western media isn't whether or not they printed the cartoons. It is how they will follow up. They failed miserably in their duty to inform. Not because they didn't print the cartoons. But because western citizens had no idea that such trouble could be brewed up. When it did occur, so few citizens had any comprehension of the dynamics involved. I would categorize media performance to date as "gross negligence bordering upon depraved indifference". The real test is - now that they have had a wake call (yet again) what will they do? Will they seek to inform with meaningful information or will they continue searching the obituaries for dead baby stories to put on the front page. time will tell. personally, i don't think they will change. i think blogs will push them closer and closer to printing entirely with yellow ink. Posted by: moron99 at February 15, 2006 09:18 PM | Permalink to this comment
Aidan, I tend to agree. And maybe the best way we can reassure muslims that we don't intend any special insult to them is to publish lots of antisemitic cartoons also, particularly anti-israel ones. And publish some that make fun of Jesus, and some that make fun of Joseph Smith, and while we're at it a bunch that ridicule Kryshna and maybe Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Confucius and Mao and Sam Houston. If we ridicule everybody else's heroes and prophets etc just as much as theirs and everybody else is more civilised about it, maybe they'll get the idea. Let's think of the most insulting things we can say about Texas and show the muslims that americans are more civilised. Posted by: J Thomas at February 15, 2006 10:36 PM | Permalink to this comment
Well, again as a general matter, I am not in favour of censorship of any kind. I am also, as a general matter, in favour of good manners in the context of communicating with other parties (be that in business or in other contexts) - but I am fully capable of telling an idiot to go fuck off. And that should be a right, as it were. There is, to repeat, two different questions. First, there is the tactical question of this particular crisis and the fairly fundamentally unenlightening Danish cartoons. I personally fail to see any insightful commentary in the offensive ones, besides "we don't like the sand nigs." To be direct. In the context of the same paper being involved in its own anti-immigrant Jihad (to be slightly ironic and with a bit of exageration) and it having given offensive Jesus cartoons a pass, this hardly seems like a particularly great case to make the case of free speech on. Being a pragmatist and not an ideologue, I believe it is usually useful to make cases from strong points. Further, given this piece of idiocy has gotten out of hand all around, some tactical self-restraint or refraining from throwing gasoline on a fire is well advised. Second, there is the longer term question of to what extent general self-restraint should be practiced with respect to Muslim sensitivities - both as minorities in Europe and with respect to the region as a For. Policy issue. Rather clearly ceding to violence via laws and censorship is an error. But let us not pretend that the West is so far removed from being offended and prosecuting blasphemy. The UK saw its last prosecutions in the 20th century. Again, the 20th century. Our Western liberalism in these areas is fairly newly acquired, and it seems more than slightly hypocritical to get on too high a horse with respect to others. Certainly that does not mean ceding back to prosecuting blasphemies, but one's tone need not be quite so superior (this is a general comment, not re comments here per se). Certainly, on one hand Continental Europe - France esp. - could do a far better job of addressing real problems of discrimination and double-taking pretensions to "equality" with respect to its ethnic minorities, which would go a long way to addressing those well-founded aspects of Muslim complaints re discrimination. It is easier to have a thicker skin if one feels one is getting a fair shake otherwise, and with respect to France, e.g., that is not the case. Of course at the same time one can't let the same minority refuse to integrate and engage in double talk regarding violence and the like (as some radicals in the UK have been doing, they need to be bounced - if they don't like living with the kufar, they bloody well should go on hijra and get the bloody hell out to say Afghanistan.) In short, it has to be a two way street and it is unacceptable to merely have a self-flagelation session on the part of EU countries, for example, re minorities and discrimination (real enough problems) without there being a concommittant engagement on the part of the minority community. A challenge here is that there is a real tendency for the moderates to be busy with work etc., and for them to cede the ground to the activist radicals. That has happened with UK and even US mosques. Sadly that means some state policing focused on the radicals, who are engaging in agitprop and preying on esp. the teenaged malcontents. While a minority, that does not make them less offensive and dangerous. With respect to the MENA region, I'd say that Western governments have to stop just talking to the secularised elite (the sort of people I do business with) and start thinking about engaging the more traditional 'pious middle.' Too much Western "public diplomacy" in region, in my experience, ends up phrased and aimed at the secular - who are essentially already "converted" as it were. It's the pious shopkeeper who goes to mosque and generally doesn't like rioting and burning (what shopkeeper ever does?) but only gets negativity via the radical imams (again as the moderates tend not to gravitate to religious preaching anymore, it cedes the terrain to the whackos). Posted by: collounsbury at February 16, 2006 01:06 AM | Permalink to this comment
