sisu

Danish cartoon affair "a revolt to assert Western values of freedom of opinion, speech and religion"

"If you did not know the tiny, unpretentious and vivacious grey-haired lady whom I had the privilege of sitting next to you would never guess that she is one of the most formidable personalities of our time," writes Paul Belien of The Brussels Journal re Bat Ye'or, above, in The Hague attending an international gathering of Western Jihad experts over the weekend.

"To Bat Ye’or the Danish cartoon affair is 'a revolt to assert Western values of freedom of opinion, speech and religion,'” writes Paul Belien, editor--in-chief of The Brussels Journal:

My wife and I had dinner with Bat Ye’or [at a gathring of Eurabia scholars in the Hague Sunday], and I asked her how it had felt to live as a dhimmi in Egypt, but she said it was only when she came to the West that she had come to realize what dhimmitude really was. “You only realize when you look from the outside in,” she said. It is perhaps because she has had this ‘priviliged’ experience that she was able to perceive from the 1970s onwards how the Europeans are slowly being turned into dhimmis. Her 2005 book “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis” describes this transformation process.

Then there are those inside the dummitudinous bubble of Harvard College Democrats like Andrew Golis of Cambridge Common, whose wilfully information-challenged and self-satisfied comments re the Harvard Salient's decision to publish the cartoons betray an astonishing, head-in-the-sand lack of curiosity:

But seriously, what point was there to do this other than pure attention-mongering? Yes, I know, it's a statement of principle that reaffirms the freedom of the press in the United States. That's fine, it's a good principle. But who really thought it was in jeopardy?

While Rome -- Cambridge? -- burned. When Pyrrhus of RedIvy, "the new blog of the Harvard Republican Club," posted a list of questions for Golis, the best the young man of the left could come up with was "I don't have time or desire to write the short book that your questions compel." Bat Ye'or would not be pleased. More from Paul Belien in the Hague:

Bat Ye’or convincingly argues that the transformation of Europe into Eurabia is the result of a deliberate strategy that was foolishly set in motion by French Gaullists who wanted to create a European-Arab counterweight to the United States . . . Ever since she was forced to leave Egypt Bat Ye’or has lived in Europe . . . She urges young people to continue resisting dhimmi status.

“We should not ask the moderate Muslims to save us. We have to change the present situation ourselves. That is our duty to our children and our ancestors,” warned Ye'or:

Her studies have made her aware that the destruction of Christian societies by Jihadists has always been brought about by the Christian leaders and churches themselves . . .

Not only the European Union is imposing the ideology of multiculturalism, but also the United Nations . . . According to the 56 member states of the Organization of the Islamic Countries (OIC) even the use of “the prefix ‘Islamic’ before ‘terrorism’ is sacrilege.” Through the channels of the UN they try to curtail freedom of thought, opinion and expression with accusations of “blasphemy,” “islamophobia,” “defamation of Islam,” or “sacrilege.”

It's time for young Harvard Democrats who profess political opinions to look up from their books/computers/navels and realize that the dhimmitudinous fear society is already crashing upon our shores. Belien concludes:

I had been invited to The Hague by Daniel Pipes. I discovered that the most famous of the conference participants were not registered at the hotel under their real names and a (plain clothes) guard was watching over them. Apparently, a gathering of people for a scholarly exchange of views on the preservation of Western liberties, can no longer take place in the free West without security measures.

Those who do not study history . . .

Crazy Sissy talks with the Harvard man*

Raphael's "Saint George Slaying the Dragon," a parable of good destroying evil (first published here two years ago in a post where we quoted a Syrian filmmaker who said after the fall of Saddam, "The myth of having to live under despots for eternity collapsed.")

