The most famous cartoon ever (serius topic, no spam)

[dragon wench]

I'm not sure if this is helpful, but the CBC has posted a Timeline of the events on its website. While it is from a Canadian perspective it includes the international scope and provides a framework.


Muhammad cartoons: a timeline

CBC News Online | Feb. 9, 2006


The reaction to a dozen cartoons depicting the Muslim Prophet Muhammad has grown since a Danish newspaper published them in the fall of 2005. Apologies, defiance, reprints of the cartoons and demonstrations have escalated the response, to the point that people have died in rallies against the cartoons. These aren't the first violent reactions in the Muslim world to depictions of Muhammad.

In 2002, a Nigerian newspaper suggested that Muhammad might have chosen his bride from among the Miss World contestants. The resulting riots killed 200 people. In 1989, Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini sentenced British author Salman Rushdie to death for his book, The Satanic Verses, based loosely in part on the life of Muhammad. Rushdie's Japanese and Italian translators were both stabbed, the former fatally, in 1991. Rushdie's Norwegian publisher was shot outside his home in 1993.

Feb. 9, 2006:
Police in Laval, Que. increase security around two area Mosques that were vandalized days earlier. Windows were smashed at the Islamic Cultural Centre and the Al-Hissane Islamic Centre. Police believe the vandalism may have been a reaction to the ongoing violence overseas.

Meanwhile, Muslim community leaders ask people to avoid upcoming demonstrations in Montreal. They fear violence may erupt.

Feb. 8, 2006:
The Ulama Council, a leading group of Islamic clerics, calls for an end to violent demonstrations. "We condemn the cartoons but this does not justify violence," the council says.

Police fire into the air to disperse hundreds of protesters outside the U.S. military base in Qalat, Afghanistan. Police then fire into the crowd killing four and wounding 20.
CBC STORY: Afghan clerics appeal for end to protests

The University of Prince Edward Island's student newspaper publishes the cartoons. Two thousand copies of The Cadre are distributed, but university administration orders them removed saying the cartoons have already caused enough violence.

Meanwhile, a professor at St. Mary's University in Halifax vows to continue his case for freedom of expression after being told to take copies of the caricatures down from his office door. He says he'll put them up in his classroom instead.

CBC STORY: P.E.I. student paper publishes cartoons of Prophet

The controversial cartoons also caused some turmoil in Calgary after copies were posted in a trendy shopping district. Calgary police say letter-sized posters of one of the cartoons were taped to light standards along 10 St. They were quickly taken down after several complaints.

Alaa Elsayed, a Muslim imam living in Calgary, says he plans to lodge a formal hate crime complaint over the matter.

Feb. 7, 2006:
Several hundred protesters, some armed, storm the NATO base in Maymana, the headquarters of a provincial reconstruction team of about 100 Norwegian and Finnish troops. Three Afghans are killed in the melée.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen calls the unrest over the caricatures a "growing global crisis." "I want to appeal and reach out to all people and countries in the Muslim world. Let us work together in the spirit of mutual respect and tolerance," he says.
CBC STORY: Danish PM warns of 'global crisis' over drawings

The same day, one of Canada's leading human rights advocates says Canadian newspapers should publish the cartoons, arguing that by not printing them, the media jeopardizes Canada's culture of freedom of expression and fails to properly inform its citizens.

Montreal lawyer Julius Grey made the comments to a classroom packed with 60 law students at the University of Ottawa.

Feb. 6, 2006:
Four people are killed in Afghanistan during protests against the cartoons depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. Two demonstrators are killed by police gunfire in Mihtarlam and two others are killed when American troops fire on a crowd in Bagram. New protests erupt other in parts of the Middle East and Asia, as well.

CBC STORY: 4 dead in Afghan protests over cartoon of prophet

Feb. 5, 2006:
Protests against the cartoons are held in 25 countries. Thousands of protestors rampage through a Christian neighbourhood in Beirut and set fire to the Danish Embassy. Lebanese Interior Minister Hassan Sabei submits his resignation.

CBC STORY: Lebanese minister quits after rioters torch embassy

Feb. 4, 2006:
The embassies of Denmark and Norway in Damascus, Syria, are set ablaze during a rally. The two countries condemn the Syrian government for failing to stop the attacks.

CBC STORY: Denmark, Norway condemn Syria after embassy attacks

Feb. 3, 2006:
Le Devoir publishes one of the cartoons of Muhammad, the only Canadian publication to do so.

Protestors gather in London, Iraq, Pakistan and Indonesia. Two Danish flags are burned at the protest in London.

CBC STORY: Muslims march, burn flags over caricatures

Feb. 2, 2006:
Newspapers in the U.S., France, Germany, Spain, Italy, the U.K., Iceland, Belgium, Switzerland, Hungary, Greenland, Bulgaria, Portugal and Jordan reprint the cartoons. The newspapers claim they reprinted them as a defence of freedom of speech and the right to publish. The managing editor of France Soir, a Paris daily, is fired over his decision to run the cartoons under the headline "Yes, we have the right to caricature God."

