Muslims, Islam and violence.

[Lexicon]

The published cartoons wern't even remotely tatamount to incitement of fear or hatred. They were a parody of the current world situation.

If instead of just a blank statement, you might want to explain (a) how it is a parody, and (b) if it was a parody, why a parody cannot also be incitement. Without explanation, the cartoon representing the Prophet as wearing a bomb is, certainly in the light of world events, describing him as a suicide bomber; I venture to guess most people had that thought run through their minds straight away which is what counts with uncaptioned images. There is some talk of it representing a peaceful Islam hijacked by terrorism, but the expression on the face in combination with the ideas present in the other drawings makes this hard to believe. By logical extension a terrorist Prophet is implying that every Muslim, law-abiding included, is a terrorist since it is the Prophet that they follow; perhaps you at least agree with this extension. If you have a situation where people, through such subliminal imagery, start believing this is the case then fear and hatred of Muslims is inevitably generated. As I said the KKK and Nazis used the exact same tactics (they were seen as parodies by some, by the way) albeit on a much larger scale, it's nothing new although people seem to forget.

The cartoonist himself said nothing about a parody, but that it was a message, "not about Islam as a whole, but the part that apparently can inspire violence, terrorism, death and destruction." The use of 'inspire' suggests to me this is indicating that in his opinion the texts of Islam inspire terrorism. He goes on to essentially say that some Muslims pick out this "terrorist" part of Islam while others do not. If he wanted to bring up a debate about the issues in Islam, he has every right as I'm sure any Muslim would agree but he chose to make statements in cartoons.

If the cartoon represented some known terrorist today then stating "they were a parody of the current world situation," might be believable. In any case, he did try to explain his intent, which still isn't clear to me, but this needed to be done in a legal trial brought about either by the Danish government or a private law suit, not on the world.

[yamangman]

It's not so hard to believe that the reaction the paraodies provoked would be cause enough for the author to unduly explain his 'intent' behind their publication, such as that it would not be enough to simply explain them as parodies.

[RVF500]

If you have a situation where people, through such subliminal imagery, start believing this is the case then fear and hatred of Muslims is inevitably generated.

What generates fear is large and violent protest. Instances such as happened in Pakistan when some 5000 children are used to call for the execution of cartoonists. This gives a perceptoin that the younger generation is being bred for hostility.

As for my prevoius comment. You can put as much spin on it as you wish but that won't disguise the basic question which was do you find the calling death penalty for the drawing of cartoons acceptable? Your context was unclear. Which, as you noted, I made comment on. What offends some does not offend others. So while those that feel justified with [punishment being meted out the other group feels persecuted. What you have is a vicious circle forming.

I find it surprising that you appear to find calling for beheadings, butcherings and and warning of mass violence "Europe your 9/11 will come" freedom of speech yet call the drawing of cartoons something else. Fundamental to this issue is the cartoonist defending his right to freedom of speech. So if you are to allow the one then you must allow the other. Because both can be deemed as offensive to different sections of society. However one thing I did not see on any placard was a reference to the govt asking for them to change any laws. I did however see calls for violence. So I fail to see how you can make the leap of judgement to say that this was a plea to govt which appears to be central to your argument. Therefore such action falls into 'incitement'.

Personally I have not seen the cartoons. However, perhaps you can tell me why they are an incitement to fear and hatred as opposed to a parody? Let's be honest. There have been more than enough events perpetrated by Islamic extremists in recent years to incite fear and hatred. Do you have examples of this actually manifesting?

[Lexicon]

What generates fear is large and violent protest. Instances such as happened in Pakistan when some 5000 children are used to call for the execution of cartoonists. This gives a perceptoin that the younger generation is being bred for hostility.

Interesting how you try to switch from one source of concern to a completely seperate one. Obviously behaviour of some groups of Muslims is a problem too, but this does not excuse cartoonists fanning flames.

I find it surprising that you appear to find calling for beheadings, butcherings and and warning of mass violence "Europe your 9/11 will come" freedom of speech yet call the drawing of cartoons something else. Fundamental to this issue is the cartoonist defending his right to freedom of speech. So if you are to allow the one then you must allow the other. Because both can be deemed as offensive to different sections of society. However one thing I did not see on any placard was a reference to the govt asking for them to change any laws. I did however see calls for violence. So I fail to see how you can make the leap of judgement to say that this was a plea to govt which appears to be central to your argument. Therefore such action falls into 'incitement'.

