Them Danish Cartoons
Some thoughts on the recent international Muslim outcry (and threats) regarding a Danish (and subsequently, French, Spanish, and other European) newspaper's decision to run a cartoon depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Basically, a conservative Danish newspaper ran some cartoons showing the prophet Mohammed, some insinuating a connection between him and terrorism/suicide bombing. Apparently, the Koran forbids any depiction of Mohammed, and Muslims saw this as blasphemy. They demanded that the Danish government formally apologize, punish the newspaper, and forbid any such action in the future. Of course, the Danish government couldn't do that, although they (along with all other Western leaders, including the US) did say those cartoons were regrettable. Enter flag burning, storming of the EU office in Palestine, and attacks on the Danish Embassy in Indonesia. The editor of a French newspaper that reprinted the article got sacked, and the West has been humbled into massive apologizing.
*I think it's ironic that world leaders roundly condemn those cartoons while depictions that attack and are truly offensive to the Jewish and Christian religions (think Hollywood, daily newspaper editorials and cartoons, popular culture) have been flourishing for years now. Is this because world leaders respect Islam more? Quite the contrary; I believe many of us here in the Western world fear radical Islam and will go to great lengths to appease the mob before something nasty like 9/11 occurs again. Fear is the opposite of respect; it's coerced obedience and not earned admiration. I can't speak for Judaism (it seems like many outside of the United States hold great contempt toward the Jews), but Christianity is both respected (because of the wonderful charitable deeds of its believers) and ridiculed (for its unworldly and unpopular beliefs). Christianity is a safe target because it won't strike back and because it truly believes in liberty. Were those cartoons dispicable? Probably, but I can see where they're coming from. (Terrorists do act in the name of Allah and Islam after all; one can debate the legitimacy of that, but it's true nonetheless.) But so was the widespread, violent radical Islamic reaction to it. One cannot dictate to a free press what it can and cannot run (outside the boundaries of universally accepted impropriety). This world does not run on the dictates of Allah, even though a lot of Muslim radicals would have it so.
*The media, for all its self-aggrandized claims on being brave and independent, is wimpy after all. They're afraid, too. I don't see many newspapers here reprinting the 'scandalous' cartoons (just to show the readers what this brouhaha is all about). It makes you wonder about true freedom of the press. Yeah, they're free to attack other religions and leaders of the free world (there are no consequences then); but what about Islam? Or dictators like Hugo Chavez? (I don't see anyone in the media actively revealing all his malfeasances, only his hackneyed, paranoia-driven condemnations of Bush.) Will people in the media protect their own backs over uncovering the truth?
*This speaks to the power of Muslim radicals. This controversy did not happen in their own soil; it was a domestic issue in Europe. And yet infuriated Muslims across the world have pretty much joined together in angry denounciation of these countries (not just the newspapers themselves!) and have forced everyone to take notice. Clearly, they don't merely want to control their own countries; Islam transcends traditional notions of nationhood and sovereignty, and to these people it should take over the world. What, then? One can't negotiate with individuals, terrorists, or religious organizations; one can only have diplomacy with the governments that fail to keep them happy. This is quite troubling.
*This reveals that indeed, there is a clash of civilizations: between the Western world (liberal democracies espousing minority rights and the separation of church and state) and the Muslim world (theocratic and tolerant of only one single religion, Islam). Are secular democratic government and true Islam truly compatible with each other? At the risk of being roundly criticized by everyone, I will say no. In ideology, the Koran clearly denotes Jews and Christians as second-class citizens, sons of swine that cannot be tolerated. It commands complete obedience to its dictates and a government that is the executor of these laws. In reality, movements for democracy have been brutally crushed. (Look at Iran, where Ayatollah Khomeini--with popular support--deposed the Westernized and pro-American Shah in 1979, and decades later into the 21st century when there was a brutal clampdown on young Iranian students who protested for democratic reform; of countries like Jordan, where the rulers are Western-educated and claim to be appreciative of democratic theory but ultimately rejected democratic reform and turned a blind eye to radical Islam; and of Palestine, where a terrorist organization like Hamas can be popularly elected and the losing party, Fatah, responds with violence and threats at losing in elections that were fair and square.) What does this say about Iraq? I really don't know...perhaps I am wrong (I hope I'm wrong!) and democracy can flourish in the Middle East. (This is the first time that America is controlling the rebuilding of a nation there, so things might be different this time around. And perhaps moderate Islam, not the true-blue fundamentalist kind, can succeed in democratization.) But first there needs to be a major attitude change in the street.
*The Europeans have been burying their heads in the sand regarding this whole Muslim/assimilation/xenophobia issue. They routinely condemn the United States for the way it is fighting the War on Terror without truly acknowledging that it's even worse on their own soil. They kind of had a wakeup call, first with the bombings in Madrid, then with the whole head-scarf issue in France, then the brutal killing of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, and finally with the London bombings. How does Europe deal with Islam without further igniting the wrath of its believers? Will Europe's diplomacy-only policy truly work? (I highly doubt it; look at how European-led negotiations with Iran concerning nuclear energy have been utterly failing.) How do Muslim immigrants balance their religion with the ideals of their adopted countries?
*Also, if moderate Muslims claim they are different from these radical Muslims, why do their clerics and leaders fail to condemn these threats and violent actions? Why do they fail to comment on calls to eradicate Israel and praise for Osama bin Laden and his wannabes? For the most part, these leaders have kept mum when it comes to terrorism. If they're gonna promote universal tolerance and pro-Westernism, they need to clearly distance themselves from their fundamentalist counterparts. They need to come up with an honest and clear political stance if they want to prove that Islam is not a religion of violence. In Britain it seems like they're beginning to speak out, but I don't see much of that here in the States. Or in much of Europe, for that matter.
