Home » The Muslim Cartoon “Controversy”

The Muslim Cartoon “Controversy”

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

As ever with the media, it’s timing and volume that have to be considered.

Why have they picked this moment to anger millions of Muslims in the name of ‘freedom of speech’? This moment to make it an ‘issue’ and drive it to the top of the news agenda?

This the media incapable of telling the truth about its own role in the buildup to the Iraq war, and of course the current buildup to war on Iran. The media right now constantly repeating lying slogans like ‘illegal nuclear program’?

Well, never forget the hundreds of them in the pay or under the influence of security services, usually taking the form of implicit promises of honours, influence and political patronage (but also good old blackmail, working well inhis age of advanced hypocrisy). This was demonstrated categorically in the 1970s, and we have no reason to hope things have improved in the age of the GWOT.

But they’re capable of the most astonishing self-regarding hypocrisy even when not subverted — and here we must pick out the French for special mention — the suppression of Algerian democracy by the military in 1992, after FIS won the 1990 election, was not only applauded by the European media, but they had actually agitated for it, all in the name of the rights of female ‘journalists.’ And don’t get me started on Yugoslavia (not much ‘solidarity’ with fellow journalists then)…

This is a huge deception. Some of them may be stupid and vain enough to be swept along with the tide of enthusiasm, but the beating heart of this proliferation will be journalists with security contacts, executing the instructions of their patrons.

Whether these patrons represent the official policies of their states is a different matter.

Powered by

About Chromatius

"You are not big enough to accuse the whole age effectively, but let us say you are in dissent." Thomas Merton. The Unspeakable.
  • gracefulboomer

    Um.. well I have to disagree while respecting your opinion.
    The Muslim cartoon controversy is so fraught with ignorance that it is hard to even begin to comment.
    It is simply untrue that Mohammed’s image as not been depicted in various human and spiritual forms throughout history.
    Mohammed’s image is included in the marble panels of the Supreme Court.
    His image is very evident along with the images of Napoleon, Charlemagne and other ‘historical lawgivers.’
    Mohammed’s image in paintings, icons, book covers, wood cuttings, and frieze, and even in commercial applications are numerous ..
    Iran, Russia, the French, the romantics have all commissioned beautiful icons depicting the prophet in various stages of his life.
    Mohammed has been depicted with reverence, scorn, and commercialized for centuries.
    What a powerful and destructive force political Islam has become.
    I sincerely hope that ignorant vandals do not destroy these representations in their fervor.

    For a quick look I recommend zombie time. Just click on his first listing of captured Mohammed images throughout history. Although the collection is just a sampling and in no way can convey the beauty of some of the marble statues…

    What a shame – when we can teach- that we instead find ourselves caught up in the muck of an ignorant political movement which has chosen- for whatever reason to deny its’ own cultural beauty.

  • Bing

    Christianity is ridiculed everyday in America by so called “progressives” yet we don’t see Christians chanting int he street calling for blood.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ chromatius

    I’m more interested in the timing, to be honest.

  • gracefulboomer

    Are you implying that it is not politically correct to teach Mohammed depictions throughout history at this time?
    Are you suggesting that Islam is too infantile too backward to learn?
    Are you seriously entertaining the thought that all of the civilized west should hold our knowledge to our chest and act as if this Mohammed cartoon controversy is just a misnomer?
    Would this appeasement- it can’t be taken as anything else- would this suppression of the existence of great marble statuaries, oil paintings from the Romantics, cuttings worked and commissioned hundreds of years ago, finally satisfy the so-called Arab street?
    The shame is not ours here, the shame should be put squarely on Islamic clerics who have had themselves the benefits of exposure- of education- and who are using their followers’ ignorance of their world in all of its’ rich cultural heritage to their own advantage.

  • JC

    There is more than enough stupidity to go around.

    (1) The cartoonist was stupid to not have seen that a little cartoon humor was not worth the economic turmoil and violence it could cause.

    But the cartoonist was indeed prescient if it was seen that a “bomb” would be going off in the heads of some.

    (2) Those who are overly reacting to the cartoon are stupid to resort to violence because of a cartoon.

    Boycott if you like, but violence is totally unjustified.

  • Independent and proud

    C’mon poster #2, that is a generalization.

    Nobody wants to take away Christianity. All people are saying is keep it out of government.

    Want proof that governments who force ONE religious viewpoint never succeed? Look at the Middle East for proof…

    Sorry, America is no more Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist or whatever…it’s a country that can succeed BECAUSE we don’t advocate any one religion over the other AND thank God for that.

  • syn

    In other words, the Muslim religion is demanding the infidels Submit or Die while Liberalism blindingly bends over and accepts.

  • B Moe

    The media haven’t picked this moment to anger Muslims, images of Mohammed are nothing new as others have pointed out. The question you should be asking is why have the Muslim’s picked this moment to be outraged.

  • camel face

    Gracefulboomer. I have the original marble panel of mohammed which was intended to be placed on the Supreme Court. I was told it was made of porcelain, not marble. My respect for mohammed was so great I had her porcelain image installed at the bottom of my toilet. This way I can feed her each day if Im regular.

  • gracefulboomer

    Excellent point, B Moe.
    You have with your comment ‘hit the nail on the head.’
    It is politically expedient for Islamic clerics to rile the population up at this time.
    It is, after all their absolute authority which is being challenged by reforms.
    This is not new.
    This pattern is historical and repeats itself whenever attempts at political, human rights, and empowerment reform is introduced into Islamic societies.
    As long as Islam is perceived as being under ‘attack’ by infidels suppression within their own societies can be overlooked for the ‘greater good of Islam’
    The failure of Fatah, the rise of HAMAS, calls for more accountability of the oil income and more important how the revenue among Arab nations is divided, corruption, the disparity of wealth, lack of a middle class, illiteracy etc..
    Dictators, state-run mullahs, and all those on-the-dole royal princes will have a field day with this Mohammed controversy.
    They are the only group who benefits. They always have.

  • Samuel Butler

    As if religion was intended
    For nothing else but to be mended.

    Compound for sins they are inclined to,
    By damning those they have no mind to.

    The trenchant blade, Toledo trusty,
    For want of fighting was grown rusty,
    And ate into itself, for lack
    Of somebody to hew and hack.

    — Hudibras. Part i. Canto i.

  • Bing

    Independent and proud…..

    major newspapers in America have printed pictures of things like an art piece called piss christ in which a cross is submerged in a vat of urine and other things one might consider offensive to chrisitanity but now they are refusing to print these cartoons for fear of offending muslims.

    Anyone who say’s there isn’t a double standard in America with which religions are ok to bash is a fucking moron.

  • http://thelipstickrepublican.blogspot.com Jamie

    Why the cartoons now? Because the events to which they refer are occurring now. Would it have made more sense for the cartoonists to editorialize about violence done in the name of Islam at a time when Islam was actually behaving like the “religion of peace” that we’re assured it is?

    I’m certain that most Muslims, while angry and upset that a tenet of their religion has been violated, are not about to take up arms against the Danes or those of us who support the Danes. But that there is a group of Muslims, a group not denounced by the Muslim world at large, who are willing to carry placards saying “Get ready for the real holocaust!”, is a fact we in the West must accept and for which we must prepare. A tenet of our “religion,” freedom of speech and of the press, no less worth fighting and dying for than a sacrilegious image of Mohammed, has been violated too by violent demands that non-Muslims comply with Islam.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious,com/ Richard Brodie

    Jamie: I’m certain that most Muslims, while angry and upset that a tenet of their religion has been violated, are not about to take up arms against the Danes or those of us who support the Danes.

    Of course it’s true that “most Muslims” are not going to take up arms against the Danes. If they are really 1.5 billion strong, then 750 million plus would have to be en route to Denmark!

    But with the exception of a relative handful (maybe a few lousy million) who have either been educated in the West or who have converted from non-Muslim backgrounds, it is clear that the VAST majority of muslims SUPPORT those who ARE calling for violent retaliation.

  • Vladimir

    It’s worth mentioning that when Sinead O’Connor tore up a photograph of the Pope, or when Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” made the news that Catholics did not threaten violence like these Muslims do, nor did they have critics who feel a need to bring up past injustices, real or imagined to support their behavior or make excuses regarding media focus.

    The picture of the Muslim with the khaffiyeh shrouding their face and holding a placard that says “Freedom go to Hell” speaks volumes.

  • http://www.thewezbine.com David M. Brown

    Yeah. “Timing.” What about the timing of the publication of Salmon Rushdie’s novel, or the timing of the death threat against Rushdie, or the timing of Islamo-fascism and death threats whenever they occur?

    Of course if one is offended by a cartoon, the issue is the cartoon, and one might as well question the cartoonists’ “timing” along with other aspects of the production–until and unless the result is mass demonstrations against Western freedoms, complete with repeated assertions by prayer leaders and demonstration leaders that the cartoonists and publishers should be beheaded.

    And what’s with putting the word “controversy” in scare quotes? If receiving worldwide death threats in response to satirizing a religion or its practice doesn’t count as “controversy,” I wonder what “does.”

  • Sean

    I question the timing of this entire thread

  • camel face

    Must run. It’s dinner time. Plop plop.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    I question the timing of this entire thread

    I question the timing of your questioning

  • Khan (No, Not That One)

    I time the questioning (in GMT)!

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    To reiterate: my point is not about the original cartoon, but about the orchestrated proliferation of a whole set of them across a variety of newspapers. Whose agenda benefits?

    And if you want to examine the rise of inflammatory theocratic leaderships, you are obliged to look to America. It is and was the policy of the US (and Israel), in Afghanistan, in the Middle East, to suppress nationalist and leftist revolutionary movements, and one technique was to foster religious leaders and movements instead. Thus Khomeini, thus Osama Bin Laden, thus Hamas.

    So they created an enemy more in their own image (for many of them are religious zealots), and whether they defeat these enemies or not (or even want to), they have won a ‘higher’ level victory by helping the process of reintroducing theocratic leaderships worldwide.

    So whereas 20 years ago, we faced conflicts driven by Marxian interpretations of imperialism and capitalism, we know are led to be believe we face a clash of cultures, or civilisations.

    A lie, but one becoming truer by the day.

    PS this is nothing to do with ‘freedom of speech’ which is abut the individual’s relationship with goverment and law. Clearly not the issue.

    And then there’s the Judaism/Zionism comparison – check out this article on Counterpunch:

    This whole affair is nothing but an over-reaction to a simple cartoon, you say? Not if you remember a certain other cartoon that appeared in the British newspaper, The Independent, on 27 January 2003. It depicted Prime Minister Sharon of Israel eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying: “What’s wrong? You’ve never seen a politician kissing babies before?” Jews in Britain and around the world erupted with indignation, arguably because the depiction reminded them of millennial charges levied against them by Christians who accused them of using the blood of babies in ritualistic killings. You see, Sharon can actually kill, maim and spill the real, actual blood of Palestinian babies: that is not offensive to Zionist Jews and their apologists in the West. But let Sharon be depicted in a cartoon metaphorically as the ogre that he has proved to be in his real life, symbolically eating a Palestinian child, and the world will erupt in offended indignation. A cartoon that is offensive to Muslims, on the other hand, is depicted as nothing but an expression of “free speech.” There is a word for this in any language: hypocrisy.

  • Pablo

    To reiterate: my point is not about the original cartoon, but about the orchestrated proliferation of a whole set of them across a variety of newspapers. Whose agenda benefits?

    This started with a series of cartoons in one paper. Those were commissioned by the paper in response to the inability of a children’s book author to find someone to illustrate his book about Mohammed.

    It’s about the death threats. That’s why they’re everywhere now. Other papers have reprinted them in defense of free speech. Whose agenda benefits? Mine. You see, I don’t like violently intolerant people. This has caused many of them to self-identify. That’s a good thing.

  • Pablo

    Jews in Britain and around the world erupted with indignation, arguably because the depiction reminded them of millennial charges levied against them by Christians who accused them of using the blood of babies in ritualistic killings.

    1. I wasn’t aware that the “child blood in pastries” libel was a Christian meme. I know that many muslims accept it as fact to this day.

    2. How much of the Jewish indignation resulted in boycotts, withdrawl of ambassadors and demands for beheading? Expressing indignation is one thing. Demanding that other cultures protect your values under threat of violence is another.

    3. The Guardian cartoon pales in comparison to some of the vile anti-semitic trash published in Arab media. the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

  • http://human-interface.blogspot.com/ gazelle

    The timing is meant to:

    1. promote the idea of ‘clash of civiliations’
    2. promote bin laden’s agenda of extremism
    3. hence also promote the neo-con/crusader agenda, meaning more action (regime change, neutralization) in the muslim world – possibly against hamas, iran, syria, lebanon
    4. punish the neutrality of europe (minus UK) in the iraq war in muslim perceptions
    5. divert attention of muslims from US to Europe
    6. get europe on board “against” the muslims
    7. to try to give a blow to neutrality, rationality, internationalism, and political realism
    8. it is the parting attempt of a failing extremist world policy
    9. It is the a country coming to terms with the new world, with its glass house broken

    It is a strategy ultimately designed to fail today like the war in iraq, although something similar worked successfully before the 1492 reconquista in Spain.


    do I smell the emergence of new nuances of freedom to come from the ashes that confront us?

  • http://site-essential.com Kathy K

    The original cartoons were printed months ago. As B Moe pointed out, the “timing” is not the West’s.

    The reason the other newspapers all printed the cartoons is simply in reaction to the (delayed as it was) completely ridiculous and over-the-top reaction of SOME Muslims. Not all.

    I could point you blogs by Muslims who think also that it’s ridculous and over-the-top, by the way. Start here. It’s a post by the Egyptian Muslim blogger ‘Big Pharoah’ – who is pointing to a Jordanian newspaper that published 3 of the cartoons.

  • HK

    Most people do not see the hypocrisy of the situation. The problem arose when a CHRISTIAN norwegian newspaper published the cartoons in the name of freedom of press. Right. Please show me a anti-christian cartoon that they have ever published? The other newspapers in europe published the cartoons in the spirit of freedom of press. Sure, like how europeans can talk and discuss the holocaust right now? There are laws in germany that will jail any one that even slightly criticizes anything the way the german government portrays the holocaust. I am NOT saying the holocaust didnt happen.. it DID happen and its one of those acts that shames me to call myself human at times.. My point is that the press is NOT free. Saying that the cartoons were printed to protect freedom of press is BS and its insulting to muslims. Heck, print those cartoons but then keep nothing sacred. Do not persecute some one who is a bigot, homophobe or anti-semitic. These laws were created because they were and are considered decent laws. I agree with those laws. Banning depiction of Muhammad should be part of those laws, or such laws should not exist. The problem isnt making fun of islam, the problem is creating an image of Muhammad- which is blasphemy to muslims. Such hypocrisy is not freedom of the press, it just shows the intolerance towards muslims, the racism that has been brewing in the West for years.. and its deplorable

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem


    I was trying for quite some time to pick up your true meaning in the article and your emphasis on timing. Finally at comment #21 we see your agenda – hauled from counterpunch.

    If Jews burned the British Embassy for all the anti-Jewish trash their newspapers turn out, then you could whine about Jews erupting.

    Pray that we don’t erupt, Chromatius. We have plenty of reason to erupt and plenty of vengeance to take. Eighteen hundred years worth. When I read the crap you post from counterpunch, it only reminds me of how many countries and peoples we have reason to take vengeance for our blood shed or for relentless persecution – I’m not talking about some crappy little newspaper cartoon.

    Let’s give you the short list. These are just the countries that should be destroyed because of all the Jews they’ve murdered and persecuted over that 1,800 years. They are not listed in any particular order.

    The Vatican
    White Russia
    Saudi Arabia

  • http://desicritics.org Aaman
  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    For gazelle: spot on, I’d agree with that. But how has it happened? Is it just the ebbs and flows of collective consciousness, or could a few well placed individuals have encouraged and manipulated it?

