Images of the Prophet Muhammad
 

Well someone had to start a rational discussion about this. I'm a Middle Eastern Studies major, so I'm well aware about the statements disallowing depictions of Allah or the Prophet. This is what is reported to have been the main issue with the riots (even America being blamed because we apparently "lead" Denmark).

This reporting, however, is like most media atm just simply ignorant. There are HUNDREDS of paintings of Muhammad, most of them steamming from the regions most angered (Iran/Afghanistan/Pakistan).

I'm quite honestly upset at everyone involved. The newspapers that printed it should have known better, they should stand up, apologize, and fire the editor who approved it. The man who sent it to Sudan/Iran/etc should take responsibility for the deaths that have/will result. The muslims rioting should try to learn more about their own history of depictions of Muhammad and his teachings of tolerance. And finally the media reporting on it SHOULD point out the fact that muslims have a LONG history of depicting the Prophet in paintings.

Personally, after studying Islam and the Middle East for 4 years I'm constantly baffled at the level of self-ignorance or level of anger about certain topics.

Destroying the house Muhammad grew up in to build a parking lot? O.K.
Depicting Muhammad for over a thousand years? O.K.
Inventing or adopting the Harem? O.K. even for the holy 5 Caliphs
Governments that kill hundreds of thousands of their own people... so long as they oppose the U.S.? O.K.
Using 12 year old boys to clear landmines by walking in a straight line? More than O.K., it's a holy act

However...
Finding out that a Muslim extreamist tore up a copy of the Qur'an to plug up a toilet then crap on it? Death to America
Reading a cartoon satyrizing what Islam has turned into? Death to Denmark... then America

Anyone else finding themselves losing sympathy at an increasingly rapid pace to both Islam in general and especially the Media who are afraid to point it out?

**Disclaimer: I'm not anti-Islamic. I'm against what it is increasingly becoming, which is a religion that appreciates death to life and murder of civilians to anything described in the Qur'an or other Holy Texts.**

To my eyes a reasonably balanced view of this situation. I agree. None of this smells good and I highly doubt anything good will come of all this.

EDIT: I agree with it up to this part: While I am frustrated with the actions of many in Islam I see this more as a problem with orthodoxy in general. Anyone who is so inflexible in their views is a problem... those who take their inflexibility to the next level and try to impose it on others are even worse.

Yeah I might take this too far, but all this bullshit has only further driven home to me that Islam is not this peaceful religion that people are always trying to say, I'm not one for splitting hairs. It is a hypocritical religion that is centuries behind in political and social concepts, as such I see relations between the Christian/secular West and the increasing radical Muslim East deteriorating further. Long live the Caliphate!

mojo could not the same thing be said about Christianity in the past?

I posted this as a questions elsewhere, but perhaps Islam is going through the same sort of growing pains that the Catholic church faced many years ago.

http://blog.newspaperindex.com/wp-co...-newspaper.jpg

I am firmly in support of free speech and the right for these cartoons to be published as much as I might disagree with their content or message. It's important to understand that this controversy has been caused by Muslim leaders seeking to rile their followers. The protests and violence had insured that many millions (probably billions) more people have seen these cartoons.

I too am dismayed by our media who have largely shyed away from actually displaying the cartoons. It is situations like this where our freedoms of press and speech are most important.

Perhaps Islam and Western culture are ultimately incompatible. It seems that many muslim nations envy our freedoms and rights but they must understand that they're interconnected and taken as a whole not piecemeal.

It's interesting that this controversy erupted a week after U.S. rightwing extremists, who so often occupy the same ideological ground as middle-east extremists, erupted into furor over a cartoon in the Washington Post. Although the attack on the freedom of the press was analogous, the fallout was quite a contrast. The rightwing threatened boycotts, which ultimately should prove more successful than violence.

I have respect for Condoleeza Rice for coming out and condemning middle-east leaders who are using this controversy to incite hatred and violence. Aside from her however I've seen our leaders and media exposed as cowards succumbing to violent threats.

