Muslim rage against Denmark. Trade boycotts and burning of flags

[Uiler]

While I believe the Muslims are overreacting, I don't think that the West gets away with this looking good either. The original cartoons were anyway you look at it anti-Muslim. It was fueled by anti-Islamic sentiment in Denmark about Muslim immigrants.

People talk a lot about how Muslims need to enter the 20th century (not even the 21st...) and I agree. However, this thing about picture of Mohammad have nothing to do with any of the important things like women's rights, suicide bombers, etc. The whole affair began because of Western nations refusal to accept even small cultural differences and insist that Islamic people behave *exactly* like Westerners and if they don't they are evil. Not just Islamic people in their own nations but all Islamic people around the world. If they don't accept every single aspect of Western culture, they are evil. There is no room for compromise.

Even the supposed "free speech" aspect of the original newspaper competition was basically a sign of extreme intolereance. Basically an author of a book about Islam couldn't get someone to draw illustrations of Mohammad. This is because of the central tennants of Islam is that you don't! It's a sin. It's hardly hurting anyone either. It's not even like writing an article saying bad things about the Mohammad (which I would support). All it is is a very very small thing, just to do with respecting religious beliefs. However, the Danish got offended over this "infringement" of their "right" to free speech. Basically they completely refused to compromise, even over a very small thing and rigidly insisted to the Muslims that it is either our way or no way.

I find it difficult to believe that the tensions between the Danes and Islamic immigrants have nothing to do with this inflexible position.

Basically all this is from the Danish side it's not about advancing human rights or women's rights in Islamic nations or even free speech - it is a thing to show the Islamic "enemies" in their midst who is boss. Right now it's not actually about free speech, human rights or anything like that - these worthy ideals are simply being used as convenient weapons to cudgel the Muslims, to win another battle in the "war".

I think we should seperate the people actually *fighting* to pull the Muslims into the 20th century (and risking their lives for it) and those who have another agenda.

Finally, in the West we are used that free speech is brutal and mean. We have grown a thick skin. However, other cultures are not used to this - not just "evil" nations - go to Japan and try this. Japan has free speech but it is supposed to be couched in manners - this is because of their different culture. Even in Western nations there are different ideas about "free speech" - the US for example tolerants the Ku Klax Klan while in many parts of Europe they would be thrown in jail. In the US Congressmen are supposed to behave very courteously to each other while in the UK being as nasty as possible is standard fare. US Congressmen would be shocked at what they see in a UK parliament and vice-versa. Being suddenly thrown into the 20th century with an entirely different culture, why should we expect the Muslims to suddenly adapt to the brutal and "thick skin" nature of Western free speech which we have got used to other many centuries? Why call them evil when they don't behave like Westerners would - when they are - suprisingly, not a Western culture. *We* are shocked at the Islamic response because we are not used to this sort of thing occuring - why does it never occur to people that the Islamic people are as shocked about the pictures of the Prophet and have the same internal disgust that we feel about the threats of violence?

People ask - why should Muslims in Saudi Arabia be offended by depictions of the Prophet in Denmark. Well, then we should ask, why were the Danish so offended by the fact that the Muslims are offended by pictures of the Prophet?

I would like to reiterate thought that while I don't care too much about boycotts of Danish goods (if they want to offend people, let them lose business...) but I think the threats of violence are a sad indication of what is wrong with Islamic culture today (very very quick resort to violence). Still, the tendency of Western countries to turn every little thing into a political statement - "Since it offends someone, I must do it. *Because* it's offensive" and then get pissed off and surprised when the other people get pissed off, shows something about Western culture too. I mean be offensive if you want, but don't be so shocked when it engenders a response you don't like.

