The Definite Article

First, here are the twelve images that appeared in Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspapaer:

These twelve images were commissioned by the Jyllands-Posten cultural editor, Flemming Rose. The reason they were commissioned is an interesting story in its own right; a Dutch author, Kåre Bluitgen, was writing a children's book, entitled The Qu'ran and the Life of Muhammed that described for non-Muslim Danish children the beliefs of Muslims. Ironically, his purpose was to help stop the demonisation of Muslims in Denmark. The irony deepened when the artists he first approached to illustrate the book all declined, fearing violent reprisals from Denmark's Muslims, who have murdered artists in the past. As a side note, the BBC makes it sound as if Theo van Gogh was shot; this is not the case. In fact, he was decapitated and stabbed in the chest, though the assailant had a gun and used it to attempt to escape capture.

Flemming Rose wanted to inform the public about the difficulties that Mr. Bluitgen was having finding artists to illustrate his book and so commissioned 40 artists to depict Mohammed. Twelve of them came through with the images you see to the left.

It's worth noting that several of the images that Jyllands-Posten printed actually lampoon Jyllands-Posten or even poke fun at Kåre Bluitgen.

The pictures were published on the 30th of September in Jyllands-Posten. There was a relatively muted reaction at the time: 12 Muslim ambassadors, including the ambassadors from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Turkey, Bosnia-Herzegovina and others, asked for a meeting with Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen in order to discuss how to "take all those responsible to task under the law of the land." The Danish Prime Minister didn't meet with the ambassadors but instead sent them a letter reminding them of the long Danish tradition of freedom of the press. Up to this point, it could have just simply been another controversy similar to when a Philadelphia bar owner printed ads that showed a Thai prince with bleached hair and sunglasses - embarassing, but ultimately forgettable.

It didn't go that way. Instead, several Imams from the Muslim community in Denmark collected the twelve images plus some additional images that had been sent to Muslims within Denmark and put together a dossier, known as the Akkari-Laban dossier, the entire text of which, translated into English, can be found at this link.

This dossier was then circulated by Imams Akkari and Laban amongst the Arab League countries, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The dossier controversially contained not only the twelve images you see to the left but also a number of additional images that were not printed in Jyllands-Posten, including an image of a man with a pig ears and snout at a microphone and a photoshopped image of a dog sodomizing a Muslim at prayer. The report also contained images from Weekendavisen, a Danish publication with a much smaller audience than Jyllends-Posten and a private letter from Bjarne Jakobsen to Shadhi Lubbad.

The purpose of the more offensive images was not, as some critics have suggested, an attempt to falsely inflate the inflammatory nature of the cartoons published in Jyllands-Posten but instead was presented as evidence of the "several conditions" which "increased our [Danish Muslim's] pain and torment" following the publication of the cartoons. To wit,

* 1. The ridicule of Islam and its followers has become an easily distributed commodity, when an almost extinct newspaper published images stronger and more offending on 11 November, probably to regain its popularity; this paper is "Weekendavisen".
* 2. Muslims received during this period of time - most notably those taking part in the actual protest against the images - letters whose tone differed between direct threats and mockery of Islam itself through attacks on the Qu'ran, when these people claimed that it was a fabrication, and they took part in the attack on the Prophet (PBUH) by sending animated images, that were stronger and fiercer, and which come from a deep hatred of Islam as a religion.
* 3. Denmark received the Dutch author of Somali decent, who is the author of the film that degrades Islam, and whose producer was killed recently in Holland. The reception for her was consequently a continuation of the confrontation, particularly since she gave an interview to Danish television in which she talked about Islam in a degrading way. And the strange thing is, that the Prime Minister, who had rejected meeting with the ambassadors, received her and presented her with an award, like he stated that he appreciated her brave position and her free opinions. So now you see how it is...

The same criticts, (Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, etc.) who have suggested that the Imams Akkari & Laban lied about the images being in Jyllands-Posten and who portrayed them as deliberately inflammatory also published an annotated version of the dossier, to be found here here.

Since the visit of Imam Akkari and Imam Laban to the Arab League countries, there have been 139 deaths and 823 injuries that can be directly attributed to the Muslim response to local reportage about the cartoons. The situation is probably most dire in Nigeria, which was already unstable. Muslims burned churches and murdered Christians in response to the cartoons; Christians responded by burning mosques and murdering Muslims.

Okay, if you want to know more of the facts, and there are plenty, go do your own research; I recommend you start with the Wikipedia. Now I'm going to give you some opinion.

First, I'm reminded of a scene from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, when Queen Victoria smashes a television because it's showing the image of a woman in a bikini. Although not particularly funny, it illustrated well the behaviour I'd expect an anachronistic attitude to engender when it encounters a modern cultural landscape - violent reactions. Reinhold Niebuhr suggested that people have "necessary illusions," which are "emotionally potent oversimplifications" that allow people to have hope - the only thing which saves us, Dr. Niebuhr argues, since "Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in a lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope." This difficulty with the Danish cartoons limns the reality of Huntington's Clash of Civilisations brightly; some Muslims hold an anachronistic perspective with respect to democracy, the freedom of press, the equality of the sexes, the role of the Church in secular affairs, the role of a government and the nature of a state. These anachronistic views are wrapped up in their necessary illusions, those emotionally potent oversimplifications that give them hope. The result is that, when faced with a reality that substantially challenges those illusions, they will react with violence. As I have said before, nothing is so precious to people as their illusions; most will change the world before they will abandon their illusions.

