Speaking of orchestrated demonstrations and the like (see next entry down), did anyone get that impression of the demonstrations against the Danish cartoons that were shown on the TV last night?
I was planning a long post on the subject, but Safiyyah and Farah have said pretty much what I wanted to say. I have to say I've not received any text messages encouraging me to boycott Danish goods or send emails to the Danish government or the newspaper involved, but Farah reports that she's been inundated with them, one of them claiming that the cartoonist has been killed and the Danish government is keeping it quiet. (More: Umar Lee, Svend White, Izzy Mo, UZ, Harry's Place.)
I did get a couple of emails from one brother through a source never before associated with letter-writing campaigns or action alerts. The brother told me that he had emailed the Danish foreign affairs minister telling him that he would not buy any Danish products until the newspaper apologised. I tried hard to think of any Danish products I consumed (the best known of their products is Danish bacon!), and came to the conclusion that my boycott of their products would make no difference to them whatsoever. So I didn't join in.
The gulf between the realities of the Muslim world and this country's is shown by people thinking that polticians can be pressured into leaning on newspapers. Freedom of speech is considered sacred in most western countries although there are obvious exceptions and qualifications which differ from country to country (criminal libel, Holocaust denial, insulting foreign heads of state), but in this country at least, free speech is absolute other than where it threatens people or incites violence. (There is an important exception: the Treason Felony Act, criminalising the suggestion of abolishing the monarchy, which was passed during a time of revolution in Europe, but it has not been invoked against open calls for abolition in recent times.) Don't they know that their campaigning did not succeed in getting The Satanic Verses banned? It is still in print and on sale more than a decade later. And I had huge difficulty explaining to a Bosnian visitor why we could not demand that a book which insulted our religion and our Prophet (sall' Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam) be banned.
And what reaction did these people show when Muslims were actually being massacred in India in 2002? There was one well-known case, although I don't imagine that it was unique, of Muslims (visitors from the UK in this case) being dragged from their cars and murdered in Gujarat, to say nothing of the organised "rioting" and murder which went on in the same state. I never got any messages telling me not to buy Indian goods until the murderers were brought to justice. I don't know of any boycott of French goods in response to their discriminatory policies against Muslim women in the health and education systems. Why on earth are people talking about punishing all Danish companies for the actions of one newspaper? To say nothing of the workers in the factories making their goods under licence in the Middle East, who would no doubt be the biggest losers in this story.
Assalaamu alaikum,
I'm all for the boycott. If they have the freedom to print what they want, then I certainly have the freedom to buy Saudi butter instead of Danish butter.
And who can deny that the publication in French, German, Spanish and Italian newspapers is meant to give Muslims "the finger"?
Well I suppose you could boycott Danish goods but that would be a such a hizbi thing to do. YOu have to understand the kind of publicity seeking shceme this was. Muslims continue to fall for the bait. Shameless. Muslims need to ignore and get on with being the believers that they profess to be.
Yes Muslims are being given the finger but so what. If printing offensive cartoons is all that they can do you can see that this isnt much of a fight.
I agree 100% Ann. If its freedumb of speech to insult, terrorize and degrade others, the boycott is just a logical response. Islamophobia is out of control in Europe...and this boycott is healthy reminder to these Euro-nazis and we can take our business elsewhere.
Never underestimate the power of the pocketbook.
Two very quick points.
By his own admission, the editor commisioned the cartoons because he wanted to see 'how far they could go' in terms of Islam and Muslims. Therefore, they were hoping for a reaction because it would provide further justification for the long-standing argument that Islam cannot co-exist with Enlightenment values such as freedom of speech and, I suppose, freedom of the press. By reacting in the fashion they did, Muslims essentially proved that point (as far as those who hold that view are concerned) and this will be remembered long after the apologies of the editor are forgotten. As an aside, the resulting controversy has ensured the cartoons will be aired in other newspapers and magazines (as has already happened) and the cartoonists will become, like Salman Rushdie, 'martyrs' for freedom of expression. I think any discussion of the issue needs to weigh all this up carefully.
