In light of recent events, I commend everyone to catch up on the current season of the TV series "Stargate SG-1". The Stargate Command is battling a threat called the Ori, a race of "evolved" god-like beings who demand blind worship upon pain of death, dispatching emissaries to preach their rigid ideology and punish opposition through insidious violent tactics.
Once again, science fiction proves the best vehicle for tackling today's critical issues.
Eminently sensible comment from Hugh Hewitt:
"The cartoons were in bad taste, an unnecessary affront to many of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, just as Joel Stein affronted the military, the families and friends of the military, and as Toles did the same to the wounded, and their families, friends and admirers. Of course each of them had the absolute right to publish their screed, and the Danish (and now Norwegian) governments must reply to demands that these papers be punished with a steely refusal to be dictated to as to their culture of free expression and the protection of the vulgar and the stupid."
"But don't cheer the vulgar and the stupid."
[External Link]
Pointed out in an equally sensible National Review column by Jim Geraghty:
[External Link]
This is an excerpt from a letter addressed to the brussels journal. They did not print the letter writer's name so I am unable to give him/her credit for what is reproduced below
Even in a democratic society with strong protections for freedom of speech and press, there are still limits that must be imposed. I have viewed all the cartoons and in terms of content, only two of them seem to me to be particulary problematic. Let me first say that I am a Muslim but I grew up and still live in North America, so I am accustomed to seeing newspaper cartoons that satirize every imaginable subject. Also, while there is a general prohibition among Muslims of graphically depicting the Prophet Muhammad (peace be on him) and the other Prophets, such as Moses, Abraham and Jesus (peace be on them), that prohibition has never been absolute and in certain periods there have been images of the Prophets, although their faces are either featureless or covered by a veil). Of course those pictures were made to illustrate religious texts, not to criticize the Prophets.
Personally, the simple artistic depiction of the Prophet Muhammad by a non-Muslim does not particulary bother me, any more than the depiction of Jesus or the other prophets in, for example Renaissance Art. The two cartoons that I personally find offensive are the ones that depict Muhammad as a knife-wielding terrorist and as wearing a turban that is in fact a bomb that bears the Islamic creed, “There is no divinity but God and Muhammad is his prophet”.
Of course, I have seen in my lifetime many editorial cartoons that I personally found to be offensive and almost all of them were about subjects far removed from Islam. A cartoonist has the right to draw and I have the right to be offended. Generally, nothing more needs to be said or done. However, as a society, we must take into account the sensibilities of others.
The Danish case is particularly interesting because the intention of the newspaper was to stir up controversy. The intention was to offend Muslims. The newspaper set out to provoke and they succeeded. It is strange that having succeeded they and their supporters are so incensed over the reaction. Contrast the Danish publisher’s approach with that of U.S. newspapers. In the U.S., freedom of speech and press is almost absolute. Even so, on a few occasions in recent years when an editorial cartoon has elicited a large critical outcry, in most cases, the newspaper has apologized to offended readers, pointing out that the intention of the artist was to express an opinion, that the freedom to express an opinion is guaranteed and must be protected but that in hindsight it is apparent that the same message could have been conveyed without unnecessarily insulting a significant number of readers.
In your article, you refer to Madame Louise Arbour, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, who is quoted as saying the cartoons were “an unacceptable disrespect”. Madame Arbour is a Canadian and she was for many years a respected judge in Canada. It is likely that her opinion in this matter is coloured by her experience as a Canadian jurist. Here in Canada, we have for many years had to reconcile a VERY multi-cultural society with our constitutional protections on freedom of speech and press. As a result, our basic freedoms are not absolute. We have a constitutional principal that basic rights are “subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
Two of those reasonable limitations concern “blasphemous libel” and “hate propaganda”. The criminal statute outlawing hate propaganda bars the WILLFUL promotion of hatred, which is defined as “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group.” The law allows for certain defences. A person cannot, for example, be convicted “if he establishes that the statements communicated were true” or “if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit [thus unlikely to cause public disorder], and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true.” Furthermore, no conviction can be obtained if the statement was to express in good faith an opinon on a religious matter, UNLESS that expression contravenes the blasphemous libel statute.
