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

[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!