It started last year, September to be accurate. A danish newspaper published 12 illustrations depicting the Islamic prophet of Allah: Muhammed.
What might be reaching shores outside of Europe by now is the news of a middle-east almost unanimously boycotting Danish goods, burning the danish flag in the streets and calling home diplomats from my country. Terror threats towards Denmark have been posted on the web.
Why? Because according to the Quran – the Islamic bible – the prophet may not be depicted in any way.
So on one hand we have a secular newspaper in a country with freedom of the press. On the other hand we have nations of Muslims enraged by what would appear to be a clear violation of one of the rules of Islam.
Do we take sides?
No, there’s a grayscale, a golden middle-way.
Voltaire summed it up nicely:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it
I am a fierce believer in freedom of speech, otherwise I wouldn’t be writing this. But just like the publisher of these paintings of the prophet, I know that it’s possible to offend people by exercising this right—consciously or not. We all approach things from our own unique perspective, and what one writer meant doesn’t always translate to readers. As such, free speech is not directly compatible with “do not draw the prophet” and never will be since any drawing could depict the prophet if we said it did. This is the price of free speach and it’s a price worth paying.
This is not about Islam, or any religion for that matter, it is only about freedom of speech. I respect the right to pick your own religion. I have many Muslim friends whom I respect very much. There is nothing wrong with following Islam.
Today, a french, a norwegian and an icelandic newspaper voiced their support of the danish newspaper by publishing the very same pictures. As the icelandic editor reasoned for the re-publishing of the pictures, freedom of the press cannot be argued.
Your opinion is welcome.
This is such an incomprehensible and absurd situation that I doubt Jyllandsposten would have ever imagined it would have come this far. That said, they had been forewarned that it would probably not be a good idea to print the drawings. On Sunday January 29, Politiken brought an article with the title Jyllandsposten was forewarned, it was an interview with Tim Jensen who is a historian specializing in religion. Jyllandsposten appearantly sought out his advice on whether they should print the 12 drawings. The article is in Danish, but the sentence I found interesting is pretty much this:
Although forewarned is a big word to use for the way this situation has escalated, there another factor that we have to take into consideration when speaking out in the globalized age. Our audience isn’t just the local community anymore. People are listening all over the world.
Personally, I don’t see any good reason why Jyllandsposten had to print the drawings. They don’t add anything to the debate, and are in my eyes empty provocation. Granted, I don’t think the reaction is proportionate to the offence, but that doesn’t mean that Jyllandsposten is right.
I think what many find particularly galling about these cartoons, is that it suggests the West has an inability to look beyond its own stereotyping.
And surely nobody really thinks people aren’t lighting things on fire because of this cartoon. Using it as an excuse, yes.
To add to the discussion, I’ve posted my own feelings and observations here:
linky link
Correction,
The Saudi Arabian government did not impose a boycott it was the people’s choice. The only action the goverment did, is pull out thier ambassador in Denmark.
http://arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&article=77169&d=1&m=2&y=2006
dear george,
“M,
Can you not see the hypocrisy in what you are saying?
In one sentence you ask that people do not judge a whole group of people based on the actions of a few extremists:
There have been a lot of cases when a Muslim does something wrong ? it?s the religion that goes to trail ?. But when a Christian or Judaist or anybody who do something wrong their religion stays out of it ?
It?s the way people see Islam ?.
Then barely two sentences later, you judge a whole group of people based on the actions of a few extremists:
And just look how the Denmark response ?. They are going to burn the holly quran a holy book from the god just like ?the bible ?etc? as I heard in the news ?..”
yes i agree with you …. i didnt notice that for that i apologize … I DIDNT MEAN TO PUT IT YHAT WAY …. you opened my eyes to it…. thank you ….
let me do the corrections:
And just look how a GROUP OF PEOPLE in Denmark response ?. They are going to burn the holly quran a holy book from the god just like ?the bible ?etc? as I heard in the news ?..”
it just when i heard the news … i kinda felt mad about it …. but believe me i never ment to put it that way …. sorry for the misunderstanding…
and what amada said was true:
“Amanda (subscribed to comments) says:
Correction,
The Saudi Arabian government did not impose a boycott it was the people?s choice. The only action the goverment did, is pull out thier ambassador in Denmark.”
the boycotting came from the people not the goverment…
thank you
I’m a Muslim who lives in the U.S. and I was extremely offended by the cartoons.
Having said that, I’m a firm believer and defender of free speech. Now freedom of speech means that you should be able to say whatever you want, without censor, or consequences. However, you are also responsible for your words.
There are sensitive subjects like religion, in which your words have consequences.
You can’t call your wife a Fat B**** and expect to get away with it. Your wife is going to be really upset, and she will make you sleep on the couch, if not on the street corner. And after that happens, you will have to apologize and get her flowers and chocolate, before she throws your stuff out of the window.
So basically, the cartoonists have the right to draw the pictures, and the Muslims have the right to exercise their freedom of speech, by demonstrating against the cartoonists and demanding an apology.
Now, the violence is too much, and it?s unacceptable. However, no one will blame your wife for throwing your stuff out the window, after you call her a fat b****.