It's not about Islam, it's about extremists, and a tendency for the media to focus on the person currently shouting the loudest.

I personally know lots of very reasonable and rational practicing Muslims, who are as equally shocked, surprised and horrified as anyone else at the current level of fervour and attention that the lunatic fringe are capable of generating. It's politics - not religion. That people in power (i.e. the priests) can take advantage of their people by whipping them up into such incredible acts of demonstration is worrying - almost as worrying as the media's ability to convince many in the west that this is what Muslims do on a regular basis. Please don't allow yourselves to be manipulated by the priests, and please don't let yourselves be manipulated by the media barons - each has their own agenda, and it suits them all for us to close our eyes and start stereotyping.

The buck stops with you.

How does choosing *not* to show these images squash freedom of the press. The press continues to have every right to show them. Nobody has removed that right from them. They have chosen *not* to show the images.

To use the old saw: you don't shout fire in a movie theatre when there isn't a fire. It amounts to reckless mischief.

Seaver, why should the newspaper apologize and fire the editor? Because Muslims are upset? Screw that. It's a Danish newspaper; it's published in a secular, democratic, NON-MUSLIM country. If Muslims don't like it, so be it. tough luck. I'm not willing to give up my rights just to please a bunch of extremists.

...but perhaps my feelings over this are a bit distorted; after all, I live in the Netherlands, where a film maker/columnist (Theo van Gogh) was murdered by a Muslim for "insulting Islam". So much for mutual respect...

Well of course the media doesn't have to show the cartoons, but clearly now that it's a major news story I think it's irresponsible journalism to not show the source of the controversy to allow people to make their own judgement, especially considering how tame some of the cartoons are. The one of the artist sheilding his drawing is actually quite interesting and thought-provoking. "Stop stop we ran out of virgins" that's hilarious. The media is enabling the freedom of speech to be squashed by succumbing to threats of violence.

The issue isn't that they posted the images, it's that they posted them to see if it would provoke a response. It was irresponsible (if well within their rights) to publish the images.

Personally, I would have considerably less of a problem with them publishing them if it wasn't *just* to provoke a response.

I think Charlatan and I are of the same mind here. Not considering legal issues, it is disingenuous for a paper to print these cartoons and act surprised by the reaction. Whether you agree with the intensity of the feelings at play here, I think a reasonable individual could have predicted a strong outrage.

On the subject of the response of the Islamic community, it is irresponsible to write their feelings off as the equivilant of "road rage" or the rantings of bloodthirsty savages. I think you have to consider that what we're seeing may be the reaction of people who feel they have no other outlet to get their concerns addressed. Those concerns range from the depiction of Muslims in the media to the bewildering array of political representation (and non-representation) happening in the Arabic world to Israel-Palestine to the lack of constructive opportunities for improving their quality of life. This is pent-up rage from people who feel they have been marginalized with no outlet for release, and it is expressing itself in a controversy over religious icons.

I have felt for some time that building bridges for people to engage their own societies and ours more effectively will go a long way towards reducing the political variants of extremism. Isolation has exacerbated this problem and will continue to do so. Even if you hate "terrorists", you should recognize that many (no, not all) of them come from people that have little hope of attention or import through other methods. Of those that come from greater means, many capitalize on the pent-up feelings of the masses.

I'm not trying to excuse blatantly violent or anti-civilizational behavior, but a view that doesn't consider "terrorism" as an expression of something is 2 dimensional at best.

I'm not sure why you just can't say where the real problem is and instead try to spread the blame around and speak in moral realvistic terms.

Orthodoxy is not a problem in itself.

The Amish have been rather peaceful if I recall.

The Greek Orthodox haven't made a peep in quite a while.

