Nice article, Graham. My only objection is that linking to the pictures is not the same as displaying them on your site. Displaying the pictures is an act of solidarity with other news organisations that have printed or displayed them. Linking is merely the online equivalent of reporting that a different publication has printed them.

Also, displaying the images helps to diffuse the retributions. If every newspaper in the (non-muslim) world displayed the cartoons, and every government supported their right to do so, to which embassy would those who oppose the images direct their protests?

Dave.

Good one GY,

I guess it comes down deciding when fee speech (via media the big media portals) are a carriage for meaningful dialogue and when it is not. Notions of free speech are intimately connected to access to matrix of world media. The meteorite rise of Aljarzera (sp?) media over the last decade and the symbiotic relationship it now has with 'western media' is a case in point.

There are clearly tensions between a world media and notions of democracratic access to this same media. The questioning by the west of the election of Islamic govenments across the East is a poignant reminder of how undemocratic world media (I speak of CNN, Murdoch empires etcetera) has become.

I agree OLO has provided access to debate for those who may have very closed minds but I sometimes wonder if this has only further entrenched this closemindedness. I hope I'm wrong

Ironically, free speech also includes the right "not to speak". So a publication that decides not to display the cartoons is actually also exercising their right to freedom of expression.

If a publication is free to print something. It is free not to print something.

Of course publications do not have an absolute right to print what they like. On-line opinion cannot damage someone's reputation without being risking legal action. It cannot print militarily sensitive information. I am sure other execeptions exist.

Furthermore there is a right to protest. Does that right extend to burning a flag? Throwing eggs? Serious damage was caused to embassy buildings -- that is NOT freedom of expression. But far worse, by western standards, would be deaths resulting in police restricting the right to peaceful protest. (Note: I am not saying any particular protest was peaceful or not)

Then there is the question of racial vilification law. This is law in some parts of the western world and thus has some legitimacy, even if you (like me) disagree with it on principle.

Freedom of expression is ultimately a value, and if anything these newspapers are assuming a perfect world. It's just like that Darwin award winner, testing the strength of skyscraper windows by running into them and falling through. But instead of spreading the values of freedom, which is not a childish thing, these newspapers have taken it to breaking point where it's needed (and where we need it) the most.

Graham said:

"The Islamic reaction to the cartoons demonstrates that Jihadist violence is not directed solely, or even primarily, at US Middle-Eastern policy. It is directed at modernity"

There are other important aspects of this, which need to be brought out.

1/ The apparent deliberate use of falsehood by Danish Muslim Clerics who went to the middle east on a 'delegation' to stir trouble, and the apparent ADDING to the cartoons, 2 more which are more likely the source of the outrage.(if the story is confirmed)

http://www.michellemalkin.com/ (scroll down)

the added cartoons include a portrayal of Mohammed in prayer, prostrate with a dog 'mounting' him from behind. The other, making him appear like a pig.

2/ The willingness of Muslims on the radical end of the spectrum to use all means, fair or foul, to achieve their desired ends. (as I have been claiming repeatedly as nauseum)

3/ The action of the Islamic Council of Victoria in using any 'tool' available to it, to achieve similar goals against criticism of Islam in the Catch the Fire case. (RRT2001)

4/ In the absense of a 'legal' tool, the present violence clearly demonstrates the possibility of 'other' more vocal/violent means being used in Australia by radical clerics.

5/ 2Danny's correct ?

Some other anecdotal incidents of note:

a) Sign in crowd in UK "You will come crawling when the Mujahadin come roaring"
b) Death to those who insult Islam.
c) Muslim Protestor at GROUND ZERO in USA with provocative sign.
d) Muslimwoman's placard "Be prepared for the REAL holocaust"
e) Freedom goto HELL !

OBSERVATION.

1/ In areas where Muslims are a vast majority, they are characterized by VIOLENCE,

2/ in areas such as New York where they are a small minority, they are characterized by 'critical speech'.... anyone tweaking here ?

RECOMMENDATION/EXHORTATION.
"Know"...what you believe. 'Stand' by that, make SURE it is a firm foundation. If not, the Tsunami will overtake you.

"If any man hears my words and does them... he is like a man who built his house on a rock" (Jesus)

The Islamic reaction is not directed at "modernity." It is directed at 1. non-Muslims because they are not Muslims and 2. Non-muslims lives and societies are better than Islamic ones.

An important thing is that Muslims have learned that hate and anger is the one thing that gets them respect. It is their only weapon.

It is therefore necessary to tell them the things they do not want to hear. I have watched newspapers and online media now for weeks, just waiting for someone to say "Whoa. Hold on a minute, let's examine the life of this man Mohammad. Lets see that the history books say".

If that is done on a major media enterprise, it is all over. Yes there will be riots and hate mail and death threats against the person doing this, but it will save lives. The Imams know this. Why do you think they are not using the courts to charge deflamation or slander? Any 2 bit lawyer could show a jury that you cannot insult a man with a rap sheet like Mohammads. The guy was a murderer, a torturer, a slaver and a wife beater. He promoted rape, oppression and abuse. And these are the nice things written by his friends in Islam's accounts.