Ali, that’s a really insightful way of thinking about it.
I must say that any woman who starts destroying property because of name calling is nuts and out of line.
An interesting development is that an Iranian newspaper now wants to print drawings of the holocaust. This development is interesting because one of the arguments often used in this discussion (even here), is the “what if someone printed spiteful images of jesus or the jews?”. Well now, it seems, we’ll find out.
My predictions: The illustrations will be reprinted in many western newspapers, and while they’ll generate outrage, I don’t expect any Iranian embassies or flags to be burnt for it.
As you Joen, I predict that these Holocaust cartoons will be condemned by many, but that no one will go to extremes such as mentioned. I am however afraid that any condemnation however mild or stern will be taken as a proof in case by the Iranian newspaper and its like minded, and no attention will be paid to the actual significant differences in the reaction.
Anders, I agree. But that’s how it is argue with irrational, psychopathic fucks – they know what they know and whatever you say will be proof positive of what they say. If you actually come up with a good argument against something they say, they will ignore it.
Watch Fox network in the states, and you can see a milder version of them on pretty much all the “news” shows.
My parents used to have neighbors like this. They were clinically ill in their heads. It was the most insanely frustrating thing in the world to try and deal with them.
I don’t see any problem with publishing the holocaust drawings. They can publish them all they want.
And I say this in spite of the fact that I think that there is a huge difference in making a mockery of 5 million peoples deaths in mass genocide and making a funny portrait of someones imaginary friend.
The difference between us here and the people who are burning building and flags is that we can reason. Anger is a dark blanket that covers the mind and blinds all senses. I am sure that those Muslims who know their religion very well, and who have studied the history of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) would know that he had never acted in an irrational, angry way.
The answer to your question: why don?t Muslims attack the Christian God or Jesus is: because all three religions believe in the same God and for Muslims there are certain conditions to be truly faithful and one of them is to believe in all the prophets and messengers of God.
http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/belief/Messengers/article01.shtml
Note: Muslims denounce all depictions of all Prophets and they refuse to watch or publicize any images of any prophet. (The reason why many of them boycott the movie The passion of Christ)
http://www.asianews.it/dos.php?l=en&dos=16&art=720
Let me also add why most people here mentioned the Holocaust? It seems that it?s the only topic that people refuse to talk about and if we go back to history we can find what happened to the French Philosopher Roger Garoudi and David Irving when they doubted it.
Boycotting is a legal, peaceful method that people can express their feelings through (ask the NY times and many American Journals), Violence is not acceptable at all no matter what your religion is.
?Men are respectable only as they respect.? Emerson
[...] I’ll leave you with a comment I read over at noscope. It
The belief that Islam forbids portrayals of Muhammad is recently acquired. Back when Muslims created things, rather than blowing them up, they made paintings, frescoes, miniatures and prints of Muhammad. Other interpretations of the Quran forbid images of humans or animals, which makes even a child’s coloring book blasphemous. That’s why the Taliban blew up those priceless Buddhist statues, bless their innocent, peace-loving little hearts.
Muslims ought to start claiming the Quran also prohibits indoor plumbing, to explain their lack of it.
“A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.”
Alexander Pope
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,5392866-103681,00.html
Maybe by you Josh but not everyone else. In fact isn’t it something that was already there and well established by Muslims, and thus there was a reaction when it was violated?
i found this on line:
now tell me that doesnt outrage you or upset you……
these people who made these about the prophets: jesus and moammed just has nothing else to do …. they are just starting a rage…
http://www.jesusdance.org/
http://www.mohammeddance.com/
this proves that they have no respect to religions and to the prophets or even the people who embrace these religions…
m,
I can honestly say that it doesn’t upset me the least bit. It could have been funnier if they had spent a little more time on it, but on no level does it have any kind of emotional effect on me.
Maybe you should learn to chill out about stuff like that. I think it’s handing complete strangers and amazing amount of power over your mood if you let stuff like that affect you emotionally.
What those people are doing is enjoing this power you are handing them.
And no, many people have no respect for religion when followers of religion try to impose their own taboos on the public space. You just have to learn to accept that these people have a right to mock your religion, however tasteless and disrespectful you may think it is. Much like you have the right to mock them and their beliefs as much as you want to.
m,
Honestly, I couldn’t help laughing out loud when I saw the Jesus dance page. On the Mohhammed one I couldn’t hear the sound though, and the pictures didn’t really seem like they were made for dancing.
Cypress said:
Cypress- Do some of your own research next time. There are countless records of depictions of Muhammad BY MUSLIMS throughout history. The idea that such images are verboten is a myth that will not die. Ask the Cranky Professor: Cranky Professor on Images of the Prophet
or look at the
archive of images of the prophet
For the record, it’s not a belief I’ve ever acquired Cypress and nothing in my post indicated such. Perhaps you thought that by “recently” I meant since the publication of the cartoons? Perhaps. Your error.
On danish television, tonight, I heard the most sensible commentary on the situation I have yet heard. The commentary was from the progressive muslim, Irshad Manji.
Inspired by her comments I quickly jumped on to her website and found an extremely interesting article, that pretty much sums up all the things that inspired me about her comments in the news-bit. Here’s a part of it.