Fundamentalist Christians may state their opinions and vote with those ideas. The abortion clinic bombings were an aberration and the last murder was over 10 years ago. Since abortion was made legal in the united states there have been 7 murders directly tied to it. Hardly an 'impressive' showing for a group that numbers in the millions in the US alone and would point to the violence as being due to a very small minority.

Can't recall the last attack by a Mormon.

Well we could go on, but it is the culture, inspired in part by a religion that does not oppose violence to those who do not submit to the will of Allah, which we will be forced to fight. If Orthodoxy was the problem we should be having these wars and conflicts all over the place, but we don't.

Have Christians and Buddhists, and Shintoist, and Pagans, etc done bad things in the past? Sure, but who cares, this is the worlds current problem, this is what must be dealt with now, and the stakes are as high as they ever were. This is the same war we have been fighting since the first Arab invasions of the West and India starting around 600 C.E. The West seems to get ‘blamed’ for the Crusades, yet who invaded who first? We have changed, they have not.

What I find amusing/disturbing/alarming/fucked up is that many of people protesting haven't seen the cartoons. Some imam told them to go shout "Death to Denmark! Death to America! Death the Jews and Infidels!" and they do it like little robots.

The editor of Afghanistan's largest paper, where the deadliest protests and incidents have occured, says the pictures have not been published in any paper in the country. And it's not like there's a lot of laptops or wifi in Afghanistan these days.

Two things.

First you answered your own question with your key word being "past", please don't spin this issue with Christian culpability.

Two look at the historical context of the world at the time when Christianity perpetuated said grievances. It was a completely differently world, different politics, different norms, different everything. Night and Day, has absolutely zero bearing on today.

Ustwo, who exactly are you talking about? Shall I start mistrusting the people I work with? Are they plotting my fiery death at the hands of a suicide attack?

No.

Please don't spread any more of this ridiculous paranoia.

Yes there are extremists. Yes there is wrong in the world. But please be careful not to tar entire populations with your paranoid racist brush. Islam does not promote violence - powerful people within Islam in certain areas however do.

And this is complete nonsense too. Just ask yourself how many invasions there have been in the last, say, 5 years...

But couldn't the media's reluctance to publish what many see as a newsworthy item (the pictures all this comotion is about) be seen by some as self-censoring? Certainly publishing the pictures in a manner to incite uproar is wrong, but a fear to publish them due to a political backlash is a problem to.

Here's my $0.02, for what it matters - the rest of the world is much more historically-minded than the US. We think, wait, why do I care if that guy's great grandfather invaded my country before I was born? The rest of the world remembers the slight. For the last 150 years or so, we've expected imigrants to check their baggage at the door and be good Americans. A lot of strife is gone, and you don't see too many Armenians taking potshots at Turks here, although that happens in the Middle East all the time. Pakistanis and Indians actually get along fairly well here, although there are occassional problems, just like the English and the Irish get along here for the most part.

However, if you look at the home countries the groups are at each others throats constantly. A lot of Middle Easterners still are offended by the Crusades while most Americans couldn't care less. After all, we aren't the ones that did it, just like we aren't the ones that held slaves (although some of our ancestors did). One of the basic differences between here and there is a long cultural memory. It affects basic perceptions of the world and helps create the persecution complex that a lot of Middle Eastern Muslims seem to have.

When the government, religion, press, and schools condone certain activities, is it the 'population' or is it just the 'extremists'?

Are only 'extremists' protesting over cartoons?

Are only 'extremists' meeting in Iran for a holocost denial convention?

How many people does it take for the 'extreme' to become 'the norm'?

It is interesting, I think, to compare the reaction of the press with respect to this recent controversy to the reaction of the press when something anti-Christian is published or shown as art. The first reaction seems to be "Well, freedom of the press etc., but it was irresponsible to print the cartoons...." The second reaction was "Look at those Christians up in arms...don't they believe in freedom of expression?" Perhaps the difference is that the 'up in arms' in the second statement is metaphorical...

