News

Foreign correspondent Doug Saunders was on-line earlier today to take your questions on the uproar over the publication of cartoons satirizing the Prophet Mohammed.

The questions and answers are at the bottom of this article.

Mr. Saunders visited Copenhagen last week to investigate the atmosphere in the country. His report: A tale of two Muslim Danes illustrates the stark choice that European Muslims must make between integration into the European mainstream and retreating into their religion, and sometimes into extremism.

Mr. Saunders also interviewed Ahmed Akkari, the young Islamic scholar and Danish activist who sparked the controversy by distributing the cartoons throughout the Mideast — and who now regrets the fallout. His report on Akkari: 'It is not what I want to happen' .

In 2001, Mr. Saunders became the first person to win three National Newspaper Awards in a row. He was a long-time reporter in the Toronto bureau before a stint in Los Angeles, where he was nominated and won in the critical writing category three times. He is now based in The Globe's London bureau, where he writes about international issues.

Editor's Note: The same rules applied to this live discussion as normally apply to the reader comment feature. Globeandmail.com editors read and approved each comment/question. Not all questions could be answered in the time available. Comments/questions were checked for content only. Spelling and grammar errors were not corrected. Comments/questions that included personal attacks, false or unsubstantiated allegations, vulgar language or libelous statements were rejected. Preference was given to those who asked questions using their full name, rather than pseudonyms.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Doug, I may have missed this in the coverage so far. But while I've heard why the Danish paper first published the cartoons and why it later apologized, I've never heard anything directly from the cartoonist who drew them. I know from personal experience that nothing upsets my Muslim friends more than any blanket equation of their faith with terrorism and extremism, which most Muslims reject. Have you ever heard from the cartoonist why he/she drew the cartoon of the prophet with a bomb? What was the point he/she was trying to make?

Doug Saunders: The newspaper published 12 caricatures at the end of September, 2005. Each was drawn by a different artist. Essentially, the assignment was to depict Mohammed as he would be drawn as an illustration for a children's book. The book itself was apparently quite respectful, but the author had been surprised that she couldn't find an illustrator who wanted to take it on. At least 10 of the cartoons, and maybe 11, of the cartoons are quite respectful, one was a direct attack on the newspaper for publishing them (it showed Mohammed, as a schoolchild, writing in Arabic that the paper's editors are "reactionaries."). Most of them probably wouldn't have drawn any comment (they resemble images of Mohammed that are often seen in the Islamic world). The twelth was the one that showed a bomb in the Prophet's turban. Even this could be seen as respectful. One of the cartoonists later offered to publish a different version featuring a Star of David, presumably so it would be seen as multi-confessional. This offer was declined.

But several of the cartoonists are now in hiding, and all are getting police protection. Some have expressed regrets, while others have defended their work. There's a fairly strong desire among them not to have their names published, understandably.

Nathan Weatherdon, Toronto: Can you clarify what the Qu'ran and Muslim traditions have to say about making images of Mohammed? Also, I would be interested to hear what you have to say about the Holocaust cartoon challenge. An Iranian newspaper wants to see how dedicated the West is about freedom of speech by publishing cartoons about the Holocaust. While the negatives are evident, do you see any positives, at least as far as encouraging free speech and promoting open dialogue about the realities of the Holocaust in Iran?

Doug Saunders: As I understand it, the Koran says nothing about representations of Mohammed — in fact, it portrays him as the sort of guy who might appreciate such things, and who was quite open to self-effacement and criticism. The idea of bans on representation comes from sharia law traditions that emerged much later in Islamic thought, and have never been accepted by all practitioners. Images of Mohammed have often been produced by Muslims without any controversy — Ottoman art is full of them. People in Iran tell me that markets in Tehran often carry loving images of Mohammed. It really is just the extreme interpretations of Islam, like those promoted by Saudi authorities, that put a stress on this. (This doesn't mean that any Muslim in the world would appreciate a nasty depiction of Mohammed, any more than any Christian would appreciate an obscene image of Jesus).

Paradoxically, the Jewish and Christian holy book explicitly prohibits graven images. In all three Abrahamic faiths, it is only the orthodox who adhere to such bans — but in this case, it was orthodox Muslims who spoke the loudest.

Steve Neumann, Courtney, B.C.: Why is that the Muslim community can rally around this cartoon issue while their religion is against violence and I have yet to hear of any mass protests against the radicals in their mists? The only way to stop the radicals is by their own community condemning them and treating them like criminals instead of heroes.

Doug Saunders: Actually, some of the largest protests in Europe have been by Muslims protesting against Islamic extremists. On Saturday in London's Trafalgar Square, several thousand moderate Muslims held a rally against the violent images used in the anti-cartoon protests. Today in Copenhagen, secular Muslims held a big event, featuring the Prime Minister and Mr. Khader (the MP I wrote about on Saturday), that denounced the attacks on Danish freedoms coming from the more extreme members of their community. It's fair to say that the vast majority of European Muslims have no agreement at all with the anti-cartoon protesters, and they've begun to be quite outspoken about this.