Collounsbury, I bookmarked your site and will visit it often. Thanks. Michael Posted by: Michael Pecherer at February 16, 2006 03:00 AM | Permalink to this comment
How can the West speak to the "pious middle" in the broader Middle East and North Africa? (This question comes from someone who cannot agree with Andrew McCarthy from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. In a column in today's National Review Online, which is worth reading because it is so relentlessly dismal, Mr. McCarthy basically denies the existence at any point in history of "moderate Islam", and faults the Bush Administration for foolishly promoting democracy among the Muslims, who will inevitably, by their very nature, elect extremists.) Perhaps public diplomacy could speak to the "pious middle" by pointing out that in many countries in the West, ordinary Muslims live and worship freely and peacefully. In some cases, pious Muslims in the West have more freedom of worship than they would have in certain countries in the Muslim world. Emran Qureshi gave a few good examples of this in the New York Times guest column cited by the Belgravia Dispatch. I read an article in the New Yorker a while back (so I am relying on an imperfect memory here) about a woman of North African ethnicity living in Paris who had become a somewhat more traditional/conservative Muslim after she experienced some sort of spiritual renewal in adulthood. This led to a decision on her part to wear a headscarf, which brought her much ridicule and in one instance even loss of employment. She told an interviewer that she wanted to pursue higher education in another country where she could practice her version of Islam and still be accepted by the larger society. Yet she had no desire to emigrate to a Muslim country. She wanted to move to New York City. Posted by: Arjun at February 16, 2006 05:51 AM | Permalink to this comment
Michael Very welcome, but as much as I would love to claim credit for Aqoul, I am merely perhaps the most cantakerous and perhaps colourful of my comrades. The blog owner, "eerie" - a Canadian 'Muslim' (she's rather an agnostic) of Sub-Con extraction put it together and attracted a motley assortment of commentators like myself from the region. Two of them, Bint and Raf Bey were even quoted in the FT in a fit of madness (of course since they're far more reasonable than I, they're safer to quote). I did come up with the name, however. Posted by: collounsbury at February 16, 2006 06:18 AM | Permalink to this comment
collounsbury, i would suggest that the Europe's strongest weapon is the moslems who live within their borders. We should use our in-house assets to maximum benefit. The combined immigrant population in Europe is equal to a small nation. If that small nation became politically unified while also wishing to defend western social architecture, then we would have a very powerful lobbyist that could communicate with all layers of GME culture.
Our soldiers in Iraq have often noted how strong the Iraqi love for their children is. As such, we have the ability to appeal directly at the grass roots level. Seek out the families and teach them how to become empowered according to western rules of empowerment. Do not handle it as a religous issue and do not seek to interface through the mosque. Go directly into the neighborhood and talk directly to the parents. Show them how to organize political groups and unions. Teach them about mortgages and business plans. Show them how to build a better future for their children and be willing to give them the power to do so. They will protect their power. It is human nature. And as they become organized and grow they may even find themselves demanding a voice in Mecca. Posted by: moron99 at February 16, 2006 06:19 AM | Permalink to this comment
Regarding my pious "pious middle" idea (if I may mock myself) Of course. Which is one of the core reasons I find the hysteria regarding "Muslim hordes" and general poorly disguised, fear driven bigotry with "They just have to do X, Y Z" so profoundly unhelpful. I do not see the European Muslim communities ever forming an "Ummah" in reality, but certainly a well-integrated community has a lot of back influence. I see that quite clearly in the Maghreb, where Maghrebines living in Europe come back en masse during the summer vac time. Their influence is huge. The youngsters come back wearing French-Euro fashions, etc. etc and are visibly wealthier for the most part. Focusing on and building these positive stories is a win. With respect to Europe, liberal market oriented actions to promote integration via fighting employment discrimination while also making the labour market more liberal and flexible are wins across the board. Petty job discrimination - as well as hard to root out by irritating forms of discrimination like refusals to grant permits for mosques - are the sort of thing that grates, as well as reduces economic efficiency. At the same time one can't be fuzzy headed about the threat the radicals represent nor the need to fight their influence. As I noted previously, there is a natural tendency for the religious institutions to be taken over by highly motivated radicals who will then use the same to pimp their nihilistic anti-integration, anti-everyone-else agenda. More moderate sorts tend not to be obsessed with the religion and busy with their affaires (a universal human trait), the UK, Europe and the US authorities have to watch for this. Re the public diplomacy aspect, my baseline point of departure is simply that in general Western public diplomacy focuses on the secular minded. Learning how to efficiently address the pious middle is a start, and telling a story of tolerance like the Maghrebine story above seems like an area to start with. Posted by: collounsbury at February 16, 2006 07:35 PM | Permalink to this comment
