So to protest a cartoon, that calls Muslim men terrorist. Muslim men get together, and commits an act of terrorism. How about a peaceful sit in - sing "we shall overcome" - and the world will have some sympathy. Otherwise it looks like the truth hurts.

Posted by: Curtis at February 1, 2006 11:32 AM

---

You are aware, of course, that as late as 2002 a woman was threatened with jail in England for "blasphemous libel?"

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,660967,00.html

Muslims consider the portrayal, in any form, of Muhammed, as idolatrous, and a great sin. I'm not Muslim, but then, I'm not Christian either, so this sort of thing doesn't trouble my sleep. The point is, however, that deliberately affronting someone's sincerely-held beliefs is an intolerable insult for many, and will, inevitably, have its consequences.

Given that the far right is prone to boycottage of various kinds (Disneyland comes to mind), I'm sensing a wee bit of a double standard here. I wouldn't post deliberately-offensive material about any revered religious figure on my blog. I'll continue to slam the fundies who invoke Christ for every prejudice they hold, and I won't be kind to Muslims who defend amputation, stoning and Holocaust-denial either. But that's somewhat different.

By all means, be as insulting to Muslims as you want. I won't join you.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 1, 2006 11:39 AM

---

Given that the far right is prone to boycottage of various kinds (Disneyland comes to mind), I'm sensing a wee bit of a double standard here.

But individuals and private groups setting up a boycott is fine. Those are people making individual purchasing decisions based on whatever criteria they wish to use. But here we're talking about a government-led boycott in countries that are not democracies. The US never boycotted French products even as individual Americans stopped by French wine during the run up to the Iraq war.

This is an example of one government (probably living in fear of terrorists) trying to impose its will, and its fear for that matter, on another.

It's sad and it's pathetic.

Through in the guys with guns taking over EU offices and beating Danes, and you realize letting these guys have their way is dangerous business.

By all means, be as insulting to Muslims as you want.

Thanks. And don't worry, I won't boycott you if we happen to disagree.

Posted by: Steve Janke at February 1, 2006 12:03 PM

---

This is exactly the type of thing the Muslism community needs to see, the situation provides an example of hipocracy that defines what extremism is.
Firstly, if they want they want to show the world that they are a tolerant society they need to except the opinions of others outside their borders with TOLERANCE. Remember the threats levyed against France last year?
Secondly, as their populace immigrates around the world, they have to understand that critism is to be expected. As is change. They may find that some will join them in the worship of the Muslim faith. Many will abandon their faith and adopt the ideals of others. Some will adhere strictly to old doctrine, while others will embrace a more relaxed view. It is the natural evolution of faith and has happening throughout the history of man. ACCEPTANCE is key to understanding this truth.
If tolerance and acceptance are outside the relm of possibility, then peaceful relations will never occur.

Posted by: Jan Schaafsma at February 1, 2006 12:13 PM

---

Though I am reluctant to join the 'mock Islam' bandwagon it seems that there is a double-standard here. North American and European "artists" have fought (and the left taken up their cause) to portray such 'controversial' images as Jesus masturbating or crosses being depicted bloodstained or otherwise degraded. This, they argue, was their right: the right to express social concerns/issues using shocking images. The number of insulting images concerning Bush and the USA is tremendous in the Middle East - and is just as eagerly replicated by the Western left. Which is fine.

So - why on earth would everyone not rally behind the right of a Dane to express himself freely? If you don't like the image, turn away. But nobody - and I mean nobody, be they Christian zealot or Islamic iman - has the right to tell an artist what he can or cannot produce (caveat for child pornography).

My concern about Islam is that, like the Christianity of yesteryear, it insists on shaping and limiting the discourse even of non-believers. Citizens of the West must be free to act as long as they abide by their national laws. Offended Muslims should stop taking themselves so seriously, just like Christians have been forced to do. It seems the sharpest criticism comes from the most extreme groups (no surprise). Even if the extremists are doctrinally correct what do they care if an infidel Dane burns in hellfire for attacking fundementalism?