    The same kind of people who service the Bush agenda in America. (I’ll have to define here cos Ruvy will otherwise assume I mean ‘Jews’; hell, he probably will anyway) – the usual slew of neo-cons & profiteers, fellow travellers, enthusiasts and payrolled propagandists.

    My question was just how many of these payrolled propagandists would constitute a critical mass to get this thing moving (the orchestrated proliferation of the cartoons across the European media) – I’d guess no more than five.

    For Ruvy: one day we should have a public debate on these issues that doesn’t withdraw behind those defenses. Otherwise we’re storing up irrationality (and yes, violence) by not allowing rational, even and fair debate. For example: what about those angry and resentful American militia and survivalist types, with their very traditional sentiments about Judaism and global government?

    I do believe American democracy has been subverted by influence peddlers, and AIPAC is merely one of the most successful of these. To be explicit here, the model has been rolled out into areas completely unrelated to the Jewish state, where it has proved equally as corrosive. Particularly by the Christian right, whose ‘alliance’ with Zionism is purely contingent, and based in deep, quite explicit racism and very traditional anti-Jewish sentiment.

    I have to be honest, I also believe when we’ve arrived at a point that ‘global capitalism’ is considered mere code for ‘Jewish conspiracy’, and cause for the usual letter writing campaigns and influence wielding campaigns etc, we’re screwed. And that is AIPAC’s formal position.

    Now to your list – the list of Muslim victims of European violence over 1500 years wouldn’t actually be that much shorter, and would include many of the same names.

    But, more immediately, can we also generate a list of incursions, invasions, assassinations, ‘terror’ attacks, destroyed futures etc that owe themselves, at least in part, to the activity of influence peddlers – especially allied with amoral profiteers and propagandists, militarists and deluded Christian zealots and millenialists? And what of the moral and political cost of the hypocrisy we must necessarily promote and endure?

    And if we’re using these lists to arrive at value judgements, can we please add a weighting factor for those events that occurred in only the last half a century, rather than over a couple of millennia? In a period where we flatter ourself on our improved level of knowledge, historical understanding, access to information and higher flown moral rhetoric?

    And the real outcome of all this, everywhere, is the imposition of military rule on civilan populations.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    This is not about ‘freedom of expression’, which can only refer to legal relationships with the state. Which is not usually the focus of this discussion, except when people ask whether the government could or should have stopped publication.

  • bjørn erik

    I am from Norway and all you muslims out there who feel bad about the drawings. Why don’t you just draw a picture with jesus or madonna or buddha or anyone with a nucleare missile up there ass or something and well call it a draw.
    You only make a bad picture of yourself the way you are doing it now, is that so hard to see???
    And to all you priests and mullahs who sit behind and steam up the hate. you make me remember how it was beeing a child again. “i’ll kill you if you don’t” grow up and show some of this good intensions you are so good at speaking of.
    Of course many of this screaming people don’t hardly now how to read and write so theire easy meat for a carismatic leader who doesn’t want anything but a hole world following their footsteps and stop thinking for them self.
    Religion was suppose to benefit the people of this world wasn’t it?
    I dare you stop burning flags and acting like children or i’ll kill you 😉
    A smart norwegian (aksel sandemoset)once said: religion is sytematic fear and do nothing but damage

  • selma

    response to comment #32.
    not all people choose to attack other religions. i wont hide that as a muslim i find other religions very strange, but that doesnt mean i will go around sounding my feeling to the people who believe in that very religion. tolerance is needed…from us muslims and all other religions and people. the cartoons are offensive to our religion, we are not asking for people to repress their feelings. it is just a call for those with negative comments about any religion or belief, to know the difference between freedom of speech and crossing the line. freedom of speech was meant to give a voice to people, to protect them from the government or any opposing positions…it was not meant to cause hatred among people. as a muslim i do not agree with all the calls to murder that have happening. i do not enjoy seeing my fellow muslims acting in extrems, but i also do not enjoy seeing people with other beliefs disrespecting my belief. i believe a boycott is called for, anything more than that is too much. islam does not support death or war, it is a peacful religion that unfortunately is misunderstood. i admit that the muslim extremists have given us that image, but i ugre people to read about our religion. it is a beautiful religion, and i am saddened that it has been ruined because of the acts of muslims who believe they are defending our beliefs while they are destroying our image.

  • Muhammad Rahim

    I would just like to add, Islam teaches the RESPECT for all of God’s prophets and messengers. We believe in Muhammad(pbuh), Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Noah, Lot, Solomon. We beleive in the Men and Women of the Torah, Bible and Quran. Quran Sura #19 is given the name of Mary the mother of Jesus!

    You will never find us insulting or disrespecting any of God’s Messengers!
    Muhammad(pbuh) was not a terrorist like some muslims have become, nor was Jesus a gay sexual child molester like MANY catholic priest has become!!! Free speach is one thing, inciting an entire religious community by isulting their Prophet is something entirely different. It was only done with the intent to cause hatred and violence………and it suceeded!

  • gracefulboomer

    Well, Muhammed Rahim, I agree that the ultra-right wing Saudi sponsored Danish Islamic Imams who added three fake Mohammed cartoons to the 12 published by Jyllands-Posten and then claimed that the fakes were the newspapers had an agenda.

    So much of an agenda, the Imans prepared a 43 page report, included three fake cartoons of Mohammed with the face of a pig, a second with a dog sodomizing a praying Muslim, and the third of the prophet as a pedophile.

    The report was presented to the governments of Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

    The three fake Mohammed cartoons were intentionally put in to rile up the famous or infamous ‘Arab Street’

    The original Mohammed cartoons were published last fall. Don’t you wonder why the embassy burnings, the mass riots, the signs stating ‘Bin Laden our Beloved, Denmark Must Be Blown Up’ didn’t occur until recently?

    It is my hope that you will contact the Saudi and Egyptian embassies with your concerns and urge them to replace all those boycotted Danish products they pulled from their shelves.

    This seems to be a good time to exercise freedom of speech, uh?

  • Muhammad Rahim

    Yeah thats very clever to try and shift the blame to someone else for the BS that was started by this Danish asshole! Don’t try that. 3 added to 12 is the cause of the uproar? Yeah right. Why don’t you acknowlege the truth. You never did address any of what my original post was. It is my hope that you will stop trying to excuse the ignorance of what your European friends are trying to do to our Religion and Prophet!!!

  • http://victorplenty.blogspot.com Victor Plenty

    European newspapers cannot harm the religion or the prophet of Islam in any way, no matter how many cartoons they choose to print.

    What is now harming the religion of Islam is the foolish extremism of those who claim to be Muslims, but who fail to live up to the standard of tolerance their own Prophet has set for them.

    Muhammad never condoned violence against those who ridiculed him, even when he was alive. The only legitimate use of force, then and now, is to defend the community against attackers who are themselves using physical violence. Those who advocate violence as a response to speech are the ones insulting the Prophet Muhammad, betraying the Muslim religion, and destroying the legacy of Islamic civilization.

  • http://desicritics.org Aaman

    Victor deserves Comment of the Week for #36

    Haven’t seen you on Desicritics yet, Victor:)

  • gracefulboomer

    I am not trying to shift ‘blame’, merely pointing out the obvious-real obvious visual difference- in the original Mohammed cartoons and the three fake cartoons that were added.
    None of the controversy is BS is me.
    The right to publish is never BS, the right I have to hold no religion higher than another (or to a different standard) is not BS, but a way of life for me.
    The right I have of observing no religious tenent unless by my own choice is not BS to me.
    I personally do not think either the editors or the illustrators of Jyllands- Posten are assholes.

    Would you just take a minute to consider a little thought here-
    Who benefits from this?
    Perhaps the Iranian Hezbollah leader Nasrallah who suggested that if Muslims had killed Salman Rushdie- when Khomeini issued the fatwa- remember? that the west would have been so cowered, so intimidated that the cartoons would not have been published?
    You must be aware of a nascent brave group of Arab and Persian journalists who are risking their lives publishing articles calling for broad reforms against the state controlled media in the theocratic and dictatorial countries of the MidEast.
    What better way to clamp down on this group than in using these silly cartoons as a call for unity, a call for purification, and call to turn away from the decadent west and press freedom. What better time than now to squash this new movement?
    The west didn’t dis Mohammed because he is Mohammed, the west just can’t be expected to hold Islamic beliefs.
    The west skewers any and all… and also produces drop dead take your breath away art and literature.
    I would never expect you to make the sign of the cross, dip your fingers in holy water, and recite any religious dogma that you don’t believe in.
    This right you have to worship differently than me is inherent in your humanity as a person, and one that is codified by my government.
    Why would you expect me to deny that there are numerous representations of Mohammed throughout history, some are beautiful BTW, some have been commercialized, and some have been depicted by Muslims for Muslims.
    What gives you the right to tell me to deny (my lying eyes?) ha ha
    This just may be one of those intractable differences in which people will disagree.
    But to me the real shame here, the real tragedy is that Arab leaders who have benefitted from western education remained silent when this could have been a teaching opportunity, explaining that non-Islamics can not be held to the same standards as Islamics.
    If the Arab newspapers had printed reproductions of depictions of Mohammed in marble, wood carvings, Russian and Iranian iconography and explained that the
    west is not ignorant of Mohammed but treats Mohammed like other figures of interest, and that some non-Arab Muslims have depicted Mohammed in art, then the impact of these cartoons would have been seen in context.
    And this would not have infringed one damn bit on the Arab prohibition against Arabs depicting Mohammed.

    Irony of ironies, there just may be an Iranian holding a religious icon of Mohammed out on the streets of Tehran chanting ‘Death to America”Death to the Jews’
    calling for Islamic solidarity while stepping on the Christian cross in the Danish flag put there for sh*t and giggles by people who incite rather than teach.

  • joe 6-pack

    this is nothing more than the muslim extremists, who are quickly becoming the mainstreamers, picking a fight. they are actually killing themselves through their own stupidity and ignorance (stampedes, etc.) while being all riled up about an article that was trying to make a point – not to degrade islam. islam degrades itself at this point, it needs no help.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    muslim extremists, who are quickly becoming the mainstreamers

    “becoming”??? For too long the West has swallowed the left’s PC party line that muslim “extremists” are just a noisy minority who have “hijacked” a “peaceful religion”.


    The delerious fanatical mobs we’ve seen in the last few days in every major Muslim city across the globe have hopefully put THAT myth to rest forever.

  • http://[Deleted] zed

    I think you are all can not respect others religions. The democracy with no limit is an anarchy. And I would love to say that democracy is a box filled with shit!!!

  • Muhammad Rahim

    It’s not about denying you the right to free speach. it’s about respect of prophets and messengers of God that people hold dear, even if you don’t believe in them.

    What was the motive behind cartoons that insult Muhammad, Jesus, Moses….etc. Why? It was not intended to just make a damn cartoon!!! It was intended to start a war! No, I do not condone the violence that I see. I really wish that they were wise enough not to fall for the plot that satan intended when he spread the insulting images.

    As for comment#40….. Islam is as peaceful as all the other religions. Muslims are no more violent than those Christian KKK that raped and killed my black people hear in America. But you don’t find us drawing Jesus in a KKK hood do you?
    How quickly we forget how violent white christians have been in America…..Hell, even slavery and lynchings were justified using the Bible!

  • Muhammad Rahim

    Hell, even slavery and lynchings were justified using the Bible! So what “myth” are you talking about?

    Some of the most bloody and violent wars in history were started by so-called christians! What religion was “hijacked” when my people were hijacked from africa and de-humanized for over four hundred years?……that wasn’t done by muslims. It was bible toting so-called christians.

    So think before you blame an entire religion or Prophet for the actions of their professed followers. Remember what the KKK’s religion is……..CHRISTIANITY!

  • Muhammad Rahim

    When I was born 40 years ago, Blacks were still not allowed to ride in the front of the bus in this great “Christian” land of ours. We were still no-class citizens that were called three fifths of a human being!!!
    Is that the teachings of Jesus? I don’t think so. It wasn’t that long ago. Not even a hundred years……so don’t get to self righteous over other nations that are still lacking. Because racism is still alive and kicking in this great land of ours. Muslim nations have a lot of growing to do. But who gave the western world the authority to sit as judge over them with all the blood dripping from America and Europe???

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    democracy is a box filled with shit!!!

    That sentiment goes along real nicely with the placard carried a couple a of days ago by a rioting British Muslim:


    I’ve been hoping for a long time, for the benefit of those who have been blinded by the Taquiya of propaganda organs like CAIR, that the true nature of Western Civilization’s mortal enemy would be made this crystal clear for us right out of their own mouths.

  • C

    I would have never thought twice about those cartoons, no one takes that sort of thing seriously. I do think, however, that according to what the cartoons depict, and seeing the violent and deadly reactions of “protesters”, it’s not really protest anymore, it’s just proving the cartoonist was somewhat correct. And who do they blame, the Danish people, or the Jews? They’re going to protest religious cartoons they blame on the DANISH with Holocaust anti-JEW cartoons?!? And the group of Muslims responsible for these Holocaust cartoons expect the rest of the world to feel sorry for them? I had much respect for this religion before this happened, but the Muslim people’s behavior in the middle east is what lets us see how “peaceful” this religion really is. I do think the cartoons were disrespectful, but why do they care? It doesn’t affect their religion, or their walk of faith. I’m a Christian, and I cannot turn on the TV without seeing someone making fun of my Lord, Jesus Christ. But do I go ambushing the tv studios burning things and killing people in protest? No, because that’s psychotic. You can’t protest something that shows death and violence as a shadow over your religion, by going around and committing more death and violence, in the name of the religion!! It’s not protest… it’s just proving the cartoonist’s point in the drawings. I know not all Muslims are this, but these people freaking out and turning to violence and death over the cartoons are nothing more than hypocrites, and honestly I think they just want the attention. I’m tired of hearing about all their violence. Bottom line is, no other religion does so much damage and death and violence in the name of their religion. So while the cartoons were insensitive, the middle eastern communities need to realize that some of the rest of the world DOES in fact see their religion as a connection to violence, and they should do something to STOP this, not enhance it. Complaining and throwing tantrums about what people think about you is weak and childish. Stop the violence, and people won’t think you’re violent.
    And the cartoon… that was insensetive, and evil, and shouldn’t have been published. Same with the Holocaust cartoons. Insensetive, evil, and you can’t fight evil with more evil, if you want to be taken seriously.

  • Me

    Reposting what Bing said:

    “Independent and proud…..

    major newspapers in America have printed pictures of things like an art piece called piss christ in which a cross is submerged in a vat of urine and other things one might consider offensive to chrisitanity. but now they are refusing to print these other cartoons for fear of offending muslims.

    Anyone who say’s there isn’t a double standard in America with which religions are ok to bash is a fucking moron.”

    I’d like to add… America has taken religious freedoms away, this country grew great while it was centered on God, and now the government is losing grasp of reality. America wants to take Christianity out of everything, but it’s okay to have other religions dominate here. This is a joke… Give me a break. I graduated high school a few years ago, and I couldn’t pray in school, but the Muslim kids could take their prayer time out any time they wanted to, and that was okay. This “religious freedom” is a joke… the United States offers freedom of religion, as long as you don’t say or do anything Christian. So before the pissed of Muslims go off thinking the “western world” is against them, they need to educate themselves with the reality of the “western world.” Their religion is actually one that gets respect here.

  • Nancy

    I’ve read this, too: that the really insulting cartoons are 3 that were most definitely not part of the original 12, and that the imams who started raising all the fuss refuse to reveal the source of these cartoons. It sounds to me like a case of the vast muslim public being manipulated by vicious & unscrupulous leaders intent on turning the ire of the public away from themselves and on to others. Just like Karl Rove here in the US manipulates the unthinking public for Dubya.

