We have some advice for the PR department of Islamic fundamentalism: Get yourself some bloggers.
The blogosphere’s response to the political firestorm ignited by a Danish newspaper’s decision to run a series of cartoons caricaturing the prophet Mohammed has been decidedly one-sided. There’s even a blogger’s petition circulating that expresses support for the newspaper, the Jyllands Posten, which has been beset with death threats.
Many of the European bloggers who have commented are proud of the fact that other newspapers stood up to defend the Danish paper by reprinting the cartoons in their own pages. West of the Moon makes this point: “Ironically, the images that caused this latest furor are now being widely republished around the free world. Hurrah. If people resent this, perhaps they should ask themselves whether complaining vociferously was such a clever idea in the first place. Freedom of expression cuts more than one way.”
And that is the tamest of the comments. Most see the incident as a battle in a war between secularism and theocracy and are offended that Muslims would try to chill freedom of expression. James Binarism says just that when he writes that this is the type of “religious intolerance that accepts no mockery, no satire, no ridicule. We citizens of secular and democratic societies are summoned to condemn a dozen caricatures judged offensive to Islam. Summoned by who? By the Muslim Brotherhood, by Syria, the Islamic Jihad, the interior ministers of Arab countries, the Islamic Conferences — all paragons of tolerance, humanism and democracy. So, we must apologise to them because the freedom of expression they refuse, day after day, to each of their citizens, faithful or militant, is exercised in a society that is not subject to their iron rule. It’s the world upside down. No, we will never apologise for being free to speak, to think and to believe.”
Then there are others that just wonder why Muslims don’t have a better sense of humor. Badalona thinks “all religons should be the target of humour or satire or what have you. I believe that if you want to show Jesus Christ giving a blowjob … in the name of a good joke, I think you should be allowed to show it. Or, if you want to show Buddah with a firework up his arsehole or … the possibilities are endless. So why not Mohammed?”
Protestors respond that it’s not the humorous posing of Muhammed that they object to — it’s the fact that he’s being depicted at all. They cite Koranic injunctions against presenting the prophet’s likeness.
Well, leave it to the blogosphere to quickly come up with a catalogue of dozens of illustrations of Mohammed going back over a thousand years.
You really can’t beat an army of bloggers when you need some good defense.
So, Hamas, take note: Drop the bombs, pick up some laptops and save the blogosphere from this swarm of infidels!


What offends me is the "Hamas, take note" line above. I understand that the author likely intends for it to be in jest. But it's really a journalistic sin. She didn't look hard enough. Check out what Sonia Smith could find in Slate from the Muslim side. (This is the second time I've found Backerman to come up short. I don't even speak Arabic, but I was able to find counter-examples from the Arabic press before.)
And the point that this is a point to be decided based on what "bloggers" think is too bad, because if it is, it's the end of journalism. If public debate is expected to become a mere popularity contest decided by whch faction is louder, then you might as well cease publication of the Columbia Journalism Review. Or you might as well just retire the "Blog Report" column. Better to work on supporting technologies that can report on all angles of an issue.
Also, note that "the blogosphere" did not come up with the Mohammed Image Archive. The website Zombietime did. That's not a blog.
Incidentally, I found that link from wikipedia (it is also the #1 tagged bookmark for "islam" on delicious). I'm on record as very much a skeptic of "wiki triumphalism" in the past, but in this case I think they did a superb job of providing the deep perspective that has escaped most of the major press accounts. (Today's NYT Week In Review did provide a nice summary of the story, though).
I understand that the allure of the various "blog roundups" favored by the online magazines is a way of seeming hip, and a way of promising that you're truly reading the vox populi. But for most times, the blog accounts are derivative of what major opiniators have said.
So what is the role of blogs?
It has become fashionable, out of the the journalism school some 112 blocks south, to claim that news is a "conversation, not a lecture" and furthermore that blogs, uniquely more than any other online communications medium (for reasons never examined), are able to foster such conversatons.
These recent actions from the MidEast-- the election of Hamas, the latent outrage at the Danes (which happened, to all accounts, only because the news was carried there by radical Islamic imams in Denmark who deliberately "sexed-up" the issue)-- have the potential to open up true dialogues between peoples.
Any reader of CJR Daily can stumble upon some half-witted English language bloggers shouting in the wind on issues like this. If you can unearth some true dialogues, that would make this column worthwhile.
Posted by Jon Garfunkel on Sun 5 Feb 2006 at 11:37 PM
It's also worth making the distinction between blogs and online publications. While blogs are a relatively new phenomenon comparatively speaking, I'm referring to Annoy.com which has been around since 1997. Their decision to publish the blogs, was not rushed, and looks like it was carefully considered.
Who's Your Shepherd?The following 12 images were published in Denmark's Jyllands Posten newspaper, which sparked the furor among Muslims globally. The reason they are being displayed here is not to provoke, despite this site's name, but to allow our users to make an informed evaluation themselves. For the same reasons, we published Nick Berg's beheading and James Kirkup's poem. After two federal court cases, one before the United States Supreme Court, Annoy.com’s hard fought commitment to free speech – not an automatic guarantee, even in the West -- cost a lot in terms of time, determination and resources. In the name of Christianity, Clinton Fein’s image of The Last Supper was ripped off the wall of a San Francisco gallery. Just prior to the 2004 election, his image of President Bush, Who Would Jesus Torture?, depicting the President as Jesus on a crucifix (along with an image of the American flag using the text of the Pentagon’s official Abu Ghraib report ) was destroyed deliberately by Zazzle, the Palo Alto based printing company. Despite such visceral responses, not to mention the sentiments expressed by those over the Internet, Annoy.com published because we believe strongly in free speech.
We are not oblivious to the fact that religious and cultural differences are far more complex than anything we could articulate in this small space, but our fundamental belief is this. Freedom of expression is not reserved for those wishing to express their religious beliefs, but also those who question them. Click on the thumbnail images to enlarge.
Posted by JasonWilson on Wed 8 Feb 2006 at 05:14 PM