http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/
flemmingrose/2007/12/04/post_13.php
Flemming Rose
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flemming RoseDecember 4, 2007 5:16 PM Allah is too great in the Netherlands
God may not be great, but, obviously, some gods are greater than others.
The Danish cartoons were published more than two years ago as a reaction to widening self censorship in the West when dealing with Islam. Back then critics insisted that I and Jyllands-Posten exaggerated the problem.
Well, we are now witnessing one case of self censorship after the other, and the problem is so obvious that artists are on the verge of recognizing it. Recently the British artist Grayson Perry admitted that he is going after any religion except Islam because he is afraid of having his throat cut. In Sweden artist Lars Vilks is in hiding because he insists on treating the prophet of Islam as he treats any other religious figure or symbol, and due to his insistence on equal treatment he has been censored by several art institutions in Sweden. Usually Swedish media is staying away from any controversial matter, but they have expressed outrage in their defense of Vilks.
Today the NIS News Bulletin in Holland reports that the Municipal Museum of the Hague has decided to remove a number of items by the Iranian artist Sooreh Hera. The museum were to exhibit pictures of two gay men wearing masks of the prophet Mohammed and his son Ali. In a majority of Islamic countries homosexuality is a criminal offense punished by death.
Last Friday musuem director Van Krimpen insisted that he would not submit to pressure and censor the photos.
”I am not guided by any political criteria. I will not be stopped by possible security risks. I simply find this an exceptional work,” Van Krimpen said, defending his decision to put the pictures on display.
But this week he changed his mind explaining that ”certain sections of society found them offensive”.
One of the key functions of art is to provoke, to challenge well established truths and perceptions, and therefore art quite often turn out to be offensive. I can only imagine what the history of art and literature would look like if we were to erase from our legacy pieces of art that ”some sections of society” find offensive.
The artist herself have no illusions about the motives of the museum.
”Muslims have threatened the museum. But the museum is not willing to admit that this is the reason why they do not want to exhibit the works,” Sooreh Hera said.
She feels sure that fear is the driving force behind the museum’s decision.
The Socialist Party on the city council of The Hague wants Hera’s photos on display December 15 as planned by the museum. They intend to ask the museum what kind of security concerns need to be satisfied in order to put the photos on public view. So far the Dutch parliament has kept silent, while the artist is considering the removal of all her work from the museum.
”The only conclusion I can draw is that Allah is indeed very great in the Netherlands and that fear rules.”
digg this del.icio.us comment email print
x
Email this link to:
Your email address:
Message (optional):
Comments (17)
Z-Lo :
Bravo. Once again, you have found some examples of 'self censorship' to point out. And once again you have made a big fuss about your "freedoms to" but deftly steered away from the topic of others' "freedoms from". There is debate everyday in the news about Islam, so why is it so necessary to find a way to provoke and offend - and call it 'important'. There are edgy cartoons and whatnot dealing with race in the United States, for instance, but any cartoonist must be keenly aware of the line between "edgy" and "racist". Racist remarks periodically costs people their careers in the United States, but it is unthinkable that these would be supported by politicians and newspapers on a national or international level. In such a case, I think there would be rioting to rival your Mohammad cartoons. There is a similar taboo about the Jews - actually you have laws in Europe about offending the Jews. I am not Muslim, but the hypocrisy of you and your camp, who go on about your sacred democratic ideals as an excuse to further alienate an already marginalized group is upsetting. Islam does not pose a real threat to democracy, but using the rhetoric of democracy for oppression does. You create an ideological basis for an us-and-them mentality. For anyone who has every been afraid or uncomfortable about Muslims or foreigners, you provide them an intellectual rational for hatred. In a word, you create divisiveness. This is not about the Soviet Union. You seem thoughtful and intelligent otherwise – why don’t you do something to help the situation instead?
Dec 7, 2007 05:01 PM
Flemming Rose :
Zlove, you are aiming at the wrong target. In case you had been following my position on these issues, you should know that I have argued for removing Holocaust-denial laws in Europe, though I am not equalizing Holocaust-denial and ridicule of religion. They belong to different moral categories. And you make a big mistake confusing race with religion.
1. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right in a democracy, including the right to say no to religion, and in many Muslim countries apostasy is a crime punished by death.