you did realize that I was talking about castrating the radical imams by teaching the immigrants how to achieve greater economic and political influence without him than with him ... right? As you noted with your Maghrebine story, people will gravtate towards the successful methods. The radical imam is all about power. When the non-radical imam demonstrates a greater ability to deliver power then the radical imam will end up on a street corner begging for shillings. Okay, yeah, sure ... el radical needs to be swiftboated, swiftbooted, reported, and deported whenever possible. But there will never be a shortage of people willing to replace him. The allure of having control attracts them like moths to a lamp. As long as Islam remains politicized there will be an endless supply. I call them MSL's. Meglomaniacal Sociopathic Liars. They are genetically drawn to power. Any source of power will have many of them around it. If the power source lacks appropriate safeguards then the MSL's will overtake it and make themselves permanent. Posted by: moron99 at February 16, 2006 08:26 PM | Permalink to this comment
I call them MSL's. Meglomaniacal Sociopathic Liars. They are genetically drawn to power. Any source of power will have many of them around it. If the power source lacks appropriate safeguards then the MSL's will overtake it and make themselves permanent. Well said. Our first order of business is safeguarding our own power sources. Then we'll be ready to spread the joy. While we're run by MSLs ourself we are in a very very bad position to concentrate on other people's MSLs.
A worthwhile consideration: The content of the cartoons needs to be open to discussion. Since Islam conjoins the religion with the state, any growth requires a willingness to examine the relationship ofthe religion with practices it seems to support. Without representation, discussion would be impossible. That is an intolerable social position, and one that stands independent of the possibility of offense. See: http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20060216-091234-4044r.htm Posted by: sbw at February 17, 2006 04:21 PM | Permalink to this comment
SBW, I don't quite follow you. Posted by: collounsbury at February 18, 2006 03:49 AM | Permalink to this comment
Thanks for the special work and information! Posted by: mae at April 15, 2006 01:49 AM | Permalink to this comment
|
|
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
Recent Entries
A Brief (and Belated) Word on Chas Freeman
What Would Real--Rather Than Rhetorical--Change in U.S. Foreign Policy Look Like? Of War, and Tent Hospitals The Obama Imperative Some Addt'l Thoughts Re: Georgia McCain: Let's Compound the Blunder! Georgia On My Mind Should We De-Emphasize The Terror Threat in U.S. Foreign Policy? (Very Belated) In-House News Straits of Hormuz
Search
English Language Media
New York Times
Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator Daily Telegraph The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion New Republic National Review The Atlantic The American Conservative Harpers The Week The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Matt Drudge Real Clear Politics
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
The Blogs
Across the Aisle
Marc Ambinder America Abroad American Footprints The American Scene Armavirumque Bainbridge Jack Balkin Becker-Posner Balloon Juice &C (TNR) Phil Carter Chequer-Board Steve Clemons Juan Cole The Corner Crooked Timber Cunning Realist Clive Davis Brad DeLong Democracy Arsensal Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum James Fallows Glenn Greenwald Nikolas Gvosdev Hendrik Hertzberg Huffington Post Mickey Kaus Mark Kleiman Joshua Landis Daniel Larison Josh Marshall Eric Martin Obsidian Wings Oxblog Foreign Policy's Passport The Plank Post Global Gideon Rachman Romenesko Laura Rozen Andrew Sullivan James Taranto Katrina vanden Heuvel Volokh Conspiracy James Wolcott Matthew Yglesias
Law & Finance
Barron's
Bloomberg Bull and Bear Wise Calculated Risk CBS Marketwatch Contrary Investor Corporate Counsel Blog Corp Law Blog DealBreaker Deal Lawyers Blog Financial Sense Forbes Fortune Hussman Funds Bruce MacEwen Gretchen Morgenson Floyd Norris Barry Ritholz Nouriel Roubini Safe Haven SCOTUS Blog The Street 10b-5 Daily Yahoo Finance
Think Tanks
Security
Books
The City
Curbed
Eater Gothamist NY Magazine NY Post NY Press New York Observer On The Inside Tribeca Trib Vanishing NY Village Voice
Archives
March 2009
January 2009 November 2008 August 2008 July 2008 May 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 Syndicate this site:
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||
|
||||
