Our story begins in Denmark.

On September 30th of last year the privately owned newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("JP") printed 12 cartoons -- a few with bite, the others so much eyewash -- depicting Mr. Mohammed, the Prophet of Islam. (You will want to view these beauties to better judge the unfolding story. Those few freighted with a political message show the Mohammed expropriated by Islamofascists and terrorists. This Mohammed, a stand-in for radical Islam, is threatening and violent.) JP's editorial exercise was intended to dispel the notion that moderate Islam -- the fabulous Islam found in newsrooms and at catered ecumenical socials -- was enjoying censorship privileges extorted by Islamite terrorists.

Five months later Muslims have come round to disabuse the bemused Danes. There are Muslim boycotts (and here) of Danish goods. There are huffy Muslims (17 Arab ambassadors have been recalled). There are fulminating Muslims. There are cartoon-deranged homicidal Muslims. And the Islamofascists have chimed in.

Oh, and our own Bill Clinton advances the amazing "'totally outrageous cartoons' = holocaust" equivalency argument. Mr. Clinton's faintingly sensitive bunkum provides unintended insight into why Islamofascism had such a good run during his administration.

NO SHOW MO (PBUH)
Please Refrain From Idolizing The Prophet

PROTESTS OVER ISLAM CARTOONS ESCALATE WORLDWIDE
Muslims Call For Vengeance

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip February 3, 2006 (AP) - Tens of thousands of angry Muslims marched through Palestinian cities, burning the Danish flag and calling for vengeance Friday against European countries where caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad were published.

Early Friday, Palestinian militants [sic] threw a bomb at a French cultural center in Gaza City, and many Palestinians began boycotting European goods, especially those from Denmark.

"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, 37, a tailor who marched through the pouring rain along with hundreds of others in the West Bank city of Ramallah.

"Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," protesters in Ramallah chanted.

An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind them should have their heads cut off.

"If they want a war of religions, we are ready," Hassan Sharaf, an imam in Nablus, said in his sermon.

In Iraq, thousands demonstrated after Friday mosque prayers, and the country’s leading Shiite cleric denounced the drawings. About 4,500 people rallied in the southern city of Basra and burned the Danish flag.

The country’s top Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, decried the drawings but did not call for protests. ... Al-Sistani, who wields enormous influence over Iraq’s majority Shiites, suggested militant Muslims were partly to blame. He referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community and said their actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

About 800 people protested in Islamabad, chanting "Death to Denmark"... Another rally in the southern city of Karachi drew 1,200. Fundamentalist Muslims protested outside the Danish Embassy in Malaysia, chanting "Long live Islam, destroy our enemies." ... In London, hundreds of demonstrators converged on Denmark’s Embassy and burned the Danish flag. Women wearing headscarves chanted and held banners proclaiming: "Kill the one who insults the Prophet."

The Danes have been not a little taken aback by the ferocity of the Muslim response. Not that Muslims won't take to the street at the uncorroborated drop of a hat, but the original JP dozen was spiked with three additional pictures devoid of political satire and intended not to insult but disgust. This poisoned collection was then passed around the Arab world. By a Muslim. An imam. Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban.

Last November, Abu Laban, a 60-year-old Palestinian who had served as translator and assistant to top Gamaa Islamiya leader Talaal Fouad Qassimy during the mid-1990s and has been connected by Danish intelligence to other Islamists operating in the country, put together a delegation that traveled to the Middle East to discuss the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars. The delegation met with Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi. "We want to internationalize this issue so that the Danish government will realize that the cartoons were insulting, not only to Muslims in Denmark, but also to Muslims worldwide," said Abu Laban.

On its face, it would appear as if nothing were wrong. However, the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet (which has been obtained and made available to me by Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet). The delegation has claimed that the differentiation was made to their interlocutors, even though the claim has not been independently verified. In any case, the action was a deliberate malicious and irresponsible deed carried out by a notorious Islamist who in another situation had said that “mockery against Mohamed deserves death penalty.” And in a quintessential exercise in taqiya,* Abu Laban has praised the boycott of Danish goods on al Jazeera, while condemning it on Danish TV.