CBC STORY: Protest ramps up over Muhammad cartoons

Jan. 30, 2006:
Masked gunmen storm an EU office in Gaza City to protest the cartoons. Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which originally printed the cartoons, posts an apology on its website, saying it regrets offending Muslims, but stands by its decision to carry the cartoons. Danish Muslims later demand a clearer apology, saying the one posted was "ambiguous."

CBC STORY: Gunmen storm EU office in Gaza to protest cartoons of prophet

CBC STORY: Danish paper apologizes for publishing cartoons of prophet

Jan. 26, 2006:
Saudi Arabia withdraws its ambassador to Denmark. Danish companies report boycotts and stores removing Danish products from their shelves.

Jan. 10, 2006:
Magazinet, a Christian newspaper in Norway, reprints the cartoons.

Jan. 1, 2006:
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen speaks out against "attempts to demonize groups of people on the basis of their religion," but says Denmark is committed to freedom of speech.

November-December 2005:
Danish Muslims travel throughout the Middle East to tell people about the cartoons and call for protest. They carry with them not only the published cartoons, but also a few others – even more offensive – that were sent to them by private Danish citizens.

Oct. 14, 2005:
Members of 16 Danish Muslim organizations condemn Jyllands-Posten, claiming the newspaper acted provocatively and insulted Muslim sensibilities.

CBC STORY: Muslims condemn 'insulting' pictures of prophet

Oct. 12, 2005:
The Palestinian representative in Denmark and ambassadors from 10 countries with Muslin populations send a letter to Fogh Rasmussen demanding a meeting with him and urging action against Jyllands-Posten. Fogh Rasmussen would later decline to meet with them.

Sept. 30, 2005:
Jyllands-Posten publishes 12 drawings of Muhammad, after asking cartoonists to send in satirical drawings of the prophet. One of the drawings depicts a Danish boy, named "Muhammad," writing in Arabic on a chalkboard: "Jyllands-Posten's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs." Flemming Rose, the paper's cultural editor, said the call for pictures was a reaction to the rising number of situations in which artists and writers censure themselves out of fear of radical Islamists.

If anyone wants to pursue the stories referred to above (since the hypertext doesn't transfer), here is the link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam ... eline.html

[Curdis]

[QUOTE=fable]Huh? The Seljuks who were taking over the Anatolian penisula (what became the Ottoman Empire, and later Turkey) were notable for providing *full protection for all sects,* and were in fact angrily condemned by many Christians when they did so as well for Jews. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for assistance in forcing back the Turks, and that--not any forcible expulsion from holy sites--was the cause of the First Crusade. It should be noted that when the Christian Crusaders took Jerusalem, which was Islamic at the time, in 1099, they massacred the population.<SNIP>[/QUOTE]No the first.

"There was also the Byzantine empire, ruling from Constantinople, whose emperor at this time was Alexius Comnenus. To his East, the Turks were rapidly encroaching on his empire, and had begun attacking pilgrims on their way to - and in - Jerusalem, causing him great distress. He wrote to his friend Robert, the Count of Flanders, in 1093, telling him about supposed atrocities committed by the Turks on the Christian pilgrims, and Robert passed this letter on to Pope Urban II. Urban, an opportunist, saw this as a perfect way to solve some of his local problems. He personally promoted a Holy Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands from the barbarian Turks. Thus, the First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE." from http://www.medievalcrusades.com/

There will inevitably remain some controversy over what happened nearly one thousand years ago. Rephrase my comment to read 'The crusades were to reclaim the holy land from barbarian turks', if you like. The perceived religious implications were the start of the senseless and, in my opinion, totally unjustified violence. That the situation was being cynically manipulated only makes the comparison (to the current situation) more apt.

CM At least one group of Indonesian violent Islamist extremists, Laskar Jihad, have not (unlike Jamaah Islamiah) claimed links to Al Qaeda, and were operating well before Al Qaeda came to international prominence. I don't understand what your point is here, regarding 'home grown' organisations. Al Qaeda is a network that is only loosely cohesive around a shared ideology, essentially all of it's adherents are home grown. You actually mention the Acehnees (sp), how do they not meet the definition of homegrown violent Islamist extremists? Your original point seemed to be that in all the countries where there were protests these were made by 'ordinary people' who were acting out of genuine religious outrage in response to the Danish cartoons, not by violent Islamist extremists. In this you may actually be correct (although I personally find it hard to believe that there weren't clerics stirring the pot). Your supporting arguement however appears to be seriously flawed. - Curdis !