"On the right wing [crazies like Sissy Willis are] easy to pick out, writes Markus Kolic of Dem Apples -- 'Love the name! -- the official blog of the Harvard College Democrats, standing up for fellow DA blogger Josh Patashnik, who was the object of spirited criticism here the other day for his pre-emptive dhimmitudinous surrender in the Cartoon Wars. While we admire Mr. Kolic's loyalty to his friend, we are disappointed -- if not surprised --  at his professed disloyalty to his own ideas in the name of winning access to power:

And after spending some time arguing with radicals [Kolic's term for "crazies" like us. --ed], I’m beginning to realize why: unlike them, my goal is not to enforce my principles on everyone else. My goal is to do good for my country, by getting my party elected. Thus, no matter how fervently I might believe some of my radical ideas, I don’t want my party to recognize them if they would alienate large portions of the American people. I might have an extreme or unusual view on 9/11, or drug policy, or taxes, or religion. But I will keep those ideas to myself, because I know that the vast majority of Americans do not and probably never will think that way. This is what differentiates us from authoritarian ideologues on both wings, who have no qualms about condemning the masses. (”Sinners!” “Consumers!” etc.)

'Reminds us of Hillary Clinton's modus operandi, pandering at will. We always wonder if such persons realize how condescending their approach is to "the masses" -- what we would call "fellow citizens" -- whose votes they seek. Unlike Hillary, however, Markus Kolic wins our heart if not our mind with the civility and humor of his comments on our blog:

As a friend and fellow blogger of Josh Patashnik, naturally I'm irked at your characterization of him, but I respect your right to that opinion. (Thanks for the link back, by the way -- no such thing as bad publicity and all that.)

We especially like that parenthetical comment, a sentiment we've often blogged here. But so much for hearts. What about minds? Markus -- may we call you Markus? -- continues:

What gets me, both with your reasoning in particular and so much of the right's reasoning in general, is how you so easily throw out words like "enemy" and "adversary." Now, there is no doubt that we are in a war and there is an enemy (OK, a few of my radical-lefty friends doubt that, but that's beside the point). But you seem to have forgotten: Islam is not our enemy . . . I fail to see how these Danish cartoons are even remotely productive in the war on terror.

Did we ever say or even imply that Islam is our enemy? Never. Some of our best blogfriends are believers, fergossake. It's the dragon of Islamist terrorism and its fellow travelers that we battle with our words here. And what about those cartoons? If our new blogfriend fails to see how they "are even remotely productive in the war on terror," perhaps it is because those presumably utopian ideas he says he keeps to himself have blinded him to the lessons of history and the imperatives of human nature. We'll let longtime blogfriend Teresa, who responds to Mr. Kolic in the comments, have the last word:

There is a reason for talks about slippery slopes. Appeasing violence rather than confronting it -- has never ever worked. It always ends with the appeaser having to give more and more -- until they are useless -- then they end up despised and dead. It's a losing proposition with extremely dire consequences for our country and our way of life.

As we've said before, we love it when our commenters, disagreeing with each other's ideas, engage in civilized debate. It gives us hope that freedom of speech will prevail.

*Title refers to the syntax of the title of W.B. Yeats's "Crazy Jane talks with the bishop."

People who say or write inoffensive things need no protection"

Duncan Phyfe dining room chair in late afternoon sunlight through a veil -- leftover Christmas ribbons strung over the doorways to remind us to be watchful for a slippery, post-waxed floor -- lightly. Note radiator upper left and newly renovated hand-laid parquet floor middle and lower left.

"I'm not sure that we should look to the Catholic pope to defend free expression," writes TigerHawk in response to comments re his latest post. As we said here the other day,

We think "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's applies here. In our view the Vatican struck just the right note for the things that are God's.

Even so, TigerHawk is right when he says

The right of free speech exists only to defend people who say or write things that offend. People who say or write inoffensive things need no protection.

We semi disagree with the totally awesomeTH in this way, as we wrote last week in "The cat among the Islamic pigeons":

Thank GOD our beloved Benedetto -- the Pope who loves cats and Mozart -- is on the case. We agree with Oriana Fallaci -- the renowned Italian Journalist indicted last year in her native country for vilifying, as the law says, a "religion admitted by the state," in this case Islam -- that "You cannot survive if you do not know the past." In an Opinion Journal interview with Tunku Varadarajan last June -- blogged here -- she said "I am an atheist, and if an atheist and a pope think the same things, there must be something true. It's that simple! There must be some human truth here that is beyond religion."

