Bruce Bawer, writing in the Seattle alternative paper The Stranger, absolutely nails the situation with the Muhammed caricatures:
On the contrary, what's happening here is that a gang of bullies - led by a country, Saudi Arabia, where Bibles are forbidden, Christians tortured, Jews routinely labeled "apes and pigs" in the state-controlled media, and apostasy from Islam punished by death - is trying to compel a tiny democracy to live by its own theocratic rules. To succumb to pressure from this gang would simply be to invite further pressure, and lead to further concessions - not just by Denmark but by all of democratic Europe. And when they've tamed Europe, they'll come after America.
After all, the list of Western phenomena that offend the sensibilities of many Muslims is a long one - ranging from religious liberty, sexual equality, and the right of gay people not to have a wall dropped on them, to music, alcohol, dogs, and pork. After a few Danish cartoons, what's next?
For those of you who doubt that the goal here is to destroy freedom of speech in the West, I submit this as exhibit #1:
Hamas' political chief laid out conditions today under which it would work to calm anger in "âthe Muslim street"â over cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in western media.Khaled Meshaal, speaking on French radio, said Hamas would try to soothe the outrage only if western governments apologise to Muslims and begin drafting laws and other measures to make sure such "âattacks"â will not be printed again. "âWe've said that we, Hamas, were ready to play a role in calming the Muslim street on condition that there are two rapid initiatives,"â he told rfi radio.
Meshaal pointed to laws in some western countries that forbid denying the Holocaust. "âSo a law is needed to prevent attacking not only the Prophet Muhammad but all prophets and all religions,"â he said.
Sorry Khaled, it's not going to happen. We have every right to criticize your religion and anyone else's and it doesn't matter how many people you threaten to kill, we're not giving up that freedom. Unfortunately, they'll have plenty of help in America from the likes of Pat Buchanan, who wants to silence "secularists" every bit as much the Mullahs do, as he shows in this screed in the Worldnutdaily. The reactionaries who would like to limit free speech by prohibiting criticism or ridicule of religious beliefs may come in different theological varieties, but their goals are the same.
- Log in to post comments
Absolutely. We cannot back down. But I do think we need to try to find a way of bypassing the extremists in order to bridge the culture gap. We need the Middle East to become more moderate. Whatever else you think about the Iraq war, it has certainly not helped with this, and in fact has hugely increased polarization.
With Iran taking the path it is (and feeling confident in its ability to get away with it), things could get out of hand quickly. I am amazed that nuclear proliferation is largely below the radar. What will it take to get it back on our list of priorities?
For those who haven't seen it, this showed up at Fundies Say The Darndest Things (Original source here):
Wonderful.
First, the odd thing is that the rules are for Muslims, so that they don't accidentally worship an image instead of the real thing. So I don't think the rule applies to non-Muslims, And no one is going to worship a political cartoon.
Second, let's have equal rules. If they don't want cartoons offensive to them published anywhere in the world, are they willing to agree not to publish cartoons offensive to anyone in the world? Are they going to stop publishing offensive and slanderous cartoons about Jews? Are they going to stop chanting, "Death to Americans"? And, frankly, it offends me that women are executed for adultery in those countries. How 'bout we boycott some of their goods & services and tourist locations?
Or, conversely, are they ready to learn the old adage, "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me" and become as tough as any child in the schoolyard?
The Christian church could impose rules like this in the 16th century, but it can't now. Living in the modern world means accepting that one religion can't dictate to the world or to an entire society.
I have a problem with this post.
It's the phrase "the goal". I do not agree with that, because it's actively framing the entire situation, and in a way I cannot agree with.
Yes, you're right, that's A goal. It could even be termed "the goal of extremist Muslims".
But calling it "the goal" is implying there was nobody whose goal in all of this is to demonize Muslims, and it's also periliously close to implying that it's the goal of ALL Muslims - which is a claim I'd hope you're not making.
