Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Do You Need a New Rose?
Now playing at Reason.tv: Video of Associate Editor Michael Moynihan's interview with Flemming Rose, cultural editor at Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that published those Mohammad cartoons a while back to such acclaim.
Moynihan does his best Alfred Hitchcock and intros the segment thus:
In September, I visited the offices of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper responsible for publishing the now-notorious Mohammad cartoons, to speak with the man who commissioned the drawings, the paper's cultural editor Flemming Rose. Rose, who previously served as a correspondent in the Soviet Union and translated Boris Yeltsin's Against the Stream into Danish, discusses the fallout from the "cartoon crisis," similarities between the West's reaction to Soviet communism and Islamic extremism, and his Muslim supporters.
Click below to watch the vid:
|10.18.07 @ 12:18PM|#
I think that may be right about it being an unprecedented case
with regards to a certain stripe of the Muslim world trying to hold
non-Muslims to a Muslim standard, at least in terms of scale.
...even if it was Bernard Lewis* that said it.
*Relax, I'm being droll!
P.S. Love, love, love to this video format. Short and sweet,
journalist doesn't get in the way of the interview, smart--I want
my Reason TV!
|10.18.07 @ 12:53PM|#
The videos are a good idea but you ought to provided embedded links so people can add them to their sites and blogs and get them out to more and more people.
|10.18.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Tak, elg. I take it you didn't care for J-P even prior to the cartoon imbroglio?
VM|10.18.07 @ 1:02PM|#
selv tak, pingvin!
yes can't stand that paper - haven't liked it for many years (I
lived in Dk in the 90s)
|10.18.07 @ 1:05PM|#
I really can't believe the view of some of you guys on this subject. There is no value in attacking the faith of a billion people just to show that you can.
VM|10.18.07 @ 1:09PM|#
Neu -
attacking the Muslim population in Denmark because they could was
definitely part of the plan - to provoke them, to underscore who
was the "Them".
That sentiment is subtle, and is often times hidden. But it's
there, and it's common.
ed|10.18.07 @ 1:27PM|#
There is no value in attacking the faith of a billion
people
Why not? Faith is a disease. The world needs more
epidemiologists.
Another Phil|10.18.07 @ 1:33PM|#
There is no value in attacking the faith of a billion people
just to show that you can.
Cartoons are hardly an attack. Poor babies.
|10.18.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Neu-
The reaction of a lot of Muslims was even dumber. "Hey, their
intentionally trying to provoke us in the hope that we over-react
so we look like dipshits. So lets play right into their hands!"
|10.18.07 @ 1:40PM|#
There is no value in attacking the faith of a billion people
just to show that you can.
There's a whole generation of artists in the decadent West that is
making a living doing just that. Only the religion is
Christianity.
|10.18.07 @ 1:47PM|#
It wasn't spontaneous?
Whatever one might say about things being "stirred up," etc. I
would argue that there was probably a lot of spontaneity.
|10.18.07 @ 1:49PM|#
As for his comments on the USSR, wasn't it ultimately Reagan's willingness to talk to the Soviets (ignoring the advice of many of his advisors) that was just as important as any arms build-up?
highnumber|10.18.07 @ 1:52PM|#
R C Dean,
The big difference is...
Crap. I gotta go back to work. Somebody else please explain why
it's different to provoke your own shitheads, versus provoking
another culture's, especially when a lot people raised in that
culture are a minority in your country.
|10.18.07 @ 1:56PM|#
R.C. Dean,
I suspect that there are few if any artists who out to simply piss
off a billion Christians simply because they can. People tend to be
slightly more complex than that.
|10.18.07 @ 1:57PM|#
I suspect that there are few if any artists who out to
simply piss off a billion Christians simply because they can.
People tend to be slightly more complex than that.
Honestly, I think thats pretty much the reason South Park does
it.
VM|10.18.07 @ 2:07PM|#
you're talking about a homogeneous, very closed, very reserved
society here.
It is also a small, insignificant country, but there is a definite
hardcore vein of nationalism there. (be the "fly on the wall", and
you'll hear that)
In terms of "you look like the other, and I'll treat you such,
regardless of any other characteristic you have", yes, the
cartoons, in part, were there to reemphasize the differences in the
culture and to reinforce the hierarchy.
