danish cartoons: essay link

[cimorene]

this link, germanely provided by therightdress, leads to a messageboard associated with what claims to be "the world's most popular muslim online magazine".

It is a sad, unfortunate fact that the conservative and fundamentalist strains of Islam, more than any other religious force, are the single greatest antagonists towards free expression in the free world. It is the position of all four main schools of Islamic thought, not to mention Wahhabism, that apostates are to be put to death, and that blasphemy is punishable by death. [...] I contend that in the free world, publically criticizing or insulting Islam is the most dangerous form of free expression. [...]

Such a religious tradition must be defied openly and without apology. It would be cowardly not to do so. Yet it was this tradition that made the prospect of mocking Islam terrifying to most artists or writers in Europe, who were increasingly censoring themselves, not out of respect or sensitivity, but out of fear.

This was why those cartoons were published.

there's a discussion thread attached to it which is so far neither very long nor very controversial, but which i still found interesting.  there's also a repost of the "danish paper rejected jesus cartoons" article, which the op says doesn't change their argument.

Comments

[protoplasmica.livejournal.com]

Hmm...but isn't that the case for all Biblical religions? Judaism and Christianity both have treatises on blasphemy...it's the only way these mono-theist religions can hope to keep their converted. Personally I think that there is nothing necessarily fundamentalist about demonstrating against the cartoons...because defence of the religion is part of the religion itself.

I personally don't understand the furore but a particular case study that I studied at university comes to mind...France tried to ban anti-Nazi searches/websites from French domains. European media wouldn't dream of publishing anti-Jew cartoons so why can't the same courtesy be applied to other religions? Why must free speech be demeaned by crude pictures when the written word is the single most powerful weapon we possess?

Hmm...this post is definitely food for thought.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

did you read the essay? the author addresses christianity and judaism and points out that neither of them practises the death penalty for blasphemy any longer, which i think is really the salient point. is boycotting against the cartoons fundamentalist? no. is actively trying to kill people as a result of the cartoons fundamentalist? i would argue that it is.

as for good taste vs. free speech, i suppose it's just a question where people disagree: a matter of taste, you might say, such as whether ends can justify means and so on. i think the essayist addresses the issue of free speech sufficiently to encapsulate my viewpoint on it at least. i think protecting it as a fundamental right is far more important than protecting people from being offended. just because jews' feelings are protected by law in certain european countries doesn't mean that they should be, and the why is fairly clear there: we all know the western world is still embarrassed about the holocaust. if there were 300 million jews in the world and israel were a hell of a lot bigger and no less aggressive than it is, the attitudes to them would probably, i think, be different, and the attitude to anti-semitism more relaxed.

and i find the assertion that the written word is the most powerful weapon "we possess" to be... astonishing in this particular situation. people may kill people, but guns certainly do as well--and much more efficiently than bare hands, most of the time.

[protoplasmica.livejournal.com]

With regards to the piece I have treated it as an opinion piece rather than an essay because of this point: 'But publically criticizing or insulting Islam pretty much puts your life on the line, and guarantees that a significant portion of the Muslim community will wish for your death.'

There are approximately 1 billion muslims in the world and a variety of different versions of Islam. What does the author mean by significant in this case?--The fatwas issued by the old Iranian ayatolah? Hamas? Syria/Lybia? Or the second/third generation's alcohol drinking muslims in the west? Morrocans?--or perhaps the author means the protestors. I don't think that protestation means fundamentalism in this case--many of my friends joined the protest because they wanted to protect their way of life as Muslims practising Islam in Europe. Sure some portions of the Islamic whole killed people--but they were a small portion of a fragmented whole. Calling these people significant is like calling IRA sympathisors a significant part of the Catholic whole.

With regards to your point about free speech--I honestly don't think it's practical to have completely unrestricted freedom of press in a liberally democratic nation state that also wants to practise multi-culturalism. A line has to be drawn somewhere and short of banning immigration/political correctness/religious freedom it isn't enforceable--I would hate it, for instance, if a newspaper posted cartoons poking fun at women/ethnic minorities/disabled people--why should they get away with ridiculing a religion (no matter how flawed)?

And yes, I do believe the word is the most important weapon we have. People only resort to weapons, in my opinion and experience, when words have failed first. But this (and my entire post) is just my opinion--and the only reason why I posted it here is because you have me thinking about the entire issue much more than I have done before.

It is interesting--have you read last Sunday's Sunday Times? It has an opinion piece from a second generation muslim (who also recently appeared in the UK version of The Apprentice). It was her opinions on the protests. I could scan it onto my lj if you want.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

by calling the composition an essay i wasn't attempting to make a political statement about its veracity or academic standards--just using the writer's terminology. however, i have to say i'm familiar with a loose conversation al sense of the word "essay" which would be perfectly applicable in this case.

i can't speak for the intentions of the writer at all, but i wouldn't argue that only fundamentalists are protesting. unsurprisingly, plenty of muslims (and non-muslims) are upset. and of course only a tiny percentage of muslims as a whole are personally resorting to physical violence--even considering that much of the recent violence has been committed by mobs. i think there have been a somewhat bigger portion clamouring for blood, however. i don't know enough about the muslim world to venture a guess as to how many of its inhabitants wish for anyone's death.

i could hardly disagree more with your points about free speech, but like i said, i suppose it's a simple split question. i'll simply include wax_jism's succinct comment: "we might as well just go ahead and throw the farrelly brothers in jail."

And yes, I do believe the word is the most important weapon we have

i understand this view. i really think, however, that it's a question of judgment. the conflicts originate verbally, but at the point where words fail, everyone is still just offended but physically whole, whereas after weapons have been substituted, some of them are likely to be dead. the violent conflict can't occur without the conflict of ideas, but a conflict of ideas can certainly occur without violence.

i haven't read any sunday times articles. however, i don't think you have to scan it--it's probably here somewhere (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/), if you know the author's name. at least a lot of stories seem to be.

[protoplasmica.livejournal.com]

it's here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2046828,00.html) -- I love this woman, really, but the Times seems to be treating her article more like a rant than an official opinion (probably to distance itself from any backlash lol) but I liked it enough to read it in print--something I don't usually do.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

oh, wow, that's an incredibly great editorial. it almost makes me want to see the show. i hope she realises some of her goals. i really think she's right.

thank you for the link!