I think I made it very clear. I see organised protests as something normally directed to the government, so I took the view that the protests were calling for a government policy to execute people who offend the Prophet. So even though the placards did not explicitly address the government, I could only assume that to be the case; of course were they telling public to massacre the cartoonist then the matter is completely different and I've made this clear in my previous post. On the other hand, I do not see the cartoons as being a protest to the government, but a statement to the public because they were printed in a newspaper and was done by way of imagery rather than straight-forward words. One is a demand, the other a statement. Such a demand cannot be a lie, but a statement can. You talk about the "right to freedom of speech" but you fail to understand that we have very little freedom of speech because it is countered by laws concerning libel and incitement, meaning one cannot make up lies about others. This is my point, by effectively giving the impression that all Muslims are terrorists is defaming the good name of many law-abiding Muslims who neither call for executions of the cartoonists nor behave violently. Do you feel this group deserve defamation?

Take the example of some racist groups who demand the deportation of every non-White from the UK. They are allowed to demand this as government policy even though non-Whites find it incredibly offensive and possibly a matter of life and death (deporting back to persecution). This is free-speech, but making a statement that is a lie cannot fall under free-speech.

Personally I have not seen the cartoons. However, perhaps you can tell me why they are an incitement to fear and hatred as opposed to a parody? Let's be honest. There have been more than enough events perpetrated by Islamic extremists in recent years to incite fear and hatred. Do you have examples of this actually manifesting?

I would suggest you view the cartoons if you want to debate them. I have explained why they are incitement to fear but I will do so again.

1) The drawing is a representation of the Prophet of Islam. This is made clear by the leading text of the article and the fact that Muhammad is written in Arabic on the drawing itself. So any comments like "how do you know that is Muhammad" are quite inert.

2) The significance of the bomb on his head can only, and has been, either regarded as meaning that Islam is the cause of terrorism (bomb positioned over where the brain is) or that Islam is hijacked by terrorism. If it were the latter, one would at least expect a worried look on the character's face, but he is depicted with a fierce expression which implies the former significance.

3) So if it is seen this way, and even the cartoonist has suggested it, one might believe that there is a part of Islam that is terrorist. Where does this leave ordinary, law-abiding Muslims.

On the one hand the Danish government accepts Islam as a peaceful religion (or I presume it would not be accepted), but these cartoons want to convey it as a terrorist religion. Obviously both cannot be right, and given laws against libel, either the government must ban Islam or make the paper withdraw the cartoon.

You mention events perpetrated by extremists (terrorist bombings and so on) in the name of Islam. You gloss over the fact that they are illegal and not the official policy of any significant government. These criminals are hunted down by government forces, practically every government tries to put an end to them and if they don't seem to do enough they are replaced by the US military; so who needs to protest when the US does the job. So your comment is irrelevant, the point is governments are not preventing these cartoonist (who hide under the illusion of free speech) defaming Islam.

Examples of hate manifesting specifically by cartoons? The KKK and Nazis did the same with blacks and Jews. Anti-semitic imagery, http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturm28.htm. Imagery has a big role to play in affecting peoples beliefs when they are ignorant about something, sometimes it can be stronger than words. You may or may not know that there is a rise in anti-Islamic sentiment and violence toward Muslims living in America, one might say that it's due to the behaviour of terrorists yet one can equally say that anti-Islamic propaganda has just as much guilt.

[RVF500]

So even though the placards did not explicitly address the government, I could only assume that to be the case;

Assumptions, as they say, are the mother of all f*ckups. You seem to make some very convenient assumptions. You assume that a group of cartoons are an incitement to hatred but some written words that you assume is a call to change govt policy is merely a statement of freedom of speech. You draw an interesting conclusion with the bomb being situated over the brain. However if the cartoonists idea was simply to parody a headdress which is a common accoutrement for middle Eastern men. Unless my history is completely wrong the phrophet was Arabic. Where is your argument? Or are you simply taking it as de facto wthout recourse to other options? Which means to me that your assumptions are biased. In fact your conclusions are merely extentions of that bias. Seeking to draw a thread, no matter how tenuous, to your argument that this is an incitement to fear and hatred.

Yes, I've seen numerous propaganda posters. Not just by the Nazis and KKK. They were very graphic and backed up with slogans which left the reader in absolutely no doubt as to their intent. The cartoons (and yes I have seen some now) that the arguments have sprung up over do not send the same message to me. Whether I a personally amused by them or not is irrellevant. It is my perception that the intent is to humour not to incite racial or religious hatred.