I have no opinion about the "insulting a billion people", but I saw
and experienced, first hand (as target, as bystander, and as fly on
the wall) the subtle and not-so-subtle racism and resentment
towards the "immigrants" in Denmark, and saw many unprovoked acts
in the media designed to emphasize, "THIS IS YOUR PLACE.
STAY."
(Dec 1998 - DR1 news show on a Christmas celebration in Havana is
an excellent example of this)
As Hak says, or at least riffing off his comment, it's a very
complex situation there...
|10.18.07 @ 2:08PM|#
"There is no value in attacking the faith of a billion
people."
...unless you're selling newspapers.
I don't see much value in televised singing competitions, but then
I don't make my money selling advertising.
If you can do something you really believe in and make money at it,
well that's great. ...but just because you don't really believe
CSI: Sheboygan is going to make the world a better place, that
doesn't mean there isn't any value. ...not that this guy didn't
really believe in what he was doing.
|10.18.07 @ 2:10PM|#
Cesar,
I don't. Otherwise, why does every show about "religion" (or any
other subject) appear to end with some message?
|10.18.07 @ 2:11PM|#
BTW, I have no problem with the makers of South Park using their to get whatever ideas they want to get across.
|10.18.07 @ 2:13PM|#
"There's a whole generation of artists in the decadent West
that is making a living doing just that. Only the religion is
Christianity."
Yeah, you can sell art that way too. ...or music CDs. ...or movies.
You can sell T-shirts and banner ads that way. You can sell all
kinds of stuff by attacking the faith of a billion people.
I know where you can buy a 10" statue of an astronaut Jesus online,
but they're all out of the glow-in-the-dark ones.
|10.18.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I really can't believe the view of some of you guys on this subject. There is no value in attacking the faith of a billion people just to show that you can.
Except when it's to show that you can't, not without
round-the-clock police protection, like some of the artists had to
have.
|10.18.07 @ 2:37PM|#
Kind of an interesting observation that all this was really
about art. I hadn't really thought about it that way.
Flemming Rose may be a good journalist, but if he orchestrated all
of this, then he's an amazing artist.
|10.18.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Cesar,
I agree completley. Muslims should be smarter in attempting to
censor those who speak out against their faith.
Still, I'm sure Muslims in Europe suffer all sorts of
discrimination and governments should take more effort to make sure
it doesn't happen anymore. In addition to that, you have to take
into consideration the opression that Westerners have afflicted on
the Muslim world.
|10.18.07 @ 3:57PM|#
I don't. Otherwise, why does every show about "religion" (or
any other subject) appear to end with some message?
From what I've seen, its always "religion is stupid". I agree with
the sentiment, of course, but lets not pretend its really any
deeper than that.
The message of those silly cartoons is also "Islam is stupid".
|10.18.07 @ 4:57PM|#
In addition to that, you have to take into consideration the
opression that Westerners have afflicted on the Muslim
world.
Actually, you don't.
|10.18.07 @ 5:30PM|#
The message of those silly cartoons is also "Islam is
stupid".
So, you're calling it honest journalism?
|10.18.07 @ 5:35PM|#
So, you're calling it honest journalism?
Yup. I think Islam is pretty stupid. Whether an individual Muslim
is or not is another question.
FWIW I take the same view towards Christianity, Morminism, et
al.
|10.18.07 @ 8:12PM|#
I never got an "Islam is stupid" vibe from the cartoons. I got
an "Islamic fundamentalists are hostile to the basic cultural and
political values of the West even as they continue to immigrate
here in the millions, and our governments keep making concessions
to their intolerant and absurdly sensitive sensibilities in
response to their seemingly constant implied and explicit threats
of violence, and it seems we are curtailing our own liberties and
repressing our own speech and generally remaking our societies in
an effort to make these immigrants who, may I mention one more
time, are coming here willingly and of their own volition because
their places of birth are economically, intellectually and
technologically stagnant and politically oppressive, feel more
comfortable, instead of explaining to them that while we are happy
to extend the benefits of our freedoms and our prosperity to them,
they will have to, in turn, learn to live in a secularly governed
nation and be willing to respect the rights and beliefs of the very
people from whom they are demanding rights and respect, and in
order find out whether or not many of these immigrants are indeed
able and willing to exist in a free and open society, we are
publishing these rather mild cartoons and let's see how everyone
reacts" kind of vibe.
