|
Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again... (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
who can honestly say he knows the context to these ancient writings? (all of them, not just the quran) |
That a good question. I can't answer that one for all the ancient writing but I can for the Quran. The Quran was transcribed while Prophet Muhammad was still alive. Muslims have been recording history since the beggining of Islam. Each Surah was revealed in some type of circumstance or the other. So the context of the Surah's remains preserved. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| @ Trancaholic: Could you post the Muhammad pictures here so I could see what all this nonsense is about? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
@ Trancaholic: Could you post the Muhammad pictures here so I could see what all this nonsense is about? |
http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Ca...nds_Posten.html
Some of them are really provocating.... But I guess that was the point! |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| I thought pic 2 was actually kind of funny :stongue:. Althought 3 of them were a little distasteful and smack of ignorance/bigotry. They reinforce the negative stereo type about Muslims and Arabs. The one with the bomb strapped to his head. And the other two which suggest he opresses women. Althougt even I'm a little confused now as to why Muslims got SOOOO worked up about this (yes, I know, the taboo thing on visual representations of the Prophet, but I have never seen anything in the Quran stating such a thing nor has anyone ever supported this argument with scripture). |
|
|
| Ian |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I thought pic 2 was actually kind of funny :stongue:. Althought 3 of them were a little distasteful and smack of ignorance/bigotry. They reinforce the negative stereo type about Muslims and Arabs. The one with the bomb strapped to his head. And the other two which suggest he opresses women. Althougt even I'm a little confused now as to why Muslims got SOOOO worked up about this |
I think the post from tranceaholic pretty much answers it, the religion in many cases is stuck in an outdated world, especially in europe & the US where things are different from what they're used to. I have no problems with muslims wanting to pray or follow their religion in any country, but there's many misconceptions about all religions, and as a multi-cultural society & world, we're going to have to learn to be educated & at least respectful, regardless. Sadly a lot of problems come with the muslims vs hindus or muslims vs christians or muslims vs jews. It's time (i mean come on its 2006, not the year 12ad or whatever, that people learn tolerance & even if they don't agree with what religion people follow, they accept freedom of choice. sadly i don't see this getting better soon |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I thought pic 2 was actually kind of funny :stongue:. |
I liked number three as well - had sort of a recursive world within world idea to it. Another comment that I thought I'd make, is that the small woman-Mohammed standing next to the hippie in picture 5 is a charicature of Pia Kjaersgaard, who is the current president and founder of the right-wing nationalistic party in Denmark. That being said, I don't recognize any of the others in that picture, and don't really get the joke. The same goes for 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11. |
|
|
| Yoepus |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
I thought pic 2 was actually kind of funny :stongue:.
|
Yea me too:D
Althgouth I really liked the thought that went into #7, I thought that was quiet clever.....:clown:
Oh the guy in 11 and 5 (right-end) look the same, am thinking it is probably the editor of the paper... As for the rest of the people in #5, one is obviously Jesus... |
|
|
| trancaholic |
Just thought I would post the latest update: Apparently, a large part of Saudis have initiated a boycott of products produced by danish companies - a way of behaviour that is expected to spread to nearby countries. There's even reports of chains of dealers who have thrown out large quantities of merchandise because of its origin. It is not totally clear what the purpose of the boycott is, but companies might be able to escape it by publicly condemning Jyllandsposten. Moreover, I saw in a danish paper that Norwegian products might be subject to boycott as well.
Considering the general injustice handed down to the arab population by foreign powers over the years, I think it's insane to chose this incident as the most worthy of organised revenge in the form of a boycott. Furthermore, I don't understand why Sweden avoids this fate - or any other country who contains a citizen who've published the drawings on his web-site.:conf:
Anyway, two articles I found on the net. One is
from CanadaFreePress.com and one is from Aljazeerah. They report on the same thing, but boy do they do so in different manners:
| quote: | European Appeasement Reinforces Muslim Extremism
The Brussels Journal has reported on the developments in the Danish cartoon case since it started in October 2005. We are one of the few non-Danish European observers to do so. Last Sunday, instead of linking to a website with the twelve Danish Muhammad cartoons we decided to add them to our article about the case. In a sense we were republishing the cartoons, but as we are only a website with some 5,000 readers a day, have no paper edition and did not make a great fuss about publishing them we only received two “threats.” One e-mail, from a certain “Hayet” said:
hello; Les vrais trait de visage de notre profet (que seul les musulmans) les connais sont d’un homme le plus beau de monde donc votre photo est ratÈ The real trace face of our profet mohamed are the best; he is the best beautiful men in the word. Your photo is misfire
The other, from a certain “Siham,” said:
good morning you must take us a lot of excuses We respect your profect and all profects; and you you must respect our profect for not to have in futur other problems between us
Both emails were sent via the same IP address in Algeria, indicating that “Hayet” is probably “Siham.”
