MESA Nostra's Juan Cole weighs in on the Cartoon controversy in this article from Reuters.
Juan Cole, a professor of history at the University of Michigan, said in a commentary on his Web site that the current controversy "must be understood in historical context.""Most Muslim societies have spent the past two centuries either under European rule or heavy European influence and most colonial masters and their helpmates among the missionaries were not shy about letting local people know exactly how barbaric they thought the Muslim faith was," he wrote.
COLONIAL SCARS
"Indeed, the same themes of Aryan superiority and Semitic backwardness in the European 'scientific racism' of the 19th and early 20th centuries ... led to the Holocaust against the Jews. ... A caricature of a Semitic prophet like Mohammad with a bomb in his turban replicates these racist themes ...
"Semites were depicted as violent and irrational and therefore as needing a firm white colonial master for their own good," Cole wrote.
John Esposito, a professor at Georgetown University and author of "What Everyone Needs to Know About Islam and Unholy War: Terror in the Name of Islam," agrees that there is nothing in the faith that makes its adherents prone to reacting differently to ridicule.
Martin Luther King Jr., he said, once called riots the voice of the voiceless.
"From my point of view this is a lot more about the context in which this is occurring than about the blasphemy," he said in an interview.
"It's a European context in which you have a growing right wing that is anti-immigrant and a global situation in which mainstream Muslims feel there is a war against Islam," Esposito said.
At the same time many Muslims around the world feel "a sense of powerlessness both within their own countries and, as well, in the international community that exacerbates the situation," he said."
How about Muslims love to see themselves as victims.
Of Cole and Esposito, the best definition is a quote from the famous nineteenth-century liberal John Bright: "He may not know that he is ignorant, but he cannot be ignorant that he lies." That Esposito in particular is lying, speaking without even checking his facts, merely raising bogeys, should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about Europe.
A longer version of this article appears on Yahoo (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20060212/ts_nm/religion_cartoon_faiths_dc_1) (as I saw on LGF).
As I posted there, especially fascinating is all the discussion this article generated on Yahoo: almost 1200 comments in just 7 hours.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20060212/ts_nm/religion_cartoon_faiths_dc_1
http://post.news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=NEWS&action=l&ft=1&board=37138445&sid=37138445&title=Mohammad%20cartoon%20protests%20aren%27t%20unique%20to%20Islam&tid=nmreligioncartoonfaithsdc&date=02-12-2006&url=story.news.yahoo.com%2Fnews%3Ftmpl%3Dstory%26u%3D%2Fnm%2F20060212%2Fts_nm%2Freligion_cartoon_faiths_dc_1&.sig=KzwIUXG_2cBPFTYJjzOqug--
If it's safe to assume that Yahoo is attracting more of a mainstream slice of readers to their discussion boards, I think the news is good. The mainstream reader seems to be a lot more hip to reality than the mainstream media--perhaps it's because so many people have purchased Robert's latest book!
This quote from msg 1158 was especially telling:
Now here's someone GW Bush should meet with.
It is not these cartoons of mohammed that are cause of the fury in the muslim world. Mohammed character, as his life clearly shows, was one of theft, debauchery and mass murder.
What muslims or muslim religious leaders to be more precise, are trying to do in this cartoon affair, is to pre-empt the truth of mohammed's character coming out for general view. They know that if they do not stop this here and right now, it won't be long before a thorough examination of mohammed's life and general character would be under the microscope. It does'nt surprise me one whit that the imams would not like this, and hence this outrage, which has been carefully orchestrated, over a few cartoons.
Cole and Esposito, the Pusillanimous Emperors of Taqiyya, each with his little fiefdom and admiring Mohammedans, you have no clothes. It's true, you're naked. But never mind, strut proudly down the street, let the snickering infidels have their laugh. You deserve it.
Esposito doesn't bite the hand that feeds him:
Saudi 'prince' Al Waleed has just 'donated' twenty million dollars to Georgetown university and Esposito has been known to be on the Saudi payroll for quite some time.
Juan Cole seems to be on the take too, just like that other "under-stander of Islam" Mark LeVine.
Now these treasonous creatures may be despicable enough in their own right and deserve everything that's coming to them, because sooner or later there will be purges and traitors like these will be held accountable for their deliberate enemy propaganda and misinformation.