Posted by: Andrew at February 1, 2006 12:18 PM

---

Yeah, but, Jan, if you want to be consistent, why not help to repeal Canadian "blasphemous libel" laws? In any case, the first people to complain about anti-Christian messages (the so-called "War on Christmas" controversy,for example), seem to be the first in line to insult the deeply-held religious convictions of perfectly ordinary, non-terrorist Muslims.

I don't want to hear that this is being done in the name of a noble cause like "anti-terrorism" or "freedom of speech." That's just an alibi for being deliberately insulting to others in this instance.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 1, 2006 12:22 PM

---

"I extend a personal invitation to every blogger to repost this cartoon on their blog in order to take a stand on free speech, and to frighten a terrorist with this bit of "cultural terrorism"."

I'm in:

http://tinyurl.com/7mwn7

Posted by: Ed Minchau at February 1, 2006 12:28 PM

---

Littlegreenfootballs.com has an excellent cartoon about this, the first salvo of the cartoon wars.

Posted by: Mike Schmidt at February 1, 2006 01:21 PM

---

What concerns me most is militant Islam's stance that they have the right to impose their views on everyone, but deny that right to everyone who does not bow to their "supremacy".

What stupidity.

As for the armed men storming a public building, I hope the Danes have had enough foresight to have formed something akin to a S.W.A.T. team. Send those people in, arrest each armed militant (a.k.a. a terrorist), and throw the scum in jail.
Sadly, Denmark is another screwed-up "socially enlightened" state, inundated by Muslim immigrants which will never integrate into Danish society, but will strive to subvert it to their "out-breed, over-run, terrorize" strategy.

Posted by: Alienated at February 1, 2006 01:29 PM

---

Reckless courage? Sorry, it isn't heroism or courage to attack non-combatants. Islam has a screwed up idea of true heroism.

Personally I would like to see an immigration ban on Moslems into Canada.

Posted by: Faramir at February 1, 2006 01:35 PM

---

So Dawg is revealed as a hypocrite.

Will wonders never cease.

Leftward tilted art and medai has made worse mockeries of Christianity and the like of nigh on 30 years. Remember "Piss Christ" by Serrano or the multitutde of art works created from human and bull feces on various christain religious figures.

C'mon Dawg, how come the left is not stading up for freedom of expression and frredom of the press in this case. Things are a bit different when you know your opponents can and will shoot back.

In the past when I read your posts, I thought that at least you had a point of view that was consistent with what you pretended to be.

No I know it is all guff, dogma and hypocracy.

tsk tsk

Posted by: james jackson at February 1, 2006 01:41 PM

---

I have never gone out of my way to offend Christians by mocking Jesus Christ. Nor will I do it to Muslims. I'm not hypocritical--I'm entirely consistent on this. Gratuitous insults simply aren't my thing.

I think I deserve an apology. Don't make me answerable, please, for "the Left."

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 1, 2006 02:09 PM

---

To Dawg,
What is it about leftists that they always ask for apologies?
The point is not whether you personnally insulted christians in the past or anybody else. The point is that Christianity has been fair target for humour and worse in our society and Islam having made its claim for equality has to take it as it comes and stop whining.

Posted by: Helene at February 1, 2006 02:45 PM

---

That's pretty abstract. Let's get down to specifics, shall we? If you think it's wrong to insult Christians who have done you no harm, it's equally wrong to do so with Muslims. If you think being insulting is worth defending, then you've lost me. There's a time and a place for insults. Throwing them at total strangers to prove how much you love "free speech" or some such is childish and silly.

I think being wrongly called a hypocrite calls for an apology. But I'm not holding my breath with you lot. And yes, that's an insult--but not directed at the innocent.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 1, 2006 03:41 PM

---

At least the UK has just defended freedom of speech. A post as guest blogger at "Daimnation" that readers might wish to look at:

"A setback for the Caliphate"
http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/005658.html

Mark
Ottawa

Posted by: Mark Collins at February 1, 2006 03:50 PM

---

"If you think being insulting is worth defending, then you've lost me."

