Well, when the MSM in America starts losing scribes to the Moslem-Flu; i.e., slashed throats and explosive SUV's maybe then they will stop petting their favorite pet PC liberal cause with such insane abandonment.

What I simply don't undersdyand is why the media and political elites feverishly care for, defend and promote their (the LIBERALS) future executioners.

I actually say sometimes that we deserve what Moslems are all so willing to thrust upon us.

Posted by: Anthony at October 14, 2005 2:16 AM

Threats like this or worse?

Shit Yemeni,

I'm not really concerned with and for your tenacious hate for a great prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of Allah (Subahaanu Wata Alaa ) be upon him)

And your Ali Sini is fake, I have chased him all over the net and could get to him for a normal and peaceful-moderated debated, I know now, some time later some had dealt him a blow and i don't mean put a bomb under his car seat..(get your head examined..you hate is so contemptuously blinding.. no wonder someone of you sound like Goldstein, Fowler, Zawaheri, pat Robinson and the demagogue..!

So I see you can debate, don't have an iota of idea..(except profusely foul language), what do you lack knowledge, ability to reason, what are you...! you can even say that your faith is..?
Ooh I, your sugar day Dick Spencer has not permit you to disclose your true identity...!

There is no point of beating a dead horse..that is how the saying goes..down here in the lone start sate..!
Ciao Amigo, coz I can’t waste no more time on you..!

Posted by: Kahenn at October 13, 2005 07:28 AM

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 14, 2005 2:46 AM

"The newspaper has been accused of deliberately provoking and insulting Muslims by publishing the CARTOONS. The newspaper urged CARTOONISTS to send in drawings of the prophet, after an author complained that nobody dared to ILLUSTRATE his book on Mohammed. The author claimed that ILLUSTRATORS feared that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed."

The newspaper should have invited ILLUSTRATORS to send in benign depictions of what they thought Mohammad might actually have looked like. Had they done so, they could have easily withstood charges that such depictions insult Islam, and could also have made it quite clear, that in Denmark, a Western country to which many Muslims have immigrated, the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed is a Muslim belief to which non-Muslim Danes are not bound. And they could also have made it equally clear that violent retribution, or threats to that effect, against the illustrators or the newspaper's staff violates Denmark's established and codified laws.

But by soliciting and printing CARTOON depictions of Mohammed, they did, IMO, insult Muslim sensibilties. At least one of the cartoonist actually agreed that this stunt was provacative.

Of course, the Muslims over reacted, as predicted, and I do hope that the newspaper does not issue an apology. But its managers made a poor tactical decision which lost them the high ground and some of their strategic credibility.

If an army loses enough battles, it will eventually lose the war.

Posted by: PRCS at October 14, 2005 2:53 AM

PRCS,

I disagree with your tactical high ground argument. Muslims need to show not only that they can accept benign depictions of Mohammed, but that they can also accept critiques and lampoons of Mohammed without resorting to violence or threats of violence. They may gripe and bitch as much as they want of course (though it would do their culture good to loosen up); that's part of free expression. But that's it. They have to learn to swallow their pride and supremacy in a multi-cultural world.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 14, 2005 3:10 AM

Dr. P,

Baby steps.

Benign depictions first, accompanied by a clear admonition that Muslim beliefs do not trump the established laws, and the free speech notions, of the Western nations to which they've immigrated.

Force THEM to challenge that, first, and then keep THEM on the defensive.

Lampooning comes later.

Step, by calculated step.

Posted by: PRCS at October 14, 2005 4:01 AM

Talk about taking the "micky" out of Islam, I'm still amazed that "Team America" managed to get an airing.

Apart from Bruce Willis in "Tears of the Sun" (which Muslims also tried to ban), Team America has been the most accurate movie to date on Islam (and it was incredibly funny - ignoring the foul language and the like).

For brave comedians there is SO MUCH material when it comes to Islam. From the Koran's Biology lessons, to the Koran's idea of freedom and double speak.

Maybe that's what Islam is afraid of - even in this case, that comedy will cut too close to the bone of truth of what Islam is.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at October 14, 2005 4:19 AM

If it wasn't true, Islam would be one big black comedy!

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at October 14, 2005 4:21 AM

Koranoid.

That's what those guys are; so brainwashed by the Koran that they become paranoid.
And that's the title of a new non-dhimmi book released in Norway - google it to find out more.

Something actually happening to dhimmitude in Scandinavia?

Posted by: rahel at October 14, 2005 4:34 AM

Where are John Cleese, Michael Palin and the other Pythons when we need them?
Mohamet Python's Flying Circus now airing on
Al-Jezeera TV see your local listings for times.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at October 14, 2005 5:49 AM

What caricature of Mohammed (Pig's Blood Upon Him)could be more offensive to Moslims than the actual person was/is to humanity in general?