But what spooks me the most is this:
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/World/religion/news_stories;_ylt=Anyj1.7Sw1kLv.3mwoB0iuKGOrgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2ZGZwam4yBHNlYwNmYw--/*http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran_2
Rice of course, is a most serious 'under-stander' of Islam.
She came out real 'aggro' during "Koran-rage:"
"Disrespect for the holy Koran will never be tolerated in the US of A..."
She displayed mind-boggling stupidity then and she does it again now...
Sheik Yo-mama
that link doesn't work?
Sorry:
This link should work:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060212/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iran_2
DP111, thanks a lot. I have not considered your point. You might be totally right. If the cartoons induce the West to examine Mo’s life, the West will learn the truth about his bestiality. If so, this might be the beginning of the end. We need more cartoons. Actually, the graphites will also do. I might get my photoshop out and become creative, too.
"European influence and most colonial masters...letting local people know exactly how barbaric they thought the Muslim faith was," [Cole] wrote.
Interesting how when Cole talks about "context," it is only the part of the situation that allows him to portray Europeans as the bad guys that is relevant. Does he know the history of Islam?
Secondly, I'm tired of reading or hearing people whine about "insults" to Islam. Doesn't anyone care about facts? Doesn't this guy care whether or not the Muslim "faith" truly is barbaric? Has he read the Koran? If not, what makes him think he has any basis for commenting on it?
"A caricature of a Semitic prophet like Mohammad with a bomb in his turban replicates these racist themes..."
According to this logic, if you depict the association between bombs and Islam, an association that Islamists themselves made, then you are racist. When the word racist is thrown around like this, it is no wonder the word no longer means much and is, unfortunately, regarded with extra suspicion in true cases. As for interpretation of the cartoons, does anyone seriously believe that the cartoonist was a racist? Without knowing the artist's intent--and this is necessary for ambiguous images--this interpretation falls flat as a projection of Coles'. The cartoonist, interviewed, said the cartoon was directed at Islamist suicide bombers who use the prophet, not all Muslims. (A better case could be made that Cole is the racist, due to his unfounded assumptions about the cartoonist).
As for Esposito, I agree with Paolo. There is no way Esposito doesn't know he's lying.
"At the same time many Muslims around the world feel "a sense of powerlessness both within their own countries and, as well, in the international community that exacerbates the situation," he said.""
A sense of powerlessness due, ultimately, to the teachings of Mohammad. If it weren't for Mohammad's militaristic adventurism, imperialism, and totalitarian model, the Islamic countries would not be in the condition they are in now. The west tries to bring democracy, but Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine all choose Mohammadan totalitarianism, and they tell us "freedom is western terrorism". And it's those same Mohammadan teachings that inspired Islamists to attack the U.S. on 9/11, which is what brought the U.S. and its allies back into Muslims' lives. When will they start taking responsibility for their own condition, and start the much-needed criticism of Islam?
Powerlessness? Non-Muslims living in non-Muslim countries cannot even criticize Islam clearly and publicly without risking death threats. Islamists through threat have imposed their blasphemy laws on much of the non-Muslim world's public discourse (internet excepted!).
Juan Cole has inadvertently hit the nail on the head: the Moslem world has a 'sense of powerlessness'. Rapists and violent criminals likewise have a 'sense of powerlessness' that they find intolerable. But I don't feel we have to allow ourselves to be raped and murdered.
I have traveled extensively in the Moslem world and I have yet to hear expressed a Moslem sense of 'good and evil' in any way equivalent to the Western notions of these concepts. Hallal and haram (allowed and forbidden)is as far as most Moslem moral thought goes. I know how outrageous this sounds - but a personal morality is incomprehensible to a Moslem fundamentalist.
Don't forget to direct people to the comic book titled: "Mohammed's Believe It or Else!"
http://www.islamcomicbook.com/
"Juan Cole, a professor of history at the University of Michigan, said in a commentary on his Web site that the current controversy "must be understood in historical context.""
No amount of historical context can justify why someone would kill and riot, threaten genocide, and demand beheadings over cartoons. Juan Cole is just trying to confuse the issue. The protesters aren't protesting colonialism and U.S./British-led occupation. They might do that on anther day, but that's not what this controversy is about. They are protesting cartoons of the prophet. There no way to escape this basic fact, and that's why this whole affair is so absurd. The same thing happened with the Salman Rushdie affair, which happened before the first Gulf War. Going back to the beginning, the same thing happened when Mohammad and his zealous followers executed and assassinated critics and satirists. This Islamic tradition predates any contact with Europeans.
sheik yer'mami!