We imagine our friend would agree.

"Let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark"

"Dr. Seuss’s political cartoons from the early 1940s are just as dead on target as when he first drew them, and especially pertinent today as the ideological heirs of the good Doctor’s 'Appeasement' characters run amok in the streets of Europe and San Francisco," wrote Charles Johnson -- blogged in our "Clueless, then and now" -- two years back. Some people never learn. Click here for larger version of "Remember . . . One More Lollypop, and Then You All Go Home." For one of today's satirists whose work is on a par with Dr. Seuss's, check out Scott Ott's ScrappleFace post today, "Fatwa Adds Riot Duty as Sixth Pillar of Islam."

"Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to," writes Flemming Rose, culture editor of the Danish newspaper that published the cartoons that launched a thousand calls for self-censorship, in a Washington Post op ed that catches the conscience of the thing:

But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations . . .

The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. [See Dr. Seuss cartoon, above] The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.

Meanwhile, over in the mailbag at The Harvard Crimson, Sean Barrett ’07 has penned a thoughtful letter to the editors re the conservative student publication The Salient's decision to publish the YKW [PBUH]* cartoons that asks the right question:

As The Salient well knows, we are at war, and thus, The Salient should have asked itself, “Does publishing these cartoons help our allies or our enemies?”

But comes up with the wrong answer:

The ensuing riots that some of our allies have struggled to subdue, and the inevitable use of these cartoons as recruiting tools and propaganda by the Jihadists answer this question loudly and clearly . . . The Salient has put its desire to grandstand and challenge the liberal orthodoxy of Harvard ahead of our country’s goal of winning a war it has so eagerly supported.

On the contrary, publication of the cartoons helps our allies -- not our enemies -- by serving as a wake-up call. The Jyllands-Posten's Flemming Rose explains:

Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized . . .

Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons.

With apologies to Shakespeare, Good Freedom Lovers, "cast thy nighted colour off, And let thine eye look like a friend on Denmark." (Hamlet 1.2.68)

Update: "Hey, I believe that this is the first time we've had Instalanche together. ;)," comments our blog buddy, TigerHawk. Be sure to go over and read his thoughtful "Realigning tolerance: Our options in the collision between free speech and Islam."

*YKW [PBUH] = You know who [Peace be unto him]

Respect, always. Submission, never.

"Just two days ago, Associate Dean of the College Judith H. Kidd sent an e-mail to the [Harvard] Salient, warning staff members that “some segments of the campus may be sufficiently upset by the publication of the cartoons that they may become dangerous,” reports The Harvard Crimson. So much for freedom of speech on the campus of the nation's most prestigious institution of higher learning. At a Harvard Interfaith Council forum Thursday, Salient Publisher Travis R. Kavulla ’06-’07 (above on The O'Reilly Factor the same night with our beloved Tony Snow subbing) said “There is a journalistic obligation for the mainstream media to show these things.”  Hey, New York Times et al, if you know what's good for you, get this young man on your editorial team ASAP.

"I do not know if hypocrisy is better or worse than the second most common position encountered in liberal circles: openly siding with Islamic fanaticism and putting the blame fully on the cartoonists and their editors, as Bill Clinton did, Kofi Annan and the Foreign Affairs spokesmen of the Bush and Blair governments," writes Koenraad Elst in The Brussels Journal:

In the Brussels weekly Knack, the Belgian equivalent of Newsweek and Time, with a weekly circulation of 160,000 copies, the editor, Karl Van den Broeck, launched the innovative conspiracy theory that the Neoconservative cabal, with tentacles stretching from Washington DC and Tel Aviv to Aarhus and Brussels (this website!), had planned the whole cartoon riot incident as the trigger for the Clash of Civilizations and the invasion of Syria and Iran, no less. Well, not all that innovative: a similar view was expressed by Ayatollah Khamenei . . .