You know - journalism is supposed to provoke, to make you think, to
invite discussion, blah blah blah, or at least it is when it's the
West or Christianity or capitalism or Jews or Israel getting
skewered. I don't recall ever reading or being taught that a free
society makes exceptions about hurting the feelings of a group of
people that have suffered wrongs and injuries in the past.
iih|10.18.07 @ 8:49PM|#
I turned down a very lucrative and prestigious Fellowship (the Orsted Fellowship) at the Danish DTU because I personally felt like I was threatened because I am Muslim (and no, I do not ear a beard, or put on a robe. I am as Western as "a western man can be"). The people who offered me the scholarship were very sorry for the anti-Muslim rhetoric and communicated to me that this is not the kind of Denmark they wanted either (and in fact xenophobic and nationalist at heart, dressed in the name of free speech). I hope Michael Moynihan can read this now.
|10.18.07 @ 8:50PM|#
I really can't believe the view of some of you guys on this
subject. There is no value in attacking the faith of a billion
people just to show that you can.
Neu Mejican, This was
my initial reaction about the cartoons and aftermath. Nothing's
changed.
iih|10.18.07 @ 8:59PM|#
... And I do agree with Rose on many things by the way -- especially "intimidation" to create discourse. But, as I have always said, out of pure ignorance that was a very stupid kind of "intimidation". It simply put most if not all Muslims, moderate and otherwise, on the defense and could not have initiated a discourse within the Muslim community as Flemming claims. It did to a very very small extent. Why not poke fun at Nasrallah, or Hamas? That would have been way smarter and would have helped distinguish between the "moderate" and the "non-moderate" in an intra-Muslim discourse, especially Western Muslims? That would have been intelligent. But again, I think, the goal was intimidation of all Muslims, especially those in Europe.
iih|10.18.07 @ 9:09PM|#
My last two comments, I think, best formulate my and many other "moderate" Muslims objection to the stupidity of this free speech. This viewpoint has rarely been acknowledged by the pro-Rose camp (e.g., Michael Moynihan -- and I really hope he gets a chance to read this comment of mine).
|10.18.07 @ 9:10PM|#
I think, the goal was intimidation of all Muslims,
especially those in Europe.
iih, I think an additional the goal was to point out the
incompatibility between between western cultural traditions and
values and a significant portion of the Islamic community. That was
certainly made apparent. I do note that in North America there wer
no riots, just a lot of teeth gnashing and letters to the editor.
That is the traditional western response to an offending
publication. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops do it all the
time.
iih|10.18.07 @ 9:28PM|#
J sub D:
I think an additional the goal was to point out the
incompatibility between between western cultural traditions and
values and a significant portion of the Islamic
community.
I thought that was too obvious, wasn't it? How would highlighting
the obvious be smart? Wouldn't it have been smarter to poke fun ad
Nasrallah, Hamas, or Ahmadinajad more effective? At least they are
relevant to current events and would certainly spark debate about
current events. Don't you think?
BTW, I personally did not write any letters to editors or anything
of the sort, until MM kept going at it as if Rose was a saint of
free speech.
|10.18.07 @ 9:45PM|#
That would have been intelligent. But again, I think, the
goal was intimidation of all Muslims, especially those in
Europe.
THE INTIMIDATION OF MUSLIMS!!!!
Let me get this straight, a guy draws a cartoon, has to go into
hiding, people riot and killed and the guy doing the intimidating
was the guy who drew the cartoon.
Yes, iih, you are so opressed. Hirsi Ali, who had her clitoris
mutilated and was headed for a life of bondage before escaping, and
a cartoonist are the bullies. How do you find the courage to face
newspaper cartoons? You're truly an inspiration to us all.
Fucking insanity. Christopher Hitchens may be a neo-con and
communist, but he gets it. All of you "yes, but..." people should
frankly be ashamed of yourself.
The intimidation of Muslims! Is there anybody left in this world
besides murdering stone age fanatics and people who have had their
brains turned to such mush by political corectness that they think
that, once again, MUSLIMS ARE THE ONES BEING INTIMIDATED?!?!?
iih|10.18.07 @ 9:48PM|#
S of S:
As for his comments on the USSR, wasn't it ultimately Reagan's
willingness to talk to the Soviets (ignoring the advice of many of
his advisors) that was just as important as any arms
build-up?