[fable]

"There was also the Byzantine empire, ruling from Constantinople, whose emperor at this time was Alexius Comnenus. To his East, the Turks were rapidly encroaching on his empire, and had begun attacking pilgrims on their way to - and in - Jerusalem, causing him great distress. He wrote to his friend Robert, the Count of Flanders, in 1093, telling him about supposed atrocities committed by the Turks on the Christian pilgrims, and Robert passed this letter on to Pope Urban II. Urban, an opportunist, saw this as a perfect way to solve some of his local problems. He personally promoted a Holy Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands from the barbarian Turks. Thus, the First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE." from http://www.medievalcrusades.com/

Accurate enough, except that there has never been any confirmation from any second source of the Seljuks committing any atrocities. In fact, it was against their imperial policy. If you can find any evidence of these atrocities, you will have done better than any historian since that time.

There will inevitably remain some controversy over what happened nearly one thousand years ago. Rephrase my comment to read 'The crusades were to reclaim the holy land from barbarian turks', if you like. The perceived religious implications were the start of the senseless and, in my opinion, totally unjustified violence. That the situation was being cynically manipulated only makes the comparison (to the current situation) more apt.

There are, however, soime actions that are not argued over from the First Crusade, and which all sides concede did occur:

The massacre of Jews. To finance the Crusades, lesser merchants and peasants were beld dry, and drought compounded problems. Since the Church and the powerful land barons already owed Jews huge sums of money, the Christian population of the German States decided that the Jews were deliberately holding back more funds to destroy Christianity. It is now estimated that throughout the Rhine Valley region more than 12,000 Jews were killed alone as the first Crusaders arrived in the MidEast. At the time this was a huge number, as large as a world-size city, and it caused much comment: 1,000 in Worms, 1300 in Mainz, etc.

The massacre of Jerusalem. This occurred in one 24-hour period. The targets were Jews, Muslims, and even non-Roman Catholic Christians: men, women, children, and newborns. Fulcher of Chartres wrote, "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared." A few prominent Christian nobles declared afterwards that they tried to limit the damage, but the troops paid no heed. Every house was broken into, and carnage was indiscriminate.

Dispoilment of Islamic holy sites. The Seljuks weren't above converting the largest Christian churches in cities they conquered into Islamic mosques, largely as a symbol of their power and to the glory of their own religion, but they made a point of leaving all the holy items of Christian worship alone, and passed laws forbidding discrimination against Christians and Jews. By contrast, when the Christians took towns and cities ruled by Islam during the First Crusade, they treated all Muslim religious property as booty. In Jerusalem, the must famous act of sacrilege was the theft of much treasure from the Dome of the Rock, one of the most holy sites of Islam.

Curdis, these are not subject to interpretation. If you're going to mention the First Crusade, it seems disingenuous to flaunt Alexius' self-serving letter that merely furnished a sly pretext for outside support, as justification for an attack on Islam. On the other hand, it's rather suspicious that you don't mention the rampant acts of outstanding cruelty for which Christianity during that Crusade were noted by all, and even contemporary Christian champions.

[Curdis]

[QUOTE=fable]<SNIP>Curdis, these are not subject to interpretation. If you're going to mention the First Crusade, it seems disingenuous to flaunt Alexius' self-serving letter that merely furnished a sly pretext for outside support, as justification for an attack on Islam. On the other hand, it's rather suspicious that you don't mention the rampant acts of outstanding cruelty for which Christianity during that Crusade were noted by all, and even contemporary Christian champions.[/QUOTE]I sense that you are not understanding the intended meaning of what I said, or why I said it. Without in anyway minimising the hurt that Muslims feel regarding the Danish cartoons, they appear as a pretext for the subsequent violence. It is my contention that this violence (and indeed all the attendant violence of the crusades -which I have never denied, attempted to deny, or made light of) is unjustifiable based on the pretext. If the supposed cause of the first crusade was tenuous at best, or outright false (Like the pig drawings) then it serves as an example of what we, as civilised people should NOT do. You surely must agree that the crusades were fought, by fanatical bigots for a, albeit possibly dubious, religious slur. I honestly fail to see how I am being disingenuous here. Even if Urban II knew better, the story he told others incited them to the ghastly acts that followed.

Please don't be suspicious of me. I do actually repudiate the violence of the crusades absolutely. I have already said in my first two posts, regarding this violence:

"were the start of the senseless and, in my opinion, totally unjustified violence."

"and the reaction was a sickening campaign of hatred that blights the middle east to this day. Few people would now support the actions of those fanatical bigots," - Curdis !

[fable]

Curdis, I'm just going according to what seems pretty obvious in your post I quoted:

The crusades. An excellent example of why religious tolerence should be practiced by all civilised people. They occurred because christians were forceably expelled from what they believed were holy sites. They had their freedom to practice their religious beliefs curtailed and the reaction was a sickening campaign of hatred that blights the middle east to this day.