I mean, "gratuitously insulting." Nothing wrong with a well-placed insult per se. I'm not that new to the blogosphere.

There's also a matter of degree, come to think of it. Within our own culture, we can certainly laugh at various elements of Christianiy and risk offending very few. But making a public mockery of Christ on the Cross would be crossing the line. Portraying the Prophet has the same effect on ordinary Muslims. Doing it on purpose to be offensive is the work of small, mean-spirited minds who think itis cool to spit in the faces of strangers.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 1, 2006 03:52 PM

---

As a leftie I will speak for all lefties eventhough none of them asked.

I don't know how to apologize and even if I did know I still wouldn't. Apologizing is for weak people who possess no confidence.

A cartoon of Muhammad wearing a turban that had been turned into a bomb is brilliant work. It is to the point and well crafted. I hope it gets peaceful Muslims the world over to hold their violent crimminal brothers and sisters accountable.

Posted by: Ron at February 1, 2006 04:16 PM

---

I don't recall any Muslim leader (national or religious) apologizing for or memorializing the victims of the 9/11 attacks, or any Muslim terrorist attack for that matter... Perhaps Ive missed that news...

Killing dozens, hundreds, and occasionally thousands of people (irregardless of religion, race or creed) offends my sensibilities. Yet, nobody demands an apology for that.

I guess its because in the face of mass death, an apology is utterly pointless.

For once I agree with Wrongo Rono, if people of Muslim faith are offended by the cartoon (or others far worse that have been around the internet) they should hold their extremist friends to account for supporting terrorism.

Posted by: Curtis at February 1, 2006 04:52 PM

---

As a Catholic who *wanted* -- oh, how I wanted -- to punch the editors of Rabble.ca in the face for their cartoon of a Nazified Benedict XVI, back in April when he was elected, I have to admit there's a part of me that understands the Muslim response to those cartoons. It's the same part of me that wants to deck Andre Serrano for "Piss Christ", Dan Brown for "The Da Vinci Code", and a host of other people for other things.

What we love, revere, honour, and worship becomes a part of us. To mock and belittle that is like mocking and belittling *us*. It's understandable that people feel rage and anger when attacked or humiliated, which is why I hate satire -- all satire is founded on the idea of making something about which many people care passionately look stupid and silly.

But giving in to that rage in such a way as to commit crimes is wrong. That we feel hurt does not give us the right to inflict hurt in return. I haven't punched anyone over those cartoons (though that's more out of laziness and lack of easy opportunity than virtue), but I would be wrong if I did so, no matter how angry or hurt I felt. And my own father, a deacon in the Church, would say exactly the same thing.

If you want the right to exercise your own free opinion without fear of violence stopping you, you must, by definition, accept the responsibility to endure the freely expressed opinions of others - including blasphemy, if that be their opinion - without *resorting* to violence to stop *them*.

But Islam does not admit this distinction when it comes to the Prophet. And the Left, so fervent in its defense of the right to mock and insult Christianity through art and free speech, has lost some of its credibility by refusing to denounce the Muslims for their attempt to enforce censorship with the same vigour they denounced Christian protests against things like "Piss Christ", "Heil Benedict", "The Da Vinci Code", and other such works.

I understand why these cartoons upset Muslims. That doesn't mean I think they're doing the right thing in how they express that upset. As Steve said, enduring offense is the price of freedom.

Posted by: Stephen J. at February 1, 2006 05:07 PM

---

"But giving in to that rage in such a way as to commit crimes is wrong. That we feel hurt does not give us the right to inflict hurt in return."

And of course most Muslims will inflict nothing at all. They'll simply be hurt. The logic here is that if a blasphemous depiction of Christ offends a Christian terrorist organization, of which there are a few (Provisional IRA, the Lebanese "Christian militia," crazed Baptists in Northern India), then somehow it's worth doing.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 1, 2006 05:44 PM

---

Mohammed Image Mirror

Since zombie’s site is currently overloaded, here’s a Danish mirror site of the Mohammed Image Archive.