2. You need to have the right to leave a religion, but you cannot leave your race, that is who you are, and that is the reason why there is fundamental difference between criticising people on the basis of their faith and race.
3. You don't seem to get another important distinction, the one between Islam as a religion and Muslims as individuals. My cartoons didn't ridicule any individuals, they were about a religious figure that lived 1400 years ago and dogmas in Islam. Only terrorists and oppressors of women were target, and if er are not allowed to make fun of people blowing up buildings, trains and mosques, what kind of democracy are we then? You are mixing things up in a way that makes your arguments incoherent and dangerous, because you don't understand fundamental concepts constitution the distinction between a tolerant open society defending freedom of religion and a bigotry in a totalitarian state that kill people because of their race, faith or social belonging.
I don't like Communism as an ideology, but communists are quite different as individuals, my father-in-law is a communist, but I love him very much, and the same goes for Islam and Muslims.
4. I don't think that anyone should respect ideas, ideas and ideologies are to be challenged, criticised and ridiculed, that's the essense of pluralism and a working democracy.
5. I believe in Enlightenment values, that is equality and equal treatment of people independent of their ethnicity, race, sex, age and religion. This is what the publication of the Mohammed cartoons was about.
Dec 7, 2007 05:46 PM
KGS :
I suppose we were to limit the discussion to perhaps discussing just values, and value systems --leave the words Muslims and Islam out if it-- people wouldn't be so quick to cry "foul" or "hypocrite".
All societies are based on a set of values and value systems that have gone through series of societal debate and criticism. There is no value or value system (VS = organizational set of values) in the West that has not run the gauntlet of debate and critique.
Our society is a combination of accepted values and value systems, as well as the absence of some unacceptable values and VS's, with the latter being deemed as detrimental to the health of society. For eaxample, we do not have societal approval of the KKK and racism, but recreational centers and sports clubs get great marks.
Now picture a sphere that contains the shapes of small triangles, with the sphere representing society and the small triangles representing values.
Now picture larger triangles in the sphere that represent Value Systems (church,businesses,health clubs,sports league,government etc), the VS contain the smaller triangles or individual values. The VS triangles would be interlocking with other VS triangles where they share the same common values.
The problem begins when a value system demands that its own set of values --that are not shared by any other acceptable Value System-- be exempt from the arena of debate and critique, that all other value systems -and their set of values are subjected to.
The picture that I described before now takes the shape of one huge triangle with the sphere inside it. The moral of this story coincides with what Flemming Rose was explaining earlier:
" I don't think that anyone should respect ideas, ideas and ideologies are to be challenged, criticised and ridiculed, that's the essense of pluralism and a working democracy.
That is exactly the point, and one need not envoke the name of Islam or Muslim to prove the same point. We are all bound by a mutual social contract that we use in order for us to "get along with the other" and to prevent others from hurting or taking advantage of the weak. (There are a host of other examples as well).
All of what we hold dear and important has gone through an important process of debate and critique, that is how we arrived at the modern state in which we live. No other value or value system is exempt from that process, National Socialism and Soviet Communism are the latest examples of Value Systems that sought to be over all other systems.
Any critique of these two would land the offender in a cell or worse, with the latter even going so far as to convince the offender declare his or her guilt of causing..."offence". Islam is behaving in the very same way, and we here in the West must be dilligent in making sure we do not allow for Islam to achieve a position of dominence and above critique.
Dec 7, 2007 07:27 PM
Jesper F. :
Z-Lo:
"actually you have laws in Europe about offending the Jews"
Wrong. Some countries have for historical reason laws againts holocaust-denial. That something else.
"I am not Muslim, but the hypocrisy of you and your camp, who go on about your sacred democratic ideals as an excuse to further alienate an already marginalized group is upsetting. Islam does not pose a real threat to democracy, but using the rhetoric of democracy for oppression does"
Don't play the victimhood card already. It is not a valid argument.
And islam is a threat to democrazy. Why do you think so many turks went to the streets demonstrating against Erdogan's islamist governemt. Why do you think there isn't a single liberal democrazy in the entire muslim world.
