The Muslim reaction was not at all surprising to me, but I'm hopeful it was a wakeup call to the people who were surprised. Islam is not a peaceful religion, and this episode is just another piece of evidence (start with the Koran itself).

I was disappointed by the "hijacked by extremists" meme that came out shortly after the burning embassies started appeared on the news; but, I guess that's to be expected.

I read that Iran was going to promote a cartoon contest ridiculing/criticizing the Holocaust, to see how important freedom of speech really is to the west. Do you think they will feel silly when no violence erupts?

Sorry to double post, but I found this Al-Jazeera story somewhat enlightening. The key part:

In order to allow “Freedom of Speech”, governments and organizations” must first understand what freedom of speech is. Is it freedom that violates the basic rights of one's faith? Is it disrespecting or insulting one's belief or culture or values?

The author, and I imagine a large portion of Middle Eastern society (perhaps other Muslim cultures as well), just doesn't understand the concept of freedom of speech. Criticizing other people's beliefs is the very foundation of freedom of speech. Who would restrict speech that they agree with?

I would pretty much agree that the "Cartoon War" would be just one more dustup over press and speech freedom were it not for the strong information war (infowar) aspects that stick out like sore thumbs.

Bloggers and some media (such as the WSJ) have traced the campaign to Danish imams traveling east with the 'toons and have noted the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood and other extremist Islamist groups. Seems to me the imams got a good bit of bang for their efforts; violent riots all over the place, burned Western embassies, hate stoking of the Muslim "street," and violence against coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. I wondered from the get-go about the "simultaneous and spontaneous" nature of the riots and the miraculous appearance of large numbers of Danish flags in corners of the world one wouldn't expect so many to be. Call me a cynic, but I'm suspicious of coincidence and, unlike those in denial, understand we are truly in the "Long War" here.

I think Justin is basically right but there are a few important rubs. First, substitute the scriptures of Judaism or Christianity and there is plenty of incitement to violence to go around. Islam is in its 14th century. Christianity in its 14th century was not exactly all about flower power now was it? Hell, 50 years ago saying certain things in certain parts of the U.S. could get you killed with little sleep lost so lets not get TOO high and mighty about our neighbors warts

A second thing - one that I orignionally considered while perusing the NY Times today - is the fact that a certain group of Europeans are in fact deliberately picking a fight here. This may be a bit more than they bargained for but there is a neo-fascist (lets not mince words)agenda in Europe and it is pretty well served by how this has played out. I doubt that was accidental.

Frank, re:

" the miraculous appearance of large numbers of Danish flags in corners of the world one wouldn't expect so many to be."

- a silk screen takes about an hour to make from scratch.

Michael,

I find myself oddly unreassured by your allusions to 14th century Europe and the battles between Christian sects that made the Middle Ages positively medieval. No doubt, had Joan of Arc's followers had access to a nuclear device or two things might truly have gotten out of hand.

However, when you refer to incidents of bloody violence within the past 50 years over offense to Christian sensitivities I have to ask myself if you may not just be making it all up off the top of your head. And when you suggest that enterprising screenprinters in 3rd world countries are capable of sudden shifts of production from burnable US flags to Danish ones overnight all on their own, then I indeed start to wonder about the depth of your naivety.

I await further insights on such life or death matters as non-proliferation (why shouldn't poor Iran have the bomb, after all we screwed Mossadeq didn't we?) how to deal with a Hamas led Palesinian Authority (we got exactly what we deserved there, insisting that benighted Arabs should be allowed to elect their own representatives), etc.

But getting back to the original question of the cartoons, I have just one semi-interesting thing to say. The Danes are catching flak from all sides, including a gratuitous slur from former bloviator in chief Clinton imputing a direct correlation between this "attack" on Islam and anti-Semitic sentiments. If he had ever read anything about the extraordinary lengths to which Denmark went in the 1940s to protect their Jewish minority from the Holocaust he would be reaching for his (familiar) sackcloth and ashes by way of apology. Every Dane, from the Royal Family down, put themselves at grave risk in order to spirit out of the country (by boat flotilla, in the dark of night) the country's entire smallish Jewish minority, as a result of which only a handful of Danish Jews perished in the Death Camps (which may or may not have existed, according to Michael's friends' reading of history).

In short, Denmark's record of tolerance and courage (the combination is rare indeed) are practically without peer in the world. If any Danes are reading this blog, my sympathy and my support are yours, without hesitation.

I don't think one can attribute TOO much of this to the interests of a small group in Europe provoking a fight. I wouldn't even hold that the cartoonists provoked the fight over free speech; after all, it's beeen going on for a time now in the Netherlands, with politicians in hiding and a prominent victim (Theo van Gogh). It is one thing to be provocative with a pen, cartoon, or film and quite another to be provocative with bombs, guns, and knives. One of these is necessary and healthy for democracy, and the other is not, and that is the response that must be made to the "pox on both their houses" equivalence crowd. Secondly, while in the 14th century Europe was no paradise for tolerance, the Renaissance was beginning in Italy and Christianity, theologically, had through Thomist thought finally come to reconcile faith with reason. I see little to suggest anything like that going on today. There may well be a contemporary Islamic theologican who has reconciled reason and Islam, but unlike 14th century Christianity there is no institutional monolith to impose this in a widespread manner like the Catholic Church. It is true that this decentralization also allows for there to be significant diversity within Islam, but the fact that if just 10% of the Islamic world believes in a violent, fundamentalist interpretation, then that represents 100 million people. Further, if they are all concentrated in one main location (as it seems they largely are), then that makes the numbers all the more potent.