Posted by: islamophobic pride at October 14, 2005 6:24 AM

I wish I could see a time in the near future when Monty Python actually wrote something along the lines of "Life of Brian" except with the core focus being on Mohammed & Islam, but I doubt it will come to pass.

The Wests comedians, particularly in the UK are utter cowards.

They must see the rich comedic target environment
that Islam presents them?

I laughed my tits off at Life of Brian - still do, & could imagine some of the scenes that could be written about Islam / Mohammed.

Denmark, like the rest of us, must learn from these initial scrapes.

Posted by: albion at October 14, 2005 7:15 AM

Life without Laughter is Islam.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at October 14, 2005 7:53 AM

Albion, I hope your tits have recovered. I too loved Life of Brian but, it was my arse that I laffed off.

Posted by: JanuaryMan at October 14, 2005 8:35 AM

Threats agianst writers and artists constitutes not just a threat against the individuals concerned but an attack on freedom of expression and democracy. As such it is an act of sedition and should be treated as such.

More then any punishment whether life imprisonment or even harsher, it is deportation that really hurts the ummah. Yet deportation is not considered a really harsh punishment by us. So deportation is the way to go.

Posted by: DP111 at October 14, 2005 9:14 AM

This really bothers me.

I have made my living in the past as an illustrator (as my moniker probably implies) and have had a great interest in this article ever since I heard about it and since my awareness of Islam arose. I am a visual person and take great pride in my being able to put onto paper the images in my head, but the thought that someone (either a person or a group of people, i.e. Muslims) would try to stifle such creative endeavors says volumes about the mental backwardness of Islam’s followers and how they wish to oppress our freedoms and impose their restrictions upon the world.

Baby steps be damned –hasn’t 1400 years been long enough for these high-and-mighty barbarians to crawl their way out of their primordial ooze while the rest of the world enjoys such simple things as indoor plumbing and the like? To think that anyone should walk around the Muslims as if they’re treading on eggshells is stupid and only self-enforcing the dhimmi status that these historic relics of a ‘people’ have imposed upon others. To apologize for a cartoon is to agree that they are worthy of being put upon a pedestal and I, for one, don’t believe they’re worthy of anything other than mockery and ridicule.

Every single time they claim to be the victim (and it happens all of the time) because of someone in a democracy enjoying their rights and speaking freely, we need to blatantly throw these images and more up in front of them, point a finger at them and laugh –because it’s something their pea-sized brains are unable to do: laugh at themselves they cannot.

Every single time violence is done, the rest of the world must put forth a mirror so that when they begin spouting off at how they are victims, they see themselves, and the rest of the world must be made aware of the atrocities being done in the name of their God.

Of course, much of this is difficult to do, but through cartoons (more specifically, editorial cartoons) these acts of violence and atrocities against mankind can be exposed for the evils they truly are, and if a Muslim takes offense to it, then that’s just too bad for them. I would feel sorry for them if they didn’t deserve it so damn much.

In retaliation, the newspaper should up the ante …call for more cartoons and editorial cartoonists to come forth and submit their interpretations of Islam (not just Mo) and get their political and religious views out there amongst the general populace and bring a better understanding to the common man about the horrors happening around the world due to this maniacal cult which has passed itself off as a religion for much too long. Only the Muslims react with violence and hate and anger –if they’re so worthy of our respect, then why not retaliate by publishing their own editorial cartoons about how terribly oppressed they are by the infidels? No, instead their mantra is “kill, kill, kill!” How should we show any respect towards that? They’re simply a child having a tantrum and a parent shouldn’t give in to bratty children who throw fits, but give them a good smack across the hind quarters, instead.

If guards are needed to protect against the crazed Muslim masses, so be it, but that should just bring forth more and more cartoonists and cartoons and, in turn, more knowledge. You’ll slowly witness people waking up to the evils of Islam. The more stirred up the Muslims become, the more it should dawn on regular people that their fanaticism is unparalleled and their restrictive ideals are made apparent.

There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There is no self-questioning in Islam and there is no growth in Islam …other than the growth that cancer cells have on their host. If we continue down the path we’re currently going, we’ll eventually be killed off by this parasitic infestation. Many others before us have fallen to it, so unless we grow a set, like the cartoonists and illustrators who contributed to this, we’ll likely fall, too.