When is somebody - an international figure on international media - going to do us this favor? Is there anybody brave enough? Somebody who cares about freedom and truth?

John Kactuz

PS: When the cartoon things dies down, it will be something else, and then something else again. It will go on and on until we are dead or until they figure out we know about them, their faith and their vile prophet.

(Note to DB -- I was banned from the 'forums.newspaperindex.' Did they delete my posts?)

Good article Graham,

As an average Muslim although I found the cartoons rude, I was shocked how easy for Islamists to manipulate the masses.

Even the boycott is debatable, Denmark have always been on good trade, business and cultural terms with the Muslim world. Definitely every country will have few perverts who would like to stir the naives.

Boaz and Kaktuz,

You keep talking about your distroted version of the Prophet Mohamed (PBUH).

Here is how we see him:

" No Arab has superiority over a non-Arab, and no non-Arab has superiority over an Arab. No white person has superiority over a black person, and no black person has superiority over a white person. No man has superiority over a woman, and no woman has superiority over a man. The criteria for acceptance in the sight of God are righteousness and honest living." Quran, and Prophet Muhammad's Farewell Sermon.

Nothing in our Holybook comes close to Liviticus

Onya Graham indeed.

You wrote this article across broad parametres - mentioned Hanson - intolerance - forms of media - repercussions on the press of freedom of speech.

But the old alignments of OLO commenters are developing.

No surprises – little learned.

The Mosqueteers are in their comfort zone of discrediting Islam and the latest Muslim "outrage". The Bible will be cited to prove Christianity's "tolerance".

The Koran and other Muslim writings will be cited to prove "intolerance".

The degree that "normal" people actually adhere to religious tracts in their actual lives will be disregarded.

Generalisations boosting prejudice rule.

No surprises.

OLO's Muslim minority pushed and frustrated to a hardening defence will get a bit shirty also.

Then the Rightwingers will arrive to score a few points for their cause.

No surprises

The Left will appear too dogmatic and wet to get much of a lookin.

Us "godly" centrists will, of course, be above the fray.

Anyway, its excellent to generate comments and hits. Obviously anything to do with Islam is what the "heartland" of OLO wants to read.

The relevance is also there. New crises in the Middle East appear to create problems for Westerners every day. Those Australians of Middle East origin (who happen to be Muslim) are also frequently in the papers.

It’s a shame though that very few in OLO tackle the socio-political and economic reasons why the Islamic world is in such turmoil.

IF OLO COMMENTERS DIDN’T PUSH RELIGIOUS EXPLANATIONS TO THE FORE ALL THE TIME THIS WOULD OPEN UP THE DEBATE RATHER THAN RESTRICT IT.

For balance - one could argue that many more Muslims have been killed by Western Christians in the last 10 years than the other way around...

A death is a death. But less of a problem in somebody else's land...

Your comment "None of us might change our minds, but we might change our dispositions and recognise our intellectual foes as being at least worthy of respect." is quite apt.

I fail that test occasionally, but, for too many OLO posters on Islam its a self righteous habit.

Pete

So let me get this straight.

To a Muslim all visual representations of Mohammed are forbidden.

Therefore, by virtue of the above, no Muslim should have any idea what Mohammed looks like.

White, black, brown, male, female, turban, crown or bald with a handlebar mustache.

Similarly, they could not possibly even have a mental picture of what he should look like.

So please explain how a stereotypical representation of an Arab (turban, beard, thobe) has been seen as representive of Mohammed, when in effect the Muslim cannot be sure it is indeed his likeness that is being portrayed?

This misconception has led to violence, vandalism and even death by those who believe these Danish cartoons have offended Islam.

If I tell a Muslim that the cartoon I have drawn of Bugs Bunny dressed up as Ali Baba is my interpretation of the Prophet Mohammed have I offended them?

Can they refute my picture?

It appears that Christians are offending Muslims via drawings of people they have told Muslims represents Mohammed.

This would be laughable if it weren't true.

Without the burden of proof of Mohammed's true likeness, some extreme sections of the Muslim community have used this as an exercise to foment anti-Christian sentiment and is a chilling portent of worse to come.

Good stuff, worth a second read

Dear Graham

Thank your for an excellent article. Very thoughtful reading.

Borofkin, I concur with your comments.

Cheers
Kay

Jay, one of the so-far unexplored angles here is that there are plenty of images of Mohammed, many for sale in Islamic countries. A search of "Mohammed" on Google Images yields 76,400 results. Even if 80% of them are of a Mohammed other than the prophet (ratio calculated from the first page of the search results), that's a lot of images that haven't lead to riots anywhere in the world so far this year! The link is http://images.google.com.au/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-33,GGLG:en&q=mohammed.

As Irfan points out, there are elements of confection in the whole affair. It's not a straight religious issue, although it couldn't exist without the religious justification.