Be sure to read the full article: How Muslims are caricaturing ourselves.
Tomorrow I’ll be buying her book, “The Trouble with Islam Today” (danish / english). I also plan to write her a short email, thanking her for being a voice of reason in this storm of mis-information.
Joen: I’ve read her book, it’s very interesting. However, she doesn’t really have credibility with most Muslims…mainly because she’s homosexual.
Omar said:
All the more reason to read the book, in my opinion: she’s honest. I think there are a lot of muslims hidden in the closet.
Even so, I understand your argument, and I realize that some of the more fundamentalist muslims will have a hard time picking up the book for that reason alone. Even more reason to advertise it here. I honestly believe Islam has plenty of room for homosexuals.
Oh no, a homosexual!
You religious folks do realize that the restrictions against “laying down with your brother” are not there because God, Yaweh or Allah said no, right? Those restrictions were put in place by bigotted idiots some 1,500-4000 years ago.
Seriously, take a moment and think things through. The Almighty really gives a shit if dudes diddle dudes? Really? I mean, seriously? That’s something that ranks high on His list of shit to be concerned with?
But, He has no problem with murdering innocent children on school buses? He’s totally cool with stoning a girl for kissing a boy on the second thursday after a full moon? There’s no problem with beating a woman for leaving the house while going through her monthly? It’s completely alright to severely punish someone for eating pork? Stoning for working on a Sunday, an arbitrary day picked by men? That makes sense too?
Or do we just pick and choose those aspects of religious works that fit with our own truly fucked world view? If that’s the way things work then what the fuck is God good for?
Apologies to Omar if it seems like I’m attacking you. I’m not. You just ended up being between me and Joen.
Its quite a shame that most people here are still not trying to look at the other point of view, instead they are still just imposing thier own ideas and beliefs. So most of the west doesnt believe in religion, still if someone believes in something why cant they be progressive. Seriously you are looking at things from a perspective you want to see the whole deal. Irshad Manji btw is a cheap canadian publicity stunt and nothing else.
The cartoon issue currnetly is definitely an over reaction right now, but unfortunately when the issue started off there was plenty of arrogance from the paper and the government on this issue. The offense was expected but still carried on with the print. Personally nothing like this can dent my faith or beliefs, but there are plenty of folks who can be used around with such pictures etc to gather up a mob.
We are seeing a mob gathering up against Iran in a similar fashion. So seriously enough what is needed is understanding both societies, europe has an inbuilt fear of believers, and the muslims overreact.
umayr,
Where do you see the arrogance? Is it arrogance that they chose to print something even though someone would get offended?
Seriously?
If that is so, when is a newspaper not arrogant? When is it, in your eyes, ok that they print something even though it offends?
When it only offends ten people? ten thousand? one? noone?
You and so many others come to this debate with “freedom of speech is of course important, but…”. But that’s the thing: There is no but. In societies with free speech, someone is going to be offended. There is always some uptight person who will get offended at even the slightest controversy. Even things that aren’t a controversy in most peoples eyes.
And the law doesn’t give the offended party any special rights or help, since it’s ultimately the person who is being offended that is allowing themselves to be offended. No damage has been done except in their minds.
There is just no other way to make freedom of speech work. They put laws in place that tries to prevent systematic, slanderous campaigns against people, and that’s the best they can do. These laws have determined that what the paper did was not breaking these laws. Ergo it’s not wrong.
Any hangups beyond that are on the head of the person being offended.
That’s how it works. That’s the only way it’s ever going to work.
And that’s the entire purpose of the newspapers initial reason for writing their article that included the drawings; that people were slowly chipping away at their own freedom of speech in the name of political correctness and because of fear of repercussions.
And they really have a point: People are being fired from newspapers because they step on a few sore toes, even if what they write about is extremely relevant.
A discussion about the freedom of speech is relevant. A debate about how hypersensitivity coupled with self-censorship is making it impossible to debate som very important issues in our societies is especially relevant. Because the current sitation – as highlighted by the Muhammed drawings controversy – is that even though we have freedom of speech, we apparently arent allowed to use it. And do we really have freedom of speech then?
I don’t think anything highlights the relevance of this debate more than the extreme overreaction from some parts of the world, but certainly also the reaction from many, many people that are popping up all over the place saying “yes, we have freedom of speech, but this is wrong”.
It’s not wrong. That’s the whole point. It’s how it’s got to be if we want to maintain our democracy and our freedom, and if some people are still so sensitive they can’t handle that, they need to toughen up and get the fuck over it.
It’s not like there aren’t plenty of people in the press that are saying things that piss all over my deepest beliefs, but I sure as hell don’t want those people quieted down for fear of me burning down their house. Or because they are afraid of offending my delicate feelings.
So, either you are for freedom of speech with all the thorns that rose might have, or you are not. Make a choice. Don’t say yes to freedom of speech with the exception of the things you find wrong, because that’s not an option. You can disagree all you like with what people say, but the fact that they are saying it is not wrong.
So (getting to the point) the government were not wrong or arrogant. They handled it the only way they could: Not getting involved. That’s not arrogant. That’s the exact thing they should do.