I think you will find that racist groups in the UK are monitored closely by the authorities and if they break the laws regarding incitement to racial hatred then they are subject as much as anyone. And rightly so.

Also I did not switch from one argument to another. Central to you earlier posts was the idea that fear and hatred are being incited. My reference to the incident in Pakistan was to point out what does and does not promote feelings of fear in non-muslims. The point is therefore relevant.

As for my comments about terrorist actions. I didn't think that it needed to be mentioned that such acts are illegal. Forgive me for not being patronising towards you. I am fairly confidant that we can assume that putting bombs on trains, random beheadings, and flying commercial aircraft into tall buildings in population centres are illegal. But for those that aren't sure. These are illegal acts. I am equally confidant that as no govt has claimed responsibility we can say that it is not an extention of official foriegn policy by any govt. Glad we got that cleared up.

Sadly, the most high profile terrorists in the present day are Islamic extremists. This does not say that they are the only terrorists out there. In the 70's and 80's it was groups such as Baader-Meinhof and Rote Armee Faktion and ETA along with PLO, Black September, Al Fatah etc. Though the latter 3 struck mainly at Isreili interests. ETA are still blowing the odd thing up in Spain. Shining path and the IRA have devolved into organised crime. Terrorism is nothing new. The list is extensive. These groups though were largely political with more specific targets. The fact remains though that the high profile groups are Islamic and have shown a proclivity for attacking western civil targets across a broad spectrum using their religion as a shield for their actions. This is not sidestepping an argument. It is simply reinforcing my earlier point that there cause of fear is the very real threat of harm from these people. And revisiting the origins of the thread as to why people are beginning to view Islam as violent. parallels are being drawn between acts of violence, violent protest and terrorism. Which in turn is giving birth to the anti-islamic sentiment that you have metioned.

[Lexicon]

Assumptions, as they say, are the mother of all f*ckups. You seem to make some very convenient assumptions. You assume that a group of cartoons are an incitement to hatred but some written words that you assume is a call to change govt policy is merely a statement of freedom of speech. You draw an interesting conclusion with the bomb being situated over the brain. However if the cartoonists idea was simply to parody a headdress which is a common accoutrement for middle Eastern men. Unless my history is completely wrong the phrophet was Arabic. Where is your argument? Or are you simply taking it as de facto wthout recourse to other options? Which means to me that your assumptions are biased. In fact your conclusions are merely extentions of that bias. Seeking to draw a thread, no matter how tenuous, to your argument that this is an incitement to fear and hatred.

Thank you for your continuing replies. I'm not just assuming anything without reason. Given the poor information we have, I gave you reasons why I regarded the cartoons as aimed at the people and a protest aimed at the government, whereas, without actually addressing those reasons, your shallow counter-argument is simply that I am making an "assumption." Furthermore, you completely ignore the fact that the protest in question was most definitely a demand, whereas on the contrary, the cartoons were certainly a statement (look up the cartoonist's own opinion). You do see the difference between a demand and statement, how one cannot be a lie whereas the latter can?

However, I have always been open to the possibility of where that demand was directed, for example my post where I list three various options and that if it was incitement they should be punished. I merely point out my current belief based on the fact they exercised their freedom of speech in organised protests, which are normally made to demand from governments, and would welcome a proper statement of intent from them. If a similiar protest was made by people in favour of the return of capital punishment are we to assume that their demands are made toward the public to take the law into their own hands. In case you are not aware, it is a crime in several countries to insult the Prophet therefore my assumption that these people want to see it as a crime here is not at all unbelievable and they have every right to demand this.

If you read my posts, in the light of the thread, you might see the irony in your comments about me not being open to possibility. Initially, I replied to a thread where I felt posters were seemingly only open to the possibility that the protesters were inciting violence specifically amongst the public. I pointed out that essentially we must, if need be by trial, "ask those who did that (protest), maybe they were just asking for it to be government policy to execute 'offenders of the Prophet,' maybe to make a point about free speech." Whereas now you "assume" I am being biased over the situation; on the contrary I'm pointing out other obvious possibilities.

You mention the possibility of parodying a headdress as a bomb as one that I am not open to. Firstly, I would wonder who finds the concept of suicide bombing funny, but admit there are sick senses of humour out there. In fact a headdress is surely what I described since a headdress is normally positioned over the brain, or at least in my case it would be. In any case, I based that on the fact that the cartoonist said that he considered Islam to be the source of inspiration to terrorism, so apparently he considers it to be generating from Muhammad's head hence the positioning. I'm not suggesting I'm definitely correct or not, as I'm sure you are open to the possibility of my version being the case too despite your passing it off as a parody.

