How to sell your soul and your country and get nothing in return

[fpb]

There used to be a nasty little joke going around about the more prejudiced sections of the English public: "Heard the last about (whatever war was going on at the time)? Italy has surrendered just in case." I do not seem to hear it any more; probably because people have learned better than to say it in my presence.

However, yesterday, it happened for real. Only it did not happen in Italy. It happened in Norway.

A few months ago, a Danish writer looking for an illustrator for a book on the life of Mohammed met with a problem: three professional illustrators in succession turned him down cold. The reason? They were afraid for their lives. Apparently word had got around the Danish artistic community that anyone who dared draw a likeness of the Prophet was liable to be murdered by some of his more committed followers.

A conservative news magazine called Jyllands-Posten heard the story and was furious. At its appeal, twelve cartoonists sprang forward and presented their own ideas of a likeness of Islam's founder. And the trouble began.

Denmark, like every other country in western Europe, has a Muslim minority, which, like all Muslim minorities, tends to overrate both its rights and its power. (The largest immigrant minority in Italy, for instance, in spite of our closeness to the Muslims world, is not Islam but the Eastern Orthodox churches.) Some violence, and a great many threats of violence, took place. Jyllands-Posten stood firm, stating in curt and admirably civilized words its own right of self-expression. The government was called upon to do something, and the Danish Prime Minister gave the dignified and courageous answer that the right to give orders to the Press is a right that a democratic head of government neither has nor wishes to have.

Muslim anger grew. How DARED this tiny little infidel country claim the right to draw pictures of the Prophet if they wished? That was an assault upon all the Muslims of the world! The nastiest kind of political fishermen started plunging hooks and sinkers in very muddy waters; and as the twelve original cartoons might not have been deemed outrageous enough (in fact, most of them were nothing more than drawings of conventional bearded Arabs in white clothes, only a minority being even humorous, let alone insulting), three more, truly outrageous ones, sprung up from nowhere, to whip the fanatical masses of the Muslim world into further fury. People who had never heard of Denmark in their lives were mustered in the streets to scream their hatred at the peaceful little country. The UN performed its usual blame-Abel-and-praise-Cain act. A boycott of Danish produce was called, and the Danish business community grew uneasy, begging the government to forget all this nonsense about dignity and freedom of expression - there were serious issues at stake here - money! (Thus the capitalists fulfilled once again their vocation of cowards, quislings and traitors at every time and in every country.)

(The episode of the three apocryphal cartoons I find particularly significant; not only because it is evidence of the deceit and propaganda on which Islamistic politics live, but also because it may have some psychological relevance. For a Muslim, consciously, the notion of drawing the Prophet in a truly vile and revolting guise would be something of the ultimate horror, even of suicide. And yet, one has to wonder whether the people who secretly produced these obscenities were not only fulfilling their propaganda duties, but letting loose those elements of inner revolt and suppression which are also visible in their incredibly short fuse and ease of hatred and violence.)

The Danish government, in spite of the occasional meaningless courtesy, did not give in. They behaved, in all and for all, as I would wish any free country's leadership to act. And then, yesterday, the Norwegian government, which had nothing to do with the affair at all, published this obscenity:

I am sorry that the publication of a few cartoons in the Norwegian paper Magazinet has caused unrest among Muslims. I fully understand that these drawings are seen to give offence by Muslims worldwide. Islam is a spiritual reference point for a large part of the world. Your faith has the right to be respected by us.
The cartoons in the Christian paper Magazinet are not constructive in building the bridges which are necessary between people with different religious and ethnic backgrounds. Instead they contribute to suspicion and unnecessary conflict.

Let it be clear that the Norwegian government condemns every expression or act which expresses contempt for people on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin. Norway has always supported the fight of the UN against religious intolerance and racism, and believes that this fight is important in order to avoid suspicion and conflict. Tolerance, mutual respect and dialogue are the basis values of Norwegian society and of our foreign policy.

Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of Norwegian society. This includes tolerance for opinions that not everyone shares. At the same time our laws and our international obligations enforce restrictions for incitement to hatred or hateful expressions.

To compare this kind of vileness to Vidkun Quisling is to do the most famous of all collaborators an injustice. Quisling was never abject before his Nazi masters, and did not try to make "freedom of expression" mean the opposite of what it does. The current Norwegian government is abject with a depth and thoroughness hitherto unknown in Europe.

Two of my online friends are a Norwegian and a Muslim. They are both very dear to me. I regret having to publish this, and I have been silent both about the trash that now "govern" Norway, and about my view of Islam, in order not to give pain. But there are times when to be silent is to fail in your duty, and this seems to me one of those.

I ask everyone who reads this to reprint it in their LJ or place a link.

Comments

[lyssiae.livejournal.com]

Done. I trust you know where to find it.