The Newspeak notion of ‘verbal violence’ is an attempt to vitiate the debate by pretending that strong rhetoric amounts to, and is somehow equivalent to, physical violence. Again this is a trait which is typical of dictatorships, where dissenters are routinely criminalized as ‘trouble-makers irresponsibly sowing conflict in society,’ and the silencing and incarceration of dissidents is justified as ‘necessary for the people’s well-being and social peace.’ In fact, it is precisely the so-called ‘violent’ speech that is protected by the principle of freedom of expression.

Carrying the argument to its logical conclusion, Elst makes toast of "anyone who, like [Brussels government-funded 'intercultural' lobby group] KifKif, demands restrictions on publications that cast the Muslims' prophet in a negative light":

What does KifKif propose to do with the Hadith collections and the Quran, ban those books in toto or merely excise the parts that testify to Muhammad’s acting in contravention of the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights]?

But, as with all fans of fear societies, logic and consistency are beside the point. Control over the speech of those one disagrees with are where it's at. And speaking of control over the speech of those one disagrees with, we were more than a little intrigued with Elst's dhimmi-lite apologia:

Please note that in the present article and in other publications, I have practised a reasonable degree of respect for the founder of Islam. Of course I have not used any sycophantic or reverential appositions every time I mentioned his name, such as “Peace Be Upon Him” or “PBUH.” But at least I have repeatedly referred to him as the “Prophet,” and capitalized, no less. As a non-believer, I would have been entitled to describe him each time as “the so-called prophet.” Since I am not in the business of annoying people with such pedantries, I have refrained from exercising that right. It’s just a question of sensitivity, you know.

As we advised in his comments, referencing our post  "Arabic names won't go into English, exactly":

May I suggest the perfect polite but non-sycophantic solution to the infidel's toe-curling "the prophet/Prophet Mohammed/Muhammad" dilemma: "The Muslim prophet Mohammed."

Respect, always. Submission, never.

Update and Instalanche:  "To paraphrase Tom Wolfe, theocracy is forever descending on America, but somehow it always lands somewhere else," notes Glenn Reynolds.

(((:~{> [PBUH]

A leftover bit of Xmas ribbon catches Tiny's eye, a teaser for the feral predator within.

Rand Simberg of Transterrestrial Musings reprints Mohammed -- the Prophet Muhammad [PBUH]? -- emoticons from Rusty. Here's a teaser:

Muhammad  (((:~{>

Head on over to Rand's for "Muhammad on a bad turban day" and other punctuational blasphemies.

Going her usual route -- for the jugular -- Tiny bags the ribbon. As with mice and other small mammals and birds -- not to mention superballs -- once they're caught and stop moving, she quickly loses interest.

Once an Islamist catches someone blaspheming and reduces him to Dhimmitude, does he, like Tiny, lose interest?

Update: Tiny is featured in Laurence Simon's topical "Let's ask the cats." In answer to "What does PBUH stand for?" she replies "Purr box up high."

An Islamic Studies program of one's own

Then Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (left) of New York City just said no to Prince Walid's strings-attached post-9/11 offer of $10 million after the Saudi billionaire suggested the US was partially to blame for the attacks on New York and Washington. Photo retouched for fog-of-war effect.

"If Prince Al-Waleed is on the cutting-edge of progressivism in fundamental Islamic society, then the march toward modernity is lurching along at an excruciatingly slow pace," writes Christopher B. Lacaria (Harvard '09) in the The Harvard Salient re the billionaire Saudi Prince's controversial $20-million donation earmarked for an Islamic Studies program at Harvard:

The fact remains, however, that the intentions of Harvard -- without any prodding from wealthy donors -- may in fact sync rather smoothly with an Islamic Studies program that does not focus a critical lens on extremist Wahhabism.  As Prince Al-Waleed stated so convincingly, borrowing a favorite catchphrase from the politically-correct lexicon, the overarching objective of his endowed program is "understanding".

We were reminded of our own recent post citing the slick, politically correct words that accompanied the Prince's announcement -- in the wake of the London subway bombings last summer -- of his $20.5 million donation towards building the Louvre's new gallery for Islamic Art:

He hoped the gallery would help people to gain an understanding of Islam as a religion of humanity and tolerance.

