I wonder, how large do you think the intersection is between the set of people who point to this brouhaha as evidence of Muslim backwardness and the set of people who make howls of outrage at Ted Rall cartoons?

Just musing, is all...

Hold the phone Matt. Do you think death threats, promises of suicide bombings and the seizing of EU offices by gunmen are the same as letters to the editor and complaints to websites are the same thing. That level of moral equivalence is just over the top. Please spare me.

"howls of rage" are also called criticism. This is free speech.

Threats made by violent mobs, armed attacks, kidnappings and acts of violence are intimidation and harassment; these are crimes, not free speech

People aren't threatening Ted Rall with death, or demanding that the government censor him.

Or, for that matter, complaining that Ted Rall should be bound by the restrictions of their religion in his cartooning.

One is perfectly free to criticize any cartoon, for whatever reason. One is even free to ask that the cartoonist be dismissed by his or her employer. But the reasons behind the complaints can, in turn, be held up to critical scrutiny. In this case, the reasons amount to an attempt to impose Shari'a codes on non-Muslims' conduct everywhere.

If "Ted Rall" was the first thing that came to your mind in this situation, it shows that you don't get the core issues in play here. At all.

I could add some snark of my own, too, and wonder how many liberals who thought Mapplethorpe's "Piss Christ" was witty and worthy of protection would be happy to throw these cartoonists to the wolves because they offended a protected grievance group™. I suspect the group size would be non-trivial.

This act of firing the editor of Soir for publishing the Muhammad cartoons is a total cop out on the part of this French publisher (however I heard a rumor that he actually an Egyptian).

I am frankly outraged - not by the cartoons which are mild by standards of the Christian crucifix submerged in urine or the virgin Mary rendered in elephant dung (both “art” exhibits) - but by the refusal of these publications to defend free expression. I guarantee you that if scandalous drawings of Christ had been circulating in the media and Soir had managed to get hold of them, they would have been trumpeting them on the front page.

What kind of double standard is this - that it is okay to attack and ridicule the symbols of Christianity, and even its founder, but Muhammad is given a "special exception licence"? What do we have here - a two-tiered system of religious respect with inviolable Islam at the top?

The fact that film maker Theo van Gogh was murdered in the street for attempting to address truths about the treatment of Islamic women, and that Salman Rushdie had a Fatwah placed on him for the crime of writing a novel with references to Muhammad ... should surely embolden European editors to take a stand on this issues in order to uphold our rights. The message from this surrender is - "threaten and intimidate us enough and we will apologize and comply".

Recently Madame Tussaud's museum in London staged a Christmas display featuring a wax dummy of the soccer star David Beckham as Jesus and his wife Posh Spice as Mary. See what would happen if they had done the same with Muhammad and one of his wives.

The notion of not being allowed to render Muhammad in image form is laughably archaic. If Muslims regard this as a central pillar of the faith - then let them enforce this law at home, in the mosques and in countries run by neo-Taliban.

The fuss they are whipping up about this has NOTHING to do with damage to Muhammad's rep. The actual cartoons are pretty damn tame - so much so they were even published in Jordan. The Danish based mullah who trucked them to the Middle East to stir up rage actually added really bad Muhammad cartoons to the portfolio, cartoons he claims were sent to him by e-mail (without actually coughing up the e-mails as proof of his assertion). He likely added the extremely offensive articles himself just to ensure maximum psychosis.

Despite Monty Python's Life of Brian, the planet is still host to millions of devout Christian believers whose vision of Jesus hasn't even been marginally compromised by the satirical romp.

No this isn't about damage to Islam or Muhammad, this is about control. This is about saying to the infidels on their own soil - "you can't so that, and if you do we will hurt you bad". This is about politics and culture in the end.

These capitulations on an issue that is legal and a matter of artistic freedom - are basically saying that there is now a two-tiered level of respect for religion in Europe. On tier one are the icons and sacred personalities of Islam who are out of bounds to satirists, cartoonists and even stand-up comedians. But second tiered Christianity is fair game - open to shots from any direction and any which way - even though there are millions of Christians around the world who equally incensed and "wounded" by such assaults on their faith.

The editors who pulled these cartoons are cowards and hypocrites. I might understand it if the cartoons were scatological, pornographic or gross in some patently obvious way. But they are well drawn, subtle and quite clever in their execution.

Recently in England a Muslim worker in Dudley Council succeeded in getting a ban placed on pigs in the office - I mean pig dolls, pig pictures of coffee mugs etc because he claimed they offended Islam.

It seems the effort to dhimmify the infidel in Europe is well under way.

"People aren't threatening Ted Rall with death..."

Au contraire, they are so! The number of threats the man has recieved is precisely the reason I picked him, and I'm sure I could find other examples.

Admittedly, I'm trolling a teeny bit. Goodness knows I think Rall is pondscum (I use him merely as a convenient example), and I actually think the cartoon shown here is actually kinda smirk-worthy. But there is a point here: the tribalist authoritarian mindset lurks within many of us, and anyone who thinks that this is a distinctly Muslim problem or that Westerners are intrinsically above these sorts of shenanigans is kidding themselves.

"I could add some snark of my own, too, and wonder how many liberals who thought Mapplethorpe's "Piss Christ" was witty and worthy of protection would be happy to throw these cartoonists to the wolves because they offended a protected grievance group™. I suspect the group size would be non-trivial."

You may well be right, Joe, and that's the other side of the coin -- there are those on both the left and right who don't value freedom of speech enough for its own sake to make a principled stand on it regardless of who's being scandalized by it.

Which is, really, what this is all about: I yield to no-one in my love of "Western" values like freedom of speech, and I frequently marvel that we've managed to form a system of social mores and legal rules that restrain people's baser instincts. It's fragile and worthy of protecting if anything ever was. As I said to a friend earlier today: until the majority of Muslims are willing to say "I vehemently disagree with what you say but uphold your right to say it," there will be a "Muslim problem."

But the "Muslim problem" is just a special case of the "authoritarian problem" -- in the General Social Survey, when asked how they felt about the statement "people should not be allowed to express opinions that are harmful or offensive to members of other religious or racial groups," 42% either agreed or strongly agreed. We have met the enemy, and he is us.

Matt, there's a diffewrence between a scattered group of people 2 standard deviations to the edge, and mainstram social leaders. When Rumsfeld calls for Rall to be murdered (or more accurately, Billy Graham), then you'll be on surer footing.

A.L.

"DEATH TO (fill in the blank)" seems to be a typical reaction to many things that offends some muslims. I have no idea how widespread this feeling is among the world's billion plus muslims. It's a glaring negative image that pops up all too often. It seems that violence and rage dominate many muslims psyche. You might even call it a temper tantrum prone religion. It seems many islamic peoples first reaction to anything they don't like is to kill it.

I am concerned that this will continue to escalate into a full fledged genocidal war which leave hundreds of millions dead.

Fantastical paranoid vision? I hope so, but I am getting fed up with the threats.

Why the pussyfooting around? There is only one way to respond to these "critics," and that is to call them savages, afraid of the dark, and the light, and disagreement.

Between this, and their use of suicide bombers, shows that they are losers. Anyone who views death as a promotion can never win a life and death struggle. They want to die, and we are willing to accommodate them. But the caving-in by the press will surely prolong the suffering on both sides.

Americans who are ashamed of American triumphalism have blood on their hands.

So, how do you bridge this gap between cultures?

In the west, we go out of our way to critize what others hold most sacred. The Christians insult Darwin/Darwinists insult Christians; Men v. Women, Cat V. Dogs, Urbanites v. Rednecks. It's even part of the fundamental essence of american history. I lot of this exists in European history as well, we've spent thousands of years mixing cultures that people don't agree with it.

At the same time, I can understand being pissed off. Not "I'm going to kill you" pissed off, but organizing bans, sit-ins, 'anrgy letters arebeing sent to your offices' pissed off. And I'm sure there are many muslims choosing the latter, who are overshadowed by those overreacting.

Needless to say, I would guess this comes from a lack of interaction with different cultures. Especially those who have come from more repressed countries, where many have been cutoff from opposing views, and problems were probably solved with violence.

So how do you bridge these vastly different concepts of disagreement? It's not going to happen overnight, but it needs to happen quickly.

alchemist, you make a number of good points. Thoughts from our comment gallery?

alchemist, the quick answer (which is all I have time to give at the moment) is that Islam has to reform its culture for itself; no outsider influence will be able to do it. We've all seen pieces in the blogosphere that say the WoT is actually a culture clash between Western ideals and Islamic ideals; the conclusion generally drawn is that moderate forces within Islam must take back their religion from the extremists, or else the West will have no choice but to paint all of Islam with the same wide brush.

In other words, according to this cultural war theory, no actual "bridging" of the culture gap can take place because one side--Islam--does not have an environment conducive to bridges being built. Once they have readied the foundation, the West should be eager to begin the process... and here is where Bush is ahead of his time: he's aiming for a day when Arabic cultures and governments embrace the basic concepts freedom and liberty the West takes for granted, even if the form liberty takes on in the Middle East is of a distinctively Islamic flavor.

Of course, the realpolitik problem is whether the US, EU, and UN together will actually work to support freedom movements such as those in Lebanon. We know one of those institutions is guaranteed to (until the 2008 elections anyways)... but will that be enough?

Aidan Maconachy: //This act of firing the editor of Soir for publishing the Muhammad cartoons is a total cop out on the part of this French publisher (however I heard a rumor that he actually an Egyptian).//

He has dual French-Egyptian nationality. He's also a Christian.

That is absolutely no excuse and you are absolutely right: it's a total cop out!

The good news: employees at the paper are now revolting and are demanding that he’d be reinstated. Better, the guy who was appointed to take over for the fired director wrote an unapologetic editorial.

And French publications “Le Nouvel Observateur“, the “Courrier International” and “Charlie-Hebdo” have all decided to publish the cartoons. The “Liberation” daily had 6 pages dedicated to the subject, with some of the drawings. All French television networks, except musical channel M6, showed them.

CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News and NBC News, the Washington Post, the Washington Times or the New York Times on the other hand, nothing!

The New York Post, who called the French weasels in the Iraq war run-up, does not say a peep about it. Sanctimonious lesson-giver Fox News? No pictures! A bit easy to call people cowards when it does not involve doing anything. Now we can have a look at who's really hiding from the religious fanatics.

Meanwhile, the muslim world is boycotting European stores and goods including French giant Carrefour, the world’s number 2 retailer. What are they, Bill O’Reilly? And Palestinian gunmen shut down the European Union’s office in Gaza City, demanded an apology from the European Union and threatened to kidnap European workers.

That’s a shame, and nobody should give in to those absurd demands.

The European media, by and large, gets it. The American media? Not really!

I think there is a hierarchy of things that offend Muslims, and the images of Mohammed offense is one of lower rungs.

One (Palestinian I think) 'spokesman' said if they'd succeeded in killing Salman Rushdie, this sort of thing wouldn't be happening now. Hmmm. But we also have death for Koran desecration, death for defaming the prophet, and other assorted offensive actions or words that are merely free speech or freedom of action in the West (at least for now).

Many more acts to play out concerning Western freedoms and things that offend Muslims. We've only begun.

So how do you bridge these vastly different concepts of disagreement? It's not going to happen overnight, but it needs to happen quickly.

Every Western country, to all their Muslim immigrants: Assimilate or leave. Now.

If you are a legal immigrant, you are welcome in our society. BUT – you must embrace our society. You are free to worship as you like – we don’t care.

If you are an Imam – run your mosque as you like. If we get reports you are inciting violence, and verify it – you are gone (back to where ever you came from). Your mosque will stand; it won’t be razed like a Catholic church in S.A. You just won’t be there anymore.

Our society embraces free speech. If someone says something that offends your religion, deal with it. We have, for many years. Letters to the editor are OK, beheadings are not – catch a clue.

We will not be subservient to your religion or your religious law. Accept our law and our society as it is. If you don’t like it – go.

You can be welcomed here and have a much better life than whatever sand dune you came from. Or you can leave, now. We will not be adopting your ways – adopt ours or get the hell out!

I think alchemist makes the most fair-minded comment on this topic so far.

I see what's happening in this cartoonist scandal as a an example of a "feeling out" process between cultures who, before 9/11, did not have a relatively large interaction. The attacks there and since could be seen as the most radical elements of Islam calling for international respect for their religion's values and society. Now, let me state, I do not agree with the methods or their vision of a future society. It seems, in the past, however, that desperate people will use desperate measures.

Something although the lines of this "scandal" could actually be good for the inernational community, in that the West takes another step towards understanding a misunderstood people, and the Muslim world fights for the institutions they keep as sacred. This is obviously something very important to Muslims, as shown in the widespread protests. Is it so much to ask that we respect that? Does your run-of-the-mill cartoonist NEED to display an image of Mohammed to make a point?

Let's be fair - the Piss Christ or Dung Mary absolutely received their fair share of negative feedback within our own society. Imagine if these images were originally distributed by the North Koreans?? I think it is safe to say that the more radical elements of the Christian Society would make statements at least familiar to what we are hearing from Islamic radicals now.