I think that its more that they don't want to be perceived as offending their Muslim viewers/readers. Why would you purposefully offend one of your demographics, especially if you're the mainstream media? There's footage out there of American soldiers with limbs blown off in the middle of street battles in Iraq, but the media doesn't show that because they don't want to offend the supporters of the war or people with good taste (although those two are not mutually exclusive). They don't show it because it would cause a backlash and be bad for business. The same thing applies in the cartoon situation. Why antagonize people purposefully if it could easily come back to bite you in the ass? They get to take the high road and look good to everyone.

On the whole, I would answer yes to most of these questions. With some provisos.

If religious figures become involved in politics, the results can be dangerous. The population wouldn't give a damn about a Danish magazine if they hadn't been whipped up into a mob by religious leaders.

Iran (for example) is a split country half secular and half religious. There is a power struggle going on there, with the religious establishment having an awful lot to loose - both at home and abroad. It is in the religious leader's interests to stoke up the population against a foreign enemy, in the same way that it is in a partisan politician's interest to do the same thing here in the west.

Here in England, there are many 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th generation muslim immigrants who just can't understand the whole episode at the moment. The general consensus is that all the recent activity is politically motivated by power-hungry mullahs.

It's sad that people can be so easily manipulated.

The newspaper should apologize because it directly led to a boycott which is crippling the Danish economy. If people lose their jobs, companies go under, and cutbacks are caused because less government income... you dont think the editor should apologize or be fired?

this is very true. the blame has been placed on the cartoons instead of the rabble rousers. the whole issue is reduced to a "clash of civilizations" instead of any semblance of thoughtful analysis. muslim-american groups did lend a good voice to this discussion, but often they seemed more upset with the newspaper editors than the riot instigators. absolutely, and it took long enough. the initial statement by the State Dept was quite weak (perhaps out of concern for violence against our embassies/military around the world).

furthermore, it is intersting that most of this country is still too scared to print those very newsworthy images. it is an overreaction that makes the images somewhat mythical. these images are so central to this event it is weird not to publish any of them. look at the first one. how is that offensive, racist, blasphemous? i think the american public deserves to see what the commotion was about, and they will probalby utter a collective "you mean that's it?"well, the newspaper did apologize. i agree with you, though, and it's kind of an empty apology because of all the craziness that happened first. the paper did what it could to prevent further violence. the imam in Denmark also wanted an apology from the Danish president. that's ridiculous. (i really hate the analogies that are being thrown around, but i have to do it.) so far i haven't heard an apology from george bush for tom toles' recent work.

Perhaps you should have read to the end of my statement.

Yes, most who are orthodox in their thinking do not lash out. Doesn't change the fact that I think they are wrong-headed.

The second part, that you seem to have over-looked, is that those who would impose their orthodox views upon other are a larger problem.

In other words, I agree with your assesment (in general) that the culture of that part of the world lends itself to bringing on these sorts of protest and these sorts of responses.

Where I tend to disagree with you is in your universal condemnation that completely ignores the millions who do not engage in these horrible practices.

I am not attempting any spin... the fact that you believe so suggest you are looking for something that isn't there or I wasn't careful enough in my wording.

What I am trying to examine the evolution of a religion. I am musing aloud, not saying anything definitive.

What I am asking is: Is it possible that Islam is actually in crisis? That is going through growing pains? I don't know the answers, I do know that at one time, idolitry wasn't allowed in Christianity and culture in general was largely ruled with an iron fist by the preisthood.

Yes the world is a different place today for you sitting comfortably in your middle class America. How different is it in the slums of Lahore or Jakarta where they do not enjoy the freedoms and luxuries you take for granted.

It all depends on how you view it. On one hand you can see it as self-censorship -- information *must* be shared, we need to see it.

On the other hand, you can recognize that perhaps it's simply (at this point) in bad taste and perhaps uneccessarily inciting violence.


I am certain that every editor likely struggled long and hard with these issues.