On the contrary, what's happening here is that a gang of bullies - led by a country, Saudi Arabia...And when they've tamed Europe, they'll come after America.
Erm...anyone remember Warren Christopher asking PBS not to show Death of a Princess way back in 1980?
Of course the Hamas would love to see Western governments accepting its "terms". This what the terrorists live, die and kill for. But I doubt this was the only goal behind this. The other goals are, IMHO, the need of the Arab dictatorships to appear "useful" to the West. We have to remember that those governments are often at least tolerated by Europe and the USA (like the Egyptian and Pakistani dictators), because they appear as a force which keeps the "dirty mob" under control. So it may be in interest to spark as much uproar among their nations, so that they prove their usefulness and earn our tolerance once again (consider that the only people killed because of the cartoons were, AFAIR, those who protested violently against them in Afghanistan and some other country). Another thing is that the religious leaders use the cartoons to incite more zeal among their followers and tighten their grip on their minds. BTW, I am amazed on how we've returned to the times of the insurrection of Mahdi. Only that the technological gap isn't as great as then...
It is easy now to think only in the terms of "dirty Muslims needing to civilize themselves". Just one thing: the West did really a lot to discourage them from democracy and its values by supporting cruel dictators and meddling in the internal affairs of Arab countries. Remember who ruled the Iran before the Ayatollahs?
I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Iran '72-'74 while the Shah was still firmly in power. Interestingly, at that time some Iranians were already moving their family assets out of the country, they could see the implosion coming.
It is difficult, in my opinion, for westerners to comprehend the level of 'unworldliness' in the average citizen for countries like Iran. The Shah certainly did not allow a free press and the Mullahs who followed are even more restrictive.
It's certainly easy to lump Muslims together and let them be painted by those who control the country, but it will not allow us to find the best approach to the issues at hand.
Much of what we see on TV comes about in ways incomprehensible to western thought. The Shah would round people up for forced participation in demonstrations he felt necessary. I think the mobs shown on TV are probably comprised of many people who are there out of fear or pressure.
The former president of Iran is optimistic for change in the Muslim world:
I concur with the ideas presented by Khatami in decrepitoldfool's post. I think the Shah could have suceeded in bringing Iran forward by 2 or 3 centuries had he not been so brutal and despotic. A lot of that was driven by his paranoia about losing power I think.
Even the Shah, who had very extensive exposure to western mores, could not comprehend, or get past, what 'real' power is. Had he mobilised the Iranian populace through more open and benevolent government, the fundamentalist Muslims led by Ayatolla Khomeni would not have had a chance of success.
The reality was, with the exception of a few large urban centers like Tehran and Isfahan, not a lot of modernity and it's benefits were reaching the general population. That left the Mullahs in a position of social power by default.
Juan Cole has a good article in Salon about the cartoons:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/02/09/culture/
His basic point is that the West isn't the intended audience for the crazy rhetoric, it's other muslims. Muslim clerics and politicians are trying to boost their bonafides among the religious right of the Islamic world.
Sotek wrote:
No, it certainly isn't the only goal, nor is it the goal of all Muslims. I've made clear a number of times that I do not believe that all Muslims are bad and written several essays about the need to strengthen the position of moderate Muslims against the extremists. I am speaking here of those who made the conscious choice to turn this situation into a violent uprising in Muslim countries and Muslim communities around the world. There is no doubt now that a group of clerics did this quite deliberately, reproducing the caricatures and mixing them with other cartoons, at least one of them faked, that were far more inflammatory in order to foment anger in their followers. The immediate goal is to recruit more followers. The ultimate goal is what I stated above.
Roman wrote:
I remember it quite well. I wrote a major paper on the subject in college and I have written many times that it was the single biggest mistake the US made in the cold war. Had we supported Mossadegh rather than overthrown him, the entire history of the Middle East might well have been dramatically different. But I don't think this changes the validity of anything I said in this post.
