Lemme get this straight, Sterling: You start off by quoting something about Islam being weak, and end up advocating the invasion of Syria?

And the Williams quote is silly. Imagine if he'd said "I gotta say it looks to me like evidence of a very weak person when someone somehow can't stand a simple bee sting." Silly, right? Some people are much more susceptible to bee stings than others. And in this case the problem isn't the cartoon qua cartoon, it's the fact that Mohammed is being represented at all. But you knew that. I'm not saying that we in the west shouldn't be allowed to represent Mohamed if we want, I'm just saying that such an act is going to be very provocative w/r/t Islamists.

I'm just saying that such an act is going to be very provocative w/r/t Islamists.

And I'm just saying that what Islamists think is of no merit and should be of no concern, except in the context of discussion about how to defeat them.

Invade Syria? Where did you get that from? All I suggested was retaliation; I was thinking along the lines of doing to some government buildings in Damascus what Syria did to the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Beirut.

I suspect we're done with invasions over there - from now the two approaches on the table are degradation and annihilation. The only thing the AQ thugs in Iraq have accomplished is to diminish American patience.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Williams quote, as it applies to all religions and dogma in general (flag burning, etc.). Of course, Muslims have a right to be offended and to speak out against, in this instance, the cartoons. But they do not have a right to incite violence.

I saw an interesting point over the weekend on a blog. (I can't remember where and I'm in a hurry at the moment - see if I can post the link later.) The gist of it was that of all the world religions, Islam makes the greatest claim on the conduct of temporal matters. You don't see Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, etc, attempting to govern according to their holy books. Only Muslims do this - and the point made was this characteristic means that Islam is entitled to the LEAST amount of sanctification and protection, because it is relevant to everyone, in all public matters where Muslims are involved.

Gallant Little Denmark! I think the majority of Danes would be agahst at the US standing up for them symbolically at all, let alone by bombing Iran or Syria -- or did you just mean the US should just tell these countries off, and quite sternly too!

MF people are gutless handwringers as a general rule, and god knows I hate them.

However, you remain completely wrong, once again the dupe of something you read somewhere that sounded good, but which did not in fact make any sense. The fact that in this case it was Fox News sounds fairly typical for you. I think that were I to try and blow myself up, and take a lot of innocent people with me, I would have to have a pretty strong belief system rather than a weak one. I would have to have " a lot of confidence in my belief system", indeed I had better believe all that shit like a LOT. I do think Islam has a stronger belief system than you think.

I mean, really: Fox News. . . no one believes that shit, not even trailer trash. Now THAT´s what I call a weak belief system. I mean, no-one throws a tupperware-encased fertiliser bomb into their knapsack and blows up the local ACLU shouting "Bill O'Reilly-u-Akhbar!!" However I am sure if anyone would, Sterling, it would be you.

Eurof, you're wrong. Suicide bombers may strongly believe in their convictions, but if those convictions cannot withstand the commentary of fucking cartoonists, then I would say they are based on a weak foundation. I'm not saying Islam is a weak religion, only that many of its practioniners, along with many of those of other religions, are not confident enough to tolerate and/or defend itself from opposing viewpoints without resorting to violence.

if those convictions cannot withstand the commentary of fucking cartoonists, then I would say they are based on a weak foundation.

Sac, do you have any reason whatsoever to believe that any Muslim's convictions have proved incapable of withstanding the commentary of cartoonists? It seems to me that the convictions have withstood the commentary quite well, actually, and if anything have only been strengthened by it.

As for Sterling's claim that only Muslims aspire to theocracy, I could point to many counterexmples in history, and even some movement which I can't be bothered to look up right now where a bunch of evangelical Xians are trying to all move to some benighted state at the same time so that they can form a big voting bloc and turn it into a Christian theocracy. And Israel has many theocratic attributes. In fact, nearly every country does indeed attempt to govern to some extent according to its holy books: look at the status of cows in India, for example.

Suicide bombers may strongly believe in their convictions, but if those convictions cannot withstand the commentary of fucking cartoonists, then I would say they are based on a weak foundation.

Exactly. People resort to violence when they don't believe they can win with words. Go read the story of Umar, one of the first and greatest caliphs, who converted to Islam whilejourneying TO assassinate Mohammed. One of Mohammed's disciples sought to peacefully avert the coming violence, and convinced Umar by having him read the Quran. That disciple believed in the power of his faith.

The problem with Islam, for the umpteenth time, is that it does not change - the world has evolved but Islam stands still. Its adherents know this weakness but they fear the explosion if they begin to let it change. They know it is fragile and dry and will crack under pressure, which is why they cannot abide infidels even discussing it. I'm surprised they tolerate the book being translated into European and East Asian languages.

And so they commit atrocities to silence their critics and those who might induce Islam to change.

"Sac, do you have any reason whatsoever to believe that any Muslim's convictions have proved incapable of withstanding the commentary of cartoonists?"

Yes, some Muslims do not want to live in a world where their beliefs are questioned. That is a position of weakness. Defending criticism by showing the critics to be wrong, that is a position of strength. You are conflating conviction with strength.