No matter what happens in the future, you can be sure that cartoonists (and all media) will be more "cautious" with any images representing Muhammed, and so this is equivalent to a societal adjustment. Trumpeting free speech to the Muslims as the thing that gives us the right to desecrate their religion is not the way to sell the theory of free speech or to appeal to the moderates. Compassion and respect seem to be what the doctor ordered in this circumstance. We consider ourselves the more "evolved" society, so let us act that way.

And respecting religions? Since when do I have to respect baseless and idiotic beliefs?

I'm told that a guy walked on water, or that if every Sunday morning I eat a little cracker that somehow transforms itself into the body of a guy that lived 2000 years ago I will get a good chance to spend eternity in the company of little flying babies with feathers in their backs, or that God likes it better when the penises of newborns are mutilated, or that 70 virgins will wait for me in paradise if I blow myself up in a crowd of men, women and children, and I am supposed to have respect for those absurdities that are the bread and butter of the world's major religions?

I don't think so!

And if Allah ain't happy about it, then he should curse send a fatwah on me and my blog, 'cause Mohamed's caricature is on it.

Proudly!

A.L.,

Your use of statistical phrasing is appropriate. I don't disagree, there is a difference. But the difference is not something intrinsic to Muslims, as I've seen some people suggest. Liberalism does not come naturally to humans, and its true friends are few. The reason we don't see that kind of attitude freely expressed by "mainstream social leaders" in this part of the world is that we've spent a very long time building up social mores and legal rules that bind our innate psychological tribalism. It's hard to convey what I'm getting at, but maybe an example will help.

I mentioned the GSS above. Another interesting data point from it is that when people were subsequently asked whather they agreed with the statement "under the First Amendment guaranteeing free speech, people should be allowed to express their own opinions even if they are harmful or offensive to members of other religious or racial groups," the median response suddnly became a lot more friendly to free speech. The median person agrees with free speech if you link it to the Constitution, but could otherwise take it or leave it.

An older friend of mine from Iowa remarked to me years ago that Americans have their own religion -- they worship the Constitution. Only now do I understand what he meant. The median Westerner's support for free speech arises more out of a sense of tradition and group identification than a well-considered committment to liberal values in themselves. That's just humans being what they are; we've come a long way, but you can still see human nature peeking through the cracks every now and then. If you don't believe that tribalism is our defualt psychological mode, spend some time reading comments on Kos or LGF and get back to me.

I know I've chosen a rather roundabout way of getting to it, but my point is that the phsychological substrate that governs these behaviours is fairly uniform across cultures, and that we would do well to take a good look in the mirror if we want to understand it. Looking at this in terms of barbarians at the gates may well be gratifying to some (see comment #9 for a handy example), but isn't very helpful. Psychologically, "we" are not half so different from "them" as many of us would like to believe, and we have barbarians in our own midst already. It's our system that makes all the difference.

"I wonder, how large do you think the intersection is between the set of people who point to this brouhaha as evidence of Muslim backwardness and the set of people who make howls of outrage at Ted Rall cartoons?"

If all I saw were howls of outrage, I'd not consider this proof of Muslim 'backwardness'. I don't know of anyone here that denies the Moslems have a right to be offended.

If all that had happened was a few mailed in death threats, I'd consider it proof of nothing more than every group has its nutcases. And as offensive as many people here found Ted Rall's cartoon, I know of no one here that would condone death threats or any other violent or illegal act in retaliation.

But there is no real comparison here. What I see is the following:

a) Multiple countries have withdrawn there ambassadors from a country based on a percieved insult from a private citizen. Consider by comparison what it would take to get the US to withdraw its ambassador from somewhere. Consider by way of contrast the behavior of governments which the US refuses to have direct diplomatic contacts with. Isn't withdrawing ones ambassador just one step short of declaring war?
b) These countries are exerting economic pressure on the government of Denmark to get it to punish the offending party and to presumably pass legislation making it illegal to say or print anything 'offensive to Islam'. It doesn't take much imagination to see where that would lead.
c) Moslems by the tens of thousands have publicly called not only for the murder of the offending party, but violent retribution against the whole country of Denmark including the extermination of all its people. Not content to end guilt by association there, thousands of Moslems - including many living in Europe itself - are publicly calling for the extermination of all Europeans.
d) The Danish embassasy has been attacked in at least one country, and foriegn tourists (not even Danes) harrassed in multiple countries.
e) Moslems living in Denmark and neighboring countries have promised a terrorist campaign against the people of Denmark.
f) Major leaders in the Islamic religion have called for attacks on Denmark, and for a 'day of anger' again Denmark.

As I have said before many times since 9/11, the really interesting question is not, "Why do they hate us?" The really interesting question is, "Why do we not hate them?" I mean seriously, the US responce to 9/11 was not nearly as hate filled as the Islamic responce to these cartoons. It quite clearly does not take very much to get them to hate anyone.

I think an even better question is, "At what point do we begin taking all this bluster, blackmail, and threats seriously?" I mean, I can't imagine that the West's responce to this would be so disinterested if it was 'white people' making these statements. If it was the leader of say Germany instead of the leader of Iran that publically called for the destruction of the USA, do you think we'd be just yawning about it at this point? At what point do we start treating these people like adults?

Needless to say, I would guess this comes from a lack of interaction with different cultures. Especially those who have come from more repressed countries, where many have been cutoff from opposing views, and problems were probably solved with violence.

For hundreds of years, some Muslims tolerated and even created images of Mohammed. Fifty years ago, many Muslims embraced Western modernism in countries like Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan. Most women didn't wear an abaya or a chador in Iran. Drunken women in movies were considered cute and funny. Books by western philosophers were often translated into Arabic.

On the other hand, people in the Gulf states, who were always considered to be equivalent to hillbillies by other Muslims were horrified by the imposition of television and automobiles. Their version of Islam and their intolerance of images, music and the existence of women was brutal compared with other Muslim cultures. They were brutal compared with every other culture on the planet.

Now, these hillbilly types from oil-rich Gulf states have all the money and all the power. They’ve used it to take over the Middle East and the Muslim world.

Now they have their sights set on Europe, where they’re using these protests to push Western Governments to pass laws forbidding any criticism of Islam. They’ve already forced the Muslim world to take a very giant step backwards, and they want to do the same to us. The Muslim world will never reform itself until the wealthy troglodytes in their midst simultaneously die or lose their money.

The Muslim world has been moving backwards for years. If we want to push them forward, we have to realize that there are very strong forces continuing to push them backwards, and we have to disable those forces.

Superfrenchie, great news about the press in France. It's especially cheering because there was a point during the riots when I basically saw the whole society as "dead man walking." There was no real authority anywhere in the country, just endless evasion signalling what I saw as the death of a culture. It was immensely sad. This gives me hope again that perhaps all is not lost.

Fair point re: the US media. In their defense, it could just be a delayed fuse. I'm now seeing the story hit papers et. al. in North America as the furor grows, whereas before you had to be a blogger to know. We'll see in the next few days who has spine and who does not, but in all honesty, I do not expect the American media to match France's performance.

Finally, with respect to the penises thing, we see it as a reflection of natural optimism and room to spare. I can personally testify that function and feeling are in no way impaired, and it has a secondary benefit re: making certain infections less likely. Plus, it's worth a little sacrifice to get the purple helmeted warrior of looove.

You are, of course, free to miss out on all this. It's a free country, after all.

Chris: Should we ban Dante's Inferno from our libraries and college curiculems?

Should superfrenchies above anti-religious rant be illegal?

I'm all for compassion and respect, but I don't intend to burn my copy of Dante's inferno because it offends someone, nor do I intend to force people not to draw images of Mohammed, or for that matter force people not to dunk crucifix's in bottles of thier own urine.

But just out of couriousity...

"Imagine if these images were originally distributed by the North Koreans??"

Why the heck do you think that would that make a difference?

In fact, had the North Koreans done something like that, it would have probably caused less outrage. As I recall, the outrage over things like the Dung Mary was that the outraged people had been forced to pay for it. I find the comparison here to be more than a little facile, and I certainly don't remember a lot of calls to have 'respect and compassion' for the beliefs of the Christians who were outraged at the time.

Matt, fine points. Glad you stuck around the clarify and expand on your thoughts, they're good observations. Actually, this whole thread has been good and thought-provoking. Great job, everyone.

Signs seen at todays protest in London (yes they were all caps):

ANNIHILATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
AS MUSLIMS WE ARE PREPARED TO FIGHT
BBC BRITISH BROADCASTING CRUSADERS
BBC GO TO HELL!
BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST [real is underlined]
BEHEAD THE ONE WHO INSULTS THE PROPHET.
BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
BUTCHER THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY FANTASTIC 4 ARE ON THEIR WAY YOU
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. DEMOLITION IS ON THE WAY
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR 9/11 IS ON IT'S WAY
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR EXTERMINATION IS ON IT'S WAY
EUROPE YOU'LL COME CRAWLING WHEN THE MUJAHIDEEN COME ROARING
EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM
FREE SPEECH GO TO HELL
FREEDOM GO TO HELL
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION GO TO HELL
JIHAD AGAINST EUROPEAN CRUSADERS
MASSACRE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM

I was surprised to see "EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR EXTERMINATION IS ON IT'S WAY"

I didn't think exterminating all of Europe was what even the most radical Muslims wanted.

Alchemist (10) and Unbeliever (12):

Oddly enough, I just had this conversation with a few people in my office. one opinion floated was that, basically, while the Danish (and others) had the legal right to publish as they did, it was stupid (perhaps even ofefnsively stupid) to do so because it would yield only bad results.

My position was just the opposite-- there is no physical or mental defect among Muslims that makes them incapable of reaching and maintaining the level of civility about these disagreements that (generally) the West has obtained. But we have, depending on what event you take as the starting point, at least several centuries of a head start.

(Arbitrarily, start around the period of the Thirty Years War-- if my history is not failing me, one of the constitutional results of that in Europe was the doctrine that states may follow the religions of their rulers, but individuals still had the rights to settle somewhere more conducive to thir beliefs. Not a perfect answer, nor the answer we have today, but something workable enough to avoid regular bloodlettings.)

Going farther, though, I opined that without some outside impetus-- even something as mild as a cartoon-- there would never be a reason for the Muslim world to start (or continue) developing along those lines.

Which is, when you get down to it, a fancy rationale for me saying, "Get used to disappointment."

If we want to drive a wedge between the Islamists and the reasonable Muslims then I think we should be publicizing the fraud that radical Muslims have gotten away with in this case.

Here are the fraudulent cartoons printed in the middle east they include a few calling Mohammad a pedophile, and one showing a Muslim at prayer being sodomized by a dog...

Perhaps all those who like to go on about Mo being a pedo should consider that this is exactly the speech that terrorists use to recruit cannon fodder to kill innocent Europeans and to canvas for money and support.

And if you want to be convinced further of the hypocrisy of the whole thing, you may want to check those political cartoons that appeared in Arab newspapers.

I think the fact that Islamists are creating blasphemous works in order to cause an unjust war is exactly the sort of argument that corresponds with what is forbidden in the Koran.

Superfrenchie, your tack of pointing out the anti-semitic cartoons, will completely fail to convince Muslims, many of whom were taught the most virulent antisemitism in the Mosque and in the religious school.

My argument could help, yours is not helpful, I'm afraid.

”Frantic orthodoxy is never rooted in faith but in doubt. It is when we are not sure that we are doubly sure. Fundamentalism is, therefore, inevitable in an age which has destroyed so many certainties by which faith once expressed itself and upon which it relied.”

Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971) [liberal theologian]

Thanks, Joe. Some of the other comments here have been quite good too, and I think Alchemist put us more directly on the right track: given that there's this cultural gap between our rule-sets and the ones currently dominating the Muslim world, how do we push them along toward ours? There's an argument to be made for some degree of shock therapy (i.e. forcing them to get used to the idea that they will have to put up with some degree of mockery), but as Chris points out that isn't the best kind of salesmanship in the long run -- especially if you believe that "the roots of Muslim rage" have a lot to do with a sense of humiliation. What the Muslim world needs to be shown is an alternative path which empowers them and appeals to their nobler ambitions, which is what Iraq was supposed to be (and may yet prove to be, insh'allah).

As for Muslims living in the West, I think on the "heroes yet to be discovered" list are the Muslim cartoonists and humourists who can take Western politicians and public figures down a peg. Turnabout is fair play after all, and better for everyone if they fight back with the pen rather than the sword.

And Bart Hall -- Good quote. Very Hofferesque.

Strikes me odd that our "post-Katrina" emboldened MSM are too candy-ass to post the cartoons. Even the Frogs have enough 'nads to post them.

Maybe they don't want to "offend" the dear hearts in the mideast. They'll be knitted-eyebrows and wringing of hands at the NYT and CNN, oh woe is us, what should we do?

Now, second shoe. Apply Niebuhr's comment to 21st Century liberals and leftists. For certainties, substitute the inevitable triumph of socialism/communism ... remember, a communist is a socialist in a hurry, with a gun.

Are you surprised, therefore, that the liberal fundamentalists -- faced with overwhelming evidence their approach not only does not work, but makes things worse -- have made common cause with militant islam in an attempt to overthrow the system that's cleaned their clock?