If I understand this correctly, you were saying, "The crusades occurred because Christians were forcibly expelled from what they believed to be their holy sites, where they formerly had freedom to practice their religious beliefs."

Whereas in fact, what could be accurately said, is "The crusades occurred because Alexius wanted help in reconquering the Byzantine Empire without using his own funds, and Urban wanted to grab part of that same Empire for Rome. The ostensible pretext Alexius used--Christian expulsion from holy sites--never occurred, and the Seljuk Turks were far better noted for religious tolerance than any of the Christian invaders."

Please note that these are not the same thing.

The latter would represent a brief but truthful statement of the matter. The Crusades, of course, are only a small contributing factor to the overwhelming suspicion that MidEastern Arabs feel towards the West; they've also had to put up with multiple invasions, CIA-inspired overthrows of elected governments, the forced settlement of well-funded outsiders, etc. But it has to be said that the Crusades did not set a good pattern, and that very little since then accomplished on an international level has tended to break it.

None of this is an excuse for violence, but then, Western governments have been using economic and military coercion in the MidEast for quite some time, and there's no excuse for that, either. I guess if people are pushed hard enough, they won't need a logical pretext to take the law into their own hands; but determining that the Muslims who are engaged in current violence alone are responsible for this debacle, is to ignore all the vast background that is as fresh as the invasion of Iraq, and as old as the massacre of Jerusalem.

Ultimately, the only solution to all of this will come from the people least likely to provide it: government leaders. if the Danes had a PM who had apologized at once instead of waiting several months, because he was afraid of losing support of the far-right bloc; if the Americans and British had leaders who weren't so eager to overthrow Hussain because of oil revenues; if the MidEast wasn't filled with despotic ruling families who drive every reforming impulse into the arms of fundamentalists...But is any of this going to change anytime soon? Don't sit clued to your tv awaiting a plot twist to this cliffhanger. It's going to be a lot more of the same, only worse, before it gets even a little better. And the losers won't be the men and women in the corridors of power, never them, but all the wonderful idiots who just want to get by and do what's right...whatever somebody figures out that is.

[Karembeu]

Did the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten apologize yet?!? I thought they apologized for the fact that people found the cartoons offensive....but I never heard anything about apologizing for the publishing of them...

Sort of...we're sorry that some people found the pictures offensive....but we aren't sorry that we published the pictures...

Just thinking about the timeline that Dragon Wench presented where it said about the apology...

[Curdis]

Fable, This is just a sidebar to my actual point but the proximate pretext for the first crusade was to recover the Christian holy sites. This was what the uneducated people of Europe thought they were fighting over. In the following example please note I don't believe this is actually the case ->The recent unprovoked invasion of Iraq was (proximate pretext) because of the possession of WMD's.

Again without wishing to imply my support for the brutal and unjustified actions of the first crusade, (which ironically is held by some to be the first stirrings of western democracy) prior to the Seljuk Turk's occupation of Jerusalem (in around 1070 CE) the Caliph al-Hakim had (in around 1010 CE) desecrated the church of the holy sepulture, and commenced organised persecution. There is some claim that this persecution abated after his death (in around 1021 CE) but it is also claimed by some that the persecution was increased by the Seljuk Turks. It is widely held that the pilgrams were then heavy taxed and (obviously) those without the required money were denied access, or expelled.

I do not feel that it is 'disingeuous', or strictly speaking incorrect, to compress all of the above into a statement along the lines of "destroyed the Christian shrines and then banned pilgrams from the city thus provoking the crusades."Cities of the world, A history in maps. Whitfield, Peter. The Miegunyah Press 2005. Especially when the point I was endeavouring to make is that the prosecution of violence on the basis of religion is abhorent. Your version, however clearly claims that there was no persecution of Christians what so ever. The claims about the Seljuk Turks being notable for their tolerence, are also questionable, except in the highly specialised comparison to 'Christian Invaders', a comparison that is hardly appropriate in the context of a cause for an event that has yet to occur.

"Muslim soldiers made life very difficult for the Christians and trying to get to Jerusalem was filled with danger for a Christian. This greatly angered all Christians."
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/cru2.htm

"In the 7th century the Muslims took control of Jerusalem, and
in the 11th century they began to hassle and interfere with Christian
pilgrims and teaching in the Jerusalem area. To the Christians
Jerusalem was a heavenly city, the center of their existence and they
did not take lightly to being pushed out."
http://www.cyberessays.com/History/74.htm

"In the 7th cent., Jerusalem was taken by the caliph Umar. Pilgrimages (see pilgrim) were not cut off at first, but early in the 11th cent. the Fatimid caliph Hakim began to persecute the Christians and despoiled the Holy Sepulcher. Persecution abated after his death (1021), but relations remained strained and became more so when Jerusalem passed (1071) from the comparatively tolerant Egyptians to the Seljuk Turks, who in the same year defeated the Byzantine emperor Romanus IV at Manzikert.