The three additional cartoons can be seen here. This goes a way toward explaining the five-month fuse on Muslim outrage. Charles Moore of the Telegraph also wonders about the sudden outrage of Muslim communities (a very good read):

[A]s soon as the row about the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in Jyllands-Posten broke, angry Muslims popped up in Gaza City, and many other places, well supplied with Danish flags ready to burn. ... Why were those Danish flags to hand? Who built up the stockpile so that they could be quickly dragged out right across the Muslim world and burnt where television cameras would come and look? The more you study this story of "spontaneous" Muslim rage, the odder it seems. ... It rather looks as if the anger with which all Muslims are said to be burning needed some pretty determined stoking. Peter Mandelson, who seems to think that his job as European Trade Commissioner entitles him to pronounce on matters of faith and morals, accuses the papers that republished the cartoons of "adding fuel to the flames"; but those flames were lit (literally, as well as figuratively) by well-organised, radical Muslims who wanted other Muslims to get furious. How this network has operated would make a cracking piece of investigative journalism.

The Jyllands-Posten published a conflicted statement, referred to by others as an apology, in which it protests its high principles and claims any offense given was "unintentional". This is disingenuous. It is the nature of political lampoons to offend their targets. And what sort of "public debate on freedom of expression" is it that is framed to everyone's liking?

The Danish vice prime minister, Bendt Bendtsen, gave a muddled "yes, but" reply, where he affirmed the paper's right to free expression but regretted its poor judgment:

"What Jyllands-Posten did is totally legal. I've got nothing against freedom of speech - it is important for us all - but if it can offend and hurt a lot of people, why use freedom of speech for that?"

And there is some truth in that.

Unfortunately the VPM went on to equate topical political cartooning with sensationalist profanation designed for offense:

Bendtsen compared the 12 Jyllands-Posten caricatures of Mohammed to pictures of Jesus with an erect penis painted by Danish artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen.**

Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen made an oblique contrition with the obligatory political blandishments and an appeal to cartoonists to cease cartooning Mr. Mohammed (PBUH). But that djinni is forever out of the bottle.

And that brings us to France.

FRANCE ENTERS MUSLIM CARTOON ROW

February 1, 2006 (BBC) - France Soir said it had published the cartoons to show that "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society. [France Soir editor Serge Faubert: "Enough lessons from these reactionary bigots! Just because the Koran bans images of Mohammed doesn't mean non-Muslims have to submit to this."] ... In a statement, the French foreign ministry said the decision to publish the pictures was the sole responsibility of France Soir.

Headline: YES, ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CARICATURE GOD
Balloon: "Don't Complain, Muhammed, We've All Been Caricatured Here."

The responsible France Soir editor was promptly sacked.

FRENCH EDITOR SACKED IN MOHAMMED CARTOON ROW

PARIS February 2, 2006 (Reuters) - The daily confirmed that owner Raymond Lakah had fired Jacques Lefranc on Wednesday evening after a tumultuous day on which German and Spanish dailies ran the controversial cartoons that first appeared in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten. Lakah said in a statement Lefranc was sacked "in a strong sign of respect for the beliefs and intimate convictions of every individual."

But Thursday's edition of the tabloid [Headline: Au secours Voltaire, ils sont devenus fous ! / Help, Volatire, They Have Gone Mad!]...defended its decision to print the cartoons...

Imagine a society that added up all the prohibitions of different religions. What would remain of the freedom to think, to speak and even to come and go? We know societies like that all too well.

Then there is the less-than-intrepid French media:

The appeals for calm came after French public television decided to axe a report on the cartoon crisis, aired on the national channel France 2, from international versions of its Thursday night news broadcast. Editors at TV5 Monde, a public channel which broadcasts to 200 countries, decided to cut the report — which did not show the offending cartoons — from its main evening news.

"The report, even using toned down and indirect pictures, was powerful enough to risk endangering the lives of some of our correspondents or European nationals," a senior editor of TV5 Monde, Philippe Dessaint, told French radio.

Somehow we doubt the remarkable "powerfulness" of this watered-down newscast. But self-censoring itself puts TV5 safely on both sides of the issue: Hard-hitting reporting (which they'd love to show you but won't) and a demonstrated delicacy to hyped-up Islamic sensibilities (only too happy to forgo professional responsibilities for Islam).