 

[Kyriakos]

Obviously if a group of people is not educated and is aroused to hatred by some religious/political leader or mere instigator, then they will react violently towards anything. Equally obviously they do not know much about Denmark. Dissallowing Mohamad to be depicted in any painting definately created a protection of the religion (i am not arguing that this was done consciously) and a taboo. It is always hard to tell how people will react to the breaking of a taboo, but any taboo can rise unchecked to such vast significance that it can cause violent actions if broken. I wouldnt be angry at those muslims; i would rather be sad due to their state. However i would also think of some people in western countries (and notjust the Usa) who although have so much more in their lives still manage to sink to a similar bottom of intellect as those muslims in the picture.
As for the cross in flags: my own view is that they arent significant; the greek flag also has a cross and personally i wouldnt mind if in the future it was taken out, and the flag now consisted of the blue and white lines only. In Denmark's case this would lead to its annexation by Austria, but at least it would stop more burning

Greek flags are sometimes burned by Albanians, which i find equally stupid. Albanian flags also have been used as means of providing heating in central streets periodically. People are known to be able to do the stupidest of things if they feel offended, and the less educated one is the easier he is to offend; mass paranoia thrives in poorly educated areas. Religion provides the illusion that such mass emotions are not unjustified, since they can be carefully traced back to religious thought/emotion, but in reality they are traced below it, back to the core of human weakness to think carefully. And i have to repeat that i find the muslim behavior a lot less pitiful (albeit more primitive) than the behaviour of the Us government and some of its supporters.
As for the caricature: even if it was done out of malice (probably?) it was just poor comedy by (i am guessing here) not a very interesting caricaturists? To be a mediocrity is one's right however, but people shouldnt be confused with the entire country. I just hope that in Denmark there isnt some sort of rise to fame of the caricaturist who drew that, since that would have been an even worse effect of this situation. All societies have been known to have their own low class of educated people, and they would tend to exagerate things themselves too, and it this would better be avoided.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

However i would also think of some people in western countries (and notjust the Usa) who although have so much more in their lives still manage to sink to a similar bottom of intellect as those muslims in the picture.

Even the most tolerant and moderate of people eventually loses patience and gets tired of contantly being attacked, challenged and criticized. You can push people only so far, even the terminally politically correct, before they start pushing back. I for one am completely fed up, and whatever reserves of sympathy I may have once had for the plight of Muslims at the hands of the 'evil West' have long since dried up and blown away.

 

[Verbose]

Even the most tolerant and moderate of people eventually loses patience and gets tired of contantly being attacked, challenged and criticized. You can push people only so far, even the terminally politically correct, before they start pushing back. I for one am completely fed up, and whatever reserves of sympathy I may have once had for the plight of Muslims at the hands of the 'evil West' have long since dried up and blown away.

Sadly that's exactly how an increasing number of Muslims feel about the West.

Obviously there's been some exceedingly viscious jostling in the qeue towards Modernity.

 

[storealex]

Uiller, we don't demand that they become exactly like us. Not the Muslims, the Asians, the Swedes for that matter. All we demand is that they integrate into society, pay their taxes and obey the law. For some reason, some immigrant groups easily manage this, while others have immense troubles doing it. There's lot's of Chinese and Koreans here, but nobody mind because they function in our society, despite not mingling much with Danes, despite keeping their original culture.

And why should we compromise? It's Denmark we live in. In Denmark nothing is so holy that you can't make fun of it. Jesus, Mohammed, The Queen etc. It's how our culture is, and I don't see why we should change it in order to appease a small minority which resently came here by their own free will.

Finally, Im kinda fed up with your "In Denmark things are like this" statements. Dude, I live here, you don't. And frankly I can't recognise the picture of Denmark you depict.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Sadly that's exactly how an increasing number of Muslims feel about the West.

Obviously there's been some exceedingly viscious jostling in the qeue towards Modernity.

I think we just plain dont like each other. Maybe because we're so similar. Both civilizations are proud, sure of their correctness and superiority and determined to be dominant. Whatever the reasons, its clear that we cant abide each other.

 

[thetrooper]

Basically an author of a book about Islam couldn't get someone to draw illustrations of Mohammad. This is because of the central tennants of Islam is that you don't! It's a sin.