I am speculating here, but I believe there is also a fundamental difference in a religion that believes that its holy text is the word of God delivered through inspired prophets and one that is believed to the be word of God, literally dictated to a prophet. Christianity spread through the Greek world, and thus absorbed that culture's infinite capacity for disputation, which from the beginning both multiplied heresies but also left a precedent for interpretation. Thus the Greek stamp has always been present in Christianity, and much of classical Greece's heritage (what we emphasize) consists of values we more or less consider liberal. Secondly, Christianity started as a religion on the "outside," one that was set up counter to both poltiical and religious authority. It largely spread and flourished amongst the lowest levels of the Roman imperial society, not reaching the highest levels for more than three centuries. Islam, within the lifetime of Mohammed himself, achieved a widespread success in both religious AND political terms. The implicit suggestion of a separation of secular and religious worlds (render unto Caesar...) within Christianity, is not possible in a religion that, by necessity or choice, also had to exist as a political structure.

How much of the protest is organic? Is it just theatre to try to scare the "European-american corperate, neo imperial, zionist entity?" Weapon of the weak.

To anyone who has paid attention to the vastly different reactions of the North American and European countries on the one hand and the Muslim and especially Arab countries on the other to the Darfur situation, the gap in comprehension over these cartoons comes as less of a surprise than it might be to others. Among the former the debate has been about whether we ought to do more. Among the latter there hasn't been much of a debate to speak of, and hardly any action at all.

So are we talking here essentially about the differences between civilization with all its flaws, and barbarism? Certainly there are opportunties abounding to show that we are not; though as a rule I deprecate riots as a means of political expression, even riots in Arab countries over the treatment of Darfur's mostly Muslim population by its Sudan's Arab-dominated government would be a step in the right direction.

I don't expect to see any such thing, of course. I just wanted to point out the difference between the things we in the West really believe about Arab countries in particular and what we find it convenient to assume. We don't really expect civilized norms to apply among Arabs (or Afghans, Iranians, and certain others), though it is always gratifying when they do and -- the relevant point -- the assumption that they will allows us to avoid confronting some very awkward questions. Rioting and other violence over cartoons published in a small Danish newspaper months ago makes this avoidance much more difficult. This is why the "cartoon riots" are significant.

First, substitute the scriptures of Judaism or Christianity and there is plenty of incitement to violence to go around.

Michael, can you show me one passage from the Torah or Bible that actually commands followers to commit violence upon others? Not in a historical account, mind you, but actively instructing people when it is proper to slaughter nonbelievers (for example).

I'm no scholar, and there may be such verses, but I've never seen or heard of them. I'd be interested to see such a thing so I don't make the mistake of saying they don't exist again.

Like the George Galloway-in-tights episode on "Big Brother," this outrage is too much for even the most diehard of the Euro-left's apologists for islamism. Head-hacking and terror can be excused, but not attacks on the right to mock religion.

In all seriousness, this is a taste for the left of what this controversy-- clash, if you like-- will look like once the huge distraction that is the Great BushSatan departs the scene. You can't split the difference or assign blame to both Bush and Osama any longer, folks. It's either our cherished liberal traditions, or religious tyranny. Time to choose a side.

Justin -

The Israelites were ordered to slaughter the Canaanites, IIRC. It's in Deuteronomy.

Bruce,

I think Justin's main point is that while there may be specific examples of such an order from God in Jewish history, there certainly exists no standing order to do so that I know of.

The cartoons are mild, banal, and stupid...the reaction equally so (note that those doing the rioting & protesting are only a tiny fraction of the Muslim world. Far more Muslims are peacefully registering their disapproval)

The interesting thing is the common violence. The fact that we have a violent reaction by some, does suggest their manipulation by elites (e.g. Syria) as discussed by other posters here. But its also suggests that these people are fundamentally angry at the West, and the cartoons merely give them a common pan-Islamic item to focus their anger on.

That is, they are all scared & pissed by the West, their poverty, globalization, etc. But until now all of the major threats to them have been against a distinct and separate sub-category of the Muslim world (Iraqi Sunni's, Osama, Iran). These cartoons, however meek, act as catalyst that unites their separate angers together and gives them an opportunity to vent. And they are eager to do this.

So the questions that remain are:
1) Will political innovators and/or Western stupidity provide further such catalysts to unite the Muslim world in anger against us?

2) What are *our* catalysts...things that will unite all Westerners to vent our separate frustration against what we see as the irrationality and intolerance of the Muslim world.

What is worse, insulting, stereotypical cartoons or muslims that confirm the stereotypes? They should be more offended by the violence than we.

However, when you refer to incidents of bloody violence within the past 50 years over offense to Christian sensitivities I have to ask myself if you may not just be making it all up off the top of your head."

Ask no more !!

Do a little bit of research on Ireland. In particular check out all the sectarian battles in Belfast. Riots in Belfast are hardly a new phenomenon. Nor are government restrictions on religious/political protests or even marches. The situation has improved in recent years, but Belfast could be as communally divided as any country in the world just a few decades ago.

Incidentally, it doesn't get much press attention, but Christian terrorists killed 40 plus people in the Indian North East last year. Still a fraction of those killed by Muslim terrorists in Kashmir, but the fact is that Christain terrorists do exist.

"And when you suggest that enterprising screenprinters in 3rd world countries are capable of sudden shifts of production from burnable US flags to Danish ones overnight all on their own, then I indeed start to wonder about the depth of your naivety"

Have you ever seen the Danish Flag ? Remarkably easy to make. I *could* make several, especially if its only intended for one-time use :-). Of course, the protests were organized -- that is indisputable, but that is a far cry from the postulated vast global conspiracy.

"n short, Denmark's record of tolerance and courage (the combination is rare indeed) are practically without peer in the world."

Denmark's treatment of Jews in WW-II is indeed commendably. Nonethless its a fact that the Danish government more or less collaborated with Germany for much of WW-II (at least till 1943). There was no real occupation of Denmark until then, and the Danish government remained intact. Danish industry also supplied Germany's war machine and used slave labor. You can argue that they really had no choice in the matter, no more than "neutral" Sweden did in allowing German troops to pass through, but the basic role of Denmark in WW-II was considerably more nuanced than your comments.