Ed, I don't thnk it changes anything either because even had the US left Mossadegh alone, we don't know what he may or may not have become. In the context of his time, he did not appear to be a reliable puppet I guess. But in the Iranian context, that doesn't prove he would have been substancially different in the long run.
It was undoubtedly a real mistake to mess with Iranian politics in the way we did, it was an even worse mistake to put the Shah in place and then not control him. We actually abetted the Shah in taking and maintaining absolute control over Iran after we put him back on the Peacock Throne.
Saddest of all, The US didn't like Mossadegh because of his oil policies. We started digging the hole we are in a long time ago, and we aren't smart enough to put the shovel down at least.
The former president of Iran is optimistic for change in the Muslim world [...]
Optimistic, how come? He had his chance of reforming Iran and blew it, losing all the support he had. Even the students turned from him. His hands were tied by the Mullahs. What "optimism" can one find in this?
deb wrote:
Alternate history is never certain, of course, but I think the most likely outcome would have been a free and democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East, with the impetus for that change arising from within rather than being imposed. This could very well have changed things dramatically in that region. It's not certain, but I have no doubt that things would be better there today than they are now. As you say, putting the Shah in power was a horrible mistake that backfired on us in a big, big way. What we are seeing there today is a direct result of what we did in 1953.
The optimism I have for Iran is that I am sure the average Iranian doesn't like the current nutjobs running their country anymore than we would (do?). I do feel there exists a well of desire within the Iranians to have a normal society. Whether Khatami was able to suceed in tapping into it is another question. It doesn't seem the Iranian President has much autonomy.
The West is not the home of oriental despotism. The West has cultural integrity. The West is pluralistic, and the underpinning of that pluralism is not religiously-commanded love, but the simple and clean practice of democracy. This must be the very root and point of any response to Muslim violence.
The caricatures are borderline bigoted, at best. I honestly think the resonse to this would have been quite different if the caricatures had been of a Jewish moneylender. The european politicians would still have threatened legal action despite there not being terroristic threats, because that's what european politicians do, they overcompensate on social issues. I don't think we need to go out of our way to point out that what Hamas and other terrorists do is wrong, that goes without saying. So I don't think being against bigoted caricatures should make you guilty by association.
Ed - regarding Mossadegh outcomes, it could have happened as you say. And we would not be negatively associated with whatever the outcome may have been. That would be a huge plus for sure.
I am just a little reluctant to pre-suppose Mossadegh's success given the history of the region - that's all.
Matthew wrote:
I don't think this is an accurate analogy at all. The caricatures were not ethnic stereotypes, they were aimed at a religious idea. Everyone seems to want to forget the context in which these caricatures appeared. They were commissioned as commentary on the intimidating effect that threats of violence from Muslim extremists was having in that country. By what possible measure is that not a perfectly legitimate phenomenon to comment on, criticize or satirize? There is nothing bigoted about that.
Alternate history is never certain, of course, but I think the most likely outcome would have been a free and democratic nation in the heart of the Middle East, with the impetus for that change arising from within rather than being imposed.
Looking at the Mossadegh's biography in Wikipedia, I have some doubts. It's not as if Mossadegh was 100% democrat.
The middle east doesn't need democracy anyways, as far as to get rid of extremists. You don't go from extremist to moderate while living in poverty just because your corrupt politician was kinda-sorta elected rather than selected by tribal leaders. The model should really be UAE, you never hear of people blowing themselves up in the UAE, and it isn't any more democratic than the rest.
Yeah, yeah, I just hope free speech in the West doesn't die from the inside before the Muslim Fundies get to it.
Defending the cartoons seems about as thrilling as defending the right of the Klan to hold rallies. Necessary, maybe, but...
I have been following this blog for a long while (and I would have to say that it is my favorite). I kept meaning to sign up, so I can comment, but I never get around to it. After this one, I just had to finally comment.
After reading the article that was linked, I just have to ask something. Is it just me, or does those tactics remind anyone else of mob tactics? Bust up a store and then tell the owner that if they pay for 'insurance', they'll make sure nothing like that happens again.