Or: his face must be veiled perhaps?

 

[Uiler]

Oh I agree that they should integrate and I get sick and tired of Muslims complaining about the Imperialist West as well. However, as I said from the beginning, the whole thing about not showing pictures of the Prophet, it's a very small thing. Why did the Danish blow it up to such a big thing in the first place? The fact that the Danish insisted on making a political statement that was so little and which any reasonable person would recognise as simple manners is very suspicious. There are plenty of other things you can harp on to the Muslims about - like some of the things you describe. This is such a small thing. Typically such a small thing is not blown into a major thing and the Danish play a role in blowing the event up as well unless there are underlying tension.
Denmark right now has a lot of racial tensions and I find it difficult to believe they played no role in this on the Danish side. A single assassination does not suddenly become a "Great War" devasting all of Europe unless there are underlying issues. As far as I can tell, it was because the Danish found it offensive that the Muslims found depictions of the Prophet offensive. They were offended that the Muslims were offended. They knew that this would greatly the Muslims and so set out to offend the Muslims because they offended that the Muslims were offended. You see, if was really about human rights or free speech, the original issue would be something more substantive than a deliberate attempt to insult Muslims over a very very small thing about their religion which is harming noone. Maybe, female circumsion, honour killings, suicide bombers, the know, things which actually hurt people...not some empty charade of an issue.

I'm willing to believe the racial tensions in Denmark have nothing to do with the Muslim reaction because they hardly know anything about Denmark. On the Muslim side, it's just general oversensitivity to religious insults and any hint of Western imperialism, and the invention of the Internet which allowed the rapid dissemation of information from far shores. It could have been any Western country that did the same thing really. Not to mention a culture that leads to extremist threats of violence.

As I said, I don't think either side has come out of this looking like a bed of roses. The Muslims went the usual, "We will kill you." and the Danish deliberately set out to insult the Muslims because they were offended that the Muslims were offended. And underlying all this is the larger issues of the inability of Muslims to assimilate in Europe leading to racial tensions and general immature nature of Muslim society.

As for not compromising - you live in Denmark. You don't live in the ME and as far as I can see, most of the uproar is coming from the ME. Why should people in the ME compromise for Denmark?

If this really was an issue of free speech I would support you to the death. But as far as I can tell, free speech in this case is just an excuse to be offensive as possible based on religious prejudice. I can recognise a hollow charade of an issue when I see it.

Uiller, we don't demand that they become exactly like us. Not the Muslims, the Asians, the Swedes for that matter. All we demand is that they integrate into society, pay their taxes and obey the law. For some reason, some immigrant groups easily manage this, while others have immense troubles doing it. There's lot's of Chinese and Koreans here, but nobody mind because they function in our society, despite not mingling much with Danes, despite keeping their original culture.

And why should we compromise? It's Denmark we live in. In Denmark nothing is so holy that you can't make fun of it. Jesus, Mohammed, The Queen etc. It's how our culture is, and I don't see why we should change it in order to appease a small minority which resently came here by their own free will.

Finally, Im kinda fed up with your "In Denmark things are like this" statements. Dude, I live here, you don't. And frankly I can't recognise the picture of Denmark you depict.

 

[Verbose]

I think we just plain dont like each other. Maybe because we're so similar. Both civilizations are proud, sure of their correctness and superiority and determined to be dominant. Whatever the reasons, its clear that we cant abide each other.

I can agree with that.

The problem with the Arab Muslim world is not that it's fundamentaly that dissimilar, but that it's an example of too much failure in the attempt to become modern nations on par with the West.

There's a massive resentment of the West for two centuries of putting our noses into their affairs — but all of that would prolly be considered just "history" (i.e. of no more consequence) if only their bid for becoming rich and modern states had worked out.

I'm thinking about places like Egypt, Syria and Iraq, which had nationalist revolutions in the 50's, but never got the benefits they hoped from them.