Frederick Duquette, Edmonton: Would any of the cartoons qualify as actionable under Canada's "hate law" legislation?

Doug Saunders: One of them — the one with the bomb — could possibly qualify. Canada's "hate speech" law contains some protections for legitimate press commentary, satire, etc., but it also is full of holes and is wide open to interpretation. Canada is not a very free country when it comes to editorial cartoons: There have been successful libel judgements against cartoons in recent years.

Saleem Farooqi, Toronto: Could you please explain what (if any) are the limits on the so-called freedom of speech, from a western point of view, which is being used here to purposely insult the Prophet Muhammed and the sentiments of over 1.4 billion Muslims around the world?

Doug Saunders: Most free countries don't place limits on such freedoms. Insulting people, and their beliefs, is a cherished part of any free society. It was through this sort of dialogue that Islam was created, and evolved. This is not simply a western concept — in fact, the tradition of free and open criticism of beliefs was a crucial part of early Muslim societies.

Dano Gary, Hamilton, Ont.: In a country with a reputation for tolerance and multiculturalism, why are we hiding these images — especially when they can be found easily on the Internet? We should not hide them and we should be having an open dialog about such matters.

Doug Saunders: I don't think anyone is hiding them. If you Google the phrase "Mohammed cartoons," you'll find plenty of links to them. While not everyone has published them, I suspect that most major newspapers, including this one, would print them if they were in any way hard to obtain. But since they're so widely available, why should everyone automatically print them? They're not very good, and they're rude. The Globe would not have printed them under normal circumstances — they don't fulfil reasonable newspaper standards for quality and taste. If they came under censorship or became hard to find, I would hope they would be published — but that sure isn't the case. And I would say the dialogue is extremely open — the subject, including every imaginable view of it, has filled newspapers across Canada for the past week.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: On Saturday, Edward Greenspon, editor-in-chief of The Globe and Mail, wrote this column Self-censorship versus editing which explained the newspaper's decision not to publish the cartoons and the internal debate which preceded that decision.

The opposite decision was taken by The Weekly Standard, a political magazine based in Calgary, as The Globe reported today in this article: Calgary magazine to reprint cartoons

Nnaemeka Ekwosimba, Ottawa: Have all those (people) demonstrating, killing and burning buildings seen the cartoons or do they carry out their acts based on hearsay?

Doug Saunders: Hearsay, mostly. Our reporter Mark MacKinnon in Beiruit asked a number of anti-cartoon protesters what they believed had been printed. Most thought that every major English newspaper had printed them, and that they include images of Mohammed sodomizing people and appearing as a pig. In fact, no such images were among them, and no major English newspaper has printed them. So I'd say there are some pretty serious distortions out there in the Middle East — but this is what people now believe across the region.

Brian Finlay, Newmarket, Ont.: Recent acts of violence and intolerance by Muslims toward free nations and a free press show the heart of Islam today is not about peace or tolerance. Are there any Muslim leaders who have publicly attempted to lead their people towards peace? If there are such leaders, why isn't the free press getting their message out?

Doug Saunders: Our front page story on Saturday was devoted to a Danish leader of the moderate, anti-violent Muslim majority in Europe. As I noted, only between 5 and 20 per cent of Muslims in Europe (depending on which country) even attend a mosque, to say nothing of embracing the extreme views that exist on the far fringes of Islamic belief. I don't think it's fair to repeat the cliché about Islam being a religion of peace — no major religion, if you study its history, is very peaceful or very tolerant. When religion starts being anything other than a personal pastime, it becomes threatening. But for 9 out of 10 Muslims in Europe, it isn't even a personal pastime. Remember, "Christian terrorism" has been a major threat in Europe during recent generations (witness the dozens of terrible IRA bombings in the '70s, '80s and '90s in Britain and the killings of both Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland) — a lot of the same observations apply there.