They think that once the eee-vil US are neutralised islamic militants will listen to reason and negotiate. Liberals have been wrong every single time before, but if they succeed in their Faustian bargain with militant islam they will only realise their ultimate error as the knives are drawn across their throats.

Matt, you and I part ways on the 'humiliation' bit. I don't have a problem with respect, but you seem unable to clearly see the difference between respect and "bound by shari'a law." The fact that a Muslim doesn't believe Mohammed should be drawn is not a good or valid reason to stop others from doing so, and their bullying, violent attitude is unacceptable. Indeed, the very demand that non-Muslims must be bound by their religious codes of behaviour is unacceptable.

The proper response to such things is resistance, rebuke, and ridicule - NOT tolerance. Tolerance of such demands, or apologies for not acting like a dhimmi, feeds the worst instincts of the worst Muslims. If you want to move Islam toward a livable future, start by NOT enabling that and making it clear that there is ZERO HOPE of imposing their religious beliefs on others.

My preferred credo is simple: Those who attempt to impose Islamic religious codes on free socieites will find themselves defeated and humiliated.

Better that than hope of tyranny, which will in turn feed their bullying.

Once that's crystal clear, they and we can talk. Until it is, we can't. If they decide that means war, they they have elected to wage it and will take the consequences.

I will NOT be a dhimmi.

As I've said in another thread, if Islam wishes to survive it needs to take responsibility for itself and learn how to live with us (and the Russians, African Christians, Hindus, Chinese, their co-religionists, etc.) in the rest of the world. It is not the rest of the world's responsibility to accomodate them, and believing so is a fatal delusion.

Helping them to believe that is like handing your friend a 24 of beer and encouraging him to chug it on the drive home.

All Things Beautiful carries a quote from Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor. It speaks strongly to Matt's point, and my riposte. He says:

"I think some of the Muslims who have reacted very strongly to these cartoons are being driven by totalitarian and authoritarian impulses, and the nature of these impulses is that if you give in once they will just put forward new requirements."

Bulls-eye.

Rose refuses to apologize. "We do not apologise for printing the cartoons. It was our right to do so."

Bulls-eye.

Contrast, now, with CNN, via Mark in Mexico:

"And in the United States? Well, the faint hearted cowards at CNN showed, without any sense of decency or fear of reprisal, the Washington Post cartoon of a wounded veteran in bed with both arms and legs amputated that drew a letter of rebuke and protest signed by all 6 members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. You can see the despicable cartoon and the Joint Chiefs' letter at Michelle Malkin's. Then, 30 seconds later, CNN reportedly showed the 12 cartoons of Muhammed but blurred the images making them indiscernable. CNN said the Muhammed images were blurred, "so as not to offend some members of the audience."

Doesn't that just say it all about our society - and I'm sorry, Matt, but about the left-liberal mindset as well.....

matt, you should write a post. i'd link to you from both my blogs. another analogy: the vector is the same, but the magnitude differs.

#24 from Joshua Scholar on February 3, 2006 11:53 PM

Signs seen at todays protest in London (yes they were all caps):

ANNIHILATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
AS MUSLIMS WE ARE PREPARED TO FIGHT
BBC BRITISH BROADCASTING CRUSADERS
BBC GO TO HELL!
BE PREPARED FOR THE REAL HOLOCAUST [real is underlined]
BEHEAD THE ONE WHO INSULTS THE PROPHET.
BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
BUTCHER THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY FANTASTIC 4 ARE ON THEIR WAY YOU
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. DEMOLITION IS ON THE WAY
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR 9/11 IS ON IT'S WAY
EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR EXTERMINATION IS ON IT'S WAY
EUROPE YOU'LL COME CRAWLING WHEN THE MUJAHIDEEN COME ROARING
EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
EXTERMINATE THOSE WHO SLANDER ISLAM
FREE SPEECH GO TO HELL
FREEDOM GO TO HELL
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION GO TO HELL
JIHAD AGAINST EUROPEAN CRUSADERS
MASSACRE THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM
SLAY THOSE WHO INSULT ISLAM

I was surprised to see "EUROPE YOU WILL PAY. YOUR EXTERMINATION IS ON IT'S WAY"

I didn't think exterminating all of Europe was what even the most radical Muslims wanted.

-

I also remember some time back - a couple of years ago now - a chant in a demonstration in Europe:

"Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas!"

I believe these people mean what they have said. If they had the power to act on what they have said, they would. To the extent that they are allowed power or influence, they will use it in the directions you would expect from what they have said. The election of Hamas, a terror group focused on the eradication of Israel and on atrocities against Jewish civilians, confirms that to me beyond doubt.

I don't like them.

They want a world without me or my friends or the things I like, such as cartoons and free speech. Men like Osama Bin Laden have their moral support in giving them what they want, and if it was not so these terrorist movements could never have been effective. Because of the Beslan school massacre, I do not believe that there is any refuge to be had in innocence or in being harmless. There is no stopping point to their malignity except practical limitations on their power.

I want less of them.

I think I've gotten to Winston Churchill's point on this: if radical Muslims found a way to make jihad on Hell, I would at least say something kind about the Devil.

Matt, if you want to consolidate your stuff into a post, we do run Guest Blogs.

I forgot a couple of slogans:

EUROPE WILL PAY. BIN LADIN IS WAY

And this nifty rhyming slogan:

EUROPE IS THE CANCER. ISLAM IS THE ANSWER

Matt, if you want to consolidate your stuff into a post, we do run Guest Blogs.

matt, if you do a guest post on WoC i won't tell everyone who'll listen that you look like you're 12. all the added publicity might allow you to lose your virginity.

Joe Katzman, I agree very exactly with what you are saying in this thread, especially in posts #33 and #34.

A long time ago, not so long after gleeful Muslim response to 11 September, 2001, I insisted that what was driving this was the hopes of the Muslim world, fuelled by demographics, oil money and the self-destruction of the West, and that what was supremely necessary for us to crush hope. People rather choked on that, but I meant it exactly the same way you mean it now.

These are bad hopes, bloody and dangerous hopes. It is immensely dangerous to indulge them and let them grow.

I believe the constancy of George W. Bush has already saved vast numbers of lives, lives that would have been lost in global jihad and in reaction to global jihad if our response to the roar of Muslim satisfaction after 11 September 2001 had been timid and wavering enough to let great numbers of Muslims hope that now might be the time to sign up with a possibly winning cause and make a mighty push against the Great Satan and the lesser Satan.

On the other hand, constant displays of pusillanimous character, of willingness to make concessions in the face of menaces and to show "respect" when scorn towards predatory savagery would have been the proper reaction - I think this is deadly. I think it causes the wrong people to get their hopes up, and indirectly it gets more people threatened, maimed and killed.

If you don't want to have to shoot anybody in a bloodthirsty mob of enemies, it is bad to look as though you might collapse if they push you harder. It guarantees that you will be pushed harder, and almost guarantees that some of the people pushing will abandon their prudent restraint entirely.

Joe Katzman (#21): //Superfrenchie, great news about the press in France. It's especially cheering because there was a point during the riots when I basically saw the whole society as "dead man walking." There was no real authority anywhere in the country, just endless evasion signalling what I saw as the death of a culture. It was immensely sad. This gives me hope again that perhaps all is not lost.//

Well, I can see your point about lack of authority but you should not mixed that with anything Islam or Muslim. The riots were not religious-driven.

Besides, the end result is that there was only 1 death and 126 injuries in 20 nights, or 6 a day. By comparison, during the 6 days of the Los Angeles riots in 1992 in 1992, there were 60 deaths (10 a day) and 2000 injuries (333 a day). In spite of the fact that there were many more arrests in LA (10,000 or 1,666 a day) than in France (2,888 or 144 a day).

So what you call lack of authority, others would call restraint.

//the US media. In their defense, it could just be a delayed fuse.//

Let’s hope so!

Because right now, it’s a little bit depressing that I have to make the exact same arguments as Michelle Malkin... ;)

//Finally, with respect to the penises thing, we see it as a reflection of natural optimism and room to spare. //

Room to spare? Hum. I got bad news for you...

//I can personally testify that function and feeling are in no way impaired//

How would you know? Ever tested the thing before the mutilation, so you could compare? ;)

//and it has a secondary benefit re: making certain infections less likely.

Hum. No such medical evidence, I'm afraid.

//Plus, it's worth a little sacrifice to get the purple helmeted warrior of looove.//

I'll take your word for it ;)

Joe,

No argument here, I wasn't proposing that people should pander to those kinds of assinine demands. I'm just saying that rubbing their nose in it isn't satisfactory by itself. It shows a lack of imagination more than anything else. If it were up to me, the publication of those cartoons should have been accompanied by editorials conveying the general message:

"We are not against the religion of Islam itself, and in an ideal world we would coexist with Muslims without any quarrel. But we will not be intimidated by bullies, regardless of their beliefs. In a civilized society, we settle our disagreements through persuasion, not intimidation, and those who employ the latter will only be mocked and despised. If Muslims want to be respected, they must earn it by meeting us on civilized terms, with the pen rather than the sword."

And this would have been accompanied by an open offer to provide editorial space to Muslim writers who wish to open up a constructive dialogue with non-Muslim society, but only if they began from the premise that everyone should have the right to say what they want, even if it offends others, and that violence was not legitimate in civil society. The newspapers could use it as an opportunity for public debate and cross-cultural dialogue rather than simply thumbing their nose. It would have been good copy and maybe chipped away at barriers and prejudices on both sides.

So yeah, no apologies should be made, but surely there's more that can be done than simply going "nyah-nyah."

Razib,

I'm on it, boss!

LMAO, the time-delay between when I started that and then submit it made that last comment a little funny. F-you (again) Razib, I may not have been laid in months but I haven't been a virgin for three years! (I'm 20! Seriously!)

And Joe, thanks for the offer. I might take you up on it, you'll get an e-mail from me later...

Fuelled by demographics, oil money and the self-destruction of the West.. .

And the prospect of nukes, which Pakistan achieved, and at least Libya and Iraq aimed at, and which Iran is now achieving.

(Striving to avoid mentioning fear, surprise and anything like fanatical devotion .. . oops!)

Back on topic, I see one good thing in how this has gone: the cartoons themselves are so harmless that the fault in those attacking them is plain for any reasonable person to see. Well done those cartoonists!

F-you (again) Razib, I may not have been laid in months but I haven't been a virgin for three years! (I'm 20! Seriously!)

dude, don't be embarrassed. true love waits!

Folks let's face it. Muslims, or at least the Arab, Persian, and "Stani" varieties are primitive savages. The Euroweenie response is not surprising given their situation. We've managed to domesticate our putzlappenkopfen by assimilating them. The Europeans have a huge undigested lump of wild putzlappenkopfen running around blowing shit up and burning shit down. They have a lot more to fear than we do.

JK #33: That's finest peice of writing since the War on Terrorism began. Yes, that's it exactly.

"So, how do you bridge this gap between cultures?"

Alchemist, I have a question in response to your question: Why do you or any other freedom loving citizen of the West want to bridge the gap with Islam?

When you talk of bridges between cultures, you are pre-supposing that some common ground can, or should, be constructed between cultures with diametrically opposed views on individual rights regarding freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Any common ground will thus be a compromise that either limits some of our most cherished rights or dilutes some of their core religious doctrines -- and abrogates some of the core laws in all versions of Sharia.

The only reason I can see for any Westerner to advocate limiting our rights in response to Muslim anger is fear. Fear of Muslim power. Fear of Muslim violence. Fear of death or dismemberment at the hands of the followers of the "Religion of Peace."

This fear is difficult to understand. Massive Iranian armies are not based on the American Gulf Coast or the North German Plain. Vienna is not under siege by the Turkish 1st Army Group and the Saudi 5th Airborne Corps has not taken London in a surprise assault. The Caliphate's triad of nuclear delivery systems does not outnumber ours by hundreds to one. The Caliphate does not have thousands of nuclear warheads and bombs for every one we possess. The Caliphate has not been able to defeat every army and air force we have fielded while only mobilizing one-half of one percent of its population for active duty.

And yet, despite our overwhelming geopolitical advantage over Islam, many of us fear them and very few of them appear to fear us. Or at least they don't fear us enough to change their behavior and effectively control their more militant brethren. Meanwhile, we are urged to build bridges and understand their historic humiliation and modify our behavior and limit some of our core rights because ...... Well, there is no good reason other than that these barbarians have repeatedly demonstrated they will kill anyone who offends them regardless of age, gender, nationality, and combatant/non-combatant status.

The West has created a positive feedback loop for militant Islam over the last thirty years. We have taught them that ruthlessness and savagery work. It results in the transfers of billions in bribes (aid), withdrawals from contested nations or territories, and a steady stream of calls for dialogue and meaningful negotiations. Only occasionally does it result in decisive retaliation against the nations and groups that attack the West.

We respect them because we fear them. Thus the calls to build bridges and understand their historic humiliations and show respect for their sensitivities at the expense of our rights.