  • Leigh

    I voted for Dubya and I’d do it again!! but yes the cartoons suck… so does the middle eastern Muslim communities’ bizzare reactions to the cartoons which prove violence and murder is in fact a problem within their religion. if it’s not then they need to stop calling the name of their religion for this crazy and bizzare behavior. I think all they wanted was media attention, to take the negative attention in the media away from themselves and try to make people feel sorry for them. I applaude the cities and Muslims that protested in peace. The cartoons are gone now, and EVERYONE ELSE IN THE WORLD understood it was one man’s humor, no one else took the cartoons seriously, so it’s just time for all of the protesters to worry about their own souls with their god and move on. WHO CARES what some cartoonist drew?! Someone needs to help these countries grow their economies so they will have other things in life to worry about and stress over. Those cartoons just weren’t magic, and weren’t powerful enough to affect them or their faith with their god, so it’s hard for me to feel sorry for them. It didn’t affect them. It was a joke between other people who AREN’T MUSLIMS. The Muslim communites in the middle east have cartoons about Jews already that run in their papers all the time. So really, they need to stop whining and do something to show us that our view of them being violent is wrong, instead of proving that it is in fact correct. Because that crazy violent behavior is what makes others not take them seriously. Just shows a bunch of HYPOCRITES…

    By the way… it’s ironic to know they have these anti-Jew cartoons… because in reality, Islam came out of Juddaism, as did Christianity. That’s odd, don’t you think? So next time they want to talk about lack of respect for religions… someone should remind them that they love insulting the founding roots of their own religion… daily.

  • Me

    No one should insult anyone else’s religion, but that’s not how life is. There are too many people in the world, and people will say things. Respect should be given, but if it’s not, and you get offended, just ignore it. They were cartoons! It didn’t hurt their lives at all, and it’s a waste of their lives to focus on it. Religious biased cartoons are everywhere, you don’t see other religions’ folks running around creating chaos whenever something offensive is said or published. To be happy, you have to live your life for what makes you happy.
    Welcome to the modern world… people say things behind your back. This has been happening to the rest of us for a long, long time.
    We free speakers need to all try to remember to be respectful of others. We have free speech, and free print, but we should not sacrifice morals. Respect and equality are morals and responsibilities we should carry with our freedom and its priviledges.

  • secularist

    perhaps it is irrelevant that some consider the cartoons tacky or offensive since they are merely an expression of secular freedom which is blind to reglious sacred cows.

    freedom is a key tenet of a secular society and it appears that our muslim friends and neighbors are incapable of policing their violent minority of exteremists

    the militant minority continualy advocates and exercises violent means of protest spreading a distrust of the muslim populace throughout the west

    a perpetuation and deepening of this division will in the end serve its own isolationist cause. The expense will not be of the militant minority but of the peace loving muslim majority who will likely lose thier hard earned western freedoms which will inevitably be taken from them out of fear

  • Muhammad Rahim

    Islam means to surrender yourself to the will of God. That didn’t come out of Juddaism or Christianity. That is the original state of man before the fall of Adam. Islam=Submission to God’s Will. There’s over a billion Muslims in the world and the majority is not what you see on TV. Most of us are not violent and will not behave like that.

  • http://biggesttent.blogspot.com/ Silas Kain

    Dear God, could You make it Your will that we just chill out for once? All this fighting in Your name. Aren’t You pissed off yet? At this stage, I’ll take another flood. Perhaps a comet striking those kingdoms that need an attitude adjustment. Oh and God, while you’re at it, would you tell Rev. Robertson to go pound sand?

  • Bliffle

    “As ever with the media, it’s timing and volume that have to be considered.

    Why have they picked this moment to anger millions of Muslims in the name of ‘freedom of speech’? This moment to make it an ‘issue’ and drive it to the top of the news agenda?”

    I think it was muslims who stirred up trouble. The cartoons, when originally published, didn’t attract notice. But then, according to the muslim female Danish MP I just saw on DW TV, some muslim troublemakers went back to Egypt, etc., and started stirring up trouble there.

    The source of the violence is in the muslim community and ME nations, not Danish newspapers.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    My point was really about the proliferation of reprints through European media outlets.

    Juan Cole has a very good article on Salon with quite a bit of detail about which Arab and Muslim leaders are leveraging the issue and why.

  • http://www.thewebzine.com David M. Brown

    I guess if there are umpteenzillion posts, riots and death threats about it, it’s a “controversy.” Ohmigod, free speech critical of Islamofascist rationales for murder stirring up more “controversy” from Islamofascist murderers and those who ally themselves with Islamofascist murderers. Omigod, more of these “quote marks.”

  • Bliffle

    Muhamid: “Islam means to surrender yourself to the will of God. That didn’t come out of Juddaism or Christianity. That is the original state of man before the fall of Adam.”

    Can you prove this assertion?

    Somewhere else on BC, a muslim colleague of yours states that the obligation of free speech is that you be able to prove your assertions.

  • Mark

    I am getting really tired of people who keep telling us that Islam teaches “peace and love and respect”. If that’s the case, then who the fuck is blowing up school buses and restaurants in the name of Islam.

    You’d think that all those peace-loving Muslims would get their asses out there and stop these creatures from perverting their religion. Why is that not happening? Why is it that every time some more by-standers get slaughtered, there is dancing in the streets?

    What would your Prophet think of you?

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    “secular freedom which is blind to reglious sacred cows” – how can it be blind to that it chooses to target?

  • Mark

    The European newspapers that re-printed the stupid cartoons jumped on an idiot bandwagon. The very start of this “controversy” is not a free speech issue, but an editing one.

    The editor at the Danish paper, who approved the publishing of those cartoons, should have been fired because daily, mass-circulation newspapers should not be running things they know will be really offensive to any religious group.

    The more fundamental issue here is that of immigration. If you are going to become a violent pain in the ass in your adopted country, you really should have stayed at away. It just seems ungrateful to go somewhere to improve your personal economic conditions, or get away from oppression, and then try to force your 4th Century sensibilities on the people who took you in, by setting things on fire & getting your old countrymen to help out with the riots over there.

    Law of the land. In Europe, those cartoons are not illegal, just stupid. So suck it up, we all have to because stupidity is everywhere.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    daily, mass-circulation newspapers should not be running things they know will be really offensive to any religious group.

    I suppose you also think that they should not be running things they know will be really offensive to any political group.

    Religious ideologies (especially one like Islam which has such a large political component) are, if anything, even more in need of being pilloried with Free Speech than political ideologies!

  • Mark

    I suppose you also think that they should not be running things they know will be really offensive to any political group.

    Not at all. My theory is that in order to be political, you have to be somewhat rational (not in a psychiatric sense, just that you might be able to at least “hear” other views & argue yours), to be religious, you just need to be breathing. And since all religions are based on an assumption, their followers are not, and don’t need to be rational or considerate of any other point of view.

    Oddly enough, for all the peace-loving fuzzy-wuzzy rhetoric, the organized religions are the root of all evil in the world.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    So if I understand you correctly, Mark, when you say papers SHOULDN’T be running religiously offensive stuff, that’s just a piece of practical advice, not a desire to see “hate speech” laws enacted that would make it illegal to do so. I would have no objection to that.

    So do you think there should be various threshholds, depending on how “rational” different groups of religionists might be (at least in other areas of their lives)? This could be used to justify having to worry less about offend Christians and Jews than about offending a religion like Islam, whose adherents are generally more primitive and prone to more volatile responses.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    BTW Mark, I’m curious. Do you single out newspapers as being the only type of publication and medium that should refrain from running offensive negative commentary on any religion? How about magazines, books, e-zines, blogs, news broadcasts, etc.?

  • Muhammad Rahim

    Bliffle: you asked in comment#57…….”Can you prove this assertion?

    yes, my proof is in the Bible and Qur’an. Adam WAS obedient to God before he Disobeyed Him…..

    Obedience to God= Islam. So the word Islam is just an arabic word that means surrender to God. That was here before Moses, Jesus or Muhammad was born…….with MUCH respect to each one of them for teaching the people what their true nature was before our father Adam, fell from God’s grace.

    The proof is in the Books.

  • Mark

    I mention newspapers since that is the medium in question here. But editing should apply to all mass-media outlets & yes, I think that religious people should keep it to themselves – it should be a private matter since it is a subject that generally does not foster rational discourse.

    You could be having what you consider a perfectly civilised discussion about religion with someone you thought you knew – when suddenly, if the logic contradicts something they believe in – they will tell you that their god is going to get you.

    My god is better than your god & he is going to destroy all of you who have another god. It astounds me that anyone can actually believe in any of it.

  • Bliffle

    Rahim: “Bliffle: you asked in comment#57…….”Can you prove this assertion?

    yes, my proof is in the Bible and Qur’an.”

    I’ve heard this claim many times, but no one has shown me a proof. It’s just an empty assertion.

  • Bliffle

    In any case, this whole brouhaha over the cartoons is a fraud: they were published in an Egyptian paper in October, without reaction. All this noise created by the bedlam division of the muslims is bogus.

    I’ve concluded that any muslim who supports the bedlam division is a fraud and reeks of bogosity.

  • Bliffle

    This whole controversy is a FRAUD! The cartoons were published Oct. 17 in Egypt and passed without adverse muslim reaction. This is a manufactured controversy, invented for their own vile purposes by lying crybabies.
    Look here:

  • Mark

    I guess in October the Islamic Bedlam Division had other infidels to fry, so this had to be postponed?

    Thank you Bliffle – I like your style.

  • http://URL Diego A

    Well hello critters.
    I read and watched with a mixture of fear, amusement and outrage at how the Muslims reacted to these cartoons. I have concluded that the Muslims that participated in the protests, destructive behaviour and death threats are really ignorant, dangerous and filled with hate, and not to mention hypocritical. Also, shame on the Muslim leaders for not supressing or controlling their congregations. The reoson that I say they are hypocritical is because the very prophet that was depicted in the cartoons was a person who live by a creed of non violence, forgiveness and tolerance. So why are you so-called peace-loving religious Muslims destroying other people’s property and threatening other people’s life? What would Mohammad say about your behaviour? By your actions you have shown your true vindictive and exaggerated nature, really overreacting to a mere cartoon. Given that Mohammad was a Holy Prophet and was offended by the cartoon do you think he really needed your help to punish those who offended him? Did Mohammad ever ask any of you Muslims to raise a commotion for those cartoons? You all as a people need to grow up, educate yourselves and live in peace and harmony. Some of you were surely offended but you don’t cancel a negative action with a much bigger negative action(s). The world is changing and you need to change. For now I am very happy that there are very little (if any) Muslims here in Central America and with your violent attitudes, I hope that you Muslims keep yourselves far away from here.

  • Muhammad Rahim


    I agree with most of what you said. However, don’t blame ALL muslims for the actions of some. Remember also, North America, South America and your beloved Central America was colonized, raped and natural resources destroyed by another violent group of people and they weren’t muslims………..hahaha. Guess what their religion was.

  • Muhammad Rahim

    Speaking of FRAUDS…..

    The missing WMD’s in Iraq!!!
    The thing that kinda shocked me was, I was waiting for Bush’s boy Rumsfield to have some WMD’s planted in Iraq to justify the invasion. I just knew that after they didn’t find any (and they already knew there were none), they would plant their own “smoking gun”. But I guess they didn’t have to once they got the masses of dumb american people to go along with the LIE! All that mattered was them getting that oil. LIE, KILL & STEAL….. that’s the American way!

    P.S. i’m a decendant of slaves born in America. I’m not an Arab…..so don’t blame arabs for my statement………..lol

  • iluvjewz

    Finally we see YOUR agenda, #27.

    “Pray that we don’t erupt, Chromatius. We have plenty of reason to erupt and plenty of vengeance to take.”

    Is that a threat? Don’t you think you’ve been erupting on the Arabs since the days of Irgun and the Stern Gang?

    “These are just the countries that should be destroyed because of all the Jews they’ve murdered and persecuted over that 1,800 years.”

    OK. I guess we know what your 200 nuclear missles are for now.

    Germany-Think you did this one already. Does getting the Aliies to firebomb 161 towns and cities ring a bell?

    Russia-Right. How about your brothers in the Communist party who murdered the royal family and millions of other Russians?

    Ah, I forgot. The poor, perescuted Hebrews who have never, ever harmed a fly. I’m just a stupid goy anti-Semite.

  • yasmine

    As a muslim and an Arab i was really pissed off by those cartoons for the way they insult my religion and my prophet… now u may say that anti christian cartoons are being published without anyone calling for riots and blood well maybe you find them acceptable but we dont, we take our religion seriously … and i dont mean by seriously shedding blood.. As a muslim i should defend my religion and i believe that in writing this message i am because explaining what my religion is about in simple and gentle words is way more effective than walking down the streets with the “freedom to hell” signs. I know that my religion doesnt call for the blood of the cartoonists or the editors or anyone actually, although this is the image the west perceives of us because of what a minority and yes i say a minority, there are almost 70 million ppl in Egypt now how many of these did u see causing riots??? a thousand??? i think i can easily call that a minority… and ah for the comment that said we make fun of jews that is excuse me RUBBISH, we dont.. theres a big difference in insulting a religion and making fun of a nation,,, if someone makes fun of egyptians i wouldnt consider that as insulting my religion…
    one more thing if u really think of us as barbarians and ignorant then dont piss us off!! because hey we know no better, we’re not emotionally mature to deal with ur jokes 😉 At least thats what you think!

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    Yasmine: now u may say that anti christian cartoons are being published without anyone calling for riots and blood well maybe you find them acceptable but we dont, we take our religion seriously

    Clear implications:

    1. Since Christians are not “calling for riots or blood”, they must not take their religion seriously.

    2. The fact that Muslims ARE calling for riots and blood means that they DO take their religion seriously.

    Thanks for clarifying that so well for us.

  • Muhammad Rahim

    let me make it even clearer.

    NOT “THE MUSLIMS”………….but some muslims.

  • imran

    if u believe it will help u be a better person then taking ure religion seriously is all u can do surely!

    I dont think christians dont take their religion seriously i think they are forced to ignore

    Why ignore when debate is so much more fun!

  • yasmine

    richard,,, u absolutely missed my point what i meant to clarify is that religions should not be the material for jokes, u have the right 2 accept these jokes when it concerns ur religion and when they are published by christians and we as muslims have the right to refuse that… I also said that this calling for blood and riot is not acceptable and once again i say it was not all the Muslims. I chose to write here and not to walk down the streets calling for anybodys blood…
    You couldve read that easily in my posting but u chose to twist the words trying to prove ur point

  • http://www.riddlersclan.net Mike

    There are more important issues in the world to deal with than some stupid cartoon directed towards muslims. Everyone is praying to the same God it’s just too bad people are too stupid to realize it. Now I am not saying I condone the cartoon or the image it projects. But come on people wake up there are so many other problems in this world. This is just some trivial media garbage to take your minds off what is really going on.

  • Justin Berry

    The Stupid cartoons are the only things these people can protest. Its not like they can Blog about how bad their government is screwing them. Its legal to bash the west so if your angry with your situation you lash out at the only thing you can.

  • Nancy

    I think Mike (#80) hit the nail on the head: this is all a ploy by leaders to take people’s minds off the REAL offenses against them, which the leaders themselves are committing! Bush does this all the time: bait & switch. When the people start getting mad at you, start drivelling on & on about terrorists & internal enemies who help them, etc. etc. ad nauseam. It’s a classic political trick.

  • Brook

    Anyone know where to view the cartoons? I want to see what all of the fuss is about.

  • Wybe

    I think they are just looking for an excuse for their holy war.
    whats the big problem, so mohammed got drawn.
    Like its normal to air innocent civilians being beheaded.
    I think in comparison to that, this is nothing.
    but thats how i think about it..