Late in the 11th cent., Byzantine Emperor Alexius I, threatened by the Seljuk Turks, appealed to the West for aid. This was not the first appeal of the kind; while it may have helped to determine the time and the route of the First Crusade, 1095–99, its precise import is difficult to estimate. Modern historians have speculated that two internal problems also helped trigger the First Crusade: an attempt, begun by Pope Gregory VII, to reform the church, and the pressing need to strengthen the weakened Papacy itself."
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0857642.html

"Hakim (996–1021), the 6th caliph, abandoned the religious toleration of his ancestors. He persecuted the Jews and Christians and destroyed (1010) the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem."
http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/people/A0818328.html

"Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim reintroduced old persecution habits, including the wholesale destruction of two thousand churches throughout the empire, most notoriously the church of the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 (picture to left). By the eleventh century, European Christendom’s response to Islam took two forms: the struggle to reconquer Spain (1000-1492) and Italy and Sicily (1061), and the undertaking of another series of Christian holy wars - the Crusades (1095-1453)."
http://www.american.edu/projects/mandal ... muslim.htm

"Although the eastern Mediterranean area was conquered by the Aravs in the seventh century, Christians had been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071 when the Seljuk Turks swept in from Asia and defeated the Byzantines at the Battle of Manzikert. Seizing all of Asia Minor as well as the Holy Land the Seljuk Turks soon impeded Christian pilgrimages to Jerusalem,"
http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/ ... sades.html

"The declared object of this war was the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre from the unbelievers."
http://www.bartleby.com/86/46.html

"- PILGRIMAGE TRAFFIC TO THE HOLY LANDS (PALESTINE) WAS JEOPARDIZED BY SELJUK TURKS, MUSLIM NOMADS WHO IN THE 11TH CENTURY OVERRAN MOST OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

- THE SELJUK TURKS IMPOSED NUMEROUS TOLLS AND TAXES UPON CHRISTIANS BOUND FOR PALESTINE RATHER THAN SIMPLY PREVENTING THEM PASSAGE.

- MANY CHRISTIANS BECAME ANGERED AT THE DOMINATION OF PALESTINE BY THESE TURKS.

- CHRISTIAN EMPIRE OF BYZANTIUM WAS IN GREAT JEOPARDY OF BEING OVERRUN BY SELJUK TURKS PARTICULARLY AFTER THE CRUSHING DEFEAT OF BYZANTINE FORCES AT THE BATTLE OF MANZIKERT IN 1071.

- THE FALL OF BYZANTIUM WOULD BE A MAJOR DISASTER TO THE CHRISTIAN WORLD."
http://www.wpunj.edu/~history/study/ws1/set10a.htm

The behaviour of the west towards the middle East is appalling. I don't however feel that that was what was under discussion here.

Is it your claim that we should be accepting of the violence towards diplomatic posts because there has been a history of provocation?

[fable]

Again without wishing to imply my support for the brutal and unjustified actions of the first crusade, (which ironically is held by some to be the first stirrings of western democracy) prior to the Seljuk Turk's occupation of Jerusalem (in around 1070 CE) the Caliph al-Hakim had (in around 1010 CE) desecrated the church of the holy sepulture, and commenced organised persecution.

You neglect to mention that he also engaged in the organized persecution of Jews and Muslims. This is rather like saying that WWI was fought by the Germans against the French--to be sure, the French were victims, but so were many other nationalities. He is now believed to have been insane. Note that he was not held up as a reason for the Crusades, but has largely been used by evangelical Christian apologists seeking to put the blame for the Crusades on Islam. It doesn't work.

There is some claim that this persecution abated after his death (in around 1021 CE) but it is also claimed by some that the persecution was increased by the Seljuk Turks.

What, "some?" What details? I'm only an amateur in this, but I've read pretty extensively, and the Seljuks were actually blamed by Byzantine and Roman Christians for their policies of religious tolerance.

It is widely held that the pilgrams were then heavy taxed and (obviously) those without the required money were denied access, or expelled.

Widely held? Who were the many sources that hold this? And in any case, assuming just for the moment this is true, why shouldn't the Seljuks charge for access to their territories? The previous owners certainly did. There were complaints about "Byzantine extortion" from Roman Catholic pilgrims passing through those lands, earlier. And Byzantine extortion certainly figured into the reasons that during one of the Crusades, the crusaders entered Christian Constantinople and massacred its inhabitants, as well as swilling wine out of sacred cups, and putting whores on top of the Eucharist altars. But really: you want to enter, you pay. Or are the Byzantine Christians allowed to get away with it because they're Christians, while the Muslims are evil because they're Muslims?

I do not feel that it is 'disingeuous', or strictly speaking incorrect, to compress all of the above into a statement along the lines of "destroyed the Christian shrines and then banned pilgrams from the city thus provoking the crusades."Cities of the world, A history in maps. Whitfield, Peter. The Miegunyah Press 2005.