The best way to end the whole cartoon affair would be for as many websites, blogs and papers in Europe just to publish the cartoons in an act of defiance to extremists. Moderate Muslims take no offense at the cartoons, as could be seen last week in Denmark where the refusal of the government to give in to demands for press censorship has encouraged the moderates to speak out against the radicals. As Glenn Reynolds wrote in a comment on the affair: “I think that moderate Muslims are a lot more likely to speak out if they feel confident that the government will stand up to the immoderate ones.” This is an appeal to all of us, not just our governments: If we all stand up to the extremist Muslims the moderate ones will be encouraged to speak out.
We have been critical (and still are) of the Dutch Somali-born politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali on account of her opposition to religion and religious people but Ms Hirsi Ali had a point yesterday when she said that the only way to confront the radicals is a free and open debate. Sadly, she says, there is no free and open debate “because of the complacency and self-censorship of Europe’s political and intellectual elites, the self-pity of the Muslims, and the threat of violence by the jihadists.” Indeed, it is the appeasement attitude and behaviour of the Europeans that is strenghtening the power of the extremists over the moderate Muslims.
Hirsi Ali was speaking in The Hague where she received the “European of the Year Award” from our American friend (and former inhabitant of Brussels) Conrad Kiechel, the editor of the international editions of Readers’ Digest. The European commissioner Neelie Croes said in her speech that Hirsi Ali is sometimes criticised because of her confrontational approach. “If you believe in eternal life you can afford to be sophisticated. If you do not, you need rebels on this earth to bring about change. Ayaan is a rebel.” In our opinion the Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen would have been a better candidate for the European of the Year Award. He is not a rebel but a man of principles. Europe does not need rebellion to change things; all it needs is to stand by its principles in order to safeguard its civilization.
One of our readers drew our attention to the wise commentary of Mona Eltahawy, a journalist of Egyptian Muslim origin, in today’s Daily Star. Unlike Ms Hirsi Ali, Ms Eltahawy has not turned against religion as the root of all evil, but practices a liberal Islam by speaking out against the militancy and terrorism committed in the name of her religion.
She writes about the cartoon case:
Can we finally admit that Muslims have blown out of all proportion their outrage over 12 cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad published in a Danish newspaper last September? [...] The initial printing of the cartoons in Denmark led to death threats being issued against the artists, demonstrations in Kashmir, and condemnation from 11 countries. What did any of this achieve but prove the original point of the newspaper’s culture editor, that artists in Europe were censoring themselves because they feared Muslim reaction? [...]
Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen was right not to intervene, insisting the government has no say over media – the argument used by Arab leaders when they are asked about anti-Semitism in their media, by the way. [...] What should have remained a local issue turned into a diplomatic uproar that Muslims otherwise rarely provoke when fighting for their rights around the world. Perhaps the Muslim governments who spearheaded the campaign – led by Egypt – felt this was an easy way to burnish their Islamic credentials at a time when domestic Islamists are stronger than they have been in many years.
Must we really boycott Danish products, as one e-mail I received exhorted? [...] Here are a few facts we should remember. However offensive any of the 12 cartoons were, they did not incite violence against Muslims. For an example of incitement, though, one must go back a few weeks before the cartoons were published. In August, the Danish authorities withdrew for three months the broadcasting license of a Copenhagen radio station after it called for the extermination of Muslims. Those were real threats and the government protected Muslims – the same government later condemned for not punishing the newspaper that published the cartoons.
Second, the cartoon incident belongs at the very center of the kind of debate that Muslims must have in the European countries where they live - particularly after the Madrid train bombings of 2003 and the London subway bombings of 2005. While right-wing anti-immigration groups whip up Islamophobia in Denmark, Muslim communities wallow in denial over the increasing role of their own extremists.
As just one example, last August Fadi Abdullatif, the spokesman for the Danish branch of the militant Hizb-ut-Tahrir organization, was charged with calling for the killing of members of the Danish government. [...] Muslims must honestly examine why there is such a huge gap between the way we imagine Islam and our prophet, and the way both are seen by others. Our offended sensibilities must not be limited to the Danish newspaper or the cartoonist, but to those like Fadi Abdullatif whose actions should be regarded as just as offensive to Islam and to our reverence for the prophet. Otherwise, we are all responsible for those Danish cartoons.
We need Muslims like Ms Eltahawy, who speak out against the extremists. We need Western journalists and politicians who support them by not allowing themselves to be intimidated by the extremists. But where are these journalists and politicians? None of his European colleagues has dared to publicly support Mr Rasmussen. On the contrary, both the European Union and the Council of Europe (as well as the United Nations) criticized Denmark over the cartoons. Only a handful of Europe’s papers and magazines has publicly supported a Danish newspaper’s decision to publish the cartoons. Most European mainstream media have not even dared to write about the case, leaving the European public in complete ignorance of a very important international conflict that has been going on for four months now. |
| quote: | Islam and the West: Who Hates Whom? The Danish Case
By Fahmi Howaidi
The Danish government’s attitude toward the blasphemous caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) published by a newspaper in the country should not be dismissed lightly as it is typical of the manner in which Western governments and intellectuals treat topics related to Islam. The lethargic reaction of the Muslim governments to the European newspaper’s outrageous treatment of the Prophet too deserves censure.
It was on Sept.30 last year that a popular Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 caricatures of the Prophet. Matters were further exacerbated by the chief editor of the newspaper who in a comment expressed his “abhorrence” at the veneration of their Prophet by Muslims.
The drawings were more than a shock to the 180,000-strong Muslim community who represent three percent of Denmark’s population. The Muslim diplomats in Copenhagen felt outraged. Eleven of them held a meeting and demanded an immediate apology from the newspaper.
As the chief editor refused to comply with their demand, the envoys requested a meeting with the prime minister of the country to register their protest at this insult to Islam. Anders Fogh Rasmussen refused to meet them but informed the envoys through his office that since the issue involved the freedom of expression his administration could not interfere in the matter. They were told to resort to legal action if they desired.
On learning about the affront to the Prophet, Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference Dr. Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu wrote to the Danish prime minister and the top officials of the European Union and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) requesting them to stop the hate campaign against Islam and take a stern stand against attempts to malign the Prophet. The gist of their response was that nothing could be done to stop the campaign, as the freedom of expression was the cornerstone of the Danish democracy. In the meantime the ambassadors of the Muslim nations in Geneva complained to the Human Rights Commission saying that the Danish newspaper was inciting racism and hatred against the Muslims. The commission agreed to look into the matter and prepare a report by the 24th of this month.
At the Islamic summit meeting held in Makkah last month, the Muslim leaders discussed the issue and expressed deep concern over the media campaigns against Islam and the Prophet. The participants emphasized the responsibility of all governments to guarantee respect for all religions without allowing anyone to make the freedom of expression a cover for insulting a religion.
After three months of silence, the EU commissioner for Justice Franco Frattini commented that publishing such cartoons was not a wise move as such acts would only inflame passions and encourage extremism in Europe.
While 22 Danish ambassadors with working experience in Arab countries criticized their government for its stand on the issue, a delegation of Danish Muslims representing 21 organizations visited Cairo and met with the Sheikh of Al-Azhar and the secretary-general of the Arab League. The foreign ministers of the Arab countries too criticized the negative attitude of the Danish government. The OIC secretary-general informed Danish authorities of the OIC decision to boycott a Danish exhibition entitled “Impressions of the Middle East” the cost of which was to be shared by Denmark and some Arab countries. He asked the Muslim countries to stick to this decision to register their protest against the European country’s position in the matter.
Finally, the Danish premier’s response came in his New Year message to the nation in which he said that his government condemned any expression or conduct that offended the sentiments of any community. If the Copenhagen authorities thought that this was the end of the matter they were mistaken. It is quite evident that the wound is too deep to be healed by some generalized statements issued reluctantly.