A few random points

1) Speaking of the cartoons, I thought the others were kind of dull, but the one about running out of virgins was really funny.

2) Freedom of speech isn't as firm in Europe as it is in the US. For instance, Germany bans many Nazi symbols. Many European countries ban so-called hate speech/ it is somewhat hypocritical for Europeans to defend free speech after not allowing it in many areas.

3) In 3rd world democracies, freedom of speech is even more circumscribed. In India, cartoons or songs or plays that could cause public disorder are regularly banned. Riots over such are not uncommon as well.

4) Of course the lack of freedom of speeech as well as anti-semitic cartoons published in the Arab press needs no further elucidation.

"They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC. "They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers."

Call us extremists? We will kill you to death! (well, your newspapers, anyhow)

Now, I've read elsewhere that the Qur'an also includes such infractions as drinking alcohol, eating pork, and men wearing gold jewelry as being forbidden. Seems the protesters have been very selective with their death threats.

Wanna be taken seriously? Then how about some consistency in your murderous intentions?

(sorry - I don't usually rant)

Now, I've read elsewhere that the Qur'an also includes such infractions as drinking alcohol, eating pork, and men wearing gold jewelry as being forbidden.

If you go to Ayatollah Sistan's web site (and to be fair, he's been very balanced in his comments about the cartoons), you will see that chess is banned and so is masturbation !!

If fatwas were issued against this -- well, there would be no Star Trek fans left.

@CMC -

there certainly exists no standing order to do so that I know of.

Point well made!

erg,

No offense, but you are that guy who, even when he agrees with 90% of what you are saying, starts every comment with "Not exactly..."

So the Danish flag COULD have been silkscreened--even you suggest it's much more likely to have been a set-up by (drumroll please) the Syrians, the Muslim Brotherhood and/or the Egyptian government. Maybe it's not a global conspiracy, but hey, conspiracy theory is big in the Middle East for a reason.

And so what if the Danes didn't commit mass suicide by resisting the might of the German Reich--who did? My point stands: the Danes behaved honorably in the face of grave danger--as did the Dutch (for which they suffered horribly) and isolated pockets of mensches across Europe. This is utterly lost in the current discussion and well worth bringing to the attention of the world. Because, dear erg, not everyone is as smart and well-informed as you and I ;)

> and one that is believed to the be word of
> God, literally dictated to a prophet

I am no big fan of the Latter Day Saints (Mormons), but they hold this belief and I haven't heard of them waging aggressive war outside their own territory, nor resorting to terrorism since they signed the last peace treaty with the US - despite the US' history of bad faith in that sorry episode of history.

Cranky

Christianity in its 14th century was not exactly all about flower power now was it?. 50 years ago saying certain things in certain parts of the U.S. could get you killed with little sleep lost so lets not get TOO high and mighty about our neighbors warts

Isn't the only reason that changed was because people got high and mighty about their neighbours warts? And went around saying things like "hey, it's completely wrong to kill people because of their skin colour, and it's not right to kill someone because you disagree with their religion?" I mean, the Civil Rights movement hardly stopped government discrimination by saying "Well, the Christian church of the 14th century was as bad, so what right do we have to pick on Jim Crow laws?", did they?

Ditto for current people who believe that any offense to their interpretation of Islam is death. This is exactly the time to get high and mighty about your neighbour's warts if you want to stop this behaviour.

Michael; I realize that a silk screen run can be set up and run in short order. That wasn't my point, which is that this was a pretty tightly and well run info-op by the Salafists designed to gin up lots of hate and discontent and thereby making life harder for the coalition, the US, Iraqi and Afghani gov'ts, and Eurabia in general. That's what asymmetrical warfare is supposed to do, sow discord and chaos while murdering a few folks to scare the locals. Check out Austin Bay's blog and others. The 'toons in question were evidently published in Egypt in October 2005 during Ramadan, with nary a peep -- this from an Egyptian blogger who has the information.

Check this article

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06153755.htm

Apparently someone is making money on the flag burning.

"ven you suggest it's much more likely to have been a set-up by (drumroll please) the Syrians, the Muslim Brotherhood and/or the Egyptian government."

I don't think the Egyptian government was involved, although the MB could certainly have been. There was certainly a considerable amount of local organization, but no huge conspiracy.

"And so what if the Danes didn't commit mass suicide by resisting the might of the German Reich--who did? "

Poland. Greece. Yugoslavia. Even Russia.

Denmark remained probably the only country in which the then government remained in power after the occupation. Most local institutions remained intact till 1943. Denmark itself surrendered after just a few hours.

Cranky,
Yes, that's true, but those "dictated to a prophet" words don't include things like the Sharia or concepts like Jihad. Furthermore, Mormonism must be placed within the Christian tradition (although certainly many Christians think it's a separate religion due to its additions), which I think is fundamentally different than Islam, and the founder and its adherents grew up in what was (and arguably still is) the most liberal society in the world at the time. That has to count for something.

Tracy,
To add another point on the whole "Christianity was no different 500 years ago" idea. We're not like that anymore. Many Muslims are. Why should the West regress to medievalism to satisfy the desires of zealots? Why should the dictates of multiculturalism demand that the crowning achievements of Western political thought--democracy, liberty, secularism--be cast aside for a vague notion of sensitivity which won't be respected anyway? The response to such efforts--to try not to offend, to be "sensitive" and "responsible" in the exercise of hard-won freedoms--will not be respect or gratitude, nor tolerance and understanding. The response will be contempt. Contempt for willingness to sell first principles for so little. Why should any moderate Muslim adopt a culture that gives away its most cherished beliefs the first time they are challenged by thugs? That is the behavior of a losing enterprise. Say what you will about the protesters in the streets, but they actually believe this stuff. The only question I have out of the mixed response to the challenge they pose is: What does the West believe? It may be that the riots demonstrate the worst stereotypes about Muslims, but the response of some--to cave immediately--is to confirm the worst stereotypes about the West: that we no longer possess the confidence to even save ourselves. It is probably true that in these attempts to placate that violence will lessen--temporarily, until the next row occurs. We would be well to remember Benjamin Franklin's wisdom on this matter: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

"I believe there is also a fundamental difference in a religion that believes that its holy text is the word of God delivered through inspired prophets and one that is believed to the be word of God, literally dictated to a prophet."