They do not respect us because they do not really fear us. Even after the 9/11 attacks, the retaliation of the most powerful nation on Earth was curiously limited; obvious targets were spared from destruction, catastrophic attacks were never inflicted on the enemy's population base, and the nation was not even partially mobilized for a global war despite formal naming of an Axis of Evil.

The pathetic predicament of Israel continually reinforces the lesson that the West lacks the ruthlessness necessary to intimidate militant Islam. The victor of five wars is so hamstrung by its allies and its own internal moralizing that it is reduced to accumulating death credits from attacks on its civilian population before it permits itself (or is permitted) to mount sustained offensive operations against the terrorist organizations that have sworn to destroy Israel.

We will see moderation in Islam and respect for Western rights and values when they really fear us again. Cultures are "thick". They change very slowly unless they are placed under tremendous stress. Changing a culture as strong as Islam is going to require the kind of stress we placed on the American Indians, the Confederate States of America, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan. The sooner we get on with the fight, the better for our civilization and the preservation of our rights and freedoms.

superfrenchie: Sometimes being offensive is the right thing to do.

Viva la France.

"Because right now, it’s a little bit depressing that I have to make the exact same arguments as Michelle Malkin... ;)"

Well, it's a little depressing that I have to agree with a Frenchman, but we all must bear up our burdens. ;)

This is WAAAAYYY off topic, but speaking now as a scientist as far as the whole penis size thing goes, don't believe anyone who is trying to sell you something. The information that they use in that study is as best as I can tell, more or less completely useless and probably deliberately biased.

"Kinsey and associates (1948) collected data concerning average male penis size from 3,500 adult men. All length measurements were taken when the penises were erect, along the top of the penis, from the point where the top of the penile shaft meets the pubic area to the tip. The foreskin was retracted in uncircumcised men. All girth measurements were taken from around the middle of the penis. Later data published included flaccid penis length. In summary, Kinsey found that the average penis size is 6.36 inches in length and 4.94 inches in girth."

Note that Kinsey in 1948 was of course collecting data purely from American males.

Of course there are scientific problems with the Kinsey study but I've never heard his findings in that area questioned. More importantly, there is an enormous problem with the Andromedical study. The subjects are all self-selected and all have in common that they were unhappy about thier penis size. What your study actually confirms is not the average size of men in the nation, but how insecure they feel about themselves. What it confirms is that even an average French man is intensely insecure about his manhood. Make of that what you will.

I also placed a link to these good toons on my blog.

I have a question for those muslims who got offended by these cartoons:

Will you also get offended if women's rights are violated in your islamic states?

Will you ask for apology if your islamic governments jail political thinkers and writers?

Will you boycotte your own government if they disrespect your basic human rights and takes your freedom away?

I guess not

James, there is another fear. The fear of what we'll become if we kill them all. It's powerful - the thing that comes to mind is the line in Pulp Fiction where Samuel Jackson explains to Tim Roth why he's giving him his money:

Jules: Wanna know what I'm buyin' Ringo? Pumpkin: What?
Jules: Your life. I'm givin' you that money so I don't hafta kill your ass.

I'm willing to spend a lot to buy the lives of the Muslim world.

A.L.

"I'm willing to spend a lot to buy the lives of the Muslim world.

A.L."

The US Armed forces are already spending the treasure.

Freedom of Speach: Priceless
Freedom of Association: Priceless
Freedom of Religion: Priceless
A 230 Year Democratic Tradition: Priceless
Not having to nuke anyone in order to protect the above: Nearly Priceless.

James Jones: That said, I would agree that there are probably alot of us that are getting fed up with this whole go soft approach, especially given the fact that we are spending blood that strictly speaking, we don't have too.

This one from the MCB is priceless. Not in a good way, but priceless nonetheless:

"The Muslim Council of Britain said its reaction to the BBC's decision to broadcast would "depend on the context".

A spokesman said: "It depends on whether they're broadcast to illustrate the story about the row developing, or, in the same way as the European newspapers have published, to gloat about freedom.

Emphasis mine.

Matt (#42) - agree. Stuff like that is good, for the reasons AL (#51) and ultimately celebrim (#52 - but it may not be us) suggest. I also see James' diagnosis of us (#48) as being correct, however, and that is part of the problem.

Which is why this whole episode is not at all regrettable - in fact, actually gives me more hope for a better future.

A.L.,

Interesting movie analogy for why we should be more fore-bearing toward militant Islam: IIRC, Pulp Fiction was also the movie in which John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson "went medieval" on some hillbillies to compel cooperation or punish them for some transgression.

If we're going to trade movie analogies for dealing with militant Islam, I'm much more a fan of Denzel Washington's approach in Man on Fire.

But let's put the movie philosophies/analogies aside:

Your basic premise in opposing the use of the full power of the West (especially the USA) to rapidly defeat and, if necessary, destroy militant Islam is that it will do BAD things to us or change our society in some very negative way.

Can you provide some historical examples to support your contention?

Why do you believe that waging a long, drawn-out limited war for 30, 60, a 100 years against an increasingly dangerous foe is a better choice than 3 to 6 years of all out war and total victory now?

The internal security demands of a Long War against militant Islam are going to be far more damaging to our civil liberties than the Cold War with the Soviet Union -- and that was bad enough. The demands of the national security state are never good for the internal health of a democracy.

Why do you believe we will have the luxury of time to wear down and/or moderate militant Islam?

The Cold War paradigm for a Long War with militant Islam assumes that we will not have other major international challengers to deal with during that time period. It also assumes that other major powers will be unable or unwilling to provide effective support to militant Islam. China may match our GDP by 2025 and they are not our friends. I am under no illusions about the long term compatibility of militant Islam and a revived Great China. However, we should be under no illusions about the willingness of Islam and China to cooperate in the short-to-medium term against a common foe.

Finally, why do you believe we are responsible for the continued health and safety of our enemies?

The population of militant Islam is not a collection of homicidal five year olds who don't really know how bad their behavior is. This is an adult civilization that is older than ours and knows full well that it has chosen to compete with us by the most ruthless means at its disposal. They also are fully aware how much greater our actual/potential combat power is versus theirs. They have made a calculated risk that they will not suffer disastrous consequences. Based on the positive feedback loop of the last thirty years, they are correct. It's time to stop infantilizing our enemies, treat them like the ruthless adult competitors they are, and inflict massive negative feedback

I guess I see this differently from a lot of the folks here (even those with whom I generally agree). First, I don't believe the problem is Islam. There are enough prudent sane responses on this issue from Muslims (including the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani) to call that into question. I think the problem is a conflict between members of traditional shame cultures that pre-date Islam and Western culture.

In answer to alchemist's question, there's no way to bridge the gap. Ask the guests from other countries who reject your values to leave. If they won't leave, throw them out.

But the real question for me is how does this help the war effort? It's a miniscule exercise of free speech that's being exploited to undermine our efforts there and mobilize opposition to what we're trying to do in the Middle East. It's putting Westerners in the Middle East in danger (including our guys and gals in Iraq).

If we're going to win this war, we're going to have to make some sacrifices (regardless of the Bush Administration's reluctance to ask for any) and showing some restraint seems to me a pretty small sacrifice.

A.L. is defending the Bush administration's stance when he says he is willing to pay a lot to avoid killing many in the Muslim world.

I understand and agree with that - but it has limits.

What will it take for the west to push back against barbarism? I use the word intentionally. It's all well and good to say that militant Islam is a demand for respect, but the reality is that respect must be earned to be secure.

Lacking education, representative political structures, productive industries, or knowledge producers many countries that are dominantly Muslim HAVE no intrinsic basis for self-respect. I grant value to all humans, but that is not the same thing as their self-respect.

The reality is that in many countries with exploding populations but no social progress to match, what is left is an increasingly strident, violent insistence that their form of Islam is the answer to all and that Allah wills the world to be converted by the sword - or today, by the bomb and tomorrow by missiles carrying nuclear warheads.

I was relieved and grateful when the Bush administration worked hard after 9/11 to avoid stigmatizing Islam or Muslims as a whole. But it is also suicidal to ignore history. Barbarians CAN and DO bring down civilizations, when the latter do not defend themselves. It has happened before and it can happen to us.

The Telegraph had an interesting quote today:

Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French foreign minister, said: "It is not normal to caricature a whole religion as an extremist or terrorist movement." But the extreme reaction to the cartoons "would suggest the caricaturists were right," he added.

He has a point. And articles like the editorial in yesterday's Arab News (which I can't find again on their site now, sorry) demonstrate that apologies for the cartoons and reports that the cartoonists fear for their lives ARE being taken as proof of the weakness of the west and as ecouragement towards more aggression.

Which is where Joe's Sufi teaching about the value of being arrogant towards the arrogant comes in.

It will not be easy. The west as a whole IS addicted to oil, having refused in the good years (such as the 90s) to invest either in nuclear power or alternative energy sources OR conservation. And Europe has created for itself a huge bind, as its aging populations cling to self-indulgent levels of social benefits by importing massive numbers of immigrants who neither bring skills nor are both helped and required to assimilate.

This is going to get very messy indeed - and perhaps tragic. I sincerely hope not. But I am one western woman who will never submit to sharia and I take seriously the intent of some to impose it on me.

Celebrim (#49): //This is WAAAAYYY off topic, but speaking now as a scientist as far as the whole penis size thing goes//

Off topic?

Not so sure. Haven’t wars always been about who’s got the biggest, in the end? ;)

For one thing, I'm certainly convinced that this whole French-bashing thing has a lot to do with it... ;)

Which brings me to... fear (James Jones, #48):

James is right on point. Fear is what is currently defining this whole West Vs the Muslim World conflict.

With no good reason.

The chance for an American of being killed in a terrorist attack is less than that of being killed by lightning. Even in the month of September 2001, you had more of a chance to be killed in an auto accident than in a terrorist attack. Shutting down air traffic for a week resulted in more lives lost in traffic accidents than if 3 airplanes had crashed.

And we spent 1 trillion dollars and started 2 wars (or is it 3, I’m not sure I’m keeping up?) for that type of risk?

Note that I’m not saying that we should ignore the risk, or not react to an attack. Or not start a war or 2.

All I’m saying is that fear should have little to do with it.

evidence of Muslim backwardness

yah, right, Matt.
Then how become they are kicking our asses in the meme wars?
1. the cartoons were originally published in september.
2. hardliners added even more offensive cartoons to the booklet circulating in the ME.
3. portraiture is actually expressly forbidden in the Qu'ran. the fundamentalists are using the cartoons to drive a wedge between the moderates and the West.

some entities are using this whole issue--it is contrived, staged. the fundamentalists are running the media, the moderate muslims, AND the bloggers.
all your righteous indignation over lack of tolerance, reprinting the cartoons, pics of protesters, all coals to newcastle.
the SD is doing the right thing.
but the rest of you suckers are being played like a ten pound trout on twenty pound test.

if we can't get a little smarter in our counterpropaganda, i think we're doomed.

...then we're stupid. And we'll die.
--Zora, from Blade Runner

And Europe has created for itself a huge bind, as its aging populations cling to self-indulgent levels of social benefits by importing massive numbers of immigrants who neither bring skills nor are both helped and required to assimilate.

Dave Schuler (#59): /they aren't ethnically French, German, or Danish//

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Are you saying that by just seeing me in the street you could recognize that I'm French just by my physical characteristics?

(Assuming that I'm not naked and in erection... (see #41 ;) )

What a wonderful thread! Just wanted to say that...

portraiture is actually expressly forbidden in the Qu'ran. the fundamentalists are using the cartoons to drive a wedge between the moderates and the West.

Not sucessfully. From a British discussion of the cartoon wars:

"Asghar Bukhari, chairman of the Muslim Public Affairs, said the demonstration in London on Friday should have been stopped by police because the group had been advocating violence.

The Committee said the protesters "did not represent British Muslims".....Mr Bukhari told the BBC News website: "The placards and chants were disgraceful and disgusting, Muslims do not feel that way."

He said that Muslims were angry over satirical cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in European papers but it was "outrageous" for anyone to advocate extreme action or violence.

"We believe it [the protest] should have been banned and the march stopped. It's irrelevant whether it's Muslims causing hatred or anyone else - freedom of speech has to be responsible."

It's true that some extremists have been winning the meme wars - after all, they've had many years to perfect their brainwashing techniqes.

But these extremists and most governments underestimate the intelligence of moderates, Muslim or otherwise. Some people respond to anger and threats with fear, some respond by fighting. A lot of moderates, Muslim and otherwise, are getting angry about the over-the-top reaction to a bunch of cartoons.

But the real question for me is how does this help the war effort? It's a miniscule exercise of free speech that's being exploited to undermine our efforts there and mobilize opposition to what we're trying to do in the Middle East. It's putting Westerners in the Middle East in danger (including our guys and gals in Iraq).

And as for the threats that a few cartoons and standing up for our right to free speech will harm our troops, please. Where was the outcry when the Abu Gharib photos were published or when Guantanamo is portrayed as a Gulag? Where was the outcry when the financiers of 9/11 were let off due to diplomatic immunity?

We were being played like a ten pound trout on twenty pound test then, and we're being played now. Whenever we listen to our Islamist-intimidated press and our Islamist-intimidated government, we're being played. This cartoon controversy is different from the rest in only one way. Some moderates, Muslims and otherwise, are starting to object to that intimidation. It's not much, but it's something.