Their biggest mistake was that they eventually buckled and started offering the best apologies they could give without destroying the foundation of our societies (“we are sorry you feel offended”, not “we are sorry we were wrong”).
The newspaper were not arrogant either, they just started a very relevant debate, even though they knew it was going to offend some people. That’s not arrogant, it’s just not hyper-sensitive and politically correct. I applaude that gutsy choice, because too few people dare to do that, and after this whole ruckus, it’s probably going to be even rarer.
Freedom of speech is something that needs to be maintained. Stuff like this needs to happen. We can’t just sit there and talk about how we have freedom of speech, but then never talk about anything we are afraid will offend people, because then what good is it? Then it’s just hypothetical freedom of speech, and that’s just not good enough.
Not only is burning down embassys an overreaction, any claim that printing those drawings was somehow morally wrong is an overreaction. It might be that you disagree, or dislike or even hate the paper for doing things, but if you are in a society where one of the cornerstones is free speech and you want this speech to remain free, then it is in no way possible for you to claim what they did was somehow morally wrong without being a hypocrite.
Umayr, it’s not that I don’t see the other partys point of view, it’s just that it’s fundamentally incomplatible with what I hold to be the most important property of free nations. There is no middle ground that doesn’t undermine that.
I’d say something clever here but we’re long past being clever.
Chris, having a hard time understanding that comment – gimme a headline
agree? disagree?
Wholeheartedly agree.
Brian..
Do you in all honesty think that NOW after the cartoons have been printed there wont be any self censorship.. and everyone will be happy and going ‘yay we’ve got freedom of speach’ .. i dont think so ..
It was stupid.. not just because it was hurting the feelings of almost 1.5 billion people of this planet (who mostly are hurt and not roiting) but it makes some flash points around the world unstable.
What it has done is made people come out to protests while some political parties have used it for thier own motives.. burning down embassies trust me has nothing to do with denmark or any other country, it just puts the government of that country at an odd position. Destabalization of governments and terrorists getting into MOBS is not something you can be very proud off..
With things finally stabalizing around, with iraq having its elections however crude.. things were stabalizing.. the newspaper knew what they would cause and they went ahead with it .. everyone knew this would happen, im quite sure that the danish journalists arent dumb retards who have no idea about the world.
So it was irresponsible journalism.. it had nothing to do with freedom of speach .. It had nothing to do with the muslim community of denmark.. it was plain stupid and irresponsible..
And yes the danish people now will impose self censorship more whole heartedly .. they’d be more scared moving around the world.. and they’d be uneasy with thier local immigrant population..
Plus a lot more hatred all around the world.
Seriously Brian, your last para sounded like a fundamentalist..
If the newspaper had to start a debate or wanted discussions about self censorship seriously, they would’ve chosen better ways.
You need to lighten up to the reality that the world is made up of different cultures and different people..
ps. the poor editor guy was sent on a vacation when he said that he’d print the iranian holocaust cartoons.. lol
So, in the future we should expect that should we ever in any possible way might “hurt the feelings” of muslims that they will in fact start burning shit down? What the fuck is wrong with that picture?!?
You know what my reaction is to someone hurting my feelings?
“Jeeze, you’re a real dick.”
Then I move on to more important things.
Seriously, we should expect that if someone steps on Islams shoes that all hell is going to break loose? That’s fucked in the head. No. Don’t argue. That’s just fucked in the head.
Keep it up. Let violence continually be the only recourse of the Muslim. Eventually we’ll just get tired of the shit and turn the Middle East into a vast field of glass.
Newsflash, non-violence is the best means by which real change has ever taken place. Ghandi could figure that out. King figured that out. Why the fuck are Muslims so damn stupid?
Here, just to make things clear, you burn down a building, I’m no longer listening to you, I’m loading.
Shit, I did not want to get into this conversation. Damn.
and you call the muslims fundamentalists..
cheers m8 ..
?Jeeze, you?re a real dick.?
Then I move on to more important things.
Umayr, it’s a tired tactic to piss people off to a point where they get emotional and then call them fundamentalist. Saying that they are, doesn’t make it so.
There’s nothing even remotely correct in calling me a fundamentalist (probably because I used the word “fundamentally”), or Chris because he got pissed off and spoke from his emotions rather than his intelligence, which I must admit is really hard not to do for me as well.
Check out the definition of “fundamentalist”. None of that fits neither of us. It doesn’t fit you either, I am sure.
So maybe if you could try and reread my post, then reread Chris’ post and see what he is actually saying and see if you seriously can’t write something else.
Your response to my post seems like you didn’t even read what I was writing. Just the first paragraph tries to oppose something I said, by saying something I myself said.
Also,
“Lighten up to the reality”?
Turning peoples words back on them is a clever discussion tactic when done right, but when it’s completely forced and incorrectly done, it just makes you look silly.
Brian.. seriously i didnt intend ot piss either of you off, but i did put up a valid question,which you seem to blatantly ignore in your latest comment.
No seriously brian.. tell me what has the newspaper achieved with that particular freedom of expression?
i think you are missing my point.. i am not opposing anything you’ve said.. i partially agree with you up there on some points.. but it seems you missed my point entirely..
my point is has the caricatures in anyway been useful for the danish public, or thier belief in freedom of expression, locally or globaly.. ?
