GeoffP
01-26-07, 04:04 PM
I heard about this very interesting article in Der Spiegel (English version). Apparently a fellow by the name of H.M. Broder published a book entitled "Hurra! Wir Kapitulieren!" or "Hurray! We're Capitulating!" regarding the issue of "provocation" of islamic culture via the unfortunate habit we have of not really giving an arse what other people think of our artistic endeavours, and of provocative work in general. To wit: the Mohammed cartoons.
Now, of course, it is not really accurate to say that muslims all over always protest or feel harassed by our culture - they don't. But there is a vocal subset, of course, that does: again - the Mohammed cartoons, etc. - and they seem to be leading the discourse. We do ourselves a disservice by neglecting such agitators: can they be controlled? Unlikely. Or do they indeed speak for a broader segment of society than we imagine? No one really can say, although I'm sure most of you are aware of the impressions I draw from polls of the islamic community. The author of the article has the impression that the entire cartoon issue was merely a warm-up for more of the same, and he may be right.
Anyway, whatever your perspective, I recommend reading the article in full.
Do pardon my sarcasm below: it's my provocative nature, don't you know. ;)
Please don't burn down my embassies. :(
Best, Geoff
The controversy over the 12 Muhammad cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and led to worldwide protests and unrest among Muslims was merely a taste of what is to come, a dress rehearsal for the kinds of disputes Europe can expect to face in the future if it does not rethink its current policy of appeasement. As was the case in the 1930s, when Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the interest of peace under the Munich Agreement -- a move that ultimately did nothing to prevent World War II -- Europeans today also believe that an adversary, seemingly invincible due to a preference for death over life, can be mollified by good behavior, concessions and submission. All the Europeans can hope to gain in this asymmetric conflict is a temporary reprieve, a honeymoon period that could last 10, 20, or maybe even 50 years. Anyone on death row breathes a sigh of relief when his execution is postponed to some indefinite time in the future.
The uproar over the Muhammad cartoons was symptomatic precisely because what triggered it was so insignificant. The drawings themselves were unbelievably harmless.
Yes and no. The drawings were harmless, but the "damage" was of the perceptual kind; that which ought not to be mocked was mocked, and rage ensued. Not really an excuse, however.
It took two weeks for "spontaneous" protests to begin. On Oct. 14, 2005, 3,000 Muslims staged a demonstration on Copenhagen's town hall square after Friday prayers. In a letter to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ambassadors from 11 Islamic countries demanded that he take the "necessary steps" to avert an abuse of Islam. Rasmussen responded that it was not his responsibility to discipline journalists, and he refused to schedule a meeting with the irate ambassadors. The Egyptian foreign minister got the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) involved soon after. The OIC had already made clear what it wanted in its "Declaration of Human Rights in Islam" in 1990: "All have the right to freely express their opinions in a manner that does not run counter to Shariah law." In essence, what the OIC wanted was to compel Western nations to bring their form of freedom of expression into conformity with Shariah law.
Then a delegation of Danish Muslims traveled to the Muslim world, carrying a folder with the 12 cartoons from Jyllands-Posten, as well as of three significantly more provocative drawings in their luggage. The three drawings portrayed the Prophet as a pedophile devil, with pigs' ears and having sex with a dog. Where the bonus material came from and how it found its way into the documentation remains unclear to this day.[/quote]
** cough cough ** Er: yes, indeed: a mystery. Not even Scooby Doo would be able to pull the mask off this imam.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462149,00.html
Now, of course, it is not really accurate to say that muslims all over always protest or feel harassed by our culture - they don't. But there is a vocal subset, of course, that does: again - the Mohammed cartoons, etc. - and they seem to be leading the discourse. We do ourselves a disservice by neglecting such agitators: can they be controlled? Unlikely. Or do they indeed speak for a broader segment of society than we imagine? No one really can say, although I'm sure most of you are aware of the impressions I draw from polls of the islamic community. The author of the article has the impression that the entire cartoon issue was merely a warm-up for more of the same, and he may be right.
Anyway, whatever your perspective, I recommend reading the article in full.
Do pardon my sarcasm below: it's my provocative nature, don't you know. ;)
Please don't burn down my embassies. :(
Best, Geoff
The controversy over the 12 Muhammad cartoons that were published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 and led to worldwide protests and unrest among Muslims was merely a taste of what is to come, a dress rehearsal for the kinds of disputes Europe can expect to face in the future if it does not rethink its current policy of appeasement. As was the case in the 1930s, when Czechoslovakia was sacrificed in the interest of peace under the Munich Agreement -- a move that ultimately did nothing to prevent World War II -- Europeans today also believe that an adversary, seemingly invincible due to a preference for death over life, can be mollified by good behavior, concessions and submission. All the Europeans can hope to gain in this asymmetric conflict is a temporary reprieve, a honeymoon period that could last 10, 20, or maybe even 50 years. Anyone on death row breathes a sigh of relief when his execution is postponed to some indefinite time in the future.
The uproar over the Muhammad cartoons was symptomatic precisely because what triggered it was so insignificant. The drawings themselves were unbelievably harmless.
Yes and no. The drawings were harmless, but the "damage" was of the perceptual kind; that which ought not to be mocked was mocked, and rage ensued. Not really an excuse, however.
It took two weeks for "spontaneous" protests to begin. On Oct. 14, 2005, 3,000 Muslims staged a demonstration on Copenhagen's town hall square after Friday prayers. In a letter to Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, ambassadors from 11 Islamic countries demanded that he take the "necessary steps" to avert an abuse of Islam. Rasmussen responded that it was not his responsibility to discipline journalists, and he refused to schedule a meeting with the irate ambassadors. The Egyptian foreign minister got the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) involved soon after. The OIC had already made clear what it wanted in its "Declaration of Human Rights in Islam" in 1990: "All have the right to freely express their opinions in a manner that does not run counter to Shariah law." In essence, what the OIC wanted was to compel Western nations to bring their form of freedom of expression into conformity with Shariah law.
Then a delegation of Danish Muslims traveled to the Muslim world, carrying a folder with the 12 cartoons from Jyllands-Posten, as well as of three significantly more provocative drawings in their luggage. The three drawings portrayed the Prophet as a pedophile devil, with pigs' ears and having sex with a dog. Where the bonus material came from and how it found its way into the documentation remains unclear to this day.[/quote]
** cough cough ** Er: yes, indeed: a mystery. Not even Scooby Doo would be able to pull the mask off this imam.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,462149,00.html