The “Religion Of Peace” Gets Offended

by Jimmy Akin

in Islam

MuslimyahooI’m going to have more to say about this over the next few days, but let’s get a few things down first.

In case you’ve not been following the news, a Danish newspaper published several cartoons of Muhammad that have enraged many in the Muslim world. Other European papers later reprinted the cartoons.

BASIC INFO HERE, WITH LINKS TO CARTOONS.

Now they are doing the usual protest thing, which in the Muslim context means flag and effigy burnings, hopping up and down and chanting, and violent threats being made. And not only threats. They’ve also taken to committing arson against various European embassies.

In other words, many Muslims acting so as to confirm every stereotype that’s out there to the effect that Muslim culture is a vicious, self-centered, savage culture that is incapable of controlling its emotions.

This is a bad thing, and I’m sure that there are many Muslims who are aghast at what the protestors are doing–at the same time that they are offended by the Muhammad cartoons.

I don’t have a problem with them being offended. Muslims consider Muhammad in some way sacred as a prophet of God, and Muslims hold depicting a prophet in art is a form of profanation. Anybody gets offended when what they hold sacred is profaned, especially if it is also held up to ridicule, as happened in the case of at least some of the Danish cartoons (such as depicting Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban, though others cartoons did not depict him in a bad light, they just depicted him).

I don’t believe in giving unnecessary offense to others, particularly when the offense concerns something as deeply felt as the subject of a person’s religion. I know what that feels like, as I’ve had to bear countless insults to Christ and the Christian faith (and ones far worse than anything in the Danish cartoons, none of which depicted God Incarnate hanging in a jar of urine).

But when an offense is committed, I do believe in a proportionate response. Protesting is fine. Boycotting the people involved–like the paper and its advertisers–is fine.

But issuing death threats and destroying property is not.

That behavior is completely unacceptable, and this kind of bullying is the thing which one must stand up to.

After so many countless public angerfests in the Muslim world, it’s easy to dismiss these as just more of the same, but people need to recognize what is going on here, and not just in the Muslim world.

UPDATE: LINK FIXED. CHECK OUT THESE MUST-SEE PICTURES OF MUSLIM PROTESTS IN EUROPE.

AND THIS STORY ABOUT EMBASSY BURNINGS IN THE MUSLIM WORLD.

AND THIS VIDEO BY MICHELLE MALKIN.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 58 comments }

Jason February 6, 2006 at 6:23 am

Jimmy, I think your “must see pictures” link is broken. It links to the USCCB site with no pictures.

Jamie Beu February 6, 2006 at 6:45 am

Isn’t the rule for Christians, regarding offending others, nicely spelled out in 1 Cor 8?
1 Cor 8:9 – “But make sure that this liberty of yours in no way becomes a stumbling block to the weak.”
1 Cor 8:12 – “When you sin in this way against your brothers and wound their consciences, weak as they are, you are sinning against Christ.”
Basically, if we do things, which with our knowledge of God through Jesus Christ, we are at liberty to do, but cause offense or a feeling of defilement to others, we should not do them.
Therefore, even though we, as Christians, are free to have depictions/images/drawings of our Lord and Savior, as well as pictures of any human (even Mohammed), we should not do so with Mohammed, because it will cause offense to our Muslim brethren.
Too bad Europe is no longer Christian and has forgotten these lessons of charity: “do unto others [e.g., do not offend] as you would have them do unto you” and “love your neighbor as yourself”.
Maybe Pope Benedict XVI will be able to use this as a call to repentence and conversion for Europe.

francis February 6, 2006 at 6:53 am

I’ve heard many arguments, pro and con, on the “clash of civilizations” theory. While I don’t know enough about Islam to pronounce whether it can separate from its violent history, as Christianity largely has, I do think this shows that the culture and civilization of Muslim lands is in fundamental tension with that of the West. Can the two be reconciled? Will one ultimately vanquish the other? Will they be forcibly jumbled together? Or will they destroy each other, making way for a new Sino-Indian hegemon? Only time will tell.
What I know for sure is that Christ will preserve his Bride through all tribulations.

Count Tradula February 6, 2006 at 7:05 am

The essential point here is that these ppl should not even be in Europe, regardless of whether or not some cartoon offends them.