Have the cartoons actually started up a dialog between ‘islam and the west’ about this issue? nope, i dont think so.
If you look at it i think that paper has forced the imposition of self censorship on your society. And youd have to face it, it has made the lives of all danish people outside thier country harder and unsafe.
Now i didnt call you a fundamentalist i said “you sounded like one” (and ofcourse you dont have to bring up the dictionaries to show the meaning) you know why i said that.. because fundamentalists believe that thier religion, thier text, thier beliefs are infaliable just like you feel about your particular brand of freedom of expression etc.. ofcourse you arent religiously motivated but you do tend to have the same sort of agression, but then again i shouldnt judge you anyway.
You know if there was a need for dialogue or to test the boundries of freedom of speach or self censorship with Islam in a serious manner, i think the newspaper should’ve rather had an open forum and found out about the issues from both sides in a civilized manner (since you tend to point out about being a civilized society and a modern one too) instead of making an absolute mockery of the journalism and civility of denmark.
And seriously when i look at educated, civilized people trying to defend an act as stupid as this in the name of freedom its quite disheartening..
btw first cartoon, among many other..
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/brenn1.htm
Caption: “A Scene from the ‘Good Old Days.’” The theme is freedom of the press. This supposedly depicts the situation before 1933, when the Nazis claimed the Jews controlled the German press. (2 January 1934)
No … I am NOT umayr but I sorta have the same views on the subject.
While I admit that most of the reported reactions in the Muslim world have been violent and over the top, there have been some which have been peaceful. tbh though none have made any difference.
The West has made it abundantly clear that diplomacy is BS through its wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and continuing support of Israel despite the way it has treated the Palestinians since before most of us were even born.
Most muslims like myself have grown up in a world where we have seen our fellow muslim brothers being persecuted only because of their religon. Kashmir, Bosnia, Palestine, Chechnya … the list goes on. And peaceful means havent done shit for those causes. And dont even try to blame it on “terrorist muslims”. These are freedom fighters who gave up on peace after they saw that it only gave their oppressors more time and courage to beat down on them more. And I would know because I have studied about these conflicts and not just seen Fox News for my info … lol
With that background I dont find it overly hard to understand how violent the reaction has been in the Muslim world. This generation has seen how diplomacy has failed them and how the West because of its economic and military might has continued to have its way in Muslim countries … Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan … need I list more?
Its a REACTION! The offense came from the west … I wont argue over the intention but it was a very stupid mistake if the editor and responsible people didnt have a clue about wtf they were doing.
I appreciate freedom of speech but that power comes with great responsibility. Self-censorship IS a good thing believe it or not and the numbskulls in that Danish newspaper and the ones who reprinted the offensive material in support should have known better. They made a mistake and then arrogantly put forth the freedom of speech argument to get their people behind them. It was only after diplomatic and economic repurcussions that they understood what they had done.
Once again it was POWER (economic in this case) which resolved the issue by extracting an apology from the offenders. The only difference is that this time the Muslims exercised it instead of the West.
Have a good one …
here are some interesting facts
Danish ministers say the government can?t condemn the cartoons a daily publishedand that freedom of speech is guaranteed for all and that freedom of the press is also guaranteed by the Danish constitution
ok, but..
?The law prohibits publicly disseminated statements, which threaten, insult, or degrade persons based on their religion.?
And this law was used by the Danish government to condemn ?anti-Semitic? activities and investigate them, as mentioned in the human rights report made by the US Department of State regarding Denmark in 2004:
?From January through June, there were five incidents of anti-Semitic vandalism, primarily graffiti, and one incident of an anti-Semitic mailing, which the government condemned and investigated.?
What is strange to me is , with millions of people protesting and obviously it can be seen the cartoon has hurt plenty .. why cant it be in the same category as the anti-semitic stuff..
As far as freedom of speach is concerned, i guess the expression cant really be anti-semitic.. though im sure some danes can explain better here..
Morever other european nations who follow freedom of speach also have laws against anti-semitism..
*In France a university professor was sacked because he made a research questioning the magnitude of the Holocaust. In Germany one risks going to jail if one denies the Holocaust or brandishes Nazi symbols in public.
The Italian interior minister confirmed on Thursday that legal action is being taken against 11 football fans for brandishing Nazi symbols during a Serie A game. The 11 face prison sentences of between three months and one year.*
Then I read “Queen Margrethe II’s ” stance in her official biography.. via a news print article.. on telegraph.co.uk
She said: ?We are being challenged by Islam these years ? globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.
?We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.?
(Filed: 15/04/2005)
then this going unnoticed for a year by the telegraph and danish government, after getting media attention was changed a bit,
to:
In the original version of this story, relying on a translation provided by an international news agency, the Telegraph quoted Queen Margrethe as saying “We have to show our opposition to Islam”. But the correct translation should be “counter-balance”. The story was re-published on Feb 16, 2006 to reflect that.
haha.. counter-balance..
i actually find this amusing.
umayr said:
First of all, anyone, and I do mean anyone (including countries) are allowed to sue the newspaper, heck even the danish government, for breaking the law you mention. Seriously, take the newspaper to court and have them pay damages! (That is, if the one suing wins the case).