Yes, I've seen numerous propaganda posters. Not just by the Nazis and KKK. They were very graphic and backed up with slogans which left the reader in absolutely no doubt as to their intent. The cartoons (and yes I have seen some now) that the arguments have sprung up over do not send the same message to me. Whether I a personally amused by them or not is irrellevant. It is my perception that the intent is to humour not to incite racial or religious hatred.

Certainly some of the Dutch cartoons had a clear intent to humour but if you inspect the bomb cartoon, in all fairness, while I can see the cartoon as sending a message, I cannot imagine how any humour could be generated from it but apparently you can. The cartoonist himself made a statement which seemed to suggest that he considered the (texts of) Islam to be inciting terrorism, what more evidence do you need than his own intention. Furthermore, many of the Nazi and KKK cartoons had clear attempts to humour while sending a clear racist message. So what you are saying is that it is fine to be racist and lie if you are funny about it?

I think you will find that racist groups in the UK are monitored closely by the authorities and if they break the laws regarding incitement to racial hatred then they are subject as much as anyone. And rightly so.

I'm sure, at least when the incitement is made in front of large section of public, but you are assuming the cartoon protests are counted as incitement to racial hatred, and this is exactly my point. If an organisation makes a web-site and distribute leaflets promising that, if they are placed in power, they would remove all minority races from the country or if they simply make demands to the existing government, this would not come under incitement to hatred, yet if they direct suggestions to the public to forcibly exile minorities this would be incitement. Perhaps it is a fine line, but that is what freedom of speech is.

You might wonder why I feel anti-Islam propaganda should be criminalised in the same way as racism, I'm sure can give you a thorough explanation of the reasons why racism is a crime and why anti-Islamism is equivalent.

Also I did not switch from one argument to another. Central to you earlier posts was the idea that fear and hatred are being incited. My reference to the incident in Pakistan was to point out what does and does not promote feelings of fear in non-muslims. The point is therefore relevant.

Sorry but you are mixing up things, the fear that the incidents in Pakistan promote is essentially non-Muslims' fear of those particular people and that is a separate issue. I was always, clearly addressing the non-Muslims' fear of the non-protesting, law-abiding Muslims (in the UK for example). This can only come from establishing a link between those protesters and the rest of the Muslims. The only link the haters want to come up with is Islam, so by concluding that Islam is the source of violence we should fear all Muslims. The issue is not acts of terrorism (this word itself it not sufficiently clear) themselves but the linking of it to Islam.

[RVF500]

I also thank you for your continuing replies. However I feel that we are never going to agree regarding the intentions of the bearers of the placards. In the abscence of any contray statement from those who displayed those statements I have to use my interpretation which is that they are demanding for anyone to kill the people responsible for the cartoons. Certainly there are those who will make the same interpretation only with a different agenda. Hence the cartoonists fearing for their lives. The placards stating "Europe your 9/11 will come" does not sound like a call for govt policy change to me. Some may even find it threatening. I don't call that a demand. You may of course use your own interpretation.

but you are assuming the cartoon protests are counted as incitement to racial hatred,

Absolutely not. I am assuming that they are a parody attempting humour. Whether they are humorous or not isn't the argument.

As for terrorism, well I've lived with that. As a member of the armed forces in the 80's. I know from personal experience that an ordinary man in the street and a terrorist are outwardly identical. Also how suddenly and unexpectedly they strike. I also find no humour in suicide bombings or any form of murder for that matter. Therefore I'm afraid that your assumption that I do find such things funny is simply wrong.

I cannot imagine how any humour could be generated from it but apparently you can.

To take that a stage further to the current climate. The most active, and to Western people, most dangerous are those hiding behind Islam and perverting it's teachings to convince young people to carry out atrocities. The simple act of getting on a bus or tube train may be a fatal move as was discovered back in July. An ordinary young man with a daysack sat apparently minding his own business detonated a bomb he was carrying. The link therefore between the terrorist and ordinary non-violent muslims is made by people who are afraid that the person sat next to them may have more than sports kit in his daysack. So I am not mixing things up. I'm using various instances to illustrate why I believe people are linking Islam with violence. These cartoons do run central to the thread as they were used as an excuse for the incident I mentioned.