Secondly, there is an issue of 'collective punishment'. The editor of a privately owned publication in a free-market economy published something that one section of their ostensible market found deeply offensive and vile. Is it fair or productive for Muslims to then impose economic sanctions against companies that had no part in that act, and does this form of 'collective punishment' set a precedent that, if applied to our own societies, we would consider unjust. For example, would we accept it if the population of the UK mobilised against Bangladesh, withdrawing diplomatic representation and boycotting any product with a connection to Bangladesh, in order to punish a Bengali newspaper for criticising Christianity in a particularly aggressive or offensive way? Or, to use a more realistic example, would we support the West or people of the West imposing informal or formal economic sanctions on a Muslim country in order to punish the leadership of that country?
Assalaamu alaikum,
Bikhair, you use that term "hizbi" a lot, to describe various things, and I really have no idea what you're talking about. So I guess to not be "hezbi", I should go out of my way to buy Danish products, leaving the Saudi and Kuwait products on the shelves, to make sure that the Daish companies are rewarded?
Good points Amir. One thing though is that the Holocaust is not a subject open to debate or discussion in Europe. This clearly means that they dont have absolute free of speech. Its really come to a point where these sort of vicious attacks are intolerable. The boycott was a LAST resort after all other attempts to come to a respectable solution failed. Its not like the Danes do much business with the Muslim world anyway.
Bikhair,
Islam doesn't teach us to turn the other cheek when someone offends you. I don't necessarily agree with the methods used to answer these jibes at the religon. However i don't think we should roll over like a good little doggy.
*Well I suppose you could boycott Danish goods but that would be a such a hizbi thing to do.*
Wahhabism is our enemies Trojan Horse, all they are ever interested in is fighting fellow Muslims so they can get the world rid of "bid'a" and "hizbis" and everything that is a non-Wahhabi practice basically.
Does anyone doubt that if Shi'ites had been behind the cartoon story (they wouldn't be of course but just supposing they were)that Bikhair and her fellow Wahabbis would be rattling their Saudi sabres?
"this boycott is healthy reminder to these Euro-nazis and we can take our business elsewhere"
Any chance of the loopier muslims taking their persons elsewhere, do you think?
If you don't like the cartoons, don't buy the paper.
These reports of death threats and the like are way over the top from what were fairly mild satarical cartoons.
I dont think we could buy the papers even if we wanted too.
I dont consider them to be "fairly mild satircal cartoons." Why are they complaining about death threats if they go out of their way to insult 1.6 billion Muslims? Common sense apparently is not very common.
"If you don't like the cartoons, don't buy the paper.
These reports of death threats and the like are way over the top from what were fairly mild satarical cartoons."
i agree with that but remember though that Sikhs also sent death threats in reaction to that play they found offensive even though it wasn't actually degrading the religion.
Also it should be remembered that Muslims are vast in number so anything that upsets them is likely to be heard louder than in other religions.
*I dont think we could buy the papers even if we wanted too. I dont consider them to be "fairly mild satircal cartoons." Why are they complaining about death threats if they go out of their way to insult 1.6 billion Muslims? Common sense apparently is not very common.*
I can see why a Muslim would take issue with the cartoons, but Republican might also find a cartoon that potrays George Bush as a moronic buffon as offensive "hate speech".
Bottom line, its ink and paper. The Danish paper did this to get a rise out of Muslims, and some Muslims played right into their hands.
For the record I strongly disagree with the speech policies of European nations in general (i.e. putting idiot holocaust deniers in prison, criminilazing "hate speech"). It does nothing except make the people who purport those views outlaws and therefore more attractive in the eyes of many. They can and should be refuted in the public square, not jailed.
