There has been a lot of discussion about trying to frame the cartoon issue as "Freedom of Speach" versus "Religious Law" or some variation on this them (Enlightenment viewpoint of self-critism versus Respect for religious sensitivities). These may be side issues or good arguing points, but what this whole controversy is about is just ....Power. Power to intimidate, power to silence, power to dominate. The same as you see in the middle east against choice, against women, against foreign ideas and beliefs.

To summarize and to put things into perspective - This whole issue started when a Danish Newspaper requested cartoonists to draw pictures of Mohammed after the editor found out a woman author could not get anyone to draw pictures in a children's book on the life of Mohammed due to fear. The idea was to show that pictures could be drawn. This was in September. Danish Imams protested and began circulating the pictures in the Middle East with "enhancements" - ie, additional pictures that were not in the publication that were truly offensive - pigs heads on the Prophet and so forth. (All this informaton was presented on a recent (Feb 4) BBC Hardtalk program with the Danish Editor and the Imam in question)

Now we have embassies burned in Damascus and the cartoonists in hiding and people carrying "Behead those who Insult Islam" in London. And lots of Danish Flags burned (so much for respect for Christian symbols too - there is a white cross on that flag)

But back to the point - this whole issue was set up to inflame the Muslim world one more time against "injustice" from the West. To move the "acceptable criticism" point further down the field and to insure that any issue related to middle eastern politics or behavior is a closely intwined with Islam as possible. This muzzles the critics due to fear of a similar outburst and gives the "religious elders" the whip hand in threatening to stir up a similar tempest. And if you protest - why, then you must be anti-Islamic!

Power ....and Submission. This is the great game in the middle east and it is being played out on your TV set. Watch as the debate is shifted to "sensitivity" and "respect" away from "challenge and defend". The question really is, when will someone say "Not Here!"?

After this cartoon uproar, I was reminded of the Buddha statues all blown to hell by the Taliban in Afghanistan... Muslims blowing these up purposefully and where were the Buddhists screaming for bloody retribution?

Images of Mohammed were alledgedly forbidden by him (a mortal) to be created, so he wouldn't be deified...looks like a whole lot of Mohammed-worshipping going on here.

For what it's worth, I am, as a woman, vastly offended by the Q'uran...as well as the Catholic church's edicts...and others in the list of these major players in the "world religion" scene and their mysogynistic "rules" and treatment of my gender. Is anyone (including all these revolting anti-cartoon massses) even thinking or caring about offending me & half of the world's population on a daily basis?

A paragraph in the German magazine "Die Zeit", in "Allah und der Humor" (Allah and humor) in an article written by Jörg Lau, quoting the islamist imam Abu Laban who lives in a northern quarter of Kopenhagen.

The article describes the history, including the fact that the whole story started with a quest for illustrations for a childrens book to teach Danish children about Islam. I am not going into the details of the article here, but the following quote is in a section on how islamists have managed to hijack the moderate Muslim communities with help from the right wing xenophobic Dansk Folkeparti.

http://www.zeit.de/2006/06/D_8anemark_neu?page=all

Genau wie die Strategen der Dansk Folkeparti hat er kein Interesse daran, dass Muslime sich als ganz gewöhnliche Dänen zu sehen beginnen. Ein Muslim, erklärt der Imam freundlich, könne nie ein Bürger eines westlichen Staates sein wie jeder andere. Er schließe einen »Sicherheitsvertrag« mit dem säkularen Staat, dürfe aber als wahrer Gläubiger den Säkularismus – die Trennung von Religion und Staat – nie akzeptieren. Seine erste Loyalität müsse immer dem religiösen Gesetz, der Scharia, gelten. »Wir Muslime«, sagt der Imam, »dürfen und müssen die Redefreiheit nutzen – sofern sie den Zielen des Islams dient.«

Like the Dansk Folkeparti's strategists, he [Abu Laban, transl.] has no interest in Muslims seeing themselves as ordinary Danes. A Muslim, he explains, could never be a regular citizen of a secular country. He would have a "contract of security" with the secular country, but as a true believer, he could never accept secularism - the separation of religion and state. His first loyalty would always have to be to the religious law, the sharia. "We Muslims," he says, "may and must make use of freedom of speech - as long as it serves the goals of Islam."