What about Judaism and the Ten Commandments ? Do you see a fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity ? I think that argument is very strained.

Also, I think you would be very hard pressed to claim that the God of the Old Testament was some kind of merciful god. Certainly you can see considerable intolerance towards other dieties (worship no god other than me).

To add another point on the whole "Christianity was no different 500 years ago" idea. We're not like that anymore.

As I pointed out before, there have been Christian religious riots, religious friction, the whole gamut in Ireland. And there are Christian terrorists in the world too. Obviously this does not begin to approach the scale of Islamic terrorism, but the problem of Christian zealotry is neither as comfortably distant in the past nor as anomalous as your statement would seem to imply.

Other religions are hardly immune. Buddhists, supposedly a peaceful group, have been involved in a bloody civil war in Sri Lanka. Hindu zealots in India routinely burn, riot and threaten artists, cartoonists and writers. [A very famous artist in India was recently forced to apologize after painting nude Hindu goddesses]

Is Islamic inherently more violent than Christianity (or indeed any other major religion) ? I don't think so. Even historically I don't see its record as being worse than those of other religions, all of which have some blood on their hands. Has the combination of religion, politics and culture lead to the growth of a very violent subculture in Islam ? Yes.

erg,
Pointing out northern Ireland is not incorrect, but it is a stretch to equate violence in Ireland with a continued sense of Christian militancy Europe wide, which simply doesn't exist. Ireland's conflict has a significant political dimension, and there seems no desire of the Catholics or Protestants there to export their violence around the world, or convince the world to their point of view. After all, when was the last time a foreign embassy was torched for insults to St. Patrick?

Yes, there are going to be religions that are also bloody and violent, and only the foolish would ignore the blood shed in the name of Christ. However, it's hard to point out anything post-1648 that indicates that religion played a dominant role in driving political violence in Europe. The point overall is that while Christianity has been very violent, and other religions can be violent, no other religion has reconciled itselt to modernity and secularism like it has. Perhaps, from a certain point of view, that is something to be lamented. But I believe, and maybe there is no way to prove this or convince others, that there is something about Christianity, its doctrines, and its specific history in the West that both allowed for secularism/modernity to occur, and for Christianity to peacefully co-exist with it. I remain doubtful whether Islam possesses that same flexibility (though I hope for it), and perhaps that doubt is shared by the militants, which may go some way in explaining the stridency of Islamism.

is a stretch to equate violence in Ireland with a continued sense of Christian militancy Europe wide, which simply doesn't exist. Ireland's conflict has a significant political dimension, and there seems no desire of the Catholics or Protestants there to export their violence around the world

I certainly wasn't suggesting a continued sense of Christian militancy Europe wide, which of course does not exist. I was simply pointing out that some of the communal tensions and violence that can be seen in Belfast mirror those in non-Western societies.

Where I disagree is that while Ireland's conflict has a political/cultural/social dimension, so does almost all religious conflict. And while Ireland does not export its violence abroad for the most part (there have been some occasional attacks on British soldiers abroad), IRA groups do obtain funding from irish groups in the US and elsewhere.

I think its also somewhat inaccurate to claim that religion was not a major factor in driving political violence after 1648. That may have been the case in England, but not necessarily in Continental Europe. (And I'm not even referring to the Ottomans here).

You can't split the difference or assign blame to both Bush and Osama any longer, folks.

Whyever not? Bush and Osama both deserve a whole lot of blame. It vaguely sounds like you're implying we should rally behind Bush and not impeach him, just because a bunch of muslims are mad at us. But that would be stupid. We desperately need to get Bush out of there whether or not we need to kill muslims.

It's either our cherished liberal traditions, or religious tyranny. Time to choose a side.

?? Of course I don't want the Religious Right taking over the country. But a very large minority, maybe a majority of this country doesn't have any cherished liberal tradition. It isn't time for an on-or-off choice now, and it may not be for another 50 years. Certainly not over a little media event like this.

If you look closely, you'll note that Christian violence was prevalent when a) Christian institutions were wedded to the state, and b) the states were all monarchical. Now, did the violence happen cuz religion corrupted the state, or because monarchs used religion to spin their vengefulness and covetousness?

One should compare apples to apples - public religion A to public religion B, private religion A to private religion B.

In my view all this situation has nothing to do, neither with free speech, nor with religion. It is about establishing Muslim’s exclusivity in the world. They can destroy Buddhas and burn flags and kill people by the name of God, they feel themselves entitled to publish anti-Semitic cartoons routinely with no hesitation but ,in the same time ,they are violently( I emphasize violently!!!) against anything that they uncomfortable with.
I meant same things that author of the Iraq the Model blog meant:
http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
“You know that those cartoons were published for the 1st time months ago and we here in the Middle East have tonnes of jokes about Allah, the prophets and the angels that are way more offensive, funny and obscene than those poorly-made cartoons, yet no one ever got shot for telling one of those jokes or at least we had never seen rallies and protests against those infidel joke-tellers.

What I want to say is that I think the reactions were planned to be exaggerated this time by some Middle Eastern regimes and are not mere public reaction.
And I think Syria and Iran have the motives to trigger such reactions in order to get away from the pressures applied by the international community on those regimes.

However, I cannot claim that Muslim community is innocent for there have been outrageous reactions outside the range of Syria's or Iran's influence but again, these protests and threats are more political than religious in nature.”