And people are afraid. Question: How many terrorists in a city do you need to perpetrate fear? Answer: None, you just need the perception that they are there. Equally how many religious extremists do you need? The images beamed around the world by media organisations are very powerful. These images are full of people carrying out violent acts in the name of Islam. Al Jazeera (hardly anti-Islamic) transmits videos from known instigators of acts of terrorism. These videos show these individuals as using the Islamic faith as a shield for their atrocities. Yo strike me as in intelligent individual. Are you telling me you can't see how ordinary people are making a link between Islam and violence? I happen to know it's not the case. I happen to work in countries that have Islamic govts or majority Islamic populations. In the office where I currently work I am the only non-muslim. Unfortunately the majority of Western people don't have that advantage.

You use the word haters quite a lot. There are haters on both sides of the divide. Those that convince young people to kill themselves along with as many others randomly must have an incredible amount of hate. So I'm sorry but I think you are mixing things up when you blame anti-Islamist propaganda largely for the perceptions people are holding when the loudest messages that those people are hearing are not from propaganda but from some followers of Islam itself.

[Lexicon]

I also thank you for your continuing replies. However I feel that we are never going to agree regarding the intentions of the bearers of the placards. In the abscence of any contray statement from those who displayed those statements I have to use my interpretation which is that they are demanding for anyone to kill the people responsible for the cartoons. Certainly there are those who will make the same interpretation only with a different agenda. Hence the cartoonists fearing for their lives. The placards stating "Europe your 9/11 will come" does not sound like a call for govt policy change to me. Some may even find it threatening. I don't call that a demand. You may of course use your own interpretation.

A sensible discussion should involve reason rather than feelings. In my first post I suggested to ask the protesters rather than assuming one way or another, so I'm not of any fixed position with regard to their intent but showed a possible explanation based on reasoning. I have reasoned that it is because demands through public protests (whether they be about laws or foreign policy) the world-over are almost always directed at the government, whereas statements in newspaper articles are directed at the public. I don't know think you can deny that this is the general reality, but simply "feeling" the protest was a threat to the public doesn't carry much weight with me. Placards with "europe your 9/11 will come" could simply be a warning that others in the world will act on their hate caused by the cartoons, rather than a threat from the protesting group itself. True, this is not a demand in itself but could be seen as a reason why such incitements (by the cartoonists) should be punished, hence their demand.

I was taken aback as much as anyone by the placards which is why I suggested the sheer absurdity was meant to push on the boundaries of free speech by blurring the line between the idea of a demand for a law to be introduced and incitement to simply to make a point or retort while staying out of the law's way. Fortunately the British press showed respect to the many Muslims who merely watched events by not "retaliating" and displaying the cartoons. I'm all for seeing them put on trial to determine the truth, but my posts here have been to point out the bias in the beliefs of many people.

On the other hand, I simply used the explanation by the cartoonist himself to determine my view of the intent. I pointed out that his statement was not completely clear, but evidently he believes the religion of Islam has message of terrorism embedded within. I don't know about you, but in my view this would be a very dangerous belief. However, I guess it is only natural that non-Muslims don't see it as such a problem for themselves since a widely held anti-Islamic belief will not result in them being persecuted.

An ordinary young man with a daysack sat apparently minding his own business detonated a bomb he was carrying. The link therefore between the terrorist and ordinary non-violent muslims is made by people who are afraid that the person sat next to them may have more than sports kit in his daysack.

You're basically pointing out that the mere sight of a criminal act by person with a certain ethnicity or religious following will no doubt cause a fear of other with that ethnicity/religion. Check my previous post to know that I don't deny this, it is a valid point, but these are fears based on prejudice, meaning they haven't asked why the terrorists do what they do. What I speak of is a fear based on knowledge of Islam being one thing or another; on one hand the anti-Islam groups would have you believe that Islam wants to see innocents killed, on the other hands Muslims want you to believe that Islam dictates the same policy that any government has, to defend against aggressors. You cannot belittle words compared to the actions of terrorists, in this regard. Do you appreciate this view or not?

There is little doubt in my mind that the link is also made by media talk of "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist." Further strengthened by mistranslated, out of context quotations of the Qur'an and subliminal imagery. You can choose to go along with the government and media view that terrorists are following some kind of perversion of Islam. This idea is even contrary to what terrorists themselves supposedly say. My view is they may well be Muslim (whether they are good or bad is another point) but the reason they kill does not stem from religion but their view of their victims as being the initial aggressors. You may have read some of talk by the terrorists of a Western/Russian invasion of Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan and now Iraq being the justification. This is nothing to do with religion, any nation has a policy of defending itself and if you actually read what they say, this is exactly how the terrorists view it. As you point out, these are the haters on the other side but the haters on this side want to establish the link with Islam. The difference being the terrorists are sought out and brought to justice whereas the anti-Islamic groups manage to hide under the banner of free speech. As I said, governments need to take an official stance on the religion of Islam and either ban it or give tools to the law-abiding Muslims to prevent these groups fouling their names or eventually there may well be a Muslim holocaust.