[kikei.livejournal.com]

however, the thing is, even if you are not a hardliner, drawing a likeness of the Prophet Mohammed (and of any divinely-appointed leaded such as any of the preceding prophets or of the 12 righteous Imams as the Prophet's successors) is actually a grave sin. However, that is not to say we don't have our Islamic magazines and that they aren't illustrated. We have a very beautiful one called Mujtaba, targeting children, and it is heavily illustrated. The only thing is that the faces of religious personalities are obscured and replaced by a representation of the light of Allah that was a characteristic of every Chosen person. Those who wanted the illustrations - and those who did them - could have taken this route, and the fuss would have been unfounded because it is only the strictest of the strict who would have frowned upon such images, since they would not have even shown the Prophet's face. I shall scan in some pages from the magazines that we have to show you... those are very beatiful illustrations, and Mujtaba magazine is sold around the world and is actually being distributed under the auspices of the World Federation of the Shi'a Ithna Asheri Jamaat. There has never been a fuss because the facial likenesses have never been produced, which is what should have been done in this case.

in the case of the obscene cartoons that were published - I do not know who drew them. If it was a muslim, then he has committed a vile sin. If it was not a muslim, then I would say that it may have been an attempt to discredit the religion. This is a parallel to the incident on Australia's 'Comedy Inc' where they made fun of the rituals of prayer by depicting women praying and providing voice overs stating, 'this is the way we bow to our husbands when they beat us' and 'this is how we open our wombs' etc. However, while a large percentage of the muslim population in Australia was outraged, on futher examination, it can be seen that these kinds of expression stem from a lack of understanding and perhaps a lack of willingness to understand. Skimming the surface of the issue and using it to draw attention to what may seem nonsensical to those outside the religion has been a tactic that's been around for ages, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.

On one hand, I do think that the Danish government was right not to interfere. As a journalism student, I'm fully aware of what rights the press is supposed to have, and that there are very few countries who truly uphold the freedom of expression. However, at the same time, I support the sentiments of the Norwegian government because they're upholding another kind of right - the right to be whoever you are without fear of being persecuted, the right of freedom of religion, the rights that every person would like to have when it comes to race and religion. If this had been another situation, and it had been muslims who were disrespecting Christianity, Judaism or any other religion... my views would have been the same.

Just my little opinion on the topic.

-Kiks

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Excuse me, Kiks, the issue is: this was work done by non-Muslims, for non-Muslims. If you presume to complain about that, you may as well demand that we pull down all our churches, since they feature all sorts of images of Issa, Ibrahim, Daoud, Suleiman, Ayub, etc... (Jesus, Abraham, King David, King Solomon, Job, etc.) This is neither more nor less than an attempt to influence the way we speak to each other, and as such, wholly unacceptable.

On the other hand, may I say that I appreciate your reasonable tone.

[kikei.livejournal.com]

That is true. however, it features the Prophet who founded the Islamic religion and hence, even if it is to make non-muslims understand more about the life of the Prophet Mohammed, it needs to take into account tenets of the religion itself. And as for the churches... well, I was in a catholic school for a significant portion of my life. I have been surrounded by images of the prophets, and every classroom had an icon. Reason I don't ask for the churches to be pulled down... well, I don't agree with the likenesses being there because that is what I've been taught and I understand why... from the aspect of my religion. But I understand that the icons, the images, the statues... these are aspects of another religion, not my own. Yes, we have the same Prophets but this is how others portray them, and I'm fine, I guess, as long as I'm not asked to follow that example and if I'm allowed to believe in what I choose to believe.

It's like, I may not agree with something in another religion... but I understand that everyone has their own traditions, and the right to believe. as such, I wouldn't call for images to be wiped from the churches, even though it goes against what I believe, because that is an area that is yours, and falls within your centre of religion. But Mohammed is our Prophet, and as such, a similar centre of our religion and the situation of creating a likeness needs to be dealt with delicately.

I still say, even though the book is written by and for non-muslims, there would be no harm in not creating the likeness of the Prophet's face... the story would come across just as well. We do plays and in those plays we cannot cast people to play the holy personalities because of this whole issue of likenesses... so we cover the actors' faces. Last year we recieved a great deal of opposition because of the issue of people being cast as certain personalities, but because we dealt with it in this way, it was approved. and not only that, those who came to watch who had basic or no knowledge about the event at hand learnt as well. we did not need the actors' expressions, even in something as dependent on facial expressions to convey thought and feeling as a play. the same goes for religious films. I watched a beautiful one last year on Mary and Jesus. The actors who played Zacharias and young Jesus had their faces edited out and replaced with a glowing light. and this movie was produced in Lebanon, so it needed to cater to both Muslims and Christians... and it did. in all cases, the story spoke for itself.

Because of the numerous times this issue has been encountered and tackled, I'm rather curious now that the writer, in his research, did not come across this method and utilise it. He could have requested an illustrator to draw the images but not the face of the Prophet. Or was he threatened by those so conservative that they would not even hear of a single illustration, faceless or otherwise? I don't know... I'd like to read more of that story if you have any links.