And our own I'm-from-Missouri-show-me reply:

Now if only his inhumane and intolerant coreligionists would gain a little understanding of their own faith.

"If Harvard shares the Prince's vision, then the House of Saud, the Iranian ayatollahs, and Moslem extremists of all stripes can breathe easily, knowing that academia's strict definition of understanding precludes any sort of critical evaluation or the issuing of any value judgments," writes Christopher B. Lacaria of The Harvard Salient.

We understand, but "A pox (err, jihad) on free expression" goes the headline at The Harvard Salient's notorious back page, cited by the Boston Globe [via Michelle Malkin]:

A conservative student newspaper at Harvard University has become one of the few media outlets in the country to show inflammatory Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, angering students on campus and prompting a forum to discuss the controversy.

''Publishing materials that criticize the ways Islam has been usurped worldwide for purposes of violence and oppression is a risky, but honest and necessary, business," the editors wrote in an accompanying editorial . . .

Travis R. Kavulla, a junior and the editor of the paper, said the student journalists meant no disrespect to Muslims, and had hoped instead to provoke a debate on campus.

The Harvard College Interfaith Council will host tomorrow's forum, but we don't think we'd like to be a fly on the wall at that one. The president of the Harvard Islamic Society willfully gets it wrong right up front: ''They're people their age that are really attacking things that are very integral to their lives." No, sir. They are not attacking. They are presenting ideas for debate.

Then there's Rupert Murdoch and Fox:

A Saudi prince [Walid] who owns shares of the Fox News Channel claims he persuaded network chief Rupert Murdoch to change a screen banner during a broadcast that identified the recent unrest in France as "Muslim riots."

The mind reels. We knew we were the little people, but it always catches our breath when we get a glimpse of the machinations of the men behind the screen.

Note: Walleed, Walid? As with Mohammed, spell at your own risk. The latest fave for the historic and religious figure we used to call Mohammed is now "the prophet Muhammad," but we never got the memo.

It is better to suffer for truth than to prosper by falsehood*

Yesterday we blogged about the recent dhimmitudinous adoption by MSM types of the phrase "the prophet Mohammed" -- or sometimes "the Prophet Mohammed" -- to refer to Mohammed. Now comes this from EURSOC, describing the double standards of the BBCs "Society & Culture" website (clips above). Noting that while "nowhere does the BBC use the traditional honorific capitalisation of pronouns referring to Christ," by contrast "every time the Prophet is mentioned in the BBC's supposedly neutral text, his name is followed with [PBUH or peace be upon him] -- as if, as Wyatt notes, "the corporation itself were Muslim."

“It is an irony that I am today living in a European democratic state and have to fight the same religious fanatics that I fled from in Iran many years ago,” says Kamran Tahmasebi, quoted in a Brussels Journal article on moderate Danish Muslims who have "had enough of fanatic Islamism and its intimidation of the Muslim immigrants in Denmark":

He came to Denmark as a refugee in 1989. Today he works as a social consultant and is very grateful for the life Denmark has made it possible for him to have. He says he no longer wants to keep a low profile to avoid attracting the attention of the imams. The cartoon affair was an incentive for him to stand up and warn against the Islamist imams in Denmark, whom he says are damaging the integration process with their misleading criticism of Danish values and norms . . .

Dozens of Danish Muslims are joining the network of moderate Muslims, the Demokratiske Muslimer (Democratic Muslims). About 700 Muslims have already become DM members and 2,500 Danes have expressed their will to support the network. The initiative has caused anger among the Danish imams and their leader, Ahmad Abu Laban, who have referred to the moderates as “rats.” The imams feel that they are beginning to lose their control over part of the Muslim population.

Let's hope so. The Brussels Journal continues:

The deliberate lies which imams, such as Abu Laban and Akkari, used to incite worldwide hatred against Denmark have served as a wake-up call for the Danish government . . . the Danish imams are not the only imams in Europe who are speaking with two tongues. Indeed, there are indications that the main culprits for the integration problems are the imams, who tend to be much more extremist than many of the ordinary Muslims.

