Posted on 02/04/2006 3:54:32 PM PST by Fzob
By ROLAND FLAMINI
UPI Chief International Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Feb. 3 (UPI) -- In September, when the conservative Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published satirical cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed depicted as a terrorist, angry Arab ambassadors in Copenhagen requested a meeting with Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. They were demanding severe punishment of those responsible, as well as an official apology from the Danish government. Rasmussen refused to see them, arguing that the Danish government doesn't interfere with the press.
By the time Rasmussen was forced to change his tune Friday demonstrators across the Islamic world were burning the Danish flag, besieging Danish and other European embassies, and threatening violence. Also, there were hardly any Arab ambassadors left to receive, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Libya having withdrawn their envoys from the Danish capital. After his meeting, the prime minister declared somewhat petulantly, "A Danish government can never apologize on behalf of a free and independent newspaper. This is basically a dispute between some Muslims and a newspaper."
Whether more immediate and imaginative action by the Danish government would have prevented the incident from festering into a global issue, and contained the furor is anybody's guess, and at this stage a moot point. Possibly, Jyllands-Posten could have been persuaded to make their apology four months ago, instead of this week, and newspapers in France, Italy, Spain, and Germany would not have jumped onto what they see as the right to free expression bandwagon.
The Danish paper's editorial motives in commissioning the cartoons in the first place have raised some eyebrows among media critics. The idea was apparently to test how freedom of expression has been affected by public sensitivity to Islamic issues. Publication of the Mohammed cartoons inflamed Islamic passions and exposed the enormous lack of understanding between the West and Islam.
The media on both sides of the cultural divide fueled that incomprehension, several of the European papers by reprinting the cartoons, and most (but not all) of the Arab press by neither practicing or advocating restraint. The Saudi paper Al-Riyad said, "The issue of insulting and ridiculing (the Prophet) is larger than can be confronted by the refusal...to buy a kilogram of cheese...from a supermarket because it is manufactured in the country of the newspaper publishing the pictures." Al-Riyad does not mention what the "larger" reaction ought to be. The Pakistan paper The Nation called for "legal and political challenges" which it said were more effective than "simply burning flags or death threats which only undermine the strong case that Muslims have against these forces of hate in Europe." There was more than an implied warning in the Qatar paper Al-Watan's comment that, "European leaders should change their attitudes and remember that Islam has become the second religion in a number of European countries."
Many Arab governments, no doubt with an eye on the political impact, joined their public in venting their anger, and again made little effort to cool down hot tempers. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt issued a strong statement warning of severe repercussions if the cartoons continued to be published, and even talked of possible terrorist retaliation.
The Yemeni newspaper Al-Thawrah articulated a key point of difference: "There is nothing to prevent the governments of Denmark, Norway, France and others from adopting a responsible position towards the campaign to insult the Noble Messenger (Mohammed) and harm the Islamic nation at the heart of its belief." The demand for government intervention gets to the heart of Arab lack understanding of the relationship between the government and the media as practiced in the West. Few Middle Eastern states (or Asian, for that matter) allow their press any freedom, and most keep them under tight political control. The right to free speech is anchored in European constitutions, and a clear separation of church and state is firmly maintained. The drafters of the E.U. constitution even refused to include a reference to Europe's Christian roots in the document's preamble. On the other hand Islam dominates daily life in the Arab world. As a result, many Muslims cannot comprehend the differentiation in Europe, any more than the Arab streets can take on board the meaning of European-style press freedom.
A number of voices are cautioning that in this situation there are perhaps other factors to consider besides freedom of expression. Muslims are offended by the cartoons for several reasons. The main one is that contrary to Christianity's use of holy images, Islam forbids illustrations of the Prophet, and sharply condemns any form of blasphemy. Furthermore, Muslims saw in the cartoons an insulting connection between their religion and terrorism.
The U.S. State Department Friday condemned the cartoons which it called, "offensive to the beliefs of Muslims." A senior Vatican prelate, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, said publication of the cartoons was wrong and Western culture has to know its limits. The Guardian newspaper in London elaborated on the same point. "It is one thing to assert the right to publish an image of the Prophet," The Guardian commented, "but it is another thing to put that right to the test, especially when to do so inevitably causes offence to many Muslims...There has to be a very good reason for giving gratuitous offence of this kind."
Nothing is ever the muslims fault.
So when, say, the Washington Post publishes a cartoon demeaning Christians or Jews, we can all riot and burn buildings down and it won't be our fault. Right? It will be the fault of the newspaper. Cool.
I think an honor killing is called for...
When I saw the burning embassy on tv today, I was just shocked beyond words.
These VERMIN are burning buildings over cartoons???
After the USS Cole bombing, Bali bombings, 9-11 attacks, Madrid bombing, London bombings, Paris burnings, etc, and now THIS???
How is it possible to put "civilization" and "Islam" into the same sentence?
A little backlash towards the muslims...
Yeah, and it's the fault of rape victims if they don't dress in a burka, either.
KMA.
Fault? I'd say "credit."
OK, silly me, but aren't sevarl terrorists known to have used 'Allah Akbar' as their choice for their final words on this earth?
So they can kill in the name of Allah, but showing the prophet as the one who led them on this course is somehow 'illegal'??
I am reminded of the hermit in 'So Long and Thanks Ror All The Fish' who 'checks out' after seeing that people need instructions for toothpicks...
Right. And we can put huge pressure on the government to meet with us, right? And riot and pillage if they refuse. It will be all their fault.
Except those silly Christian and Jews follow a God that tells them not to do those things. Where on the other hand Allah tells them that this behavior is correct. They are only following their religious dictates. We would not want to interfere with religious freedom.
It is quickly becoming impossible.
Pretty convenient for them, n'est pas?
That explains why liberals are always blaming others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.