Secondly, and I don’t mean to belittle what has happened, there is a difference between stupidity and hatefulness. I classify the publishing of those drawings as stupidity, rather than hatefulness. The difference is, stupidity is much harder to condemn than hatefulness.
To elaborate a bit: if it was the clear intention of the newspaper to incite riots and to single out muslims, then I have no doubt the Danish government would have condemned the newspaper before you could yell “racism”. But this was not the case. The newspaper wanted to discuss the act of drawing religious symbols in a satirical context. So they drew many different religious symbols, not limited to Muslim symbols such as Muhammed.
Umair and Umayr, you’ve both said a number of things so bear with me while I try to respond.
This comment may go rather long, buckle up. I’ll refrain from the previous day’s foaming at the mouth.
If nothing else this has cemented in the minds of some the importance of freedom of expression, a freedom lacking in many Islamic nations.
Yes. You’re having that dialog now.
My experience of such an “open forum” is that no one would show up and no one would report on it.
It is equally disheartening to see people of the book murdering one another. It is equally disheartening to see those same people riot in the name of their benevolent deity. Doesn’t that strike you as being just as stupid?
Regarding Israel lets make things clear here, while it is understood that there are many Muslims that do not share the views of certain extremists there are likely just as many Westerners that do not approve of Israel. I, being one of those people. I have railed far longer against Israel and the actions of the Israeli government than I have Islam.
Secondly, it is not so easy for the West to consider diplomacy when the measure of a good time in Tehran is easily quantified by the number of Western leaders burned in effigy. Chants of “death to the Great Satan” do not a hospitable environment for negotiation and understanding make.
Also, if you want to get into a pissing match over who did what first I’m willing to go back to the days of the Barbary pirates if needs be.
And most Westerners are growing up in a world where they are persecuted for not sharing that religion.
The long and the short of it is that the West and Islam on both sides of the issue have what you might call a massive PR problem. One I don’t see being quickly resolved if ever. There has been an escalation of animosity between the two cultures perpetrated by those least accountable to the groups represented. This is known. This is fact and yet the majorities of these groups continue to follow, as sheep, down a long deadly road.
Or the way I feel when someone blows up two buildings?
No one is defending the roiting here, yes its retarded..
I totally Agree And i agree with all that you have pointed out .. This is what shouldnt happen.The moderates do try to walk that correct path, but unfortunately the attention war is always in the favour of the fanatics.
Joen said:
Well i believe what you say, it does seem like stupidity, but the thing you say about drawing different religious symbols, since you are a danish and probably read the paper or have read it you know better. But from what i got to read and hear this started off with the childerns book issue and issue of self censorship and the specifically did a competition for these cartoons.. and published some cartoons which used the image steriotypically..
seriously enough, the cartoons wont dent my faith or the faith of so many more but the cartoons have pretty much been an insult to our pride.. maybe it is something like youd’ feel multiplied a 1000 times when someone burns your national flag.
A friend of mine gave me this link: “We were brought up to hate – and we do”
I think the anti-semtism that is being discussed is a little bit different, in that it is direct assaults or threats on people. I have never seen any furore over satiric cartoons of jews, jewish leaders, og figures from the bible, of which there by the way have been plenty. As mentioned before, satire, cartoons, and satiric cartoons are overwhelmingly commonplace in European culture.
There cannot be a shadow of doubt, from people who live within the European culture, that assault or threats on muslims will be treated precisely as serious as if it were jews or if it were in fact anyone.
However, one of the main problems here as it seems, is that a large groups of muslims equate these cartoons to threats, violence, persecution. And for me it is a little bit difficult to see and understand why!?
umayr, and everybody else, please believe me when I say that I truly believe in miracle of Jesus – BUT that I can’t give a hoot about how anyone whereever they may be, could come up with a comic, satirical, or demeaning drawing of him. So I can see that apparently many muslims are badly hurt by these drawings, but I can’t really, no matter how much you ask me to see things from your side, understand or agree the slightest bit with the feelings behind it.
Instead I can see dictatorious and corrupt regimes continuing to fuel a hate for westerners, playing the population as a lame fiddle, so that they may continue their wrong-doing uninterrupted.
umayr, you mention a reaction several times, that people have the right to reaction and bla bla, though you seem to think it went over the top. But really, the only form of reaction that would have been appropriate was one that was non-violent, completely within the law, and ONLY DIRECTED TO THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY: JYLLANDS-POSTEN.
And this is what is totally cocobongers about all this, that the reaction has been directed towards the whole west, as if this is yet another advance in the western world’s war against all of muslims. No! It’s all in your head!
While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can be debated, and indeed they are widely debated (to say the least), it is not so simple as to say it’s the West against the Muslims. I can’t believe that it can take many brain cycles to realise that if the west really wanted to wage a war on all muslims, that it would be just a tiny tad easier, as Chris put it, to turn the whole Middle East in to a piece of glass.
And by the way, Bosnia, Croatia, and Macedonia, the wars and the crimes against humanity there were stopped by military intervention by Europe and America.
