Month: February 2006

Another casualty of the Cartoon Crisis:

"Porky Pig, you’re nuh-nee, nuh-nee, nuh-nee, next!"

---

i-1

A summary of events so far:

In early 2005, a Dane decided to write a children’s book about the story of Mohammed.  His goals were to increase understanding of Islam among Danish children, and to promote peace between cultures.

The standard convention is for children’s books to have pictures, so the author went shopping for an illustrator.  At this point, the writer ran into a roadblock.  No artist wanted the job because they were afraid of being targetted by Muslim terrorists.  Drawing images of Mohammed is considered verboten by some (but not all) sects of Islam.

At this point, a Danish newspaper learned of the writer’s difficulty, and the editors asked a question.  How strong really was the intimidation felt by Danish artists?  So they decided to perform a social experiment.  They sent out a call.  Who was willing to draw the prophet of Islam?  A few brave souls came forward.  The paper published 12 of their drawings on Sep 30/05.  An Egyptian paper also printed the cartoons about a month later.

William Kristol wryly describes Muslim reaction in Egypt:

…you surely must remember the anguish that provoked. Tens of millions of Egyptians were so tormented they could barely refrain from attacking Israel, slaughtering all foreign businessmen, and destroying the pagan Sphinx. So anguished was President Mubarak that he announced he would return his $2 billion in "infidel U.S. foreign aid." For his part, the chief Islamist televangelist on Al Jazeera, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, was so anguished he repudiated the financing his branch of the Muslim Brotherhood receives from the "hatemongering European Union." Meanwhile in Iran, the nuclear program ground to a halt, as anguished engineers found they could no longer in good conscience consult technical manuals produced by Zionist and Crusader scientists.

You don’t remember any of that happening?  Maybe that’s because it didn’t.  Egyptian Muslims saw the cartoons in their press and gave a collective yawn.  Not ONE protest ensued.

Meanwhile, back in Denmark, certain Danish Muslim clerics were upset, and were angrily demanding apologies.  None were forthcoming.  So the clerics went grievance shopping in December, and took the cartoons to the Middle East.  Surely, they thought, their religious brethren would help them make the offending newspaper (and the Danish government) grovel before them.

They were disappointed in their efforts.  Middle Eastern clerics were unimpressed.  The Danish clerics must not have known about the earlier Egyptian response.  It looked like the Danish clerics would have to return home empty-handed.

At this point, they decided that dishonesty was the best policy.  They added three bogus cartoons to the twelve that were actually printed.  See if you can spot the fakes:

Pretty tough, huh?  The first fake shows Mohammed as a pedophile, the second as a pig-snouted creature, and the last depicts a worshipping Muslim being raped by a dog.  It was at this point that Middle-Eastern clerics started to get angry – at the phony drawings.

There’s a political element that shouldn’t be overlooked however.  The case of the murder of Lebanese Prime-Minister Rafiq al-Hariri may be referred to the UN Security Council soon.  And which country is due to assume the presidency of the Council within the next month or so?  Denmark.  What better way could there be to politically neuter the future president of the Council?  The legitimacy of the Security Council’s future decisions on the matter will now be under a cloud, at least in the Muslim world.

By the way, in which Muslim countries were Danish embassies torched?  Syria and Syrian-influenced Lebanon.  And who is the prime suspect in the Hariri murder?  Boy Assad of Syria.  What a co-inky-dink.

Syria is a police state, and "spontaneous" demonstrations of this nature simply don’t happen by themselves in police states.  The best that could be said is that the Syrian government allowed the riots to occur; the worst would be that they actually organized them.  There are more than a few similarities here with the 2005 anti-Japanese riots in China.

(Iran arrived at the party a bit late, but a similar calculus holds for them as well.  They also may face the Security Council in the not-too-distant future about their nuclear weapons program.  They’re poisoning the well so that when a decision is reached they can say that the president of the Security Council was biased against them.)

As for the violence in Pakistan and other places, that’s just monkey-see, monkey-do.  Or, to be more clinical, mass hysteria.  If your co-religionists are rioting over the cartoons, they must be pretty bad.  Bad enough for you to start rioting, too.

And that’s the story of the Cartoon Hoax, as I understand it.  The epilogue to the story is that the writer of the children’s book that started the whole saga finally found an illustrator.  The book was published near the end of January 2006, and is doing quite well, thank you.

And contrary to initial fears, there has been no Muslim outrage about the artwork.