FRENCH MUSLIM GROUP FILES SUIT OVER CARTOONS

PARIS February 3, 2006 (AFP) - "Writs will be filed this evening in Paris. We are going to register complaints against all the French media that carried the pictures," said Lhaj Thami Brez of the Union of Islamic Organisations of France [l'Union des Organisations Islamiques de France, UOIF].† ... "We want the justice system to protect us. This is an attack against a religion in a country where there is rule of law. The legal institutions will decide. The press is not above the law. Its powers are regulated. Freedom of expression is fine, but religions must be respected."

UOIF comes right to the point on its Web site:

Pour les musulmans de partout dans le monde, Dieu et ses prophètes ne peuvent être sujets à caricature ni à humour ou injure.

To which we say, by all means let Muslims scold and police Muslims to ensure Muslims abide by Muslim rules.

Of course, Muslims are great fans of freedom of expression of a sort. Cartoonist Daryl Cagle comments (January 7 entry):

Muslim countries expect the press in Denmark to suppress cartoons that would be offensive to them, but they don't extend the same cartoon courtesy to others that they demand for themselves. Cartoons in the Arab press are typically so ugly and racist that American audiences have never seen anything like them. ... The cartoons are designed to be as offensive to Jews as possible, and are seen as nothing out of the ordinary by Middle Eastern newspaper readers.

The controversy turns on two arguments: the argument that images of Mohammed are prohibited, therefore blasphemous, and the larger argument that Islam commands the same deference from believers and non-believers alike. The first argument is confuted by a long and rich history of Mohammed in Islamic art (e.g., here, here, and here; a more eclectic collection can be found here).

And the answer to the second argument is "NO".

And why should we defer? Well, the Islamites' answer is because they will boycott us, bomb, kidnap, rape, torture, behead, and murder us. Well, we've no complaint with being boycotted.

We are not much in sympathy with Muslims unhappy about sharing the great big world with infidels. Who rant about cartoons but have little or no outrage over this or this or this or this or this or this. And this.

Then again not all Muslims are pining for the restitution of the 12th century:

The response by Muslims to the cartoons is absolutely pathetic and depressing but revealing. The reason Muslims are responding with anger and threats of violence is because most Muslims live in countries where democracy and freedom of speech are alien concepts.

Moreover, the Muslim world suffers from a lack of visionary leadership. In this particular case, when Muslim leaders, including American Muslim leaders, realized that Muslims are furious they joined the chorus of fury rather than explain to their people that they must be reasonable and that freedom of speech is healthy even if it is insulting. What is even more disgusting is that most American Muslim organizations, who should know better, have joined the chorus of instigators rather than taking this opportunity to teach their members about the importance of freedom of speech and tolerance.

If you would like to frustrate the Muslim boycott of Danish goods, click here and here and here. Also here. Legos make nice gifts, but we draw a line at the mopey complaining Lars von Trier.

[Various and several hat tips to LGF, ¡No Pasarán!, E-Nough!, et al.]

* Wikipedia:

In Shi'a Islamic tradition, Taqiyya (التقية) is the dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs when one fears for one's life, the lives of one's family members, or for the preservation of the faith. ... In other words, if a Shi'a Muslim's life is in danger, he may lie as long as he holds his faith true in his heart.

PFFT (What is this?): Bearding Mo 3 | Rayonnement français 2

Great work, Damian...thanks for getting everything all tied up and in one place for us to read and ponder....

I am so disgusted at so many different things on so many levels after reading this that I can't even write anything. Maybe later.

I say the cartoonist got paid by the CIA.an d yes call me paranoïa

M. Hemaworstje,

The Jyllands-Posten invited some 40 artists to participate. Only twelve responded with one cartoon each.

And what is your point? That the CIA has orchestrated the outbreak of irrationality throughout the whole of the Muslim world? To what purpose? To solely satisfy your fond notions of dark America? And why would the Islamites be complicit, as it was an Islamite imam, Abu Laban, who peddled the poisoned portfolio?

