|
Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again... (pg. 27)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Yoepus |
Read this the other day.
Drug Tito, you will like it as it extends that story you read in your local paper.
Tranaholic, you will like this article as it makes the hipocracy of this cartoon uprising all that more bitter:
Read: http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110007934
Or:
| quote: |
Bonfire of the Pieties
Islam prohibits neither images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion.
BY AMIR TAHERI
Wednesday, February 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
"The Muslim Fury," one newspaper headline screamed. "The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe," said another. "The clash of civilizations is coming," warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly--though not exclusively--in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged.
But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The "rage machine" was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood--a political, not a religious, organization--called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood's rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party's 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut.
The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.
There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.
The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous:
A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century); Kamaleddin Behzad's miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century); a painting, "Massacre of the Family of the Prophet," showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century); and Kamal ul-Mulk's portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century).
Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great "lawgivers" of mankind.
There has been other imagery: the Janissaries--the elite of the Ottoman army--carried a medallion stamped with the prophet's head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet's son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God.
Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims "suicide martyrdom" as the highest goal for all true believers.
The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa'adi's eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the "dry pious ones." And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.
Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.
Mr. Taheri is the author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002). |
|
|
|
| daydreamer |
| quote: | Originally posted by InterMilan31
they have been trying to I believe not sure the exact details but I know in the Netherlands after the killing of the guy who did the film about the quran they tried to do this and also in Britian but both seem to have stopped the proposals..:whip: I know for one that their are atleast 2 radical islamic clerics in the UK(circa end of 2004) |
i can see how things would get out of control, with proving who is an extremist and who is not. after all, there are bound to be some law abiding muslims, who actually like western society. wouldn't want to violate their civil rights as well, but the extremist are fecking it up for the rest. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by emc^2
idiots that are in a total darkness and love it that way
|
When you call them idiots, remember that 85-90% of Americans strongly reject evolution and 60-70% regularly attend church.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
When you call them idiots, remember that 85-90% of Americans strongly reject evolution and 60-70% regularly attend church. |
Where the heck do you get your statistics from. 85-90% seems wayy to high. And attending church is not a bad thing.
Also consider that in the "60-70%" that attend church, most probably only attend on easter or christmas eve. |
|
|
| InterMilan31 |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
When you call them idiots, remember that 85-90% of Americans strongly reject evolution and 60-70% regularly attend church.
People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. |
Im sure the numbers of evolution are high but not that high... |
|
|
| NebulousQ |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
In response to the above two posters:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...ion-cover_x.htm
"In the USA, only 16% say they rarely go to church."
Translation: 84% OFTEN attend church. "Often" does not mean "just during holidays." |
You cant say that. There is no link to the actual study to see if they clearly defined what "often" and "rarely" meant in their study and what their definitions were.
"Rarely" may mean "I went when I was a kid, but now never." or "I go once a month".
"Often" may mean tice a week or twice a year. These things need to be clearly defined and they are not here.
Also even if "rarely" did mean somewhere along the lines of twice a year. You cant just assume the other 84% often go to church, statistics does not work that way. Perhaps in the other 84% there is a "never go to church" category, or maybe a "sometimes" category. The closest you could assume that the other 84% does not "rarely" go to church.
You are just reading what you want to believe in that one number.
And I didnt find anything on evolution statistics in the article. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
Well this is getting off-topic but I'll just let Occrider or MisterOpus back me up with references to formal studies indicating just how religious most Americans are. If you don't live in America it's unlikely you get it.
So the point is that the "idiots who choose to remain in darkness" can also be applied to the vast majority of Americans who reject evolution, and then also half of whom (a sizable number) argue that gay marriage will destroy society and who are against comprehensive sex education in schools. It's all the same darkness. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Read this the other day.
Drug Tito, you will like it as it extends that story you read in your local paper.
Tranaholic, you will like this article as it makes the hipocracy of this cartoon uprising all that more bitter:
Read: http://www.opinionjournal.com/edito...ml?id=110007934
Or: |
Wow...