An effective political cartoon satirizes and brings to light absurdities and hypocrisies. The Danish cartoons were most ineffective in that regard. Except for the one with Muhammad turning away suicide bombers in heaven with, “Stop! There aren’t enough virgins left!” (which was somewhat funny), the rest are unclear, not funny, or just insulting without making a point. They fail as art or journalism and are in poor taste.

I also don’t buy the Pollyanna argument that the newspaper only printed them as an exercise in free speech. Clearly, there is contempt for Muslims and Islam behind the move. I’m all for engaging in honest and intelligent debate about the relationship of Islam vis-à-vis violence, oppression of women, freedom of speech and religion, pluralism, etc., but these inane cartoons are not a constructive contribution to that dialogue.

That being said, *of course* the European newspapers had a right to publish them, no matter how unwise the decision was. A free press is the cornerstone of a liberal democratic society. Radical Muslims boycotting Danish products, burning flags, attacking embassies, and issuing death threats come off as wild maniacal barbarians and embarrass the rest of the moderate Muslim world. Instead of honoring their tradition, they confirm every stereotype of Islam being a savage, totalitarian, and irrational religion and culture.

If Muslims truly want to follow the example of the Prophet Muhammad, they should remember how he always forgave personal insults, that he was quick to forgive, and that he showed mercy when others wanted revenge (at least according to the more authoritative ‘Hadith’, or recorded sayings of the Prophet). The mature response to the cartoons would have been to write a respectful letter to the editor stating how the images are hurtful and how they do not contribute to a useful dialogue. Instead, we have this cartoonish ‘clash of civilizations.’

This whole episode reminds me of the philosopher Ken Wilber’s paradigm of conflicting worldviews. Muslims seems to be stuck in the “blue” mythic order rung of human development. This includes an all-powerful Order (i.e., Allah) that gives meaning and purpose, an absolute rigid code of conduct and morals, a concrete-literal belief system, and a strongly conventional and conformist culture (herd mentality).

While the Western world still has elements of “blue” consciousness (Christian fundamentalists, extreme nationalists), it has largely evolved into the next two phases of human development: “orange” scientific rationalism (as in the Enlightenment, capitalism, secular humanism) and “green” ecological pluralism (as in postmodernism, deep ecology, relativism, diversity movements, political correctness).

The “orange” Westerners see the world through the lens of rationality and reason and value scientific truth and individual liberty, so they see Islam (and most “blue” cultures) as a completely outdated, obscurantist and dangerous way of life and of thinking. They are the ones most vehement in opposing radical Islam’s threat to secular society.

The “green” Westerners just want everyone to get along and hold hands, so they see any criticism of Islam and Muslims as bigoted, ignorant, and ethnocentric.

As an ex-Muslim, I sympathize with both “orange” and “green” impulses, while also understanding, though not subscribing to, the “blue” ones. The “green” worldview is good in that it helps build bridges of understanding between people, but it is ineffective in taking real ethical stands against injustices and irrational thinking which are prevalent in Muslim societies.

On the other hand, the problem with critiques of Islam is that they are often tainted with “blue” contempt and antipathy (from Christians who see Islam as a false religion and Muhammad as a murderous false prophet), or with “orange” arrogance and condescension (from secularists who mock all supernatural belief systems from their ivory tower academies). Now, most of the “orange” critiques are valid, in my opinion, but they need to be sensitive like the “greens” in acknowledging that all human societies pass through the “blue” mythic phase and that it is integral to human development.

Islam is in dire need of a vertical spirituality as embodied by many Sufis, as opposed to flat rigid totalitarian religiosity of the radical Wahhabis, Salafis, and other extremist-literalists. Unless moderate Muslims speak up and take back the reins of their faith, the radicals will end up destroying that which they claim to cherish.