The not so subtle threat of violence in your fourth paragraph above sounds very Islamic to me. In a free country like the United States we don't "purge" people for expressing their opinion and "hold people accountable" during wartime for parroting the propaganda of the government about "peaceful" Islam. Sounds to me like you might have been raised as a Muslim. Old habits die slowly.
"Most Muslim societies have spent the past two centuries either under European rule or heavy European influence and most colonial masters and their helpmates among the missionaries were not shy about letting local people know exactly how barbaric they thought the Muslim faith was"
Sorry man - that just doesnt wash.
What about the Indians? Weren't they ruled for a few hundred years by the Brits?
Has there been *any* Hindu bomb attacks agaist innocent civilians in London, ever?
And the Irish were under the rule of the British for 800 years, and the Brits weren't shy about telling the Irish what they thought of them.
And what about all those African countries? Dont they count?
All the above had grievances , and in a lot of cases, grievances far far worse than what went on in the Middle East.
Heck, the Middles really wasnt conquered entirely - Saudi never was, and the Ottoman Empire was around until 1922. Jordan , Syria, Palestine , Iraq and Egypt only came under the mandate of the British/French after World War 1 in the 1920s.
You want context? Here, have some context (note that European "colonists" are not involved):
Will Durant, the famous historian summed it up like this:
"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within."
Koenraad Elst , the German historian writes in "Negation in India":
"The Muslim conquests, down to the 16th century, were for the Hindus a pure struggle of life and death. Entire cities were burnt down and the populations massacred, with hundreds of thousands killed in every campaign, and similar numbers deported as slaves. Every new invader made (often literally) his hills of Hindus skulls. Thus, the conquest of Afghanistan in the year 1000 was followed by the annihilation of the Hindu population; the region is still called the Hindu Kush, i.e. Hindu slaughter. The Bahmani sultans (1347-1480) in central India made it a rule to kill 100,000 captives in a single day, and many more on other occasions. The conquest of the Vijayanagar empire in 1564 left the capital plus large areas of Karnataka depopulated. And so on.
"As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)."
Hulequ Khan-
The attempted annihilation of India by Imperialistic Islam must be "put into context".
Those people would have all been dead by now, whether Islamic hordes had invaded then, or not. After all it was hundreds of years ago, and no human being has ever lived longer than about 140.
So, in effect, Islamic invaders were just doing exactly what Nature and Nature's God would have done, just in a different manner. (And prevented a lot of Alzheimer's probably.)
Looked at dispassionately, the Islamic terrorizers in India were "natural" and "like "God", in that they brought to a group of people, who did not understand such a concept, the glories of monotheism and the happy possibility to convert. (Or die.)
Which is more of a chance than Natures gives any of us. (Although research into replenishing the ends of the the telomere "death fuse", and deeper insights into the SIR2 gene is looking hopeful.)
Thus, the Mohammedan killers were "moderate". ("No one gets out of here alive" when Mother Nature has her way.)
And, thus, we should really be thankful they didn't kill every Hindu. (Although they did a more serious number on the easier-to-kill Buddhists. But, Buddhists are trying to escape this "world of suffering", so the Muslims actually did them a favor.)
All in all, "context" puts this old mass-murder in a new light.
Islam looks pretty good.
Just like John Wayne Gacey, in costume.
Hulequ Khan-
As I'm sure Messers. Cole and Esposito would agree, the attempted annihilation of the people of India by Imperialistic Islam must be "put into context".
Those folks would have all been dead by now, whether Islamic hordes had invaded their land, or not.
After all it was hundreds of years ago, and no human being has ever lived longer than about 140.
So, in effect, Islamic invaders were just doing exactly what "Nature and Nature's God" would have done, just in a different manner. (And prevented a lot of Alzheimer's probably.)
Looked at dispassionately, the Islamic terrorizers in India were "natural" and "like "God", in that they brought to a group of people, who did not understand such a concept, the glories of monotheism and the happy possibility to convert. (Or die.)
Which is more of a chance than Natures gives any of us. (Although research into replenishing the ends of the the telomere "death fuse", and deeper insights into the SIR2 gene is looking hopeful.)