The other thing that everyone seems to completely ignore is that you can find these images quite easily on the Internet. The editors know this and it makes their decision to not publish easier.

I guess Allah afforded me a good lot, doesn't mean that these clowns can act like dinks over a few pictures, nor does it mean that I should have to accept it because some people like the color grey and can't call a spade a spade.

I really suspect that you can't read.

I have yet to see anyone defend the violent protesters on this board (if I am wrong please show me where).

These people have every right to protest. Just as the papers have every right to publish the pictures. What I don't agree with is violent protest. I also don't agree that the Danish publication was using their right to freedom of expression/speech/press responsibly (the editor ran the picture with the purpose of seeing if it would draw a reaction -- that's irresponsible). Furthermore, as Seaver pointed out the Immams that took their pamphlets to the middle east to stir up more shit, and the goverments and Immams in the Middle East that have amplified their actions are also problematice.

What you see as a love of the colour grey is an attempt to look at this stupid moment in history with somthing other than the myopic gaze you seem to prefer.

I saw someone on the news put it this way:

"You say we're a violent religion? I'll kill you for that!"

Along those lines, if the rest of the world allows themselves to be forced into submission on this issue, what will be next? Will the consumption of pork in a country be grounds for violent attacks?

Uh...there are parts of N. AZ and Utah where government workers go at the risk of death. One of my friends works dispatch down at the canyon, and has told me about the Mormon separatists, not part of the official LDS church....and their rather violent history with the law enforcement in the area.

There are rhetorics that justify killing. Western Capitolist ones, Nationalist ones, Islamic ones, Christian ones...

There are rhetorics that justify killing, and there are two kinds that matter.

The kinds you argree with, and the kinds you don't.

There are lots of places I wouldn't want to go for any number of reasons, and I'd rather be stuck with mormon seperatists than gang members.

I'm a bit surprised that you continue with the moral relativism. Yes we will have fanatics in the US, in Christians, in even tolerant religions like Hinduism but after posts of yours like this I'm surprised you can't see that its one thing for some individuals to be violent and intolerant, but its another thing when a population moves in that direction. We on the right call them Islamofacists for a reason, the pattern is the same.

"Dutch attitudes toward Muslims immediately and dramatically hardened. A poll found 40% of the population wanting the nearly million-strong Muslim community no longer to feel at home in the Netherlands". I wonder if our attitude towards Muslims will harden that drastically as well.

It's odd that you use the idea of relativism.

There are rhetorics that support killing, and some of them i agree with, and some of them i don't.

And I suspect that my ideas make about as much sense to a terrorist as theirs do to me.

Yes but they wish to have you killed, do you wish to do the same to them?

Actually, the Mormon church of the mid-late 19th century is a ridiculously similar situation to current Islamic extremists. (I didn't even think of this until martineguerre's post.) There were public, bloody murders of outsiders who ventured into Mormon territory. There was a belief that Mormonism was a holy way that the entire world would have to accept, even at the sword. There were terrorist acts, insurgents, and military escalation. In fact, in 1857, the US Army was sent to Utah to invade Salt Lake City and depose someone who was seen as a blood-thirsty dictator. Then they tried to set up a democracy for people who didn't want it.

Also interesting is the fact that the military and other aggressive pressure only made the situation worse and the militants more violent. In the end, it was a legislative solution that included significant carrots that brought Utah back into the fold. As you know, today Utah is a wonderful state filled with wonderful people - a great place to visit. Some of our most influential politicians come from there.

This may have taken place 100-150 years ago, but the dynamics are so similar that it is kind of chilling. I'm taking it is a sign that engagement, incentive and understanding can bring reconciliation.

I'd write more, but I don't expect anyone to take this point seriously. Given that, please forgive me for summarizing.

If you don't believe what I've just written, look up:
The Nauvoo Legion
The Doctrine of Blood Atonement
The Utah War (1857-1858)
Mountain Meadows Massacre
George Q. Cannon
Woodruff's Manifesto (1890)
Brigham Young

ubertuber... I was not aware of that part of American history. Facinating.