Steven D. Greydanus February 6, 2006 at 7:26 am

Isn’t the rule for Christians, regarding offending others, nicely spelled out in 1 Cor 8?

While there is something to this, a number of important qualifications should be noted:
First, the NT principle is not actually concerned with avoiding giving offense in the usual English sense of the word, but with avoiding causing others to “stumble,” i.e., with giving an example to impressionable individuals with weak consciences who would (a) interpret the behavior in question as sinful and (b) be somehow led or prompted to follow this example, thus thus sinning against their own over-scrupulous consciences.
St. Paul is not concerned first of all with avoiding outrage and offended emotions, but with the strong inadvertently leading the weak to stumble into sin. Now, this doesn’t rule out a remote application to the present situation, since those advocating or engaged in violence are sinning — but since they are not sinning by following the example of those who “offended” them, the situation is not directly governed by the principles at work in 1 Cor 8.
Second, it’s also important to note that in its NT context the principle in question has direct reference to avoiding behavior likely to cause one’s fellow Christians to stumble — not with avoiding behavior likely to cause absolutely anyone to stumble.
While this too doesn’t rule out a level of applicability to non-Christians, the point is important because the range of behavior with which Paul would have been concerned, i.e., things that some first-century Christians would rightly consider lawful that other first-century Christians would not, would be comparatively narrow compared to the range of behavior that Christians would consider legitimate that would not be considered so by absolutely anyone.
For example, if Christians were absolutely bound to avoid giving offense to Muslims, we would be barred not only from making images of Muhammed but also from making images of other figures revered by Islam as prophets, including Jesus himself. Obviously this would be an unreasonable burden.
As this implies, the duty to avoid giving offense is a relative one, not an absolute one. For example, it would not be reasonable to expect Catholics not to adore the Blessed Sacrament simply because it might offend Protestants. Similarly, it would not be reasonable to expect Protestants to refrain from contraception or from divorce and remarriage simply because it might offend Catholics (though of course they do have a duty to avoid these things on other grounds, i.e., the moral law).
Given all these qualifications, I am not sure we can conclude that Christians have an absolute obligation to avoid offending Muslim sensibilties regarding depictions of Muhammed. That said, I agree with Jimmy that it it better to avoid giving unnecessary offense, i.e., to avoid giving offense where it is possible and reasonable to do so.
These cartoons are probably unnecessarily provocative and offensive. That doesn’t change the fact that (a) Christians have been enduring a heck of a lot worse, and (b) the violence of Muslim response to the cartoons is totally disproportionate and a far graver offense.

Quasimodo February 6, 2006 at 7:28 am

Well Count, I have to admit that my knee jerks that way too, but that is the wrong way to see things. These “ppl” were invited into Europe and have performed a great service to the Europeans. They helped rebuild Europe after the last war, and they have done the work that the Europeans do not want to accept. They have been there for two generations, in many cases. Europe has to find a way to live with them until these “ppl” (inevitably) become the majority and the Europeans become irrelevant or forced to convert. The price of modern culture of death is the death of the culture.

Jimmy Akin February 6, 2006 at 7:35 am

Link fixed. Thanks. Was also working on another post and pasted in the wrong link.

ELC February 6, 2006 at 8:03 am

There is a Mohammed Cartoon Blogburst. I am afraid I’m responsible. :-)

I can’t speak for any other blogger, of course, but Your Humble, Faithful Blogster didn’t blog the pictures to offend anybody. I blogged the pictures, Faithful Reader, because I realized this week that if we let Jyllands-Posten and the cartoonists stand apart in the face of an onslaught of violence or the threat of violence in retaliation for free expression, we will all stand together as the Islamofascist horde takes away the rest of our freedoms, one by one, year after year, country after country, until none are left.