Yes, Whitfield accepts the letter of Alexius I and the crusade announcement of Urban at face value. So what? He's not an historian, and makes no claims to being so. I can also show you books to this day that still claim Richard III of England was an evil hunchback that killed the kids in the Tower of London. A badly researched acceptance of old myths does not make a thing into reality.

Especially when the point I was endeavouring to make is that the prosecution of violence on the basis of religion is abhorent. Your version, however clearly claims that there was no persecution of Christians what so ever. The claims about the Seljuk Turks being notable for their tolerence, are also questionable, except in the highly specialised comparison to 'Christian Invaders', a comparison that is hardly appropriate in the context of a cause for an event that has yet to occur.

The sources I've read have all claimed that for a variety of reasons, mainly trade and diplomacy, the Seljuks deliberately treated all religions equally. They knew that by remaining open to all-comers they encouraged others to show up and settle--and of course, pay taxes. They also had in effect a land full of ready hostages, should they ever need it. -I don't think for a minute that the Seljuks were disinterested philanthropists. (Though it's worth bearing in mind that the respective gap of civilization between the MidEast and Europe was enormous at the time, with the former being far in advance of the latter in many respects, notably the arts, commerce, and sciences.) But yes, those were their policies, and they didn't contribute to the start of the First Crusades. I'm afraid the impetus towards war was entirely on one side, and the horrifying massacres were, as well. Or would you like to contest what the crusaders did in Jerusalem?

The first two sites you list are simply by fans of the Crusades. The first reads like a junior high essay, and the second like one out of high school. No refernces are listed for the statements you quote, nor would I expect it given the utter lack of depth in the material.

The third site merely repeats from a Christiano-centric viewpoint the comments about al-Hakim that you began with, neglecting carefully to mention his persecution of Muslims, too. It then goes on to repeat Alexius' complaint, without going into the background of Alexius' personality, activities, or the truth of his allegations.

The fourth site again repeats about al-Hakim. Note, this is one ruler in several hundred years, in one area. That hardly qualifies as systematic persecution, nor was it even within the lifespan of Alexius. And it certainly doesn't begin to compare, for example, to the persecution at the same time of Jews in Christian Europe.

Fifth site, ditto.

The sixth and seventh sites simply assume that the Seljuks prevented access to holy sites for Christian pilgrims based on--guess what?--Alexius' letter.

In short, your quotes all revolve around one of two things: 1) one caliph in one area in a period of several hundred years who is now believed insane, and who persecuted Jews, Christians, and Muslims, alike. 2) A letter by Alexius I to Urban, claiming expulsion of Christian pilgrims, which has been repeatedly disproven by the accounts of pilgrims who went through the Anatolian penisula, and the revenues the Seljuks accrued from their presence. Another 10 similar websites will not make Hakim one bit more representative of the policies of rulers he never even heard of, nor Alexius one bit more reliable as a witness to anything in which his had a vested interest. Your resources would appear to be entirely online, so check out the numerous remarks written by the Armenian historian of the period, Mathias of Edessa, for starters. Matthias was an Armenian Christian, so he had no reason to support the nonsense put about by Alexius to get Europe to fight Byzantium's war, or Urban, to grab a piece of the Byzantium Empire. I think you'll find his comments surprising.

The behaviour of the west towards the middle East is appalling. I don't however feel that that was what was under discussion here.

Is it your claim that we should be accepting of the violence towards diplomatic posts because there has been a history of provocation?

Have you read my previous remarks about that, in this thread? With respect, I really don't feel anything is gained by repeating myself. There's been far too much repetition in this thread at increasing volume levels, as it is. And that's not aimed at you.

[Fljotsdale]

I confess that I have by no means read all this thread, but I have noticed a number of comments regarding the holocaust and persecution of Jews and others.

But I wonder if anyone noticed that the very first genocide recorded was in the bible, performed by God against mankind (The Flood), and was later followed - as the Jews entered the Promised Land - by God ordering his people to slay every man, woman and child in the Promised Land; which they pretty well did, though they failed to destroy ALL the population and had God's anger rage against them because of it? Two cases of Genocide - in the first two books of the bible. The Holocaust had nothing on it.

With such biblical examples before us, can we really blame anyone who follows the examples?

I think not. Sadly. It would be so nice if our gods were shining examples of integrity, would it not?

[Fljotsdale]

No takers, huh? :mischief:

[Ripe]

I've been reading this thread (and follow other discussions on the matter) for a last few days, and I'm becoming very puzzled about some arguments presented as to why those particular charicatures should never been published in the first place.

After a great debate within myself about whether I should get involved or not, I decided to write down my oppinion.