Is Islamic inherently more violent than Christianity (or indeed any other major religion) ? I don't think so

Well, yes, it is. First, its Prophet was basically a tribal warlord. Indeed, if you read the accounts in Ibn Ishaq and the Koran, your struck by the sense that he was founding a new tribe. The Muslims did this,the Muslims did that, the Muslims fought the Banu Quraiyzah at the battle of the trench, and so on. Christ and His followers simply did not engage in that kind of activity. So if your founder, you most revered man is basically a violent tribal leader,

Also, the Islamic world erupted in violence immediately after the death of Mohammed, resulting in the Sunni-Shia split we see even today. Christianity had grave theological and doctrinal disagreements from the start -- think of Peter and Paul's disagreements over the whether new Christians should have to obey Jewish ritual laws. But these disagreements were settled peaceably.

And when you have a religion with the ideology that everything outside its sphere -- the Dar-al-Islam -- is chaos fit to be conquered --Dar-al-Harb, the zone of war -- then yes, the religion is inherently more violent.

(Strange, the Dar-al-Harb v. Dar-al_Islam think is a mirror image of the neocons view of the world. Remember Wildavsky and Singer 'zones of peace, zones of conflict' schtick?)

First, its Prophet was basically a tribal warlord. Indeed, if you read the accounts in Ibn Ishaq and the Koran, your struck by the sense that he was founding a new tribe.

That is differnt from Christianity, but how is it different from Judaism ?

Also, the Islamic world erupted in violence immediately after the death of Mohammed, resulting in the Sunni-Shia split we see even today.

Muhammad was not just the prophet, he was also the leader of an empire. When any empire (especially a new one) sees its leader die, succession can be violent.

And when you have a religion with the ideology that everything outside its sphere -- the Dar-al-Islam -- is chaos fit to be conquered -

That term is not fopund in the Quran, and it represents one interpretation. In any case, I think you can find just as much Christian expansionism. Take Spain and Portugal in the new world for instance. Of course that had a lot of non religious motivations, but the same holds for Islamic expansionism under the Ottoman Empire or Babur.

Christianity's early years (as a largely underground religion) may have meant less to no violence in its early years. Yet when Christianity became widely adopted, violence in its name was as common as in the name of Islam. Remember the Crusades (largely a religious undertaking, despite its political components) ? Also, I think you can make a good argument that until the 20th century, Islamic empires and countries were more tolerant to Jews in their midst than many Christian countries (especially Continental Europe).

Christianity had grave theological and doctrinal disagreements from the start -- think of Peter and Paul's disagreements over the whether new Christians should have to obey Jewish ritual laws. But these disagreements were settled peaceably.

Oh wow. Can I have some of what you've been smoking?

Or did you just get here from Dimension X?

Re: the "tribal warlord" aspect of the three monotheistic religions, erg asks what difference existed between early Islam and Judaism. Um, how about the minor matter of the imperative to convert everyone-were there roving bands of Jewish warriors spreading the faith and conquering neighboring tribes that I have somehow missed out on?

Which leads to your second quibble with Mitchell, about Muhammad's "secular" role as leader of an empire. Again, erg, you fail to address the central point--that empire-building is central to the original Islamic project, with all the bloodshed and coercion that entails. That the Sultans were "nicer" to the Jews in their midst than some Christian rulers (a proposition called into question, I think, by the large-scale growth of Ashkenazi populations vis-a-vis their Sephardic brethren, but let's not argue) is hardly a justification for the originary act of conquest (if it were we'd all be celebrating the benevolence of the British and French Empires today) nor does it address the crippling burden posed by the "dead hand" of the Caliphate well into the modern era.

The Israelite's original move into God's promised land of Canaan seems to have been ruthless, & very bloody.

1.) Jim Lehrer's "News Hour" showed footage of the cartoons on Thursday, Feb. 2. The footage was contextual and responsible - and I think necessary. There was no outrage, as far as I have heard, and I am glad.

2.) The focus of rage on Denmark is pretty unfair, because so many other countries' news sources have printed the same cartoons. Other countries are just as "guilty."

3.) If the newspapers and governments have already apologized as much as they plan to, how will the unrest stop? Or will it escalate?

4.) Has Sam Huntington been interviewed yet about the relation between his "clash" thesis and these events?

The quote J. Thomas derides above is in fact mostly accurate as a matter of history. In Christianity's early years -- the first couple of centuries, in fact -- the Roman Empire had a monopoly on the means of violence. It strongly discouraged civil disturbances, whether these stemmed from religious controversies or not. Jesus' teachings (coincidentally or not) and those of His apostles reinforced the disincentives to violence against those of other faiths that a small, physically weak religious community would have had anyway in that environment; they also encouraged errors in doctrine among professed believers to be dealt with by separation (and, of course, by the writing of polemics).

Of course in later centuries the situation was very different. The question one must ask is, how relevant is this to the cartoon controversy?

I don't think it's relevant at all, frankly. History provides plenty of material if one is looking for debating points to hurl back and forth -- but the facts are, right now, that terrorism in the world is being committed (and defended) mostly by people claiming to act in the name of Islam, and that demands to curtail freedom of speech in Western countries are also coming mostly from people claiming to speak for Islam. Whether their claims are generally accepted by Muslims seems to me the critical question. Unfortunately it is not a question non-Muslims can answer.

Zathras, of course christians didn't kill their heretics until they got the power to do so. But then, neither did muslims. The koran has plenty of demands for peaceful coexistence etc. The chapters are in chronological order, and the calls for peace tend to come in the early days when they were weak. Same sort of thing.

Christians sacrificed the mithran priests on their own altars. They were responsible for a whole lot of atrocities, against christians and others.

Cf the old joke:

"What's the difference between Dominicans and Jesuits?"

"Well, one difference is that Dominicans were created to attack Albigensians, while Jesuits were created to attack Protestants."

"What other differences are there?"