Thus, the Mohammedan killers were "moderate". ("No one gets out of here alive" when Mother Nature has her way.)
And, thus, we should really be thankful they didn't kill every Hindu. (Although they did a more serious number on the easier-to-kill Buddhists. But, Buddhists are trying to escape this "world of suffering", so the Muslims actually did them a favor.)
All in all, "context" puts this old mass-murder in a new light.
Islam looks pretty good.
Just like John Wayne Gacey, in costume.
I have never heard of a clear and present assimilation of "not-so-free and fearful Moderate Muslims" with an allegiance only to America and one flag, to its laws and Constitution, without having Murder Inc. looking for them.
It is very unlikely to edit the Quran's "perfect infallible words of Mohammed and friends" their so-called words of Allah, to freely Analyzing the history and character without a purge, a mass murder, a war, etc.
Saudi's have sanctified this creation, a terrorist manifesto of Mohammed's Allah of the Arab Quran.
Perhaps, in Saudi there may be so-called moderate Muslims that CANNOT be dominated by the sword, that haven't been murdered, or assimilated by more devout Muslim terrorist preaching from the same "absolute words" of The Arab Quran?
All Muslims, I believe, are instructed from birth to death, only Mohammed speaks for Allah and the Quran is the blessings of the Allah of Peace Loving Islam and to India in massive conversions from life to death, leaving 10's of millions without their heads.
It is predicated on many contradictions to obfuscate Murder Inc., for it is truly a terrorist manifesto as it continues to purge the world of all nonbelievers/kaffir by using "sanctified Arab traditions" rape, rage, rob, terrorize. Look around you, Islam has managed to just that, to murder continuously for the last 1400 years.
Hulequ Khan-
As I'm sure Messers. Cole and Esposito would agree, the attempted annihilation of the people of India by Imperialistic Islam must be "put into context".
Those folks would have all been dead by now, whether Islamic hordes had invaded their land, or not.
After all it was hundreds of years ago, and no human being has ever lived longer than about 140.
So, in effect, Islamic invaders were just doing exactly what "Nature and Nature's God" would have done, just in a different manner. (And prevented a lot of Alzheimer's probably.)
Looked at dispassionately, the Islamic terrorizers in India were "natural" and "like "God", in that they brought to a group of people, who did not understand such a concept, the glories of monotheism and the happy possibility to convert. (Or die.)
Which is more of a chance than Natures gives any of us. (Although research into replenishing the ends of the the telomere "death fuse", and deeper insights into the SIR2 gene is looking hopeful.)
Therefore, the Mohammedan killers were "moderate". ("No one gets out of here alive" when Mother Nature has her way.)
And, thus, we should really be thankful they didn't kill every Hindu. (Although they did a more serious number on the easier-to-kill Buddhists. But, Buddhists are trying to escape this "world of suffering", so the Muslims actually did them a favor.)
All in all, "context" puts this old mass-murder in a new light.
Islam looks pretty good.
Just like John Wayne Gacey, in full costume.
Hulequ Khan-
As I'm sure Messers. Cole and Esposito would agree, the attempted annihilation of the people of India by Imperialistic Islam must be "put into context".
Those folks would have all been dead by now, whether Islamic hordes had invaded their land, or not.
After all it was hundreds of years ago, and no human being has ever lived longer than about 140.
So, in effect, Islamic invaders were just doing exactly what "Nature and Nature's God" would have done, just in a different manner. (And prevented a lot of Alzheimer's probably.)
Looked at dispassionately, the Islamic terrorizers in India were "natural" and "like "God", in that they brought to a group of people, who did not understand such a concept, the glories of monotheism and the happy possibility to convert. (Or die.)
Which is more of a chance than Natures gives any of us. (Although research into replenishing the ends of the the telomere "death fuse", and deeper insights into the SIR2 gene is looking hopeful.)
Therefore, the Mohammedan killers were "moderate". ("No one gets out of here alive" when Mother Nature has her way.)
And, thus, we should really be thankful they didn't kill every Hindu. (Although they did a more serious number on the easier-to-kill Buddhists. But, Buddhists are trying to escape this "world of suffering", so the Muslims actually did them a favor.)
All in all, "context" puts this old mass-murder in a new light.
Islam looks pretty good.
Just like John Wayne Gacey, in full costume.