The Islamic Egyptian newspaper Al Faqr published the infamous cartoons of blasphemy last October, at the height of Ramadan, in the heart of the Islamic world, with not a single squeak of outrage.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19143_Mohammed_Cartoons_in_Egyptian_Paper_-_October_2005#comments

Jay,

there are definitions of what prophet Mohamed pbuh looked like.
The cartoons were published few months ago and most people were either in the boycott or more interfaith dialogue.
The vandalism and rioting in my humle views are Islamists groups showing their influence on the naive. Governments there are usually asleep at the wheel.

Peace,

Graham doesn't seem to be aware that the debate between the West and the muslim world is coming to an end. With the US, UK, and France dusting off their nuclear missiles and re-orienting them toward Tehran, we can expect a Nuclear Warning to Iran in a few months along the lines of the one Kennedy gave Russia during the Cuban missile crisis. The civilisational war forecast by Huntington seems to be coming about. The smell of 1939 seems to pervade all of the Middle East. Thank heavens the allies have substantial forces in Iraq! At least, if war comes to Iran, there will most probably be no pussyfooting around with ideas of helping the Iranian people, the oil wells will be seized and pumped at maximum capacity to pay for the occupation. Churchill said that war should be avoided if possible, as no-one can be sure how they will turn out, but to me I can see no other future for the Middle East. The Israelis have made it plain that they will not be leaving the area this side of a nuclear war, and you can't blame them. Whatever the outcome, the world economy could be expected to go into a tailspin. Thank heavens we live in Australia.

Rioters with placards saying things like:
"Freedom go to hell"
"Death to those who insult Islam"
"The real holocaust is coming"
Graham,who can you possibly have dialogue with hardline,extremist zealots like that who only wish to cut your throat while your trying to talk reason with them.?
I accept it may be a minority of people who are doing this, but it is a very large and violent minority.
It seems to be beyond any doubt that radical Islamic beliefs just are not compatible with the liberal democratic lifestyle of the western world.
I dare say that radical christianity or indeed any other religion would be the same although you do not hear about too many christians or others who destroy embassies and generally riot in the most violent way as we are seeing here.

Graham,
Good article! Perhaps we need to saturate the Muslim population with humourous catroons until they learn to laugh at themselves.

plantagenet,
Could you give us some statistics on this claim.

"For balance - one could argue that many more Muslims have been killed by Western Christians in the last 10 years than the other way around."

Philo I agree.The standard of cartoons has been been appalling.I can think of some rip snorters without even trying.Why don't we do a series sending up all religions and belief systems,since no belief system is perfect.Graham could even print a censored version of "Ah Soh God of the Trogs" Well I included the Hindu Irish suicide bomber who didn't have enough DNA to be reincarnated.We could also include the Buddists,Christians ,Jews,agnostics and athieists.

Graham, you are to be congratulated for your controversial and brave decision not to publish the cartoons.

In line with the 5 month lag time will you be celebrating Christmas 2005 in May 2006 and Easter 2006 in August 2006?

Fellow-Human,

I think you might read a little more widely before you espouse your view

'The vandalism and rioting in my humle views are Islamists groups showing their influence on the naive. Governments there are usually asleep at the wheel.'

The following story appeared in todays New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/09/international/middleeast/09cartoon.html?hp&ex=1139547600&en=578cb46567d732ae&ei=5094&partner=homepage

It contradicts your assertions. Your view might be humble but it could also be quite mis-informed.

In an earlier post you also quoted the Quran, and Prophet Muhammad's Farewell Sermon.

" No Arab has superiority over a non-Arab, and no non-Arab has superiority over an Arab...The criteria for acceptance in the sight of God are righteousness and honest living."

A simple question. Does the same apply to Muslims and Christians and Jews and Buddahists and athiests and agnostic's and Satanists etc? Or is Islam and it's adherents superior to the adherents of other faiths or beliefs or non-believers?

"For balance - one could argue that many more Muslims have been killed by Western Christians in the last 10 years than the other way around." (plantagenet, 9 Feb 2006 3:07PM)

"Could you give us some statistics on this claim" Philo (9 Feb 2006 8:01 PM)

It's not quite presented as a claim, but the argument compares deaths by extremist terrorists against death by Western military action in Iraq, Afghanistan plus mass killings of civilians in Kosovo.

I think this is unfair to make this argument as it is important to factor-in total killed because it falsely suggests the idea of Western Christians verses Middle-Eastern Muslims. For example, we should not exclude Serbian deaths by NATO forces or Balkan fighting in general, Janjaweed attacks in Dafur or muslims killed by so called "islamic terrorism".

To provide numeric statistics on this would only invite dispute, but obviously in terms of raw numbers events related to military action result in more death than terrorist action.

Graham, great article, but I think a few points are being missed.
I've been following the articles on Arab News and am in debate with one of the Saudi journalists who writes for them. It seems to me that the two cultures are talking past each other.

Hopefully as a secular bystander in the war between religions, I can be more objective and forget the vitriol which is exploding on both sides of the debate. Lets face it, our extreme Xtian fundies are quite similar to their Muslim fundies..