Now the two most prevalent reasons given as to why the commics should never be published are:
1) freedom of speech and freedom of press are European values and are foreign to Muslim world
2) religion is very important in Muslim world and representation of Prophet is strictly forbidden

1) I feel that saying that freedom of speech and freedom of press are European values and are foreign to Muslim world is a great insult to Islam and Muslim world because those two freedoms are part of basic Human Rights [together with freedom from torture, freedom of expression, freedom of religion and many others, and those right are even protected by UN Charter that is signed and accepter by all "Muslim" countries], so saying that is like saying that basic Human Rights are foreign to muslim world which is not true. One evidence for it is the fact that newspapers in Jordan and Egypt also published those commics (or part of them). And I'm sure that I could find other evidence for it, it's just that I'm drawing blank at the moment.

On the other hand, if that claim is true [and I repeat, I sincerly believe that it is not true] then it begs a question to be asked: Why should we have any respect and show any concern to a culture to whom basic Human Rights are foreign?

And unfortunately, since the discussion is whether or not those commics should have been published in Europe, which respect those human rights (or at least claim it does) there is much worse question that could be asked: Does a culture which does not respect Human Rights have any right to ask culture which respect them to break them for it's benefit?

2) Now this is clearly true. As CM pointed, demonstration happened because of what those commics are - representation of the Prophet, not because of the way Prophet is shown. But since your average European feel about his freedom of speach just as strongly as your average Muslim feel about his religion (or possibly even more if you live in a country that did not enjoy that freedom before 1990) I'd wish someone could explain to me why should Muslim's feelings take precedence over mine (and I don't say my feelings take precedence over theirs, I believe they must be honored equally by both sides).

Now for my oppinion on the whole case:
Should the commics be created? Yes, because they represent how those 12 individual authors see Islam, Prophet and whole Muslim world.
Should they be published? Yes, because if you don't publish something because it might offend someone, then you're failing your job as a jurnalist since everything you publish have the potential of offending someone
Should Muslims be offended by the commincs? Most certainly YES.
Should they demonstrate against them? Again, YES.
Should they react with violence and death threats? Absolutely NO.
Should publishers and authors apologize? Yes they should, for the insult made, not for publishing/creating them.
Should goverments of the countries in which the commics are published apologize? Yes (for the offence) and No (for publishing).

[fable]

[QUOTE=Fljotsdale]But I wonder if anyone noticed that the very first genocide recorded was in the bible, performed by God against mankind (The Flood), and was later followed - as the Jews entered the Promised Land - by God ordering his people to slay every man, woman and child in the Promised Land; which they pretty well did, though they failed to destroy ALL the population and had God's anger rage against them because of it? Two cases of Genocide - in the first two books of the bible. The Holocaust had nothing on it.

With such biblical examples before us, can we really blame anyone who follows the examples?[/QUOTE]

Non-starter issue, really. First, the concept of genocide is relatively recent, historically speaking. Second, genocide certainly predated the Jewish bible, which was last edited, if I recall correctly, sometime around 1000 BCE. Third, Jews and Christians don't like to discuss the fact that genocide (by modern standards) is embraced with such fanatical, zealous relish by their spiritual ancestors, or that their god actually demanded it--indeed, severely punished one Jewish ruler because he didn't completely go through with it.

Nor does any of this bear even the slightest comparison to modern instances of genocide, such as the Nazi destruction of 6 million Jews, now that people "supposedly" know better.

But in any case,the cartoons are examples of social irresponsibility, furthered by a morally inert Danish adminstration, and blossoming under the hatred, fear, and misunderstandings of some MidEastern Muslims--with a side order of Western newspapers gleefully raking in cash to proclaim how "free" they are by republishing the offensive cartoons.

[Fljotsdale]

Interesting post, Ripe, with which I agree for the most part.

I would like to ask some questions though:

Muslim extremists (not your normal, reasonable Muslims) kidnap people, and often kill them. That is far worse than Non-Muslim newspapers publishing a cartoon. Do those extremists ever apologise for their ungodly actions in kidnapping innocent people?

No.

So why should we apologise to them for an 'insulting' cartoon?

The behaviour of extremists has so contaminated the Western view of Muslims, that all those cartoons were doing was REFLECTING THE IMAGE OF ISLAM that the extremists have given us.

If Islam objects, let them do something about their extremists, rather than bellyache about a few cartoons.

[Dottie]

[QUOTE=Fljotsdale]The behaviour of extremists has so contaminated the Western view of Muslims, that all those cartoons were doing was REFLECTING THE IMAGE OF ISLAM that the extremists have given us.

If Islam objects, let them do something about their extremists, rather than bellyache about a few cartoons.[/QUOTE]

This is not a very intelligent view. The extremists have been created during a long time span by western imperialism. If Muslims carry a collective responsibility for the actions of extremists, we, who live in a democratic world surely carry twice the responsibility for our imperialism.