Good point.
iih|10.18.07 @ 9:50PM|#
Chalupa:
You did not read my comment properly. I am not against intimidation
of Muslims, I recommend smarter intimidation, in fact.
Didn't you say you will not be positing on reason anymore?
Anyways, good to have you back.
iih|10.18.07 @ 9:59PM|#
Chalupa: In case you did not get that, here it is again: Intimidate those among Muslims who wish to interpret/implement their religion in a way offensive/dangerous to the West. Attacking Muhammad does not do the job. It alienates those in the Muslim community who are trying to help in the effort of de-radicalization of Muslims, especially those in the West. Attacking current radical players would have certainly embarrassed the silent moderate Muslims, provoked the radical, and encouraged the active moderates to work with non-Muslims in defeating the ideologies of the extremists. What do you think, Chalupa? Like that?
|10.18.07 @ 10:01PM|#
"It simply put most if not all Muslims, moderate and
otherwise, on the defense and could not have initiated a discourse
within the Muslim community as Flemming claims. It did to a very
very small extent. Why not poke fun at Nasrallah, or Hamas? That
would have been way smarter and would have helped distinguish
between the "moderate" and the "non-moderate" in an intra-Muslim
discourse, especially Western Muslims?"
And yet Muslims are still talking about it?
At the time, wasn't there an ongoing, pan-European discussion about
the integration of Muslim immigrants throughout Europe? From the
politics of Pim Fortuyn to the murder of Theo van Gogh, from the
riots in France of November 2005, riots which happened shortly
after these cartoons went international... Wasn't there already a
big, long, drawn out ongoing discourse about the assimilation of
Muslim immigrants?
iih|10.18.07 @ 10:07PM|#
Ken:
And yet Muslims are still talking about it?
Not really among themselves. Mostly to people on the "other side"
of the debate.
iih|10.18.07 @ 10:09PM|#
Ken:
Wasn't there already a big, long, drawn out ongoing discourse
about the assimilation of Muslim immigrants?
yes, indeed, there was. Now, again, one wonders about the effect
these cartoons had on that older discourse. The cartoons just
erased all of that and almost entirely destroyed any progress that
would have been made to that point. Someone upthread hinted at the
real purpose of these cartoons. You seem to touch on the root
causes here again.
|10.18.07 @ 10:14PM|#
Chalupa: In case you did not get that, here it is again:
Intimidate those among Muslims who wish to interpret/implement
their religion in a way offensive/dangerous to the West. Attacking
Muhammad does not do the job. It alienates those in the Muslim
community who are trying to help in the effort of de-radicalization
of Muslims, especially those in the West. Attacking current radical
players would have certainly embarrassed the silent moderate
Muslims, provoked the radical, and encouraged the active moderates
to work with non-Muslims in defeating the ideologies of the
extremists. What do you think, Chalupa? Like that?
Showing that there were people willing to kill and die over a
cartoon did more to provoke real debate on the issue of Islamic
integration than all the tired pc platitudes combined. Were these
moderate Muslims you are talking about working towards convincing
all Muslims to accept blasphemy as a human right before the cartoon
controversy? I really doubt it.
Muhammed needs to be attacked simply because he can't be. It's that
simple. And if the Muslim world can be provoked over a cartoon,
then it needs to be provoked.
|10.18.07 @ 11:12PM|#
I hope you're posting here for a long time, my friend. Europe in particular is going to be very interesting to watch.
|10.18.07 @ 11:13PM|#
"It alienates those in the Muslim community who are trying
to help in the effort of de-radicalization of Muslims, especially
those in the West. Attacking current radical players would have
certainly embarrassed the silent moderate Muslims, provoked the
radical, and encouraged the active moderates to work with
non-Muslims in defeating the ideologies of the
extremists."
I'm not so sure demonstrating the apparent intolerance of yet to be
assimilated Muslims was the primary objective, and I think
Muslims of whatever stripe should have considered that
possibility.
Only God knows what's in somebody's heart, but I don't see why I
shouldn't believe this story as told. If I were a publisher here in
America and I thought artists were too afraid to illustrate a
children's book, I'd like to think I'd be painfully obnoxious in
print.