"Seen any Albigensians lately?"

but the facts are, right now, that terrorism in the world is being committed (and defended) mostly by people claiming to act in the name of Islam, and that demands to curtail freedom of speech in Western countries are also coming mostly from people claiming to speak for Islam.

Well, no.

20 years ago, 50 years ago, we were saying that the terrorism was mostly communist. Except for the freedom-fighters we supported, of course. But then the USSR fell and we said we won, and pretty quick there were no more communist guerrillas or terrorists.

Was it that the terrorists had depended all along on russian funding and training and backup, and without russian pay they quit? Or did it simply become unfashionable to call them communists? If Chavez had come along 30 years ago, wouldn't we say he was a communist and call his armed supporters terrorists, and if we tried to get a coup started and failed, everybody would be "Oh, too bad"?

We see muslim terrorists right now because that's what we're looking for.

Demands to curtail freedom of speech are coming much much more from the US right than from muslims. Muslims got offended by some cartoons. US authoritarians control all three branches of government. Which is the greater threat to free speech?

This is starting to look like a clever ploy to get us to ignore the real enemy.

rg asks what difference existed between early Islam and Judaism. Um, how about the minor matter of the imperative to convert everyone-were there roving bands of Jewish warriors spreading the faith and conquering neighboring tribes that I have somehow missed out on?

Kelli please read carefully. The original post specifically said that Islam was different because its leader was a tribal warlord. Please explain how this differs from Judaism.

Also, the Old Testament God most definitely says that the chosen should be no covenant with Hittites, Canaanites and should not permit them to live in their lands. You can find plenty of intolerance towards other religions in the Old Testament as well.

Again, erg, you fail to address the central point--that empire-building is central to the original Islamic project, with all the bloodshed and coercion that entails.

Almost all religions (well, almost all successful religions) try to perpetuate themselves in various ways. There is nothing unique to Islam in that respect and its intial expansion (post MUhammad) was as much political as it was religious. Certainly the Ottomans spent as much time fighting Muslims as they did Christians.

In Christianity's case, the religion was largely underground till Constantine. But when the religion became, if you will, the official state religion, it was used to justify expansionism as well.

That the Sultans were "nicer" to the Jews in their midst than some Christian rulers (a proposition called into question, I think, by the large-scale growth of Ashkenazi populations vis-a-vis their Sephardic brethren, but let's not argue) is hardly a justification for the originary act of conquest (if it were we'd all be celebrating the benevolence of the British and French Empires today)

Well, thats what Niall Ferguson does :-)

But you're missing the point completely again. The point is not so much that the Ottomans or the Malemukes or Mughals or others were benevolent or not. The point simply is that Islamic empires were no worse (and probably better) to their unbeliever subjects (at least to Christian and Jews, if not to Zoroastrians or Hindus) than Christian empires, thereby calling into question the notion that empire or violence towards unbelievers is a uniquely Islamic trait.

Erg,

Crusades. The Crusades were a defensive war, fought first to open traditional pilgrimage routes and finally with the objective of taking back what had been lost to the sword. Unless you subscribe to some sort of Islamic Brezhnev doctrine, I don't see how you can object.

Vicious European Empires: Well, you'd think, then, that India would be 100% Christian today, wouldn't you. Well, its not. In fact both the British East India company and later the India office discouraged missionary activity, let alone forced conversion. Tell me about the forced conversion in Viet nam, in Nigeria, ---okay don't. It didn't exists. Oh, the Black Legend, the evil Spaniards, you say. Well, read Las Casas. The Spanish clergy protected the Indians from the more rapacious Spanish grandees, there was little forced conversion, just gradual teaching, plenty of syncretism, and patients.

What's that -- the Muslims didn't forcibly convert? Well, ever heard of devshirme, the child tax that Balkan peasants were forced to pay to the Sultan. And force is a funny word. If a Christian refused to pay the jizya , the poll tax designed not only to raise money from the conquered but to humiliate them, they would certainly find themselves at the end of Muslim force.

All of this, and there is plenty more, goes back to one thing. Islam was founded by a tribal chief, who essentially started a new tribe. Jesus, on the other hand, was from a tribe but founded a peaceful, ethnically tolerant religion. Islam is tolerant only of itself.

I realize that if you are under 35 you have been told all your life how great Islam is, tolerant, great scientific discoveries, alchemy, algebra, etc. But man, read a little on your own. Islam always has been, and especially now is, a uniquely violent religion.

Crusades. The Crusades were a defensive war, fought first to open traditional pilgrimage routes and finally with the objective of taking back what had been lost to the sword.

The notions that the Crusades were a defensive war is such total nonsense that you should be embarrased to repeat it. Christian pilgrimage was most definitely allowed at the time of the First Crusade. Furthermore, Arabs had controlled the holy land for three centuries at least before the first crusade (and before that, it was largely controlled by Romans).

I would suggest reading "Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds". it has a huge section on the First Crusade, and how it grew as an act of religious mania. Its worth pointing out too that the Crusaders slaughtered Jews in Europe in huge numbers.

Vicious European Empires: Well, you'd think, then, that India would be 100% Christian today, wouldn't you. Well, its not. In fact both the British East India company and later the India office discouraged missionary activity, let alone forced conversion.

It is true that later Empires (the 19th century ones) like the British Empire were more motivated by commercial or political goals rather than religion. The British most definitely encouraged missionary activity after 1813, though. Certainly the fact that they were had to hold on to a far larger populace and often did so by playing various religious groups against each other was a factor in Britains actions.

Furthermore the Portugese in India definitely used forced conversion in their colonies. These areas still remain Christian.

Oh, the Black Legend, the evil Spaniards, you say. Well, read Las Casas. The Spanish clergy protected the Indians from the more rapacious Spanish grandees, there was little forced conversion,

More nonsense. There was plenty of forced conversion. In any case, Imperial Spain's intolerance towards its Jewish subjects is too well known to repeat.