IMHO the core problem is always the same. When religion becomes part of politics and is more then just a lifestyle choice, things become
nasty. Politics is open slather for us all. Nobody really bothered about Islam, until Kohmeini introduced political Islam. Next was the Muslim brotherhood with their agenda, then bin Laden with his agenda.
9-11 showed that they meant what they were saying, it was not just talk.

Many Xtians have preached to me on OLO about the wonder of Western civilisation and the dangers of Muslims overrunning the world, by means of high fertility.

It seems to me that they have missed a critical point. Western civilisation makes up about 15% of the world's population. Growth
is seen as the key factor, our society is also hopelessly addicted to oil.

Forget about Muslims outbreeding Christians. The reality is that a large part of the world's oil reserves are located in the Middle East. If the Muslims switch off the tap when they please, its Western oil addicts who will suffer most. Western society has been highly foolish in its addiction, with no solution on hand. The Arabs are well of this....

Philo

Thanks David Latimer for providing some context.

Snippets from Amnesty International's Latest Annual report for Iraq, for 2005:

"Hundreds of Iraqi civilians were killed by US-led forces when they launched major attacks against insurgents in Falluja, Baghdad, Mosul, Samarra and other cities and towns.

In April at least 600 civilians, including many women and children, were reportedly killed in Falluja as a result of such attacks..."

"Only a minority of killings of Iraqi civilians and other alleged abuses involving multinational forces were investigated, and those investigations that did take place were often inadequate and shrouded in secrecy. In many cases, victims’ families were not told how to apply for compensation, or were given misleading information."http://web.amnesty.org/report2005/irq-summary-eng

These people are described as civilians. I suppose hundreds of Australians being killed in Australia by an occupying force (for whatever reason) might prompt a little bit of resentment nationally and internationally.

Of course in the context of many more Iraqi's being killed by fellow Muslims complicates the picture. Also would things have been worse if Saddam was still around? Who knows.

Anyway a death is still a death but of course we look after our own.

Pete

David Latimer,
Is Yabby claiming the USA military are fundamentalist Christian? When it is made up of mostly atheists and probably equally as many Muslims as fundamentalist Christian.
_________________________
"It's not quite presented as a claim, but the argument compares deaths by extremist terrorists against death by Western military action in Iraq, Afghanistan plus mass killings of civilians in Kosovo.

I think this is unfair to make this argument as it is important to factor-in total killed because it falsely suggests the idea of Western Christians verses Middle-Eastern Muslims. For example, we should not exclude Serbian deaths by NATO forces or Balkan fighting in general, Janjaweed attacks in Dafur or muslims killed by so called "islamic terrorism".

To provide numeric statistics on this would only invite dispute, but obviously in terms of raw numbers events related to military action result in more death than terrorist action.
Posted by David Latimer
_______________________________

Yabby,
Could you define what you understand as a fundamentalist Christian. Because if Christians are living outside the teachings of Christ then we as Christians have a responsibility to exhort then to remain in the faith and teaching of Christ

Just a working class Aussie not in any way claiming high education, but firmly beleaveing I think like most do.
I think we should see every paper in the world publish them.
Not funny, of little true interest, but the reaction to them surely proves we are looking down the barrel of a war?
Yes it would be good if we could live and evolve together forge links to daily improve relationships.
But every time my lifestyle as a non Muslim is asulted more Muslim leaders start a speach calling for understanding and end in insulting the west .
reality is Islam is not looking for peace with the west but searching for new ways to insult us, care to denie that?

I would like to add something I found in the Jyllands-Posten (English version) website http//:www.jp.dk/english_news/

"A popular newspaper in Cairo printed the much-contested Mohammed drawings already last October during the Muslims' holy month of Ramadan, reported an Egypt-based blog-writer.
The widely read independent opposition newspaper Al-Fagr printed the caricatures just a few weeks after they originally appeared in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten, but no protests were reported, noted the blog-writer, an Egyptian businessman who goes under the name 'Sandmonkey'.

Although Muslim protestors have attacked Danish embassies in a number of countries to protest the publication of the caricatures in Jyllands-Posten, there was no reaction from the Egyptian newspaper's Muslim readers indicating that they found the drawings insulting, Sandmonkey told The Copenhagen Post.

'This whole business has been driving me crazy for the past two weeks,' he said. 'Of all the countries to protest against - why Denmark? You guys have been a friend of the Arabs for years.'

The blog-writer said that he believed authorities in Egypt and other Muslim countries were using the case for political reasons.

'The drawings create a common enemy to distract people from political reforms. It's useful to have something outside the country to focus your anger on,' he said."

If this is true, it gives a very interesting slant on the whole business.

Excellent article Graham - well balanced, respectful to all and timely. I don't believe it is necessary to publish the cartoons, considering OLO posters have already provided links - myself included.

Have Muslims the right to be offended?

Absolutely! Especially considering that there were additional photographs which depicted Mohammed in an unseemly manner.