It is very sad to see the disrespect shown by certain of the media towards Islam. I am Christian, and I also feel personally offended by the disrespect. It is terrible that such people cannot have shame for their attempts to destroy devout behavior and efforts to remain pure in faith.
I didnt know that Bush was the founder of a major world religion.
Ann,
Wa alaikum salam wa rahmatullah...
"Bikhair, you use that term "hizbi" a lot, to describe various things, and I really have no idea what you're talking about..."
You should always support a Muslim over a kufar but not because of this. While you have the oppurtunity to do this, remain patient and have firm reliance upon Allah (azawajal) during these times which seems very difficult for some Muslims and earn all the barakat you can. That is something a hizbi wouldnt say or do.
Jimbojones,
"Islam doesn't teach us to turn the other cheek when someone offends you."
For these kufar who have no sense of honor and emaan to do nothing is the biggest blow.
Saggal,
Honestly it really hurts my feelings when a sister says something insulting to me or takes what I say out of its proper frame.
Bidah and kufr are bad things from the religion and Muslims need to start purifying themselves before we start talking about how the kufar need to understand us. We dont even get our own religion or the Prophets Sunnah. Why should they come first?
...Any chance of the loopier muslims taking their persons elsewhere, do you think?...
Not a chance, why dont you crawl back into your molehill?
*I didnt know that Bush was the founder of a major world religion*
No, but Moses, Jesus, Buddhist, et al. have not been free from cartoon satires in the last 200 years or so.
These cartoons remind of the anti-clerical ones in France from the late 1800s.
Assalaamu alaikum,
But really, Bikhair, can you please define what you mean by that term "hizbi", since you use it so often?
By the way, there's an article in the Independent, Mohamed: the messenger of Allah that gives a pretty good explanation for anyone who actually wants to understand why Muslims are so offended by these cartoons.
"Not a chance, why dont you crawl back into your molehill?"
We were hoping you'd crawl out of it actually.
A quick question.
Are You going to boycott german, frensh, italian, schwizz and spanish goods now?
Regards
Erik - Denmark
Ann,
When I say hizbi I am those people who really care about one or two issues and not really antyhing about the Quran or the Sunnah. Yeah, they will use it as a back drop but why should non-Palestianians Muslims, for example, have so much concern for Palestinians and Palestine when it is very clear that this isnt about making Palestine Darul Islam for Muslims to make hijrah and live in a Muslim country to follow their religion. This is about group, or a hizb, who want something for themselves.
Oh, and I though "hizbi" meant "member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, or other person obsessed with re-establishing Khilafah"...
*Are You going to boycott german, frensh, italian, schwizz and spanish goods now?*
No. We will continue to boycott everything Danish until that shitty little racist country is brought down to its knees.
Everytime another tarty little rug reprints the cartoons "to show solidarity with Denmark" more Danish goods will be boycotted until your tiny good for nothing country begs Muslims harder and louder to call off the boycott.
Hi Satin
I know, I know, it is not easy to give up or burn your BMW. Or any of those things from the western countries for that matter. Well you don’t eat that much butter anyway, too much cholesterol. And I guess you are too old to play with Lego.
My country might be small, but racist?
Well it would be too bad if we went bankrupt. For us yes, but I was thinking about all the countries that we give foreign aid - how much is it this year - let’s see...
Hmmm, Palestine 10 million dollars, Africa 553 million dollars, Asia 300 million dollars, Latin America 87 million dollars.
Then the organisation donations
UN 332 million dollars, The International Development Bank 50 million dollars, EU organisations 63 million dollars,
Otherwise donated 171 million dollars.
That gives - 1.458 million dollars.
Or around one dollar for every Muslim in the world. Not bad for a "shitty little racist country ".
Racist - no I don’t think so.
Too bad, those countries receiving the donations are going to miss them I guess.
By the way, are you unable to distinguish between what an independt newspaper does and what a country does?
The newspaper printed the drawings, not the country.
The government has no jurisdiction over the newspaper, the newspaper is independent and free.