If a Christian refused to pay the jizya , the poll tax designed not only to raise money from the conquered but to humiliate them, they would certainly find themselves at the end of Muslim force.

No one is suggesting that Muslim empires were all or even mostly benevolent. Yes, there was the Jaizya imposed on non-believers (although the tax also meant they didn't have to serve in the army and didn't have to pay the Muslim charity tax). yet, this was no worse than taxes often imposed on Jews in the Christian world. We know that both Christians and Muslims in battleground areas like Spain and the Balkans were often bloody and brutal with peach others population.

We also know that when the Crusaders took Jerusalem, they looted and massacred Muslim women and children, but when Saladin retook it, he treated captured Christians honorably.

Islam was founded by a tribal chief, who essentially started a new tribe. Jesus, on the other hand, was from a tribe but founded a peaceful, ethnically tolerant religion.

The original precepts of Jesus were peaceful, but the fact is that when Christianity became an official religion rather than an underground one, it was responsible for as much bloodshed as any other religion.

I realize that if you are under 35 you have been told all your life how great Islam is, tolerant, great scientific discoveries, alchemy, algebra, etc. But man, read a little on your own.

I grew up in a religiously divided neighborhood where riots between Hindus and Muslims occurred practically every year on religious days. I dare say I have far more first hand experience with Muslim intolerance than I would gain from "reading a little".

Kelli please read carefully. The original post specifically said that Islam was different because its leader was a tribal warlord. Please explain how this differs from Judaism.

Also, the Old Testament God most definitely says that the chosen should be no covenant with Hittites, Canaanites and should not permit them to live in their lands. You can find plenty of intolerance towards other religions in the Old Testament as well.

In all fairness, the question you asked appeared to be asking for any difference between them.

You noted a similarity -- both were founded by tribal warlords. Kelli noticed a difference -- islam encouraged conversion, and converts were supposed to get essentially-equal status. Israelites discouraged conversion and people who had land they wanted were supposed to get a choice between relocating quickly or being slaughtered. Note the story of the -- Amelekites? -- who wanted to convert and agreed to adult circumcision, who were slaughtered while they were laid up from the circumcision.

So there is a difference.

There's an old american slogan that goes, "If you can't beat them, join them.". But what do you do when you can't beat them and they won't let you join them? I guess, you just accept that you aren't one of the Chosen People....

The First Crusade was an incredibly tardy defensive war.

The First Crusade was an incredibly tardy defensive war.

Life moved at a slower pace back then ; ) Seriously, the Spanish took 700 years to fully regain their land, I would say that was defensive campaign -- or campaigns. But maybe 'justified war of reconquest' would have been better.

Jizya Serving in 'the army' was more like having the right to bear arms. In the Bosnian case, that was definitely a good thing -- that's how you extracted rent from your kmets. In other words, it was a meal ticket, expressly forbid to Christians. You could also engage in ghazi raids against neighboring Christian territories, pick up some slaves, destroy some property, report back to the Sultan were weakness could be found...that sort of thing. Amazingly, the ghazi thing appears on the eastern borders of Islam, which tells me its associated with the religion, not the specific conditions on the western border of the Ottoman empire.

And erg, the description of your neighborhood would seem to bear out the general point. But maybe the Hindus are creating the agression.

Seriously, the Spanish took 700 years to fully regain their land, I would say that was defensive campaign -- or campaigns. But maybe 'justified war of reconquest' would have been better.

You're talking about the Spanish wars or the Crusades ? The First Crusade was started for political reasons as much as religious, and it lead to a wave of religious mania and fanaticism. The original batch of Crusaders massacred thousands of Jews in Germany and caused so much havoc in East European and Byzantine territories that many East European kingdoms actually fought them. And when the Crusaders took Jersualem, they slaughtered Muslim women and children.

Even King Richard, generally considered to be the epitome of chivalry, was not above a few massacres of his own (at Acre).

Also, if native Americans tried to retake the US, you would say it was a war of "justified reconquest" ?

And erg, the description of your neighborhood would seem to bear out the general point. But maybe the Hindus are creating the agression.

I mentioned my ex-neighborhood simply to emphasize that I wasn't some ivory tower dweller who observed Islam through rose tinted glasses. I don't see the historical record of Islam as necessarily worse than that of other major religions, including Christanity. Now, as Zathras says, the historical record may not be that useful, what we're focused on is today, where the major threat is indeed Islamic terror.

Erg, I think you misstated that somewhat.

The major threat today is the USA. We are the only superpower. Nobody else can threaten like we do.

The major threat *to the USA* is islamic terror, which is a measure of how very unthreatened we are.

"It is true that later Empires (the 19th century ones) like the British Empire were more motivated by commercial or political goals rather than religion. The British most definitely encouraged missionary activity after 1813, though. Certainly the fact that they were had to hold on to a far larger populace and often did so by playing various religious groups against each other was a factor in Britains actions."

Erg obviously knows a fair amount about Indian history--which is why s/he should not deliberately distort it. "The British" most definitely did not encourage missionary activity from 1813 on. True, it was allowed from that time, but colonial administrators differed widely in the latitude they permitted--Bentinck was the first pro-evangelical Governor General (1828-35); after the Mutiny of 1857 the position of the British Indian Govt was generally NOT to favor Christians over non-Christians. That's a Golden Age for Christian evangelism in India of roughly a quarter century. No wonder there were so few conversions.

"Furthermore the Portugese in India definitely used forced conversion in their colonies. These areas still remain Christian."

Again, erg, technically accurate but far from sufficient. The Portuguese, unlike the British, positively encouraged their officers and soldiers intermarriage with local populations, believing it to be healthier for the Europeans and conducive to smoother relations with the colonized. THAT, rather than the "forced" conversion of local subjects helps explain the popularity of Christianity in Portuguese colonies, then and now.