mulopwepaul February 6, 2006 at 8:11 am

Are Muslims more or less likely to be won to Christ by non-Christians respecting their sensibilities about Muhammad?
That is the question of offence, not whether or not it upsets anyone. If someone wants to persist in sin, they will be upset with anyone who calls them out of their sin.
I think we can preach to Muslims without pictures of Muhammad, but at a certain point we need to be able to be frank about who we think Muhammad was, and that does not include the exalted position Muslims accord him.
So, to what extent do we enable continued commitment to what we have faith is a lie by respecting the exalted status they accord this man? To what extent do we harden them against our message, which ultimately must challenge their image of Muhammad by not according him the respect they feel is his due?
No answers here; just questions.
PVO

mulopwepaul February 6, 2006 at 8:13 am

I should have said:
“Are Muslims more or less likely to be won to Christ by _non-Muslims_ respecting their sensibilities about Muhammad?”
Sorry for the confusion.
PVO

Petellius February 6, 2006 at 8:17 am

“Muslims hold depicting a prophet in art is a form of profanation.” Not necessarily. There are piles of depictions of Mohammed in the tradition of Muslim art. Attitudes vary a lot based on sect and era, but it is by no means an absolute prohibition. The Ottoman sultans actively supported the tradition of painting images of Mohammed, to name just one example.
Of course, none of those depictions were satires, like the current cartoons. But it cannot be said that depiction is universally considered a form of profanation.

Georgette February 6, 2006 at 8:41 am

Your take on the media bashing of religion is very good. I think there is a Christian angle you are missing, though. You can go here and check it out: http://chronicleofameanderingtraveller.blogspot.com/2006/02/media-attacks-on-religion-lets-not.html#links

James Isabella February 6, 2006 at 9:02 am

Just reviewed the pictures of the Muslim protestors.
Well, if freedom of expression is the “end all, be all” that the editors of those European papers are claiming it is, then I suppose they should be pleased that the demonstrators are expressing themselves in such a ‘free’ and ‘unrestricted’ way.

Ed Peters February 6, 2006 at 9:04 am

Did anybody get the irony of the photo? A islamo-terrorist-wannabe, threatening carnage on the innocent, is protected by Western police honoring free speech. Think what would happen to westerner, on a street in take-your-pick-of-about-15 islamic countries, holding up a sign that said, i dunno, “God does not love violence.” He’d be slaughtered on the spot.

arthur February 6, 2006 at 9:53 am

Here is the Vatican’s offical comments on the controversy:
http://212.77.1.245/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/d3_en.htm
–arthur

Tim J. February 6, 2006 at 10:24 am

Printing the pictures was stupid. Europe has wallowed in self-loathing for decades, despising their own cultural history and all but ceasing to procreate. They have maintained liberal immigration laws that have allowed large numbers of Muslims (who do not mind reproducing) to displace them.
They invited these folks.
Now they begin to see the demographic crisis and respond with what appears to be glum resentment and impotent racism.
The Muslim reaction has been, sadly, predictable. Like Jimmy said, it only reinforces the bad stereotype that most Westerners already have of Muslims.
What with all the official apologies and editors being fired and all, though, one could argue that Western Christians could learn a little from Muslim response. If the Muslims are successful in making the press and the offending governments back down, maybe we Christians have been taking the wrong tack.
Maybe instead of hurling brickbats, we should just be hurling bricks. Instead of firing off a letter to the editor, maybe we should be firing a few rounds into the air.
I don’t believe that, but it will be interesting to see how the response to all the Muslim theatrics unfolds.

Tim J. February 6, 2006 at 10:33 am

I should point out, in fairness, that we Americans are also reproducing at a rate where we are barely replacing ourselves. We have aborted, what, a quarter of the current generation?
We, too, have allowed large numbers of immigrants in to perform jobs that our kids no longer want to do.
We are blessed, though, in that most of the incoming immigrants are Christian and even Catholic. God works in mysterious ways.

J A Baumgartner February 6, 2006 at 10:43 am

Sorry Tim, but the stereotypes aren’t bad. The reality they accurately portray is bad.
The growing conflict between secular Europe and radical Islam will be an interesting one. On the one hand, Islam (no, I’m not going to use the qualifier every time) has the manpower (I mean humanpow… oh, nevermind, manpower) and pathological aggression. On the other hand, secular Europe still has the advantage in firepower. Unless Mecca has a super-powered missile defense system, I wouldn’t be provoking utilitarian secular Europe too strongly if I were the Islamofanatic world. Modern European state powers have no problem being very aggressive and very cruel if their interests are at stake.