The PM cannot dictate the newspaper anything.
Why do you want to punish an entire country for what an individual newspaper does?
If you have a problem with the newspaper drag it into court, or you could boycott it. It is up to you. That is how our system works.
Regards
Erik
Erik,
No matter how hard you try, these radicals are not going to understand you. Save your energy for something else.
Usually, protests and boycotts are accompanied by some clear objective. Given that the newspaper has already apologised, and the French editor has been sacked, what outcome to the advocates of the boycott hope to achieve?
Judging by what some Muslims have been saying in the media about their expectation that the Danish governments control the editorial content of privately-owned newspapers, perhaps the nationalisation of the Danish media might meet their demands?
I being athesist my slef, find these cartoons appalling, and the Danes themselves being hypocritical pigs, "freedom of speech?" please its far from it if anyone started drawing satirical pictures of the suffering in the haulocast then its seen as racist, offensive and abusive BUT depicting the muslims prohphet is seen as brave act of freedom of speech.
If anyone disrespected my reliogous prophets in this way I waould aslo be irate.
Now I never intend on buying any danish products, I congratulate the muslims for the boycott.Quite frankly if their doing such openly abusive and mockery of islam then I wouldnt be suprised if something similar to September 11 happens all over again.
Hi Amir,
Nationalization of the press might be interesting for a country where the government has an interest in restricting what is being printed in the newspapers.
We have seen that in the past, Nazi Germany had complete control of the press; it was not allowed to criticise or in any other way question the Nazi party. The papers told slander and gave false information about different parts of the population. They told lies about communists, homosexuals, Jews, Muslims and other groups.
A controlled press could never bring information about anything that wasn’t in the interest of the government. It would not be in the interest of the citizens. They would not have trust in what was printed in the newspapers.
Without a free press in America there wouldn’t have been a Watergate scandal, we would never have known about the horrors in the Abu Ghraib prison.
The free press is the watchdog of our democracy, keeping the elected government from doing anything that is against the interest of the people.
I am not very good at explaining this, it would be better if you had a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press
I am not saying it was right for the Jyllands Posten to bring the drawings of Mohammed, what I am saying is that it was within their right.
I often hear the question about “Why is it not allowed to publish a denial of the holocaust?”. In fact is allowed. If you could find a newspaper that was willing to publish such an article, they could. It is within their right in this country.
But the newspaper would be dragged into court, as the holocaust in fact took place. It is not allowed to publish such an article in Austria or Germany (for obvious reasons), and I am sure that is not allowed in Poland. The largest number of victims in the holocaust was Polish citizens. 6 million people from Poland of whom 3 million weren’t Jewish.
Have a look at http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/
The court is where we settle disputes with the press. Freedom of speech is not without responsibility. We have laws against slander. One of our politicians was sentenced 20 days in jail for slander against Muslims.
We are not without moral.
I have a question for you:
In a legend the Danish flag was given by God to the Danes. It is a red cloth upon which the Christian holy cross is embedded. So when people burn the Danish flag, they are in fact burning the Christian holy cross.
Should we hold the entire Muslim world responsible for burning the cross? Would it be fair to demand an apology for this act which is done by some individuals?
Should we stop the aid and support for a Palestinian state because of what they do?
I think not. What individuals do is not a reflection of what the whole population thinks. It is not a mirror image of the government attitude.
We have to look beyond what is happening right now, there is a future and we all have to live together.
I am sorry so many were hurt by the drawings; I know they were not targeted as an assault at Muslims, they were published in Danish in a Danish news paper in a small country where only 10% of the population (5 million) read it. It was never meant for a wider audience.
With kind regards
Erik Wiemann
"In a legend the Danish flag was given by God to the Danes. It is a red cloth upon which the Christian holy cross is embedded. So when people burn the Danish flag, they are in fact burning the Christian holy cross."