*In closing, I think this whole controversy has really scary implications for the future. Those cartoons alone didn't spark this outcry; the tensions lie deeper than that, and years of failing to address them have begun to show the consequences.
Whew! That was a long rant. Although nobody will read this (or care), it felt good to let it out.
*I think it's ironic that world leaders roundly condemn those cartoons while depictions that attack and are truly offensive to the Jewish and Christian religions (think Hollywood, daily newspaper editorials and cartoons, popular culture) have been flourishing for years now. Is this because world leaders respect Islam more? Quite the contrary; I believe many of us here in the Western world fear radical Islam and will go to great lengths to appease the mob before something nasty like 9/11 occurs again. Fear is the opposite of respect; it's coerced obedience and not earned admiration. I can't speak for Judaism (it seems like many outside of the United States hold great contempt toward the Jews), but Christianity is both respected (because of the wonderful charitable deeds of its believers) and ridiculed (for its unworldly and unpopular beliefs). Christianity is a safe target because it won't strike back and because it truly believes in liberty. Were those cartoons dispicable? Probably, but I can see where they're coming from. (Terrorists do act in the name of Allah and Islam after all; one can debate the legitimacy of that, but it's true nonetheless.) But so was the widespread, violent radical Islamic reaction to it. One cannot dictate to a free press what it can and cannot run (outside the boundaries of universally accepted impropriety). This world does not run on the dictates of Allah, even though a lot of Muslim radicals would have it so.
*The media, for all its self-aggrandized claims on being brave and independent, is wimpy after all. They're afraid, too. I don't see many newspapers here reprinting the 'scandalous' cartoons (just to show the readers what this brouhaha is all about). It makes you wonder about true freedom of the press. Yeah, they're free to attack other religions and leaders of the free world (there are no consequences then); but what about Islam? Or dictators like Hugo Chavez? (I don't see anyone in the media actively revealing all his malfeasances, only his hackneyed, paranoia-driven condemnations of Bush.) Will people in the media protect their own backs over uncovering the truth?
*This speaks to the power of Muslim radicals. This controversy did not happen in their own soil; it was a domestic issue in Europe. And yet infuriated Muslims across the world have pretty much joined together in angry denounciation of these countries (not just the newspapers themselves!) and have forced everyone to take notice. Clearly, they don't merely want to control their own countries; Islam transcends traditional notions of nationhood and sovereignty, and to these people it should take over the world. What, then? One can't negotiate with individuals, terrorists, or religious organizations; one can only have diplomacy with the governments that fail to keep them happy. This is quite troubling.
*This reveals that indeed, there is a clash of civilizations: between the Western world (liberal democracies espousing minority rights and the separation of church and state) and the Muslim world (theocratic and tolerant of only one single religion, Islam). Are secular democratic government and true Islam truly compatible with each other? At the risk of being roundly criticized by everyone, I will say no. In ideology, the Koran clearly denotes Jews and Christians as second-class citizens, sons of swine that cannot be tolerated. It commands complete obedience to its dictates and a government that is the executor of these laws. In reality, movements for democracy have been brutally crushed. (Look at Iran, where Ayatollah Khomeini--with popular support--deposed the Westernized and pro-American Shah in 1979, and decades later into the 21st century when there was a brutal clampdown on young Iranian students who protested for democratic reform; of countries like Jordan, where the rulers are Western-educated and claim to be appreciative of democratic theory but ultimately rejected democratic reform and turned a blind eye to radical Islam; and of Palestine, where a terrorist organization like Hamas can be popularly elected and the losing party, Fatah, responds with violence and threats at losing in elections that were fair and square.) What does this say about Iraq? I really don't know...perhaps I am wrong (I hope I'm wrong!) and democracy can flourish in the Middle East. (This is the first time that America is controlling the rebuilding of a nation there, so things might be different this time around. And perhaps moderate Islam, not the true-blue fundamentalist kind, can succeed in democratization.) But first there needs to be a major attitude change in the street.
*The Europeans have been burying their heads in the sand regarding this whole Muslim/assimilation/xenophobia issue. They routinely condemn the United States for the way it is fighting the War on Terror without truly acknowledging that it's even worse on their own soil. They kind of had a wakeup call, first with the bombings in Madrid, then with the whole head-scarf issue in France, then the brutal killing of Theo van Gogh in the Netherlands, and finally with the London bombings. How does Europe deal with Islam without further igniting the wrath of its believers? Will Europe's diplomacy-only policy truly work? (I highly doubt it; look at how European-led negotiations with Iran concerning nuclear energy have been utterly failing.) How do Muslim immigrants balance their religion with the ideals of their adopted countries?
*Also, if moderate Muslims claim they are different from these radical Muslims, why do their clerics and leaders fail to condemn these threats and violent actions? Why do they fail to comment on calls to eradicate Israel and praise for Osama bin Laden and his wannabes? For the most part, these leaders have kept mum when it comes to terrorism. If they're gonna promote universal tolerance and pro-Westernism, they need to clearly distance themselves from their fundamentalist counterparts. They need to come up with an honest and clear political stance if they want to prove that Islam is not a religion of violence. In Britain it seems like they're beginning to speak out, but I don't see much of that here in the States. Or in much of Europe, for that matter.
*In closing, I think this whole controversy has really scary implications for the future. Those cartoons alone didn't spark this outcry; the tensions lie deeper than that, and years of failing to address them have begun to show the consequences.
Whew! That was a long rant. Although nobody will read this (or care), it felt good to let it out.