Type Key gone bananas, clearly.
Sorry for the glitchy multiple postings..
Juan's point about colonialism (from non-Muslims) is untrue. Most of the Muslim lands were under the control of the Ottoman Empire and were never colonized by non-Muslims.
Juan simply ignores Muslim colonization of Sudan and other areas of Africa, Arab colonization of Kurdish lands, Muslim occupation of Greece and Serbia in spewing his nonsense.
"Tom" posted:
"...The not so subtle threat of violence in your fourth paragraph above sounds very Islamic to me. In a free country like the United States we don't "purge" people for expressing their opinion and "hold people accountable" during wartime for parroting the propaganda of the government about "peaceful" Islam. Sounds to me like you might have been raised as a Muslim. Old habits die slowly..."
'Tom', I don't know where you coming from and I haven't seen you post here before, but I'll say this:
In times of war, (and WE ARE AT WAR!) those who aid and abet the enemy are held accountable. Those who engage in sedition, subversion and outright treason (like these 'nice' uni-professors above) should, and probably will, pay for spouting enemy propaganda. Freedom is not free, and there are enough laws to prosecute traitors. You have a problem with that? You think that makes me 'been raised as a muslim?"
I don't know what your agenda is, but you don't sound kosher to me mate....
Juan Cole seems to blur the distinction between Jews and Arabs by using the 'Semitic' moniker. The Arabs are doing the same to clear themselves of being anti-Semitic. Ironically, the Jews could do the same...
DP 111: " They know that if they do not stop this here and right now, it won't be long before a thorough examination of mohammed's life and general character would be under the microscope."
It is amazing that the level of fear is so great that the intellectual world is afraid to provide a thorough examination of Muhammad's life and general character.
There is a tremendous amount of false information about the life of Muhammad.
Muslims can't be trusted to provide an objective look at the life of Muhammad.
I can't wait for Dr. Spencer's next book about Muhammad.
Koenraad Elst , the German historian writes in "Negation in India":
"As a contribution to research on the quantity of the Islamic crimes against humanity, we may mention that the Indian (subcontinent) population decreased by 80 million between 1000 (conquest of Afghanistan) and 1525 (end of Delhi Sultanate)." Posted by: Hulegu Khan
This cannot be all. After all, the Moghul empire then followed from 1526 to 1761, and the jihad continued. While the Jiziya tax was suspended under Emperor Akbar, he did commit massacres of Hindus during his campaigns, and the Moghuls were in a major campaign mode all the time. Does Herr Elst mention how many million Hindus were massacred overall? Note that 1000AD was not when all that started - the Arabs under Mohammed bin Qasim invaded India and managed to conquer Sind, but were repelled by Rajput rulers when they tried further (and Sind itself was temporarily liberated shortly afterwards). In that attack, however, the number killed would have been a 'mere' thousands, much like the number killed in the 1947 partition of India.
I am convinced that most Muslims have never read the Qur'an. They believe what their imams tell them, and read only the "recommended" literature.
Hence we have a dichotomy between "moderates" who genuinely believe in "beautiful Islam" and the jihadists who believe, and practice, the real Islam.
What other explanation could there be when apparently sincere Muslims, abhoring terrorism, write stuff like this?
AN OPEN LETTER TO MUSLIMS ONLY
(Read And Circulate Message For Peace)
Dear Muslim Brothers and Sisters,
God forbid if any one of our near one and dear one is killed then the killer is evil, a beast and what not and should get penalty but if one among us kills anybody then he is not evil and we start lying, denying or even justifying the killing.... double standards?
Being Muslims, many of our brothers and sisters are not working for peace. They are misguided, mistaken and spreading the virus of hatred and revenge through telling deliberate lies, disinformation and false accusations, which is resulting in death and miseries for number of innocent people living around the world at the hands of merciless KILLER MUSLIMS and also bringing bad name to Mohammed (PBUH) who never killed anyone in his life time.
Yeah, right.
http://www.islam-watch.org/Others/MuslimPeaceMessage.htm
There are those who really believe this stuff. I wonder how fast they would/could be flipped to provide more "soldiers of Allah".
Juan Cole, a professor of history at the University of Michigan, is probably in the news book out on all the lefty profesors, which includes the guy who thinks he's an Indian, Ward Churchill.. these scum are labelled, and parents sending their kids to schools should be more selective on where they go!