---

UPDATE:  The Toronto Star makes a point that seems so obvious, it’s a wonder no one else has said it yet:

…for Arab governments resentful of the Western push for democracy, the protests presented an opportunity to undercut the appeal of the West to Arab citizens. The freedom pushed by the West, they seemed to say, brought with it disrespect for Islam.

…the demonstrations "started as a visceral reaction — of course they were offended — and then you had regimes taking advantage, saying, `Look, this is the democracy they’re talking about.’"

UPDATE (Feb 15/06):  Another interesting idea was advanced in the Feb 15/06 edition of The Bangkok Post.  (Sorry, no link is available.) The column, "Assad sends defiant message to the West," by Khaled Yacoub Oweis points out that Syria needs to:

[calm] Saudi Arabia’s anger over the killing of Hariri, who held a Saudi as well as a Lebanese passport and was close to the Saudi monarchy.

Rallying against a common enemy such as Denmark would be one way of facilitating forgetfulness regarding Syria’s role in Hariri’s murder.

UPDATE (Feb 18/06): Gateway Pundit has a day-by-day chronology of events, focusing mainly on the role of the Egyptian ambassador to Denmark.

UPDATE (Feb 18/06): As I said in my first post on this subject, the embassy burnings began while I was on vacation.  I wrote this to summarize for myself what a few other bloggers were saying.  There’s really nothing written in this post that wasn’t said first in one of these blogs:

The Brussels Journal – they were following the story before it even BECAME a story

The Belmont Club – good analysis

The Rantings of a Sandmonkey – the one who first realized that the cartoons had been published without outcry in Egypt back in October.  Interesting to read a pro-American Muslim’s take on the issue.

No Pasaran! – nice, short updates

UPDATE (Feb 19/06): Michelle Malkin has a column where she reveals that the Danish clerics lied in the Middle East by claiming the newspaper published not 12, but 120 Mohammed cartoons.  They also lied in telling their co-religionists that the newspaper was state-owned.

UPDATE (Feb 19/06): The origin of the pig-snouted Mohammed fake.  Paul Belian of The Brussels Journal makes the case that the creators of the phony illustration (the Danish Muslim clerics!) are the ones who are guilty of blasphemy.

Because the twelve [newspaper] cartoonists are not Muslims, the Muslim blasphemy laws do not apply to them…But these laws do apply to the imams…[that]…created their own three Muhammed images. Consequently, these imams deserve death. They – and no-one else – depicted the prophet as a pig – the highest imaginable insult in Islam.

---

i-4

Wherein I respond to a Taiwanese commenter, who categorizes my posting of the Danish cartoons that sparked Muslim anger as an act of childishness and insensitivity, which furthermore undermines freedom of speech:

Dear Falen,

The more that I read about the subject, the more I realize that the "cartoon controversy" is nothing more than manufactured outrage.  Muslims themselves have drawn Mohammed over the ages, and PLENTY of images of him have appeared in the West previously.  If Muslims were truly upset about the depiction of Mohammed, then shouldn’t they direct their attention first at the books within their own libraries?  But I’ll talk more about the staged aspect of the situation in a later post.

As a matter of free speech I think it’s entirely valid to show the petty nonsense that Muslims are going ape over.  You do understand that they’re rioting over something that they’ve never actually seen, don’t you?  OVER CARTOONS FOR CRISSAKES!  It’s entirely valid to show the Danish cartoons and allow people to make up their own minds about whether the rioters’ actions are justified, or maybe they’re just a wee bit out of proportion.

(One additional point – Muslims are rioting due to written descriptions about the cartoons.  Is there not a possibility that the descriptions THEMSELVES might be needlessly inflammatory?)

These cartoons offensive?  They’re child’s play.  In The Divine Comedy, Dante didn’t pussyfoot around, putting some staff in Mohammed’s hand and pointlessly standing him in the desert with a donkey behind him.  No, he placed the founder of Islam in the 8th Circle of HELL.  And EVERY library in the West has a copy of that, probably with illustrations like this one by Gustav Dore’:

That would be Mohammed in the center.  We know, because the poet wrote: "Look how Mohammed claws and mangles himself, torn open down the breast!”

Maybe we could have a good old-fashioned book-burning just to make the mobs happy.  But that wouldn’t be enough to appease them.  We’d also have to blow up a few churches with offensive frescoes.  Frescoes like this one:

(By the way, I’m not being melodramatic here.  In 2002, Islamofascists actually DID try to blow up the Italian church containing this artwork.)

Don’t think for a minute that this only concerns the the West, either.  China’s a big place, with a lot of history.  Probably a few Chinese depictions of Mohammed floating around.  The Bamiyan statue incident in Afghanistan should be a sobering reminder to us all on the value that Islamofascists place on relics of the past.