No, Sac, you are conflating conviction with strength. The anti-cartoon Muslims might be coming froma position of weakness, but they still have very strong convictions. And those convictions are only getting stronger as a result of this brouhaha. Think of one of those four-quadrant charts. Strength-weakness is on one axis, while strong convictions - weak convictions is on the other axis. Western Christianity is strong, but with weak convictions. The kind of Islam we see in the anti-cartoon riots is weak, but with strong convictions. Hippy-skippy new-age nonsense is weak but with weak convictions. I guess something like the Catholic church during the middle ages would be strong with strong convictions.

Well, the Iranians are striking back by launching a competition to publish cartoons mocking the holocaust:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1703925,00.html

Not sure how that counts as apt retaliation to satirical cartoons of Mohammed published in an allegedly Christian country. But then Monty Python's already pretty much done the satire on the crucifiction, so what would be the point, eh?

Also, Murray, the Iranian and Arab newspapers publish cartoon making fun of the Holocaust all the time. There was actually a book of anti-semitic Muslim cartoons published a year or so back in France, by a Jewish scholar who'd been collecting them for a few years. He had hundreds or thousands of them.

But it's nice of the Iranians to make the point. They'll publish horribly insulting cartoons, infinitely worse than the Danish ones, and there won't be any riots of Christians or Jews. No embassies will be burned down by rampaging hate mobs, and no Muslim imams will be shot to death in Turkey as retaliation.

And, Sterling, is that good or bad? Does not having a reliable cast of murderous psycho's as part of our religious roll-call make "our" religions better or worse than Islam? Or is this about "strong" vs "weak" convictions? Which is better, in your view? Or is it all scheissegal?

The hysteria aroused on both sides by this ludicrous episode only benefits extremists, including the Iranian president and his exciting bomb-building plans. The more eagerly the bandwaggon-jumpers line up to defend their "right to blaspheme" by means of woefully unfunny cartoons, the more mainstream Muslim support the turbanned miscreants can count on.

All the Muslims I have spoken to over the past days have agreed that the violent protests are well out of order but the unfunny cartoons were a little bit out of order too, when first commissioned by the Danish editor - and reprinting them was on certainly the inflammatory side of rude. Muslims of the kind I have spoken to won't feel more inclined to suicide bomb as a result of this, they may feel a little bit more that the west despises them, though, and this is something deeply to be regretted. None of them have any problems with democracy, by the way, nor do they have any wish to build a theocracy in Europe, as Steyn and his ilk blithely suppose. They come here to prosper and bring up families, not to pull the whole edifice down about their ears.

What precisely are you advocating, anyway, Sterling - it's far from clear in your tendentious post above?

Sterling pontificated tediously about

"the same burdens of ignorance and brutality that their (ie, Muslims) ancestors wrote down in the Quran 1000 years ago."

The Koran is the unmediated words of God, Sterling - as you should know, as it is a point continuously harped on by those who wish to contrast the tolerant, analytical, disputatious traditions of Christianity with the benighted inflexible savagery of Islam.

At the philosphical level, therefore, the Koran is timeless; at the practical level, it was received by the Prophet (may peace be with him) in the seventh century.

Sterling pontificated tediously about

"the same burdens of ignorance and brutality that their (ie, Muslims) ancestors wrote down in the Quran 1000 years ago."

The Koran is the unmediated words of God, Sterling - as you should know, as it is a point continuously harped on by those who wish to contrast the tolerant, analytical, disputatious traditions of Christianity with the benighted inflexible savagery of Islam.

At the philosphical level, therefore, the Koran is timeless; at the practical level, it was received by the Prophet (may peace be with him) in the seventh century.

To an imprtant sxtent, Al Qaeda/AQ's sympathisers are behind this silly cartoon controversy - because AQ wants to drive all Muslims into the jihadist corner.

If the link on my name works it will carry you to more on this debate including a rather good article in Le Monde Diplomatique of last August.

If you wish to avoid the "pimp my blog" aspect, it basically boils down to the fact that AQ is at war with all aspects of modern society, including what Hero/Claude would term "mainstream Islam".

Controversies like this are ideal for that purpose, as they polarise and leave the "debate" to polemicists and extremists.

Sad to see so stout a champion of freedom of speech as "Censor" Sterling falling happily in with Al Qaeda's aims here. See, there is some "use" to his idiocy after all.

"No, Sac, you are conflating conviction with strength."

That doesn't make any sense, Felix, because I'm not equating conviction with strength. Anyway, a faith that can be threatened by opposing or satirical views is not a strong faith. They may believe strongly, they may wreak havoc and cause fear, but the underlying structure of such a faith is fragile. Strong faith can weather opposing views, even thrive in such an environment, because the underlying structure of that faith is secure. Would you not agree with that? Substitute faith with belief or just opnion. Doesn't matter. If you are secure in your faith/belief/opinion, than you are not threatened by another viewpoint and certainly not by a cartoon.

I'm still struggling to understand why the normally secular crowd here is jumping to the defense of an irrrationally religious group of people. I support their right to be irrationally religious, but do not agree with their logic (or lack thereof) in holding those beliefs and certainly not their practice of ignoring the many acts of violence done in Allah's name while rioting over some fucking cartoons. Come on, if this were Christians doing the same, everyone here would be all over that and rightfully so.