Firstly from what I've heard most Danes are atheists so I doubt they'd see it in those terms.
Secondly people are acting as if this is just muslims being unable to take criticism. There are negative articles and books written about Islam all the time. Has Nick Griffen been killed for the things he said?
People have compared these cartoons to cartoons demonizing Ariel Sharon (the implication being that claiming individual jews are capable of doing bad things is anti-semitic) but that is a completely invalid comparison. There have been no muslim demonstrations against media criticism of Iran or the Taliban or Saddam Hussein (whereas there have been "jewish" demonstrations against perceived demonisation of Israel).
This is a very specific thing. Although I don't condone the protests against the cartoons in the west I would ask that this event is presented in the correct perspective.
Well Julie,
It comes as you wish for it.
They burned down several scandinavian embasseys in Damaskus.
What is your next wish?
Hi Shamil,
You are wrong, most Danes are not atheists. They believe in god, they might not be active in the church, but that does not imply they are atheists.
You are neglecting the fact that Muslims are burning the cross. You try to explain it by saying Danes are not Christians. The cross has a great symbol value to a lot of people.
There was a demand to the newspaper to apologise, they have done that. Our PM has done what he can to explain the situation he is in. He has gone as far as he can.
What more can be asked? It is as if nothing is enough!
Regards.
Erik
Erik - you make some excellent points. Julie, you are morally bankrupt - a few cartoons deserves slaughter of 3000 people as on September 11? You call yourself an atheist, but your comments are those of the worst kind of Muslim fanatic.
Dear Erik,
When we say "free" press, what exactly do we mean? Do we mean a body of journalist operating under a parallel/independent constitution to the state constitution. Of course not.
The independence of the press in reality goes only as far as the legislative arm of the government is prepared to cooperate with it. And the cooperation or lack thereof comes in terms of legal parameters that have been set by the government.
So, this is another abuse of words. "Free press".
There's however no doubt, that the press in western countries are relatively freer that in other countries. But I do NOT see how this is necessarily a good/bad thing.
It depends on what you are trying to achieve with your press and your lives.
You have mentioned a few:
To protect democracy - The free press is the watchdog of our democracy, keeping the elected government from doing anything that is against the interest of the people
There is a contradition here tho: This is because the elected government is responsible for setting the legal limits for the press - how does that then ensure "free speech", except to the degree that it does not seek to upset the majority elected government. So, minority speech is automatically conditioned by this fact, they can only express views that are constrained within the majority whim.
It is exactly the same thing a dictator would do in order to ensure that there is no democracy or opposition. But in this case the majority views are constrained by the minority whim.
Think about this carefully!
Both cases are cases of oppression. And, don't be surprised if I say that there is no harm in that, so long as people don't make it to be something fanciful and overly civil. i.e. it is hypocritical to say there is free speech where there is none.
It is either the majority oppressing the minority or vice-versa, and this is all based on whim - not on any impartial reference/principle such as religious teachings, traditional ethics or even cultural etiquettes.
If you agree with my points :), you can see that morality does not surface in this system. What we have here are (social) conventions. And these conventions are changing by time, i.e by the views of majority government (a few good men!). They call the final shots on morality regardless of what your personal/universal/tradition moral system entails.
In spite of this, there is still a way forward: These few good men ought to be educated on how to respect other cultures and other people without thinking that they are making concessions or doing someone a favour. They ought to reflect this respect in their implementation of "free speech", or "freedom". This is the real freedom, freedom from ugly manners, not insulting other people because you are bored, or because you have ridiculed "similar" people in the past and it has become normal. This is not good for social relations, and eventually won't be good for "democracy".
If the law takes care of these basic etiquettes - at least for a century or so (because people no longer have the upbringing to realise them), it will go a long way to revitalise our decrept humanity with the much needed mutual respect.
On the other hand muslims need to go back and study their religion. Ignorance of Islam is very rife amongst muslims; there is a lot of zeal but little understanding.