Peace takes two, and while the Israelis have committed a lot of wrong, so have the palestinians and the other parties who have chosen to be a part of this conflict, and I want to tell you straight out, that even if you just believe it is solely the fault and now the responsibility of the Israelis, then you are part of the problem of people dying and living lives without hope.
Could everybody just get of their asses, tune down their sensitivity, and start WORKING for a better world where we all live together!
First off, “cocobongers” is a great word.
Second, I think you hit the nail on the head regarding West/Islam relations. The idea that I sit up nights worrying about terrorists or Islam or how best to further ruin their day is ridiculous but the impression I get is that’s what Islam thinks I’m doing. I’m not.
I could give a hoot about Islam. That’s your religion? Good for you. Have fun with that. Am I nightly planning world domination? Um… no. My biggest concern in life right now is getting a new site design finished and keeping my girl happy. Allah and Mohammed are way down on my list of priorities.
And, Islam, if your response is that I should be thinking about you more and that’s the problem; you’re wrong. Maybe you should be thinking about me a little less and instead concentrating on what really is important for you.
A couple things you could focus on other than me:
Just a few things that from where I’m standing are far more important than some cartoons depicting the Prophet who, I’m guessing, would be ashamed by the way the Islamic peoples have fallen since their heyday as leaders in science so many centuries ago.
Source: Italian Quits Over Cartoons; 15 Die in Nigeria
Don’t forget that this isn’t about following the oh-so sacred/holy/blessed/superior Qur’an, it’s about being a general asshole about being insulted. General asshole for taking it quite badly and blaming the whole Western world. For burning buildings over a cartoon. For trying to impose your religion upon non-believers. Remember what the Book said, then. Those’ll be taken care of. I don’t believe that will happen, but since you’re a Muslim, Umayr, you should, so that should take care of it all.
And again, like Chris says, don’t blame the entire West for what one Danish newspaper did, ignoring their intentions and everything else.
(I haven’t read the Qur’an myself, but will when I get the time, if people keep killing other people because they apparently read that they had to in a very old book.)
//
While the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can be debated, and indeed they are widely debated (to say the least), it is not so simple as to say it?s the West against the Muslims. I can?t believe that it can take many brain cycles to realise that if the west really wanted to wage a war on all muslims, that it would be just a tiny tad easier, as Chris put it, to turn the whole Middle East in to a piece of glass.
//
If it really were that easy, it would have been done so by now. And yes I am challenging the West’s military might and will to sacrifice it all only to dominate a region militarily which they already do politically. OIL!!!
Muslims as a general rule dont really fear death. That doesnt mean Muslims dont enjoy life. It means that we dont FEAR death. If it were to come to a point where its either the West or Muslims, rest assured it wont be as easy as it was in Afghanistan or Iraq.
IF the west can understand and respect that, then we can see some normalcy in this world where actions arent taken uninformed and in haste (like the danish newspaper) and the actions are interpreted as an all out attack on a civilization (like it was perceived in the Muslim world). Respect and understanding has to be both ways. I can understand and even respect to some extent the value of freedom of speech … the opposite cant be said of the West with regards to the severity of the reaction in the Muslim world.
Turn the ME into a piece of glass? Fucking LOL! If thats what you really believe you cant really respect the Middle East and Muslims on a whole. Without respect you CBA to understand the differences and avoid conflicts such as this one. A clash of civilizations is inevitable if even one party has this sort of a mindset.
—————–
Knowingly or unknowingly the danish, norwegian and other newspapers insulted Muslims everywhere. While it may be ok in some religions to portray their god or prophet, it is not so in Islam. They should have researched that little bit and weighed in all the options.
Hiding behind the argument of freedom of speech is wrong. They should have owned up and apologized if they really felt bad about hurting Muslim sentiments.
If they dont … and it has been made abundantly clear with the way newspapers all over Europe have reprinted the offensive material, then they should tell each complainant to go F themselves and get on with their freedom of speech loving and carefree ways and not care about the political and economic sanctions and what not.
–
Muslims have the right to protest what they deem to be an injustice to them. They CAN boycott products of a country if they think thats the only possible way to protest. And in most cases it is. e.g. in Pakistan we have a sham democracy backed by none other than the champion of democracy … the USA. The public have no way to influence the decisions of their government. If a whole society/country suffers due to this boycott, so be it. Its not like they cry a tear everytime an Israeli bulldozer razes the home of a grieving Palestinian family whose son/daughter just blew himself/herself to ensure that their land isnt forgotten in this modern world.
Diplomatic sanctions would do ok as well. It just means that the public wont go up against the government and the illegit government can save face.
——
I am OK (like most moderate Muslims I imagine) with peaceful ways of demonstrating. I am OK with economic and diplomatic sanctions. I am OK with discussions such as this one. I am even OK with people making general statements about Islam based on what little they have seen on the boob tube and read in their newspapers cuz my faith isnt affected by them.
I am not OK with people gaining political mileage out of it. Most of all however … I am not OK with people getting killed in protests … Muslim or otherwise. The killing of Christians and burning of churches if done is WRONG and there is NO justification for it. The people perpetuating this violence should look at the history of the Islamic empire when the Islamic rulers provided safety to non-muslims in their domain to practice their religion freely.