[RVF500]

Unfortunately for the more logical and reasoning amongst us a large proportion of people use feelings first. Human beings are rather tactile creatures. I would suggest that the majority of people we saw on our TV screens were among the latter group. However, I feel that your reasoning is flawed. Granted the theory holds the possibility but on balance of probablility I would disagree. I would disagree because the passion within the crowd would point towards high running feelings as opposed to logical reasoning. For the viewer; People will see such placards as the 9/11 one and react based on the feelings that such a statement invokes. It will be seen as a blunt threat.

Personally I don't believe the religion of Islam, or indeed any other religion, carries a message of terrorism. I do however believe that religions through history have been used by unscrupulous people to incite a mass of people to do their bidding. As I have already stated, the current crop of most dangerous terrorists (to westerners) are those that operate under a banner of Islamic faith. I have read a number of things. Including Moqtada Al Sadr stating that the attacks in Irag are made by Al Queda under the orders of the US. I do wonder where he gets his intelligence from. As I have stated repeatedly through my posts. Religion is being used by cynical politically ambitious individuals as a shield for their actions and as a means of recruiting people to their movements. The tactic of spinning texts that are millenia old and applying meanings that cannot be verified by the authors is a very simple one. Especially if the spinner is someone of credibility to the target audience.

I am pointing out that a catalogue of events has led to a basic fear. The same catalogue of events will also lead to prejudice. I have no doubt that this is also a goal of the architects of these events. For if there is prejudice then those who stand on the sidelines and become victims of that prejudice may well be pushed into the arms of the terror groups who were actually the root cause of that escalation of prejudice. Cynical. Instigate attacks on your own people so that they feel agrieved enough to join you. Cynical but effective. A bit like destroying one of your own religious sites to destabilse your own country in a bid to take power. Which is the ulimate goal really. Take power and subjugate people to your will and view of the world. One should look at the histories of the totalitarian states that emerged in the early to mid 20th century to see how that approach has a habit of panning out.

Anti-Islamic, anti-Jewish, anti-Western/Eastern/Democratic/Communist, whatever, groups exist and as long as they stay within the bounds of the laws of the lands in which they exist they are tolerated by govts under the banner of free speech. It's not just an anti-Islamist thing. Though that is probably getting more coverage and is therefore more in the public eye due to current events in the news. I have no doubt that the perpetrators of of these events are more than happy to stay on the font pages for reasons I've already outlined.

Western societies on the whole are very tolerant. On the other hand if I were to try and enter certain Islamic countries carrying a bible or wearing a crucifix for example. They would be either confiscated or I would be instructed to remove the 'offending' item. So while condemning the apparant tolerance of anti-Islamist groups by govts. Kindly remember that an attempt at tolerance across the board is practiced.

[Lexicon]

I'm happy you distinguished between two factors at play when you stated that, "unfortunately for the more logical and reasoning amongst us a large proportion of people use feelings first." I have always believed that much of the furore over the cartoons, as I quote myself, "are most probably reactions out of anger, much like people lashing out after someone insults their family in some way, or hooligans acting violent after their side loses a soccer match." Certainly I believe it is true in the case of the violence abroad, those people were not really trying to make a point but just to lash out at Denmark for allowing such publications.

So there is incitement of violence through anger stemming from insults. If you are to blame (and prosecute) the protesters for inciting the British public emotionally, then you should also blame (and prosecute) the cartoonist for inciting Muslims emotionally. In any case, I am not regarding this component of things because people should control their violent urges brought about their own emotions. Anger is not an excuse for violence.

However, there is another kind of incitement (I should say defamation) which is brought about by trying to make people believe something that is not true. If you see a person of a certain ethnicity commit a criminal act, you would not be justified in assuming all persons of that ethnicity are criminals, whether or not you believe it to be true. However if someone was trying to inform you that the genes of that person led to his criminal behaviour, and you believe that person spoke the truth, you would then have reason to believe all of that ethniicity are prone to crime. This third person, who is trying to establish a "false link," is unjustified as far as I am concerned.