  • Nancy

    Brook, I just googled ‘mohammad cartoons’, I think it was a French website.

  • Michael

    The cartoon, which is a satire, nothing else, is available at http://www.jeremyinc.com. If you like it, buy the shirt. If you don’t, forget it. That is freedom of expression. Deal with it. No dark conspiracies here except for the cynical leaders of politics and religion whipping up the benighted masses under their sway.

  • yasmine

    Wybe, we dont have any holy wars to call for.. I know you think we behead innocents everyday ‘n think its cool but we DONT! It has been done i cant deny that but thats not what all of us do… The real problem is that media is only showing the bad side; the extremists and those who misunderstood their religion and where illuded thinkin that this is their way to heaven, but Islam is really not about that… also Arab nations are not as dark as u think.. yes they do have a long way to go but it’s not the picture you see in ur media

  • Allison

    Where should I begin really?
    To start the Jyllands Posten apologized for offending Muslims with the cartoons back in September. The reasons they ran them was because People where afraid to talk about Muslims or issues involving Muslims, they were self censoring. I honestly think the editor thought he could show that Muslims are a peaceful people able to protest in peaceful ways. I fully believe that myself. Like I believe some Muslim clerics were beaten by fellow MUSLIMS when they tried to stop people from burning a embassy.
    And while the idea of boycott seems effective. I disagree, i think that only works when you are trying effect a change within a company the way to tell a newspaper is through editorial letters. (I work for the dreaded media.)
    As for insulting people, in many ways people have become extremely rude to each and are apathetic to when others are genuinely hurt. Many westerners expect the insults to roll off one’s back so to speak. And when we encounter others who aren’t used to that sense of humour well bad things happen LIKE MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
    And it’s very easy to place the blame on something we don’t understand and many Westerners don’t understand Islam. I also think people fail to understand that are great divides in Islam itself, with many different factions, similar to the many branches of Christianity (I speak from the United States perspective.)
    Yet Pat Robertson doesn’t speak for all Christians, and neither should these few fundementalist Muslims speak for all of Islam.
    Freedom of expression: My personal belief is that the press is voice of the people (It doesn’t always act that way but I am idealistic.)I think all speech in bad taste, or offense has the right to be heard. Because then people can openly refute the speech in dialogue or forum.
    I don’t think the cartoons were printed to start a war initially I think they were initially printed to start a dialogue, but it was misunderstood on many ends. And now I do think some countries have grabbed this controversy to shift the focus away from other problems within the country. I find offensive, because whenever anyone uses a holy figure for their own ends, it reduces Muhammed, Jesus, Abraham and any other religious figure to nothing more than a red herring (a device to change the way of a debate, not an actual fish.) I consider that blasphemy.
    This has become a very emotionally charged issue and I don’t think it was intended to burn bridges. I really think it was meant to open a dialogue. (And unfortunately the best example I can think of is hazing, which doesn’t exactly convey the meaning i want but if any of you would be so kind as too help me out here I would much appreciate it.)

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    As is so often the case, the real information starts to emerge after the excitement’s faded:

    So, let’s look at the guy who started this whole cartoon escapade. He’s Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of the Danish newspaper. In all of the Lexis-Nexis database of stories from the American media on the Mohammed cartoons, there is absolutely no mention of the fact that Rose is a close confederate of arch-Islamophobe Daniel Pipes. Indeed, there is almost no context at all about Rose’s newspaper. On a brief mention in the Washington Post gave a hint at a fact desperately needed to understand the situation. The Post described the affair as “a calculated insult … by a right-wing newspaper in a country where bigotry toward the minority Muslim population is a major, if frequently unacknowledged, problem.”

    How bad is Pipes? He wants the utter military obliteration of the Palestinians; indeed, from the Muslim world, his racism is about as blatant as that of the Holocaust denying Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Pipes’ frequent outbursts of racism — designed to toss gasoline on the neo-cons’ lust for a wholesale conflict of cultures — earned him a Bush nomination to the U.S. Institute of Peace, a congressionally funded think tank. Rose came to America to commune with Pipes in 2004, and it was after that meeting the cartoon gambit materialized. link.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    Sugg asks: How bad is Pipes?. So I ask: “How bad is Sugg?”

    Rose gave a rather misanthropic rejoinder to AP when asked about whether he would have published the cartoons in light of the subsequent protests. Rose said: “I do not regret having commissioned those cartoons and I think asking me that question is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt Friday night at the discotheque.”

    That, of course, makes the assumption that women are responsible for being raped. It’s just as fallacious as assuming the Muslim world should passively accept an intentional provocation, one that gratuitously attacked one of the religion’s strictest prohibitions.

    So Islamophile Sugg thinks it is fallacious that Muslim’s should not have acted non-passively.

    Was the reaction overwrought? Absolutely.

    See how he uses the mild characterization “overwrought” to describe Muslim’s buring down embassies and issuing death threats.

    Was it an intentional scheme to provoke Arab anger, and thereby engender Western disgust with the Muslim world? The involvement of Pipes and Rose argues that that is exactly what happened.

    See how he uses the extreme, derogatory characertization “scheme” to characterize a Western journalist’s attempt to bring out into the open the important issue of Free Speech vs. Islam’s presumed right, unique among all the world’s religions, not to have any of its “strictest prohibitions gratuititously attacked.”

    Gratuitiousness (meaning unnecessary or unwarranted) is in the eye of the beholder. What he is doing here is laying the groundwork for “hate speech” legislation that will make further encroachments on Freedom of Speech, by giving the Islamic religion special, exceptional status not accorded to any other religion, thereby caving in to the Muslim world’s tactic of censorsip by intimidation.

  • a wise man

    it was a “scheme”!

    Satan is always up to a “scheme” to disrupt peace and cause turmoil. Too bad my muslim brother fell for it. They played right into the trap and Satan sits back and laugh.

  • http://www.thewebzine.com David M. Brown

    I think they are just looking for an excuse for their holy war. whats the big problem, so mohammed got drawn. Like its normal to air innocent civilians being beheaded. I think in comparison to that, this is nothing.

    This is exactly the point.

    We can’t write about the cartoons as if there has never been anything said before in the West about Islam and its connection to radical Islamic terror that might offend Islamic foes of free expression, let alone Islamic advocates of beheading of innocents. The cartoons were a special provocation because they were chosen to be a special provocation. Denmark was targeted. The whole thing is a trial balloon, a means of determining to what extent fellow Muslims can be roused to intemperate and violent response on such flimsy grounds, and to what extent Europeans and Westerners will reel in terror and obsequious apology in response to all the saber-and-Koran rattling. There is indeed an issue of “timing” here, but it has nothing to do with the “timing” of one more criticism of Islamic rationalizations for murder. That has been ongoing.

    Sure, not all persons in the West are critical of the murders and of the Islamic rationalizations for the murders. But some of us are. It’s not especially timed, although I do think there are probably spikes in the criticism immediately after each new beheading or suicide-murder bombing.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem


    Chromatius’characterizations of Daniel Pipes could not have happened to a more deserving fellow. It’s about he got burned in the butt.

    Pipes is a brilliant writer who has turned his craft to digusting ends. A member of the Council of Foreign Relations, he runs something called the Middle East Forun – or somthing with a similar name.

    What Pipes normally does is to deflect the anger of “consevatives” and of Jews away from the Saudi monarchy and the Wahhabi cult as the root behind Al Qaeda, the Moslem Brotherhood, etc. So he uses terms like Islamo-fascist, etc. to hide the smelly family of ibn Saud which is the real culprit of much that goes one in the “hood”.

    When you condsider that the Council of Foreign Relations was founded to serve the interests of big business in the States, and when you consider that a lot of the wealth of the Saudi oil fields find its way into companies that fund the Council of Foreign Relations, you see why he does what he does. This is asn asttempt to branch the little Pipes empire elsewhere

    Nice touch on picking this latest Pipes escapade, Chromatius.

  • denny

    timing? the real question of timing is not the newspapers at all. the Cartoons were printned in september and mid east clerics made aware of them by october. The real question of timing is why now the clerics in the mid east want to make a big deal about this now and not before? find the answer to that and and we will know the real deal about what this is about. more then likely has to do with elections or mid east clerics loosing power or money.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    Well done Ronald – such a clear exposition of the Republikud position, clearly if not cogently expressed. But honest.

    Particularly impressed by the spelling, repeated posts and extensive use of capitals – I can just see you twitching at the keyboard, flecks of froth around your lips… so much like your dear leader actually.

    At least stinkey’s got a sense of humour.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    Richard, you can’t have it both ways.

    The writer avoids certain hyperbole – thus ‘overwrought’ and ‘scheme’ instead of ‘enraged’ and ‘conspiracy’… ‘scheme’ is not an “extreme, derogatory characertization”; ‘conspiracy’ would be.

    The (yes, hyperbolic, and no doubt aimed at liberal American sentiment – an ad feminam argument, you might say) rape metaphor is confused and confusing, and Sugg gets turned round trying to use it. So what, that’s language. I don’t think it undermines most of his points about Pipes.

    “further encroachments on Freedom of Speech” – I’m in the UK; here we just got Bliar’s latest whizbang thought crime legislation about validating/justifying/glorifying terrorism.

    One thing that does amaze me about America and Israel, is that you’ll often find a wider range of clear-eyed debate within Israel than America. (Although because it’s partly based in a self-congratulatory realpolitik, it sometimes deteriorates into bloodthirsty rants).

    Thus Ruvy’s comments show a position based in pretty clear-eyed view on the pernicious US/Saudi – and Bush/Saud/bin Laden – relationships. And the money and oil at the base of much of this, and the undermining of American democracy. Certainly more so than most American interlocutors.

    He and I would disagree about many of the central issues regarding Israel/Palestine – but at least we agree on the shape and layout of the battlefield.

  • Charles

    When will all of you overly religious zealots overcome your greed and fanaticism? Whether it be Christianity, Islam, Judism, Catholicism, Jehovahs or Protestants you are all the worlds biggest hypocrites and trouble makers. I have no problem with your individual religious beliefs and moral practices. You have every right to believe in whatever you like, but when your greed and self-centered beliefs do nothing but cause problems for everyone else, then I take issue.
    Religion and the greed and fanaticism that seem to be part of it have been the root of every war and moral conflict since the beginning of time. When will ALL OF YOU finally grow up before this world of ours is devoured and destroyed by the hatred and conflicts that ALL OF YOU create?
    Catholic priests molesting children … Islamic mullahs sacrificing the lives of their future leaders as human bombs … Jews constantly dredging up the holocaust in order to reap heavy influence and political pressure. This world is on its way to self destruction and EVERY ONE of you religious zealots will be to blame when it does.
    I would simply love to see every one of you fanatical idiots kill each other off. Your methodic and moronic carnage would be great viewing from the moon. I have finally realized just how many self-serving, insane assholes there are in the world. George W. Bush, Osama Bin Laden, and Kim Jong-il to name a few.

  • troll

    * I have no problem with your individual religious beliefs and moral practices. You have every right to believe in whatever you like, but when your greed and self-centered beliefs do nothing but cause problems for everyone else, then I take issue.*

    sounds good…sorta like: ‘when you gota go you gotta go – but don’t shit in the path’


  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Islamic mullahs sacrificing the lives of their future leaders as human bombs

    Let me just clarify one thing here. The leadership elite of the muslim world may run the terrorist groups and the mosques, but the actual people who strap on the bombs are invariably recruited from the poor and uneducated classes in the most backwards countries of the region. I’d respect the terrorists more if they had the balls to blow themselves up instead of using duped and brainwashed and often drugged stooges from the lower classes to die for them.


  • http://beyondbabylon.blogspot.com David Ben-Ariel

    The controversy isn’t a joke but is dead serious, reflecting the inevitable clash between professing Christianity and Islam. Europe’s days of tolerance for such primitive people are about over.

    Europe Swings Both Ways

  • http://www.nrlc.org/ Anthony Grande

    This controversy just goes to show you which religion is more tolerant and forgiving.

  • farzi

    Hi cheer up Jyllands Postan you have done a very cheap thing but have earned alot of publicity, money etc. And u know otherwise noone knew about even ur existence. Congratulations!!! so what if u have hurt many, money is everything and u have earned that. so cheer up. stick to that “freedom of Speech” phenomena BUT never ever dare to speak about “holocaust” remeber because this will not earn u cheap publicity and money instead of that u will be in jail. So be cheap , be bad manners , hurt others but within limits. Limits are that your freedom of speech stops when issues like holocaust are started. Anyways its a good way to earn alot of fame and money and at the same time hurt those whom u do not like. Be snobbish, be arrogant.

  • http://respect Mark

    I once had religion and gave it up to become an honest man again.(Twain) Isn’t it sad what people will do to others in the name of religion.
    If you want to know the heart and mind of God, look within your soul and do not listen to men who proclaim themselves his spokesmen. If calling for death and killing is the banner of your religion, get out while you still have a soul. I hear you muslims justify your death edicts by pointing out historic christian atrocities. Does that make you better? We have truth, but you won’t find it in the bible or koran. Those were written by other self proclaimed prophets. Why do you believe they knew more than you do? It’s all invented and believing it without question is pathetic.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    As none of this is made clear, the ‘protests’ are simply a way of taking the bait. They give the US and UK governments exactly the advantage they seek, helping divide the world into ‘West’ and ‘Islamic,’ keeping the War on Terror burning. If the Muslim world were better educated and better fed, the cameras would expose the hypocrisies of the war-makers instead: international courts would condemn them, and the rest of us could live without the interference of self-appointed Powers and their two-faced freedom. (link)

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Chromatius says

    at comment 96:
    Thus Ruvy’s comments show a position based in pretty clear-eyed view on the pernicious US/Saudi – and Bush/Saud/bin Laden – relationships. And the money and oil at the base of much of this, and the undermining of American democracy. Certainly more so than most American interlocutors.

    He and I would disagree about many of the central issues regarding Israel/Palestine – but at least we agree on the shape and layout of the battlefield.

    and at comment 104:
    If the Muslim world were better educated and better fed, the cameras would expose the hypocrisies of the war-makers instead: international courts would condemn them, and the rest of us could live without the interference of self-appointed Powers and their two-faced freedom.

    It appears that Chromatius and I have some points of view in common – particularly the way self appointed Powers manipulate our lives to our disadvantage.

    As a matter of fact, while listening to Israel National Radio, waiting to give a PSA for the Root & Branch Assn presentation Thursday, I got to listen to an Israeli economist and journalism, Joel Bainerman, discussing why Arabs and Jews should not be fighting each other instead of the self appointed Powers in the world like the US and the EU.

    The converssation ranged over how Americans and Europeans stir up a population to riot or whatever, in attempts to influence and contol the nations. Bainerman pointed out (as I have in the past) that the Israeli gov’t could easily destroy the terrorist organizations that intend to destroy us. He restrained himself in his responses on radio.

    The true enemies of this country – and of most of the world – are the oil and banking plutocracy of the States.

    Just a small point. The Iranians are planning to sell their oil in euros instead of dollars. for the effect that will have on the United States (and the dollar linked economy here), google up Joel Bainerman.

    It should be borne in mind that the Saudis and the rest of the world sell oil in dollars.

  • farzi

    Comment 103
    Mark, what make u think that u r right and all others are wrong. I mean u may be right but every one have the same probability that his/her views are the most perfect one, I mean why people (especially people who think they r superior to others) want other people to think, act and speak in their own way. why everyone on this earth do not have the right to follow whatever he thinks right. Why all white people want other races to adopt their culture. Many people find it far more comfortable and better to adopt the other culture. your culture may be or may not be the answer to every day’s problems, but still there are some people who want to follow the other path. why they are punished for it.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    Not a small point. Quite a few people have observed that the US timetable for war seems built around the March opening of the Iranian bourse, and the denomination official sales in Euros.(link link link)

    Leaving aside the Palestinian issue for a moment and taking things on their own terms, I do believe there are great dangers for the Jewish State, and Jews worldwide, in the nature of the relationship with America, and with other non-governmental forces representing vested interest.