Jews quite rightly are offended by 'holocaust humour' - if such a thing can ever be funny.

Have Muslims the right to call for special consideration for their religion over others?

Simply: NO.

Have Muslims the right to enact retribution in a wave of violence?

Again, vehemently NO.

To react in a wave of violence over cartoons? This cannot be excused on any level and is appalling and I hope that Muslim community leaders call those responsible to account for their crimes.

A point of interest, however, is that three years ago the little Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten - a right-wing Christian publication, refused to publish some cartoons portraying Jesus. The paper deemed them offensive.

Seems that this little paper holds animal farm values - some are more equal than others.

Link below for full article:

"Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html "

Hardly fair now is it?

As for the much belated timing of Muslim indigination, again I ask why now?

Philo asks me: "Is Yabby claiming the USA military are fundamentalist Christian?" (10feb06 5:19am) -- Answer: No such claim is made. I can't even find where he mentions the US military.

Philo goes on to say: "[The US military] is made up of mostly atheists and probably equally as many Muslims as fundamentalist Christian." -- Wrong. Muslims make up less than 0.27% of the US military, while atheists are 0.3%. 20% give no religious preference, so this group may include many muslims and athiests. However, the vast majority are christians. There is no data on fundamentalism (its vaguely defined) so Philo cannot so conclude. See http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/servingallah/religionmilitary.shtml (checkout where the witches are!)

Answering Keiths "simple question" - Yes. A christian arab is not superior to a non-christian arab. A athiest non-arab is not superior to a athiest arab and so on.

Mister H says he does "not hear about too many christians or others who destroy embassies" (9feb06 7:20pm).

Huh? A Chinese embassy was destroyed by NATO in 1999. The US embassy was attacked at the end of the Vietnam War. Romanian, Polish, and Chinese embassies damaged in Hanoi by US bombing in 1966. The Italian embassy (Szlenkier Palace) in Warsaw was attacked by German bombers in 1939 and I'd be surprised if there were not other examples during World War II.

David you implied a conclusion from Yabby's post with this statement: "It's not quite presented as a claim, but the argument compares deaths by extremist terrorists against death by Western military action in Iraq, Afghanistan."

Both present confrontations are by Western Nations made up mostly of USA military, hence my question and opinion that I couldn't see how one could claim the USA military was fundamentalist Christians. Yabby hasn't posted how he defines "fundamentalist Christian".

It just seems in Yabby's opinion any person he considers Christian. I agree with someones [I think coach] previous definition that essentially a fundamentalist is one who adheres strictly to the fundamentals of the principles of a doctrine, faith or religion. To call someone a fundamentalist Christian who does not adhere to the essential principles of Christ's teaching can hardly be classified as a fundamentalist Christian.

I thought the subject was about freedom of the Press causing offence that results in violence and destruction by posting religious cartoons depicting God or one of the prophets. It does not overstep the bounds of free speech? Could you identify on what occasions Fundamentalist Christians have resorted to similar acts [my definition] similar to the current spate of protests, burnings and threats as we have seen springing from the prints in the Danish paper? Bommings of embasies in wartime can hardly be classified as a protest against the freedom of the press.

When you hear ministers continually including jokes or overhead projected cartoons of St Peter at the Pearly Gates in their sermons obviously they do not consider them offensive. So I am not so sure where all these fundamentalist Christians are that threaten the freedom of the press. We might protest outside a gallery or write letters to galleries that hang obsene images or displays. But that is as far as protest goes.

When the Green's Kerry Nettle claims it is offensive to print these cartoons that offend Muslims then acts with hypocrisy by her public statement "Mr Abbott take your rosary off my ovaries" and considers offense to Catholics as acceptable demonstrates double standards.

I love religion.

It brings earnest religious people together - to fight.

Just look at OLO.

Most people aren't overtly religious.

Most aren't religious fundamentalists.

Its the ones who are that start fights.

And make things worse for the majority.

Was Bush "invented" to fight the fundamentalist Muslim world.

Was Abbott "invented" to guide Australian women.

Is Bush's Christian right more dangerous?

Just exploring the parametres.

Pete

Response to Philo:

I think you are confusing Yabby with Plantagenet, who did not mention fundamentalist christians. All I am trying to do is explain Plantagenet's argument. I don't buy into it myself, but it cannot be dismissed lightly. If expressed well, it should bury the idea of a peace-loving west and violent middle-east.

Yabby is talking about something else entirely. My post clearly indicates I am writing about Plantagenet and your good self.

The point about bombing embassies concerns Mister H, who cannot imagine others attacking embassies. Perhaps now he can. There is no justification for attacking an embassy or killing embassy staff.

While the subject is freedom of the Press, I cannot see any problem in clearing up certain matters along the way. My position on the subject is explained in my post of 9-Feb-06 12:31pm.

My response to your last post is to state the obvious: Ministers putting up cartoons on overhead projectors are not offending anyone. Kerry Nettle and Tony Abbott probably offend each other regularly, but that is a different debate. With reference to your question, there is no sanctury from personal responsibility because of the religious group one associates with.