As Glenn Reynolds wrote yesterday regarding the machinations of the radical imams and their fellow travelers in the War on Freedom -- referencing an article in the Toronto Star cited at The Corner:

Like race riots in the early 20th Century, this is a case of ignorant yahoos being exploited by elites in order to protect the elites' power against civilizing influences.

Fortunately, in Denmark -- as in the US -- the majority of citizens who happen to be followers of Islam are anything but ignorant yahoos and just want to get on with their lives. We owe the Danes our gratitude and support -- double that order of Danish ham, would you? -- for placing that wake-up call.

*Post title is a Danish proverb.

"Do I need to burn embassies to get respect for my views?"

"Do I need to burn embassies to get respect for my views? asks the Professor rhetorically during "my appearance on CNN, in which I'm rather critical of CNN's decision not to show the cartoons."

On CNN's "Inside the Blogs" last night, the most trusted man in the blogosphere, Glenn Reynolds explained to cutie-pie interviewer Abbi Tatton the way of the world, in response to her questions re the "intense scrutiny of news organizations like CNN and others and the decisions that we've been making about whether to publish these cartoons or not." We caught the show during rebroadcast in the wee hours, and Ian Schwartz of Expose the Left has the video [via Michelle Malkin]:

Well I think you guys have blown it, and in fact I think by not publishing the cartoons, what you've done is let people imagine the worst. The actual cartoons are not that [bad], and in fact one way we know they're not that [bad] is the Danish imams had to add fake cartoons when they did their little tour to try to stir up trouble because the real ones weren't bad enough, and I think when you cover things up, you let people's imaginations run wild, and the results are often worse than if you expose things. The press is there to tell us things, not to hide things from us.

Everything's offensive to somebody, and in the modern world we all have to put up with some degree of offense. If the fundamentalist Christians were rioting because of Will and Grace, would you take them off the air?

Conservative bloggers hear a lot of talk about free speech in other contexts, but it seems like people are willing to go to the mat to protect free speech when it's free speech that irritates people on the right, but when it's free speech that irritates Muslims, they're more concerned about not offending.

"How has the internet contributed to this story," asks Tatton:

Well I think it's helped people find these images they couldn't find through the mainstream press -- which as always helps people bypass the gatekeepers. My beliefs are offended when gangs of ignorant thugs burn embassies. Where's the respect for my beliefs? Do I need to burn embassies to get respect for my views? Because that's the message CNN sends. The message they send is "We will reward violence." And you're going to get more of what you reward. That's how it works.

And that's the way it is. But despite this excellent segment on CNN, MSM types still don't get it. The anchor of the show -- a very personable and competent professional -- had already internalized the dhimmitudinous new phrase of the moment, "the prophet Mohammed" to refer to a religious figure previously known to infidels as simply "Mohammed." Listen for it. They're all doing it now, even on Fox. Are tolerant Muslims about to refer to Jesus as "Our Lord Jesus Christ"? Nor should they.

Instalanche. The great one doesn't know wherof he speaks, saying "I think I finished well, though, even if I was boring. But hey, I'm a law professor. Boring is what we do best!" No, no. You are not boring, you silly.

Update:  Reader Scott points out the imprecision of our comparison between the Christian expression "Our Lord Jesus Christ" and the Muslim expression "the Prophet Mohammed [PBUH]." We agree. A more apt comparison might be the spelling G-d used by some Jews as a reminder of the holiness attached to God's name or -- as blogged here, the traditional honorific capitalization of pronouns referring to Christ.