Very much it seems for not quite understanding the role of stuff like legal and civil rights, freedom of speech and democracy for building a wealthy, successful nation. Mostly because these things are so bloody unnerving to a lot of traidtionalists

The whole Islamic Republic idea is another way at trying to achieve modernity without having to deal with the bits of it that make people nervous.

As for Islamist terrorism, it's not a major political force. It has a bunch of fellow travellers since it can tap into political resentment towards the West, as well as traditionalist resentment of western style modernity.
But it's not poised to turn the Mid East into an islamist theocracy. They are much too few and too weak, despite their considerable ability to produce havoc and give the US and Europe the willies.

The Radical Islamists doing politics are mostly on the lines of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (mother organisation of Hamas), who have an "Islamist Welfare-State" platform. They wan't Egypt to become like Scandinavia, only without the distrubing modern bits like the emancipation of women, freedom of speech etc.

So far the Arab countries are failing to get it right in adopting either economic or social modernity, but their failure is not because they massively want to stay put in the 13th century, but because they still can't quite face up to what adopting the entire package of being a modern state entails.

Either they find a working formula different from the West's — if it works they will mellow down — or they will have to accept the western way of doing it, become successful, and mellow down.

The West is not so much in conflict with the Muslim world, as the Arab Muslim world is in conflict with itself.

If they can get sorted out, the potential conflict with the West will not be entirely diffused perhaps, but it will become a whole lot less urgent. (They'll still resent us for 200 years of butting in.)

In the mean time:
How do we help the modernists and secularists win down there?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Goota agree with the Danish Prime Minister here when he states http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4664408.stm

"The Danish government cannot apologise on behalf of a Danish newspaper. It does not work like that... and we have explained that to the Arab countries. Independent media are not edited by the government," he said.

 

[ComradeDavo]

If this really was an issue of free speech I would support you to the death. But as far as I can tell, free speech in this case is just an excuse to be offensive as possible based on religious prejudice. I can recognise a hollow charade of an issue when I see it.

To pick up on this point, if you look at the link I just posted, you will see this stated..

Meanwhile pan-Arab organisations have begun efforts to reach a UN resolution, backed by possible sanctions, to protect religions from insults.

That is an issue of free speach.

 

[Verbose]

About Denmark:
It's in no way a hell hole for non-Danes, but the preassure of conformity to a pretty vague notion of exactly what it means to be "Danish" is kind of apparent to us non-Danes.

Denmark has set of on a peculiar kind of "politics of identity" aroud questions of what it means to be Danish, who is and — most important — who is NOT. And a lot of the focus in on the Muslims.

But that's not a self-evident way if going about this.

There are more or less weird attempts at defining "Danishness" — like the Danish "canon" of works of art.
I saw they put Lars von Trier on the list the other day. He obviously found the whole notion as weird as he found it hillarious. He ceratinly didn't think what he's doing is very Danish at all.

I'll say that for the Danes, they do have a good number and quality of dissenters and critics to the whole idea of defining "Danishness".

And for comparison:
To get a rough estimate of how important discussions about national identity is, a Swedish journalist made an internet search for "Danishness" (in Danish, with variations) and "Swedishness".

She found 15.000+ links on "Swedishness", but 36.000+ links on "Danishness". And Sweden has almost twice the population.

Clearly this casting about for national identity is a major concern in Denmark, which it isn't in many other places.

 

[thetrooper]

The Mufti of Jerusalem, Ikrema Sabri, will meet up with representatives from the Scandinavian countries tomorrow. Hopefully this will calm things down.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I can agree with that.

The problem with the Arab Muslim world is not that it's fundamentaly that dissimilar, but that it's an example of too much failure in the attempt to become modern nations on par with the West.

There's a massive resentment of the West for two centuries of putting our noses into their affairs — but all of that would prolly be considered just "history" (i.e. of no more consequence) if only their bid for becoming rich and modern states had worked out.