The blasphemous libel statute has rarely been used in Canada, but it remains in full force and effect. Under it, people can still argue against and criticize religious beliefs and persons but only with tact and circumspection. The statute says that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.”
What I am trying to point out here is that in Canadian law, our Parliament has protected freedom of speech on the one hand and sought, on the other hand, to limit any disruption of the social fabric by outlawing speech that is so intemperate that it could lead to public disorder or violence.
Of course, another aspect of the Danish affair is that the cartoons were not published in a vacuum. They were published against the backdrop of widespread anti-Muslim prejudice and of incendiary statements likely to provoke hate against Muslims in Denmark. The decision to publish them came only a few months after Her Majesty Queen Margrethe II of Denmark was quoted in the London Telegraph as saying: “We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.”
The Queen of Denmark (who is also titular Head of the State Lutheran Chruch) has called on her subjects to oppose Islam and to display intolerance even in the face of public criticism. (She obviously is unaware of the respectful position of most Christian churches, including her own, on Islam). If Her Majesty Elizabeth II, the Queen of Canada (or her Governor General) ever said such words, there would be a constitutional crisis and calls for the Sovereign herself to be charged with inciting race hatred under the Canada Criminal Code.
Ahj, get it through your incredibly thick skull that Islam or Muslims are not a damned RACE....they are followers of the brutal arab ideology known as Islam....
To ridicule and mock this cult is no different if we were mocking Nazism or Marxism......note that the 2 latter are also not a race but depraved ideologies...
Deal with it dude.......Pandora's box has been open.......Islam has been deserving contempt for its 1400 years of bloodshed....these are good days for us who loathe Islam...
Please visit the Brave Ex Muslims at...
www.faithfreedom.org
Thanks
ajsuhail: An interesting letter. My view is that the two cartoons singled out do not promote hatred of Muslims or Islam, but rather are criticizing those Muslims who use Islam (and thus Mohammed) as a justification for murderous violence. And that I think is fair comment.
If some Muslims are nonetheless outraged (I can see their taking offence even in the face of a legitimate critique) then I think that illustrates their unwillingness to reflect more fully on the hideous uses to which some members of their faith are putting that faith. That is a much greater offence than the cartoons. Failure to appreciate that indicates a sad lack of perspecive.
That reminds me of the unwillingess of many on the left in the West honestly to examine the Soviet Union and the horrors it committed; their attitude was "pas d'ennemis à gauche". A misplaced solidarity.
Mark
Ottawa
Mark... I wish I had your capacity for clear thought. Sometimes you and Damian blow me away. Then Dan steps in with a sage perspective or a witty nod, and it's game over for me.
Aj, - thanks for the correction - this thread and post is about the future of Islam, not cartoons from the past. It is about the future of Islamic women's role in the religion. It is about the future of Islam's role in Politics. It is about how successful Muslims in America and Indonesia and other places are making a welcome place in the modern world. That is why I posted this to the site. (You can call me Ran or PK.)
Islam is not a Race, as you know... Muslims come from all backgrounds and races, yes? We, you and I, can agree that Islam is a great religion, yes? If so, there's a term you may find useful for research: Ethical Monotheism.
You've said that I have a "brain addled by years of imbibing a deadly cocktail of hate, prejudice and bigotry". Hmmm... It's addled by advanced years, perhaps. And raising kids. Understand that I have been told that, because of who I am, merely because of my faith, I deserve death. That can addle brains a bit too, so you're partly right. But it is not my 'hatred', but the fact that I'm hated. It is not my prejudice, but the prejudices of those who would enslave my children.
This blog, as DanInVan has mentioned, is an oasis, a sea of tranquility. Catholic Christians, Methodist Christians, Reform Jews, Orthodox Jews, Atheists, Agnostics... All sorts of people are welcome here and add to the discussion. You too. Are you Sunni? Shia? Suffi? Stick around... We could use the perspective, even when we disagree.
We are not into worshipping Mammon or getting rich... we are into IDEAS. Fuel of the future, Aj. There are Muslims headed into the twenty first century armed with powerful Ideas and they are our friends and need our support. Mr. Nawash is one such man. If that's your proof for calling me addled with hatred, or calling the rest of us bigot, then I suggest that you rethink your criteria.
P.K.; "...Then Dan steps in with a sage perspective"
Probably what A. thinks I've been smokin'