  • Charles

    Well, I hear now that Iran is extolling the teaching of suicide bombing in its schools. Hamas still wants to battle Israel and the religious right keeps using its influence to slowy degrade the constitution of the United States. I hope that I am not around when the real shit hits the fan. This world has been corrupted and ruined by the weathly aristocrats and the religious zealots bent on satifying their own selfish greed and fanaticism. The common man has become nothing more than a tool to be discarded by these “people.”

    What a waste of young lives … teenage Muslims coerced into becoming suicide bombers by older, wiser and manipulative elders too cowardly to spend their worthless lives for their insane cause. Duping their very own people into “religious sacrifice” in the name of Mohammed. While I am at it, let’s not overlook British aristocracy, ie., the “selling” of Diana Spencer into British royalty by her “loving” family and her eventual “accidental” death via the paparazzi.

    What a pity that all of the fanatical, greedy and religious idiots of this world will most likely be the last to perish when they eventually succeed at destroying this planet and most of it’s inhabitants.

    By the way, Mark #103, your Twain quote hits the bullseye. Most religious people are true hypocrites and hide behind the shield of their religion. Fanaticism comes in many forms.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem


    Look over my piece of a little while ago Lo Norá, and you’ll see just how much fun an attack on Iran could be for us.

    Dr. Inbar did not talk about the missile threat from southern Lebanon, the missiles under control of Hizb-allah – an Iranian ally. In a previous comment to this one #108, it was noted that the Shia Moslems are taking a very new position for them. They are supporting suicide bombing. Up until now they have not supported suicide bombing as “kosher” according to their view of Sharia.

    …I do believe there are great dangers for the Jewish State, and Jews worldwide, in the nature of the relationship with America, and with other non-governmental forces representing vested interest.

    I would appreciate it if you would expand on what you see to be the dangers to the Jewish State and to Jews in exile. I’m curious to see if we track.

  • http://respect Mark

    Comment 106
    You are assuming I represent the white culture. My family is rather large and has blood that is Africa American, Polynesian (Tongan), American Indian (Snohomish), and European (German). We embrace diversity of ethnicity, culture, and religion. We can all laugh at ouselves and not take our beliefs too seriously. If you want to offend is through a cartoon or something else, it will not cause us to want to kill you. We do not support war unless directly threatened and do not claim to understand everyone’s motivations in waging the war in the middle east.
    The whole situation breaks my heart. However, I know that hate is wrong nomatter what the offense. Please, correct me if I am wrong in perceiving Islam to be full of hate. Are we not supposed to love our enemies.

  • lumpy

    You know, I just noticed the subhead which is basically to the effect of wondering why “they” picked this time to offend muslims with these cartoons.

    Well guess what. They didn’t. These cartoons were published SIX long months ago and were ignored by everyone including muslims at that time. the truth is that muslim agitators in europe were looking for an excuse to stir up trouble and dredged up this old and bogus issue as a pretext for rioting. just one more bogus controversy.

    religion of peace my ass.

  • Bliffle

    “These cartoons were published SIX long months ago and were ignored by everyone including muslims at that time.”

    Not only that, but the muslim agitator in Denmark included fake cartoons (like showing a pigs head on mohamed) when he sent them to the ME. He admitted this with a crooked smirk when interviewed on “60 minutes”. He thinks it’s just fine that 29 people have died over this.

  • Dave Nalle

    Wow, hadn’t heard about the pigheaded Mohammed scam. I bet plenty of middle eastern papers reprinted that one even if they knew it was a fake too.


  • blimey

    # 97 makes comments about “religion” as the force that has done the most killing. However, does this person realize that Hitler was not religious, nor Stalin, nor Lenin, nor Pol Pot, not Mao Ts Tung, nor leaders of North Korea? They were/are patently not religious. These wars were caused for political agendas and greed, by hypocrites for power and control. I am not sure what recent “religious” wars have killed so many people? Even the crusades killed way less than even one of these wars.
    Other power hungry fakes hide behind the face of a religion to promote their own personal agendas, like Osama. Even the Muslim clerics and Imams are fake believers since their main concern is a loss of power and control if and when Muslim believers ever learn to think for themselves.
    The implication it is forbidden for Muslims to make images of their prophet. Good for you. However, Muslim religious rules do not apply to other people/countries who do not practice your religion. Nor can those who are not Muslims “violate” Muslim tenets, only Muslims can “violate” Muslim tenets. Question: did Mohammed say in the Koran that his image could not be displayed, or did the Muslims just make this one up? If so, why? and when?
    Perhaps if Muslims should actually give the respect to other religions that # 32 and 33 claim they give to other religion’s prophets etc, and claim for themselves (actually practicing respect for Jews, Christians, Budhists, and others), they might be more deserving of respect themselves.
    It is a fact that Muslims routinely confiscate Bibles and other religious material from people entering their countries who are not Muslims but practise a different religion. They touch these books without gloves, without respect, taking them from their owners, destroying them, they persecute people in their communities who wish to become members of a religion other than Muslim, and refuse to allow other religious beliefs to be presented. Muslims may claim a billion believers, but they fail to point out that they force people to believe in their religion whether they wish to or not. And of course, on pain of death if they don’t.
    Does anyone else recall that Muslims have gone into other countries (Europe, Indonesia, India, etc.)and are allowed to practise their religion, yet persecute others for practising their religions in those countries? Example: the rise of anti-Jewish activities in France? the Hindu/Muslim conflicts? the anti-Christian/anti-any other religion threats in Indonesia post tsunami of last year? Dont’ the blowing up of Budha images thousands of years old in Afghanistan show an exteme hatred and intolerance, not to mention lack of respect?
    As a point of fact, the Muslim religion is not indiginous to anywhere except the Medina/Mecca area, where it started, by the way, #71, through force and violence on Mohammed’s part. It spread through the Mideast, Asia Minor, Mediterranean, and Europe through bloody conquest and force, much the same way that some are behaving and speaking like today. Some Muslims seem to think that bloody wars began with the Crusades, but the Crusades began as a response to (after) the bloody Muslim crusades that began in the 7th century. The media has been pandering to this twist on history, a lie, for some time now, apparently in an effort to appease the violent Muslim element and avoid being murdered, kidnapped, beheaded, aresenicked, burned, mobbed, ranted against, fatwahed, and any other typical, intimidating technique of terror. But really, shouldn’t the rest of us be more honest, as well as Muslims, about their real history? But then, the president of Iran claims there was no holocaust as he calls for the annihilation of Israel…
    As to the cartoons issue, more should be printed, not less. Several good ideas, and some humorous too, were expressed by some of these cartoons. Other works critical of any hypocrisy in the Muslim religion should be printed, just as they are for every other religion. (Afterall, Mohammed was just a man according to the religion.) Exposure, satirization, and criticism keeps religions and politicians honest.
    Someone mentioned the Catholic priest pedophiles. Why weren’t the Muslim cleric/Imam pedophiles mentioned? And please don’t tell me there aren’t any…of course there are. Nor are pedophiles confined just to religious organizations either. The same outrage applies to all.
    #17 through 20, I enjoyed the fun reparte.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    #109 Ruvy, that one requires some thought to outline in detail, since it’s more a sense of possibilities than a well thought-out argument – but what I said about military elites definitely applies. As you know, I’ve described elsewhere on Blogcritics the dangers I feel inherent in the very alliance with the US Christian right, many of whom subscribe to very traditional ‘anti-semitic’ views.

    And it’s always easier to live with a big bad boy when he seems to be working in your favour. Doesn’t mean he always will.

    What to make of the privatisation of global politics – the NGO-isation of the world – I’m far from settling that in my mind.

    For example is Soros working for ‘left’ or ‘right’ type ideals, or is the question completely irrelevent? I’m certainly concerned about his involvement in the ‘colour revolutions’, which also seems to involve a close alliance with US secret services. Yet at other times he seems to work against such interests.

    (I’d suspect that currently you’d applaud those efforts in Lebanon and Syria. To me it looks like throwing Lebanon back into the worst days of the 1980s, bringing back the same old faces.)

    I’m also old enough to remember the Israel of kibbutzim, Labour and socialism; seems like another world…

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem


    …it’s always easier to live with a big bad boy when he seems to be working in your favour. Doesn’t mean he always will.

    The question for Israelis has been which big bad boy to live with. Ben Gurion chose France in the 1950’s. In 1967, that bad boy turned on us. But we were able to get the one significant lasting benefit from them by stealing enough enriched uranium to set up bombs and the like.

    Ooops!! I wasn’t supposed to say that, was I? Well, it’ll be just our little secret. (Jeremy Irons – the “Lion King” 1995)

    In 1973, Golda chose America – and that bad boy has not only turned on us but bought a lot of our leaders out, and brought this nation to a great deal of grief.

    With respect to the Christian right, one has to be very careful. Let’s say that they are a mixed bag of nuts, not one kind only, and one has to be very careful about which peanut, cashew or walnut could break your teeth or be poisonous. There are some real friends and some real enemies. And some folks who for now are friends, and who will turn into enemies.

    It would be helpful for you to read this article at Blog Critics to get an idea of what my views are on Israeli politics. Both the article and the comments. Go to the links provided there.

    I do not look forward to another civil war in Lebanon. I haven’t forgotten the kids with the Kalashnikovs riding around in jeeps destroying Beirut like a boy with a temper tantrum wrecking an erector set.

    The privatization of government can only portend evil for us because our own leaders are unable to see us Jews as “class A.” In their eyes, we are always “class B” yids attempting to imitate the “class A” non-Jews elsewhere.

    This relates to why the US has been so easily able to buy our our leaders. It isn’t all money and intimidation, though that certainly helps. Take a look a the recent decision by the Magen David Adom to abandon its Shield of David to gain admittance to the International Red Cross.

    We need the International Red Cross? We don’t need them at all. If the ICRC burned in hell it wouldn’t cause even the slightest ripple in a cup of of tea here. It’s all a matter of “class B” Jews getting into the “class A” goyisher country club because they do not have enough self respect and spine to tell the “class A” non-Jews to go to hell.

    The failure of the kibbutzim and of socialism here is related to all this as well.

    I am a leftist – a true leftist. I am a syndicalist socialist. This country was founded upon its principles and synicalist socialism was a success here. But the practitioners were so busy imitating Stalin or social democrats in Europe that they could not see that their own native ingenuity had created a superior system of justly distributing wealth. Again “class B” yids attempting to imitate the “class A” gentiles elsewhere, and wreacking what they had in the process. Perhaps if they had actually believed in G-d when they were pounding out their message of social justice from the Book of Amos….

    I’m old enough to have wanted to be a kibbutznik and to have tried to get into one. But evidently, the Almighty meant me for a different task. The majority of the kibbutzim collapsed on their own self-congratulory mentality. When Begin cut off the bank loans, they started, most of them, into a tailspin from which they’ll never recover.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    #116 Thanks for the pointer to tikkun olam and Jubilee; checking it out.

    As for imitating Stalin or European social democrats: I’m both aware of the more general ‘anxiety of influence’, a constant colonial experience (I’m from New Zealand), and the way mid-century leftists blinded themselves and distorted their philosophies because of the atttraction of pointing to a successful existing model, usually Stalin’s Russia – often even after Kruschev and ‘de-Stalinisation’.

    More, here or elsewhere, after I read your links and pointers…

  • farifarzi

    Mark comment 110
    Its good to know that ur family represent multicultures. But believe me there is a culture to whih I belong and it represents Islam and it is not violent at all. It makes me laugh sometime when according to you people(most people on this site) I imagine my grandma with a bomb on her head. Or my very sweet father who was only happy when he has plenty of guests at his house and he loves to entertain them with lots of deliciuos dishes And remeber my father migrated from India in 947 so he has many non muslim friends most of them were Hindus and he loved them and missed them all his life (he is no more). He having a bomb on his head and killing people??? never I can never ever imagine that. It really hurts me when I read such comments. I have plenty of relatives around me(u know that muslims love to have close family ties even with the distant relatives) and they can be jealous, they can be irritating sometimes, they can be even difficult, but violent or killer???? no way. In fact I used to think that western culture is a very civilised one as it provides the privacy and freedom to everyone, but now I am forced to think otherwise. I think they deliberately hurt others and when some one protest they call them violent. They do not even say sorry because they think they are superior.

  • farzzi

    Mark, Please do not think that Islam is full of hate. In fat no religion is full of hate and Islam also forbids hating others The thing is that why these caricatures have hurt us so much is because Muhammed(PBUH) is the man who said that no black is better than white and no white is better than black, No arab is superior to non arab and non arabs are not superior one is only better then the other if he has done good things in his life. He was the most kind person who loved animals, who loved nature and who loved human beings. In his life when people threw stones on him and abused him he only prayed for them. its only that Muslims have a great love for Him in their hearts and cannot bear it when His personality is ridiculed or abused. And also please tell me if I abuse u and if I say that ur whole nation is violent would not it irritate u????

  • http://respect Mark

    I am glad that there is a non-violent side to Islam. Somehow that is getting lost in all of our anger and posturing. I want to see evidence that this peaceful side has some power and ability to control or extinguish the violent fanatics. As I see it, the middle east has been volatile and somewhat chaotic historically. If this chaos gains momentum and power without internal controls, the future looks bleak. Where are the imams who call for tollerance and peace? I admit that my adopted country (the U.S.A.) sometimes tends to “shoot from the hip”. The politicians don’t always represent the country very well. But in comparison to other countries, I see a nobleness of character and understanding in many who try to lead us. Imaging the weight of responsibilty on the shoulders of one man (the president) who is judged by everyone in the world and expected to deal with everything according to the values of every culture. If he was the leader of a small country with little power and few expectations, he could act like a “brat” as do many of those leaders.
    I hope I can establish a dialog with an individual who may teach me something that I don’t know about the middle east culture. It amazes me how well individuals can relate, yet cultures clash. I have a Palestinian neighbor who
    is great . We relate very well socially. He is not religious and seems to be very understanding politically. Is all this communication on this site a way to blow off some emotional steam or is there some positive solutions that we can come up with?

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    #111 My point was mainly about the proliferation of the cartoons through other European media outlets. But Flemming Rose’s association with Daniel Pipes (#89) raises new questions.

    #120 Your non-religious Palestinian neighbour may have a few insights into why the Palestinians are now predominantly led by religious parties, whereas a decade or so ago, they were nationalist groups.

    This is no accident, but the product of US (and Israeli) policy.

    #117 “the tyranny of distance” was another phrase used to describe the colonial experience. Basically the idea is that your culture, cities and lives are inferior imitations of the colonial power’s originals – e.g. the great cities, London, Paris, Rome.

    And in general, do the ‘freedom of speech’ brigade have any comment on the David Irving conviction in Austria for holocaust denial (an offence, I believe, committed 19 years ago).

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem


    Your wrote, “the Palestinians are now predominantly led by religious parties, whereas a decade or so ago, they were nationalist groups.

    This is no accident, but the product of US (and Israeli) policy.

    I agree with most of what you say, but do you care to elucidate? Particularly the part about this being American policy? I want to see if we track in our reasoning.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    And in general, do the ‘freedom of speech’ brigade have any comment on the David Irving conviction in Austria for holocaust denial (an offence, I believe, committed 19 years ago).

    What is there to say about it? The Austrian law, like all hate speech laws, is ridiculous. People should be judged by their actions and the harm they do others, not by their thoughts or words. The proper response to holocaust denial is social not legal. It should be ridicule and stygmatization, not imprisonment.