I'm thinking about places like Egypt, Syria and Iraq, which had nationalist revolutions in the 50's, but never got the benefits they hoped from them.

Very much it seems for not quite understanding the role of stuff like legal and civil rights, freedom of speech and democracy for building a wealthy, successful nation. Mostly because these things are so bloody unnerving to a lot of traidtionalists

The whole Islamic Republic idea is another way at trying to achieve modernity without having to deal with the bits of it that make people nervous.

As for Islamist terrorism, it's not a major political force. It has a bunch of fellow travellers since it can tap into political resentment towards the West, as well as traditionalist resentment of western style modernity.
But it's not poised to turn the Mid East into an islamist theocracy. They are much too few and too weak, despite their considerable ability to produce havoc and give the US and Europe the willies.

The Radical Islamists doing politics are mostly on the lines of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (mother organisation of Hamas), who have an "Islamist Welfare-State" platform. They wan't Egypt to become like Scandinavia, only without the distrubing modern bits like the emancipation of women, freedom of speech etc.

So far the Arab countries are failing to get it right in adopting either economic or social modernity, but their failure is not because they massively want to stay put in the 13th century, but because they still can't quite face up to what adopting the entire package of being a modern state entails.

Either they find a working formula different from the West's — if it works they will mellow down — or they will have to accept the western way of doing it, become successful, and mellow down.

The West is not so much in conflict with the Muslim world, as the Arab Muslim world is in conflict with itself.

If they can get sorted out, the potential conflict with the West will not be entirely diffused perhaps, but it will become a whole lot less urgent. (They'll still resent us for 200 years of butting in.)

In the mean time:
How do we help the modernists and secularists win down there?

The problem the Muslim world has been having is that Islam is an 800lb gorilla in the room sucking up all the oxygen. It completely dominates all aspects of their lives. Until theyve wrestled Islam out of the way, I dont think theyre going to be making much progress on the road to modernity.

 

[ComradeDavo]

One big problem is that alot of people equate being critical of Islam with racism, which total rubbish.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

In the mean time:
How do we help the modernists and secularists win down there?

Oh I forgot: I dont think we can, or should even try. This is their struggle. No matter what the West does, it'll be seen, at best, as meddling where we arent needed or wanted. We'd be criticized for doing nothing too, but I think thats preferrable.

 

[Verbose]

The problem the Muslim world has been having is that Islam is an 800lb gorilla in the room sucking up all the oxygen. It completely dominates all aspects of their lives. Until theyve wrestled Islam out of the way, I dont think theyre going to be making much progress on the road to modernity.

There's no denying anti-modernist traditionalism and Islam are two vectors that massively coincide.

But they are still two separate vectors.

They should be possible to pry apart and economic success and social reform is what could pull that off.

In any case, the solutions need come from inside Arab society.

Besides, there's already plenty of secular Arabs not part of the traditionalism-Islam link-up.
There's also som 10% Christian Arabs traditionalists who are as bad as the Muslims.
So it might not be Islam doing the damage as much as just blood thirsty, old-fashioned conservatism.

 

[Adebisi]

This is completly absurd - if the issue was racist cartoons and lack of laws against hate crimes, then the muslims might have a point. The issue however, is about making pictures of the prophet!

As for the boycott from other Muslim nations, it's quite irrational. (A bit like boycotting French wine and changing the name of "French fries").

Boycotting a country because of its foreing policy is not necesserily irrational. Boycotting a country because it has free press is another matter...

 

[Uiler]

I think that any help would be counterproductive because the reformers would be seen as "puppets" of the West. To put it bluntly, the West (especially the US) putting its weight behind any candidate would make that candidate sink like a rock in popularity. The only way that a reformer can succeed would be like the founder of modern Turkey - he was a nationalist who people trusted was not a "puppet".