...but listening to him talk about "appeasement", etc., it sounds
to me like his primary target was Danish liberals of a certain
stripe. So, anyway, Muslims may have been the subject of this
debate, but I'm not so sure they were the primary target.
iih|10.18.07 @ 11:41PM|#
Ken, I certainly agree on all and am glad to see that someone is
able to see or suspect that there is more than just what they eye
sees, regarding
and I think Muslims of whatever stripe should have considered
that possibility.
keep in mind that as a minority you tend to be edgy, and
oversensitive. To cite another example, Hitchens is yet another
atheist arguing against religion in general. Most Western Muslims,
however, are very wary of him since his talk has some very dangerous
implications. Shouldn't Muslims be alarmed, not by his freedom
of speech, but by the implications of Hitchens' speech (see
libertarian link)? When you belong to a minority that is
under a lot of scrutiny, you ought to be wary.
highnumber|10.18.07 @ 11:49PM|#
Chalupa: Whatever.
Not exactly QFT, but Quoted For Understanding That Sentiment And
Recognition Of That Kind Of Moment With Someone Like That
(QFUTSAROTKOMWSLT).
|10.19.07 @ 12:02AM|#
Not exactly QFT, but Quoted For Understanding That Sentiment
And Recognition Of That Kind Of Moment With Someone Like That
(QFUTSAROTKOMWSLT).
Someone like what? Heroic? Honorable? Brilliant? Being the rare
human being with the confidence, intelligence and independence not
to believe in myths of political corectness or religion?
This coming from the person who told us not to piss off Muslims
cause they're from a different culture.
Hey asshole, when they imigrated to your country and they're
rioting outside your door are they part of your culture yet? Tell
me, are you as big a pussy in life as your political beliefs
indicate?
Mohammed was a pedophile|10.19.07 @ 1:30AM|#
"I agree completley. Muslims should be smarter in attempting to
censor those who speak out against their faith."
Are you actually claiming that the attempts at censorship are ok,
just not the methods employed? If this type of mindset is prevalent
amongst Muslims, it's not surprising that only one majority muslim
country in the world is even remotely democratic.
And how exactly is discrimination against Muslims even relevant to
the cartoon discussion? These dark-ages mentality morons went
apeshit over a fucking cartoon. It is amazing how silent certain
people are when media organs in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian
territories, to name only two, call Jews apes and pigs on a daily
basis, but when someone draws a benign picture of Mohammed, these
jaberring assholes take to the streets with signs declaring those
who insult islam should be beheaded and their pathetic enablers
don't condemn their incitement to violence, rather they lecture us
about how evil we in the west are.
We live in a free society, one which affords me the right to call
Mohammed a pedophile and a warmonger. If your first reaction to
individuals with similar sentiments is a call for censorship or
support for murderous thugs who protest my right to say such
things, maybe you should move to Iran. You would feel much more at
home.
Mohammed was a pedophile|10.19.07 @ 1:33AM|#
"Chalupa: Whatever"
Wow, what a scathing rebuttal. I hope you don't unleash a similar
verbal torrent on me.
Mohammed was a pedophile|10.19.07 @ 1:44AM|#
"iih, I think an additional the goal was to point out the
incompatibility between between western cultural traditions and
values and a significant portion of the Islamic community. That was
certainly made apparent. I do note that in North America there wer
no riots, just a lot of teeth gnashing and letters to the editor.
That is the traditional western response to an offending
publication. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops do it all the
time."
You seem to be forgetting the Muslims in this country, such as the
leadership of CAIR, that spoke the classic "I believe in free
speech, but...." line. Implicitly, and sometimes explicitly,
stating that blasphemy should not be protected by the first
amendment, as more than a few "Muslim civil rights" groups did goes
far beyond "teeth gnashing and letters to the editor". That no
major American newspaper published these cartoons shows just how
willingly editors caved to the censorious impulses of these
lunatics.