Saadia Islam, Toronto: Islam is correct worship of God, science, knowledge, logic and faith. So, when one finds it, he/she understands. Islam prohibits the drawing and depicting of any of God's creation. It is blasphemy to draw, sculpt or act as any of God's Prophets. And what Denmark has done is so blasphemous that they have ascribed a lie to God's Final Prophet [Muhammad]. The drawing of pictures of Jesus, Moses, angels, beings and even any human-being is a sin in Islam because no one can create like God. Just because there are many kinds of alcohol, drugs, art forms ... does not mean it is good. The item itself is bad no matter what variety it comes in. What God says is bad is truly bad for God Knows BETTER than us. To act against this logic is bad logic [Satanic reasoning]. Prophet Muhammad [saws] is reported to have said, "No angels come where there are figures and statues. Also, in the day of Judgement the makers of 'beings' will be asked to breathe life into them and they will not be able to." Authentic Islam is the religion of Adam, Moses, Noah, Jesus too. It is pure and free of man-made fabrications because it is based upon REVELATION. It very important to accept that Islam means Submission of one's will to the Will of God. A Muslim is a person who accepts God's Revelations given to Moses, Jesus and other Prophets until... Muhammad [saws]. Prophet Muhammad [saws] was given Revelation from God through Angel Gabriel. And this Revelation will be the proof of God until the Day of Judgement. The Holy Qur'an is God's Final Word to humanity. It has no contradictions. It was sent to confirm the truth of the Past Scriptures. And in it God confirms that the Past Scriptures are not in their original form anymore. Prophet Muhammad spoke only of REVELATION not opinions. Study Islam & thank you for reading. Please inform others about the knowledge of Islam.

Doug Saunders: Actually, "Islam" does not prohibit such depictions — that article of dogma belongs to only one strand of Islam, an orthodox and politicized one. Remember, Islam is not a monolithic, single faith — that's an idea that's promoted by its more extreme imams, and has become a popular cliché, but falls apart upon any sustained examination of the faith. What you're expressing is a take on Islam that's popular at a specific time in a specific geographic region. If you spend any time in Malaysia and Indonesia — the largest Muslim populations in the world — you'll find that very different, more moderate dogma hold sway. As I noted, between 80 and 95 per cent of European Muslims do not follow this orthodox dogma. Muslims in the Indian subcontinent have traditionally shunned it — it was only the arrival of Saudi money in the last generation that caused orthodox, fundamentalist Islam of the sort that you're promoting to take hold in some places there. It is not very popular among Persians, has almost no followers among Turkish Muslims, and most African Muslims don't believe it. So your orthodoxy may do the trick for you, but luckily it isn't very popular among most observant Muslims, and has no following at all among "cultural" Muslims (the vast majority).

Brian Lowry, Fredericton, N.B.: I find it a bit incredible that the Danish Muslims who started the uproar in the Middle East brought offensive images other than the 12 published in Denmark. Where did they get these even more offensive images from, and how could they not see that as a provocation?

Doug Saunders: That was the beginning of the whole catastrophe. The booklet of cartoons that the Danish imams took to Syria, Lebanon and Egypt contained images of the Prophet as a pig, a dog, a woman and a sodomizer — none of which had ever been published in a Danish paper (or any paper anywhere). Mr. Akkari, the leader of the delegation , showed these to me and told me that he'd included them because they'd been included in hate mail that he and his colleagues had been sent by right-wing extremists. He told me that he'd made it clear that the two sets of images were separate. But that was lost on the people who received the images, and on the larger population who heard fast-growing urban myths about them. Mr. Akkari told me that he had no idea of the reaction this would cause. I suspect he was partly naïve, but also somewhat disingenuous — obviously, the package was intended as a provocation of some sort, even if they couldn't have anticipated exactly what it would provoke.

Mike Saunders, Houston, Tex., U.S.A.: Mr. Saunders, can you comment on The Western Standard's decision to publish the cartoons in an upcoming issue, and also whether the Muslim community in Canada is justified in threatening hate crime charges against WS?

Doug Saunders: Well, Mike (no relation as far as I know), the Western Standard is an on-line publication out of Alberta — I don't think they mind being called a conservative site, since they're part of a publishing tradition on the right. As for any Canadian publication wishing to print them — it is of course their right to publish the cartoons but it is also the right of anyone to try to have charges brought against a newspaper under hate laws. Personally, I'd like to have the limits of such hate laws tested in such a case, since, although the law does explicitly place brackets around legitimate expression in newspapers etc., it does leave open the possibility of court persecution of legitimate acts of a free press (such as this one). Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms is fairly strong on freedom of expression, and it would be nice to see Canada's hate speech laws shot down in a Charter challenge. Maybe this would be an opportunity for such a challenge — it would be nice to see something beneficial coming out of all this.

Ennis Blentic, Toronto: To my knowledge, most "prominent" Western governments have voiced their support for the Danes and their insistence on the right of freedom of speech. Have there been any that have expressed criticism or prescribed a better way to handle this combustible situation?

Doug Saunders: Actually, the United States, Britain, France and numerous other countries have expressed explicit criticism of the cartoons themselves, and the newspaper for publishing them. Jack Straw in Britain (he's the Home Secretary) thanked the British media for not printing them. Both Condi Rice and President George W. Bush in the States attacked the cartoons. And Dominique de Villepin (the French Prime Minister) has condemned the insensitivity of the cartoons. Yes, they also all said that it should be the right of a paper to publish them, and that no government should interfere with such publications, but their main message was to criticize the cartoons themselves.