A fleeting feeling of dhimmitudinous fear

"She is an architect whose buildings are shadows emerging out of landscape . . . Instead of the weighty presence of tectonic plates, she now suggests that the manipulation of geometry and structure could liberate a space from its confines," said Thomas Pritzker of Baghdad-born, London-based Zaha Hadid at award ceremonies for the 2004 Pritzker Architecture Prize. Speaking of formative influences in her acceptance speech, Hadid mentioned "my secular modern upbringing in Iraq. I have to thank my parents for their enlightened open-mindedness." Interesting biographical note: Hadid appears to have gotten out of Baghdad just as the Baathists came to power, earning a degree in mathematics from the American School in Beirut before moving on to study at the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London beginning in 1972. Her profile at zaha-hadid.com makes no mention of her Iraqi origins. (Musée du Louvre, rendering by Zaha Hadid for a new gallery to house the Louvre's Department of Islamic Art. Click here for more views of Hadid's proposal)

"This design is sure to be controversial for the way it forces itself into the classically-scaled and proportioned courtyard, as well as for its neo-Islamic / neo-Escher / neo-Libeskind's-vetoed-Victoria-and-Albert-Museum-ish skin," writes Chicago architect John Hill of A Daily Dose of Architecture [a great new find, via Ghost of a flea] re Zaha Hadid's provocative, albeit non-winning entry (above) in the Louvre's competition to design a new gallery for its Department of Islamic Art. Fun fact: Billionaire Saudi Prince Walid bin Talal donated more than $20.5 million towards the project, saying "he hoped the gallery would help people to gain an understanding of Islam as a religion of humanity and tolerance." Now if only his inhumane and intolerant coreligionists would gain a little understanding of their own faith.

"Long before I discovered in the Alhambra an affinity with the Moors in the regular division of the plane, I had recognized this interest in myself," wrote M.C. Escher. ("Day and Night" 1938, Woodcut in black and gray printed from two blocks, 15 3/8 x 26 5/8 in.)

Shocking, shocking architectural statements that ripen in the fullness of time into beloved cultural icons are a sine qua non of our French amis. Think Eiffel Tower, Pompidou Center and I.M. Pei's glass pyramid in the Louvre's own central courtyard. And despite her Iraqi roots, Hadid's in-your-face proposal is mostly about Deconstructivist ideas of "fragmentation, non-linear processes of design, non-Euclidean geometry, negating polarities such as structure and envelope" in opposition to the ordered rationality of Modern Architecture. Besides, we agree with blogger/architect Hill that the design per se is "rather appealing" if somewhat claustrophobic in context. So why did a fleeting feeling of dhimmitudinous fear wash over us when we first set eyes on her renderings? The febrile blogging brain went into overdrive, plotting the next post: The Islamicists' insidious and increasingly effective attempts to impose Sharia on an all-too-submissive Europe -- as in the recent Cartoon Wars -- is akin to Hadid's attempt to impose an alien architectural intruder upon the self-contained Second-Empire Neo-Baroque space of the Louvre's Cour Visconti. Are we venturing into crackpot territory here? Maybe. We've flogged this theme early and often, of course, the "mechanics of tyranny" that sustain all fundamentalist societies, whether religious or secular:

Democratic Europe's go-along-to-get-along types in turn call to mind those members of academia who go along with politically correct groupthink they may not agree with in order to protect their careers.  Call it "Fear Society Lite."  Sharansky's "mechanics of tyranny that sustain such a society" are at work in those lofty intellectual bubbles just as surely as they were in the old Soviet Union and are today in the Arab tyrannies. A repressive society is a repressive society, wherever it may fall on a continuum of brutality and thought control. The crushing of dissent brutalizes the human spirit. Sharansky's optimism encourages the human spirit to soar.

 

"Rather than an iconographic object within the courtyard, the winning scheme opts for a 'magic carpet' effect that plays down its presence in the space," writes the silver-moused John Hill.

 

Fortunately for the integrity of the Cour Visconti, "Rather than an iconographic object within the courtyard," notes Hill, "the winning scheme [by the Italian firm Bellini and Ricciotti] opts for a 'magic carpet' effect that plays down its presence in the space." Architectural Record News explains:

A shimmering, undulating glass roof, made up of glass disks, will allow diffused sunlight to penetrate into the space.

It also offers visitors glimpses of the surrounding neo-classical facades. It is, say the designers, "architectural integration without violence."

A magic carpet figures in many Asian folktales, notably in the stories of the Arabian Nights.  Like Sharansky's optimism, the image encourages the human spirit to soar.