"...you provide them an intellectual rational for hatred. In a word, you create divisiveness"
Nonsense. The cartoons made no rational for hatred. It was ordinary cartoons, just like every other beliefsystemt face everyday in the western world. The hatred came from some muslims before the cartoons and after the cartoons.
A to make the same rules for muslims as for christians, jews and everybode else, do not create divisiveness. If you insist on having different rules and moral standard for different religions (or races) you will surely have Divisiveness.
Muslims should be treated exactly like everybody else.
Dec 7, 2007 09:18 PM
Z-Lo :
Mr. Rose, I have been following your position and everything related to the cartoons since I found out about them in 2006. With Christians and Jews, we are dealing with people whom we understand far better than we understand Muslims. We understand how they will react because they have been part of our society for a long time. And they understand our values and, to a certain extent, what to expect. But Muslims have a very different culture and world-view. Although I believe that the original publication of the cartoons did not intend the offense that they caused, you have continued defending them based on free speech. As usual, the Muslim point of view is treated as irrelevant. It is often said among Muslims that each Muslim loves the Prophet more than his own parents or children. So in my understanding, the Prophet holds a very central role in an individual's psychology within Islamic culture. It does not seem appropriate to constantly make the comparison to Christ and Christianity.
It is at least clear that Muslims took the insult personally. So I think that it is not just about 'a religion' and 'a prophet'. The cartoons and all of this debate about Islam and free speech also do not occur in an academic vacuum, but in a political context. This is, I think, what largely is upsetting to many Muslims - they feel vulnerable and see it as an attack. This contributes to the extremist element and causes divisiveness. I think that, if I were a Muslim, considering the fear and suspicion since 9/11 and that so many in the West used this as an opportunity to get in touch with their inner racist, I would have been angry too. You have been very articulate in many of your arguments; I just wish someone on the Left would be as articulate other than a Muslim – because a Muslim would only be saying what we expect him to. I am looking forward to your book.
Dec 8, 2007 04:55 AM
KGS :
In response to Z-Lo's posts, I post the following URL link to my own blog, where I explain with diagrams the dangers that Islam and like minded value systems pose to society.
[tundratabloid.blogspot.com/2007/...]
Dec 8, 2007 11:45 AM
Bageren :
Z-lo;
Your viewpoint is basically racist. You view is that muslims are so different from every other person, that we shouldn't treat them the same way as we treat everybody else. That is absurd - if muslims don't like the way of life in the western world, they shouldn't move here. you are expecting every western country to put aside its own culture to appease muslim culture.
And at the same time you claim tha islam is no threat to democrazy - it just makes no sense.
Yes, the cartoons came in a political context. The context is the self-censorship about islam that took place all over europe due to fear of violence. That is the problem.
Why is it more important to consider musslim sensitivity than that of christians and jews.
Dec 8, 2007 01:50 PM
Z-Lo :
Some people seem to have misunderstood my meaning because of the word "race". The comparison to the racial problems in the US is not to call the cartoonists or original publishers racist. It is a comparison for the purpose of showing a power relationship. In the US, anyone can say anything he or she wants about whites. Why? Because they are in a position of power. Why is it that a white person cannot say almost anything about blacks? Because blacks are vulnerable. That is the power dynamic. I think it is a relevant comparison when considering Muslims in Europe.
Dec 8, 2007 05:14 PM
Z-Lo :
One more post to see if we can’t move beyond the familiar rhetoric…
Mr. Rose,
I was not asking you to respect people’s ideas. It is irrelevant to teach me about what democracy is and point out the atrocities that occur in some Muslim countries. I am aware that you argued for the removal of laws against holocaust denial – that’s good. But the point is that other groups are protected by laws or taboos, so Muslims feel that they are being gratuitously targeted. Which, it also seems to me, they are.
Furthermore, the arrogant manner in which people have invoked democratic ideals is just insulting (this is actually an important aspect in understanding the Muslim reaction). You determined the frame of the debate early on and then were able to easily dominate it. I reject the notion that the nature of the events surrounding the cartoons was simply a matter of free speech and religion. I am more criticizing that than the cartoons alone. We all know that this is about more than just cartoons.