Steven D. Greydanus February 6, 2006 at 11:13 am

On the other hand, secular Europe still has the advantage in firepower. Unless Mecca has a super-powered missile defense system, I wouldn’t be provoking utilitarian secular Europe too strongly if I were the Islamofanatic world. Modern European state powers have no problem being very aggressive and very cruel if their interests are at stake.

And that logic works until the Muslim population in Europe reaches a critical mass, and the political will to protect something called Europe from something called radical Islam evaporates in the face of increasingly volatile internal pressures. It’s one thing to point missiles at the Middle East; it’s another thing to deal with the threat of months of rioting in your own capital and surrounding areas.

Tim J. February 6, 2006 at 11:17 am

JA-
I think the stereotypes still reflect a minority of the Islamic world (call me naive), but the point is that it is a large enough chunk to be a critical mass.
Like in Nazi Germany, it is not necessary that everyone be on board, or even be sympathetic, as long as they can be cowed into silence. The power mongers will drum up enough loyal support to drive forward with their agenda, and fear will keep the rest in line.
I’m afraid we are approaching the point where we will have to forget about diplomacy until after we have squashed the aggressors like a bug, which will require an effort much more comprehensive than the one in which we are currently engaged.

Andrew S. February 6, 2006 at 12:06 pm

Did anyone notice that in the pictures the handwriting on the protest signs all look like they were done by the same person?

ukok February 6, 2006 at 1:40 pm

I concur with Tim. Printing the cartoon pictures was indeed stupid. In view of our recent history of strained (putting it lightly) relationships with the Muslim community, it was ridiculous to engage in outright provocation.
The Editor of the Newspaper concerned and the cartoonist in question need to make an immediate, thorough and very public apology. This isn’t freedom of speech, it’s freedom to provoke.
We have Muslims protesting on our ( british)streets telling us to keep looking over our shoulder (yes it’s an extreme overeaction to a cartoon, I agree)and this is all due to the gross negligence, insensitivity and deplorable communication skills of a tiny group of people sitting in a newsroom in the middle of a country whose only connection with me is that I eat their bacon occassionally.
Why should I have to worry about my loved ones getting blown up by some crazed-revenge-seeking-lunatic because a couple of guys who get paid more in a week than I do in a year, made some very dim decisions?
It has to be one of the quickest ways to get a price on your head, for assasination.
God Bless.

Ed Peters February 6, 2006 at 2:21 pm

ukok, you won’t be killed by danish editors, but by islamo-terrorists who need no pretext to kill you (besides the fact that you are infidel) to begin with. to say anything else is a denial of their free will. seriously.

J A Baumgartner February 6, 2006 at 2:28 pm

Yes, Steven, I realize that the relative populations are changing. That is why I used the qualifier ‘still’ and indicated that the particular advantage is really the only one left.
“It’s one thing to point missiles at the Middle East; it’s another thing to deal with the threat of months of rioting in your own capital and surrounding areas.”
Very true, but when a promised “European 9-11″ hits Paris with a dirty nuke or something of that scale, the possibility of every Muslim holy site (500 mile radius) known to France becoming radioactive seems like a real possibility. Secular Europe can’t compete in population rates, personal zeal, or geographic spread. The only thing it can do is strike at the heart of Islam, a religion that still subscribes to the aristocratic principle. Like the pagan Romans and later Christians chopping down oak trees in Gaul and the Gaelic lands, secular Islam may very well seek to prove in empirical terms that Allah will not protect his followers or his holy sites from harm. It’s not my logic. It’s just a speculation on the response of contemporary European powers faced with a real war within their own borders.
Regarding the obligation of all humanity not to depict Islam’s holiest prophet in pictoral form, let us not forget that Jesus of Nazareth is a Muslim prophet, too. Let’s see how impartial the European Christians (and American Christians, eventually) can be when the Muslims in question (the tiny little minority, blah blah blah) realize that the bad art in their parish church is a representation of God’s second most holy prophet. And the crucifix… That’s sacrilege of a most serious degree. Let’s not pretend that this issue only has to do with Danish newspaper editors.