(I won’t even mention the hypocrisy involved when Muslims demand that their ever-so delicate sensibilities be catered to, while their own press spews the most vile anti-Semitic cartoons imaginable.  My time in Taiwan has taught me that Chinese have a pretty good handle on the concept that respect is a two-way street.)

Beyond these considerations however, is the question of national sovereignty.  It’s a fact that blasphemy restrictions exist in countries of the Arab world.  I’ll explain later why I think they’d be better off without them, but the reality on the ground is that their blasphemy laws are on the books, or that their societal taboos are in place.  If I visit Saudi Arabia, I promise not to corrupt anybody and set them on the path to hell by showing them any of these images.  Having said that though, by what theory of national sovereignty do Saudi blasphemy laws somehow migrate to countries within the birthplace of the Enlightenment?

European intellectuals have busied themselves for years worrying about the effects of American "cultural imperialism".  They would do better to be a little less concerned about Big Macs and Euro-Disney than about the women in their midst being raped for not wearing veils or the theocratic goons murdering their countrymen and attempting to impose their mores upon them.

Finally, and most importantly, is the question of freedom of religion.  Freedom of religion means the right to believe in God, to not believe, and yes, to think that belief itself is a crock.  Islamofascist intimidation represents nothing less than a deliberate attempt to rob a free people of their religious freedoms.  As Thomas Jefferson said, "Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God."  That applies to religious tyrants as well.

Surrender is the easy and cowardly way out – whether the the enemies are Islamofascists or dictatorial butchers casting their hungry gaze on an small island of free men with a population of only 23 million. 

If there is a benevolent God, then it is MY belief that He wants us, His creations, to be free.  To accept Him of our own free will.  Which means that we are free to make mistakes, and to sin.  It also means that we are free to love, as well as to mock Him.

Which of course leads to an interesting question.  Islamofascists CLAIM their religious beliefs do not allow ME (a third-party, a non-believer, and someone living on foreign soil!) to mock Mohammed.  But MY beliefs inform ME that I have the FREEDOM to reject God.  Why exactly, should their theology take precedence over mine?

To my knowledge, China never had religious wars.  I could be wrong.  Please then, allow me to explain that the consequences of the Thirty Years War were catastrophic.  Germany’s population before the war was 21 million – by the end it was 13.5 million*.  And it was all because Catholics and Protestants claimed the right to force each other to conform to their own theologies.

NEVER AGAIN.

Moreover, to my knowledge, pre-communist China never had a Dark Age (at least in a religious sense).  Again, I could be wrong.  Perhaps you’re not aware of the fact that there was a time when Europeans were broken on the wheel for heresy.  This punishment consisted of tying the victim to the wheel of a cart, and breaking all of his limbs one at a time with a metal bar.

I believe the bar was made of lead.

NEVER AGAIN.

These two reasons are why I think you are so uncomprehending of the importance of religious liberty to Westerners.  (Pre-communist) Chinese history may simply not have the abundance of examples that lead to the conclusion that religious freedom is an absolute necessity for a peaceful society.  Consider: if Muslims get their (admittedly minor) blasphemy prohibitions enacted now, they will be inevitably be tempted to demand more later on.  Other religions will follow suit.

What will the result be?  Eventually, religious inquiry itself will be stifled, as theologians discover that new interpretations violate theocratic taboos.

The followers of religion may complain about freedom of religion when their religion is insulted.  Quite frankly, I don’t blame them.  But they should reflect on the fact that the freedom that allows others to mock their most cherished beliefs is also the very same freedom that allows themselves and their theologians to argue and debate the nature of God, and man’s relationship with Him.  It gives them the right to change their minds.  It gives them the right to belong to a religion that continues to grow and innovate, so that it doesn’t lose relevance for its practitioners.  Such change and progress cannot happen without thought preceding the deed.  And that thought cannot happen without freedom.

You’re free to think that I’m some kind of gleeful provocateur who enjoys making fun of other people’s faith.  Maybe my reasons for showing the cartoons mean nothing to you.  They happen to mean a lot to me.  And I’m sorry if you find that childish.

Sincerely,

The Foreigner

---

* I originally was mistaken in placing these figures at 30 and 3 million, respectively.  I believe that the numbers given now are the correct ones.

---

UPDATE: No Pasaran! slyly wonders when the Muslim world will begin burning Egyptian flags and boycotting Egyptian goods.  After all, they printed the cartoons of evil too!