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at October 14, 2005 9:23 AM

A couple of months ago I wrote this

Thursday, August 04, 2005
The Freedom of the Burqa

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2005/08/freedom-of-burqa.html

Posted by: DP111 at October 14, 2005 9:25 AM

I have not seen all of the cartoons posted in the Danish newspaper, and I do understand there is a distinction to be made between depictions of terrorists vs Mohammed in the minds of some of the latter's more moderate followers, but the contest prize winner looks like a rip-off of an editorial cartoon that appeared in an Arab newspaper shortly after the 7/7 London bombings that was included in a collection of Arab editorial cartoons up on the frontpagemag warblog site.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 14, 2005 9:44 AM

What was need to call and publish those cartoons. In stead of restraining from such unnecessary, provoking steps, the media needs to be responsible and people like infidel4ever should remain infidel for ever. They cannot understand feelings of the faithful. They at least should not be a party to hurt others.

Posted by: auditor at October 14, 2005 10:47 AM

Auditor...Possibly there are infidels who dont care one twit about hurting some poor little muslims feelings. The 'faithfuls' feelings mean little, but their actions and words mean a lot. So why are you not concerned that beheading Nick Berg (and others),911, Darfur, London bombings ect is not hurting the feelings of infidels. Why are you not castigating muslim web sites that show the beheadings that hurt infidels feelings? Why are you not challanging the janjaweed in Sudan for raping little girls and hurting everyones feelings. Yes only muslims must escape hurt feelings. They just cant take that kind of hurt...cartoons...oh how painful...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 14, 2005 11:10 AM

A picture is worth a thousand words, and those Danish cartoons capture the vicious, barbaric, Islamic mindset better than a thousand JihadWatch blog entries.

This is a threat on freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Those savage beasts should be vomited from every non-Muslim nation (i.e. with a majority of non-Muslims) that foolishly, suicidally hosts this cancer. The ban on the burqa in the Netherlands is a good start.

If the will of the people is suppressed for too long, there WILL come a time when Hitler-like leaders will be elected by an angry, desperate electorate, leaders who will promote a "final solution" to the Muslim problem, and then woe be to the peaceful Muslims, the hypocrites, the victims of the satanic cult of death.

Posted by: US_infidel at October 14, 2005 11:12 AM

auditor

The fact that you fail to understand the need to publish the cartoons speaks volumes for your beliefs.

I find your failure to understand that simple Western policy of "Freedom" offensive - but I would not ban you from speaking against it, nor would I issue death threats against you if you persist in saying it.

I believe that Muslims born into Islam under Islamic rule cannot adjust very easily in the West - when they arrive. It must be difficult to come to terms with freedom & open your mind to it fully after a lifetime of fascist indoctrination. Fascist indoctrination is not too strong for what Muslims go through - look at the Third Reich & that 30's generation - it took many years for those children to be assimilated back into the civilised world.

Those who live in the West who do not agree with freedom are "free" to leave - planes, boats & trains leave all the time.

infidel4ever

Dig the frog story. Sums the situation up nicely.

Posted by: albion at October 14, 2005 11:17 AM

reading auditors post reminds me of a saying from my elementary school days. "you can dish it out but you cant take it". bunch of anal retentive control freaks.

Posted by: dms at October 14, 2005 11:30 AM

duh:

I don't agree with Auditor, but I don't agree with infidel4ever's likening of all Muslims as frogs either. I also think this is the kind of blogging that makes Spencer want to pull the plug on the Comments section.

Clearly, the newspaper's intent was to be provocative and I'd say fairly so, given the hideous depictions that appear in Arab/Muslim media around the world of Jews, Israel, Americans etc.. Turning the spotlight back on those who are railing at this particular "insult" could have a pretty illuminating effect.

Tolerance and respect are interdependent ideals that cannot flourish indefinitely when only required of one side.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at October 14, 2005 11:42 AM

All those Danish cartoonist need to repent and draw funny pic's of jews.

Posted by: KingTesticle at October 14, 2005 11:51 AM

illustr8rg8r:

I like your views (and your craft.)

For my album "Sheik yer'mami: Winds of Jihad" I am still looking for somebody -like you-
to design the album cover, all ideas welcome!

Interested? Please let me know. You can check it out here:

http://islamcomicbook.com/lyrics.htm
----------------------------------------------------

I believe for some time yet the long suffering taxpayers of EUrabia will have to put up with stuff like this, from above:

"The ruling by the Hague District Court said the suspect's ``fundamental right'' of unlimited access to a defense lawyer and immediate access to a judge may be compromised in the United States."

In my view the citizens have much more of a right to be protected by their respective governments from terrorist attacks. The outrageous cost on the community, the buildup of resentment, fear and hatred against the Mohammedan invaders will lead to civil war and the Balkanization of Europe. Extreme measures should be taken now to prevent that.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 14, 2005 11:53 AM

waterdragon52,

"Tolerance and respect are interdependent ideals that cannot flourish indefinitely when only required of one side."