About "confusing race and religion": Your cartoons were defined by and inseparable from the political context in which they appeared - they were not simply criticizing an abstract 'idea'. The Muslim point of view must be taken into consideration. Your abstract message of inclusion will surely be lost on many who are daily a target of bigotry. There are more productive and effective ways to achieve what you claim to be promoting.
Jesper F,
“Don’t play the victimhood card already”? What exactly does that mean? I don’t think that it’s an argument, but rather ‘playing a card’ of sorts of your own. I think it is a way of dismissing the point with out addressing it. Do you think that prejudice is completely irrelevant in this matter? I’m not sure what you think. “Wrong” and “It’s not a valid point” don’t help me understand. Simply contradicting your opponent’s statements doesn’t constitute a complete argument. It does, however, show your mastery of linguistic negation.
Bageren,
Take a minute to reread my posts. Your comments are close to non sequiturs. But by poorly regurgitating arguments by smarter people, like Mr. Rose, you provide a lovely illustration of one of my points: that his well articulated position provides an intellectual basis for xenophobia among the dull-witted masses.
KGS,
You are clearly thinking hard about this, which is good. Please don’t ignore my point that when considering the Muslim point of view, there is a political, contextual significance of these attacks on Islam. I certainly agree with Flemming Rose that “ideas and ideologies are to be challenged, criticized and ridiculed, that's the essence of pluralism and a working democracy”. But I think it is completely irrelevant. There is a fine line between challenging ideas and ridiculing a vulnerable minority.
Dec 9, 2007 10:35 AM
KGS :
Hi Z-Lo
Just how "vulnerable" is the Muslim minority? As I see it, Islam in Europe is thriving quite well, with the Islamic community expanding influence and increasing its numbers as-we-speak. This greatly contradicts the notion that "Islam is under siege" and needs protection through the introduction of new laws that will only serve to limit or gag free speech.
Muslims, wanting true reform within Islam are the ones leading the charge against the Islamic communities silence. That their numbers are extremely miniscule, reflects the magnitude of the problem within Islam itself.
The Muslim leadership that is crying "foul" over all the criticism, are those who are NOT INTERESTED in reforming Islam, but in "maintaining the status quo" and hope to ride out this bad patch of unrest ..unscathed. That kind of thinking does nothing to limit or restrict the Jihad Ideology from advancing. Drawing up behind "fortress Islam" is not the answer.
Making the Muslim leadership confront the problem of radical Islam, through criticism, into identifying themseleves as being strongly against the jihad ideology and for reform of Islam, is the only way forward. sugar coating the problem --which resides totally within Islam-- will not help our efforts on bit.
Islam must be well aware of what the non-Muslim world thinks of Islam and its prphet, both positive along with the negative. That we are a people who live according to our OWN BOOKS, and don't deem ourselves as being a part of THEIR BOOK. It might seem harsh, but it's toughness that we need right now, not "more understanding" which means to refrain from speaking out against the cruelties of Islam and its political agenda.
Islam's agenda by-the-way is something that's implemented through a natural process which doesn't need a chief designer, so the phenomenon of "Eurabia" is something that derives from a natural evolution. The situation of Europe's Islamization is dire, with it rapidly expanding due solely to the fact that Islam is no longer dealing with an undemocratic Europe.
We simply can't wait around for Islam to correct itself in due course, it must be forced to recognize the danger it poses to a democratic West and to Muslims themselves. If they end up dragging down Europe, they will forever be doomed to backwardness and brutality, but only this time they will have the West to accompany them as well.
Dec 9, 2007 11:42 AM
Bageren :
Z-lo;
Your view is still basically racist. In your world blacks or muslims are different from whites, christians, jews and therefore should be treated differently. Thats bullshit.
"vulnerable minority"
Why are they more vulnerable than anyone else ?
They have exaxtly the same rights as anybode else, and they have to live by the same norms as the rest of us. All your words about power relations is just another way to say that we cant treat muslims like we treat everybody else, they should have special rules because they are not like us.
If muslims don't like the way things works in the western world, they should move here in the first place.
"provides an intellectual basis for xenophobia"
It has absolutely nothing to do with xenophobia. The cartoons was completely in line with danish traditions for cartoons, and similar to what christians and other groups must face every day. And you just keep on avoiding the reason why Rose decided to publish the cartoons.