J A Baumgartner February 6, 2006 at 2:30 pm

Oops,
“secular Islam” in the third paragraph should have read “secular Europe.”

bill912 February 6, 2006 at 2:36 pm

I think that if Paris gets hit with a dirty nuke, the French will run up the white flag. Hope I’m wrong.

DJ February 6, 2006 at 3:13 pm

ukok, you won’t be killed by danish editors, but by islamo-terrorists…
I guess I don’t see it that way. My dad is an old school reporter and I view the reporting practices of today’s media in that light, a light which makes many of today’s media outlets look pretty yellow from where I stand.
If ukok is at risk, the news papers in Europe are in part responsible. Especially after the second wave of offensive articles were published. Newspapers, and reporters especially, can very easily have blood on their hands.
If they don’t want that responsibility, then they should quit their day job.

bill912 February 6, 2006 at 3:23 pm

By killing people (4 at last count, including one Catholic priest), burning embassies, and threatening a “European 9/11, the Islamo-fascists are making the cartoonist(s) look prophetic.

Tim J. February 6, 2006 at 4:04 pm

Right, bill912.
And, by their reaction, the Muslims only give credibility to those who say they can’t be negotiated with. So, the pathetic thing is that the situation caused by the cartoons works to the detriment of all.
The Islamo-fascists only demonstrate their own backwardness by going off on a couple of cartoons.
We American Catholics have been treated to the sight of our Blessed Mother smeared with dung, and didn’t react like this. Sure, it would have been momentarily gratifying to walk in and destroy the piece, but with patience we might have the much MORE satisfying experience of watching the National Endowment for the Arts go belly-up.
Now, that would be progress.

DJ February 6, 2006 at 4:23 pm

Sure, it would have been momentarily gratifying to walk in and destroy the piece,
After researching the Mary covered in dung and porno images thing, I discovered that people have already tried.

Ed Peters February 6, 2006 at 4:51 pm

DJ, you’ll get no argument about modern journalistics from me (son of 33 year editor), but look, you’re not addressing my point. Here: a Jewish paper in 1935 America draws a mean caricature of Hitler. Nazis trash several German Jewsih newspapers and burn the US embassy in Berlin. You blame the insensitive American Jews for Lord-know-what. I blame the Fascists, of whatever generation they are.

Tim J. February 6, 2006 at 6:42 pm

Ed-
You are certainly correct that the blame for the violence lies solely with the Islamo-fascists.
That being said, publishing the cartoons was a pointless gesture.
If the secular European press had wanted to do something helpful, they might have (long ago) analyzed in print why the Western European governments were so opposed to removing Saddam Hussein, or why the U.N. deliberated for months before deciding to leave the U.S. high and dry in Iraq, or why NATO did the same.
For years, Western European leaders (save Blair) gave the impression that they just hoped that the whole thing would go away, or at least that the Islamo-Nazis would be content to hate the U.S. and and might cut them a break in return for their silence.
Heck, the terrorists gave Spain a big wake-up call, and the Spanish voters just rolled over and hit the snooze alarm. Maybe it will go away.
Secular Europe cooperated while they were tied up and blindfolded, and NOW that the noose is around their neck, they want to spit in Al Qaeda’s eye?
Okay, so, welcome to the party, but you’re a little late. We could have used the moral support years ago.

mulopwepaul February 6, 2006 at 7:31 pm

Europeans have absorbed the lesson of that epitome of decadent political orders, the Habsburgs, of always looking to put the fight off until the very last ditch.
I think the last ditch is now in sight, and the Europeans are stirring in their sleep. A few more politicians knifed on the street and they might actually wake up.
And yet some like UKOK will blame the politicians for getting knifed–shouldn’t have provoked them, you know.
PVO

Tim J. February 6, 2006 at 7:41 pm

I don’t think ukok would say that, and I was actually the first to say the cartoons were stupid.
The reasons I think they are stupid I enumerated above.
They do no one any good, except to make a few cartoonists and editors feel relevant for a few days. Got to have free expression, you know. Got to be free to say any idiotic thing that enters my head, even if it costs lives.
There is a difference between having the spine to take a moral stand, and having the gall to hurl insults.
Absolutely pointless.
Gotta be free, gotta be me…

Angels' Kenn February 6, 2006 at 8:17 pm

Looking for Cartoons in the Muslim World

At first blush, the irony of the situation is staggering. The response to cartoons first published in Denmark depicting Muslims as violent terrorists have caused many Muslims to take to the streets, burning embassies and clashing with police. Mahmoud…

Dr. Eric February 6, 2006 at 10:34 pm

Once again, Belloc was right.