UPDATE at 2/1/06 1:59:29 pm:

And here’s another sort of image archive, to provide a little perspective on the cartoon jihad: Cartoons from the Arab World. >> via
http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com

Mohammed Image Archive

H/T Dr. Pork.

Posted by: maz2 at February 1, 2006 06:40 PM

---

Dr.Dawg: The point is simply that in our societies one has a right to do things--including mocking religions--that offend others. That is not to say that it is a good thing to do, or that it should be encouraged. But the response is to critique actual mocking, not to ban it.

By the way, the IRA never acted in the name of religion. Indeed its main faction, PIRA (Provos), is Marxist--and you should know that good Marxists tend to the areligious.
http://mastrapa.home.mindspring.com/ptd/ptd_europe.html

Mark
Otawa

Posted by: Mark Collins at February 1, 2006 07:49 PM

---

Mark:

I've not proposed banning. I suppose I have been appealing to common decency. But, if you check the Criminal Code, it is indeed an offence to blaspheme Christianity. Just for the record.

Please don;t tell me that the Provos are Marxist. The Officials were Marxist. The Provos were Catholic/nationalist fanatics. Check out their program--social-democratic at best.

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 1, 2006 08:00 PM

---

Stephen J.
Your comments show a wonderful display of someone who really tries to rise above the fray, as flawed as it is. I like your openness and would love to have a spirited dialogue sometime. The fact that you don't like satire is a downer, how can you (as a Catholic) not appreciate Swift's "Modest Proposal?" You are obviously a "Reasonable" man and how can you, using the following from Wicki not be a fan of satire.

"Satire is a mode of challenging accepted notions by making them seem ridiculous. It usually occurs only in an age of crisis, when there exists no absolute uniformity but rather two sets of beliefs. Of the two sets of beliefs, one holds sufficient power to suppress open attacks on the established order, but not enough to suppress a veiled attack.
Further, satire is intimately connected with urbanity and cosmopolitanism, and assumes a civilized opponent who is sufficiently sensitive to feel the barbs of wit levelled at him. To hold something up to ridicule presupposes a certain respect for reason, on both sides, to which one can appeal. An Age of Reason, in which everyone accepts the notion that conduct must be reasonable, is, therefore, a general prerequisite for satire."

It appears to me that all religions beget unbridled zealots and they beget worse zealots and so on and on.....and now that we have more religions on the planet than ethnic groups, all believing that they are the rightful heir to the divine throne no wonder conflict is the order of the day. The power of religion throughout history is not a very encouraging story. How anyone who has seriously studied history not be an atheist boggles my mind. From looking back on my own upbringing I understand the indoctrinating techniques and the installation of fear and exclusion for intransigence in order to instil conformity and subjugation. The severely impedimented behaviour of the anointed left me with the blatant realization that the "Do as I say, not as I do" preaching of the clergy was a despicable act of arrogance.
I am a retired military man and I never needed religion to understand the reason and sometimes the necessity to lay down my life for my friend.
I don't need religion to help the "really" poor.
I don't religion to hate abortion.
I don't need religion to realize the importance of the family unit as the building block of a nation.
I don't need religion to understand the vagaries of death and destruction and the need to comfort the afflicted when all are asking, “Why?� Looking for answers that aren’t there debilitates otherwise healthy people.
Ancient Greece was athelogical, well almost, and they set standards that we, in a so called Judeo-Christian society thousands of years later, can't even get close to.
The vicious zealotry of the fanatical Moslems astounds us but at times throughout history we were them. Sigh!