I do agree with that publishing the cartoons only fans the flames.

There's a difference between saying people have strong convictions and jumping to their defense. I would say the same about Sterling, and I'm not about to jump to his defense. And when did I say anything about these people being strong?

You said something like some people are more suceptible to bee stings or something and that the Williams quote was silly, which it isn't if you understand the difference between strong convictions and sturdy, confident faith. Those two things are not always inclusive. But this argument is now silly, so there you go.

Well OK, let's grant you, for the sake of argument, that Islam is a "weak religion" and not a "sturdy, confident faith". What do you conclude from that? That because it's weak it's OK to beat up on it? That because it's weak we shouldn't take it seriously? That because it's weak Muslims deserve less respect than people with a stronger religion?

Dah! I never said Islam is a weak religion, I said the people rioting over the cartoons are coming from a weak position, one that thinks a cartoon is a serious threat to Islam. I believe the Christian Fundamentalists who don't think evolution should be taught in school are also coming from a weak position, one that thinks exposure to a scientific theory is enough to drive people away from their religion. Fundamentalists of all stripes have a weak hold on their beliefs. They believe what they do strongly, but don't have enough confidence in either themselves and/or their belief system to let their beliefs speak for themselves in the Global Marketplace of Ideas™.

Of course I don't think any religion should be beaten up, and I do take Muslim extremists seriously. I also think it was rather irresponsible of the Danish newspaper to publish such cartoons, although they have the right to do so. But it's even more irresponsible of Muslim leaders to incite violence over the publication of the cartoons and to stay silent as AQ hijacks Islam. Unless of course they agree with AQ's tactics, in which case they relinquish the right to be taken seriously as religious leaders. The Catholic Church has spoken against the war in Iraq, why haven't Muslim leaders (in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan) spoken out against AQ? If they have, then I missed it, for which I blame the Jewish liberal media, of course.

So, historically speaking, is religious fanaticism a sign of emergent power, or waning? I think of the Crusades or the Inquisition as two examples (I don't want to make accusations about religions I know less about). And is religious fanaticism in any way distinct from ideological fanaticism? Because National Socialism, Stalinism and Mao all did a bang up job being nuts.

It would seem fanaticism can't be sustained longer than a generation in modern society, and, hopefully, that is one of the benefits our social evolution -- that rational humanism undercuts extremism in increasingly shorter cycles. It would also seem that modern weaponry and communications makes the flame of extremism burn more intensely (Rwanda for example -- though their methods were crude relative to 9/11).

Regardless, it doesn't seem like external military intervention has worked in most of the cases unless there were military incursions outside the primary geographic locales of the extremists. AQ is a challenge, since simply identifying the location is a challenge, particularly when we are spending likely near 1,000 times the assets in a place we know they aren't.

The Weather Underground did not represent the social goals of the left in the 60's, no matter what Sterling is likely to find for us at LGF. Likewise, seeing young people burn an embassay over a cartoon should likely do more to galvanize moderate elements in Islam against the goals of the radical elements. Us bombing Syria, however, will do the opposite, in the same way that the shootings at Kent State did.

Fanaticism is a better word than fundamentalist for what I meant, thanks 99.

Sterling is right that the West cannot tolerate embassies being razed, no matter how offensive the cartoons may legitmately be. First of all the cartoons do not represent any official voice. Secondly violence can't be condoned in response to free speech - a point that needs to be understood by anyone living in the West, be they Muslim or anything else. Thirdly I think Sterling is right that the regime in Syria, which normally keeps a tight lid on public protests, has whipped up (or at least tolerated) these riots as a way of shoring up its own feeble position.

I don't think Sterling's idea of appropriate response (ie burning Syrian embassies) is correct but symbols in the war of ideas do matter - expelling their embassy staff, gathering a resolution at the UN supporting the Scandinavian governments, etc. If Islam is "weak" then there's no need for an overbearing response; but a response is requried.

Not a cartoon but a joke I read somewhere. The punchline was "blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord." For this statement the country of origin of this joke should have paid dearly and with lives blown to pink mist......by muslim standards....
I have seen a priest displayed in a pornographic cartoon with children.... for this thousands should pay with their lives.... by muslim standards....
Im not well educated, I dont understand many of the words you use, I have not seen the cartoon,
It has been described to me as a muhammed with a bomb on his head. The violent response is only a point proved to me.
as far as suicide bombers, they are every one victims of stronger personalities. could it ever ever happen that osama F bin laden would make that sacrifice ?
a society of mindless followers being led by more mindless followers.....

Yeah, you nailed it, LA. Especially here: "I dont understand many of the words you use" - this is precisely the biggest problem I have with this group discussion blog.

You see, the most verbose contributors here are Belgians with a decidedly weak grasp on our tongue, or else hopeless drunkards, or men in the grip of religious ecstasy or a wish to antagonise and "confrontationalise", none of which is conducive to clean concise prose.

Check out the English al-Jazeera site if it's easy-to-understand English you're looking for. And what does the initial "F" in your designation of Osama Bin Liner stand for?