No one publishes cartoons of mohammed just for the fun of it. Actually islam benefits from being protected by taboos in this case, compared to christians and other groups.
"contextual significance of these attacks on Islam"
Attacks on islam. That is the victimhood card. Every belief system faces what you call attacks, an islam shouldn't be any different.
And first of all, the attack was on democrazy and free speech, and this attack came from muslims.
Please consider, before you play the victimhood card for all islam, the political and contextual significance on these muslims attacks on democrazy and free speech.
"There is a fine line between challenging ideas and ridiculing a vulnerable minority"
And nobody was ridiculing anyone. And just because you are muslims, doesn't make you vulnerable.
. You are the one who divide the world into groups of blacks, whites, muslims, non-muslims and view people inside these groups as similar, and they argue that they should be treated differently.
You are the one with the prejudices.
And your entire argument regarding the cartoons, still does not take into account the events that took place before Rose published the cartoons.
Dec 9, 2007 12:22 PM
Z-Lo :
Mr. Bageren,
You seem confused about a couple of points I have made. But don't put words in my mouth. You have accused me several times of wanting "special rules" for Muslims and that "in my world" they should be treated differently from everyone else. I am not sure from where specifically in my posts you are reading this - I suspect that you are assuming that I take the position of other criticisms of the cartoons with which you are familiar. Did you read it somehow in the words "power relationship"? I guess I will make it explicit for you. The world is divided into various groups whether we like it or not - it is not me who does this. I don't actually believe that you could think that in Denmark, or any other democracy, everyone is treated exactly the same. The point about American blacks is that that is the way things are - I never said that's the way it should be. Jews are also given special treatment. Holocaust denial laws are not a different issue if you are talking about taboos, religious groups and free speech. So, in fact, Muslims are being treated differently because in a world of limited free speech they are being excluded from the general restraint exercised in regard to other groups. Could it have anything to do with the anti-Muslim sentiment that is on the rise since 9/11?
It is also hard for me to believe that people deny that Muslims in Europe are a minority. Whether in the banlieues in France, driving your cab or selling you a falafel, they are living in a society that is not their own and is often hostile to them. Their numbers might be growing and that might be frightening to you, but you are still not the underdog. So, yes, it makes sense that they would be more sensitive. Christians and Christianity are in the majority and not generally under attack in Europe so it is easier for them to brush off an insult or advance. Christians in Africa, though, being a minority, are probably much more likely to be hypersensitive.
I tried to make the point that there is a line between edgy and racist. Even if you are not talking about race there is a line that people do not cross. The line is crossed now and then that really offends some people - like the Piss-Christ. But that was not supported by politicians and dozens of newspapers. I think that is a major difference. The real problem was less with the cartoons themselves, but with it turning into a major cultural movement against Muslims. That is what I criticize. I do not suggest that we tolerate violence, but is a complex problem. Just because there are difficult problems involved doesn't mean we shouldn't try to address them - even though it is easier to get emotive about it. KGS is wrong: we do need more understanding and not simply head to head confrontation.
Dec 10, 2007 03:37 AM
KGS :
A breach of trust within the social contract is the core issue here. The unwillingness to call things as they are, as well as to look the other way concerning the immense negative attributes contained in present day Islam.....will lead to democracy's undoing. If not in two generations, then later. It's only a matter of time.
When Z-Lo writes that: "Islam does not pose a real threat to democracy, but using the rhetoric of democracy for oppression does.
You create an ideological basis for an us-and-them mentality",he/she is both right and wrong:
Right in that the a non-political version of the religion as such, as practiced by many law-abiding Muslims in Europe may not pose a
threat to democracy, but he/she is wrong in that a dogmatic and political interpretation of it, as used by radical Islamists,certainly DOES threaten democracy, as it contains no such values and, if
allowed to replace democratic values, leads to totalitarianism.
But then there is the extra added element to the debate, that being, no one can say with complete assurance that future generations of Muslims within democratic societies will not fall victim to a more purest (anti-democratic) version of Islam. That danger is very real as long as Islam itself remains unreformed.
As long as sharia remains "an option" for the greater part of the Islamic world, as well as the more troublesome (open ended) portions of the Qur'an, Hadiths, Sura etc., then unreformed Islam remains a clear and present danger for society.