David,
Thanks for clarifying that. Sorry Yabby for misrepresenting you. Yes it was planetagent that had made the initial post.

But for those that want to identify the West as Fundamentalist Christian they should be consistent. The West represents a diverse democracy encompasing many points of view and religions.

When Christians say the Reformed Christian influence upon the West has given us our personal freedoms, most OLO anti-Christian posts want to deny such an influence and classify the Christians as Totalitarian bullies. Planetagent in his/her last post indicates Fundamentalist Christians as the arch enemy of her/his position. You can see his/ her preference for a totalitarian atheistic society. We all need to accept we live in a democracy that has diverse conflicting views. Democracy is the struggle of opinions to retain balance of its citizens, and not give absolute power to only one opinion as it becomes ruthless in its opression and enforcement.

We might all like a State where everyone believes exactly as we do, but we live in a free society where robust debate on difference will take place. That is what Western Democracy represents. It has kept social balance upon those trying to impose a Totalitarian Government.

Unfortunately Premier Bracks has listened to the lobbying of Muslims to introduce the first stage of blasphemy shari'ah into Victoria to squash freedom of expression on religious debate and difference. We can see how it has caused division in religious communities. The Muslims are happy they have a tool to bash others who speak of their Prophet or religion in derogatory terms.

David

fine but are arab christians equal with arab muslims etc?

Philo

I don't mind moderate Christians nor moderate Muslims.

So I'm neither anti Christian nor anti Muslim.

My point is that FUNDAMENTALIST Christians and FUNDAMENTALIST Muslims are problem children because they believe the “literal word” of their respective old Books as they interpret them.

As the literal word is open to interpretation, schisms occur on the basis of differing interpretations.

Literal belief tends to make fundamentalists intolerant of other denominations (this is undeniable), religions, agnosticism and atheism.

You mentioned democracy. It derived from a number of influences including ancient Greece, as well as from the reformation and Long Parliament etc.

The vast majority of Westerners are not fundamentalist yet they support democracy and are tolerant.

Fundamentalism gives people certainty that what they are doing is morally correct - even when the majority believe they are wrong. Hence most Muslims would probably disagree with fundamentalist Muslim imams who may well have incited the firebombing of embassies.

My contention is that in the narrow instance where fundamentalist religion is tolerant this tolerance is patronising - along the lines "pity the ignorant because they haven't seen the way".

Yet despite their beliefs many fundamentalists have their heart in the right place (in my experience).

Strong religious convictions breed conflict and suffering. History proves this time and again.

That is why I (like many) don't see it as helpful to wear religion on my sleeve.

Pete

Great article.

I'm sad for muslims worldwide and I'm sad for the west.

Muslims are slowly digging a deeper hole for themselves. The fact that the cartoons had already been published without reaction in Egypt just shows the extent of the manipulation of muslims by muslims.

It is so easy to offend a muslim, that one could be forgiven for thinking that the whole cartoon affair was engineered by an anti muslim group wanting to add more fuel to the wave of Islamophobia.

Why are we not debateing far more ofensive anti Jewish/Christian cartoons pubished by goverment owned press in Islamist countrys?
Can ignoreing these cartoons, and highlighting others stop the slide to a dreadfull conflict?
Yes I too feel sorry for those of the Muslim faith who just wanted a better life.
But I too want to keep my culture and my beleafs and freedoms.
Truth is also a right.

DANISH PAPER PAPER REJECTED JESUS CARTOONS
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html "

I guess Jyllands-Posten were using their 'freedom of expression' NOT to publish cartoons that may offend Christians.

Is no one else noticing a certain hypocrisy here?

Its OK to publish cartoons denigrating Muslims but its not OK to publish cartoons denigrating Jesus?

No wonder Muslims are feeling touchy.

Graham could you please provide our bloggers with "a spell check facility",since I find it really annoying.Perhaps I'm old fashioned but I feel that if it's worth saying,it should be well said.

I also don't like this "moblie text speak";to me it is ideas without emotion.The syntax and pauses between the words also have meaning.Perhaps we should all talk to each other more often, rather than using the moblile text jibberish.

Keith asks me "but are arab christians equal with arab muslims etc?"

He has done it again -- saying "equal" when the original quotes and context of his post use the words "not superior".

I thought it was fairly obvious that in my post of 10-Feb-2006, that I was drawing attention to Keith's problem of lumping people. He takes a quote about arabs and non-arabs and starts asking questions about muslims and christians.

For a believer in universal human rights (such as myself), the answer to Keith's question, in terms of their human rights, in obviously yes. This has nothing to do with the quote: "The criteria for acceptance in the sight of God are righteousness and honest living."