  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    Dave you’re being much too commonsensical. The ‘free speech limitation’ brigade, whose charge is led by the likes of Chromatius, want to go in the opposite direction. Starting from the assumption that EVERYONE must surely be in favor of censoring holocaust denial, they would extrapolate from there to advocate imposing freedom of speech limitations that will enshrine the tenets of Islam into Western law – all this brought to you by the same self-culture haters who are so adamant about separation of church and state when it comes to Christianity!

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    #124 “whose charge is led by the likes of Chromatius” – hey, not me; I just asked a couple of questions.

  • Dave Nalle

    Richard, I suspect you’re correct in associating Chromatius with self-hating eurosocialism in general, but I’m not sure that he’s as far gone as those who want to give up freedom of speech and other essential rights just to placate a bunch of fanatics.

    Of course, if the complaining fanatics were Christians there wouldn’t be an issue here – they’d just be ignored.


  • Farzi

    Hi Mark, Thank God at least u understood some parts of my blog. I still wonder what akes u think that Islam is full of hatred and violence. May I ask u that Islam is a 1400 years old religion. since then how many of ur ancestors or family members or neighbors or anyone whom u knew well have been killed , murdered or tortuered by muslims. In fact every human being have a negative and a positive side. Yes unfortunately most third world countries are run by incompetent, corrupt leaders and so their citizens do not get enough education and often controlled by so called religiuos and some times political leaders who just use them for their own interests. I admit that we are very unfortunate in this area. But at the same time good people exist here. and believe me they are larger in number, only that they do not have enough power which these bad guys enjoy. Do not compare a third world country with a super power like USA. I admit that it is the weaknesses of muslims that have brought us to this point where everybody sees us as violent and killers. But I still had some expectations from those who think they are better educated, they are enlightened, they are civilised, that they would not at least hurt the feelings of so many innocent peoples. You are asking me the proof of our being non violent, which unluckily I can not provide. I do not have a control over the media which is constantly showing u the darker side and constantly stuffing it in the brains of millions of people who otherwise had treated us very well in the past. But honestly if I switch on TV and see even an innocent child doing bad things I would start getting the idea that this small kid is a bad guy. This media is so powerful that it can take u anywhere where it wants u to without ur noticing it. For God’s sake try to find out the facts. Do not believe every thing that this media is showing u. The reality might be totally different from what u r watching. Try to find the truth before it is too late and u regret that u believed a complete lie of ur time. Another thing we never ask others to follow our path. Of course I cannot expect u or US President for that matter to observe the same values as we do. Only thing that a civilized person can expect from another (more civilised one) is to respect him , do not ridicule him especially publicly and would not abuse the other. Let me ask me one more thing. How would u react if for example I draw a bomb on ur father’s head or ur mother’s head or any of ur grand relatives whom u love and respect most??? Well if u think I am being too emotional I am sorry but this is an emotional moment for us, whom u have called publicly bombers and who have nothing to do with any suicide bombings. Hope this would be enough but I would like to have a n answer.

  • http://respect Mark

    I guess my problem is that I do not believe in giving homage to a diety who doesn’t make himself or herself easily recognizable. I think we have made those ancient “prophets” greater than they really were. I doubt that Mohammed would recognize what he has become in the eyes of Islam today. Do you think Jesus had aspirations to cause all the pain that the Catholic church committted in his name over the centuries? He spoke of love and forgiveness not cruelty and persecution. I have difficulty understanding how people can be so thin-skinned when their beliefs are critisized or subjected to satire. I also do not expect others to make laws requiring them to not make fun of my beliefs. I appreciate that the majority of Muslims are peace-loving, I think that your are right about the media having power to distort reality. I think everyone should take a “time-out” and give some serious thought on how to proceed on a different path. I think some give-and-take is in order. By the way, if you want to make a cartoon of my god, or prophet, or grandmother with a bomb on her head, it would not make me crazy.
    I just had a thought, this whole cartoon controversy may be due to the the degree of humor and tolerance that a society has. In the west, people are always lampooning each other. Is there humor in the middle east? And I am not making lite of the war and conflicts that have and do cause much pain, but we have to start pulling ourselves out of this pit that we all have dug.
    The Catolic Church appears to have climbed out of the middle ages, now it is time for Muslims to do the same.

  • Bliffle

    Mark: “I have difficulty understanding how people can be so thin-skinned when their beliefs are critisized or subjected to satire. I also do not expect others to make laws requiring them to not make fun of my beliefs.”

    I suspect that islamists see a need for government to positively support them with favorable law. Perhaps they fear that the religion collapses without government mind control.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Dave, you wrote,

    “People should be judged by their actions and the harm they do others, not by their thoughts or words. The proper response to holocaust denial is social not legal. It should be ridicule and stygmatization, not imprisonment.”

    Think about what you’ve said. Think of how many times in your life what someone else said influenced you to do or not do something…

    Consider carefully, Dave. Words carry weight – a lot of weight.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Ruvy, words can be influential, but no matter what words are spoken by or to me, my actions remain ultimately my responsibility, not the responsibility of the person who said something that influenced me. We all have free will and words are important, but not magical.


  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    …”but he told me to do it!!!” I know mom never excepted that excuse from me!

  • farzi

    well Mark,
    Good to know ur thoughts. What I could understand from the first part of ur blog is that u do not know much about Muhammed(PBUH) except that He was a prophet. Yes true He is our spiritual leader, but at the same time He was a great humanitarian. His teachings have impressed many westerners, hindus, sikhs etc. who are non muslim and have nothing to do with Islam but they like and love His teachings. Even the ex-president of US quoted his hadith(Hadith is th sermons of Muhammed(PBUH))when Clinton was being criticized and made guilty in an affair with a woman. What I am trying to say is that Human beings have reached to the present day developed society and civilization after going through hard struggle and effort. These men like Muhammed and Jesus had a great contribution towards this. We cannot ignore their contribution even if we try to. We should pay them respect even if not recognise them as religiuos leaders. Whenever we talk about humanity, love and forgiveness These persons life would be discussed no matter how hardly we try to ignore them. Yes Jesus gave the lesson of forgiveness and kindness and so did Muhammed. Its only that being in that part of the world u know about life of Jesus while being a muslim I have read about both of them. I think u do not know that muslims love and equally respect Jesus because according to Islamic teachings He was also the messenger of God and we call him “Massiha”(rescuer) of the humanity. A muslim can never disrespect Him first because it is prohibited in Islam to ridicule any religion and secondly because He is according to Koran a great messenger and massiah. I would suggest that u should find books about these great men Muhammed and Jesus and do this not because they were founder of great religions but because they were great great human beings. Believe me that many muslims think that by ridiculing Muhammed they have actully ridiculed the church and the Jesus. Because they would never allow this. Fine u think that religion is not that important but I have a different opinion for some reason I think there should be religion in our daily life. This debate would never end. People have different experiences and different opinions and arguments never end. In fact discussion is a healthy way. its good to share your thoughts but dont impose it on others because others might have totally different circumstances, different experiences and different environments than urs. I mean to say to make this world a peaceful place for everyone a place where every one has a right to stick to his thoughts, believes or culture unless it is harmful for anyone. Fine u think a person should accept healthy criticism. I agree but what these cartoons show is not a criticism its pure insult. well in west people are always lampooning each other. of course we have humour in our lives. we pull each others legs, we do all the funny things. In fact it will be very unrealistic if u believe that all muslims (who are billions in number) are grave, seriuos and tight lipped. They are human beings and have all the good and bad qualities which normal human beings possess. I have many cousins with whom I laugh alot I enjoy picnicing with them, enjoy going out with them , but there are people who are very thoughtful or subdued in manners and I never dare to crack a joke with them. It is good to have fun or make fun with ur friends but still it requires some limits. If u cross those limits ur friend might stop talking with u. But as far as these cartoons are concerned they dont come under the category of jokes, they are pure humiliation and insult. There is always a difference between being humrous and being insulting and even abusive. It is done by someone who really knew that what plcace Muhammed have in the hearts of mudslims. He has done it only to humiliate them. However its really fun sharing my thoughts and beliefs with u. Hope we will continue our discussions. Its good to have a different opinion and to know a person who belongs to a different culture or world but at least ready to listen to other point of view.

  • farzi

    comment 129
    “V I suspect that islamists see a need for government to positively support them with favorable law. Perhaps they fear that the religion collapses without government mind control.”
    To some extent I would say that u r right. Really humiliating in such cartoonic way does not effect the greatness of those personalities especially like Muhammed but I also know that in ur part of the world (which is obviuosly more civilised and tolerant than mine) there are such laws which prohibit humiliate, ridicule or hurt others. Some of my relatives who live in western countries have told me that u might be sued if u insult,hurt or humiliate someone publicly. My response was “wow how humane and considerate they are” After all this controversy and their government’s cold response to this I can just say “wow what impression I had .. it was all but fake”

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    “I suspect that islamists see a need for government to positively support them with favorable law. Perhaps they fear that the religion collapses without government mind control.”

    Substitute “religious right” for “islamists” and it sounds like the US…

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Isn’t it nice to know that those of you that support not publishing these cartoons are aligned with the World Socialist Web Site???

    I know I’d want my opinions bolstered by these loonies!!!

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    I think u do not know that muslims love and equally respect Jesus because according to Islamic teachings He was also the messenger of God and we call him “Massiha”(rescuer) of the humanity. A muslim can never disrespect Him

    Then why do you disrepect Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc. by only publishing and distributing the words of Mohammed (Koran) and completely throwing out the Old and New Testament scriptures containing the stories and teachings of these other important prophets? Your action speaks much louder than your empty words.

  • gonzo marx

    oh Andy…stooping to the dittohead attacks again?

    tsk tsk…and here i thought ya were doing so well


  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Come on now gonzo…I did a search for the cartoons and I came across that link…I just thought it was nice to know info!!! You know me better than to accuse me of being a ditto head…dontcha???

  • farzi

    comment 137 ” Then why do you disrepect Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc. by only publishing and distributing the words of Mohammed (Koran) and completely throwing out the Old and New Testament scriptures containing the stories and teachings of these other important prophets? Your action speaks much louder than your empty words.”
    Really I did not know that by not writing about someone u r actually disrespecting them. First let me correct u Koran does not have the words of Muhammed it has the words of Almighty and Muhammed is only the messenger of God. He made it clear that he is a human being not a super natural being. Muslims love him beyond anything and this love is a gift that God has bestowed upon him. Of course we love Jesus, Moses and Abraham. In our literature which is Urdu literature (u obviuosly not aware of it) there are many verses depicting Jesus as Massiah. We are very well aware of the lives of these religiuos leaders. And Koran is full of their stories if u find time u can study Koran and see that there are stories related to them. Its through Koran that we know about them. We never throw out the Bible or old Testament. In fact if u have a chance to meet christians of Pakistan u would know that they are more respectful towards their holy books then the christians of the rest of the world.
    But anyways it is not the religion which is an issue here. U have ur own chosen way and we have ours. Its only that why are we punished if we have chosen to live differently then urs. Do not we have every right to do so? why ridiculing our ways our thoughts and our most dear person? Only because someone thinks he is better than the others???

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    farzi: First let me correct u Koran does not have the words of Muhammed it has the words of Almighty and Muhammed is only the messenger of God.

    When you make a statment like this without prefacing it with “Muslims believe” you lose all credibility on a discussion forum. This kind of a forum is no place for someone FROM ANY RELIGION to come along and try to put people straight for not going along with their doctrine. Whether the Koran contains the words that a human named Mohammed dreamed up out of his own imagination, or words that were dictated to him by a god, is a matter of belief. I believe the former. You believe the latter. I’m not going to come along and “correct u” on a matter that belongs to the realm of belief instead of to the realm of fact. And I would appreciate it if you would show unbelievers (i.e. believers in something else besides what mulsims believe in) the same respect that you expect to be shown.

    We never throw out the Bible or old Testament. In fact if u have a chance to meet christians of Pakistan u would know that they are more respectful towards their holy books then the christians of the rest of the world.

    I’m not talking about christians, I’m saying that muslims are disrespecting the ancient prophets by failing to incorporate in their canon of scripture, right alongside the Koran, those ancient holy scriptures. Did Mohammed really claim to have been better than and superior to all the holy men of God who preceded him, or did he consider himself to be the last in a long and disinguished line of equally worthy prophets.

  • http://respect Mark

    I’ve enjoyed our exchanges. I think I understand you. As my Mark Twain quote originally indicated, I truly was a religious person for many years, I saw the world through the eyes of my religion and its dictates and values. I was able to judge right and wrong easily and was often quite critical of others shortcomings in relation to me “higher” values. When I woke up and realized that I was living in a”box”, I was able to see things objectively, and realized what a greater world there was. I can’t help but think that Muslims are stuck in a “box” and see things from a limited perspective as do most people afflicted with religiosity. I believe that we can communicate with our “god” without the need for the scriptures of other men. I don’t think that our god would pick a few “special” people to communicate with and expect the rest of us to rely on faith and the words of these so-called prophets.
    In your mind is Allah all knowing? Can he see the future? Does he know how things will all turn out? I know the western God is thought to know all things throughout all times. As for me, I do not know if that is true. I would expect that if I should know, he or she would tell me, but not through the words of other men.

  • http://opinionated.blogsome.com/ jamal

    What is very hypocritical of many European countries is that with the cartoons controversy, many countries (including Austria) chose “to anger millions of Muslims in the name of ‘freedom of speech'”.

    Many advocated the publishing and republishing of the cartoons to show that ‘freedom of speech’ is a protected right that must not be restrained.

    They therefore advocated the slandering of Muslims as ‘freedom of speech’, but now one of these very same countries (Austria) has jailed a man for denying the Holocaust and selectively and hypocritically denied his right to free speech.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Jamal, you’re a little confused. Freedom of speech, although it can be abused, is one of the key rights of a free society.

    It is a vital protection against the possibility of democratic dictatorship and part of the necessary protections that a written constitution and/or bill of rights can bring.

    The Austrian case wasn’t denying freedom of speech, it was preventing a wilful distortion of actual historical fact by someone with a racist agenda.

    Just because millions of Muslims are angered by the cartoons does not mean it was wrong to publish them. The subject of what can or can not be published in a free society has many nuances of detail but not publishing stuff for fear it may cause offence is clearly the thin end of the wedge of oppression.

    For example, the majority of people in the UK and the wider world are not Muslims. If that majority tried to stop people expressing views from a religious perspective, even ones as, er, exotic as those shared by the Jewish-Christian-Muslim one god theorists, that would be wrong.

    On the other hand, to mock such views as muddled, wrong-headed or even dangerous is classic freedom of speech.

    I can summarize it like this: I’ll fight for the right for you to believe in anything you want to – but I’ll fight you, if you try to force me to endorse or accord special respect to a viewpoint that clearly makes no sense.

    If any of the three strands of this god theory are in fact correct, whatever lies beyond this life surely awaits us all, as inevitably as tomorrow’s dawn, and no amount of mockery will change that.

    If they are all false stories of non-existent deities, then goodwill, reverence and spirituality are being cruelly exploited and abused, in which case mockery seems completely appropriate.

    The attractive qualities of religion are found in words of understanding, tolerance and even love, which many prophets have also espoused. It seems to me that few of them would recognise many of the acts being done today in their name…

  • http://opinionated.blogsome.com/ jamal

    Christopher, no, you are mistaken. Lets be clear in our understanding that “the exercise of the freedom of speech and expression carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

    With the cartoons case the willful slandering and stereotyping of Muslims perpetuated the plight of Muslims and their response led to worldwilde social disorder. There newspaper in question previously did not print similar cartoons about jesus as it did not want to offend christians and anticipated that similar effects could occur. Therefore it was negligent in its practice and in exercising free speech which must not contravene the rights, reputations, securities and protectionism of others.