I can't see why someone who is supposedly pro-democracy would not want to be singing loud and clear about the dangers that present day Islam poses to the democratic free world. Our democratic way of life can't afford us to be quiet and submissive....and "dread" non-offensive.
Z-Lo is dead wrong on all counts.
Dec 10, 2007 02:43 PM
Z-Lo :
Radical Islam poses a threat to peace and the individuals themselves who might be influenced by it to put on a belt of explosives. I have absolutely no reason to believe that all the fear of Sharia law replacing democracy is anything other than absurd alarmist xenophobic nonsense. Supplanting democracy?? So-called 'self-censorship' leading to the end of free speech?? Policemen replaced by Al-Qaeda thugs enforcing Islamic dress codes on the streets of London and Paris? I'm sorry, but it sounds far from realistic. Picking out clues from the newspapers about this conspiracy just sounds ridiculous. But it plays to peoples fears. And in an age of conflict, in which it is easy to see the enemy in the foreigner, xenophobia has gained currency. So the conflict is propelled forward. It is sad and frustrating.
Dec 10, 2007 04:31 PM
KGS :
Z-Lo: "Radical Islam poses a threat to peace and the individuals themselves who might be influenced by it to put on a belt of explosives. I have absolutely no reason to believe that all the fear of Sharia law replacing democracy is anything other than absurd alarmist xenophobic nonsense. Supplanting democracy?? "
You thinking lies solely within the context of radical violent extremist Islamism in the present day, and not the religion itself, that offers it both credibility and authority to imitate the example of its prophet. An UNREFORMED ISLAM itself, poses the greatest threat to peace and to individuals in general, both to Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Islamism (the non-violent kind) is AS/MORE DANGEROUS to democracy (in the long run) as its violent twin. BOTH version of Islamism find its validity within the Islamic religion itself, and because no great number of Muslims are willing to stick their neck out willingly, the problem of non-democratic sharia and the jihad ideology will continue to be a reoccurring phenomenon.
It is entirley irrelevent that only a small portion of the Islamic world is VIOLENT or Islamist, (but over 150 million supporters of Islamism is no small number) becuase as history has proven, time and again, only a small number promoting a violent agenda is needed to place the greater majority in fear and submissiveness. The same can be said about non-violent Islamism, in that the fear of being labeled an apostate is a real intimidating factor, and that "modernist" Muslim leaders are ill equipped to counter the Isalmists pure version of Islam. That is something that bodes ill for the future of European democracies once European states start to have larger or even majority Muslim populations.
When we talk about PEOPLE adhering to different religions, but we certainly MUST create an ideological opposition to values which threaten to abolish the democratic values we hold as core or basic values in our own value system. It is not an opposition to people who confess to a different religion, but an opposition between value systems when one of them is (a) unreformed and (b) driven to its extreme. And it IS being driven to its extreme in many European countries today. otherwise Dutch Museums would have nothing to fear, and our core values would also be safe.
Dec 10, 2007 05:24 PM
KGS :
One more point. Z-Lo said:
"So-called 'self-censorship' leading to the end of free speech?? Policemen replaced by Al-Qaeda thugs enforcing Islamic dress codes on the streets of London and Paris? I'm sorry, but it sounds far from realistic. Picking out clues from the newspapers about this conspiracy just sounds ridiculous. But it plays to peoples fears. And in an age of conflict, in which it is easy to see the enemy in the foreigner, xenophobia has gained currency. So the conflict is propelled forward. It is sad and frustrating."
One only has to look to the former Christian areas throughout the Middle East, Turkey and the Balkans, to see what can happen in the long term. I suggest that you and everyone else reading this post, pick up Proffesor Efraim Karsh's book "Islamic Imperialism A History".
Karsh lays it out in no uncertain terms, that the present day Islamic wave coming into Europe has strong historical roots, with Europe once again aiding and abetting its own demise. The former Christian areas just mentioned fell piece by piece to Islam, and so once again the same scenario is upon us, with many European politicians lending a hand to an ideology that will lead to their own undoing. They're morons.
Dec 10, 2007 07:00 PM
Z-Lo :
Once you believe something blindly enough, you will see evidence of it everywhere you look.