OTOH, the West is not "not doing nothing". It actively props up corrupt oppressive regimes with no legitimacy. In fact it created many of them in the first place in the post-colonial era. The main reason being oil. Hey, this should be a political option in CIV V...propping up corrupt regimes for access to resources. "Doing nothing" would result in a lot of pain for Western economies as friendly regimes collapse, Islamics take over, maybe a few civil wars and a general cut in the oil supplies for a decade or so. Woo boy what options:

1. Prop up distasteful corrupt oppressive regimes to keep supply of oil. People in ME hate us more and more.
2. Let regimes fall. Fundamentalist Islamic parties take over (of course if we hadn't supported the system in the first place, allowing them to squash any opposition but Islamic parties this problem wouldn't exist, but oh well) which are also distasteful but *are* legitimate as they have the support of the people and since we are democracies we believe that the support of the people is the most important thing. Oh and our economies collapse as the oil supply dries up. They'll probably still hate us for a while too due to our supporting their corrupt leaders for so long (see Iran).

Oh I forgot: I dont think we can, or should even try. This is their struggle. No matter what the West does, it'll be seen, at best, as meddling where we arent needed or wanted. We'd be criticized for doing nothing too, but I think thats preferrable.

 

[anarres]

I think we just plain dont like each other. Maybe because we're so similar. Both civilizations are proud, sure of their correctness and superiority and determined to be dominant. Whatever the reasons, its clear that we cant abide each other.

Hmm. Something is worrying me here.

You talk of civilizations as though they are single entities, acting like a person would. This itself is dangerous, for a myriad of reasons. First it assumes that the people (masses) are represented by their governments. Secondly it assumes that they contain the ability to conduct a rational discussion. Thirdly, it assumes they can (at least if they so desired) to actually act rationally.

I hope we can simply agree the first assumption is wrong. People are NOT by and large represented fairly by their governements, no matter what part of the world. This isn't to say governements don't sometimes try to represent the people, but they damn well don't and by definition can't, because of the variation of needs and beliefs across the people they serve. Secondly, a government rarely conducts rational debate. To assume a whole "civilization" can rationally think as a single entity simply proposterous. The third assumption is that if something is bloody obvious they civilization will go out and do it, rather than do the irrational thing. I hope this is another assumption we can quickly agree is nonsense.

Saying "I think we just plain dont like each other" and "Both civilizations are proud, sure of their correctness and superiority and determined to be dominant" clearly falls in to this mistake, and is the root of much of the distrust felt by the people (masses) on both sides.

Just so you don't think I'm picking on you Bozo almost everyone here does it, me included.

Oh I forgot: I dont think we can, or should even try. This is their struggle. No matter what the West does, it'll be seen, at best, as meddling where we arent needed or wanted. We'd be criticized for doing nothing too, but I think thats preferrable.

You see, once you think of this issue as "us" and "them" with human-like attributes for both sides, it is easy to say "they don't understand us" or "we're tried before and they always assume the worst when we try to help them". Both sides have people like you saying this, and both sides are ignoring the real people (masses) on both sides who are not being represented by their governments.

The reason for this rant is that I know many muslims in the west, many of whom have spent time in the ME (especially in Pakistan). They ALL say, without fail, that the vast majority of people they meet are piously religous and comitted to their lives like anyone else. The vast majority are NOT calling for violence and do NOT hate the west. And these *are* the fundamentalist Islamists. This is not what our TV tells us...

Now imagine you are a muslim in the ME. All the news on their TV says the west hates them. They ask the UK muslims who visit them what it's actually like here and find out that actually the vast majority of UK citizens DON'T hate Islam, DON'T persecute muslims, and they DIDN'T support the war in Iraq.

Did anyone ever stop to think there isn't such a huge clash here? And possibly that the "west" and "ME" as characterised means actually very little? Don't any of you ever feel abused by your representatives?

Personally Bozo, you may be in a "hate-hate" relationship with a mythical entity, but I am not.

P.S. This really isn't a personal attack Bozo - I picked up on your posts because they made me think about this, and it's something I've wanted to articulate for a while.