Hi David,
In regards to the bombings of the various embassies by the U.S. and NATO forces you mentioned earlier,how many of these were done simply because a couple of cartoons insulted some religious figure?,although I do agree with you that innocent embassy staff should not be attacked either.
I don;t know if you are aware, but recently there was a grossly offensive portrait of Jesus shown at some exhibition hall in North Hobart(it may still be there I don't know),it depicted Jesus surrounded by men indulging in sexual activity with each other.
To this day I haven't heard any reports of wild-eyed,frothing at the mouth Christians rioting and demanding that Hobart be burnt to the ground and destroying buildings anywhere in Tasmania.
I am sorry but I honestly believe that the religion of Islam is just totally intolerant of other beliefs,it demands acceptance but accepts no other and I am yet to be convinced otherwise and I do not believe I ever will be although I hope I can.
Cheers.

Response to Mister H:

There are probably better reasons to not burn Hobart to the ground than in defense of the freedom of artistic expression.

If there were an artist who depicted Jesus in a pornographic context for the purpose of causing offense, I would call this an abuse of the freedom. I would be sympathetic to any person (Christian or Muslim) who protests peacefully.

Consider the case of graffiti artists, who defend vandalism. I have no qualms in removing this so called 'art' from a wall, fence or panel, providing the vandalised property is not destroyed). Let's call this act of removal "artistic originalism".

Furthermore if an artist does the wrong thing, that does not excuse a newspaper from doing the wrong thing or exhibitors from doing the wrong thing or protesters from doing the wrong thing. Here I am talking about the moral sense of wrongdoing.

If you find intolerance unacceptable, give your support to those who work against intolerance, rather than pass uninformed judgement.

Here is an alternative view: One may the right to be an idiot, but don't expect me to support idiocy.

Iran has already indicated that it will be responding with its own set of cartoons. This will no doubt lead to an escalation in humour. Generations from now people will look back on the cartoon wars as a decisive turning point in history. Soon we will suffer all out cartoons from the four corners of the globe. If it gets really serious somebody may even unleash laughing gas on innocent citizens.

It surely beats nukes. I think we should mock eachother with more cartoons. Maybe even full on comic strips. Perhaps it is not so good in the short term but over the long term I think it will help us all enormously to understand the irony of existance, the irony within our multitude of beliefs as well as the irony in the many forms of human arrogance.

P.S. As indicated in the article the cartoons can be viewed at the following link. However if you are a muslim you are not allowed to look, so you won't be offended.

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/media_told/

David Latimer

My original question was directed, not to you, but to Fellow-Human, who had made the following misleading comment:

" No Arab has superiority over a non-Arab, and no non-Arab has superiority over an Arab...The criteria for acceptance in the sight of God are righteousness and honest living."

That you needed to answer and defend FH's position in the oblique fashion you did surpried me. Especially since FH has 'ducked for cover'.

I'll repeat my question and your answer

'Does the same apply to Muslims and Christians and Jews and Buddahists and athiests and agnostic's and Satanists etc? Or is Islam and it's adherents superior to the adherents of other faiths or beliefs or non-believers?'

Your answer:

'Yes. A christian arab is not superior to a non-christian arab. A athiest non-arab is not superior to a athiest arab and so on.'

You answer contradicts the Quran.

Btw David it was FH who raised the spectre of religion in his original post. I responded to that reference so you allegation I 'lumped people' together is a patent fabrication at worst or a simple lack in your comprehension abilities at best.

I assumed nothing in your original post you were quite clear in your statements.
Forget the insults David they only show you don't have a defensible position.

Keith,

Not sure why you assume I am gone.
Re-read my posting to understand: the Islamic faith equates believers (As it does address believers and not Muslims).

Good believers have 70+ definitions. It does not matter what colour ethinicity or gender you are.

Now I am not arguing the existence of some bad practices by muslims (and non-Muslims). I am just pointing the difference between theory and practice.

Peace,

Would someone who has seen the "cartoons" and agrees with the freedom of speech argument, care to provide a "thousand words" to illustrate/demonstrate this freedom of speech? Just pick any one of the images.

Keith seems to be unhappy about the way I have tried to answer his many questions. Perhaps he could enlighten us as to where the Qur'an says that a christian arab is superior to a non-christian arab! Not that I felt a need to check. I was writing from my own perspective.

Why is he suprised that I am defending Fellow-Human? Good on him for mentioning that quote. I am not sure which translation was used, but the Farewell Sermon quote can be found in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Farewell_Sermon. OK, perhaps there was no need to mention Leviticus, which is interpreted broadly.

All this hot air by Keith about misinformation, fabrication and falsehood is quite a joke. And now, he is insulted! I take heart that the rest of us in this forum can engage in vigourous, but respectful debate.

Thanks Terje for providing the best post I've yet read in OLO.

Good decision Graham. I've seen the cartoons on Blair's web site and they weren't even worth publishing - they have no context and aren't genuinely funny.

Noos-

They do have context. They are at the centre of a massive international row. They are a primary source, and their aesthetic qualities are totally irrelevant. The media has a duty to publish them.

Also, the virgins one is pretty funny.

clink,
The cartoons were very ordinary. Probably the one already mentioned by KRS 1, was the only one that could be called funny.