If those protestors only knew....they'd feel like fools. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Here's a nice round up of why they're roiting...
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
'Taqiyya' means 'deception' btw... |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Excellent article by the Economist (as usual):
http://economist.com/opinion/displa...tory_ID=5494602
| quote: | The limits to free speech
Cartoon wars
Feb 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just the property of the West
“I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.” That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was “unacceptable” to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong.
Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims (see article). They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law.
No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam “vicious and wicked”, on charges of stirring racial hatred.
Drawing the line
In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence—be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful—western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them.
Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”—though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a “manifest provocation”.
Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case.
In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments.
It's good to talk
It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations?
No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict. |
|
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
So they burned a couple of croatian flags in Bosnia too. Aside from the danish ones, of course. Although the interesting thing is that the pictures were published in Bosnia about a month before they were published here.
Anyway, there's also an interesting story I've read in the newspapers today. It seems that a 16th century monastery in Split, Croatia had a picture of Muhammed drawn on the wall, alongside with some saints and philosophers. When the turks invaded there, the only monastery that they spared was that one, primarily because of the fact that Muhammed was drawn on the wall.
Oh and another thing, does anyone remember when South Park had that super best friends episode where they were making fun of Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tse, Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and Sea Man? Hm, yeah, no big protests back then too. And I hate to be a conspiracy theorists, but did anyone notice that Tehran wanted to switch to euro around this time? |
Gary Larson has a panel with Mohammed as well. And an Egyptian paper printed the Satanic Cartoons back in October. (As reported by Sandmonkey.)
It's quite clear that Islamists are neither inhibited by reason, consistency, nor fairness. And it's working for them. I'm already feeling quite hostile to them - and as this is apparently being forwarded quite heavily, I assume that I'm not alone.
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Well, you know they had to find a way to blame America eventually... |
Haha. Yes, you had been left out in the cold for too long. Apparently the reasoning is that Denmark is too small of a country to dare provoke like this, so the US must be the real culprit.
| quote: | Originally posted by djdarren
did you hear the accident in Rome? There was a metting of all Ford dealers generally from Turkey. There were 8 buses but only 1 of them didn't have any foreigners. There were just Turkish people in that bus. And that bus didn't go with the other 7 buses, instead the bus driver chose his own route and they die. One my friends' father,mother and uncle died in that accident.
everybody say that it is a response from europeans. You know a few days ago a priest killed in eastern part of the Turkey. So there is a concpiracy that this bus accident was a response to the subject. |
Considering the general quality of Italian drivers, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a genuine accident.:clown:
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
Tranaholic, you will like this article as it makes the hipocracy of this cartoon uprising all that more bitter: |
Yes, that's quite exhilarating - my stomach still hurts from all the laughing. Thank you.
| quote: | Originally posted by daydreamer
i can see how things would get out of control, with proving who is an extremist and who is not. after all, there are bound to be some law abiding muslims, who actually like western society. |
There's a lot - especially in the West. However, reading Middle Eastern blogs, I get the feeling that they are by far the minority down there. It seems like the vast majority of the masses are willing tools in the hands of the radical Islamists.
Since I last posted, Denmark has had to withdraw all its diplomats from Syrai, Lebanon, Iran, and Indonesia. In Denmark one of the Travelling Imams, Abu Laban, used his friday sermon to condemn some moderate Muslims as "rats in the hole", and blaming all of the assimilation problems of Europe on these people. He then went on to describe the current situation as "positive". Obviously he's just about the most hated man in Denmark ever. In fact, a recent survey showed that only 6% of the population thought that the imams of Denmark had handled this crisis "well". About 50% mostly blamed the Travelling Imams for the current problems, and the remaining 50% where evenly split between blaming Jyllands-posten and the countries of the Middle East.
@Shaolin: I have the feeling that you're more well-versed in the Quran than most Muslims. Could you tell me if the concept of "dhimmitude" is of Quranic origin, or just some imperialistic/political notion? |
|
|
|
|