Regarding the Iraq situation, I cannot really say whether the US secretly tries to inflame the situation in Iraq. You can find several secular, even American (Democrat of course), forums rife with suspicions similiar to al'Sadr's. Frankly at this time, nothing the US might secretly do would surprise me but I wouldn't want to make any judgment without facts.

I still don't see how terrorists are "spinning" anything regarding Islam. They may well be following Islam, but they are seeing the West as invading enemies. What does anyone do in that situation? Of course, they fight. The spin I see is from the media and government who claim that there are people who feel the need to destroy "Westerners" (why not Chinese?) as a way to Paradise. You point out that, "religion is being used by cynical politically ambitious individuals as a shield for their actions and as a means of recruiting people to their movements," I agree but also because I see it as a shield for the Western governments for it is far easier to claim your enemy is an insane being with a crazy idealogy to kill you than it is to address the issues they are actually claiming to fight for.

Indeed Western societies are tolerant to most religions. You also refer to Saudia Arabia as the country where such a confiscation of a visible cross or Bible might occur, I don't know of any other Muslim country (even Iraq was secular despite many beliefs) that has such a policy. Of course this is a government policy in Saudi Arabia, we can't say how tolerant the society would be, but I suspect as tolerant as elsewhere. Having said this, one should neither boast about offering more tolerance than another country nor point out that other countries do one oppressive thing thus one's own country could do the same. One cannot look to another's standard to justify one's own.

[yamangman]

I've decided, from 3 days ago, to become a Muslim. Doing well so far I believe. Still can't comprehend the reaction of some of my brothers and sisters of the faith to those cartoonish parodies, in this, the civilised, normalised society.

[RVF500]

I would suggest that putting an interpretation on a religious text and using it in such a way as to manipulate an individual trough their beliefs to carry out acts contrary to that religion could be described as putting a spin on those texts. As far as I am aware the Qu'ran does not preach killing your fellow man regardless of his beliefs.

I'm glad you point out the idea of seeing the West as invading enemies. In fact when such groups proclaim their intent to see a world in which only Islam exists (and this has been said) then one could forgive Westerners for beginning to belive that their own religion is under threat perhaps? Maybe begin to see Muslims as invaders? I'm hypothesising but to use your own approach the possibility could exist. As a rational individual I don't happen to believe that is the case depite the rhetoric of characters such as the Iranian president. Nor the rantings in the media. But using the excuse that the West is invading leads to the counter argument that the West is protecting it's own interests. Not so much by invasion but by attacking the threat at source. I really don't regard the extremist leaders as insane. Calculating, yes. Cruel, I have no doubt. Insane? No.

I'm led to believe that Kuwait operates a similar policy to Saudi. I can't speak for other states as I simply don't know. A look around the FCO site would probably yeild some information there. As I have so far avoided Saudi (actually I just turned a job down there) I can't really comment on the population as a whole. I found the people of Oman to be open and friendly though. The same with Malaysia and Senegal. India, for all it's faults, is highly tolerant of religion. Though they do fracture along ethnic lines from time to time.

Why not Chinese indeed? Perhaps no target of opportunity? Not seen as 'degenerate, materialistic and weak'? No major muslim presence? There is a presence but not one that would could be used as a major source of support. Plus teh political nature of China would probably mean a swift and bloody end to any presence should it be seen as a threat by the Chinese. After all, they didn't baulk at running tanks over their own people in Tienaman Square. As I have already said, these are cynical people. No profit margin in China. Once again I'm hypothesising. But the hypothesis has it's merits.

[iranu]

it's very simple. People who legitimately protest in this country do not need to hide their faces whilst doing so.

If the "protest" in London was of a peaceful nature asking this government to introduce laws to this country to use capital punishment against those who offend the prophets name then we would have seen placards asking the for exactly that and "protesters" not covering their faces. All the placards were written by one person, so it was a staged show for by fanaticals who think they can get away with trying to get more people killed.

It is not surprising that ordinary people fear a culture or religion when people do such foriegn things like covering your face when protesting in THIS country. It's not the British way and therefore is alien to us. Things which are alien scare people. If you looked at the front pages of the papers that day you could easily made a case for those pictures being taken in the middle east. At first impression they looked like a baying mob. This is why people make the connection between Islam and violence, it's because they see the two together all the time. It may not be true but it's perception that counts, not truth.

Western society is the most tolerant society there is. We are streets ahead of the middle east. Can you imagine a protest in Saudi where a group of white Christians held placards saying butcher those who won't let us wear crosses being free to protest for more than 5 minutes? They would have been crushed. Do you think that the dress police in Iran would let a westerner walk down the road in a bikini? Of course not. The burka really offends me but I don't demand death or inprisonment for wearing one.