Dennis_Mahon February 7, 2006 at 12:20 am

Very true, but when a promised “European 9-11″ hits Paris with a dirty nuke or something of that scale, the possibility of every Muslim holy site (500 mile radius) known to France becoming radioactive seems like a real possibility. Secular Europe can’t compete in population rates, personal zeal, or geographic spread. The only thing it can do is strike at the heart of Islam, a religion that still subscribes to the aristocratic principle. Like the pagan Romans and later Christians chopping down oak trees in Gaul and the Gaelic lands, secular Islam may very well seek to prove in empirical terms that Allah will not protect his followers or his holy sites from harm. It’s not my logic. It’s just a speculation on the response of contemporary European powers faced with a real war within their own borders.
And it’s an logic that will just make matters worse, because it will only confirm in the minds of Muslims — radical or not — that the comming of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi, is at hand.

Before the appearance of the one who will rise, peace be upon him, the people will be reprimanded for their acts of disobedience by a fire that will appear in the sky and a redness that will cover the sky. It will swallow up Baghdad, and will swallow up Kufa. Their blood will be shed and houses destroyed. Death will occur amid their people and a fear will come over the people of Iraq from which they shall have no rest.”

~The 6th Shia Imam, Jafar al-Sadiq
Nuking Islamic holy sites will be the equivalent of trying to plug a hole in a leaky dam with a lit bundle of dynamite.

Francis DS February 7, 2006 at 12:42 am

Let us not forget a common Muslim saying, which shows how different that religion is from Islam:
“If someone slaps you, slap them back so hard that they will learn never to slap you again”
I don’t know if that is from their Koran, but I’ve heard it often from Muslim acquaintances.

mulopwepaul February 7, 2006 at 4:35 am

“There is a difference between having the spine to take a moral stand, and having the gall to hurl insults.
Absolutely pointless.”
I think the violence generated makes an incredibly important point. The Muslim population has a significant percentage of people who have no interest at all in finding any sort of common ground with the West. They will have things entirely their own way and will threaten riots to get them.
Furthermore, the question of a picture of Muhammad being an insult is not, as was pointed out elsewhere, a given. Pictures of Muhammad exist within the Muslim tradition, it’s just that a certain interpretation, now widespread, holds that no one can picture him for any reason, although, typically, it is the infidels who will be punished first.
Conceding this issue to that faction would then hand over the entire question of Islam to those who are most willing to foment violence to see their interpretation triumph.
Just pursue this line of thinking to its conclusion. What if I choose to publish an editorial pointing out what I believe are the errors of Islam? If enough mobs threaten violence, have I lost the right to do so?
I grant that the illustrations were not all neutral, but in fact, many were. If neutral expressions are ruled intolerable arbitrarily or only because they were drawn by infidels, then we have to come to grips with the fact that Islam is a universalist religion which touches all facets of life, and an Islam which cannot be criticised or commented upon by infidels but demands the right to regulate all aspects of life according to its own, unilateral, dictates is the essence of tyranny.
PVO

John February 7, 2006 at 4:43 am

Since Islam is both religion and political system, one cannot criticise its politics because that is criticising it as a religion. Cute isn’t it?

mulopwepaul February 7, 2006 at 5:04 am

http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/archives/2006/02/if_theres_hell_below_is_this_where_we_shall_all_be_spending_xmas_.html
The blog above makes two important points to consider:
1) The cartoons allegedly in question were published four months ago. Why the rioting now? Well, it turns out some radical imams living in Denmark went on a rabble-rousing tour and published a pamphlet in which they included a few more, especially inflammatory cartoons of unknown provenance. Now that the pamphlet has been distributed, we have riots. So the actual cause of the riots was not the Danish newspaper, but rather a handful of imams bent on producing a confrontation.
2) Denmark is in line to chair the UN security council at about the time that Iran’s nuclear proliferation comes before it for decision. This episode therefore bears the marks of a political intimidation campaign against Denmark to manage the proliferation debate more sympathetically towards Muslim sensibilities.
PVO

