Posted on 02/08/2006 3:08:54 PM PST by weegee
There's plenty of ignorance on all sides in the belatedly, incredibly (as in manipulatively incredible) mushrooming of protests against use of Mohammed as a cartoon figure in a Danish newspaper more than four months ago.
Unfortunately, again for all sides, the controversy highlights a cultural rift (OK, chasm) that will not be easily bridged, if it can be at all.
That's not defeatism, or at least is not intended as such. It's just an assessment of where a crazy world seems to stand amid what currently passes for a clash of civilizations with intolerant hotheads on both sides.
How else do you describe the democratic proselytizing of American neoconservatives, who heavily inform White House thinking and Pentagon battle plans, as juxtaposed against fiery calls for re-establishment of the caliphate — and the inevitably nasty internal battle for succession, raging fitfully since the time of Mohammed, that would entail.
Somehow, I don't see an orderly ballot runoff between Osama bin Laden and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, who does not style himself "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" for nothing. Jimmy Carter is not likely to be asked in as an election observer.
This is deep water, no?
But back to the multilateral ignorance, beginning with an editor in Denmark.
Flemming Rose's job as culture editor of Jyllands-Posten led him to create a page for last Sept. 30 with a dozen drawings and the headline "Muhammeds ansigt," or "The Face of Mohammed." Rose has said that he was interested in exploring what he had come to see as self-censorship by non-Muslims on matters Islamic.
In a Wall Street Journal article on Tuesday, Rose said the cartoons were the work of Danish artists whom he asked to "draw Mohammed the way that they saw him." Rose, as he should, now regrets that he "didn't know more beforehand" about what the Journal calls "Islamic taboos on depictions of the prophet."
Rose is not alone in his regret, despite what seems to be a general Western belief (which I strongly share) that his Jutland-based newspaper had a right to publish the cartoons without legitimating an international intifada. Rights aside, I will admit being less certain that I would have published at least some of the drawings, either in the first instance or in a show of support.
Jyllands-Posten, without apologizing for the drawings, admitted in an editorial at the weekend regret for misgauging the reaction to them.
Among the things that Rose says he did not know was that Sept. 30 was, in 2005, the beginning of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
Rose told the Journal that his wife has started reading the Quran to attempt to understand the ensuing tumult. That's an interesting point of reference in the debate. According to a "culture" page Tuesday on the Al-Jazeera television network Web site: "While the Quran, the Islamic holy book, does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures, Muslims understand certain Quranic verses as meaning that Allah and his prophet cannot be captured in an image by human hand — such is God's grandeur."
There have been periods in Islamic history, Al-Jazeera points out, when depictions of Mohammed, his face covered or obscured, flourished. So we seem to be dealing with a cultural taboo, not an explicit commandment.
And we also seem to be dealing with a huge instance of opportunism in the Islamic world.
Nonviolent protests are covered by the same principle of freedom of expression that the demonstrators would deny cartoonists and publications. But a placard shown in a news photo of a protest outside a London mosque on Friday caught the gist of the argument for some on the Islamic side of the debate: "Freedom of expression go to hell!!"
The drawings also are being used as an excuse for violent venting by some Muslims and for predictable posturing by Islamic governments, at least 11 of whom have demanded action from the Danish government. They would, wouldn't they, as the governments imagine that everyone should follow the militantly censorious standard some of them set.
As has so often been the case with governments' exploitation of the Palestinian issue, Islamic pols would rather divert attention away from their long list of shortcomings by feeding discontent with a far-off newspaper and cartoonists who have zero to do with hunger, housing or education closer to home.
As if on cue, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who was in Houston Tuesday, issued a joint statement with the Most Rev. George L. Carey, former archbishop of Canterbury, refusing to "accept this insult to one of the most revered figures in world faith."
"Conflict is not inevitable," they said in their somewhat prissy appeal. But their call for "leaders everywhere to show the courage of true leadership in encouraging moderation and mutual respect" is well-placed. Given, however, that one issuer represents the Wahabite government in Riyadh, that's a little rich.
Hines is a Houston Chronicle columnist based in Washington, D.C.
How else do you describe the democratic proselytizing of American neoconservatives, who heavily inform White House thinking and Pentagon battle plans, as juxtaposed against fiery calls for re-establishment of the caliphate — and the inevitably nasty internal battle for succession, raging fitfully since the time of Mohammed, that would entail.
Bwaaaahahahahaha. Religion of peace my eye. Warring since the time of Mohammed. I call game. Quit lying libs.
Somehow, I don't see an orderly ballot runoff between Osama bin Laden and Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah, who does not style himself "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques" for nothing.
Let's see... billionaire terrorist vs. billionaire king. Neither is elected and I don't see any ballot runoff in their futures.
According to a "culture" page Tuesday on the Al-Jazeera television network Web site: "While the Quran, the Islamic holy book, does not explicitly prohibit the depiction of human figures, Muslims understand certain Quranic verses as meaning that Allah and his prophet cannot be captured in an image by human hand — such is God's grandeur."There have been periods in Islamic history, Al-Jazeera points out, when depictions of Mohammed, his face covered or obscured, flourished. So we seem to be dealing with a cultural taboo, not an explicit commandment.
It is a supremacist faith. Non-muslims are still prohibited from portraying the prophet that muslims swear they do not revere as a god.
Doesn't matter if we honor him or mock him. We are considered "unworthy" because we don't have the same rights as muslims.
Nonviolent protests are covered by the same principle of freedom of expression that the demonstrators would deny cartoonists and publications. But a placard shown in a news photo of a protest outside a London mosque on Friday caught the gist of the argument for some on the Islamic side of the debate: "Freedom of expression go to hell!!"
A more appropriate sign to quote would have been one of those that said "Behead those who insult Islam".
I like what Michelle Malkin said last night on H&C (to quote her as best I can remember)...
"If you`ll notice, none of the cartoons are what we would call offensive. They just show an image that can be seen as Mohammed, and the only one that comes close to being defined as being offensive is Mohammed with a bomb on his head"
She hit the nail right on the head.. All this proves is that this is not about Muslims being offended but Muslims using this as another excuse to kill. That`s all they care about. Eliminate the non-believers.
3,000 people rioting are not protesters. They are an army engaged in a holy war.
And yet what kills me is how they so strenously object to being called Mohammedans because, so the story goes, they don't "worship" Mohammed.
...strenously object to being called Mohammedans ...
**
I didn't know that. I'll be sure to use it now :-)
And someday, I'll be sure to learn how to spell "strenuously"...
No there is only the rabid, willful ignorance of the Hate America Always Leftists in the Junk Journalism world. One could be sure that CH here would be hysteric in his condemnations if so called "Christian" Group firebombed an Abortion Clinic
And someday, I'll be sure to learn how to spell "strenuously"...
**
I did not even notice. Sometimes, our typing fingers don't want to follow our brains.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.