Well said! Sometimes I read the blog entries and I'm reminded of the lady captain in that movie "The Abyss" (cute, Italian surname, I forget, too lazy to google now) who says to the
nutty guy agreeing with her "Don't be on my side!".

I realize that emotions run high, but part of
being a civilized adult is controlling those emotions and guarding your tongue, or keyboard.

Being provocative is fine, but try to use a bit of wit and wisdom.

That said, "New Duranty Times" is probably over the line, in my opinion, though I understand the
counterargument.

The liberal/conservative food fight is also
rather boring. "We'll hang together or we'll hang separately", get it?

The one I wrestle with is "mohammadan", since it is deliberately rude. However, since the
individual is treated as a deity, I feel it is
accurate, and since mohammadans insist that every act of mo is pure as the driven snow, I feel I have to be provocative, having read the bio, but
not seen the movie with Anthony Quinn and the camel. So, I abuse my fingers and bang out those
extra letters.

Posted by: American at October 14, 2005 12:09 PM

"I'm still amazed that "Team America" managed to get an airing.

Actually, what saved "Team America" from our own PC censors (forget about Muslims, our own PC censors do their job of suppression for them) were the frequent scenes showing how arrogant (yet sincere in a naive sort of way) Americans are, and how ignorant they are to the dislocations and suffering they cause with their swaggering, high-tech bluster -- within that kind of framework, "Team America" was able to then take a few daring potshots at Muslims. However, if you remember, their potshots were all against Muslim terrorists: everytime they showed common Muslims (women and children in the marketplace) they were depicted as the collateral victims of the high-tech Americans doing their benighted moral policing.

Apart from Bruce Willis in "Tears of the Sun" (which Muslims also tried to ban)

Funny, I watched that movie from beginning to end and did not once think of Muslims. The director sure did a good job of camouflaging the Muslims. Unless someone knew the facts & news about Muslims in Africa and could detect extremely subtle signs of Islam in the movie, one could easily get the impression that movie was just about the horrible violence that occurs all over Africa, with or without the added Islamic element.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 14, 2005 12:12 PM

Islam 101 -- "Islam is peaceful, disagree and get killed."

Posted by: MississippiMud at October 14, 2005 12:15 PM

"I wish I could see a time in the near future when Monty Python actually wrote something along the lines of "Life of Brian" except with the core focus being on Mohammed & Islam, but I doubt it will come to pass."

Not only do we need our own Western Monty Python doing a Muslim Life of Brian -- the world also needs Islamic culture itself to evolve to that comparable point of health where it can generate an Islamic Life of Brian and a thousand other expressions like that. It seems extremely unlikely that will ever happen, of course.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 14, 2005 12:17 PM

PRCS,

I'm with illustr8tor on this one:

"Baby steps be damned –hasn’t 1400 years been long enough for these high-and-mighty barbarians to crawl their way out of their primordial ooze while the rest of the world enjoys such simple things as indoor plumbing and the like?".

We don't need to coddle Muslims and take baby steps on eggshells. We need to seize bearded, piously swaddled Imams as well as their burka-bound women into aggressive bear hugs and hurl them unceremoniously into the deep end of the pool of freedom of expression, the open society, the open mind, doubt, skepticism, questions, argument, and the splashing water and sunshine of laughter, life, love, and silliness.

Baby steps be damned. I like that. Should be a t-shirt.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 14, 2005 12:23 PM

"The newspaper has been accused of deliberately provoking and insulting Muslims by publishing the cartoons."

The original issue was an author's claim that "no one dared to illustrate his book on Mohammed out of fear that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed."

That was the claim and the issue.

But, instead of doing a little research and coming up with the following (refuting the notion, Muslim or otherwise, that depicting Mohammed is banned in Islam, but is rather a Muslim religious belief {to which non-Muslims are not bound}concerning the punishment for creating such depictions:

1678. Ibn `Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "Those who draw pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection; and it will be said to them: `Breathe soul into what you have created.'''
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

(Notably, too, any Muslim threats or acts of violence based upon this misconception could have been shown to be the acts of people ignorant of their own religious teachings).

And, instead of soliciting for, reviewing, and publishing benign depictions of Mohammed in an intelligent and carefully planned effort to test the author's assertion and to challenge irrational Muslim thinking (and actions) they chose, instead, to publish insulting cartoons.

And, instead of encouraging average Muslims to re-examine and question one of their widely held, but erroneous beliefs (a chink in their armor, a crack in the wall), they've given them, with the encouragement of their clerics, apologists and sympathizers, another reason to bitch and whine and claim victimhood.

Perhaps I'll send the editors my pistol, so that they can continue to shoot themselves in their collective feet.