If portions of the Muslim population hold an anachronistic worldview, portions of the Western world suffer from an equally distorted view of reality, one in which the entire world finds as self-evident certain inalienable rights (apologies to Thomas Jefferson) - and that, furthermore, there is an inherent virtue in so finding; absent this discovery, a civilisation therefore lacks certain civic virtues. The former is prima facie not true; the second involves substantial debate but if it were put to a worldwide vote, the proponents of the freedom of the press as a civic virtue would be shouted loudly down by the vastly more numerous proponents of limits on the freedom of the press. As with many Muslims, they would much rather change the world than their illusions.

Which leads us back to the proximate issue, the cartoons and other images. Almost certainly, the image of the prophet as a pig is a forgery put together by parties who intend to inflame and infuriate faithful Muslims; they may be radical Muslims intent on fanning the flames or Western hotheads. In any event, the picture is actually of a Frenchman, Jacques Barrot, who was taking part in a pig contest. The caption has been added; since few of the anti-Muslim brigade are sufficiently fluent in Arabic to be able to hand write grammatically correct Arabic, the balance of evidence suggests that this image is the work of radical Muslims. The image of the dog and Muslims at prayer has a similar providence and leads to a similar conclusion. There has been extensive analysis of the Dutch handwriting on the image that accuses Mohammed of being a pedophile elsewhere; this is, in my opinion, relatively irrelevant, since many Western critics of Mohammed do in fact believe that Mohammed's marriage to the six year old Aisha make him a pedophile. For a defense that is more damning than any crticism, read this. Finally, Bjarne Jakobsen's letter is the work of a provocateur, albeit one who correctly identifies some of the anachronisms in the viewpoints of his Muslim contemporaries.

The actions of Prime Minister Fogh Anders Rasmussen have received extensive ridicule but little constructive criticism. Note to Prime Minister Rasmussen: in the context of the Western world, a request from a foreign ambassador is the equivalent to a request from the head of state of that country. The next time twelve ambassadors ask for a joint interview, give them one. To not do so is a probably unforgivable diplomatic misstep. the result would have likely been the same - but if your citizens have offered a grave offense to another country, then it is your uncomfortable duty to explain to the ambassadors of those countries why such offensive speech is protected. It's not easy, but that's why you get paid the big bucks.

The actions of the twelve ambassadors have also been victim of vituperative invective but little constructive comment. Note to the diplomats who wrote the open letter: First, know the law and legal tradition of the country to which you are a representative. The anti-blasphemy law which you wished to have enforced against Jyllands-Posten has not been enforced since 1938. In the legal tradition of the Western world, an ancient law that has not been enforced for many years forms a laughable basis for court proceedings. Furthermore, nearly every Western nation has an independent judiciary, which means that the head of state cannot influence the courts. This should have been explained to you by Foghs Anders Rasmussen, but if you were doing your job well you would have already known it. Second, it is the duty of diplomats to be those cool observers who can set aside their illusions and observe the world around them a bit more objectively. If you had done this, you would have noticed that the Western world believes in the theory of the State as put forward by the Peace of Westphalia. Deriving from this, the religious proclivities of a people are to be adjudged separately from their nations. This means that religious grievances are not viewed as a legitimate concern of a State. The dismissive actions of Prime Minister Rasmussen are in keeping with this tradition, which is itself one third as old as Islam. Again, he should have explained this to you but still, if you were on the ball you would have known.

The Imams have come under considerable criticism. This is more justifiable. The reactions of the Muslim world to the images of the prophet as a pig, the dog sodomising the Muslim at prayer and the pedophile accusations are easily predictable: outrage, anger and resentment. They knew violence was likely. Furthermore, while they may have been outraged themselves at these images, a little bit of thought would have revealed that at least two are suspect and the third is, at worst, the work of a provocateur. It only aids provocateurs to promulgate their works. It is clear that the the concepts of democracy and free speech are viewed by the Imams as a slippery slope that ends in sedition when they also allow apostasy - which can only be true if Islam is also the state. This means that their agenda cannot be anything less than the imposition of a theocracy and Sharia. This is irreconcilably inimical to the very concept of a Western state (see the explanation of the Peace of Westphalia above).

The anti-Muslim brigade has received some criticism from the Muslim faithful but I want to take some of them to task for missing the point, which is more dangerous than we think. On the one hand we have folks like Oriana Fallaci: filled with a venomous rage, but who have correctly identified Islamists with Fascism. A friend of mine once told me that if, in the course of your argument, you compare your opponents to Nazis, you've automatically lost. I'd add a corollary to this rule, which is that the rule only holds if your opponents are not like Nazis. She and her kin are too shrill to make a dent in the perceptions of a sleepy and lazy public but have got the general picture right. More ignorant anti-Muslim brigade members are more plentiful and are given to the assumptions that I mentioned above. They do not understand the civilisational context of the rising conflict; as Dr. Niebuhr pointed out fifty years ago, the driving force in history is irony. The gathering storm looks to be a replay at high speed of 1200 years of bloody Muslim borders and those who martial their poison pens each night are still trying to score political points off of opponents who aren't even playing the same game.

As a fitting close to this portion of the post, here are some folks who actually have solutions. Sadly, they'll be ignored. Rapproachment is a less interesting passtime than bigoted violence.

Another Denmark
It is enough now! (in Arabic)
We are sorry. A genuine, heartfelt attempt at rapproachment from some very well-meaning teenagers.

In my next post, I'll talk about the recent speech by Donald Rumsfeld, how it relates to this issue and how, viewed in conjunction, they serve to illustrate the difficulties that must be surmounted by the forces of the Western world if they are not to be subsumed by the Muslim world.