Bang. There's your history repeating itself right there.

Add to it the fact that Missouri only repealed their law allowing the literal extermination of Mormon's in 1976.

Fact: until 1976 it was legal to shoot one on sight.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extermination_Order_(Mormonism)

Also ironic is the fact that some devout muslims who wish their kids receive a US college education look favourably upon Brigham Young university as the university's honour code is compatible with the better parts of Sharia law, with regard to alcohol, drugs, tobacco and abstinence from sex out of wedlock.

US history aside, a lot of you constantly remind us that there are a lot of 'progressive' or 'moderate' muslims in the world.
However, we could also say that the holohcaust was led by a relatively small number of German/Austrian extremists.

One of my favourite films "Boondock Saints" uses the line:
"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

This is my fear, that the good muslims remain indifferent, as the good Germans once did.

If you think the muslim population in whatever country you reside in reacted badly and went unchallenged by your government, what do you think will happen should an Islamic state like Pakistan or Iran detonate or supply materials for a nuclear or dirty bomb in Isreal and the 3 Western Security council members retaliate in kind?
Will mob rule start to dictate the moral and security policy of your nation?

Very well put.

No I do not. I happen to believe our rights are worth fighting for. If that means facing a trade war with the Muslim world, I'm game. I'm too damn stubborn to give in to such threats.

By the way, I very much doubt that a boycot from the Muslim world will "cripple" the Danish economy. I also doubt that the EU will allow one of their member states to be bullied into submission. As EU officials have already stated: a boycot of Danish goods is in fact a boycot of EU goods.

I'd be completely surprised if they DID prevent one of their member states from being bullied.

Until Europe wakes up, they're a lame duck with their head stuck in the sand hoping the hunter won't shoot because they're minding their own business.

I'm a little pickier on which ones. But i shouldn't need to mention those in the West who are not nearly so discriminating in who they think is a legitimate target of violence due to terrorist activity on the US. I think the whole flypaper thesis, that we fight "them" over in Iraq so that we don't have it happen here is an extension of this imparticularity. We'd rather inflict collateral damage than have it inflicted on us.

Which i suppose is a self-protecting rhetoric and stratagy. But it clearly displays some striking parallels to the disregard of civilian status in those groups that we call terrorists. What else is terror, but shock and awe?

DING DING DING! You've stumbled on the very reason people form governments. To protect us from outsiders attacking/killing us.

this is great...

Jews To Iran: We Can and Will Make Better Anti-Semitic Cartoons Than You
http://www.boomka.org/
http://drawn.ca/wordpress/wp-content/images/iascc.jpg

The same reason they formed Al-Queda?

I may be totally off base here, but...

Al Qaeda is based off centuries based humiliation, the sick man most relevantly( by my texts).

Historically, the sole purpose of a government is to form protection for a sovereign group... Read that, Shrub swears an oath to the constitution to uphold and protect our laws, he holds no feality to some Arabs or some global powers, he is beholden to the American people.

Where is this disconnection? Since when is Osama, Al Zarqawi, Al- Zarwhirwi- any fundamentalist Islamist close to the reality we have?

Seriously I think the majority of the people here have no idea about Al Qaeda, they equate it with the Soviet resistance, the fact that Americans funded the Pakistani ISI, to them the evil Taliban.

I am sensing some serious ignorance. Some cut your nose to spite the face type shit. America is always teh bad guye we are teh evile^ empire!!!~ iT'S always about the politic!

:rolleyes:

This is a level of moral relativism that has reached a height I can not even see the top.

Honestly....if you can not see a difference....ummm.... :hmm:

I'm aware of the differences.

But there is an odd level of congruence.

And i don't think it's a stunning hieght of anything to point it out.