Question: If portraiture of the prophet Mohamed is forbidden in Islam, how do they even know that it's Mohamed that's represented in the cartoon?

The depth of absurdity that are most religious beliefs is mind-boggling!

superfrenchie, as in arabic, it is the context. Muhammed is represented with his face veiled, or as a cut-out or blank outline.
for example, he is shown ascending to the seventh heaven with his face veiled, in this picture

and mary, even my most modernised muslim friends say they hate the cartoons. even sistani said he hated the portrayal.
we don't force Mormons to drink or Jehovah Witnesses to dance, i all i'm saying.

James Jones (#54)-

It depends on your definition of "all out war"; if it includes Trident Submarines, as I fear it might, I'd like to push that back as far as possible in hopes that we'll do something better.

A.L.

darwi odrade (#64): Well, as always with religions, the belief is a changing one:

Mohammed Image Archive

And to go back to fear for a second, isn't it interesting to have that discussion about fear of Islam, when fear is in fact all that every religion is really based upon.

Without fear of dying, there would not be no religions!

Religions are the hiding place of cowards.

AL (#66) - Sidebar time...

The war will definitely include Trident submarines, and we can genuinely and sincerely thank some Democrats for that. See explanation.

Appropriately, once the SSGN conversions are done, the US nuclear deterrent SSBN subs with the Trident II missiles will probably no longer be Ohio Class (that will be the SSGNs), but named after the first of class boat remaining: SSBN 730, the USS Henry M. Jackson.

Sen. 'Scoop' Jackson [D-WA] was in many ways the defining "national security Democrat," and many of the Reagan Democrats still looked to him for inspiration until his death in office in 1983. The contrast between him and the current seat-holder Sen. Patty "Osama's Daycares" Murray can hardly be overstated.

I don't know exactly why I find it so apropos that the SSBNs should end up being named after Scoop, but I do.

superfrenchie. NO!
no pictures in that archive are delineated as islamic representations. the pictures of mohammed's face are all from different cultures.
there is no proof of evolution in zombie's archives.
remember, zombie herself is not without bias. i have known her nearly two years.
she is a long time LGF commenter, with the bias that that entails.

and i don't agree with your definition of religion, either.
it is not about fear.
i believe in the god-in-the-genes.
now, tais toi, cher. you have much to learn.

and mary, even my most modernised muslim friends say they hate the cartoons. even sistani said he hated the portrayal

"even sistani"? You mean our friend Sistani who believes that nonbelievers are najis and therefore equivalent to filth and urine? The Sistani who supports some forms of Sharia? Stop with "the ten pound trout on twenty pound test" routine. If I tried to list all the ways that we're being played by the Muslim world, I'd overload the server.

But, to be fair, I think mocking anybody's prophet is rude. If the objective was to provoke the Islamists, they should have mocked the Islamists - or just told the truth about them. There's plenty of good material there.

I didn't like Rushdie's book either, but still, parodies, free speech and the right to self-expression is always worth defending. .

#35 razi_the_atheist.
liar.
i know you are closet believer.
you have hope.
;)

darwi: //i believe in the god-in-the-genes.//

What did I say about the absurdity of religious beliefs!

Rats and humans have 95% of their genes in common. Is God in all the genes, in the 5% that we have just for us, or in the 95% that we share with rats?

What about defective genes? Is God there too?

Mutating genes?

And if God is in rats, do they also get eternal life? Or maybe there's no eternal life, since fear is no factor.

Besides that, religious beliefs are not absurd...

//now, tais toi, cher. you have much to learn.//

Interesting, in a discussion about freedom of speech!

whoa, let's try that again--too many typos.
#35 razib_the_atheist.
liar.
i know you are a closet believer.
you have hope.
;)

mary, i don't know how to even start. i have good friends that are muslim. i respect their faith, they respect mine. we respect and admire each other. we learn from each other. i love their tolerance of me, i believe in some very strange things, y'know.
One thing we agree on is that Sayed Ali Al-Sistani is a great, great man. One thing we have no patience for is cherry picking any source for nits you disagree with.
i try always to see the whole of the moon.

superfrenchie, you cannot be quiet long enough to learn something?
tant pis for you, then. ;-)

the god-in-the-genes is our tendency to be godlike, to care for others and do the right thing for our tribe. this is based on the principles of kin selection. religion simply attempts to extend the benefits of kin promotion to a wider, memetic tribe.
perhaps this exists for rats also--Racushun is by far my favorite charater in the Twelve Kingdoms. ;)

darwi: Well, just what we needed, one more religion. To each its own...

One thing we have no patience for is cherry picking any source for nits you disagree with.
i try always to see the whole of the moon.

Try visiting the whole of his website. But if you're happy believing that Sistani is a great man, then that's fine for you. It's a free country, believe what you want.

no, chacun a son gout !

mary, he is a great man for his people.
he is not a great man for you.

i read there often.
;-)

In response to : " What kind of double standard is this - that it is okay to attack and ridicule the symbols of Christianity, and even its founder, but Muhammad is given a "special exception licence"? What do we have here - a two-tiered system of religious respect with inviolable Islam at the top? "

Besides the various partisan political doubletalk, we have a fear factor infecting the arena.
The knive stabbed into Van Gogh's grandson's chest, the burning news bureau and reporter's flight from the Miss World spot in Africa, and the other deaths the world sees, are more than enough to silence the brave pen pushing cocktail crowd.
If Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson were known to have followers who stab notes into the chests of dead filmakers who 'diss' Christianity, we would have equally poor standards in that area of reporting.
The press is stuck between their leftism and love of democrats "diplomacy" and Kumbayas, and the very real problem of fear for their own lives. It's time to make love not war, they will be the dead victims of the "freedom fighters" if they don't carefully censor themselves.
Salmon Rushdie anyone ?
For the West, the big fat mouth, or the big fat dollar, or the next public debate or next humiliating measure voted out or next indictment settles the score, not so in the world of Islam and Islamism, where the next knife blade or scimitar does the trick,and the press, despite all their hopeful petting and preening of Muslims, finds that in the end, caution should not be thrown in favor of a sharp cut in return. This attitude of course reinforces the friendly overtures to Islamists issuing from the press all over the place. They are "stuck" with it.
It's actually is a very convenient and cozy relationship right now, as petting Islamists makes for good Bush bashing.

_and mary, even my most modernised muslim friends say they hate the cartoons. even sistani said he hated the portrayal.
we don't force Mormons to drink or Jehovah Witnesses to dance, i all i'm saying._
And, strangely enough, we don't force muslims to look at political cartoons they don't like

I heard an interesting comment that put the Muslim reaction in context. It was something along the lines of that many Muslims consider Mohammed closer than their own family. Just how upset would you in the West be if caricatures of your own sons and daughters, husbands and wives in obscene situations were published under the guise of "freedom of the press"?

I'd be ticked. Ticked enough to march? Probably. Ticked enough to boycott? Maybe. Ticked enough to burn an embassy? Probably not - but I can bet a whole lot of Westerners probably would. The difference is simply that God is personal to the Muslims. The Christians of 400 years ago would have understood the Muslim reaction perfectly.

We judge their culture lesser because we're no longer religious in any real sense. (Would you slaughter your children if God told you to? So much for truly believing in the God of Abraham...)

I think we have to acknowledge that true religion (rather than the watered down version that passes for it in the Western world) has no place in modern society. We're not prepared to handle a culture where God is more real than the world in which we live.

(And I might add, thank goodness. True religion is scary as hell. For me, the 10 commandments are good laws to live by. Surrender myself utterly to God's will? Um... no.)

Indeed true religion is scary. And religious moderates are only moderates becuase they choose to ignore entire portions of their holy books:

For example, here is what the book of Deuteronomy says about people embracing other religions:

"If your brother, the son of your father or of your mother, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you or far away, anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from Yahweh your God (Deuteronomy l3:7-ll)” (page l8)”

Now of course, stoning may have fallen out of fashion in the last 2000 years. Or you might say that it is “symbolic”. But again, that would be ignoring the word of God himself when he says:

“Whatever I am commanding you, you must keep and observe, adding nothing to it, taking nothing away (Deuteronomy l3:1)”

That’s the problem of moderation in ANY religion. There is absolutely nothing in writing about moderation in religion. Quite the contrary.

Stoning has gone out of fashion only among the moderates. Taliban practiced the art of stoning, and beheading is still popular for more mainstream Sunni Jihadis. Without moderation, we would all practice rape and murder on a daily basis. Moderation is the cultural veneer we put over our natural selves. The Jihadi threat to Western Civilization as we know it has abandoned moderation. I defy you to show me an instance where a Judeo-Christian fanatic has failed to use moderation without incurring universal opprobrium and banishment from the rest of the religious establishment. The frightening thing about this new movement by a major religion to bring the end times upon us is the lack of strong condemnation from the rest of the islamic clerical establishment. Sure, you can pick out a few comments for moderation from some muslim clerics. But the Mullahs who control an entire country that may be months away from holding neclear weapons (according to IAEA) is to cheer the fanatics on.

"The difference is simply that God is personal to the Muslims."

I can only roll my eyes at that. Far be it from me to severely interupt the echo chamber, but that declaration more than any other shows that this particular committee has strayed into a subject that they understand less about than they think that they do.

"The Christians of 400 years ago would have understood the Muslim reaction perfectly."

Perhaps. Until one among them stood up at recited Matthew 5:10-12.

"We judge their culture lesser because we're no longer religious in any real sense."

I believe that you say that because you have self-selected for a non-religious community. We are no longer majority religious, but the number of people in this country who are still religious is probably greater than you think.

"Would you slaughter your children if God told you to?"

Let me answer that with a story. I have some friends who were missionaries in Afghanistan amongst the Taliban pre-9/11. They were there when all the NGO's had pulled out because it was too dangerous. They believed that God had called them to befriend the people of Afghanistan. Now it so happened that the wife was pregnant, and they returned home because Afghanistan in a warzone is not a good place to have a baby. When they returned, they did not expect to go back. But after being here only a few months, they felt called to return - after all, how can you abandon your friends when they need you most? Now, to you this is people putting thier lives in danger needlessly, but to them, this is God asking just how much do they trust him - enough to sacrifice even thier children if he asks it of them?

I don't think you can understand it, and I sure don't think you understand the story of Isaac and Abramham.

"I think we have to acknowledge that true religion has no place in modern society."

I don't have to accept anything like that at all. True religion has been a part of modern society for as long as there has been modern society. I don't think that there is much room in modern society for the belief that true religion has no place in it. If that comes to be a widespread thought, you won't have a modern society anymore - you'll have something else entirely.

The day we scrub the religious symbolism off the walls of the Supreme Court and the Congress because we fear it is the day that we will have become the thing we fear and lost our way.

superfrenchie,
Were the Nazi's religious? Where the Soviets? What about the communist Chinese and Mao?

The fact is that there have been more deaths attributable to the so-called secular philosophies than from all religions combined. I'm not religious, but it's obvious, even from my feeble perspective, that placing man at the center of a belief system is the most dangerous approach of all.

lurker: the problem is not religion per say, the problem is dogma!

Whether religious or secular.

The problem is that it is built-in for all religions, and built-in only in some secular ideologies, the ones you list being the most obvious.

//that placing man at the center of a belief system is the most dangerous approach of all.//

I don't necessarily disagree with that. Secular humanism however is not a belief system in the sense that you mean (I think). There's no dogma in it.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. Secular humanism however is not a belief system in the sense that you mean (I think). There's no dogma in it.

Remember, one of the early steps is to demonize the other and hold up only members as virtuous. You have already internalized these behaviors to the point where you can't even tell when you do it.

Welcome to WoC, BTW. Anyone with a sense of humor is a welcome addition indeed.

"the problem is not religion per say, the problem is dogma!" - superfrenchie

Dogma: (dôgma) n.: An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true.

"fear is in fact all that every religion is really based upon." - superfrenchie

"Without fear of dying, there would not be no religions!" - superfrenchie

"Religions are the hiding place of cowards." - superfrenchie

Dogmatic: adj.: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.

No, nothing dogmatic here. Nothing to see. Move along.

"Remember, one of the early steps is to demonize the other and hold up only members as virtuous. You have already internalized these behaviors to the point where you can't even tell when you do it."

Bingo. You win the thread.

Did I demonize anyone? You're right. I can't even tell.

What I have demonized however is religions. All religions, but some more than others.

Look, a religion is a belief system based on faith. As such, I do feel I have the right (the duty, really) to question it. If I were to tell you that I believe in Santa Claus, or that little green men live in my head, the first thing you would do is ask for evidence, may be a scan of my brain to check out if indeed there are such things in my brain, or an actual picture of Santa Claus.

Well, I do the same thing for example when people tell me that they talk to their God and he sometimes answers, or that the son of God was born of a virgin and walked on water and, or the 70-virgin in paradise thing. I ask for evidence.