    With the Autrrian case, David Irving did distort history. However, he based it on evidence and therefore it is his right to have an opinion. In 1991 Jean Baudrillard claimed the gulf war did not occur and no arrest has yet been made. With both irving and Baudrillard,the only ones their exercise of free speech really affected were themselves.

    You yourself incorporate the hypocrisy of Austia by condemning Irving as abusing free speech with a racist agenga while considering the publishing of offensive cartoons as permissible.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    The Austrian [holocaust denial] case wasn’t denying freedom of speech, it was preventing a wilful distortion of actual historical fact by someone with a racist agenda.

    I have to differ most emphatically with you here. The muslims would say that implying Mohammed was a terrorist is a distortion of historical fact by people who have an anti-islamic agenda.

    What was or was not “historical fact” can be debated. Freedom of speech means just that – freedom from having to provide proof to any government authorities that what you want to say is factual before you are allowed to say it, and/or proof that your motivations are “pure” (non-racist, non-anti-multiculturalist, etc.)

    Otherwise what you have is not a substantial freedom of speech by right, but rather a hollow, pseudo freedom of speech by permission. The Austrian case was most certainly a very regrettable denial of freedom of speech.

  • farzi

    Comment 141
    Richard, well whatever u think but i would say that ur approach is not a realistic one. Of course we belong to different religions and thats why we are having different opinions. Its ridiculous to ask followers of one religion to promote the other religion. Remember ridiculing one religion is quite different than promoting it. U mean if we ask u respect Muhammed or our religion we are asking u to promote it???? First thing I am not asking u particularly to give respect to Muhammed. Its the feeling of many which have been hurt and its not exactly religion but a matter of ethics and mannerism that nobody should do it again. If I agree with ur theory it means that by not spreading the word of Jesus muslims are disrespecting Jesus. It means all other religions are also disrespecting other one. Be realistic and be reasonable.
    Why u people want to pull everyone in a never ending row where religion is concerned. Everybody has all the rights to follow whatever religion they want. Its a matter of ethics that is violated here. It is deliberate and with some hidden interest.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    I though we’d already established that there are limits on freedom of speech?

    My take on that is that you can mock my beliefs or appearance from afar all you want. However, if you come to my house or get in my face and scream abuse or threat violence towards me and my loved ones, you’re going down.

    Like I said, freedom of speech has limits, but not the kind the cartoon protestors would like. There’s also a difference between an “authority figure” or expert formally asserting that there was no holocaust and some daft bloke down the pub.

    It’s very hard to imagine a scenario in which his words were anything other than deliberately calculated to offend everyone who fought against the Nazis and their supporters. It was a blatant attempt to cast some intellectual credibility on a particularly repugnant set of views.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    It was a blatant attempt to cast some intellectual credibility on a particularly repugnant set of views.

    That may be true. But by your own standard, which is also my own, he wasn’t getting into anybody’s face … threatening violence. He was “mocking beliefs from afar” as you put it.

    “Not offending sensibilities” is not a condition for limiting freedom of speech, whether the offend group is muslim fanatics or people who fought against the Nazis.

    The only limitation on Freedom of Speech should be – issuing direct threats of physical harm or death.

  • http://opinionated.blogsome.com/ jamal

    So christopher, since you now acknowledge “freedom of speech has limits”, am I right to assume that you agree the publication of the cartoons with offended, slandered, blasphemed and offended Muslims and Islam was a contravention?

    Am I also right to assume that you realise the difference between the above and merely denying something occured. Regardless of your answer, am I right to assume that you should agree that if Austria allowed the cartoons then it should have also allowed Irvings denial.

    ‘Pick and choose’, or ‘all or nothing’?

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Jamal: No you would be wrong to make that assumption. Both times.

    I choose yes to the cartoons but no to Irving. It doesn’t always have to be all or nothing. The world is a much more nuanced place than that…

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    am I right to assume that you should agree that if Austria allowed the cartoons then it should have also allowed Irvings denial.

    ‘Pick and choose’, or ‘all or nothing’?

    You’re right, jamal, in perceiving that Christopher is inconsistent. He seems to want it one way in one case and a different way in another.

    You and I, on the other hand are both consistent. The difference of course is that you choose the “nothing”, anti-free speech option (disallow BOTH the holocaust denial and the “Mohammed” cartoons), whereas I choose the opposite, “all”, pro-free speech option of allowing both.

    I would allow the Mohammed cartoons just as I would allow cartoons making fun of the Reverend Jones “Koolaid cult”. Freedom of Speech cannot have one standard for a small religion consisting of a few dozen followers, and a different one for a large religion with a billion followers.

  • http://opinionated.blogsome.com/ jamal

    “I choose yes to the cartoons but no to Irving”

    And that constitutes a double standard.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Richard, I’m not inconsistent as the cases are not the same as I have already indicated above. Nice to see the first signs of Christian-Islamic agreement though…

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Jamal, actually it constitutes a victory for intelligence over dogma.

    Nobody ever said life wasn’t complex. This broad brush approach that you and Mr Brodie seem to share is most puzzling.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    the cases are not the same

    I’ve been trying to draw out of you what you think the salient differences are, but have so far failed. So let me ask you: is it because the offended group in the case of the cartoons is brown muslim people, while the offend group in the holocaust denial case is white european people?

  • http://opinionated.blogsome.com/ jamal

    Richard, yes that is it. Christopher is exemplery of Europes hypocritical stance on freedom of speech. To slander muslims of permissible, but to deny the holocaust is not.

    My stance is that the response over the cartoons is an over-reaction and was perpetuated by these freedom of speech justifications. I would like non-muslims to consider my sentiments and avoid slandering me but would not demand they do so as long as I can freely provide my opinions towards them also.

    My opinion is that people should have their say. However, there must be consistency and imprisoning Irving after allowing the cartoons sends a clear messege of prejudice to muslims. I assume the Irving case is possibly fuel for further riots and disdain over the cartoons.

  • http://opinionated.blogsome.com/ jamal

    Christopher, allowing the widespread offending of Muslims sentiments while imprisoning a man for offending Jewish sentiments actually constitutes a victory for UN-intelligence.

    I second the question put to you:

    “is it because the offended group in the case of the cartoons is brown muslim people, while the offend group in the holocaust denial case is white european people?”

  • farzi

    Comment 140
    Yes I strongly nelieve in Allah and that He knows every thing. He has all the power and He is our Creator. I told u that I have different experience than urs. I believe that, whatever religion people follow, being religiuos is better than not religiuos at all. My religion has helped me at times of great despair. It has helped me keep sane during some very hard moments of my life. And this happened very recently in my life when one of my cousin got cancer. Doctors have given up now. Although money is not a problem here as his brothers and father can afford his treatment. One of his brothers is an oncologist in US so he prescribes the latest medicine and here very competent doctors are looking after him , but despite of everything we feel very helpless now. In such conditions where would one have to turn to. Of course at such times it is a great help if u have a super power who can help, who asks for nothing but just gives u. In fact according to my observations (it applies to people of every religion) only those people who are downtrodden , who are sufferers, who are oppressed and who are poor they are more religiuos than the ones who are happy and belong to elite class. So if u say something absurd about a religion u are actullay hurting those who are already suffering.I mean it does not effect them like elitists of a society but those who have no one else but a religion to turn to. Imagine a mother whose last ray of hope is that religion and by saying something bad about it u have hurt her deeply.
    Of course I agree that religion bounds u. It gives u a code of ethics and ask u to follow it, but does not it better for the environment if u follow a certain set of values rather than following ur heart all the time? I think a time comes when every one is tired of his freedom and really wants someone to stop him from doing absurd things, someone who would try to keep one in the limits. Thats why the laws of a state are made and thats why religions do exist.

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    jamal: I would like non-muslims to consider my sentiments and avoid slandering me but would not demand they do so as long as I can freely provide my opinions towards them also.

    Wow! you appear to be more amenable to free speech than I would have expected. What you are correctly understading is that government suppression of free speech is a two-edged sword that can easily swing back and cut off muslims’ own rights to express their thoughts and feelings as well.

    One thing other thing I would hope you can grasp, is that the cartoons are not a slander against you or any muslim individuals, except perhaps terrorists. What they are is an expression of the view (which you are free to believe is a mistaken one) that Mohammed’s Koranic writings are providing the inspiration for terrorist activity. That is a widely held belief, and one that we non-muslims will continue to express ourselves on with the written word, cartoons, motion pictures and in whatever other peaceable manner we so choose.

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    I gotta tell ya…some of you people are pretty fucking thickheaded…you’re all from the same…what is it…13 tribes…muslims…jews…it’s the same damn thing! Same god…or allah…or whatever you want to call him…same freaking guy! You’re all brown! The only european jews are converted christians! Judaism started in THE MIDDLE EAST!!! Long before your religion was invented!

    You’re offended…GET THE FUCK OVER IT!!! I’m offended that people are to damn stupid to realize that a cartoon can’t hurt you! More than half the motherfuckers rioting probably can’t even read the captions on the cartoons…they’re only offended because they were TOLD to be offended!

    I know some of you will try to call me a racist or a bigot or whatthefuckever…and I don’t give a rats ass…

    You want to blow up the fucking planet? Find a better reason that a cartoon! Jesus H. Fucking Christ!

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Jamal & Richard, if you would both take the trouble to pop back up to comment #144, I believe I have already explained the difference between the two cases.

  • http://opinionated.blogsome.com/ jamal

    Richard, I accept that the cartoons in their intention were against terroorists. However, in the current climate they served to perpetuate stereotypes against muslims and also mocked Islam. For these reasons I could never be at ease with them. What further trubled me regarding this is that the newspaper in question previously did not print similar cartoons pertaining to christianity for similar reasons. But again, the fact remains that I do not expect non-muslims to always view my as I please and I hope they do not expect the same of me. The difference is that if many start to complain at my words and are clearly offended, I would make an apology for doing so, particularly if I am reasonably considered to be perpetuating existing problems of hate. This was the original nature of the complaint to the newspaper, and whether they complied was their choice. This is how I see it, everthing else is a distortion. With one side argueing freedom of speech while the pther violent protested achieved nothing except disunity.

    Christopher, will you answer the question or not?

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    Chistopher: There’s also a difference between an “authority figure” or expert formally asserting that there was no holocaust and some daft bloke down the pub.

    You have an interesting notion of free speech – one that does not apply equally to all people. Apparently you think the more qualifications a person has to speak about something, the more constricted his freedom to express his opinions must be.

    Well, since you’re OK with starting to chip away at the principle, would you like to take the opportunity to advocate that a non-“nuanced”, black and white person like me should be thrown in jail, not for denying the holocaust, but for the much more dangerous crime of advocating that any person should be free to deny it if they want to?

  • http://respect Mark

    I am understanding you better with each exchange.
    I think you are truly looking at the world from within the confines of a “box”. You keep refering to an elitism. I don’t feel that kind of separation from others. I was very poor in my early life, and have worked hard to come out of that. I chose the USA as my place of residence and became a naturalized citizen. Class distinction are not set in stone here as they were and are in my native country.
    Freedom is a wonderful thing and I empathize with those who are stuck in a rigid society.
    For those who advocate a particular religion, I say look at the good in all religions. As my son-in-law has asked, “Can a billion Buddhist be wrong?” Isn’t there any thing in Islam that troubles you?
    I think there is good in all religions and there is some bad in ALL religions. I think you should open your heart and eyes and you will see things from a much greater vantage.
    If you believe that Islam is the only True religion, then our communcation will eventual stall. Too many other religions claim to be the ONLY TRUE ONE. God must have a sense of humor to witness all of this fanatacism.
    If man can learn to see the good and bad of the past and learn from it and look to change to the better, then life will get better. I believe in eternal progression that if we truly want to become better, we can. We do not have to accept single doctrines from a single earthly source. God is within each of us, we have only to see that. One of my favorite speeches comes not from a prophet but from a president: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
    As far as looking to religion for comfort in desperate times, I look to my maker in those times. There is a difference.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    Richard: I think it does matter more what so called experts or leaders say and do than is the case with everyday guys like me.

    I could write something stupid like “Let’s Nuke Texas” here every day for the rest of my life and it wouldn’t add up to squat; I doubt even Texans would be alarmed and they’re a funny, touchy bunch down there!

    Now if some relatively powerless “leader” like, say, Castro or Chavez said the same thing, it would get rather a different reaction. So the onus to be responsible is clearly much higher on public figures, we require them to behave to a higher standard.

    We have all seen what happens when public passions become inflamed to the extent of rioting, as we have seen everywhere from the USA to the UK (I have personally lived through three urban riots in London) to the Middle East and beyond in the last 40 or 50 years.

    Finally, to answer your closing question: No, I don’t think that you should be jailed for making that point. I still feel that Irving was right to be charged with the crime and indeed convicted.

    My personal view is that as life is cruelly brief, anybody who wastes my precious limited time here on this beautiful planet with deliberately false or misleading information, such as faithists, racists, creationists, false historians and other charlatans ought to be jailed for wasting my one most precious resource, my life. That’s just me, mind.

    The whole Irving affair was almost certainly engineered as a political stunt in any case. It can have been no accident that he returned to Austria, can it? His cabal clearly thought that any possible sentence he might get was worth the publicity it would bring. It now appears they may have slightly miscalculated…

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    Christopher: the onus to be responsible is clearly much higher on public figures, we require them to behave to a higher standard.

    Yes it is, and yes we do, though I would prefer to say “expect” not “require.” And the appropriate way to hold them to a higher standard is to vote them out of office (politicians); don’t buy their books or write our own book debunking them (authors); fire them (professors), etc. – not punish them with fines, jail terms, or execution.

    Christian Fleck a Sociologist at the University of Graz agrees with me (from a BBC article):

    If Austria wants to prove itself a modern democracy, argues Fleck you use argument not the law against Holocaust deniers.

    “Are we really afraid of someone whose views on the past are palpable nonsense, at a time when every schoolchild knows of the horrors of the Holocaust? Are we saying his ideas are so powerful we can’t argue with him?” he asks.

    “Irving is a fool. And the best way of dealing with fools is to ignore them.”

    If anything, Professor Fleck contends, a trial endows such ideas with a certain credibility.

    “By outlawing such opinions, inevitably we give them the frisson of the banned. We run the risk of turning them into an attractive proposition.”

    The risk remains that Mr Irving will seem a martyr to free speech and that his trial will further fuel the anger of those who accuse Europe of double standards – apparently ready to cite freedom of expression when it comes to printing cartoons offensive to Muslims, while incarcerating those who insult Jews.

    And so who is it that may have miscalculated! Certainly not Irving’s “cabal.” He only got 3 years instead of 10. And the Islamic world doesn’t give a rat’s ass about your subtle nuances (is that a tautology?). They’re fuckin’ pissed at what they see as the discriminatory treatment of Jew offenders vs. Muslim offenders.

  • Bini

    Well i read all of your comments and just want to say please stop arguing about a thing which was morally WRONG..i think that nobody should ever ridicule or make fun of any religion..The Danish newspaper & the prime minister should apolize , its their moral obligation, because we should accept that whatever they have done was wrong…To Muslim thier religion and their prophet is sacred, and nobody has a right to ridicule anyones religion…Do not use freedom of speech as an excuse…Everyone should should stay in their limits..

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Last night, at the lecture I am the master of ceremonies to, an interesting event occurred. It has a direct relation to Chris’s observations and to the article by the Austrian sociologist (a wasted discipline if there ever was one).

    The lecture was to be about a church in the Old City that has become the subject of a bit of controversy, and a venerable fellow, a historian, was going to explain the church’s background.

    The ususal way things work is that the fellow who runs the lecture series delivers opening remarks of his own, I introduce the speaker, and the lecture proceeds.