Mohammed was a pedophile|10.19.07 @ 1:52AM|#
"I turned down a very lucrative and prestigious Fellowship (the
Orsted Fellowship) at the Danish DTU because I personally felt like
I was threatened because I am Muslim (and no, I do not ear a beard,
or put on a robe. I am as Western as "a western man can be"). The
people who offered me the scholarship were very sorry for the
anti-Muslim rhetoric and communicated to me that this is not the
kind of Denmark they wanted either (and in fact xenophobic and
nationalist at heart, dressed in the name of free speech). I hope
Michael Moynihan can read this now."
If some drawings in a newspaper and the resultant criticism of the
absolutely insane muslim reaction are enough to keep you out of an
entire country, you need to get a fucking backbone. After all it
could be worse. You could be a jew trying to get a job, or even
admittance, to any muslim country in the middle east.
Mohammed was a pedophile|10.19.07 @ 2:16AM|#
"attacking the Muslim population in Denmark because they could
was definitely part of the plan...
This site is absolutely amazing. For a libertarian website, an
awful lot of the commenters here are more PC than the
administrations at major universities. We are discussing cartoons
for crying out loud. Publishing them was not the intellectual
equivalent of Kristallnacht, no matter how much Muslims whine and
cry that it is. If Christians behaved in this same paranoid "Us vs.
Them" manner every time some hack submerged a crucifix in urine,
this country would have collapsed ages ago.
If ignorant assholes are willing to call for someone's death over a
fucking cartoon, then maybe, just maybe, they deserve the contempt
of the public as well as its ridicule. These thin-skinned goons
deserve no sympathy, no matter how many sob stories we hear from
them or the useful idiots in this country that rationalize their
thuggery. You can't have it both ways. You can't demand censorship
for blasphemy and publicly call for the murder of those who insult
Mohammed and Islam and then bitch when someone calls you what you
are: irrational bigots. Please spare us the "muslims are so
down-trodden" bullshit.
Mohammed was a pedophile|10.19.07 @ 2:54AM|#
"Shouldn't Muslims be alarmed, not by his freedom of speech, but
by the implications of Hitchens' speech (see libertarian link)?
When you belong to a minority that is under a lot of scrutiny, you
ought to be wary."
It is fucking impossible to take Muslim commenters on this site, or
in this country, seriously. Why? Because they go apeshit over a
fucking cartoon in Denmark, but utter nary a word over human rights
abuses committed daily in the name of Islam in majority-muslim
countries. In many muslim countries you can be executed for
apostasy or blasphemy, for homosexuality, for sexual relations with
a non-muslim, etc. You can be imprisoned for having a bible, for
prosletyzing to muslims, for drinking alchohol, etc. You get the
point. But instead of chastisiing their co-religionists, they
circle the wagons and cry "xenophobia and racism" whenever anyone
else dares to point out how intolerant some of them are. The
cartoon episode is a perfect example of this. Instead of stating
the obvious, that the protestors were thugs with a penchant for
murderous overreaction, we get fed a line of bullshit about how
oppressive and anti-muslim liberal democracies are because they
didn't censor a newspaper when it published a set of cartoons. And
even more laughable is the absolutely asinine assertion that when
some of the cartoonists have to flee or go into hiding the real
victims are muslims.
Until muslims become a little less selectively outraged over human
rights abuses involving other muslims, they need to shut the fuck
up.
highnumber|10.19.07 @ 8:36AM|#
Someone like what? Heroic? Honorable? Brilliant? Being the
rare human being with the confidence, intelligence and independence
not to believe in myths of political corectness or
religion?
Quoted For Hilarity.
|10.19.07 @ 10:31AM|#
highnumber,
He is a misunderstood genius and a hero to and champion of
oppressed white, male college students everywhere.
|10.21.07 @ 3:29AM|#
Fundamentalist Muslims and Christians are meant for each other.
FMuslims want to kill people and Christians want to be killed.
Okay, old time Christians, back in the day.
More semi-seriously, writing cartoons or doing documentaries about
a faith that has some serious question marks attached (at least as
practiced the fundamentalists in their camp - and that's a pretty
large sector) is more about providing opposition, raising
awareness, etc. than 'just pissing people off.' Hirsi Ali and her
filmaker were trying to bring to light the terrible oppression of
women in many branches of Islam. It's easy to sit back in one's
P.C. armchair, thousands of geographical and cultural miles away
from the cruelty and oppression, and smugly and magnanimously say
that sheiks will be sheiks, let's have a coke. etc.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245