Then if I were to fail to bring you evidence about the little green men, the second thing you would do is to question my beliefs, wouldn't you? Or would you just say that, well, he talks about little green men in his head, who am I to question his faith? My feeling is that you would do the former. Most people would. Why is it different just because we're talking about an "established religion" is beyond me. There have been thousands of established religions over the centuries. As a matter of fact, pretty much the entire world is now atheist when it comes to Zeus. Yet in their time, few people questioned His existence and the whole shebang around it.

So am I demonizing someone because I refuse to accept their belief system? If that's so, then you do the same thing when you find my little green men story implausible, or the whole Ra story unbelievable (I hope you do!).

What I am doing is using evidence and reason instead of faith for all my conclusions about the world. It is indeed far from infallible. Sometimes the evidence I rely on is misleading. Sometimes the conclusions I will come up to are the wrong ones. But I am ready to adapt because none of my conclusions about the world are based on infallible dogma.

//Secular humanism already has many features or fascism//

I certainly don’t think so. I do not know of a single society in human history that has ever been worse off because its people were too reasonable (used reason). Reason is what secular humanism is based upon.

//Welcome to WoC, BTW. Anyone with a sense of humor is a welcome addition indeed.//

Well, my own blog keeps me pretty busy. I found out today that I apparently have the most read blog in the world kept by a Frenchman. But I'll try to stop by every now and then. You run a nice gig here. And any blog that has bloggers active during that SuperBowl thing must be a great one…

celebrim (#89): //Dogmatic: adj.: Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles.//

Exactly. My statements were not principles. They were opinions. I don't consider them to be the absolute truth. Strong opinions maybe, but certainly not principles for everybody to live by. They're open for discussion. A bit like if you were saying that capitalism is best for everybody. Unprovable opinion, but nonetheless one most people would defend strongly without being dogmatic.

Look, do I have a certain intolerance for religion? Sure, a little bit. But only rhetorically. I believe in everyone’s right to practice their religion. I also believe that I have a right not to accept their set of beliefs as being beyond questioning.

Are all beliefs to be tolerated at the rhetorical level jus because they are held by someone? I don’t think so. If I were to tell you the holocaust never happened, you hope you would demonstrate a certain intolerance towards my beliefs. That does not mean you would put me in a gulag or something. Simply that you would not accept to have a reasonable discussion with someone who holds such unreasonable beliefs. Same thing if I tell you that Elvis is alive. Why would you have to tolerate me saying things that I have absolutely no evidence for? Well, exactly!

Look, a religion is a belief system based on faith.

As such, I do feel I have the right (the duty, really) to question it.

I certainly don’t think so. I do not know of a single society in human history that has ever been worse off because its people were too reasonable (used reason). Reason is what secular humanism is based upon.

It's even worse for secular humanism, IMHO. It seems to put it's asumptions ahead of reason. Can one really say that political correctness and multiculturalism are based on reason? Or are these examples of dogma?

You run a nice gig here.

lurker: //ALL knowledge is based on unprovable postulates. //

Are you saying that for example the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun is unprovable. If that's the case, looks like we're a bit far apart and that we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

Are you saying that for example the knowledge that the earth revolves around the sun is unprovable.

lurker: //Yes. This seems to be a preoccupation of many know-it-alls.//

Who's claiming ot know it all? I only claim the right to question everything, and to not have to believe what I have no evidence for.

Religions are the ones who claim to have all the answers, not their questioners.

And I do have the proof that babies are not born of virgins. At least one religion claims that it has been done at least once. All I'm saying is "prove it!". And the only answer I get from the religion is "have faith!" I just don't think I have to accept that as a non-questionable answer. Not because I know that it cannot be done, but because I know that it has not been proven. Prove it and I'll believe it. Until then, I find that belief unreasonable.

here superfrenchie-- pour vous .
Science Must Destroy Religion

I dont know why muslin people are so mad on those caricatures because we the christian people seen lots of ones with Jesus or God and we dident react like that! And i have a question
All the best to Muslin people and all people around the world ;)

darwi: thanks. I'm well aware of Sam Harris. And I agree with him on most points.

//pour vous//

You know, it's nice of you to enhance each of your answers to me with a couple of French words, but this is an English-speaking blog. My understanding of English is OK, and I assume that all readers here speak English primarily, and that if surely a few speak French, some don't. So while I don't run this blog, my feeling is that it's best for everybody that reads us if we keep it in English. Feel free to use your nice French on my blog though.

superfrenchie, joe and armed will allow it, i think. ;)
i add in japanese words for my japanese friends and arabic words for my muslim friends in blogspace.
i love language, and y'know, use it or lose it!

Perhaps we should use the rational science of eugenics to remove the propensity for religion from the human genome?

lurker: I'm not sure if the question is serious and I'm not even sure if it is addressed to me.

But assuming it is both I would say that 1. I don't even consider eugenics a science and that 2. far from me to want to rid the world of religion by any other means than discussion.

I do have a tendancy to believe that the world would be better off without religions, but many religious beliefs, while absurd, are also harmless.

Some however are not. The original discussion on this thread is about the belief of Muslims that they should violently come to the defense of their so-called all powerful God (and why then would he need human defenders?) if he is made fun of in a cartoon. I think most of us agree that it's not just absurd, but that the world would be better off without such a belief. I'm just extending that to every absurd belief of every religion. But I have no proposal to achieve that other than openly questioning those who hold those beliefs.

Perhaps we should use the rational science of eugenics to remove the propensity for religion from the human genome?

i have read all the comments from the people who send i am a muslim as being a muslim we have no difference with you but the difference arises when our religional brothers and sisters are harmed by your governments
you people support your governments decision so you have to bare the reaction if that stop happening this voilence comes to an end
About the cartoons we muslim have believe that prophet mohammads (p.b.u.h)is the last messenger of god an we live our lifes according to his living so its naurall when the cartoons are printed we have to react and when a person is angry he does not know what he is doing ...........

Well met, Bilal. Peace be with you.

"being a muslim we have no difference with you but the difference arises when our religional brothers and sisters are harmed by your governments"

We have a dispute over what consitutes the 'harm' to ones brothers and sisters. You believe that idolotry is an anathema to the God of heaven. Well, I for one do too. But, if the printing of those images is a sin against God, then the crime is on those that do the printing and God's judgement is on them and not on your brother's and sister's. There souls are not harmed, unless they actually did commit idolotry upon viewing those pictures, and if they did then thier anger should be directed at themselves because no one made them to commit idolotry. All man's sins are thier own choices, and each man bears the costs of his own actions. Is God unjust? No, of course not!

If someone blasphemes, then the insult is against God. If God is insulted, God does not need you or I to defend his honor. God has his own strong right arm. If God is insulted, you are not insulted. Indeed, if you are insulted for the sake of God, there is nothing shameful in this either. The harm is not on you, but on the one who commits the blasphemy.

"you people support your governments decision so you have to bare the reaction if that stop happening this voilence comes to an end"

You are confused. Where you come from, no one says anything without the approval of the government. If a newspaper in the Islamic world prints something, then the government will stop it. But it doesn't work that way in the West. If a Newspaper in the West prints something, it is the business of the newspaper and the government cannot stop them from printing anything unless they commit a crime. We believe that people are only accountable for the things which they have said themselves.

You say that we must bear the reaction. I warn you that those that commit violence must also bear the reaction of those that they commit violence against.

"About the cartoons we muslim have believe that prophet mohammads (p.b.u.h)is the last messenger of god an we live our lifes according to his living so its naurall when the cartoons are printed we have to react..."

No you don't. God himself can protect the honor of his messengers. You are not capable of protecting the honor of God, and you are guilty of the sin of pride for claiming that right. The right to protect his honor belongs to God alone, and he does not look kindly on those that rob him of his rights. You don't have to react. You choose to react.

"when a person is angry he does not know what he is doing"

Yes he does. He knows he is doing the work of Satan, but he continues to do this work anyway. He tells himself that he does not know what he is doing so he will not have to feel his shame. Afterwards, he feels shame for his foolishness, and to keep from feeling his own shame he gets angry again. In this way, Satan through the man's anger comes to control his life, and he is given over to an evil mind. The fruits of that are evident in the pictures, for those who are in the thrall of anger do not have a noble countenance and they do not bring honor to themselves or to your prophet. Instead, they bring shame on themselves, and cause the name of your prophet to be cursed.

darwi odrade speaks for herself lurker.

For myself, as soon as I find a way to delete that gene from myself, I will take it. For I would be free from all possible delusions and irrational biases. And if it is a gene that leads me into self-deception, then I would sacrifice that gene in an instant.

That is how much unbiased rational judgement means to me.

#103 and #104 illustrate perfectly why there will always be conflicts between religions. One guy is saying what he believes, and the other is telling him that no, this is what he's supposed to be believing.

Neither of them of course has even the slightest element to prove what they are saying. Whether it is that "prophet mohammads (p.b.u.h)is the last messenger of god" or that "[God] does not look kindly on those that rob him of his rights."

How the hell do you people know who God chose to send as his last messenger (personally, I thought it was Pat Robertson...), or that he gets fuming mad when someone wants to protect him in His name?

As long as people believe things based on faith only, I don't see how conflicts can stop.

Actually, superfrenchie, your secularist orientation blinds you to what is going on in comments #103 and #104.

Secular monotheists of the Abrahamic faiths do have their differences, but they also have bedrocks of commonality that permit shared discourse from generally shared presuppositions. Celebrim's response was simply an illustration of that, leveraging those shared presuppositions in order to contruct a theo-logical argument (hyphenation intentional) that acknowledges some of the shared presuppositions, while questioning others.

Indeed, your secularist response is a FAR more radical disconnect in terms of conversation and persuasion. For you to talk to Bilal, the only response you have is to ask him to give up ALL of his beliefs. Which may or may not be a good idea, but won't take the conversation very far and almost certainly will not convince him of anything.

Recall, mon ami, that France's secularist orientation is not the result of persuasion that convinced the religious to change. It was a centuries-long battle in which the disaffected were mobilized and increased in number and the forces of throne and altar reduced, generation by generation (including one rather sharp and violent dropoff), until ultimately the Church's grip was loosened and then broken against its will.

As a long term strategy, this has much to recommend it. Especially if one introduces it via Machievelli's pioneering idea that the institutions must be judged on their delivery not their Platonic visions.

As a short term response, however, it is somewhat lacking and so rather than mocking celebrim, you might consider being grateful to have allies who are capable of going where you may not go, and doing what you cannot do.

The Long War will live up to its name - and all who choose to be united in freedom are brothers.

Blind me?

Are you saying that I am the only one to see a disagreement about the very nature of God when one guy is saying that it's natural within his belief that he must live his life according to the living of the prophet and thus react to cartoons and the other is saying that God gets upset when huumans do that?

If so, then yes I guess I'm blind.

And I'm fairly well aware that I am not going to convince either one that the problem is not either belief, but the fact that they rely on faith to arrive to those beliefs. The long term strategy you advocate makes a lot of sense, but would also make for boring blogging, IMHO...

First let me say, celebrim that you've posted a lot of stuff so good I didn't say anything about it because I would have had nothing to say except "me too". That said...

#104 from celebrim: "If someone blasphemes, then the insult is against God. If God is insulted, God does not need you or I to defend his honor."

The problem with this, and much else that you said is: who are you to say what Allah needs, wants or commands?

Allah revealed Himself in the Koran and in the example of the seal of the prophets, Muhammed, who Muslims are told by Allah, often, to revere, follow, believe, obey and so on. There is also legal interpretation and history - a lot of it exceedingly bloody. This counts, as soft-hearted speculation by an unbeliever about what an omnipotent God would need or not need does not count.

The Prophet's example is one of extreme aggression, violence and terror, once he had the power to inflict a reign of terror. The more you look to his personal example, the nastier it gets, and history has followed him.

For a non-believer like me to quote fragments of the Koran translated into English is pretty meaningless, but anyway:

The Koran, 9:12 - But if after coming to terms with you, they break their oaths, and revile your faith, make war on the leaders of unbelief - for no oaths are binding with them - so that they may desist.
- N.J. Dawood translation.

Should there be war and slaughter because of mere words, when unbelievers "revile" the faith of Muslims? Yes there should, that's what Allah said, and slaughter of anyone whose words did not please him is what the Prophet Muhammed practiced.

#104 from celebrim: "God himself can protect the honor of his messengers. You are not capable of protecting the honor of God, and you are guilty of the sin of pride for claiming that right. The right to protect his honor belongs to God alone, and he does not look kindly on those that rob him of his rights. You don't have to react. You choose to react."

Again, you don't get to say this, or not with a shred of authority. On the contrary, the system of Islam prescribes tolerance for you only under strictly limited and humiliating terms.

You do not get to invent a kinder, gentler Islam. Nor do I. Nor does anyone. We are stuck with the Islam we have got.

Our problem is a practical one: how not to get stuck in the guts by knives wielded by Muslims following the example of associates of Muhammed, who with his full approval and in some cases at his urging dealt exactly thus with critics, with a poet he did not like, and so on.

superfrenchie: JK is quite right. I'm afraid you are ill equiped to understand the theological arguement going on, which is most certainly not over the nature of God. There are many disagreements between Islam and Christianity, but on the essential nature of God (Allah in the Arabic) there is almost no disagreement. I am merely reminding billal of what he already believes to be true. I have not attempted to change his beliefs about the nature God.