Posted by: PRCS at October 14, 2005 2:20 PM

waterdragon52...I think I understand what the frog story means. But I agree that muslims are not frogs. There is little similarity actually. Frogs hop around a lot and have warts.
I have never seen a muslim hop. And warts? I dont think Allah allows them. And scientifically, frogs have the shortest sex life of any animal...they hop on, they hop off, and they croak. You will never see a muslim doing that...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 14, 2005 3:53 PM

What's wrong with insulting Moslems? They insult infidels all the time.

Posted by: Shaughn at October 14, 2005 4:40 PM

What's wrong with insulting Moslems? They insult infidels all the time.

Posted by: Shaughn at October 14, 2005 4:40 PM

I have no problem with infidel4evers saying
muslims are "comparable" to the frog in the well..

isn't that simile (or is it allegory?)

Posted by: otterfisher at October 14, 2005 7:19 PM

PRCS,

Whether the Muslims understand their own religion enough to know whether images depicting Mohammed are to be outlawed or not isn't the issue at hand, but it brings up even more cloudiness and confusion as to what Muslims are bound or not bound to, much like what they believe about jihad, the main focus of this site. Apparently it's widely enough believed by muslims and others that it's a no-no enough so as to make somewhat of a stir, though.

I also take offense that 'those who draw pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection' as I like to believe that my talent is a God-given gift and something that my creator wouldn't punish me for since it was he who originally gave it to me. It wasn't like I chose to have a talent for drawing, either -it just surfaced. Having an artistic talent doesn't mean punishment or damnation and this is typical and characteristic of a religion that only wishes to oppress.

It's going to sound really stupid, but I'm going to quote, of all things, Spider-Man: 'with great power comes great responsibility'. Yes, artists have great powers and must be very responsible with that power. They have the power to create great and stirring images, but there's also the chance to raise awareness, change minds, beliefs and thoughts. They have the power to make you laugh or to bring you to tears. They have the power and must use it responsibly, but this isn't so much a case of responsibility as much as it is using their freedoms in a democratic society to create depictions of Mohammed because of the author's claim that "no one dared to illustrate his book on Mohammed out of fear that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed." These illustrators dared and these cartoons were published.

I personally haven't seen these cartoons and don't know whether they're insulting or not, but I can't image too many cartoons that could possibly depict him in a favorable light coming from anyone who isn't a Muslim and knowing the smallest bit about the man and the religion he spawned -perhaps that's why images of Mohammed have been nixed by Muslims in the first place? It's a no-win situation, a Catch-22, to encourage Muslims to re-examine and question their beliefs when the very thing is simple depictions of their prophet. Like I said, if they haven't changed their beliefs by now after 1400 years, how is it possible to do so now??

All of this is even more reason to question Islam and its intent for humanity. All of this is even more reason to exercise your rights in countries which haven't become overrun by Islam. All of this is even more reason to mock those who see themselves above ridicule and all of this is even more reason to create more depictions of Mohammed.

What is the artist's responsibility here? Quite simply it's to draw, create, and change the minds of those who are unwilling to see the horrors unleashed on mankind by Mohammed and his followers and to open the eyes of everyone who views them.

Whatever you do, though, don't go sending them your pistol ...I'd imagine they're on edge enough as it is.

Posted by: illustr8rg8r at October 14, 2005 7:55 PM

I would hate to see what happens if the paper would put up a website to help free the women under Islam by publishing the film Submission which is hard to find on the web. After all as we come almost to one year after Van Gogh maryrdom there is still terror against those who seek to free women from Islamic bondage.

Posted by: mark52 at October 15, 2005 12:05 AM

illustr8rg8r,

Here's the original situation:

"The author claimed that illustrators feared that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed."

I believe that you're allowing the many trees to block your view of the forest.

"Whether the Muslims understand their own religion enough to know whether images depicting Mohammed are to be outlawed or not isn't the issue at hand..."

Focusing on the author's stated concern, it is fully one half of the issue at hand.

Had the newspaper printed benign depictions of Mohammed, knowledgeable Muslims would have had, to the best of my knowledge, no factual reason to protest their publication as being either deliberately provoking or of insulting Islam, for those Muslims would know that, according to their own religious beliefs (1) there is no Islamic ban on such depictions, (2) the artist will receive appropriate punishment on the Day of Resurrecion, and (3) it is not for them to mete out that punishment on this earth.

Extremist Muslims may indeed have protested the publication of benign depictions of Mohammed, but both the author and the newspaper could have then used the hadith I cited to refute the religious basis of such protestations. What sweeter victory could there have been.

Protesting extremists could have been proven wrong, and even embarassed by their own ignorance. And those illustrators not bent on insulting other people would have had their fears somewhat lessened.