As i said, i'm not evaluating these rhetorics. I'm just taking them at face value, and setting them up against one another. I'm not postulating that because there are some congruences that these things are morally equivalent in all areas, or that they are equally persuasive as claims to existance. I'm not asking anything about those evaluations...they don't interest me much.

What i'm saying is why they may be particularlly illsuited at dealing with each other. We're going to have a devil of a time trying to marginalize a group that earnestly beleives it's formed for the defense of "civilization as they know it." Especially when our conduct is primarily regulated by concern for our continued existance, and is based on force. Pontificate all ya like, but for the average civilian in a combat zone, they're going to experience war/terrorism in pretty similar ways.

"Centuries of Humiliation" or not...they have an idea of civilization and have offered several ways of defending it in the global arena. Based on the power differential in the current situation...it's not going to be a head to head competition. The question isn't: Which claim is morally superior?

The moral high ground and 2.50 gets you the happy meal.

The question is how to make our claims more persuasive. Yes, you'd be right to point out that force can be awfully persuasive. But it has failure points as well. We didn't surrender when NYC got hit. They aren't surrendering now.

And what exactly should they be doing in this situation? What has made them a lame duck with their head stuck in the sand?

this edito is from today's guardian:

source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...709754,00.html

this article poses some interesting questions about a context that has, curiously enough, dropped away in the conversations about this cartoon cartoon controversy.

i would be curious to hear what nancy makes of it (or someone else who is in situ)---for myself, my close-ish acquaintance with things danish starts and stops with kierkegaard, so....

but it does point to an important matter that was discussed at length in the general discussion thread on this, but which has not reappeared in this thread--which i took to be in part motivated in order to make this topic safe against for extreme rightwing views to be circulated. so it has gone.

the issue is the drift into neofascist discursive terrain that so many folk above, and in the other thread, simply undertook without seeming to be aware of it.

the problem is that this terrain is unmarked in the u.s.: it is an aspect of mainstream conservative ideology, this repellent discourse that redefines a national community along racial and religious lines on the basis of caricatures of the muslim Other.

i feel no need to go through the entire demonstration again--suffice it to say that the interpretations being run out of this controversy, and the views of islam that one sees elaborated as a function of it, are as much if not more a problem than are the actions in response to the cartoons that this thread is set up to complain about.

all the arguments presented in the general discussion thread about the basically racist character of much conservative "understanding" of islam obtains here as well--switching forums does not obviate the critiques

it is curious, the extent to which this thread has so far functioned as if the other one did not happen.

but this edito raises many of the same questions.

No. Our country and our loyalty TO the country does not stem from a direct justification of the destruction of other countries and a plan to completely eradicate other people (though what we did to the Natives was despicable, it was not part of the charter that started us).

What made them a lame duck?

The fact that European countries have more terrorist organizations in their own countries than exist in Afghanistan. For example 60% of Muslims in England freely admit to admiring Bin Laden.

The fact that said Bin Laden-loving Muslims are soon to control the European countries, and instead of trying to incorporate them, they're locking them up in ghettos making the problem worse.

The fact that they think that ignoring the problems, compounding the problems by racism, then tapping themselves on the back for being "multicultural".

If they wake up and file charges against these Imams that openly cry for Jihad they might be able to shake off the Lame-Duck description.

You know, that might work if they were raised in the 7th Century. Unfortunately for "civilization as they know it" does not work because they're crying for a civilization that at best occured a thousand years ago, and in more reality never really existed.

I think i'm at least slightly more sympathetic than you seem to be assuming here...

I'm at least nominally an American, a member of the lucky sperm club born into relative prosperity in the first world. But i'm enough of a cultural outsider to see that it's that luck that's primary to me having an American ID, and not some ontological difference between me and others.

So yes, i understand that our nation has a different national mythos (a term i use as a non-perjorative description of the world-view and sense of history and kinship that produces ethnic or national idenity) and historical character than al-queda does.