    I began on time (unusual in Israel – but we insist on starting on time, like in the real world) and began my remarks. The fellow who ran the series had not yet arrived. Logic told me to get the show on the road. A tall man with a white beard interrupted me immediately saying “I came to hear a lecture about Charlemagne’s Church, not you.” I explained to him what our procedure and told him if he wanted to wait outside until the lecturer began, he was free to.

    I spoke for ten minutes or so, while this man attempted to interrupt. I mostly ignored him (the sociologist’s advice). When I was done, I introduced the speaker whoi came to the podium. Thirty seconds later, the fellow who runs the lecture series arrived, asying he wanted to make some remarks.

    The speaker is a good friend of his, so it didn’t bother him. It’s his lecture series, so I clapped my mouth shut (he’s a good friend and a wonderful guy, but he tends to go on a bit).

    The tall fellow in the white beard wasn’t having any interruptions. He complained abut me and about how he was waiting for the speaker etc. The fellow who runs the lecture series told him to stop interrupting – it was his lecture series. The fellow in the white beard wouldn’t shut up.

    After politely asking the man several times, the fellow who runs the lecture series walked over to him, bodily picked him up and shoved him out the door, and when the man continued to argue in the hall, he bodily shoved him out of the building, telling him never to show up at his lecture series again.

    It turned out that the fellow had not paid, claiming that he was part of the program, etc., etc. He was just a fool who is used to getting his way by lying and by raising a stink – not too different from David Irving, but far less dangerous.

    Sometimes you do not ignore a fool.

    In this case, it was approppriate to eject the man. In the case of David Irving, since one cannot eject someone from society, it is appropriate to jail him for what is in essence, libel and slander.

    There is no issue of free speech involved here. David Irving got the least of what is coming to him. A pity that the Austria taxpayer has to feed the bastard while he sits in jail and his agitprop machine whines away.

  • http://alienboysworld.blogspot.com/ Christopher Rose

    On your #167, Richard, I rather had the impression that Irving’s lot thought he would get a non-custodial sentence. He certainly looked shocked when it was announced but I guess he could just look that way all the time!

    Anyhow, I see that just right now Richard the Christian, Ruvy the Jew and Rose the baffled onlooker are all agreeing whilst Bini the Moslem begs to differ. Quite a dance, hey folks?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Chris, it strikes me that you, I and Mr. Brodie agree, but rather it is Jamal who begs to differ. Bini appears to want us to cease and desist from discussing that which in his eyes is immoral – the desecration of his Prophet. He seems to make no reference to the good Mr. Irving at all.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    I think Irving’s a bit of a fool, and he defnitely chose the wrong allies – more than once. And the wrong place to visit – Austria’s pretty keen to press its correctness on this front, particularly when it doesn’t affect the Austrian establishment. A bit of history there… (remember Kurt Waldheim?)

    But to be imprisoned for a 19 year old (I believe) statement, and after a near total retraction, seems a little extreme.

    From the little I know, his work seemed to exploit the zone where commonly held views don’t quite match the historical record e.g. not all the camps were death camps, some were actually concentration camps. And I mean exploit, not explore, especially once he linked up with the BNP.

    From the little I know, there were a couple of points he raised I’d liked to have followed up, and the zone he exploited is worth exploring, but I’ve never found the time or the inclination. Tricky area too – you have to be very sure of your facts and then delicately step through a minefield trying to express them. Irving certainly had no delicacy or subtlety.

  • farzi

    Mark 165
    Either u relly did not understand or u dont want to. I used the wrod religion, not Islam and by being religiuos I meant whatever religion u follow. However if u insist on targetting Islam and in ur opinion I am living in a rigid society I wont object. Everybody has a right to think that he or she is living in the best culture and best environment. As far as elitism is concerned I have been to US once and have observed there class distinction. Besides on this site many comments sound very snobbish. If u donot agree its ur problem. Class distinction exist everywhere and now that world has become a global village this distinction is very much there in this village and one such act we have seen in the shape of those cartoons.
    However I know that u r not willing to admit it. U have brought me to the point again where we started. When I asked u why u want everybody else to follow ur thoughts. I know u keep on insisting it. The controversy here is about Cartoons which shows how morally bankrupt u have become, no matter how u have progressed in technology and everything else,but morally u r just going down and down. I was just wondering u may twist the words while replying to people like me but if ur children would ask u such questions what would u say? for example they may ask u ” why abusing one community comes under the ‘freedom of Speech’ while saying something about another community is a crime and illegal act?” and they may qustion “if we are allowed to insult one whole nation then why not our own very dear ones?” and they may ask “Have muslims invented the Nuclear Bomb, because according to u they are a violent nation? were they behind the attacks of Heroshima and nagasaki?” Do u have answers. Oops I am sorry I forgot ur children are supposed to leave u when they r 18 . Now I know why u send them away just to avoid their questions. So they would be busy in earning money and u do not have to face them untill they, like u, too have gone through a brain washing act through ur media and become a strong part of this hypocritical set up.

  • fari

    did i write something u r finding hard to swellow. too much truth is very bitter i agree

  • http://www.codexalimentarious.com/ Richard Brodie

    Ruvy: the article by the Austrian sociologist (a wasted discipline if there ever was one)

    Well then let me give you additional commentary, this time by some vey principled and respected Jewish luminaries, among them Deborah Lipstadt, who spent six years defending herself against Irving’s libel suit. This is from the United Jewish Community website:

    Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt was once sued by David Irving, but that doesn’t mean she supports the jail sentence given to the Holocaust denier this week.

    “I’m in principle against laws that promote censorship. I’m in principle against laws on Holocaust denial. I’m in principle against laws that prevent the publishing of cartoons in Denmark,” Lipstadt, a professor of Jewish and Holocaust studies at Emory University in Atlanta, told JTA on Tuesday, a day after an Austrian court sentenced Irving to three years in prison for statements he made in 1989

    Lipstadt was not alone among Jewish observers in expressing concern over the latest chapter in Irving’s well-publicized effort to deny the Holocaust.

    “The sentence against Irving confirms that he and his views are discredited, but as a general rule I don’t think that this is the way this should be dealt with,” Antony Lerman, former director of the London-based Institute for Jewish Policy Research, told JTA. “It is better to combat denial by education and using good speech to drive out bad speech.”

    “Freedom of expression is important,” he said. “Once you start legislating about history, it could lead to a rocky road.”

    In 2000 he [Irving] lost a highly publicized libel lawsuit in London against Lipstadt and her publisher, Penguin Books, after Lipstadt called him a Holocaust denier in her 1994 book, “Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory.”

    That victory, perhaps, helps support her conviction that books, and not laws, are what should fuel the fight against denying the Holocaust.

    “We don’t need laws to fight Holocaust deniers. We’ve got history on our side,” she said.

    It is refreshing to see this kind of courage and consistent dedication to that cornerstone of Western Civiliztion, Freedom of Speech. Especially at a time when there are so many outright idiots trying to fuzzy up the boundaries, as well as otherwise fairly clear thinking people like yourself.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem


    You’re sure right about the fuzzy thinking part. The professional Jewish world is as packed with fuzzy thinkers as matzo ball soup is with kneidlech.

    You just cited three off the bat – JTA (the Jewish Telegraphic Agency), Deborah Lipstadt and Antony Lerman.

    None of them has figured out the essential lesson of the murder of six million Jews during WWII. It is this: The world does not view us Jews as part of Western Civilization. These Jews view themselves as part of it and they are dead wrong.

    They still do not know “who they are”. Even a baboon with a blue butt (Rafiki from The Lion King) is smarter than they are. But they have for company all the assimilated Jews of North America and Europe and the secular Jews of Israel who run away from their identity. No surprises here.

  • Charles

    Hey, BLIMEY #114, you make some valid points, However, I WAS NOT trying to single out religion as the main cause of all wars. While I am agnostic and not into religion I do believe that everyone has the right to believe in whatever or whoever they choose to believe in. I further stated that it is the religious zealots and radicals who are the true troublemakers in todays world. These are the “bad eggs” who hide behind the mask of a particular religion in order to stir up trouble. That in itself is a form of GREED in that these so-called holy people want everyhing their way and will resort to violence in order to get it. Their form of oppression is every bit as stifling as was Communism in its heyday.

    Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Pol-Pot, Mao Tse-Tung and Kin Jong-il may not be religious leaders, but they all believed or believe in something and those beliefs resulted in wars, pestilence and human suffering.
    Call it what you want, but whether it be religious beliefs, political beliefs or terrorism it all boils down to plain, old self-centered greed, fanaticism and forced will.
    AND … I am NOT singling out any one group. Everyone is to blame… those who cause it, those who accept it and those who do nothing about it.

  • Bini

    Well.. i Think most you have no vision at all, u r only seeing things from a closed box and have a very limited knowledge… Mark I must say that you are the one who is living in a closed box..please open up your mind and vision and come out of the box…We should all admit with an open mind that the cartoon were MORALLY wrong… i m not imposing my religion or thoughts on any one but lets just think with an open mind…why touch an issue which is sensitive to many people..why ridicule any religion for that matter..When the Danish Editors knew that Muslims have a lot respect for Prophet Muhammad so why did they provoke the muslims at the first place… There was political motive behind all this..why dont u guys see the political motive behind all this..The media is a big LiAR..

    I Admit that the violent protests are not the answer to this..The key question is whether the demonstrators have love for the Holy Prophet, who was a symbol of peace, love and patience. The same question should be put for the Europeans- whether they do really love freedom of expression or are merely practicing their double standards…So i request all the people to think clearly and logically about this whole issue and you would come to know that it was wrong to print those cartoons..and not all muslims are Extremists…I think you guys would agree with me, if u are literate enough .. which i doubt

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    #175 That’s not how I read her, or Lerman’s, comments.

    From your quotes: “”I’m in principle against …” (x3), “but as a general rule”; “I don’t think that this is the way this should be dealt with”; “It is better”; “Freedom of expression is important”; “Once you start legislating about history, it could lead to a rocky road”.

    These are all very weak assertions. Behind both I hear an implicit ‘but’.

    My reading: they’re happy with the verdict; all the equivocation is just covering their asses ‘cos they know they’re meant to support free speech and all that worthy stuff.

    Finally – “history on our side”; well yeah, he’s in jail.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    Ruvy, of course Jews are part of western/European civilisation, in a multitude of ways – intellectual, artisitic, scientific, financial and even mating and family (pace the issue I raise below).

    As are the Arabs and Muslims, although not for quite as long. But both have intersected western civilisation in profound ways. And both share the characteristic of wanting a deep involvement of religion in daily social and political life. In general more so than many/most westerners have for some centuries now – certainly as reflected in political settlements.

    But what I understand as mainstream Judaism also insists on the link between faith and race/ethnicity. (And it follows a matrilineal tradition, which makes for some additional issues.)

    This is a bit different, and constantly presents difficult questions for reigning empires/civilisations. It was what constantly bugged the Romans.

    I believe the Jews are visible or ‘difficult’ for this reason, not because they offend our sensibilities or our tribalism in some racist way.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    # 114 “Hitler was not religious, nor Stalin, nor Lenin, nor Pol Pot, not Mao Ts Tung, nor leaders of North Korea? They were/are patently not religious. These wars were caused for political agendas and greed, by hypocrites for power and control.”

    True. But the techniques they used to sway people, to capture their loyalty, were in every case ‘religious’ – in that they were derived from the religious history and practice of their lands.

    You could even argue that their being ‘politics’ was less significant than being ‘religion’ – as experienced by their audiences.

    Greed, power – they’re constants. (Hypocrisy metric might be a bit higher these days though.)

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem


    But what I understand as mainstream Judaism also insists on the link between faith and race/ethnicity. (And it follows a matrilineal tradition, which makes for some additional issues.)

    This is a bit different, and constantly presents difficult questions for reigning empires/civilisations. It was what constantly bugged the Romans.

    I believe the Jews are visible or ‘difficult’ for this reason, not because they offend our sensibilities or our tribalism in some racist way.

    The issue is not how you folks view us or don’t view us – it is how we view us. When Jews view themselves as part of “western civilization,” they always view the non-Jew as higher quality than the Jew. That is bad enough.

    But the real issue is that the Jew – according to Tana”kh – is not to be reckoned among the nations, but is to dwell as a people alone.
    This has several implications. The most basic one is that we need to view ourselves as a people alone and not assimilate into western society.

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    Like riffing on Blogcritics?

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    Uh, forget the ad hominem moment.

    So it’s evident that having a people living amongst you who ascribe to the faith/race link AND ideas of aloneness in history might generate some friction on occasion?

  • http://chromatius.blogspot.com/ Chromatius

    Not just faith/race – but ‘people’ as well (latin natio/nationis).

    Sovereigns and sovereign governments demand loyalty, a single allegiance – in matters of tax as well as national politics. More friction.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy in Jerusalem

    So it’s evident that having a people living amongst you who ascribe to the faith/race link AND ideas of aloneness in history might generate some friction on occasion?

    Not just faith/race – but ‘people’ as well (latin natio/nationis).

    Sovereigns and sovereign governments demand loyalty, a single allegiance – in matters of tax as well as national politics. More friction.

    All of the above are 100% correct, Chromatius.

    That is the point of having all these people come home, where the sovereign is the sovereign ruler of this people, and not another. That is why our books of prophecy call for this and predict it, and this is why you have seen this in your lifetime (though you may not have been looking for it).

    A Jew in Germany is not a German of the Mosaic persuasion. He is a Jew. That wasn’t the driving reason I came here, but it is something I figured out after getting here.

    That is why you will see the regime here collapse and eventually be replaced with one that takes the view I’ve explained – not because they will agree with me (like anything I say matters), but because it is in the Torah.

  • http://www.richardbrodie.com/ Richard Brodie


    I admire the Jews for how they have maintained their identity by their aversion to assimilating themselves into other cultures, and by spearating themselves into a geographic area where they can exclude other races from trying to intrude and assimilate.

    This is the only answer to peaceful coexistence on this planet, where each race respects every other race. True preservation of that diversity, to which the left gives lip-service when it conveniently serves some agenda of theirs, requires not simply segregation into separate communities within the same nation, but a geographical separation into different nations.

    Abraham Lincoln knew the truth which Israel repesents. Four years before the Civil War he said, on June 26, 1857:

    There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races.

    Now I protest against that counterfeit logic which concludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either, I can just leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal; but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal, and the equal of all others.

    Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: agreed for once—a thousand times agreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women, and black men enough to marry all the black women; and so let them be married.

    A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation but as all immediate separation is impossible the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free colored persons may get into the free States, in any event; but their number is too insignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood.

    I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation … Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization … The enterprise is a difficult one; but “when there is a will there is a way;” and what colonization needs most is a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense and self-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and, at the same time, favorable to, or, at least, not against, our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to do it, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbers as to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptian bondage in a body.

    How differently the respective courses of the Democratic and Republican parties incidentally bear on the question of forming a will — a public sentiment — for colonization, is easy to see. The Republicans Lincoln’s Party inculcate, with whatever of ability they can, that the negro is a man; that his bondage is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppression ought not to be enlarged. The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf to insignificance, the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible, crush all sympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust against him; compliment themselves as Union-savers for doing so; and call the indefinite outspreading of his bondage “a sacred right of self-government.”

    The plainest print cannot be read through a gold eagle; and it will be ever hard to find many men who will send a slave to Liberia, and pay his passage while they can send him to a new country, Kansas for instance, and sell him for fifteen hundred dollars.

    It’s too bad Lincoln’s colonization plan was not carried out. 100,000 young Americans, including many blacks, paid with their lives for that failure, in the ensuing civil war. Just as the Jews are happier in their natural homeland, so the Negroes should have been relieved to return to their own homelands. They would have had a dignified existence amongst their own people, rather than continuing to be enslaved, as they still are, though now in welfare-dependency ghettos instead of on cotton plantations.