We're pretty far from Danish cartoons by now, but I can't resist the urge to play "Niall Ferguson" with erg.

"The British" most definitely did not encourage missionary activity from 1813 on. True, it was allowed from that time, but colonial administrators differed widely in the latitude they permitted--Bentinck was the first pro-evangelical Governor General (1828-35); after the Mutiny of 1857 the position of the British Indian Govt was generally NOT to favor Christians over non-Christians"

Kelli, we're arguing over semantics here, over the exact meaning of "encourage". I claim that the British did encourage missionaries. And it took a very major event and a very major uprising (a revolt in 1857), partly driven by religious fears that led them to change, since after all money was a lot more important than proselytizing.

The Portuguese, unlike the British, positively encouraged their officers and soldiers intermarriage with local populations, believing it to be healthier for the Europeans and conducive to smoother relations with the colonized.

In India, the Portugese most definitely did use forced conversion. Lookup the history of Goa, dearie.

But I'll be the first to say that the British were almost certainly more tolerant towards other religions in India than most of the Indian princes, emirs and emperor they replaced. By the 18th and 19th century, European empires were driven by mercantilism and politics rather than religion (which didn't prevent some of them, albeit not the British, from being pretty bloody).

The appropriate comparison with expansionist Islamic empires might be with older empires such as the Portugese and the Spanish.

The major threat *to the USA* is islamic terror, which is a measure of how very unthreatened we are.

Its not just a threat to the USA. Its also a threat to West Europe. Its also a threat to India, Israel etc. Its a threat to Russia (although you can make a good argument that the Chechens are driven more by culture than religion).

Also, if native Americans tried to retake the US, you would say it was a war of "justified reconquest" ?

Yes. And its happening. Their secret weapon, the Casino!

Actually the secret weapon of the American Indians is using terms like "Native American", which implies that only they are real Americans and uses racism to proclaim their victimhood. Anyone born in America - including me - is a "native" American. The fact is the Indians were defeated in battle because they had a primitive culture, like that of Islam today. The Islamists are playing this game in their asymmetrical warfare, too, using all the liberal shibboleths like "fairness" and "free press" and "justice". The reality is they know nothing of freedom and don't want to. And, damn it, they attacked us. Now they want to tell us what to print in our newspapers. Why would any sane person agree to that? Bottom line, they're a pack of whining losers.

Here's the latest photo of Muslims rioting over a silly cartoon http://www.frankfrazetta.com/ff/bio/1960/neanderthal.jpeg

Robert, why are you paying so much attention to a pack of whining losers?

I do it because it's kind of fun. We have a pack of whining losers who constantly complain about muslims, and I kind of like ragging on them a little.

But why do you pay attention to the muslim whining losers?

"The appropriate comparison with expansionist Islamic empires might be with older empires such as the Portugese and the Spanish. "

Finally, erg, something I agree with you 100% on.

Peace

I note that a number of people who commented above need to work on their reading comprehension. (Thats fine for me its spelling and grammar)This is all just a sad fact of blog commenting I suppose. For what it is worth at this very late date I want to point out/reiterate some things.

1) I agree with Justin's basic statement that the muslim arguement was not surprising. Also I think it is bad. However I argue this has less to do with what Islam is at its core than where it is in its history. In the revealed religions you have the text and you have the intepretation of the text. The texts don't change much but the interpretations do.

I realize this is horribly reductivist but it appears to take a couple millenia for people in these traditions to come down from the holy high horse and iron out a workable theology that is compatible with everyday reality. I offer no theory why this would be so but it does hold out the hope that as history moves on, the Islam of tommorow will incorporate nuance at a pace commensurate with the last six hundereed years of development in Christian life for example. Islam without violence is not implausible.

2) Justin take 10 minutes to read Samuel I Ch 14 and 15 in the old testament. You can find it online. The matter of factness about killing the Amelekite babies is noteworthy. I won't quote the torah because I'm not familiar with that document and the only sources I am aware of are all Neo-Nazi websites, I'm sorry to say.

3) My comment about the use of silk screens is simply an observation. I am not claiming that all of the flags we saw were manufactured by silk screens or that it is even likely any were. But the appearance of the flags was offered as evidence that there was a conspiracy and I am simply providing a counter fact to demponstrate it is very weak evidence. I am sure there was some government involvement at some level but that certainly is not the whole story because as every one admits there is in fact genuine popular outrage. Commenters who emphasising the orchestration can only diminish the importance of the public outrage, and that is a mistake. As Justin indicated in the first post, the public outrage is the real issue here.

4)When I say that similar taboos existed in the US I meant specifically as related to race relations in the South. This doesn't make Muslim intolerance OK and I never said it did. To use an analogy - before a recovering alchoholic lectures another alcholic he starts by saying he's a recovering alchoholic. Otherwise, there is no credibility.

5) The running out of virgins toon was by far the funniest.

"Note the story of the -- Amelekites? -- who wanted to convert and agreed to adult circumcision, who were slaughtered while they were laid up from the circumcision"

as info
A. It wasnt the amalekites
B. the guys who were killed after circumcision were part of a tribe that had raped the sister of the sons of Jacob. It was blood revenge, not conquest - this takes place when their just a family, not a people conquering Canaan. And even so, Jacob reproves his sons for their action, and one of the ring leaders, Reuben, loses his birthright as first born to Judah.

In any case, i dont know what this has to do with Denmark

oh wait, youre all arguing about the first comment, rather than about the matter in the news.

Why should i be surprised?

Liberalhawk,

I assume your not responding to my reference to the Amelekites because I am in fact talking about the Amelekites.

Samuel I Ch15.v3:

"Now go, attack the Ameliekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, cames and donkeys"

The rub is that Saul shows mercy towards the Amelekite king and is as a result rejected by the Lord.

I think Andrew Sullivan gets far too hysterical, Dan. Thanks for your other links though. Keep it up!