-Kiks

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The harm would be that, by making the prophet's face into a ball of light, the artist would implicitly accept YOUR view of the historical Muhammed. I should imagine this was fairly obvious. Such a representation as good as calls for worship; it imposes on the viewer the idea that the man in question is a supernatural being, or a supernaturally visited one. In other words, you force us to lose any debate as to the truth of Muhammed's supposed reveleation, even before it started. And that is not good argument, nor good sense.

[kikei.livejournal.com]

and does the book propose this view? if not that Mohammed was indeed the last Prophet (as we believe), then that he was blessed with revelations? the view is just as dependent on the content of the book as it is on the illustrations. If the book presents us with a 'supposed' view, that is, if it fosters debate over the truth/accuracy of Mohammed's status, then I see your point. However, if the book is written as if declaring that it is absolute truth that Mohammed was appointed by Allah as the last Prophet, then the illustrations showing his face as light would be completely in order. There is a combination of elements here... and until we have more information, the debate will go on and on and on.


(of course, healthy debate is always a good thing)

-Kiks

[fpb.livejournal.com]

My dear Kiks, how in the world could the book possibly propose the view that Muhammad really was the last prophet if it was not by and for Muslims? And how, conversely, can you expect anyone who is not a Muslim to accept that view? It would be as insane as to say "I believe that Jesus Christ was God Incarnate, died for our sins, and rose from the dead, but I am not a Christian." To anyone who is not a Muslim, Muhammad is an important historical figure, and that is how he is naturally treated.

[goreism.livejournal.com]

I think I read about this in the Corner.

First of all, why is it the Foreign Minister writing this e-mail? Is he speaking in some way for the Norwegian government, or is this in his private capacity? (He mainly uses the singular, which is why I ask.)

Secondly, what does "... enforce restrictions for incitement to hatred" mean? Apparently Magazinet, the Norwegian newspaper that published the pictures in support of Jyllands-Posten, hasn't been censured or anything.

I'm amused he referred to Islam as a "spiritual reference point."

[goreism.livejournal.com]

The cartoons can be seen here for anyone interested, and links to a lot of posts on it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The e-mail was to every Norwegian ambassador in the world, so one rather assumes that he was speaking in the name of the entity that passes for a government in Norway.

Cartooons

[pbswatcher.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting on this topic. The Danish newspaper which published the original cartoons has been forced to apologize. The Brussels Journal blog which has led the reporting of this attack on free speech is now receiving threats. Given the state of free speech in Europe as evidenced by the Italian "prove Christ existed" case, I expect Brussels Journal to be forced to remove the cartoons and their reporting. To guard against that possibility, I have reposted the cartoons and the Brussels Journal reporting thread on my blog. I urge all bloggers who care about free speech to do the same. See Farenheit 451 Alert (http://pbswatch.blogspot.com/2006/01/farenheit-451-alert.html)

[patagonian.livejournal.com]

The joke in the US is "Heard about (latest skirmish)? France surrendered just in case."

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Which is even more unfair and contemptible, given that it applies to the nation with the longest military tradition in Western Europe, the nation from which English adopted every single military term (from colonel to patrol to army to echelon to reconnoitre to corps to marines to commissariat to... well, you get it), whose army was the terror of the continent from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century, and which, even in the twentieth century, led the victory of 1918 (the French leader Clemenceau was the recognized leader of the allies and the person with the role of moral authority and inspiring force that Churchill had in the second frolic).

The reasons for French failure in 1940, 1954 and 1962 are complex and owe a lot to Anglo-American jealousy and backstabbing. But the notion that the French have any especial habit of surrendering is nothing but American ignorance. This is not of course intended against you - I notice that you compare it with a joke I describe as odious. But while Italy has frequently lost wars and been invaded by stronger and more barbarous enemies in her long history, anyone familiar with French history would know that 1940 is the exception rather than the rule. When the allies against Napoleon actually managed to invade France and take Paris in 1814, it was the first time in four centuries that any alien had managed it, and the feat was considered so tremendous that it was described, at the time, as the Great Invasion. Nobody thought it could be achieved again, and the Prussian victories of 1871 and 1940 were both greeted with universal stunned disbelief.

[patagonian.livejournal.com]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that that's a joke I make or think is funny. It's just every time I've heard that joke, France has been substituted for Italy.

I remember this one from Leno or Letterman:
Did you hear about the fight between Paris Hilton and Nicole Ritchie? France surrendered just in case.

I have tried to think of instances where I heard this joke before the Iraq War and I have a vague notion that I'd heard it before then, but no specifics. Since the Iraq War, obviously anti-French sentiment has greatly increased here. I haven't really heard anything from people close to me (except for my delusional uncle) but I hear it in pop culture a lot.

And as much as I hate to admit that we in the US are generally ignorant of what happens in the rest of the world or histroically, there is, unfortunately, quite a lot of truth in that.