You also state:

"I also take offense that 'those who draw pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection...."

You have, apparently without realizing it, addressed the other half of the author's concern.

Muslim religious beliefs concerning the punishment for creating depictions of Mohammed are just that--Muslim religious beliefs--which are irrelevant to the rest of us (you, me, Danish illustrators, newspaper staff, authors, etc.)

Had the newspaper printed benign depictions fot Mohammed, the newspaper staff, the author, and the illustrators would have been able to unequivocally state that (1) the depictions were not intended to either provoke or insult, and (2) that Muslim religious beliefs do not apply to non-Muslims.

Period.

Here's a link to the drawings.
http://pics.jp.dk/nybillede/?sek=0&id=2253

You ask, "What is the artist's responsibility here?

To submit drawings which meet the newspaper's request. That's all.

But it's not about artists or freedom of speech. The author, the illustrators, and the newspaper have not had their freedom of speech curtailed by the Danish government.

It's about the unfortunate path that the newspaper's management chose. They could have been in complete charge of this situation. They could have challenged extremist Muslims with facts. They could have won this one, hands down.

But, instead, they chose to print insulting cartoons.

They blew it.

Posted by: PRCS at October 15, 2005 12:20 AM

g8r

i would have drawn a caricature of mohammad with a six year old girl on his lap, santa claus style.

Posted by: dms at October 15, 2005 1:05 AM

PRCS,

They could have challenged extremist Muslims with facts. They could have won this one, hands down.

Extremists challenged by facts? -- that is a perfect oxymoron.
Extremist Moslems are, per definition, impervious, or beyond, facts. That is precisely what makes them extremist Moslems.

Please refer us to an instance where extremist Moslems were challenged and defeated by facts AND acknowledged their defeat. Now it is precisely the acknowledgement that is the most important thing here because without it whatever victory you had in mind is worthless.

For a party to be defeated by facts, or arguments, requires that it shares the same set of basic moral values as its opponent. Values that transcend the political or ideological interests and agenda of the parties. The supreme values for a Moslem are embedded in Koran, Hadiths and Sunnah and codified in Shariah. Now which one of them, do you think, an extremist Moslem would surrender to an even most irrefutable (in our eyes) argument from logic, or from moral, without ceasing being a good Moslem?

Had the newspaper printed benign depictions fot Mohammed, the newspaper staff, the author, and the illustrators would have been able to unequivocally state that (1) the depictions were not intended to either provoke or insult, and (2) that Muslim religious beliefs do not apply to non-Muslims.

First of all, I don’t think that anyone; the staff, the author, or illustrator should need to worry to convince the Moslems of anything as long as nothing illegal has been perpetrated. And BTW, it is the Court that we try to convince in our country - not Moslems.

Secondly, that would be a completely wrong signal. Rather, Jylland Posten should remind the Moslems that in Denmark we have a freedom, dating long before their arrival here, to make fun of any person we wish, especially one we don’t find worthy of respect. If they can’t face and accept the inalterability of that freedom then they are not welcome here and we expect them to depart.

It seems you adhere to a rather sweet belief that our Islam problem is best tackled through a long row of non-confrontational debates. Debates that we will win “hands down”, so after a sufficient number of defeats (or many “baby steps” that you evoke in your previous posting) the Moslems will slowly “see the light”, disabuse themselves of their extremist ideas and start playing according to our books. That, of course, will never happen.

“Baby steps” can never catch up with giant leaps with which Islam advances in Europe. In a generation time (and many baby steps) we will still be walking in the same pathetically small circle whose circumference is by then defined by our Moslem hosts.

Posted by: thomas. h at October 15, 2005 8:38 PM

thomas h:

Absolutely!

You can see it daily here with 'our own' Muzzie trolls KT, 1a and a few others: Never let the facts get in the way, always deflect, obfuscate and make sure the opponent gets somehow constricted in the peripherals, in semantics and 'appearances'-

No, we must not stoop to their level. We have to call the shots.We better let them know which way the wind blows.
Why don't we learn from the Koran:

"Be harsh with them and let them find firmness in you..." etc

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at October 15, 2005 8:46 PM

Well Thomas,

You wished me a nice weekend as your final post on another thread.

But having just read this most recent of your posts, I get the idea that you didn't really mean it.

It's not that you disagree with me, it's the manner and the tone of your posts.

Good night, and good bye.

Posted by: PRCS at October 16, 2005 2:42 AM

PRCS:

The depiction of the human form, cartoon or not, is forbidden in islam period, so even "respectful" portraits, especially of muhammad, would have been met with rage and indignation - and the inevitable threats of violence.