Tim J. February 7, 2006 at 5:24 am

PVO-
I agree with just about everything you said. The violence is certainly idiotic, evil, etc…
And the press have the right to print anything they wish.
My whole problem is that instead of doing anything substantive, they chose to do something merely insulting. It was originally because the editors thought that artists might be self-censoring (a little too much common sense) that they asked them specifically to do drawings of Mohammed, which they knew to be inflammatory.
But, again, what was the point? That they aren’t afraid to make people mad? I wonder, was it a triple-dog dare?
So the Islamo-Nazis respond to these pointless cartoons by acting pointlessly cartoonish. They invite parody. They mug for the cameras. They thoughtfully protest in English. It begs the question, what if they gave a protest and nobody (with a news camera) came?
To keep in form The Danes should now run a huge headline saying “N’yah-h-h…, So’s Your Old Man!”.

Tim J. February 7, 2006 at 5:26 am

Oh, and the cartoons were re-run in several Euro newspapers in January, hence the (pretext for) riots.

mulopwepaul February 7, 2006 at 6:09 am

But why were the cartoons re-run? The riots weren’t motivated by what runs in any western paper, as the initially somnolent response to the Danish paper’s initial feature.
The news hook to re-run them was the rabble-rousing tour of the Danish imams putting the story back in the news.
So, any way you parse it, a segment of the Muslim populace wanted a riot and went out and whipped up a mob to get it.
Blaming the newspaper for the riots is unjust.
Criticisms of their prudence are fair, but at the end of the day people have to be free to express themselves about Muhammad, including in representational art. Only the most dangerous fundamentalist can object to this principle.
PVO

Jamie Beu February 7, 2006 at 6:28 am

Tim J. wrote:

Like in Nazi Germany, it is not necessary that everyone be on board, or even be sympathetic, as long as they can be cowed into silence. The power mongers will drum up enough loyal support to drive forward with their agenda, and fear will keep the rest in line.
I’m afraid we are approaching the point where we will have to forget about diplomacy until after we have squashed the aggressors like a bug, which will require an effort much more comprehensive than the one in which we are currently engaged.

Unfortunately, the Washington Post op/ed page agrees with you in its article “Later Than We Think”.
It just takes one person in charge to believe an off-kilter cult (again, comparisons to Hitler abound), and the Chosen People will be chosen for a new Holocaust. (See picture at http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/holo.jpg)
Pray that God holds back this tribulation.

Anonymous February 7, 2006 at 6:44 am

The editorial above is from the Washington Times, not the Post–a significant difference, for what it’s worth.
PVO

Tim J. February 7, 2006 at 7:08 am

“Blaming the newspaper for the riots is unjust.”
I agree, and so I don’t blame the papers for the riots.
I do blame them for being on the wrong side of the Islamo-fascist issue for years, and then doing something inflammatory, but useless.

mulopwepaul February 7, 2006 at 7:26 am

I wouldn’t call the lesson in Muslim absolutism we’re seeing pointless, exactly. Perhaps excessive, but I don’t know that anything less would have gotten people’s attention.
PVO

J A Baumgartner February 7, 2006 at 8:13 am

“Nuking Islamic holy sites will be the equivalent of trying to plug a hole in a leaky dam with a lit bundle of dynamite.”
No, it’s more like flailing out madly in the face in the hope that there might be the tiniest chance of survival…. exactly what I have been saying the entire time. I never said that this would be an effective pre-emptive strategy, merely that it would be a possible response.
“Well, our capital city has just been destroyed by a dirty nuke and riots will soon spread throughout the nation, destroying our civilization, but we had better not strike back because it could be interpreted in light of obscure Mahdi predictions, which might encourage the enemy to be hostile..”