Posted by: Capt, Craig at February 1, 2006 08:18 PM

---

Dawg,
I personally could care less whether the "blasphemous libel" laws are repealed or not. The example you sited was from England, not Canada. When was the last time anyone was charged and tried with this law in Canada?
What I do understand is what the basis of governance was built on in Canada, Christian beliefs. We should be working toward a more inclusive governance; but how do you propose to do that without undermining or devalueing the traditions on which the country was founded? And how do you work towards this inclusiveness if some participants of a particular faith refuse to tolerate or accept any critism from anybody outside of their religion? Especially when the critisms are being made beyond the borders of thier own lands?
I really couldn't care less how anyone depicts anyones GOD, but start killing people in the name of your GOD and I will stand against them. I am not a follower of any faith (I describe myself as an agnostic non-theorist) but when anybody starts threatening or attacking others BEYOND THEIR BORDERS due to an "assumed insult" of thier faiths figurehead, I feel it necessary to call them on it.
This is nothing more than a cartoon, some swirls of ink on a page,(or arrangement of pixels on a screen). Does it really garner a violent type of response? Are you exhibiting an enlightened position of civility by doing so?
I have seen several political cartoons depicting the Pope, the Star of David, a Crucifix, etc. in order to get a particular message across. Generally, the responses from the extremists are limited to harsh words not violent actions. Was this cartoon distributed across Islamic homeland? Of course not, that would have been an insult. But in Denmark, where it originated, it was distributed, as a political cartoon. Do you really think the artist intended to insult? Even so, what does it matter what anyone else thinks?
People read into things what they want.
Given recent developments in the Middle East(Iran's president calling for the extermination of Israel, Hamas being elected to lead Palestine) and the propensity of certain sectors of the Islamic faith to act in violence in the name of Islam, I think the artists depiction of the "explosive" situation is quite acurate.
How do you read into it? And in the larger scheme of things, what does it matter?

Posted by: Jan Schaafsma at February 1, 2006 08:21 PM

---

The Magic Mirror

......

Europe discovered how to recognize shame all over again, but it was not the shame which the fatwa issuers had envisioned. Now the choices before the global Jihad are as follows: up the ante and humble Europe in its entirety or back down and eat crow. If they push forward the likeness of Mohammed will probably be plastered on thousands of newspaper and Internet websites before the week is up. It's a no-win situation for the Islamists which no one -- not the Danish cartoonists, nor Ramussen, nor Muslim clerics, nor even the startled Europeans themselves -- could have predicted.

posted by wretchard >>
http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/

Posted by: maz2 at February 1, 2006 10:28 PM

---

I awoke this morning to realize that I had been inadvertently a little holier-than-thou in this thread. I had remembered a blog post of mine of some time ago that noted the similarities between the features of the figure on the Shroud of Turin and the visage of Osama bin Laden. Indeed, the similarities are striking: but to point this out humorously could certainly be taken as offensive by believers.

Hence I do offer an apology to others here, not for my arguments--which I believe are sound--but for the self-righteousness I expressed, something I generally try to avoid.

It is certainly the case that some of us joke about Christianity from time to time, and that there may be the appearance of a double standard in our sympathy for Muslims offended by some of the cartoons in the Jyllands-Posten. What I think bothers me about the current posting campaign, though, is that it is not really about terrorism, or giving the finger to terrorists. It's about insulting the faith of a vast number of ordinary people who probably feel the same way about Osama bin Laden as everybody here.

Again, I simply ask, What's the point? We know we have the freedom to be deeply insulting here in the relative safety of the blogosphere if we so choose. That fact is not in dispute. So what battle is really being waged? It's all posturing, it seems to me.

Certainly we have the right to offend. Does that make it right to offend?

Posted by: Dr.Dawg at February 2, 2006 08:54 AM

---

"It's about insulting the faith of a vast number of ordinary people who probably feel the same way about Osama bin Laden as everybody here."

Dr. Dawg, this whole thing started with the publication in a small Danish newspaper of the not-overly-funny cartoons. There it would have remained, except a bunch of pissy-pants Danish imams decided to take it international. Now Danish aid agencies are being threatened, EU offices are being invaded, and there are calls for the killing of Scandinavians.

I agree that the gratuitous insult offered up to religious believers in free societies gets old after a little while (shocking the squares is so 1960's), and under ordinary circumstances I would tut-tut over rude and uncalled-for mocking.