Even paranoiacs have some basis for their paranoias. You do not appear to be paranoid. You appear to be a Democrat.

DGB

Bonjour,

Les pro-Bush de ce site pourraient-ils me dire combien d'américains soutiennent la guerre coloniale en Irak ?
(20% ,30%,40% ???)

Je n'aurai guère de pitié pour les opposants d'aujourd'hui. Ils nous disent:
"Nous avons été trompés par Bush le menteur !".
Non ils se sont trompés EUX-MEMES par la bétise crasse qui est le lot de l 'américain moyen victime de la propagande totalitaire que lui font subir des médias dont il ne conteste pas l'existence.
C'est sûr que c'est pas avec un Rush Limbaugh que l'on peut comprendre le Monde qui vous entoure.
Le déclin de l'Empire américain est commencé et il n'y a que les américains qui ne le savent pas ...

Bonjour,

Le fasciste "Little Green Football" tremblerait-il devant les musulmans ?
Quand on clique sur "12 caricatures" ,on obtient "Forbidden" ???
Ou plutôt veut-il se montrer ,comme son maître Bush, un allié loyal des fascistes musulmans ?

As inconceivable as it seems, M. AB/AY manages a useful and relevant post.

Too cheap to buy either the 02.01.06 France Soir or 02.08.06 Charlie Hebdo (French papers that published the cartoons), M. AB/AY has made Pave his informed source on this controversial topic.

In the course of his dependency he discovered our original link to the 12 cartoons had gone bad. This link has since been replaced with a more reliable source showing the cartoons at full size. Here is a bonus link to brief descriptions of each cartoon with English translations of the Danish captions and word play.

DGB

Bonjour, Chavista

C'est sûr que c'est pas avec un Rush Limbaugh que l'on peut comprendre le Monde qui vous entoure.

So do you listen to Limbaugh, or are you just spewing out information that you know nothing about? :)

To me, this whole cartoon affair boils down to religion, hypocrisy, and censorship. In a strange coincidence, two weeks ago, before this mess started, I went to a lecture by a Trustee Professor of French at a major US university on the play Don Juan, by Molière, and then saw the play preformed.

The play is about religion, well, so called rational thinking (libertin if you will) versus religious doctrine, hypocrisy, and censorship. Just like the cartoon affair.

The version of Don Juan that I saw is know as the “Amsterdam edition” which was published in French in Amsterdam, where it could not be controlled by French censors. It is supposed to be as close to the original play that Molière wrote. When the play was first preformed in France, in 1665, plays were not subjected to pre-performance censorship, so the play could be staged at least once. After opening night, it was censored heavily, but people in the audience took notes, and that is how the version got published in Amsterdam.

So, how does this relate to the cartoons?

Well, let me just list a few of the similarities with our current affair and the cartoons…

--
Don Juan does not hold sacred what the Catholic Church has decided he should and he doesn’t respect the dictates of the church.

Our cartoonists do not hold sacred what Islam has decided they should and they don’t respect the dictates of the religion.

--
I noticed that the BBC follows every mention of mohammed with “(pbuh)” which means “peace be upon him”. Damian satirizes this in his letter over at e-nough, which is what Molière does as well. When ever a character says something which could be construed as against the King, someone in the cast will follow quickly with “Long live the King”! (This is pretty funny in the play, but may not sound so funny here.)

--
With the cartoonists we have the imams, who lead the crusade against the cartoonists.
With Moliere, we had the Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement who were instrumental in the lead to censor.
--

Molière, in Don Juan Challenges a rigid system of belief. He attacks religious hypocrisy.
Can Islam be any more rigid? The cartoons attack, also, hypocrisy of Islam.
--

I also note that in Don Juan it was the State that dictating the Religious morals, and the populace, with writers like Molière, who were challenging the religious stance. Now, with most European countries mostly with a secular outlook, it is the religious (muslims) who are attempting to control the States outlook on religion!

OK, I’ve gone on long e-nough, but we had 10 inches of snow in DC and I’m stuck in my house so I have nothing better to do….but I recommend that you all read or see Don Juan since I found it so similar to what is happening with cartoons.

BTW, the play was translated by the same fellow who translated three plays by Marivaux that I enjoyed.