Anders Rask
I think the anti-semtism that is being discussed is a little bit different, in that it is direct assaults or threats on people
Anti-semitism when practiced was usually aimed at the masses, to insult them .. there were propaganda on the newspaper, there were books published and what not. Now in the modern world it is taken as a direct assult or threat on people. Now look at the current situation logically, antisemitism hurt the jews in some way or the other, direct or indirect it is now outlawed. Everybody now understand anti-semitism clearly, im not quite sure that would’ve been the case a couple of decades back, but it is now. So now with 1.5 billion people showing that it has hurt them in some way and they find it offensive why cant it be accepted that maybe just maybe its not a retarded reaction, maybe it has hurt some core value of thiers. Maybe not outlaw it but atleast be civilized about it.
Yes i agree that instead of making it a public issue and distributing the cartoons all around the world and creating a demand for the cartoons, the local community should’ve taken the newspaper to a court and put there case. But i guess there were politics invovled with all of this. Personally believe it or not, i feel more pissed off on the people who took the cartoons all over to make a big issue out of them than rather just dealing with them in a court of law.
and i agree with your last line, the need is to start working togather rather than open new fronts, it requires sensitivities from both sides.
now Chris
again you are generalizing, no islam is not like that and not every muslim is like that. So kindly do not generalize with me vs them sorta points.
haha
You are pointing towards the sects fighting, this isnt a historical issue with islam this is actually quite new and quite new, as new as the cold war. The shi’a sects were backed by iran which was backed by KGB/russia at that time and the sunni factions were backed by saudia backed by CIA/USA, and mostly this type of voilence is used to destabalize governments or to infuse fear in the people. Makes them feel really unsafe if they are believers. And btw this all started with the afghanistans occupation by russia.
This is again generalization of an issue of most of the third world, yeah they are curropt but most of the third world countries are..
Again generalizing, Muslims do have governments they are content and happy with, and like all other countries of the world .. political struggles will continue for what they beleive is right or wrong, isnt really about islam or the way muslims work.
Again the extreemist factions , well most of them created for the afghan cold war and still used for destablization of governments, they have nothing to do with popular muslim belief.
Well middle east is rising, Qatar, UAE, jordon, even pakistan has some positives, indonesia is recovering from the tusnami, malaysia is doing pretty well, egypt i guess is progressing too , so yup they are still developing , but again that was a generic comment. I think you are confusing Africa with Muslim states.
Well this is part myth part reality and its rapidly changing all around the muslim world, take UAE for example take Qatar for example.. take the prime example of malaysia.. the popular view of all muslims is pretty much the same about civic and equal rights, what you mostly hear on the media is what makes good news .. the hardline conservatives.. and well the conservatives are losing this battle. Since islam does beelive in civic and equal rights.
There is a very nice program on BBC called Doha Debate, they had this question asked and well there were plenty of facts and figures going around and what came out was that now the governments unlike the previous were actually putting alot more into thier own economy rather then putting the money in the US or european economy.
I know her she’s really sweet
Anders Rask..
yup its sad, but do you see how these protests have turned into voilent deadly protests only around the beging of feburary. This isnt because muslims were pissed off just now, its because this political party called ‘jamat’e'islami got into this, and this is what they are good with. These folks are pretty much present all around globally and are very organized, this was the main islamic force that america had used against the russians in afghanistan. They mostly try and represent muslims all over the world and are seriously dangerous.
Rob Mientjes
if 1.5 billion muslims would’ve come out to setfire trust me plenty of stuff would be burning, so please dont generalize.. you fall into the same pit of generlizing.. these people burning down embassies or killing people have nothing to do with the cartoon or the protest they have thier own agendas and they persue it.
and rob if you do seriously want to read the Quran go for muhammad asad’s translation of it, since it is somewhat a more accurate translation of the arabic.
Sorry? First of all, I may seem to generalise but I mean it only to make the point, not to pull in all Muslims of the world. It’s merely to illustrate rather than insult or literally generalise.
Secondly, what do you mean by that last sentence? The people burning down embassies or killing other people have nothing to do with the cartoons? They are pursuing their own agendas? Their agendas consist of plans to burn an embassy or to kill a Christian? What is that about then, and why do they say it’s out of anger over the cartoons? Are they joking?
Is violence a trait, according to the Qur’an? Or is the Qur’an irrelevant here?
Rob Mientjes said:
Well quran is irrelevant really, Quran has nowhere promoted any sort of voilence.. if someone pastes you some verses from teh quran and tries to prove it , its wrong, since you need to read the whole book and know the history to actually understand what it is about..
To understand my last sentence, look at it from a different point of view. The people in muslim countries feel hurt and do want to voice thier protest. The political parties around mostly in opposition or the conservative right find this an ample time to pressurize the government. So they take out to the streets form a mob and burn down buildings public properties and embassies… now if they do successfully burn an embassy, dipolomatically the government is in a mess .. and when they do gather up a mob they do just that.. This pressure then makes the governments buckle under pressure. This is exactly what is happening…