Posted by: CGW at October 16, 2005 7:54 AM

The depiction of the human form, cartoon or not, is forbidden in islam period, so even "respectful" portraits, especially of muhammad, would have been met with rage and indignation - and the inevitable threats of violence.

This is precisely PCRS's point. A respectful illustration of Mohammed would have got the same reaction as the cartoons, except that the Islamists would not have been able to hide their intolerance behind a facade of justifiable anger at the mocking of their prophet, and absurd comparisons between the newspaper and Nazis marching through Jewish neighbourhoods (see the previous thread on this subject) would be even harder to maintain.

By being childish and encouraging cartoons, the newspaper has handed a propaganda tool to the anti-freedom elements. Of course, it's still wrong that cartoons should be met with death threats or legal threats in a free society. But then it's justifiable that any religious group might be angered by a cartoon (there are just limits on how that anger can be expressed), and that grain of legitimacy can be used as a fig leaf. The newspaper has allowed the point (ie, Muslim intolerance) to be buried by being deliberately provocative. They should have published illustrations for the book, without any hint of mockery. The point is not mockery, it is defiance in the face of intimidation. The apologists for Islam should not have been given the excuse of mockery to hide behind.

Posted by: Viking5 at October 16, 2005 10:19 AM

PRCS,

Yes, I wished you good weekend on the other thread and I genuinely meant it.
I am quite sorry that "the tone and manner" of my most recent post here left you with an impression that I was insincere.

Please believe me that it was never my slightest intention to, in any way, insult, disparage or ridicule you and I sincerely regret that I have given you, however unintentionally, reasons to believe so.
Be assured that I respect you and I don't doubt your concern about and commitment to survival of our civilization regardless of our respective “tactical” differences. I know who is my ally!

Not being a native English speaker I admit that I could have overstepped certain lines of the etiquette governing civil debate. It seems to be the case here and for that I truly apologize.

Wishing you many good weekends,

Best regards,

Thomas H.

Posted by: thomas. h at October 16, 2005 1:48 PM

CGW,

"The depiction of the human form, cartoon or not, is forbidden in islam period, so even "respectful" portraits, especially of muhammad..."

Many folks are mistaken about that. I'm not sure how Qur'an thumping Muslim extremists came to believe that, but our own lazy, ignorant, MSM is certainly guilty, in large measure, of perpetuating that myth amongst the Western masses.

The 'prohibition' claim, to the best of my knowledge, has no Quranic basis.

What the Quran prohibits is idolatry, which includes human or animal depictions intended for worship in place of, or along with, Allah.

The confusion stems from several ahadith which address Allah's punishment (and his alone), on the Day of Resurrection, for those who create such depictions, one of which is:

BUKHARI:
Volume 3, Book 34, Number 428:
Narrated Said bin Abu Al-Hasan:

While I was with Ibn 'Abbas a man came and said, "O father of 'Abbas! My sustenance is from my manual profession and I make these pictures." Ibn 'Abbas said, "I will tell you only what I heard from Allah's Apostle . I heard him saying, 'Whoever makes a picture will be punished by Allah till he puts life in it, and he will never be able to put life in it.' " Hearing this, that man heaved a sigh and his face turned pale. Ibn 'Abbas said to him, "What a pity! If you insist on making pictures I advise you to make pictures of trees and any other unanimated objects."

Viking5,

"The apologists for Islam should not have been given the excuse of mockery to hide behind."

Bingo, sir, bingo!

The newspaper could have developed a logical plan to address the author's complaint in a focused and respectful manner. They could have done a little homework and reported what the Qur'an and ahadith actually say about such depictions. And they could have solicited for, reviewed, and printed only those depictions of Mohammed which would not have given those apologists the 'mockery' excuse.

Instead, the newspaper squandered the opportunity to educate its readership, both Muslim and non, and it missed a golden opportunity to challenge Muslim intimidation with Islam's own written teachings.

How the Imam and his flock would have responded to such logic will never be known, for the newspaper's management chose the road most traveled.

Here's a little gem from one Muslim to his overly pious co-religionists:

"Those who believe in the innovated ahadith which prohibit pictorial depiction of humans and animals are free to take down their own pictures themselves and to refrain from watching TV. But they should let the rest of us enjoy our pictures and TV’s in peace!"

Posted by: PRCS at October 16, 2005 2:49 PM

With all due respect to PRCS, his argument is silly and abstract.

PRCS's advice is analogous to advising mental asylum personnel to get into debates about French history with a patient who thinks he is Napoleon -- which tactic might work only under the rare and critical-emergency situation of calming that patient down while he is on a ledge about to commit suicide, or has his hands on the detonator of a bomb -- but such a tactic is silly and absurd in any other dealings with that patient.