UPDATE (Feb 18): The Brussels Journal makes the observation that Muslim complaints are more than a little rich considering their past behavior:

For centuries and until today, Islam has ordered the destruction of everything that is sacred to other religions, starting with the 360 idols in the Kaaba (including Jesus and Mary) smashed to pieces by Muhammad himself, down to the Bamian Buddhas destroyed by the Taliban in 2001, the weekly vandalising of Hindu temples in Bangladesh, or the destruction of Christian churches in Iraq during the last couple of months. In many cases, moreover, not only the places of worship but the worshippers too have been assaulted. What an arrogance for Muslims, with their heritage of iconoclastic insensitivity, to put up this show of indignation for a handful of harmless cartoons. And now we are being expected to feel pity for those poor touch-me-nots?

Moreover, if lack of respect for other religions is to the basis for banning speech, then the KORAN should be one of the first publications to be so censored:

The Quran contains dozens of verses that preach hostility to Pagans (polytheists, Zoroastrian ‘fire-worshippers’ and atheists), Jews and Christians. It denounces their teachings as false and evil and a sure passport to hell.

The Quran also expressly forbids conversion from Islam to other religions, while allowing and encouraging the reverse… It is also in contravention of the European Convention on Human Right’s article 9…for this article defines “freedom of religion” as including “the right to change one’s religion.”

In addition the Quran rejects the principle of “equal rights and duties for everyone,”…Apart from the candidly affirmed inequality in rights and duties between the sexes (which admittedly exists in all religions), it explicitly ordains inequality between the different religious communities. To the non-monotheists Muhammad denied freedom of religion completely, and as for Jews and Christians, the Quran only allows them to retain their faith if they accept the status of third-class citizens and pay a ‘toleration tax.’

There is even grimmer reading, however, in dozens of Quran verses that go further than mere doctrinal disputation and actually enjoin the Muslims to go out and fight the ‘infidels.’ The core text of Islam is not merely disrespectful towards other religions, it extols killing and glorifies dying in the war against the non-Muslims.

UPDATE (Mar 10/06):  Islamofascists in the birthplace of the Enlightenment recently demanded another surrender, calling for one of Voltaire’s plays to be cancelled.  After some initial waffling, the local French authorities grew a spine and provided police protection to the theater presenting the play from a small mob of Muslim thugs outside.  The mayor speculated as to why Muslims think the West is gutless, saying, "For a long time we have not confirmed our convictions, so lots of people think they can contest them."

(Hat tip to Sandmonkey.)

UPDATE (Apr 9/06):  A Chinese model wearing a bikini with the word "Allah" on it.  No rioting over this, but then, Muslims don’t have any particular axe to grind against the Chinese.

Yet.

---

i-2

That’s what it’ll take to really end this.  100,000 Danes marching in downtown Copenhagen wearing t-shirts with the offending cartoons boldly emblazoned on them for all to see.  You can kill one Theo van Gogh.  You can knock off a cartoonist here or there.  But you’ll never beat us all.  So you might as well give up now, ’cause we never will.

Until that day, here are the cartoons that started it all.

---

*  After Wretchard’s original post, I am Spartacus over at The Belmont Club.

---

UPDATE (Feb 11/06):  Walid al-Kubaisi, a moderate Muslim living in Norway, essentially agrees with my thesis.  He thinks that the cartoons shouldn’t have been published in the first place, but now:

“The only way to protect freedom of expression is for as many newspapers as possible in Europe to publish the cartoons. The Islamists cannot boycott the whole world. They cannot ask the whole world to apologize.”

Read the whole thing here.  You’ll be disappointed to learn that Carrefour (a French hypermarket chain with stores in Taiwan) is boycotting Danish goods in its Middle Eastern franchises.  Shame on them.

UPDATE #2 (Feb 11/06):  That was fast.  News is out that the t-shirts are now available here.  Sadly, I don’t get a cut.

Sure beats those "Never Trust Democracy" t-shirts that were all the rage among the pro-capitulationist parties here in Taiwan.

UPDATE (Feb 12/06):  Apropos from No Pasaran!:

UPDATE (Feb 19/06):  A Pakistani Muslim cleric helped to further Islam’s already stellar reputation for peacefulness by offering a $1 million bounty to anyone who murders one of the Danish cartoonists.  Making this post’s proposal all the more urgent.

UPDATE (Mar 2/06):  A Danish website displays the cartoons accompanied by "We’re Not Gonna Take It" by Twisted Sister.

Twisted Sister.  Now THAT takes me back.

Crank it up.

UPDATE (Apr 12/06):  Borders Books in America refused to carry a magazine printing the cartoons.  Here’s a satire about Borders’ decision.

---

i-14