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=fable]Non-starter issue, really. First, the concept of genocide is relatively recent, historically speaking. Second, genocide certainly predated the Jewish bible, which was last edited, if I recall correctly, sometime around 1000 BCE. Third, Jews and Christians don't like to discuss the fact that genocide (by modern standards) is embraced with such fanatical, zealous relish by their spiritual ancestors, or that their god actually demanded it--indeed, severely punished one Jewish ruler because he didn't completely go through with it.

Nor does any of this bear even the slightest comparison to modern instances of genocide, such as the Nazi destruction of 6 million Jews, now that people "supposedly" know better.

But in any case,the cartoons are examples of social irresponsibility, furthered by a morally inert Danish adminstration, and blossoming under the hatred, fear, and misunderstandings of some MidEastern Muslims--with a side order of Western newspapers gleefully raking in cash to proclaim how "free" they are by republishing the offensive cartoons.[/QUOTE]

I agree about profiteering newspapers.

I don't agree with the rest of your post. The WORD 'genocide' may not have used in the distant past, but it was certainly practiced, as you say. And the biblical accounts - if you believe the bible is true, of course - present us, as I said, with a valid justification for genocide: if god approves, who are we to object, hm?

But is IS a side issue from the cartoons, I agree. My apologies for posting.

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=Dottie]This is not a very intelligent view. The extremists have been created during a long time span by western imperialism. If Muslims carry a collective responsibility for the actions of extremists, we, who live in a democratic world surely carry twice the responsibility for our imperialism.[/QUOTE]

Apart from the first sentence, I don't disagree with you. Though I wouldn't put it as twice as much. The Crusades were a long time ago, and modern Imperialism had far more effect on Africa, China, South America, etc, than on the Muslim world.

[fable]

The WORD 'genocide' may not have used in the distant past, but it was certainly practiced, as you say.

But if the concept didn't exist, and peoples were wiped out without a thought given to the matter by anyone--except, perhaps, for the idea, better him, than me--doesn't that make it anachronistic to claim it occurred? This is deep water, that leads off in all directions, and I think it's quite murky, too.

And the biblical accounts - if you believe the bible is true, of course - present us, as I said, with a valid justification for genocide: if god approves, who are we to object, hm?

Do you know of anybody who follows any part of the bible, yet believes this way? I've seen some pretty appalling things justified through it, but not this. Mind, there are certainly people more knowledgeable in the bible than I am, since I'm not a monotheist.

But is IS a side issue from the cartoons, I agree. My apologies for posting.

No apologies are needed. Feel free to start up a separate topic on this if you'd like, but I'm willing to bet that the known evangelicals in this forum will stay away. It is the kind of subject that makes them nervous.

[Dottie]

@Ripe: I agree with you that freedom of speech should be an overriding principle in this case. I do not agree that the cartoons should have been published though. Not because they have the potential to offend people, but because they are not constructive in any way. If you have something constructive that offends people, go ahead and publish, but it's unnecessary to offend people without being constructive.

@Fljotsdale: Sorry, for that.

I said twice because since most of us live in democratic nations we have far more to say about the behaviour of our gouvernments than the average muslim have to say about the behaviour of a few extremists.

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=fable] But if the concept didn't exist, and peoples were wiped out without a thought given to the matter by anyone--except, perhaps, for the idea, better him, than me--doesn't that make it anachronistic to claim it occurred? This is deep water, that leads off in all directions, and I think it's quite murky, too.[/quote]

Anachronistic? No, why? People are always quoting history to give validity to their points! Is it anachronistic to remember yeaterday? Of course not. And neither is it anachronistic to quote the bible.



[QUOTE=fable]Do you know of anybody who follows any part of the bible, yet believes this way? I've seen some pretty appalling things justified through it, but not this. Mind, there are certainly people more knowledgeable in the bible than I am, since I'm not a monotheist.[/quote]

Me either, I'm a committed Anti-Theist! Most people don't follow the bible these days, except Americans (broad, sweeping generalisation); but Muslims and Jews believe in the first 5 books of the bible and are very familiar with the actions of god in them. At least, I'm not sure how many the Muslims accept - but certainly the first 2 books of the bible, in which those events are chronicled.

[QUOTE=fable]No apologies are needed. Feel free to start up a separate topic on this if you'd like, but I'm willing to bet that the known evangelicals in this forum will stay away. It is the kind of subject that makes them nervous. [/QUOTE]

Nah. I already run a religious forum and we have discussed the bible ad nauseam.
Though I DO like making religious people nervous. :mischief:

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=Dottie]
@Fljotsdale: Sorry, for that. [/quote]

No need to blush! I took it in good part, lol!

[QUOTE=Dottie]I said twice because since most of us live in democratic nations we have far more to say about the behaviour of our gouvernments than the average muslim have to say about the behaviour of a few extremists.[/QUOTE]

Good point.