The latter point about muslims is probably more important that the former.
And as always, Allah is the Most Wise. He knows best.
"You are wrong, most Danes are not atheists. They believe in god, they might not be active in the church, but that does not imply they are atheists."
Well all the commentary from Danes recently has indicated that.
It's not my fault if they don't know anything about their country.
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
I’m sorry I but don’t know Your name.
Let me first tell you that you have my respect. And I honour your views.
I am no scholar as I have the feeling you are. But I will try my best to answer.
I beg to differ about the free press. The way I see it, moral and decency is not a constant factor. It changes with time, social development and accumulated knowledge. The laws ‘restricting’ the free press are set by the government. The government changes because people change. Different views and different opinions in different times.
The laws are executed by the courts of which the government has no jurisdiction. They set the standards of how the rulings are in different cases. They also change as people change. The court can reject a law made by the government, if the law is not within what the court sees as the interest of the people. The court cannot make up any law by them selves. It is a dynamic structure.
Let me give you an example of how moral changes in my society.
Once it was normal to call a black person a Negro and nobody found that offensive, that has changed as our society and people changed and realised it was indecent to black people. It hurt people and so the moral changed. Everybody thinks it offensive to use a term like that. So nobody does. That change is also reflected back in to the government because it is elected by the people.
There are laws that restrict the freedom of speech. They are compromised by slander, race discrimination, military information and child porn.
I agree, it can be hard for a minority to be heard. I am not saying the way it works is perfect. There are flaws and errors. I think the problem for a minority might be that they are not always taken seriously. That might be on their own behalf or it might be ignorance by the rest. I don’t know.
I know one thing though. The people here are decent, and if something is unjust they do something about it. We respect other cultures; we have changed our society to accommodate our new citizens. A lot has been done within the social structures, kindergartens, schools and other social areas to make room for people with other religions and customs.
But we also expect our new citizens to respect our culture. It is hard for somebody who comes from a country far away to get used to the Danish culture and people. There will always be some friction, emotions will erupt and some yelling being done. It is often there moral and codes of decency changes.
Some people are unwilling to accept the new codes, so has it always been and so will it always be.
With kind regards
Erik Wiemann
Dear mr Shamil.
All the commentary from Muslims indicate they want to kill me. I suspect it does not reflect the truth?
No comment on the "burning the cross" thing?
Regards
Erik
Dear Erik,
You mentioned that some people are unwilling to accept new codes...
Islam actually teaches that we should respect the law and customs of the country we live in...i.e. the country that guarantees our security and freedom of worship.
Only if the laws/customs are such that it is not possible for a muslim to practise his/her religion (literally to express his/her core identity) then one should move to another place that allows one to express oneself. No violence or terrorist attack is condoned in Islam, especially when living under a non-islamic government. At least no one forced them to go there.
You mentioned changing morals. I respect it as your view. However, this idea is not tenable in Islam as you probably know:
We believe that moral attitudes provide nourishment for our (immortal) souls, hence morality has to be consistent and refereable to God (through Prophets). Changing morals will mean changing nourishment for the soul; according to our beliefs, this cannot be possible - because the soul is primordially close to God(Who is Unchanging).
So, when moral codes change, people's soul change accordingly, and this will have eternal consequences. Sorry, for getting too deep into religious points, but that is the whole point for a muslim, and this is the sensitivity that needs to be appreciated. We don't have to agree here. I am only presenting here some information to you about muslim beliefs, so that you understand some of the background to the muslim point of views.
So you can begin to see from a muslim or simply a religionist standpoint how ridiculing the Prophets (peace be upon them all), particularly the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless and give him peace) who came to teach mankind how to nourish their souls is a big issue. And "big" here is an understatement.
But, yes I also appreciate that the people who went around printing these cartoons are ignorant of muslim point of views. For this reason the government of a country should be responsible in managing the ignorance of its citizens by qualifying to them what their freedom of action entails (in terms of legistlation or education). And I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Otherwise the government is complicit in the offense caused where someone would cite free speech for ridiculing other people's beliefs.