Essentially what I said was, "Given what you know about the nature of God - that he is righteous, powerful, and a jealous god - do you think that he would recieve the boast, "See how I have protected your honor and the honor of your messenger!" as a sign of respect or as an insult to his dignity?" I have argued that the claim that you must protect the honor of God or his messenger is an insult against the honor of God, because it treats God as if He was your little brother or sister and unable to redress insults against him. Shouldn't God get to choose whether and how to respond to insults against him? If God does not redress the wrong himself, what gives you the right to claim that authority for yourself? And for that matter, is there anything a mere man can do that would actually touch the honor of the Holy God?

I would argue that when people say, "I must respond in order to protect the honor of God!", that they decieve themselves. It is the insult against themselves that want to redress, and it is the excuse that they are protecting the honor of the Prophet, or of Islam, or of God that they make in order to engage in evil deeds. In doing so, they compound thier error.

And this is the important thing, it doesn't really matter if I believe any of that or not (though in fact I to a large extent do). What is important is that I'm taking my argument to a place billal is equipped by training and experience to understand. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if you could find some Islamics making a very similar argument, something to the effect of, "Why trouble yourself over what the kaffir say? Does not the righteous judgement of God fall on everyone?"

Yes, I could make the same eventual point by appealing to Western concepts of civility, tolerance, and the rule of law. If I were having the same argument with you, I would do so - and completely leave out the theological side of it. But that is because, you I would guess accept the basic premises of Western civility, tolerance, and the rule of law almost to the point of being axiomatic. Billal doesn't, nor can he be expected to. For one thing, all those concepts rest on the sort of things that do differ between Christianity and Islam. I can't very well direct billal to John Locke's writing on Tolerance if I expect him to accept my conclusions. And I certainly couldn't direct him to Voltaire, Rousseau or Diderot - whose writings rest on accepting things that are probably utterly foreign to billal's experience and beliefs.

David: "The problem with this, and much else that you said is: who are you to say what Allah needs, wants or commands?"

I'm nobody. I'm not a prophet. But this is entirely the point - neither are they.

"Allah revealed Himself in the Koran and in the example of the seal of the prophets, Muhammed, who Muslims are told by Allah, often, to revere, follow, believe, obey and so on. There is also legal interpretation and history - a lot of it exceedingly bloody. This counts, as soft-hearted speculation by an unbeliever about what an omnipotent God would need or not need does not count."

Agreed, but I'm afraid what you are saying is only the 'hard-hearted' speculation by an unbeliever trying to rally people to, lets be frank, kill moslems without mercy. Don't expect that to 'count' either. More to the point though, the Koran and the Haddiths do not absolutely approve of the course of action being taken - as can be seen by the sort of thin theological justification the Islamists are making. The argument being made by the Islamists is an emotional one, and not one based on deep Islamic judicial reasoning. The various claims you make are not grounded in deep Islamic judicial reasoning either, and the quote you make doesn't even address the topic at hand.

"Again, you don't get to say this, or not with a shred of authority."

I didn't say that I did, which is why I - unlike you - didn't insult our guest by quoting the Koran to him.

"Should there be war and slaughter because of mere words, when unbelievers "revile" the faith of Muslims? Yes there should, that's what Allah said..."

Prove it. You don't presume to think I haven't read the Koran? Do you really think I'm utterly uninformed about the theology involved here? Don't come here telling me I don't have the authority to make prenouncements regarding Islam while making various prenouncements about what Islam believes to the effect of, Islam is a lost cause.

#111 from celebrim: "I'm afraid what you are saying is only the 'hard-hearted' speculation by an unbeliever trying to rally people to, lets be frank, kill moslems without mercy."

Let's be frank, you are being anything but frank there; rather you are characterising me in a negative way and trying to put damaging words in my mouth.

#111 from celebrim: "The various claims you make are not grounded in deep Islamic judicial reasoning either, and the quote you make doesn't even address the topic at hand."

I'm not qualified to provide "deep Islamic judicial reasoning," which nobody else was providing either.

I think the quote I gave, however, is reasonably on-topic.

David Blue: "Again, you don't get to say this, or not with a shred of authority."

#111 from celebrim: "I didn't say that I did, which is why I - unlike you - didn't insult our guest by quoting the Koran to him."

"Our guest" can in his own time pronounce himself insulted by anyone he wants, for any reason he wants. If he finds the J.N. Dawood translation of 9:12 personally insulting to him, he can say so himself and we can take it from there.

David Blue: "Should there be war and slaughter because of mere words, when unbelievers "revile" the faith of Muslims? Yes there should, that's what Allah said..."

#111 from celebrim: "Prove it."

I've given reasonable evidence for a thread of this nature in the quote you object to. And by the way, which is it? It is mandatory or personally insulting to a guest to introduce a piece of textual illustration or evidence, or both at once?

#111 from celebrim: "You don't presume to think I haven't read the Koran? Do you really think I'm utterly uninformed about the theology involved here?"

Do you really want answers to your questions? Do you really think you can palm off onto me the silly implication that you've never cracked a book?

#111 from celebrim: "Don't come here telling me I don't have the authority to make prenouncements regarding Islam while making various prenouncements about what Islam believes to the effect of, Islam is a lost cause."

Then (copying the tone) "don't come here telling me" to you too.

Yes, Bilal, peace be upon you.

You say..About the cartoons we muslim have believe that prophet mohammads (p.b.u.h)is the last messenger of god an we live our lifes according to his living so its naurall when the cartoons are printed we have to react and when a person is angry he does not know what he is doing ...........

As if. Can you tell me where all of these spontaneously angry protesters got the Danish flags that they're so spontaneously burning? Can you tell me why each and every 'spontaneous' protest in every country around the world seems to follow a similar theme (angry, provocative signs, some violence, no killing). Can you tell me why the Syrian government, which doesn't allow spontaneous protests, allowed this one?

Can you tell me if you believe, as some Muslims do, that "God made the world for Muslim Arabs to control"?

These protests are a fairly impressive puppet show. Who's holding the strings?

Hello, Bilal. Long life and good health to you.

#103 from Bilal: "you people support your governments decision so you have to bare the reaction if that stop happening this voilence comes to an end"

In my case that's perfectly fair and true: I do support the government, so any reaction to its actions is properly addressed to me.

However in many other cases, people who do not support the government, and have tried to undermine or halt our war effort, are also potentially at risk from Muslim reactions. I'm not trying to make a point by saying that, it's just a matter of fact.

#103 from Bilal: "About the cartoons we muslim have believe that prophet mohammads (p.b.u.h)is the last messenger of god an we live our lifes according to his living so its naurall when the cartoons are printed we have to react and when a person is angry he does not know what he is doing"

Sure. I understand this, and I go a long way, though not the whole way, towards approving of it.

I think religion is a basic human need, like a sense of humour: you can't point to any rational necessity for it, and not everybody has to have it, but overall it's a basic part of humanity.

Religion without strong connections and strong feelings in some circumstances makes no sense. If you have something holy, something that makes life meaningful, something that heals individuals and unites communities, you don't want it dragged through the mud in any way.

Also, great passions don't come in boxes marked "open only in case of need". People who feel very strongly in good ways also have the potential to react very strongly in ways that an "objective" observer might deem unnecessary, inappropriate, too violent or whatever. The bargain of great devotion, great sincerity, at the price of being "uncool" and in the judgment of some even "unbalanced" is on the whole, I think, a good one.

#103 and #104 illustrate perfectly why there will always be conflicts between religions. One guy is saying what he believes, and the other is telling him that no, this is what he's supposed to be believing.
super frenchie you are right that there will be conflicts so in order to stop these we have to develop respect for each others religion and beliefs
#113from mary Can you tell me if you believe, as some Muslims do, that "God made the world for Muslim Arabs to control"?
we never intend to control the world and it is impossible to do so ..
#114 david blue
However in many other cases, people who do not support the government, and have tried to undermine or halt our war effort, are also potentially at risk from Muslim reactions. I'm not trying to make a point by saying that, it's just a matter of fact.
we muslims do not also support someactions what the others muslim do its a case of liking and dislikng
but when it comes to pride and honour of our religion we dont look back and never regret our action
some of your are asking that how i know that Mohammad (p.b.u.h) is the last messenger
It is my belief that He is the messenger of Allah if others accept it fine if not no one can tell him that believe what i say to you even on a gun point he might say that yes i belive your for sake of his life but he wont accpet the idealogy from his heart
if i ask you the sanme qustion how you know that jeseus is son of god you cant prove it its just a blief you people cant prove and i dont want any proof either but my piont is recspect each others idealogy......

"you are right that there will be conflicts so in order to stop these we have to develop respect for each others religion and beliefs"

I'm glad you saw fit to hang around. You will have I think little argument with such a noble sentiment here. Yes, we all certainly feel that people should have respect for one another and each other's beliefs.

But this answer, pleasant as it may be, somewhat misses the problem entirely. It's not possible that everyone would hold beliefs that are not offensive to someone. Suppose I say, "I believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God." To the ears of a Moslem, especially one that doesn't know what I mean by it, this is blasphemy of the worst kind. How can you not be offended by my saying what is to you blasphemous? Yet how can I avoid saying it? To deny this truth is to me the greatest crime and betrayal that I could commit. From the opposite direction if someone says to me, "Jesus did not die on the cross. He tricked the Romans and Jews into crucifying another in his place and escaped.", well that is offensive Gnostic heresy to me.

It's not possible that we should believe everything we believe and not believe and do things that someone will find offensive. The only answer is that we all pledge not to resort to force to prevent one another from saying those things we offensive. This is called 'tolerance'. Christendom learned tolerance the hard way, after repeatedly forgetting the value of this virtue in our zeal to defend those things we believed valuable. Now perhaps we have become too tolerant (though this is of course a matter of opinion), but on the other hand at least now we are no longer killing each other at the slightest offence. Beware what would happen if the nations of Europe become tired of tolerance, and decide to be offended at the repeated provocation they recieve.

If someone says, "Well, you cannot draw pictures of Mohammed because it is an insult to Islam.", then that someone can (and likely will) say, "Well, you cannot say that Jesus was the Son of God because this is an insult to Islam." If someone says, "I want you to make a law which says you cannot do what other people find offensive.", then we will be held hostage to the feelings of the most easily offended, short tempered and intolerant persons. How would you feel if someone said, "You cannot pray because your praying offends me!", or "You cannot say that Jesus Christ is not God, because it offends me."

If you ask people who are offended by your beliefs to respect them, then you must also respect other peoples beliefs even when they offend you.

#116 from celebrim
you are right about this that how we can not offend each others religion and still live our lives according to them.That can be achieved by finding commanility instead of differences like peace,love,moral values,true justice etc
About offending your believes we never can offend jesus because we believe he was the messenger of god and he is also respectable to us thats why we are unable to do so..
we muslims just are trying to say that dont say bad words about our beloved prophet and when he is insulted we feel that we are being insluted. we can die but we cant loose our sense of pride because with out pride there is no use of life..

#115 from Bilal, re: #114 david blue
However in many other cases, people who do not support the government, and have tried to undermine or halt our war effort, are also potentially at risk from Muslim reactions. I'm not trying to make a point by saying that, it's just a matter of fact.
we muslims do not also support someactions what the others muslim do its a case of liking and dislikng
but when it comes to pride and honour of our religion we dont look back and never regret our action

Of course.

This is fundamental. It's not about "radical" versus "moderate". It's about solidarity.

So, consequences follow, as you said before in #103: "you people support your governments decision so you have to bare the reaction if that stop happening this voilence comes to an end.

I agree that we do have to bear the reaction. This is reality. Consequences can't be wished away.

If a puppy does something wrong, it's going to get smacked. If it doesn't want to get smacked any more, it has to stop doing that.

Or, here's a familiar medical joke: the patient says, "Doctor, it hurts when I do this." (He puts his arm in some odd position.) And the doctor simply says: "So don't do that!"

#103 from Bilal: "About the cartoons we muslim have believe that prophet mohammads (p.b.u.h)is the last messenger of god an we live our lifes according to his living so its naurall when the cartoons are printed we have to react and when a person is angry he does not know what he is doing ..........."

That's true too of course. If we aren't going stop out naughty behaviour, Islam is going to give us consequences. As you said, when it comes to the pride and honour of their religion, Muslims don't look back and will never regret their actions.

Bilal - In #117 you say:

we muslims just are trying to say that dont say bad words about our beloved prophet and when he is insulted we feel that we are being insluted.

Saying bad words about your beloved prophet is forbidden by your laws, and Muslims are currently trying to enforce these laws in every part of the world through protests, threats, intimidation and violence.

In your own words, you're saying that Muslims are trying to control the world. So, your statement in #115, "we never intend to control the world and it is impossible to do so" isn't exactly true, is it?

"we muslims just are trying to say that dont say bad words about our beloved prophet and when he is insulted we feel that we are being insluted."

I wish only that it was you saying this. If only you had only said this, not only would the newspaper apologized but no other newspaper would have reprinted the cartoons. Islam would have passed the test and its people would have earned respect. But because people who called themselves Moslems resorted to threats, insults, violence, and barbaric behavior, Islam lost respect and now it has become an issue of pride for both sides. It is like to angry men lining up in the street hurling insults at each other in order to get angry enough to fight.