This is especially true with the editor that is now 'under my protection'.
Let's see. Muslim leaders take some political cartoons, add some of thier own, and then stir up trouble. Then other Muslim leaders say that they will take care of protecting people, as long as certian things are done. Sounds like a shakedown to me.
Not that I am saying it is some plot. Just that it is definatly being taken advantage of in that way. I am also not saying that it is all Muslims. Just a few taking advantage of the rest.
Ed Brayton: I disagree somewhat. I think that Jyllands-Postens is bigoted, and that the publication should be seen as a part of an increasing focus on "Danishness". In this trend you do see exaggerations and scare tactics.
Only a few days ago the chairman of the Jyllandsposten board said that they had to draw the line somewhere "or they will want us all to convert to Islam." And in the article that accompanied the pictures it is impied that Denmark is headed to totalitarianism:
"It is no coincidence, that people in totalitarian societies go to prison for telling jokes or drawing critical images of dictators. As a rule, it is done because it is said to insult people's feelings. In Denmark it hasn't gone that far, but the examples we have presented show, that we are on our way on to a slippery slope, where noone can predict where self-censure will end."
"or they will want us all to convert to Islam."
you quote this as if it is bigoted to feel unease at the prospect of converting a nation to islam. i am certainly a bigot against the modal form of islam.
Razib: To feel unease at that prospect isn't bigotry, but it's absolutely an exaggeration to suggest that it's a real risk in Denmark. Taken together with the slippery-slope argument it suggests that Jyllandsposten tries to demonize muslims. Now, you can argue about Jyllandspostens motivation, but in my mind the publication was at least in part motivated by bigotry. All I'm saying is that their reasons for printing the cartoons weren't all that saintly.
Dexceus wrote:
That is exactly what I thought when I read that line about the editor being under his protection.
Staffan S wrote:
I guess I'm missing the part of your argument where you justify the claim that this is bigoted. You say it as though it's self-evident and that just isn't the case. In Denmark, and around the world, you have a group of people saying that if you do not live by their religion's rules they will "exterminate" you. By what possible standard is that not totalitarian? They are making an entirely legitimate argument about what happens when a free society allows threats of violence to establish de facto censorship. How on earth is that bigotry?
Ed, you can defend a noble cause for reasons that are less than noble.
Jyllandsposten are on the right side in the conflict over freedom of the press. And, yes, the threats from moslems is an important issue. But the conflict is not a tidy good guys - bad guys scenario where the good guys are perfectly good. You will find a range of opinions (and even more reasons to hold those opinions) about the two basic questions: Does the right to free press include publishing images like these? and Was it right to publish these images? You can support the right to free press and still think that it was unfortunate that the cartoons were printed. I do, mainly because I think the results of publication was counterproductive to Jyllandsposten's goal to strenghten the free press.
You can also support the free press and still question the motives behind the publication of these particular pictures. My opinion that it is partly bigotry comes from my interpretation of the quotes i made. The polarization into us-they is a typical sign. "...they will want..". Not "extremist moslems" or "some imams". They.
Exaggerating the opponents intents and powers is another sign. The risk that Denmark will be turned into a totalitarian society where people are put in prison for telling jokes about the rulers is remote, to put it mildy. That extreme moslems would set up a totalitarian state IF they were in power might be true, but to present that a threat is scare tactics.
Staffan S writes:
It depends on the context. Pronouns have antecedents, so what is the antecedent of "they" in this context? If the discussion is about those who seek to prohibit the publication of cartoons they find offensive, then "they" is entirely appropriate and accurate.
And what is underestimating or ignoring such a threat a sign of? The statement you quoted didn't say that Denmark was going to become a totalitarian society. It said, correctly, that totalitarian societies are ones that punish people for satire and free expression and that the fact that threats of violence were cowing some into silence put Denmark on a slippery slope toward that. That is an entirely legitimate statement. A line has to be drawn to prevent a slide into that situation.