Jason Loftus, Toronto: It seems that the decision by some Canadian publications to print these cartoons could test the Muslim community in Canada more directly. Is there any indication that some Muslims in Canada could follow the examples of some of the more violent protesters elsewhere in the world in their reactions to these cartoons?

Doug Saunders: That's an interesting question. Of course, a lot of people would be insulted and bothered, and might protest — that's completely legitimate and even to be encouraged. But would there be violent, Middle East-style protests in Canada? I doubt it. There might be a few people who, like the early protesters in Britain, would carry signs that advocate various violent things. There are, after all, extreme political Islamists in Canada, as there are everywhere, who could hijack things. My colleague Michael Valpy made a strong case in Tuesday's paper for Canada's Muslim community being less isolated, more likely to see themselves as part of the Canadian community rather than "outsiders" who are in opposition to it. I tend to concur. In Europe, Muslims tend to live in suburban slums, physically isolated from the rest of society. That just isn't the case in most of Canada.

Geoffrey Bird, Seven Mile Beach, Cayman Islands: Earlier, you said: "The twelth (cartoon) was the one that showed a bomb in the Prophet's turban. Even this could be seen as respectful." How so? I've seen the cartoon, and it did seem disrespectful. However, I am a proponent of freedom of speech. Without it, how would we know who is in the wrong? I prefer to form my own opinions, rather than have them decided for me by government.

Doug Saunders: Yeah, let me be a bit more clear about that remark.

Many people saw that cartoon as saying that the Prophet is a terrorist — and therefore that all Muslims are violent extremists.

But that's not what the cartoonist apparently intended, and there's another quite legitimate interpretation. Instead, you could look at it as an attack on suicide bombers who carry out their attacks in the name of Islam. They are sullying the name of Mohammed, blaspheming against him if you will. They're hijacking his name and image, and, figuratively speaking, sticking a piece of dynamite in his turban.

L. Yau, Toronto: What, in your opinion, is the future of the Muslim population in Europe now, given that the distance between the Europeans and Muslim Europeans seemed to have expanded? Are there a lot of people willing to give integration an extra boost? Are there enough people in the middle of the spectrum?

Doug Saunders: I think this is the big question of the moment. For "Muslims" in Europe — by which I mean for immigrants, or descendants of immigrants, from countries where Islam is the dominant faith — this is not a particularly good moment. The French riots in November (which were not "Muslim" at all but rather riots of the disenfranchised poor, who just happen to be mostly non-observant Muslims), the various al Qaeda attacks in Spain, Britain, and elsewhere, the killing of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in late 2004 — these have created an atmosphere of mutual distrust that could spiral out of control. Muslims could become more and more isolated from mainstream society, leading more of them to turn to extremism. This in turn would lead to more intolerance.

Would Europe stop allowing "Muslim" immigrants? Unlikely. Denmark is one of the few countries that has done so — the Danish conservative government stopped all immigration in 2002. And look where it's led them. Britain has an unemployment rate of 2.9 per cent, so has to bring in several hundred thousand people per year just to keep the economy ticking along. Germany and Italy and Spain and France are suffering terrible crises of depopulation (because they don't have the reproduction rate to keep their populations up). To avoid economic devastation — since population shrinkage creates enormous poverty, inequality, etc. — they need to bring in an awful lot of people (Germany takes in 500,000 immigrants a year). Those factors aren't going to stop. Europe is going to need millions of new people every year, and they're going to come from Muslim countries. It's an inescapable reality.

The question is whether the Muslim population of Europe is unique in some way, or whether they're undergoing the process of isolation and demonization that all first- and second-generation immigrant groups endure. 30 years ago, Caribbean immigrants were the bane of Europe — they were seen as violent and marginal in much the same way as Muslims are now. Today, with few exceptions, Caribbean-Europeans (esp. in Britain and France) are relatively well-integrated members of the community. Muslims — and the issue here is mainly Arab Muslims, plus some Pakistanis — come from places that have political and social problems that have bred some extremism, and this has taken off among second-generation, European-born offspring in a few marginal cases.

But this is a political problem with specific, localized dimensions, not really a problem with Muslim communities. 90 per cent of Muslims in Europe are secular and moderate, and their leaders are beginning to speak out. Therein lies the hope for the future, but I wouldn't bet that it will be an easy transition.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: Thanks, Doug, for taking so much time today to answer questions from the readers of globeandmail.com. We appreciated it.

Jim Sheppard, Executive Editor, globeandmail.com: To our readers, as always, it was not possible to answer all the questions you submitted today in the time available for Doug's answers. If you any further comment on the format of these kinds of discussions, please feel free to e-mail me your thoughts .