Take a look below at this calm, reasonable, cheery advice about drawing from psychopathic obsessive-compulsive lunatics called Muslims, and ask yourself, can any rational debate or rational tactics mean anything remotely sane with these cultural mental patients?

Quote:

"We’d like first to state that there is nothing wrong in drawing as long as the images do not depict nudity or other indecent representations. Also, the picture or image should not be revered or glorified. The haram pictures and images are only those, which are worshiped and revered.

"Within these restrictions drawing humans, animals, natural scenes, etc. is permitted. What is prohibited is making a statue or a sculpture of a living being that has shade (depth or three dimensional).

"Here, we’d like to cite for you the following Fatwa:

'One may draw pictures of people, animals, etc. as long as they don’t depict anything against Islamic guidelines. It is important to understand that Muslims don't replicate 'images' because they believe that on the Day of Judgment, they will be asked to put a soul in the 'images' they made, challenging Allah’s creation. Also, they don't replicate 'images' believing that the Angels will not enter their houses. This is based on several authentic Hadiths of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him.'

"However, in the Arabic Language, what we call Sourah or commonly translated as 'image' can mean several things, and in the context of the prohibition, it means a statute or a sculpture of a living being that has shade (depth or three dimensional) and not a photographic picture."

"Happy drawing!" [-- said the irrevocable mental patient to his fellow-patients in the sun-room]

http://youth.ibn.net/qanda3.asp?ID=100

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 16, 2005 3:36 PM

Dr. P,

"Happy drawing!"

Precicely.

Posted by: PRCS at October 16, 2005 4:54 PM

PRCS,

The drawing they deem "happy" is not only unhappy, it's tragic, sick, twisted, absurd, psychopathic, puritanical, obsessive-compulsive -- and I mean all these adjectives in a bad way, not in the good way that a Salvador Dali might have breathed life into them.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 17, 2005 1:36 AM

Doc,

The statement "Happy Drawing" from that website meant 'go have fun drawing'.

That's what the author, and those artists who might illustrate his book should do.

There's no Islamic 'prohibition' or 'ban' against even Muslims creating the kind of depictions at issue.

And, of course, Islamic religious tenets are irrelevant to non-Muslim Westerners.

Those two facts should be waved, like Crusaders' banners, in defiance of the Muslim intimidation about which the author had expressed his concern.

It's disappointing that the newspaper's management didn't do that.

Posted by: PRCS at October 17, 2005 4:10 AM

PRCS,

I know that's what "happy drawing" meant. When I said "the drawing they deem 'happy'..." I was not referring to one specific drawing, but to the activity of drawing in general. Their notion of the activity of happy drawing in general is, I repeat (and amplify) -- tragic, tragic-comic, sick, twisted, absurd, silly, pathological, obsessive-compulsive, irrational, puritanical -- and as such, it is absurd to be logical with such mental patients.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 17, 2005 2:07 PM

DP,

The author claimed that illustrators feared that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed.

What ban?

And how did publishing insulting cartoons address the author's concern?

You know that only riled the inmates.

Posted by: PRCS at October 17, 2005 3:16 PM

Islam is like a vast mental hospital, with different wings.

The patients on Z-wing do insane, irrational, absurd, silly, evil things for reasons that have evolved culturally out of the sick welter of the Islamic nebula but which do not have sound grounding in the Koran or other supposedly binding texts.

The patients in M-wing do insane, irrational, absurd, silly, evil things for reasons that have sound grounding in the Koran but seem remiss with regard to some of the other supposedly binding texts.

The patients in A-wing do insane, irrational, absurd, silly, evil things for reasons that have sound grounding in the Koran and rather rigorously in the other supposedly binding texts.

There are many other wings in this vast hospital for the criminally insane called Islam, filled with patients who do insane, irrational, absurd, silly, evil things for reasons with various degrees and combinations of grounding in the Koran, the other binding texts, and culture.

The silliness of employing logic or theo-logic with any of them is the same, regardless of which wing they reside in.

Only those Muslims who have been cured of Islam or who are well on their way out, may be amenable to our logic.

Posted by: Dr. Pepper at October 18, 2005 12:27 AM

If it is not logic that will lead them out, what will?

The author claimed that illustrators feared that extremist Muslims would find it sacrilegious to break the Islamic ban on depicting Mohammed.

His concerns, and the beliefs of those Muslims who would threaten or harm him and the illustrators, are not based upon facts or valid Islamic teachings.

The unwillingness to challenge the erroneous beliefs of others, with facts, allows them to perpetuate, and act upon, such beliefs.

As near as I can tell, there is no ban.

Posted by: PRCS at October 18, 2005 3:12 PM