But they both form in reaction to imperial power...the difference is that we do so by usurpation, the redefining of primarily British values as now "American" values. We look fairly similar, and later become allies, etc.

They too are reacting to imperial presenece, but do not do so from within, and so have a very different vocabulary and appearance. But functionally, they still have to mediate the process of being on the outs with the major world power of the day.

So how do we respond? I don't think the answer is to say there's no difference between us...and that it's all basically the same. I don't think that.

But there's a claim that seems to be substrate to our discussion here that they will understand violence. I don't know that they will. As i tried to say, we didn't "understand" their violence on 9/11. We reacted against it.

They didn't "understand" our actions previously, and they do not "understand" our actions in Iraq now. Violence, like other forms of communication, is proving to be fairly unintelligible.

War alledges that it provides a resolution to dispute, whose authority is not external to it's nature...namely that war really decides things in a way that other dispute resolutions cannot. But the failure of war to provide this irrefutable resolution to the cultural conflicts between western nationalism and Arab unrest seems to me to be rather damning of it as a authoritative tactic.

I'm asking...what does work? We have these cartoons being used by both sides to reinforce the boundaries of both groups. Is that desirable? Are we content to fire back at one another? Because the promise of violence and escalation to relieve the tension is an empty one.

Which governments are condoning the violent protests? Which schools, which press? Do you even consume any Middle Eastern media? I do, and I can tell you I've not seen ANYONE OF THEM condoning the violence.

Which is strange, seeing as that is what the cartoons themselves have done.

There are a number of other issues here that need to be considered:

1. Why were there no protests when the cartoons were originally published in September 2005? Why did things only heat up once the cartoons were republished in January 2006? Why were they republished?

2. Why did the same newspaper refuse to publish cartoons satirising Jesus in 2003? What happened to 'freedom of speech' then?

3. Why has the editor of Jyllands-Posten who originally published the cartoons been ordered on a 'leave of absence' after saying he would publish the Iranian cartoons satirising the Holocaust?

Iran? They think this whole thing is another jab at Islam by the evil zionists.

Iran is not as cut and dry as many here would like to believe.

Those who are in power right now are in the minority in a big way. The vast majority of the population is under 30 and a good portion of that is under 22. This young group don't know or even want to know about the revolution (the overthrow of the Shah). They are mostly concerned with music and partying. They barely register in the vote... and yet they are the majority.

Give it 10 to 15 years and these young, materialistic party-goers are going to grow up, have jobs and still want the freedoms they currently enjoy. They will bring about the change.

Currently, the vast majority of those who are protesting in the streets are connected with the current corrupt government that resides in power. The protests are not a natural grassroots thing. They are organized political propaganda (for lack of a better word). Just another way of thumbing their nose at the west.

Ten to fifteen years and time is ticking.

I'm with Charlatan I believe on this.

First up, I'm not keen on some of the teachings that I hear from Islam. I'm unimpressed also by the behaviour of many of it's followers.

Having said that, I feel that we need to put this in context. The countries in which much of this unrest is occuring seem to have

- high levels of poverty
and/or - non-democratic government (and associated media ownership issues)
and/or - lower levels literacy and exposure to science/philosophy etc.
than we have in the west

These people have not seen the same debates as us. Their experience, knowledge and culture is different - they are unlikely to have effective access/understanding of English news sites for example. At the same time, they are physically closer to the Palestine-Israel conflict. They see the more questionable aspects of "western" policy and military interventions first-hand.

Even then, we are still seeing riots carried out by a minority. There are groups of people in all countries who are capable of bad behaviour. Look at the situation during Katrina, during LA riots, the mini riots here in Au (Cronulla beach).

It seems to me that a key factor behind the current situation is that communication networks have made local messages global in reach - but there has not been an equivalent interplay, averaging effect or balancing of beliefs at this time.

More from those crazy cats in the religion of pieces...
 

Cleric Offers $1 Million to Kill 'Cursed Man'