Well, at least the audience and that reporter saw through his ill manners.

But, the editor has an effective argument: media does not respect christian sensibilities, or even actually the religion itself. I do believe that the refusal to publish them was taken to avoid undue risk from violence; I think that much should be obvious: they were scared. So, if we want rules for not “defaming” Islam, then as muslims of conscience, we must demand for rules prohibiting defamation of all religions, and then for gays, lesbians and whatever group wants to avoid being defamed.

Sounds good, eh? But, who would define what is defamatory to us? Some Muslims would demand a hypothetical defamation law to be applied against me if I say “Niqab is not a part of Islam!” That would put the government or its judiciary in the position of having to decide for us who can be defamed or what ideas can be defamatory or not within our own communities. Is inflamatory the same as defamatory? What if I say CAIR is bad? Did I defame Islam or hurt the sensibilities of Muslims?

Similar to Laury’s argument agaisnt state intervention on niqab, i do not want state intetvention which would de facto define what all Muslims should consider defamatory; i am sure the radicals would be given pride of place to “advise” the government on what is defamatory or not. Muslims need to have thick skins to survive and thrive in America. If they can’t hack that, those non-hackers need to shut up and lead uncontroversial existances.

Thus, the only solution is Free Speech, whose essense is not giving the right of any idiot to spout nonsense; it is in fact a limitation against the government to keep them from doing exactly what I mentioned above: having government decide what is appropriate or not to be said in the public sphere.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

One thing that I made clear in my presentation — but did not make it to the article — was that to the extent that mainstream Canadian papers such as The Globe and Mail, did not publish the cartoons because of fear, then they were just as guilty as promoting "the fear of Islam/Muslims" agenda as the radical right.  His claim that the cartoons were not offensive, however, was patently ridiculous and intended to further his real agenda: causing Canadians to fear the existence of Muslims in Canada.

Mohammad

I disagree with Muhammad, I do not find the cartoons as offensive and I’m Muslim.

I do not see how these depictions of the Prophet will lead to idolatry and have people stray from the path of Truth.

Depictions of the Prophet have been common in Islamic art, this supposed ban on depicting the Prophet has not always been observed.

Satirical cartoons are a common feature in Western newsprint.

There are many artistic borrowings from Christianity, where icons in the Christian faith are used in some manners which are offensive to some Christians, but the response to offense has been mute compared to what happened earlier last year.

As a religious and ethnic minority, I do not see a malicious Islamophobic conspiracy out there to drive a rift between Muslims in the West and the majority non-Muslim population.

Yes, Muhammad, i believe that was his goal as well as the the objective of Jyllands-Post. However, instead of trying to prevent fear tactics, the best defense is to act contrary to how the fearful preceive us, thereby rendering the fear hollow. Once its shown to be hollow, the fear itself will no longer be mainstream. Multiculturalism has its limits: a group of 200 vietnamese fishermen in Lousiana cause no particular national alarm. But, when 15% of people in Amsterdam are Muslims, their size in itself and the foreigness of thier habits will most certainly cause fear. I believe this is a social and psychological fact and it is inevitable. What is not inevitable, however, is mismanaging how a society deals with the issue.

- A Salafi in worship, a Sufi in society, a Secularist in government.

My South African Arab Muslimah friend was blunt in her criticism of “ghettoized” Muslims in Europe who hold views hostile to a pluralistic society and expect the majority to be sensitive to the needs of the extremists, who do not show the same courtesy to the majority.

I find it funny how a Southb African Muslim could be blunt in her criticism of European Muslims.

But her points seemed valid, North American Muslims are largely harmless and many assimilate to the point of being no different from the host society.

My family was too busy making their “American Dream” come alive that like many Muslims, they abandoned prayer all together and stopped practicing Islam.

As secularized Shia, they always held rather “Progressive” stances on Islam.

Perhaps the reason why Muslims in America assimilate better is because we lack a social welfare state. Muslim refugees from Somalia here have one of two options: work and assimilate or starve and be homeless.

They have to interact with the larger community, and this leads to their children being more well adjusted, as African Muslims they are seen by the untrained eye as African American/Blacks.

Many Somalis fear their children becoming “Black” and losing their ethnic identity.

This fear is common among immigrant parents as children in America loose the domestic language, intermarry, and leave the ethnic ghetto.

Muslims in America are dispersed, there are few noticeable ghettoes, most Muslim ghettoes are nothing more than business enclaves catering to various Muslim majority ethnic groups, often in areas where Muslims are a minority in the residential neighborhood.

Spatial dispersion, higher socio-economic status, home ownership, and education give Muslims here an advantage which permits assimilation.

Mosques are sadly out of touch with this reality though.

Muslims are not regular mosque attendants here. Those who do attend my grandfather says are “hypocrites and self-righteous.”

I wonder if European "ghetto muslims" receive the dole or state assistance from their host country? I think we can safely say that immigrants to America do not get much assistance except for religious support groups perhaps,

This means that American Muslim immigrants are either educated, ambitious, financially capable or all three in many cases. I see some of the european Muslim enclaves as nothing more than refugee camps.

Whole different story, and alot of countries in Europe are no longer accepting Muslim immigrants, I am glad, having hosted a Pakistani friend who feels some prejudice in the UK that he felt America was a comfortable place that he would consider safe for his future family. Not so Britain, and he may just go back to Pakistan after making such strides adapting to Western social structure.

We are kind of lucky to be Muslims. It is sort of like being into the interney in the late 1980s. It is all about Islam these days.

I am finally a celebrity!

Buzz Kill

Gustavo, do you have any info on the issue of portrayals of the propheta being allowable or not allowable? I’m curious. I don’t have a hard stance on it; though on the whole, I would say I prefer the old Judeo-Muslim custom of nto portraying our religious figures, or the Shia custom of protraying Imams’ faces as just light.

In Iran and India, one can purchase depictions of the Prophet and His Companions, especially those of Ali and Hussain, his grandson.

In Central Asian art, depictions of the Prophet were common in the medieval period, we witness a fusion of Chinese, Persian, and Indian aesthetics with a borrowing of religious iconography from Christianity and even Buddhism.

I don’t see the fuss over crude and barely humorous cartoons.

True, they are one dimensional and perpetuate stereotypes of Islam being a blood thirsty faith.