These are not ordinary circumstances. The editor of Jyllands-Posten wanted to see if Danish artists or writers would censor themselves, in the climate of Madrid, London, Theo Van Gogh, and car-b-queing in France. He got his answer, and it is instructive for the rest of us. Will Muslims act like a bunch of violent, homicidal children at the publication of some fairly mild cartoons? Or will they carry on the way other religious groups do, which would have to be fairly characterized as civil? I don't recall a wave of kidnappings and rioting which followed in the wake of "Piss Christ"?

Posted by: Mike James at February 3, 2006 01:05 PM

---

I fail to see the insult. Since no image of the prophet exists how could anyone know that the sketch of the man with a bomb in the headress represents Mohammed? Second if the cartoon is actually a recognized representation then the actions of the extremist followers of the prophet prove the validity of the cartoon.

Posted by: Joe at February 3, 2006 10:24 PM

---

Dr. Dawg: "But making a public mockery of Christ on the Cross would be crossing the line. Portraying the Prophet has the same effect on ordinary Muslims."

Perhaps you don't remember Monty Python's "Life of Brian" and Eric Idle's finale in that film:

"Always look on the bri-i-ight side of life"

I don't remember ERic Idle or the rest of the Python gang being threatened with decapitation or other form of slaughter for that little bit of satire. But perhaps I missed something.

Posted by: felix at February 3, 2006 11:26 PM

---

does this boycott mean the danes wont be exporting any more bacon to muslim countries, if so we shall be able to buy it cheap as chuppatys

Posted by: stag at February 4, 2006 04:02 PM

---

I would like to publish a book with muhammed gayporn cartoons, please?

Posted by: onge at February 7, 2006 12:52 PM

---

muslim chaotic demonstrations, fires,burning,arson,destruction of other peoples property, insane raging threats of death & destruction, genocide, blowing Denmark, Israel, off the face of the world. They would, kill you. enslave you, you would have no rights not even the right to ask for rights. Yet all this and you defend their rights to de nigh us our rights in the name of their law (should be)kill them all worldly law. their list for who is responsoble get larger daily. These crimes they have commotted must be they do not have to pay. They must be above the law. They need to be punished dearly set as an example.
This will not happen cause we cant believe these people are for real.(Too Bad)(So Sad)(Good Luck).
I Defend Denmark With All My Heart.
May God Guide Us All`

Posted by: james moerike at February 7, 2006 06:42 PM

---

BRITISH NEWS muslim crack dealer protests on streets dressed as suicide bomber ? why do muslims hide there faces when they protest ? scared of something ? how many suicide bombers are not muslim ? why cant you buy a good suicide bomber on ebay thats got good feedback ?denmark the uk is with you regards holly

Posted by: holly at February 11, 2006 05:32 PM

---

Satire is one thing. What happens when someone asserts, straightforwardly, that religions (including Christianity and Islam) are founded on myths that some consider simply preposterous? Walking on water, raising the dead, Jews turned into pigs by Allah...who can swallow this nonsense? I mean, really! If a cartoon is enough to cause worldwide violent protests, what will happen when Islam runs into some REAL criticism? Whatever happens, it is likely to exceed even the staggering brutalities visited on innocents during the Inquisition.

Posted by: ben at February 14, 2006 08:27 AM

---

Dear Mr. Janke,

I would like to thanks for The Cartoon Muhamad. It is your spectaculer work. Congratulation for it.

I would also like to you know I am Christian ... minority group in my Country Indonesia. We usually get presure of my Muslim Majority. Any their group ever burn some our church in Java.

Best regards

Budi

Posted by: Budiono Sidik at February 18, 2006 08:43 PM

---

Dear Mr. Janke,

I would like to thanks for The Cartoon Muhamad. It is your spectaculer work. Congratulation for it.

I would also like to you know I am Christian ... minority group in my Country Indonesia. We usually get presure of my Muslim Majority. Any their group ever burn some our church in Java.

Best regards

Budi

Posted by: Budi at February 18, 2006 08:43 PM

---