Jamie Beu February 7, 2006 at 1:01 pm

Did anyone notice that in the pictures the handwriting on the protest signs all look like they were done by the same person?
I noticed that too. I don’t know if it’s because there was somebody organizing this, or if it’s because there’s only 1 person out of the crowd that could write.

bill912 February 7, 2006 at 1:19 pm

They seem to have a whole lot of Danish flags, too. You don’t suppose all this was planned? Nah, probably just a coincidence.

Kosh February 7, 2006 at 4:21 pm

They’re just proving the cartoonist’s point. And disproving the “religion of peace” junk that they’ve said for a long while. Figures. Don’t see Catholics doing much when there are FAR more anti-Catholic media…erm…stuff.

Sean S. February 7, 2006 at 4:31 pm

I agree that there’s no excuse for this kind of violence…but I’d also like to add that nuking Mecca would be one of the greatest atrocities in world history. If Europe ever does such a thing, then there’ll be a lot of blood on their hands.

Tim J. February 8, 2006 at 6:54 am

PVO was correct in an earlier comment, saying that the Imams stirred this into a full-fledged controversy.
This from WaPo-
“Government officials and other critics here (Denmark) said Laban’s delegations intentionally inflamed Islamic leaders in Egypt and Lebanon by passing off several obscene cartoons of Muhammad as among those published in the newspaper. Laban said those had been sent anonymously to Muslim leaders in Denmark and were shown to the Islamic officials as examples of anti-Muslim feeling in the country. He said no one suggested they had been published in the newspaper.”
Notice Laban said that no one had suggested that the obscene cartoons had been published in the newspaper.
No one suggested they weren’t, either.
They didn’t have to suggest. They just printed them alongside the genuine Danish cartoons and let people make any inference they wanted.
Joseph Goebbels would be proud.

Tim J. February 8, 2006 at 6:57 am

This all reminds me of the opening line from Poe’s “The Cask of Amontillado”, which I have always remembered, for some weird reason;
“The thousand injuries of Fortunato I bore as best I could, but when he ventured upon insult, I vowed revenge.”

Payday Loan AdvocatePayday Loan Advocate October 3, 2008 at 3:20 am

The payday loan industry has recently been under siege by politicians from every party. The governors of Oregon, North Carolina, and Georgia completely banned the payday loan industry in their states. However, the decision to eliminate payday loans is not in the best interest of the people who live in those states. For example, in the state of Georgia, bankruptcy filings, bounced checks, and home foreclosures all suddenly increased after payday loans were banned. Although it’s been proven that the number of bankruptcy, bad checks, and foreclosures rise when cash advances are prohibited within a state, many governors of other states are attempting to pass the same anti-payday loan legislation. High-level politicians are hoping to eliminate payday loans from the entire United States. If this actually happens, it is quite plausible that there will be even more unemployment, debt, bankruptcy, and foreclosures in our already struggling economy.
Post Courtesy of Personal Money Store
Professional Blogging Team
Feed Back: 1-866-641-3406
Home: http://personalmoneystore.com/NoFaxPaydayLoans.html
Blog: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/

Julio S December 24, 2008 at 1:50 am

In the midst of an adverse situation, there are always sensible options to go to. For example, if you have a sudden expense that leaves a gap in your budget you can get a payday loan if you need to. Some people, however, seem to be apt to losing their heads and doing something incredibly rash. Take for instance, Donna Duell, of Anderson, Indiana. After a heated breakup, she took the clothes left by her former boyfriend to a storage unit. Instead of doing the sensible thing: storing them and getting him to pick them up some time; she instead decided to light them on fire. Normally, this wouldn’t sound like something completely out of the ordinary – but the thing was that she lit his clothing on fire and walked away from the scene. The result was that the entire block of storage units caught fire and burned to the ground. The fire caused $100,000 in damage and she was arrested and booked on charges of arson. Just remembers everybody, things tend to happen in life, and there is never any real excuse for going that far off the deep end. If you have a situation that needs dealing with, like a trip to the emergency room that you need to cover the bill for, you have sensible options like payday loans to look into. Click here to read the full article yourself on the payday loan money blog at personalmoneystore.com.

salubrious December 24, 2008 at 10:26 am

Claiming that Islam is a religion of peace is about as true as me saying that pigs can fly.

Previous post:

Next post: