/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Danish Muslims despair at portrayal



Uthman
02-18-2008, 06:35 PM
In the wake of the reprinting in Denmark of one of the 12 cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad, BBC religious affairs correspondent Frances Harrison finds the country's Muslim community dismayed but determined.

"We will keep on working for integration, to build bridges. If you don't know who is Muhammad I am telling you please read about Muhammad," said the imam. He was leading prayers in a small overcrowded building in Copenhagen used as a mosque - with the faithful forced to pray outdoors in the courtyard on plastic mats in the icy wind.

Danish Muslims have bought land for a purpose-built modern mosque, but they say their application somehow always gets stuck in the planning stage. It is one more grievance.

Space may be cramped, but mosque attendance is high because all the major newspapers have just reprinted one of the controversial cartoons that shows the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.



At Friday prayers this mistrust of the media is bubbling close to the surface. One furious man comes and tells the people I am interviewing not to trust journalists



This was after Danish intelligence said they had uncovered a plot by three Muslims in Denmark to kill one of the cartoonists.

"We were all punished by the printing of those pictures," says the imam in his sermon.

He is angry that none of the men accused of masterminding the plot are being put on trial - the Danish intelligence services say revealing their evidence would compromise their intelligence network.

Instead, they are expelling two of the suspects who do not have Danish citizenship and freeing the third who does.

"How does it make sense that a person who is trying to kill somebody is being arrested, charged, interrogated and then released and yet still we should feel that he's a terrorist?" asks Imran Hussein, who runs Network an advisory body for Muslim organisations in Denmark.

Like many Muslims here he was appalled by the discovery of the plot to kill the cartoonist but now he is more sceptical.

'We despair'


Denmark has about 250,000 Muslims - from Pakistan, Somalia, Turkey, Iraq and many other countries. It is a small figure, but Muslims make up 5% of the population. "A lot of people are afraid of Islam today in Denmark and when they are afraid of Islam it means they are afraid of me too," says Sofian, who was born in Denmark but feels he no longer has a future there.

"When the same thing happens again it's tiring and we despair," says Kamran.

"I am hurt, as I was the first time," says Feisal, who works in marketing and was also born in Denmark. He believes the problem is not Danish society but the media.

"The Danish press should have learned from their previous mistakes and the only thing the Muslims are asking for is respect, nothing else".

Feisal says he cannot understand why the media keeps focusing on the idea that Muslims are trying to take their freedom of speech away from them.

"It's the media who started it this time, so I feel a lot of it is their fault," agrees Kamran, who also thinks there has been some positive dialogue with ordinary Danish people.

'Alienation'


At Friday prayers this mistrust of the media is bubbling close to the surface. One furious man comes and tells the people I am interviewing not to trust journalists, calling us animals who twist the truth. The feeling of hurt over the cartoons is slowly transforming into anger. "I will never feel one hundred percent accepted here in Danish society," says Imran Hussein, who has tried hard at integration, getting involved in local politics.

He says the cartoons were just part of a bigger picture.

"It's just getting worse and worse because the daily spoken language about immigrants and the portrayals of Muslims specifically are getting worse worldwide, so of course that's had an effect in Denmark as well," explains Imran.

"Before it was my clothing was not correct, the food I ate wasn't good enough, the way I expressed myself wasn't good enough - now my Prophet is not good enough. The next would be I am not good enough," he says.

Radical Islamist parties have been quick to channel this sense of alienation. Hizb ut Tahrir in Denmark organised a protest against the reprinting of the cartoons.

Hundreds of demonstrators marched through the streets of Copenhagen shouting "God is Great!" and "Freedom of Speech is a plague!" Some Danes looked rather surprised.

'Nobody listening'


Meda watched the demonstration with her three-year-old daughter from the windows of a cafe; at first she thought it rather scary - later she realised it was peaceful.

She is against the printing of the cartoons, saying "it was only meant to tease the Muslim people and I don't see any reason for that".

Outside the cafe, under the guidance of Hizb ut Tahrir, Danish Muslims were chanting "Khilafat" - supporting the party's demand for the creation of a caliphate to unite Muslims worldwide.

So far Muslims in Denmark have been talking about discrimination and the need for more respect. But the more they feel nobody is listening to their anger the more susceptible they will be to the message of radical political Islam.

Source
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Uthman
02-18-2008, 06:52 PM
I would like to pick up on this notion of Hizb-ut-Tahrir as a so-called 'radical Islamist' party.

Is this really true? What is 'extreme' about them?

Is it the fact that they are calling for a Khilafah/Caliphate that renders them an 'extreme' organisation?

They're not leading questions btw...I just want to know. :)
Reply

Whatsthepoint
02-18-2008, 07:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
I would like to pick up on this notion of Hizb-ut-Tahrir as a so-called 'radical Islamist' party.

Is this really true? What is 'extreme' about them?

Is it the fact that they are calling for a Khilafah/Caliphate that renders them an 'extreme' organisation?
It depends on where they wanna have it.
And I don't think it's the Caliphate alone that rendered the party an "extreme radical organisation".
Reply

Whatsthepoint
02-18-2008, 07:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
She is against the printing of the cartoons, saying "it was only meant to tease the Muslim people and I don't see any reason for that".
That's not the reason why the cartoons were republished.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Amadeus85
02-18-2008, 07:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
I would like to pick up on this notion of Hizb-ut-Tahrir as a so-called 'radical Islamist' party.

Is this really true? What is 'extreme' about them?

Is it the fact that they are calling for a Khilafah/Caliphate that renders them an 'extreme' organisation?

They're not leading questions btw...I just want to know. :)
They are radically anti western and thats why they should be banned in west just like they are banned in majority of muslim countries. We shouldnt allow in our continent those who openly are hostile to us.
On the other hand I am against making blasphemous cartoons of muslims prophet, its is just stupid and I dont think that it has something to do with freedom of speech.It has rather more to do with showing the middle finger to certain community(muslims).But what can we do when Europe is ruled by those who think that humiliating someone's religion is a sign of democracy and modernity. Europe is really in big moral crisis.
Reply

Uthman
02-18-2008, 07:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
That's not the reason why the cartoons were republished.
I know.

It was their response to an alleged plot to kill the cartoonist to show that they would not be intimidated, wasn't it? I'm aware of that. :)

Hurting the sensibilities of millions of innocent Muslims around the world was just a by-product of their decision.


:(
Reply

Whatsthepoint
02-18-2008, 07:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
I know.

It was their response to an alleged plot to kill the cartoonist to show that they would not be intimidated, wasn't it? I'm aware of that. :)

Hurting the sensibilities of millions of innocent Muslims around the world was just a by-product of their decision.
:(
The press could have made their point in a more respectful way, although I can imagine how they felt like. If I were in their position I'd probably publish the cartoons as well.
Reply

Cognescenti
02-18-2008, 07:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
I would like to pick up on this notion of Hizb-ut-Tahrir as a so-called 'radical Islamist' party.

Is this really true? What is 'extreme' about them?

Is it the fact that they are calling for a Khilafah/Caliphate that renders them an 'extreme' organisation?

They're not leading questions btw...I just want to know. :)
Don't know enough about the organization but if the achievement of a Caliphate somehow involves the "cleansing" of "Muslim lands" of the "filthy Kuffar" or their dismemberment or death...then I think they would be classified as "radical"
Reply

Uthman
02-18-2008, 07:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
The press could have made their point in a more respectful way
I agree.

format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
although I can imagine how they felt like. If I were in their position I'd probably publish the cartoons as well.
I appreciate your honesty. :)
Reply

Uthman
02-18-2008, 07:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Don't know enough about the organization
Same here. :)

format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
but if the achievement of a Caliphate somehow involves the "cleansing" of "Muslim lands" of the "filthy Kuffar" or their dismemberment or death...then I think they would be classified as "radical"
That's a view I would tend to agree with.
Reply

Noora
02-18-2008, 08:40 PM
quote from the article:

"This was after Danish intelligence said they had uncovered a plot by three Muslims in Denmark to kill one of the cartoonists.

"We were all punished by the printing of those pictures," says the imam in his sermon.

He is angry that none of the men accused of masterminding the plot are being put on trial - the Danish intelligence services say revealing their evidence would compromise their intelligence network.

Instead, they are expelling two of the suspects who do not have Danish citizenship and freeing the third who does.

"How does it make sense that a person who is trying to kill somebody is being arrested, charged, interrogated and then released and yet still we should feel that he's a terrorist?" asks Imran Hussein, who runs Network an advisory body for Muslim organisations in Denmark.


This really makes sense doesnt it? Free the alleged culprits....and insult the Islamic nations.....
If peace is what they are after you would think they would arrest these people...but no release them and print the pics again? Hmmmm common sense really prevails here???????Or is the plot thickening for personal agendas.....
Reply

krypton6
02-19-2008, 01:35 AM
Well I was inside the mosque that friday and I heard the guy. Right after the khuttba and prayer a man walked up took the microphone and yelled at the imam while getting support from the 200-400 muslims inside the mosque including myself.

The imam was just to afraid of getting that much attention, and going to the middle east and starting the boycotts would bring alot of attention to him but yet still, he said alot of wrong things while he was speaking up there.

The man who came up to him said, "The queen of Denmark is not our queen and nor our leader, and nor is Denmark our country! You bring shame on the this mosque and this community! If you want to do any good then be like the man you cried for a year ago (Ahmad Abu-Laban) ".

Deep inside the imam was angry too and would at any point kill the man who made those cartoons, deep inside he would love to go to the middle east and start all the boycotting, but his quite young and unexperienced so he was probably just afraid of doing the same as what Ahmad Abu-Laban did.
Reply

Cognescenti
02-19-2008, 02:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by krypton6
Well I was inside the mosque that friday and I heard the guy. Right after the khuttba and prayer a man walked up took the microphone and yelled at the imam while getting support from the 200-400 muslims inside the mosque including myself.

The imam was just to afraid of getting that much attention, and going to the middle east and starting the boycotts would bring alot of attention to him but yet still, he said alot of wrong things while he was speaking up there.

The man who came up to him said, "The queen of Denmark is not our queen and nor our leader, and nor is Denmark our country! You bring shame on the this mosque and this community! If you want to do any good then be like the man you cried for a year ago (Ahmad Abu-Laban) ".

Deep inside the imam was angry too and would at any point kill the man who made those cartoons, deep inside he would love to go to the middle east and start all the boycotting, but his quite young and unexperienced so he was probably just afraid of doing the same as what Ahmad Abu-Laban did.
Was this a political rally or religious service? Doesn't seem there was a whole lotta prayin' goin' on.

It brings up a variation of the old argument....Don't like the Queen?..Then go back to where you came from.
Reply

Muezzin
02-19-2008, 02:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Was this a political rally or religious service? Doesn't seem there was a whole lotta prayin' goin' on.

It brings up a variation of the old argument....Don't like the Queen?..Then go back to where you came from.
Unless you're actually from France.

Freedom of expression does go both ways. In any case, being purposefuly offensive to a person or group, while technically illustrating free speech, is morally wrong, whoever makes the statement.

Of course, it's infinitely more morally wrong to react like a violent lunatic...
Reply

guyabano
02-19-2008, 02:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Was this a political rally or religious service? Doesn't seem there was a whole lotta prayin' goin' on.

It brings up a variation of the old argument....Don't like the Queen?..Then go back to where you came from.
So true. If you don't like, you have the freedom to go back where you come from.
Me, I also wonder, what they 'prayed' in this mosque?

tsktsktsk

Peace
Reply

Isambard
02-19-2008, 03:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Unless you're actually from France.

Freedom of expression does go both ways. In any case, being purposefuly offensive to a person or group, while technically illustrating free speech, is morally wrong, whoever makes the statement.

Of course, it's infinitely more morally wrong to react like a violent lunatic...
That it does. Freedom of expression means I can say something potentially insulting to you and you mustnt react violently. It also means I have to sit there and take as well when you rebuttle by calling me an idiot.
Reply

Uthman
02-19-2008, 04:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Was this a political rally or religious service? Doesn't seem there was a whole lotta prayin' goin' on.
He said it was right after the Khutba and prayer. :)
Reply

krypton6
02-19-2008, 08:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Cognescenti
Was this a political rally or religious service? Doesn't seem there was a whole lotta prayin' goin' on.

It brings up a variation of the old argument....Don't like the Queen?..Then go back to where you came from.
The speech was more political, the praying was religious and after the prayer a man walked up and took the microphone and started talking.

We cant go back, you ruined our country remember?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
02-19-2008, 08:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by krypton6
The speech was more political, the praying was religious and after the prayer a man walked up and took the microphone and started talking.

We cant go back, you ruined our country remember?
Where do you originally come from?
Reply

krypton6
02-19-2008, 08:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
That it does. Freedom of expression means I can say something potentially insulting to you and you mustnt react violently. It also means I have to sit there and take as well when you rebuttle by calling me an idiot.
Yes but in Denmark blasphemy is also forbidden yet apperantly they dont see the cartoons as blasphemy, even though muslims seem to be extremly offended, more than ever in fact!
Reply

Whatsthepoint
02-19-2008, 09:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by krypton6
Yes but in Denmark blasphemy is also forbidden yet apperantly they dont see the cartoons as blasphemy, even though muslims seem to be extremly offended, more than ever in fact!
They have the right to put the case on trial, which they did...and lost.
Reply

krypton6
02-19-2008, 09:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Where do you originally come from?
I'm pretty much Iraqi, but even a saud, egyptian or african can say the same thing, only that what they say would sound more like: a man is ruining our country and we cant stop him because america keeps helping him.
Reply

krypton6
02-19-2008, 09:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
They have the right to put teh case in trial, which they did...and lost.
It doesnt matter! There's no doubt that muslims were highly insulted by this, in fact they were insulted more than ever before.

Its blasphemy when it is clear that a surtain group seems extremly offended and insulted by some joke, cartoon, commercial, film or what ever. How could you say that this is not blasphemy? the fact the they lost in the court clearly proves that the judge was anti-islamic and that he was a racist, and the fact that the government didnt do anything about it proves that they too are anti-islamic racists.
Reply

Whatsthepoint
02-19-2008, 09:34 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by krypton6
It doesnt matter! There's no doubt that muslims were highly insulted by this, in fact they were insulted more than ever before.

Its blasphemy when it is clear that a surtain group seems extremly offended and insulted by some joke, cartoon, commercial, film or what ever. How could you say that this is not blasphemy? the fact the they lost in the court clearly proves that the judge was anti-islamic and that he was a racist, and the fact that the government didnt do anything about it proves that they too are anti-islamic racists.
Look, there has been plenty of blasphemy in Denmark, targeted mostly on the christian faiths, ranging from cartoons to movies, yet nobody has been put on trial for over 60 years.
It's not allways the result that matters, it's the intention. The judge seems to have concluded that the newspaper that originally posted the cartoons did not do it in order to insult muslims.
Why should the government do anything about it? Denmark is a free country with courts that deal with such matters. One islamic community sued the cartoonists (or was it the paper) and lost the case.
I see no reason why the danish government should do anything about it, let alone apologize.

Look, I know you must be terribly insulted with the cartoons, but that is not a sufficient reason to limit free speech.
Reply

krypton6
02-19-2008, 10:14 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
Look, there has been plenty of blasphemy in Denmark, targeted mostly on the christian faiths, ranging from cartoons to movies, yet nobody has been put on trial for over 60 years.
You got any examples? no christian have ever bin insulted the way that muslims have.

format_quote Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
It's not allways the result that matters, it's the intention. The judge seems to have concluded that the newspaper that originally posted the cartoons did not do it in order to insult muslims.
Why should the government do anything about it? Denmark is a free country with courts that deal with such matters. One islamic community sued the cartoonists (or was it the paper) and lost the case.
I see no reason why the danish government should do anything about it, let alone apologize.

Look, I know you must be terribly insulted with the cartoons, but that is not a sufficient reason to limit free speech.
It doesnt matter if he did it to insult or not, fact is that it did insult more than any previous religous insult, and insulting a larger group of people religiously is what we call blasphemy, yet the judge didnt do anything about it and nor did the government. If a man kills a dog and is punished with 20 years in prison the government will step in and correct the sentence. It should have bin the same with these cartoons, yet they didnt do anything about it.

Muslims came here knowing all about the freedom of speech but at the same time believing that our religion would be respected, and that insulting someones religion or believe is not allowed in Denmark. But apparently that law excludes the insulting of muslims.

The whole muslim community inside of Denmark sued but due to racism they lost, the government refused to recognize the racism instead they kept saying the same bull**** over and over again ("Freedom of speech, freedom of speech!", yet forgetting to mention that what is most dear to every muslim was in fact insulted which afterall is what blashphemy is.

I'm not the one who is limiting freedom of speech, I'm just following their own dam laws and blasphemy is in the 140'th danish paragraph! If I am excluded in this law, then why shouldn't I exclude myself from any other law, such as the law preventing me from killing the cartoonist?
Reply

Isambard
02-19-2008, 10:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by krypton6
You got any examples? no christian have ever bin insulted the way that muslims have.

I really hope you're joking. Try typing random verbs and nouns in front of Jesus on a google image search. Extra points for naughty finds!

It doesnt matter if he did it to insult or not, fact is that it did insult more than any previous religous insult, and insulting a larger group of people religiously is what we call blasphemy, yet the judge didnt do anything about it and nor did the government. If a man kills a dog and is punished with 20 years in prison the government will step in and correct the sentence. It should have bin the same with these cartoons, yet they didnt do anything about it.


How about they just declare Islam a dangerous cult and ban it completely? European countries have done it before and if you keep acting like an idiot and trying to set fire to things, its what youll get.

Muslims came here knowing all about the freedom of speech but at the same time believing that our religion would be respected, and that insulting someones religion or believe is not allowed in Denmark. But apparently that law excludes the insulting of muslims.

Its equally redundant for all people. See the citation whatsthepoint made to the 0 cases in 60yrs. That said, why should the west in general "respect" Islam exactly? A quick search thru middle-eastern media forms and youll find all sorts of wonderfully hateful msgs. This of course is aside from the typical stereotypes you hear parroted (even here!) about jews being baby-stealers, western women being hoes, Hindus worshipping dolls etc etc.

This doesnt justify insults towrd Islam certainly (as not muslims do what I said above), but it does go back to "clean your own **** backyard before you complain about mine!"

The whole muslim community inside of Denmark sued but due to racism they lost, the government refused to recognize the racism instead they kept saying the same bull**** over and over again ("Freedom of speech, freedom of speech!", yet forgetting to mention that what is most dear to every muslim was in fact insulted which afterall is what blashphemy is.

They lost because the newspaper isnt controlled by the govt. Hence it wouldnt fall under the blasphomy charges. And since when is being Muslim a race? Dictionaries and not jumping to assumptions are the way to win the hearts of forum-lurkers friend.

I'm not the one who is limiting freedom of speech, I'm just following their own dam laws and blasphemy is in the 140'th danish paragraph! If I am excluded in this law, then why shouldn't I exclude myself from any other law, such as the law preventing me from killing the cartoonist?
Not understanding the law doesnt mean it wasnt followed. Stop crying or stop reading Danish papers. The choice is yours.
Reply

Cognescenti
02-19-2008, 11:33 PM
If there is a blasphemy law in Denmark it is likely a slightly embarrasing historical oddity, sort of like laws regulating side arms inside the city limits or where one can tie up one's horse.

Also I am still having trouble understanding how one can blaspheme something in which one doesn't believe.
Reply

snakelegs
02-19-2008, 11:46 PM
just because you can do something and be protected by freedom of speech, doesn't mean you should.
are there no better ways to test freedom of speech in denmark than to resort to stooping so low? maybe nobody has anything to say?
Reply

Isambard
02-20-2008, 12:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
just because you can do something and be protected by freedom of speech, doesn't mean you should.
are there no better ways to test freedom of speech in denmark than to resort to stooping so low? maybe nobody has anything to say?
How is it stooping low? Islam is inherently political in nature what with the laws, rulings, ideal state etc etc.

If you can make fun of Bush, why not Muhammed?
Reply

Keltoi
02-20-2008, 12:38 AM
It is the protection of insulting and "low" speech that makes sure more worthwhile speech cannot be censored. It is only a small step from stating no newspaper can print cartoons deemed insulting by a particular group to no newspaper can print this, and then not this, and they really can't be doing that....see where this is going?
Reply

snakelegs
02-20-2008, 12:52 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
How is it stooping low? Islam is inherently political in nature what with the laws, rulings, ideal state etc etc.

If you can make fun of Bush, why not Muhammed?
not the same category at all. why would a rational adult want to insult somebody else's religion?
sorry, i don't get it.
Reply

snakelegs
02-20-2008, 01:03 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
It is the protection of insulting and "low" speech that makes sure more worthwhile speech cannot be censored. It is only a small step from stating no newspaper can print cartoons deemed insulting by a particular group to no newspaper can print this, and then not this, and they really can't be doing that....see where this is going?
somehow i just don't see this as a free speech issue. i think the motive has nothing to do with free speech, but with a desire to deliberately provoke.
in theory what you have written makes sense - but common decency and respect makes more sense.
Reply

Isambard
02-20-2008, 01:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
not the same category at all. why would a rational adult want to insult somebody else's religion?
sorry, i don't get it.
Its the specific religion's fault for hiding politics. Islam and Christianity get bashed regularly because they contain political ideas. Compare that to a more apolitical religion like Buddhism.

There is also the threat of a politicized religion forming a cult around an individual in which case bashing religion being a taboo would be a bad thing. Such as the case historically.
Reply

Muezzin
02-20-2008, 12:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
Its the specific religion's fault for hiding politics. Islam and Christianity get bashed regularly because they contain political ideas. Compare that to a more apolitical religion like Buddhism.

There is also the threat of a politicized religion forming a cult around an individual in which case bashing religion being a taboo would be a bad thing. Such as the case historically.
Or it's just general douchebaggery, depending.

Which is of course, fully protected by freedom of speech, lest we forget. People are legally entitled to be buttheads if they want to be. As long as other people call them out on their... buttheadedness, all's well.

Of course, what constitutes being a butthead depends on your point of view. From my point of view, these particular cartoons, while insipid, tasteless and unfunny, did not in anyway justify such a violent reaction.

Southpark is my kind of insipid tastelessness, mainly because it's actually funny.
Reply

Keltoi
02-20-2008, 01:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
somehow i just don't see this as a free speech issue. i think the motive has nothing to do with free speech, but with a desire to deliberately provoke.
in theory what you have written makes sense - but common decency and respect makes more sense.
We agree, common decency and respect makes more sense...but who is going to enforce "common decency and respect"? Who would you trust to do that?
Reply

snakelegs
02-21-2008, 01:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
We agree, common decency and respect makes more sense...but who is going to enforce "common decency and respect"? Who would you trust to do that?
actually i would think you could trust any mature adult to respect boundaries. but of course, we both know better. :unhappy:
Reply

snakelegs
02-21-2008, 01:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
Its the specific religion's fault for hiding politics. Islam and Christianity get bashed regularly because they contain political ideas. Compare that to a more apolitical religion like Buddhism.

There is also the threat of a politicized religion forming a cult around an individual in which case bashing religion being a taboo would be a bad thing. Such as the case historically.
i don't really follow your arguement. in your previous post you compared insulting muhammad to insulting george bush. to me, these are like 2 different planets!
yes, both christianity and islam contain political ideas - but their prophets are religious figures, and command the respect from their followers that religious figures do - not politicians.
as a westerner, i do not really comprehend the depth of the respect muslims have for muhammad (and other prophets), but i know it is there, and i accept and respect it.
Reply

Isambard
02-21-2008, 02:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i don't really follow your arguement. in your previous post you compared insulting muhammad to insulting george bush. to me, these are like 2 different planets!
yes, both christianity and islam contain political ideas - but their prophets are religious figures, and command the respect from their followers that religious figures do - not politicians.
as a westerner, i do not really comprehend the depth of the respect muslims have for muhammad (and other prophets), but i know it is there, and i accept and respect it.
Muhammed was a politician as much as he was a religious leader. That said, religion is merely a more convoluted form of politics. Alot of times, the two can be interchangeable.

Just because there may be a deep respect for someone, doesnt mean I should feel the same. Many people really respected Bush when he first went into Iraq. Look at what unquestioned dogmatism did.

If you feel more comfortable, look at scientology. It continues to hide from critisism of its political aims behind the curtain of "being religiously intollerant".

Seeing that Islam is political, there is no reason why it or any other religiously-masked political movements should be spared of satire.
Reply

snakelegs
02-21-2008, 02:50 AM
islam does not "conceal" that it is also political.
i don't follow your reasoning and disagree with what you're saying.
no - you do not have to respect religious figures.
what you should respect is the feelings of your fellow human beings, whether you understand them or not.
this seems to me like just plain and simple decency.
btw - as a side note, is there any gathering of human beings that does not involve politics?
Reply

Rana0614
02-21-2008, 02:58 AM
Hello all,
To express my opinions on this issue, I've copied and pasted an exerpt from my blog, regarding the issue.

" personally don't believe that the Danish published these cartoons to get this kind of reaction to them. I mean, who would want their country flag to be burned and stomped on, have parts of Danish embassies burned down, have their products boycotted and be the reason behind countless riots around the world? Nobody.
They did it as a joke. Look at Christians/Catholics/Protestants/whatever other church has magically appeared, they throw Jesus into random cartoons like Family Guy and The Simpsons, and no matter how religious they are, they laugh along with it. In their religion, it doesn't say anywhere that a caricature of a Prophet (or in their case, the son of God) are forbidden. Their religion isn't as demanding, and it doesn't really require that much faith either. I mean, I've met lesbians and gays who claim to be devout Christians. Umm, oxymoron?
So... people keep asking, why are Muslims so angry?
They're angry because a caricature of any Prophet is prohibited, because it relates to idolatry--which is comepletely forbidden.
But you're probably thinking... christians don't throw riots when a picture of Jesus comes up.
Yeah, well that's them. This is the Muslims. They're under different circumstances, under different rules.

I don't want anyone to think that I'm fully backing the Muslims here. I'm not. I'm not in agreement with either side right now. The Danish claim that this is freedom of speech, and that they have every right to publish whatever they want. Yes, that is true. However, in today's world, there's something called consideration. More importantly, there's respect. Yes, the artist may have found the cartoons to be quite hilarious, but really.. does that automatically mean that everyone will laugh with him? Of course not. It's a sensitive subject, especially when he's depicting the Prophet involved in Terrorist acts.

I will say this much to the Danes: The first time around, it was a matter of free speech. However, the Danes were approached peacefully by religious Muslim scholars before the riots broke out. They refused to apologize. They should have some respect, and know that the world doesn't always laugh with them. The first time around, it was free speech. The second time around, it was a matter of being a complete asshole.

To the Muslims... Are you stupid?
There was a second reason as to why the Muslims were so outraged over the publication of these cartoons. They depict the Prophet as a violent man, when in reality, the Islamic religion is quite peaceful. To depict the Prophet in a violent way is the same as saying the religion as a whole is violent.
So, in order to prove this wrong, the Muslims decided to have riots, get people of their own kind to be killed, burn down flags and embassies and threaten to behead the artist of the cartoons. How this made sense in their minds, I will never know. I mean, for real... you're just proving their point. Idiots.

I remember debating about this in an online forum when the first set of cartoons were published. It ended up with the forum being locked cause it got so violent after I was involved. Quite dramatic.

I'll say this much; both parties are completely wrong. I will not stand by the Muslims just cause I'm one of them. For now, I'm standing on the sidelines and waiting for someone else to clean up this mess."
Reply

Isambard
02-21-2008, 03:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
islam does not "conceal" that it is also political.
i don't follow your reasoning and disagree with what you're saying.
no - you do not have to respect religious figures.
what you should respect is the feelings of your fellow human beings, whether you understand them or not.
this seems to me like just plain and simple decency.
btw - as a side note, is there any gathering of human beings that does not involve politics?
When you give religon a special status, you conceal the politics. Noone disagrees with freedom of speech in regards to politics (for obvious reasons) but when its hidden in a religion it suddenly becomes taboo for some reason.

Feelings are secondary as giving any form of political thought free reign w/o critisism is dangerous.

You can not like it all you want, but at the end of the day Im sure youll agree Bush shouldnt be free from satire just because a few christian churchs feel he's some sort of messiah, then ditto for Muhammed and muslims.

So too bad so sad for offended parties, but granting religion a free pass is a great way to have it turn around and bite you in the ass!:coolalien

*PS. Any group that gets together and ultimately makes positive claims is political in some regard. Which is why good satire spares noone.
Reply

snakelegs
02-21-2008, 04:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
When you give religon a special status, you conceal the politics. Noone disagrees with freedom of speech in regards to politics (for obvious reasons) but when its hidden in a religion it suddenly becomes taboo for some reason.

Feelings are secondary as giving any form of political thought free reign w/o critisism is dangerous.

You can not like it all you want, but at the end of the day Im sure youll agree Bush shouldnt be free from satire just because a few christian churchs feel he's some sort of messiah, then ditto for Muhammed and muslims.

So too bad so sad for offended parties, but granting religion a free pass is a great way to have it turn around and bite you in the ass!:coolalien

*PS. Any group that gets together and ultimately makes positive claims is political in some regard. Which is why good satire spares noone.
the politics in islam is not hidden!
i see nothing wrong with writing a piece criticizing islam - don't you see the difference between a cartoon insulting a religious figure and a criticism of islam? i don't think a religion needs a "free pass" or is above criticism.
if you can't see the difference between george bush and a religious figure...well, we are in 2 different worlds and will just have to disagree.
Reply

wilberhum
02-21-2008, 05:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
When you give religon a special status, you conceal the politics. Noone disagrees with freedom of speech in regards to politics (for obvious reasons) but when its hidden in a religion it suddenly becomes taboo for some reason.

Feelings are secondary as giving any form of political thought free reign w/o critisism is dangerous.

You can not like it all you want, but at the end of the day Im sure youll agree Bush shouldnt be free from satire just because a few christian churchs feel he's some sort of messiah, then ditto for Muhammed and muslims.

So too bad so sad for offended parties, but granting religion a free pass is a great way to have it turn around and bite you in the ass!:coolalien

*PS. Any group that gets together and ultimately makes positive claims is political in some regard. Which is why good satire spares noone.
As usual, again you have done an excellent job. :shade:
Keep up the good work.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
02-24-2008, 04:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
That it does. Freedom of expression means I can say something potentially insulting to you and you mustnt react violently. It also means I have to sit there and take as well when you rebuttle by calling me an idiot.
Being a Muslim myself, I am ashamed that some Muslims would do such a thing and take law into their own hands. This is indeed the work of WEAK Muslims who get angry easily.

The Prophet (PBUH) said: A strong man is not he who defeats his adversary by wrestling, but a strong man is he who controls himself at the time of anger.

Indeed, I am disgusted by what the cartoonists did. It's a disgrace that people would let it go by calling it "freedom of expression" or even worse "criticism". I think people who can't differentiate between criticism and "insults" are idiots. I do believe in dialog and debate but such a thing is a direct provocation and shows how morally dead are the cartoonists and people who back them. I'm not sure how these people will behave when someone draw their mothers naked being screwed by another man.

I am not sure how depicting Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) as a terrorist or womanizer helpful. Anyway, The Prophet was continuously berated, reviled, and denigrated. The Qur'an has documented in several verses the different accusations that were leveled at Prophet Muhammad(pbuh). Some of these charges, which probably mainly came from the polytheistic Arabs, accused Muhammad of basing the Qur'an on confused dreams; making it up; and being merely a poet, a madman, or a soothsayer:

Nay! They (the disbelievers) say: "[The Qur'an is] Medleys of dreams; nay! he has made it up; nay! he is a poet. So let him bring to us a sign as the former [prophets] were sent with" (21.5).

And they (the disbelievers) say: "O you [Muhammad] to whom the Remembrance (the Qur'an) has been revealed! You are a madman" (15.6).

Therefore continue [O Muhammad!] to remind; for by the grace of your Lord, you are not a soothsayer or a madman (52.29).

Yet, there is not a single verse in the Qur'an that told the Prophet or Muslims in general to respond to the accusers with any form of violence. If only Muslims could control their anger and behave like strong Muslims.

The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) said to us: When one of you becomes angry while standing, he should sit down. If the anger leaves him, well and good; otherwise he should lie down.
Reply

Isambard
02-24-2008, 04:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
the politics in islam is not hidden!
i see nothing wrong with writing a piece criticizing islam - don't you see the difference between a cartoon insulting a religious figure and a criticism of islam? i don't think a religion needs a "free pass" or is above criticism.
if you can't see the difference between george bush and a religious figure...well, we are in 2 different worlds and will just have to disagree.
Im curious. How would you seperate the following?

Divine right of Kings
Religiously fuelled terrorism for a particular state
Persecution of minorities for religious reasons
Conflicting blasphomy (Christians say Muhammed was X, Muslims say the bible is a corruption. Both claim offense)
Religiously "inspired" political leaders

etc.

Where do you draw the seperation between religion and politics?
Reply

snakelegs
02-24-2008, 04:54 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
Im curious. How would you seperate the following?

Divine right of Kings
Religiously fuelled terrorism for a particular state
Persecution of minorities for religious reasons
Conflicting blasphomy (Christians say Muhammed was X, Muslims say the bible is a corruption. Both claim offense)
Religiously "inspired" political leaders

etc.

Where do you draw the seperation between religion and politics?
i'm not sure there is a separation. as i said before:
a valid excercise (in my opinion) of freedom of speech is to write an essay criticizing a religion. some people might take offense, but it is still valid, in my opinion.
a misuse of freedom of speech is to mock and insult religious figures. the intention here is simply to offend and (hopefully, in this case) provoke.
to me there is a big difference between the 2. also a big difference in maturity level.
Reply

snakelegs
02-24-2008, 04:55 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by hmmm5

Yet, there is not a single verse in the Qur'an that told the Prophet or Muslims in general to respond to the accusers with any form of violence. If only Muslims could control their anger and behave like strong Muslims.

The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) said to us: When one of you becomes angry while standing, he should sit down. If the anger leaves him, well and good; otherwise he should lie down.
this is true. but there are a few problematical hadiths.
Reply

Isambard
02-24-2008, 05:05 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
i'm not sure there is a separation. as i said before:
a valid excercise (in my opinion) of freedom of speech is to write an essay criticizing a religion. some people might take offense, but it is still valid, in my opinion.
a misuse of freedom of speech is to mock and insult religious figures. the intention here is simply to offend and (hopefully, in this case) provoke.
to me there is a big difference between the 2. also a big difference in maturity level.
Well the cartoonists were attacking the political aspects...but....lets widen it to cartoons in general (such as in South park where they do attack religious belief).

Why is characaturization (sp?) any less valid than an essay?
Reply

snakelegs
02-24-2008, 06:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Isambard
Well the cartoonists were attacking the political aspects...but....lets widen it to cartoons in general (such as in South park where they do attack religious belief).

Why is characaturization (sp?) any less valid than an essay?
we can argue forever. :D
i'm not familiar with south park. (i don't have tv)
as for the cartoon under discussion, i personally i see no merit in it - it's sole purpose is to mock a religious figure.
i think it might be conceivable that one could draw a cartoon critical of religious belief - this is not the same as attacking a figure revered by millions of people.
personally, i am quite critical of religion in general. but i respect people's religious feelings and its importance to other people.
Reply

Cabdullahi
02-24-2008, 07:32 AM
People with no religion dont have that kind of sympathy towards a person with religion when their religion is mocked.they dont care, anything that they disregard can be ridiculed its freedom of speech:Evil:
When the prophet (saw) is mocked or made fun of i have this feeling of anger and i feel these thing are purposely done to make not just me but every pious muslim feel agitated.If human beings are feeling this way, why dont they stop it instead of republishing it.

If everyone says something about what other people believe in and hide behind the so called "its freedom of speech" and we can say what ever we want its just crazy and if people carry on like this respect will be lost boundries broken.

Yes islam is political and the westerners dont like it they are scared of its rise but i will tell u, i am so sure that it will revolutionize the world

People need to wake up why were highly influental figures killed i can name a whole list, malcom x, martin luther king, jfk.America wants to control the world control what we think when we think.they are doing it through the media.so my friends i dont know about you but i am not becoming a slave of some new world order regime. i am the slave of ALLAH and will always be inshallah
Reply

wilberhum
02-24-2008, 07:52 AM
People with religion don't have that kind of sympathy towards a person with no religion.
Reply

snakelegs
02-24-2008, 08:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmedjunior
People with no religion dont have that kind of sympathy towards a person with religion when their religion is mocked.they dont care, anything that they disregard can be ridiculed its freedom of speech:Evil:
i disagree with the above. you do not need a religion in order to respect other people's feelings. you do not need a religion in order to think it is wrong to mock others.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
02-24-2008, 08:09 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
People with religion don't have that kind of sympathy towards a person with no religion.
I am surprised you didn't resorted to cartoons this time. Ok. Sorry. Just wanted to jump in. hehe
Reply

Cabdullahi
02-24-2008, 08:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
People with religion don't have that kind of sympathy towards a person with no religion.
Ofcourse we have sympathy for u WE WANT YOU TO COME INTO THE LIGHT OUT FROM THE DARKNESS THAT ENGULFS YOU.The thing is You are hungry for knowledge but i feel you have some sort of inner anger against muslims?? that can be seen from your posts tell me if i am wrong.:statisfie
Reply

wilberhum
02-24-2008, 08:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ahmedjunior
Ofcourse we have sympathy for u WE WANT YOU TO COME INTO THE LIGHT OUT FROM THE DARKNESS THAT ENGULFS YOU.The thing is You are hungry for knowledge but i feel you have some sort of inner anger against muslims?? that can be seen from your posts tell me if i am wrong.:statisfie
Your wrong.
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-24-2008, 08:47 AM
I for one would be far more disturbed about people sawing of heads and blowing up buildings and claiming to do it in the name of my worldview than I would having my worldview mocked in a cartoon.
Reply

Keltoi
02-24-2008, 11:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I for one would be far more disturbed about people sawing of heads and blowing up buildings and claiming to do it in the name of my worldview than I would having my worldview mocked in a cartoon.
I've said that before and it still does confuse me a bit. However, I think in this context the issues are not the same. The point of the cartoons was to equate suicide bombings with the Prophet Muhammed. Yes, it was done as satire to make a statement about the current state of Islam from the Western perspective, but it was also highly inflammatory from a Muslim perspective.

In reality, what is your average everyday Muslim living in the West, usually the child of immigrants, supposed to do about people half a world away sawing people's heads off and blowing up women and children in marketplaces? It's not something they condone or support, and its just as alien to them as it is to you and me. Excluding some of the juvenile posters on this board, I've never met a Western Muslim who thinks beheadings and suicide bombs are the way to go for the future of Islam.

That being said, I don't support censorship, but I do support common sense and basic respect. As Snakelegs has mentioned, it isn't too much to ask for. I just don't want the government controlling "basic decency and respect".
Reply

Roasted Cashew
02-25-2008, 12:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I've said that before and it still does confuse me a bit. However, I think in this context the issues are not the same. The point of the cartoons was to equate suicide bombings with the Prophet Muhammed. Yes, it was done as satire to make a statement about the current state of Islam from the Western perspective, but it was also highly inflammatory from a Muslim perspective.

In reality, what is your average everyday Muslim living in the West, usually the child of immigrants, supposed to do about people half a world away sawing people's heads off and blowing up women and children in marketplaces? It's not something they condone or support, and its just as alien to them as it is to you and me. Excluding some of the juvenile posters on this board, I've never met a Western Muslim who thinks beheadings and suicide bombs are the way to go for the future of Islam.

That being said, I don't support censorship, but I do support common sense and basic respect. As Snakelegs has mentioned, it isn't too much to ask for. I just don't want the government controlling "basic decency and respect".
I agree with. :peace:
Reply

Pygoscelis
02-25-2008, 01:07 AM
My point is that the cartoons were outsiders suggesting that Islam is about terrorism. The terrorists are proclaimed muslims claiming that Islam is about terrorism (and doing so in horrific ways). Which is worse?
Reply

Muezzin
02-25-2008, 09:21 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
My point is that the cartoons were outsiders suggesting that Islam is about terrorism. The terrorists are proclaimed muslims claiming that Islam is about terrorism (and doing so in horrific ways). Which is worse?
They're both bad, but it's a great, great pity that Muslims generally do not protest against violent misuse of the religion of Islam as vehemently as we do against negative media portrayals.

On the other hand, some Muslims are working on it, with 'Not in My Name' demonstrations and things. I'll see if I can find a link.

Also, teachers in mosques condemn atrocities committed behind the shield of Islam and teach Muslims this is in no way tolerated in Islam.
Reply

KAding
02-25-2008, 12:10 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by snakelegs
not the same category at all. why would a rational adult want to insult somebody else's religion?
sorry, i don't get it.
Most religions are more than a simple definition of God. Yes, Islam is a religion. But Islam is also a system of law. Islam is a world view. Islam is a political system. Islam is seemingly a nationality. Islam is a lot of things. People fight wars in the name of Islam. We aren't just dealing with personal religious experience here. We are talking about politics, plain and simple.

Just because they are also a religion does not mean they deserve any more protection than any other ideology out there, be it socialism, liberalism, fascism, communism, etc...

The Danish cartoons were pretty mild and fall completely within the limits of normal political and social debate. They dealt with completely legitimate current events and issues within Danish society. This idea of religions that they are more valuable and deserve more protection and respect than any other opinion, simply because they 'define a God', is quite frankly, insulting to me as an atheist :D.
Reply

Muezzin
02-25-2008, 12:15 PM
The cartoon was relatively mild compared to the overreaction, but it was still pretty stupid and unfunny. To me, the cartoon's lack of humour was its biggest downfall. The best jokes are always funny because they're true. This was just nonsense. It was a picture of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) with a bomb for a turban, implying that he was a violent, mad bomber. Nothing could be further from the truth - in fact, things like explosives are actually forbidden in Islamic laws of warfare, because they damage the environment and can injure or kill innocent bystanders.

If the cartoon had been of, say, Osama Bin Laden, I'd see the humour in it. I'd think it's a pretty obvious target, but hey, I'd see the joke.

Shame on you, cartoonist. Thou shalt be funnier next time. Try reading back issues of Punch.
Reply

Keltoi
02-25-2008, 12:15 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by KAding
Most religions are more than a simple definition of God. Yes, Islam is a religion. But Islam is also a system of law. Islam is a world view. Islam is a political system. Islam is seemingly a nationality. Islam is a lot of things. People fight wars in the name of Islam. We aren't just dealing with personal religious experience here. We are talking about politics, plain and simple.

Just because they are also a religion does not mean they deserve any more protection than any other ideology out there, be it socialism, liberalism, fascism, communism, etc...

The Danish cartoons were pretty mild and fall completely within the limits of normal political and social debate. They dealt with completely legitimate current events and issues within Danish society. This idea of religions that they are more valuable and deserve more protection and respect than any other opinion, simply because they 'define a God', is quite frankly, insulting to me as an atheist :D.
I understand this point of view as well. That is why I don't support censorship of speech regardless of how "distasteful" if might be.
Reply

KAding
02-25-2008, 12:18 PM
Besides, if we must ban such speech in newspapers, we will have to do the same in all public forums and for all religions. Perhaps we should start with the holy books themselves? We all know they insult other religions/non-religions left and right with gross generalizations. This is a vicious cycle, one that will never benefit minorities! They should think this through before they demand we move onto this slippery slope.

Sorry for being a bit emotional about this. I guess us non-believers can care about some things as well ;).
Reply

Muezzin
02-25-2008, 12:20 PM
Alternatively, people could give mutual respect a shot, and 'minorities' could try not getting violent at the sight of disrespect.

Is that pig flying?
Reply

Whatsthepoint
02-25-2008, 01:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
The cartoon was relatively mild compared to the overreaction, but it was still pretty stupid and unfunny. To me, the cartoon's lack of humour was its biggest downfall. The best jokes are always funny because they're true. This was just nonsense. It was a picture of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) with a bomb for a turban, implying that he was a violent, mad bomber. Nothing could be further from the truth - in fact, things like explosives are actually forbidden in Islamic laws of warfare, because they damage the environment and can injure or kill innocent bystanders.

If the cartoon had been of, say, Osama Bin Laden, I'd see the humour in it. I'd think it's a pretty obvious target, but hey, I'd see the joke.

Shame on you, cartoonist. Thou shalt be funnier next time. Try reading back issues of Punch.
Two or three are somehow funny.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-12-2006, 06:34 PM
  2. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-16-2006, 02:29 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 02-19-2006, 11:55 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-18-2006, 02:20 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-05-2006, 08:41 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!