We have a saying in this country, When in Rome do as the Romans do. It's about time that Muslims realise that they are not in Kabul but Britain and should therefore act as Britons. If they don't like it then they should consider living somewhere they feel more comfortable. Unfortunately most of them that have tasted western life, it's opportunities and freedoms do not want to go and live in a dangerous, backwards, middle eastern ****hole.

[RVF500]

Speaking of Kabul ^

An Afghan man is facing the death penalty for becoming a Christian.

Abdul Rahman was arrested last month after his family went to the police and accused him of converting from Islam.

He has gone on trial for rejecting Islam - an offence punishable by death under Shariah law.........................

.......The judge said: "We are not against any particular religion in the world.

"But in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is against the law.

"It is an attack on Islam. The prosecutor is asking for the death penalty."

Does that mean I can add Afghanistan to the list of intolerant states? Perhaps it also goes some way to explain why the immigrant movement is more towards the west than towards the east. On a less radical note, if you wish to marry a Malay in Malaysia then you must convert to Islam if not already a follower of that faith. Malays are muslim by law in Malaysia. My point? To me a forced follower is not a true follower at all. Merely a follower of convenience. One who would reject those teachings at the earliest opportunity. That goes for any religion or social group that forces people to follow it's teachings.

[Lexicon]

RVF500,

To reiterate, I don't see any spin or unusual interpretation put on Islamic texts by terrorists, I strongly believe the spin comes from Western observers who either put the spin on the texts of Islam (Daniel Pipes, etc.) or on what the terrorists actually demand (the media and governments). The terrorists always have a stated purpose, to restore Palestine, or to rid the Middle East of "invading America," or Chechnya of Russia. Not because they see them as non-Muslim but because they see them as invaders, this is why I've pointed out that China, who have remained largely to themselves, are not subject to the terrorism that the West is. Any state, be it America or al'Qaeda, has a policy where if they see oppression or consider themselves attacked, will fight back.

Now you speculated about "profit margins" as being the reasons why the terrorists don't strike China. In fairness to you, you are just being open-minded about possibilities, in the same way I was being open-minded about the London protesters' intent. Seriously, the famous image of a tank in Tiananmen Square is not going to dissuade a suicide bomber, in Palestine even children were throwing rocks at Israeli tanks. However, this open-mindedness is not so justified when you actually listen to what bin Laden says (similiarly it wouldn't be if we knew what the protest organisers truly wanted). I'll partially quote bin Laden from aljazeera.net, you may note his comment about Sweden, which is my reason for pointing out China too:

Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:

Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

Clearly these are words of a man who feels he is fighting an "oppressor," not someone who has an insane desire to forcibly convert every non-Muslim to Islam. So where is this idea, "that the terrorists want to see all non-Muslims killed," coming from? The media, the government, even you are promoting this view. Certainly from the governments point of view the motive behind such a promotion is to side-step the issues the terrorists want addressed.

The difference between America and the terrorists is that the terrorists know they cannot compete with the might of America's army head on, one can talk of cowardice but there is also the concept of stupidity. The ordinary citizens are the ones that ultimately finance the US Army, hence their targeting them too. Of course, neither side is going to truly win anything this way, causing people to hate even more which is why the terrorists are rightly brought to justice but the Western foreign policy is what needs to be addressed.

You spoke of the rhetoric of the Iranian president, I presume you meant where he wanted to see "Israel to be wiped off the map." This example does not support your theory that certain Muslim groups want to see all non-Muslims dead. All Muslims, including moderates, have a regard of Israel as unjustly taking over Palestine in 1948. This was seen as an invasion and is still not forgotten. Obviously, there is just a huge spectrum of reactions Muslims have had to this, from the 1967 attack on Israel, to the terrorism, or just Muslims voicing their opinions or providing support to evicted families.

I don't think any Muslim has the intent of making the world one in which only Islam exists. What you are probably mistaking is the Islamic belief that Jesus will return and eventually he will make the whole world united under Islam. There is no Muslim desire to do that job beforehand. I've listened to lectures by a reknowned Muslim scholar where he points out that if Muslims were to indeed convert (by force or evangelism) the entire world to Islam, Allah would cause a part of it to abandon Islam and create the grief we see anyway.

[RVF500]

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

As they are bringing their form of freedom to Waziristan? No thanks. I'd keep Bush and Blair over that. Even though I loathe both.

I'm about to finish work now so I will read the rest of your post and comment in the morning.