Danish Prime Minister Criticized by Scholars Over Cartoon Affair

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen should have met with eleven Muslim ambassadors in October to discuss the Muhammad cartoons published in the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten last September. This is the opinion of a number of Danish scholars at the University of Southern Denmark. Rasmussen’s refusal to do so created a bigger problem than the cartoons themselves they claim and therefore he is responsible for the crisis which have come to be known as the Danish cartoon affair.

This view has been heard a few of times before. However, it is just as ridiculous now as then. The ambassador’s intention with this meeting with the Prime Minister was to demand he would take action against the Danish newspaper for publishing the cartoons. Rasmussen refused to discuss the matter with the ambassadors for the simple reason he has no power over the Danish media and thus cannot interfere in what it decides to publish. Something he has since repeated a number of times. Rasmussen also pointed out that if someone felt offended by the cartoons – or any other material published in the media for that matter – he or she could bring the issue to court.

Surely, the Muslim ambassadors did not take it well when the Prime Minister refused to meet with them. But above everything else they were unsatisfied that he should reject taking actions against Jyllands-Posten, an answer which would have been no different if he would have met with the ambassadors. The result was the escalation of the cartoon affair until it reached its peak in the beginning of this year.

Therefore, to suggest that the main reason – and even a reason at all – for the cartoon affair was Rasmussen’s refusal to meet with the Muslim ambassadors is absurd. Do the Danish scholars, and others claiming the same, really think the issue would have been dropped if this meeting would have taken place? That it would not have escalated any further? Of course not. Suggesting something like this is at best naive.

Then perhaps the scholars think the Prime Minister should have done as the ambassadors pleased and forced Jyllands-Posten to offer an apology for publishing the cartoons despite the obvious fact that he has no democratic powers to do so?

Perhaps Prime Minister

Perhaps Prime Minister Rasmussen will reduce the amount of money that Denmark gives to this University every year. I know that I would do this if I were in his place. "Whose bread I eat, his song I sing."

Education and Intelligence

As I grow older I become more and more aware of the simple fact that because one has a degree from an institution of 'higher learning' it doesn't mean that the holder of that degree is all that intelligent. Q.E.D. is my take on this matter.

The use of the word

The use of the word 'science' in this context is absolutely ridiculous.
Science is about objectivism, thruth and knowledge. Not about politics.
Those 'scientists' at Syddansk Universitet are nothing but clever,
conning saprophytes on a over-largessed welfare system. 'Syddansk
University" - my ass.

Prime minister Fogh Rasmussen did the only
reasonable thing : when 11 ambassadors from Saudi Barbaria, Egypt and 9
other Savagistans demanded a meeting in order to impose their sick,
7-Th.-century censorship upon us Danes, he told them that he could not
and would not interfere with the freedom of the press. Accordingly a
meeting was pointless. OK, that's diplo-speak : it translates into the
famous words of one general Patton : *Nuts*.

Luckily, here in
Denmark nobody cares what these claphats say or do. We've seen and
heard too much blabbermouthed nonsense coming out of those
pseudo-universities. And - according to every poll since the
cartoon-jihad - our PM is more popular than ever.

@kepiblanc

"And - according to every poll since the
cartoon-jihad - our PM is more popular than ever."

Any way you can link us to a decent poll that is statistically valid?

Prophet Mohammed: A Pioneer of the Environment

The Prophet believed that the universe and the creations in it – animals, plants, water, land – were not created for mankind. Man is allowed to use the resources but he can never own them. Thus while Islam allows land ownership, it has limitations: an owner can, for example, only own land if he uses it; once he ceases to use it, he has to part with his possession.

The Prophet recognized man’s responsibility to God but always maintained humility. Thus he said: “When doomsday comes, if someone has a palm shoot in his hand, he should plant it,” suggesting that even when all hope is lost for mankind, one should sustain nature’s growth. He believed that nature remains a good in itself, even if man does not benefit from it.

read:

http://www.islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2003/02/Article02.shtml

Mohammed: a pioneer in destruction of environment

Completely off-topic, but nevertheless I don't like legends and that one needs a correction to please all the real palmtree lovers.

After the Battle of Uhud the Banu Nadhir were the next to go. Claiming that this tribe was plotting his death, Muhammad sent his men against them, this time under Ali's command. Mindful of the fate of their kinsmen, they immediately prepared to leave but promises of support from Ibn Ubayy and others encouraged them to withstand the siege. Once again no assistance was rendered. After fifteen days Muhammad commanded his companions to cut down the palm trees in their date groves. The Jews cried out to him:

"Muhammad, you have prohibited wanton destruction and blamed those guilty of it. Why then are you cutting down and burning our palm-trees?" (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasulullah, p. 437).

The scolars!

The first one I googled around: Kirstine Sinclair gave an interesting link about her "study" about Hizb-ut-Tahrir, a well known extremist and racist group:
http://www.terrorisme.net/p/article_175.shtml
"Certes, la rhétorique du HT est parfois virulente, sans appeler cependant à la violence. Dans sa thèse inédite sur le HT
au Danemark, la chercheuse danoise Kirstine Sinclair a suggéré que "pour le Hizb-ut-Tahrir, le langage fonctionne comme une soupape de sécurité. De fortes critiques sont exprimées et la violence n'est plus nécessaire. Si cette analyse est exacte, le HT joue un rôle d'exutoire pour les sentiments de certains militants islamistes. Si le HT n'existait pas, ces sentiments ne disparaîtraient pas: où iraient-ils s'investir? Il vaut mieux avoir des organisations aux vues intransigeantes, mais qui n'encouragent pas la violence, plutôt que des groupuscules incontrôlés et qui n'ont pas ces inhibitions."
HUT: no calls to violence, she pretends, just let out some steam.

Wel then read this one:
http://www.cidi.nl/isnbr/2004/hoofd1-1704.html
what the steam letting out language is about Jews. We all have seen how some muslim crowds let their steam out in "the battle of Karthoon", no violence, for sure.

Another interesting quote of her :
"When you talk about expanding the war on terror to talk about states with an Islamist agenda or even the caliphate, you stir up emotions and you're actually creating the clash of civilizations." Which civilisation?

Interesting scholar, probably already fully impregnated by the Eurabian theorems and axioms?

Any candidates for checking the "quality" and "references" of the other "scolars", such as Lars Erslev Andersen and Gunna Funder Hansen?

Absurd, indeed.

Muslims are rioting.  Muslim ambassadors want to undermine IN THE WEST a bedrock civilisational 'achievement of the west, i.e. freedom of expression, and yet.......the blame supposedly belongs to Rasmussen? 

Only postmodernist ideologues and extreme moral-relativists, of which the modern western academy has no shortage, could be so stupid and blind.   "Scholars".....my foot!