The idea of finding many virgins to a Western mind would almost be impossible. There would hardly be many available unless they were six year old even as Alisha. So to have Mohamet standing at the gates of heaven telling the suicide bommers to stop because we have run out of virgins plays on the incongruity of a supposed situation. It also plays on the image that heaven is going to be one big sex orgy

David and Fellow-Human

I am not going to lower the tone of this forum by responding to your personal attacks. I refuse. The topic is the cartoons, though offensive and exhibit a banality, which apparently is quite the norm these days, were perfectly legally published. That's our freedom at work, like it or lump it. It is great OLO linked to the cartoons.

Neither of you have an inkling of the history of the spread of Islam. Had you, you would not have made the statements you've made.
To gain such an understanding try a little reading of the subject. Try starting with:

W. Montgomery Watt, The Majesty That Was Islam: The Islamic World, 661–1100 (1974).

That has a wondeful bibilography for further reading.

The following website also has a very comprehensive reading list on the same subject.


http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-69245

Keith,

for the record I didnt question the freedom to publish those cartoons. I just raised few other questions precisely as follows:

1. Why and whats the intent and timing of the cartoon?
2. Why do you expect all people to react the same way?
3. Why did few people reacted in this manner 4 months later and who benefits it?

Over the summer, Radio National broadcast repeats of some programs of 2005. One such was ENCOUNTER of 15 May. 2005

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/relig/enc/stories/s1364284.htm

Drasko Dizdar contributed to a series of lectures, each with the theme of "Honesty Matters-the ethics of daily life", conducted by UNIYA.
I wonder whether the insights of Rene Girard, concerning the need for a scapegoat, have a resonance here.

The link at the end of the transcript takes you to other participants in the series

Response to Keith:

I think your selection of that particular book is telling. I am not doubting the book is worth recommending or reading, but one criticism is that it primarily tells the story of Arab influence over the Islamic religion. Some academics argue that the substantial contributions from surrounding civilisations, such as Persia, were downplayed. Like all successful religions, there is also blending with local traditions, such as occurred in South East Asia.

This may explain your blind-spot, the lumping problem, which I pointed out earlier.

What! Another horrendous personal attack!

David

My comprehension of Watt’s book, though I lack the expertise of academic’s, had me arriving at a similar conclusion. However some aspects are diametrically opposite to the view you’ve acknowledged.

In the early sections of the book of course the influence of the Arab culture over Islam is acknowledged and clearly shown. I accept this section of the book’s proposition that Arab tradition is entwined in much of Islamic practice in the mid east. However the further from the centre (Arabia) the less the influence of the Arab traditions. I have not read widely enough to ascertain whether local traditions have a significant influence over the Islam of other regions.

I think we at some point referred to the spread of Islam. The reason I suggested this book is because it attempts to explain the expansion of Islam. It states initially while having a violent aspect, Islam spread successfully mostly because of its economic influences and requirements. Basically its theory held Islam was spread throughout the Arab Empire because only Arabs were allowed to partake in the economy of the Arab Empire. Anyone could join the Empire and adopt Arab nationality. The one condition to become an Arab was one was required to convert to Islam.

The latter sections of the book concentrated upon the Caliphates, which of course came to be based not in Arabia (The Arab Heartland) but in the former Persian territory based in Baghdad. Much reference is made in this section of the book to the contribution of all peoples in the region and from outside the region. Of course the Majesty in the title refers to the excellence in scholarship and scientific advancement during this period of Islamic expansion.

The unasked but obvious point of the book:
What changed to cause Islam to lose this emphasis on scholarship and advancement in the years since 1100?

Other scholarly works explore similar questions. Watt’s book is the most authoratitive because it uses original sources as much as is possible.

Regards

ps not one word of effete personal attack.

Keith,

What is "Arab nationality"?
Most Muslim countries from the 9th centurty onwards had trade & commerce activities managed & run by Jews/ Jewish tribes. Jewish suburbs in Muslim countries is where all people went for trade and commerce.

Take the Ayoubi & fatemite eras for example. Most physicians, doctors and merchants were Jews and Assyrians. The Minister (ie prime Minister level) was usually an Orthodox Christian (since most arabs were Orthodox Christians).

Surely, that's a loaded question from Kieth.

Why say that Islam lost its emphasis on scholarship and advancement in the years since 1100? The Turks and Monguls took control politically, however these peoples were converted. The Blue Mosque in Istanbul (c.1600) comes to mind.

KRS
In and of themselves, they are not a comment on any issue rekated to the news. The massive interantional row only happened after they were gratuitously published.
There value is not inherent. Newspapers don't publish everything that they discover or come across. They have editorial values to work out what justifies publication and what does not.
If there was a cartoon that criticised any religion for its effect on public policy or srgument though, that would be valuable and worthy of publishing.

Hi all

Just thought that you needed some greetings from little old Denmark. Well Mary and the baby is doing just fine, don´t know what that naughty boy Frederik is up to.

I see you´re talking about the cartoons of some Ahmed or Ali. Well, never met him.

Have a nice day.

Finn/Copenhagen