"we can die but we cant loose our sense of pride because with out pride there is no use of life.."

It says in the scriptures:

"Therefore pride compasseth them about as a chain; violence covereth them as a garment" Ps. 73:6

and also...

"The fear of the LORD is to hate evil: pride, and arrogancy, and the evil way, and the forward mouth, I do hate" Pr. 8:13

and also...

"When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom." Pr. 11:2

But then...

"But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace." Ps 37:11

and

"Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted." Gal 6:1

and further...

"I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, with all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." - Eph 4:1-6

and as well...

"To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, showing meekness unto all men." - Tit 3:2

And with many other exhortations besides, condemning pride and praising humility. I do not claim to be an expert in the Koran, but perhaps it is so that there are also many like ayat found in the Koran. I would not persume to instruct you in the Koran - for there is little more annoying than the one with lesser knowledge instructing the one with greater, or to have a non-believer quote ones scripture at you in a mocking way - but perhaps you would honor me by instructing me in what the Koran says about pride.

As a Christian, I would say that pride is of little use in life - it is how one submits themselves in a spirit of humility and servitude that gives value to life. I would say rather that we can die, but we cannot lose our sense of love - for without love there is no use of life. Of course I do not here mean that shallow sort of love such as many use the word which is more akin to lust, what the Greeks would have called 'eros', but rather that love that is between brothers - what the Greeks would have called 'agape'. But pride I pray to God that it remain far from me, lest I stumble on my pride and sin against God and my fellow man.

Celebrim's point (#116) needs underscoring. The crucifixion of Jesus is the central point of Christianity. That the Koran states that His death was faked is objectionable and offensive to Christians. Christians have fought and died in wars over subtle theological implications of the Crucifixion; they leave movie theatres in tears over depictions of this central event. It does not matter that Muslims think Jesus is a good teacher or blessed; the Koran's depiction is a mockery of Christianity.

If we are not going to offend religions and if Christians believe the Koran is insulting, then whither the Koran? I do not advocate this, but this is clearly where this path leads.

#119 from marry Saying bad words about your beloved prophet is forbidden by your laws, and Muslims are currently trying to enforce these laws in every part of the world through protests, threats, intimidation and violence.
In your own words, you're saying that Muslims are trying to control the world. So, your statement in #115, "we never intend to control the world and it is impossible to do so" isn't exactly true, is it
hahahaha mary we can argue all our life but this will not come to an end if u think that we are trying to control the world then try to stop us but not like coward like mans why this childis behavior.............
your are saying that we muslims are extremist we cant stand if some one offends our religion there is a differnce in insluting and offending peoples religion......
#120 from celebrim
you said that there is no use of pride in life .
if some one insults you how will you feel ?will you say that this is freedom of speech if you think that this is right so let him do that ok...

hahahaha mary we can argue all our life but this will not come to an end if u think that we are trying to control the world then try to stop us

Interesting. How should we do that?

In your own words, Muslims are trying to control what everyone around the world says about your prophet. In that way, Muslims ARE currently trying to control the world.

It's understandable to be offended, and expressions of opinions and feelings are not a problem. But it's against our laws to influence other people's behavior and/or speech through threats of violence or actual violent acts (like burning down embassies). Why do some Muslims believe that they have the right to do these things?

sorry - the third paragraph in my comment above shouldn't be italicized..

"if some one insults you how will you feel? will you say that this is freedom of speech if you think that this is right so let him do that ok..."

:)

You've just hit upon one of the central differences in Christianity and Islam. I'm glad you asked that question.

Jesus taught us thusly,

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

When I am insulted, the shame of it doesn't belong to me. When I am insulted, the shame of it belongs to the one who gives the insult. And, if I am insulted because of the good things that I do, not only is there no shame in it but in fact much honor. So when I am insulted, I feel no shame. If I feel shame at insults, it is not from God which this comes - but it is Satan tempting me in my pride to commit sin. For I know that I have been commanded by God to love even those that insult me. Rather, when I am insulted I should do good things, so that by my actions the one who gave the insult might see the shame that they brought on themselves.

In the same manner, if I do evil the shame is always on me and me alone. I am not shamed by anything that anyone else does, but only what I do. Only I can endanger my soul. So, if for example I see a woman acting shamefully, the sin is not on me. The shame is only on the woman herself. The woman's shame is her own behavior, and my shame is my lust for her, and neither of us is responcible for the others shame. If I blame the woman for my own lust, then my error is compounded for nothing causes me to sin except my own weakness and sinful nature. My lust - if it exists - is the result not of the woman's sin, but of my failure to love the woman as a sister and of my failure to abide in prayer - and no other cause.

So yes, of course freedom of speach includes the right to say things that are insulting to me. It is only the right to say things that are insulting that needs protecting. If we have freedom to only say those things which insult noone, why would we need the law to protect us? Note however that there is a very big difference between having the right to say things that are insulting, and having the right to make threats against someone. You may insult someone however you like, but you cannot threaten to do violence to do them. Insults are protected, but the threat to do or the encouragement to commit violence is called 'assault' and it is illegal.

#123 from mary
It's understandable to be offended, and expressions of opinions and feelings are not a problem. But it's against our laws to influence other people's behavior and/or speech through threats of violence or actual violent acts (like burning down embassies). Why do some Muslims believe that they have the right to do these things?
................you know when these cartoons were printed in september and now whats the date?its almost 4 months now and the voilence has started few days back because the papers who printed had not appologized for there inslult
About the voilence have you been to iraq,afghanistan ? your governments s.c.r.e.w those countries for 1 or 2 b.a.s.t.a.r.d.s see the mothers whose childs got killed by your so called anti dectator and anti terrorist government if you think that this is not voilence then God bless you................
.........If the islam is bad you think why its amongst the fastes growing religions of the world you even in your own countries are afriad of muslims ..

#125 From celebrim
You've just hit upon one of the central differences in Christianity and Islam. I'm glad you asked that question.

Jesus taught us thusly,

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

i have many christians friends in my countries i have never seen them saying ok you inslut me i will not insult you......... i am a student of human physcology i know the reaction of people when they are angry ... if your religion tels about tolorance and love why dont you show that .hahaha... have you seen the pictures of iraqi prisioners and the reports of the insult of quran in guantanamobay prision they were christians also.......

#123 from mary
It's understandable to be offended, and expressions of opinions and feelings are not a problem. But it's against our laws to influence other people's behavior and/or speech through threats of violence or actual violent acts (like burning down embassies). Why do some Muslims believe that they have the right to do these things?
................you know when these cartoons were printed in september and now whats the date?its almost 4 months now and the voilence has started few days back because the papers who printed had not appologized for there inslult
About the voilence have you been to iraq,afghanistan ? your governments s.c.r.e.w those countries for 1 or 2 b.a.s.t.a.r.d.s see the mothers whose childs got killed by your so called anti dectator and anti terrorist government if you think that this is not voilence then God bless you................
.........If the islam is bad you think why its amongst the fastes growing religions of the world you even in your own countries are afriad of muslims ..

#125 From celebrim
You've just hit upon one of the central differences in Christianity and Islam. I'm glad you asked that question.

Jesus taught us thusly,

"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

i have many christians friends in my countries i have never seen them saying ok you inslut me i will not insult you......... i am a student of human physcology i know the reaction of people when they are angry ... if your religion tels about tolorance and love why dont you show that .hahaha... have you seen the pictures of iraqi prisioners and the reports of the insult of quran in guantanamobay prision they were christians also werent they?

#127 from Bilal: "About the voilence have you been to iraq,afghanistan ? your governments s.c.r.e.w those countries for 1 or 2 b.a.s.t.a.r.d.s see the mothers whose childs got killed by your so called anti dectator and anti terrorist government if you think that this is not voilence then God bless you................
.........If the islam is bad you think why its amongst the fastes growing religions of the world you even in your own countries are afriad of muslims .."

I notice that you are not making distinctions there between Iraqis (mostly Arabs) and Afghans (not Arabs). You see in these countries the injuries that non-Muslims inflict on Muslims, period. In other words, you are a normal member of the global Muslim community.

This is something that is very clear worldwide: Muslims have a strong fellowship.

I also agree that Westerners in their own countries are afraid because of the growing power of Islam - and this generally does not make Westerners defiant. It makes them weak, willing to make concessions, and hostile to friends and to political rivals who are defiant. Oriana Fallaci has exactly the defiant temperament the West would need to survive - and she is being prosecuted. This moral weakness is the opposite of the violent pride of Islam.

I think some of this is from Muslims coming from successful families with strong fathers and many children, while it is normal for Westerners to come from weak or broken families with weak or absent fathers and few children. This makes for a lack of courage and also for people who won't make sacrifices for a future they don't have too much stake in.

While Westerners are afraid to die, Muslims are willing to kill and be killed for Allah and their noble religion. (And while Westerners prefer to look away from this and many other truths, Muslims have certainly noticed it and remarked on it.)

People who say Islam is inferior have in my opinion no satisfactory answer to the basic fact that, globally, it is winning.

#127 from Bilal: "i have many christians friends in my countries i have never seen them saying ok you inslut me i will not insult you......... i am a student of human physcology i know the reaction of people when they are angry ... if your religion tels about tolorance and love why dont you show that .hahaha... have you seen the pictures of iraqi prisioners and the reports of the insult of quran in guantanamobay prision they were christians also werent they?"

I also agree that this business of being happy to be insulted and not return insults because you are a Christian has no social reality on any substantial scale.

About the voilence have you been to iraq,afghanistan ? your governments s.c.r.e.w those countries for 1 or 2 b.a.s.t.a.r.d.s see the mothers whose childs got killed by your so called anti dectator and anti terrorist government if you think that this is not voilence then God bless you................

yes, and there are many more children who have been killed by Wahhabi-inspired 'insurgents', many thousands, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Thailand, India, the Sudan, Nigeria, and around the world. In fact, those murderers deliberately target children.

I've also seen pictures of Muslims spitting on the dead bodies of those 'insurgents' in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I know that all Muslims don't sympathize with them.

But that doesn't answer my question - why do some Muslims think that they have the right to use violence to force people to live according to Muslim rules?

If the islam is bad you think why its amongst the fastes growing religions of the world you even in your own countries are afriad of muslims .

Actually, I don't think Islam is any better or worse than any other religion. But, it's true, listen to David, we're absolutely terrified of Muslims. Whenever I see one of those pretty flowered headscarves, I'm overwhelmed by panic.

In fact, I don't know why pro-Shariah Islamists and terror groups hide their true intentions, especially here in America. They should be open and honest about their goals - they should go on CNN, or maybe Oprah and talk about their real feelings. After all, we're such cowards - they have nothing to be afraid of.

1. 129 from marry
   yes, and there are many more children who have been killed by Wahhabi-inspired 'insurgents', many thousands, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Thailand, India, the Sudan, Nigeria, and around the world. In fact, those murderers deliberately target children...
   yes you are right about that but in battles there is a chance of friendly fire and your own army has to suffer...........

1. 129 from mary But that doesn't answer my question - why do some Muslims think that they have the right to use violence to force people to live according to Muslim rules?

has any muslim say you to cover your head with scarf?has any muslim said you that you should live your life according to islam?has any muslim inslut your religion? has any muslim tried to kill you or use voilence against you so that you live your life according to islamic rules ? the answer is i am 100% sure NO

The muslim are being portrayed as voilent people because of westren media because you think one day all of western countries would be ruled by muslim . Dear this is not possible and we dont intend do do that.

Whenever I see one of those pretty flowered headscarves, I'm overwhelmed by panic.

Why you panic its just for muslim womans so that they could cover there body and cant let other see therebody

if you still have any more questions here is my cell number and i will try to satisfy you # 923005157426 because i might not be able to answer the critics any more. my intention was just to change the negative impression of the people..if anyone is heart by my words i am extremely sorry.

Follow up re #59 by dave shuller: //Don't forget that France, Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and so on are ethnic states. //

and my response in #60:

//I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Are you saying that by just seeing me in the street you could recognize that I'm French just by my physical characteristics?//

I wrote a post about that this morning on my blog. An interesting conversation. What makes someone French, or American, or whatever.

has any muslim said you that you should live your life according to islam? ...has any muslim tried to kill you or use voilence against you so that you live your life according to islamic rules ?

That was what 9/11 and most Islamist terrorism is about. Forcing unwilling people, Muslims included, to live under Sharia is their goal. So the answer would have to be yes.

Whenever I see one of those pretty flowered headscarves, I'm overwhelmed by panic.

I'm sorry, I should have indicated that I was joking. Jokes are hard to get when it's not your first language, especially on the internet. I was trying to say that it's silly to be afraid of ordinary, non-extremist Muslims.

Bilal,
Yes, some muslim extremists have demanded that I live my life according to the tenets of Islam.

Some of them have also attempted to kill, not myself but friends of mine, to that purpose.

Your problem is not convincing me of the good intentions of the remaining muslims but of convincing the remaining muslims to reclaim the direction of their faith.