In the meantime some Muslim organizations in Denmark filed a suit against the newspaper. The public prosecutor refused to admit the case on the ground that the publication of the cartoons came under the purview of the freedom of expression, which enjoys legal protection in Denmark. The issue became more complicated with another conservative Christian daily in Norway reproducing the cartoons.
It is not surprising that some media persons behave impudently against the symbols of Islam as fanatics and hatemongers are found in every society, particularly in the West and often their intolerance of Islam rises above the voices of the intellectuals who speak with reason and fairness. What is most disturbing is the careless attitude of the Danish government, which should have taken a stand consistent with justice and public decency.
No system of law in the world claims that desecrating the symbols of Islam and the Prophet, or any other religion for that matter, is the right way to exercise one’s freedom of expression. The freedom of expression is conditional on public good.
Anglo Saxon and Latin legal systems, apart from the Islamic law, give protection for the freedom of expression as long as it serves the interests of society as a whole and does not lead to inflaming passions and disrupting social harmony. The highest constitutional courts in the United States stipulate that the freedom of expression is guaranteed only as long as it carries a minimum of redeeming qualities.
Every legal system considers it a crime to abuse and malign others. Abusing is an aggression on another individual. Abusing the Prophet of Islam is a serious crime because nearly one quarter of the world’s population believes that he is the Messenger of God. Dr. Ahmad Kemal Abul Majid, an expert on international law, said that even if an offending publication can’t be hauled into court of law there was a moral and political obligation on the part of the government to condemn such acts in the interest of the religious and cultural diversity of a country.
It is also disturbing to note that the Muslim governments have not been forthright in expressing their displeasure at the Danish government’s reluctance to condemn the affront to the sentiments of Muslims.
Are we to understand that abusing the Prophet is a less serious offense than an insult to an Arab head of state that would have triggered angry reactions accompanied by withdrawal of ambassadors and threat of severing diplomatic and economic relations. Should it not be feared that official silence over such issues in the Muslim and Arab world would play into the hands of extremists in the Muslim communities who are waiting for an opportunity to choose the path of violence .
The Danish drawings also reopen the question that is often raised whenever the topic of the relations between Islam and the West comes up: Really who hates whom? |
I won't purport to be impartial to the two accounts, but nevertheless it is quite clear to me that with views so opposite to each other, it seems hard to find a common ground. However, that being said, I want to point out that the piece from Aljazeerah falls below decent reporting, in effect calling Jyllandsposten a "conservative Christian" paper. It's liberal, and have been so since its conception. Furthermore, I think it's indecent to accuse others of hating you, and then dismiss their attempts at reconciliation as "generalized statements issued reluctantly" without stating what you feel is needed instead.
But most importantly, I think that the description of the legal status of free speech in the West is quite a distortion. Stating that you're only allowed free speech if what you're saying can be justified as constructive, is hardly correct.
I would love to hear someone point out the flaws in the piece from CFP .:) |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| This just prooves a point I've made in the past that multiculturalism does not work when you have people that disrespect and even hate the values possessed by those in their adoptive country. There are alot of people from many countries all over the world who would like to live in Denmark who would be thankful for the opertunity. To live in a country that you were not born in is a privilege, not a right. |
|
|
| Shamen DJ's |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
And I must say it pisses me off more and more for each day... Those who don't believe in free speech defently don't belong in our free societies... |
+1 |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
|
I also read that Saudi Arabia recalled a diplomat from Denmark? |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
I also read that Saudi Arabia recalled a diplomat from Denmark? |
Yes - their ambassador. The Danish People's Party have asked him to bring a letter back with him to his government, in which it is explained how the Danish society is divided into institutions, and how the relations of power are between these. The reason for giving him this letter is that "he has obviously failed in his duty to explain these matters to his people".
Anyway, I just saw that the Norwegian Foreign Ministry had emailed their ambassadors in muslim countries, and encouraged them to denounce the printings in Magazinet, and state that the Norwegian people abhor anything that could offend other cultures/religions. Way to go Norway!:rolleyes: Sometimes I wonder why it's more ok to offend liberalists than members of any other minority?:conf: |
|
|
|
|