In general, the muslim beliefs are quite different to the dynamic values you have described. In terms of its moral code, it is stagnant and unreformable, anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. And this is unspeakable difference between a religious world view and the secular world view.
However there is bridge than can be built, which is a bridge of mercy and forebearance. This is the bridge that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) came to build. At the same time, we must not be naive that some people would have to be dumped in the sea, i.e those who would seek to demolish this bridge. Also at the same time, the muslims are only interesting in building this bridge so that whoever wishes may cross over from the other side, and not from their side:)
No comment on the "burning the cross" thing?
Dear Erik,
I believe I can answer here from Shamil.
It is absolutely wrong for any muslim to go around burning flags or crosses of other religions. Our freedom of action does not go that far. We respect the religion of other people.
"No comment on the "burning the cross" thing?"
While I don't approve of protesting as a whole I think it's an irrelevant comparison.
If people burned the Turkish flag (which has the cresent moon) muslims wouldn't care. In many western countries people burn the flags of their own countries. To pretend that they have some religious value to people is dishonest I think.
"All the commentary from Muslims indicate they want to kill me. I suspect it does not reflect the truth?"
Well I can't really comment on that because it's clearly not a serious remark. If you want to have a serious discourse I'd try to drop the exaggertion and paranoia. That goes for everyone.
Ok lets be serious.
They attack churches in Lybia..
Peace Shamil, I am sorry about that last post. I just heard they burned down our council in Lybia.
And if you ask a Danish priest I think he will tell you that it is the cross.
My country is under attack. I see angry people in the television every day. I see people wanting to kill my countrymen. I see people burning my flag. I see people burning my embassies. I hear death threats against my people. I hear terrorists claiming Copenhagen as the next target.
Keeping calm is not always easy.
I have no intention of starting a quarrel with anyone. I have no intention of hurting anybody’s feelings.
I think it is best I leave this blog, It has been an experience to be here.
To all who reads this.
God made man in his image, therefore there is a piece of god in everyone. I have faith in mankind, I have faith in the good in mankind, I have faith in willingness of mankind to come at peace.’
I have faith in You.
May the light always shine upon your path.
My best wishes for our future and the best of regards.
Erik Wiemann
Denmark
Assalaamu alaikum,
I just wanted to make a couple of points.
It's said that the Danish newspaper has apologized, but what I saw was a sort of, "Sorry if you got yourselves all offended, but we're not sorry that we printed the cartoons".
I saw the "culture" Editor, Fleming (or Flemming) Rose on BBC's Hardtalk and on a fairly long interview on CNN International. He was not at all apologetic, and when asked if he was happy that other European papers were also publishing the cartoons, he said, "I'm not dissatisfied". When asked if he had learned anything, or whether he would make a different decision if he had the chance again, he said he couldn't answer a hypothetical question but his comments then made clear that he would do it again.
Also, I'd like to know more about the children's book that started all the controversy. It's been portrayed as a nice, educational book by an author who wanted Danish children to learn about Muslims. But then I saw pictures from the book, and they seemed to be sort of a checklist of the negative points used by Islam-bashers and/or Orientalists to demonize the Prophet (peace be upon him). Then I saw some blogs that said the author wrote the book after his children had been intimidated by Muslim children, and it was definitely a negative portrayal, which puts things in a different light.
"Sorry if you got yourselves all offended, but we're not sorry that we printed the cartoons".
Why not? It's true. Even if people were to sound sorry they printed the cartoons it would still be insincere. The nearest most nonmuslims come to regretting the publication of the cartoons is because it was a breach of good manners or because it is a trivial case on which to fight over an important principle. The best that muslims can hope for in future is that the superior western culture will expect its citizens not to do things which will get the inferior muslims needlessly worked up.
Thersites, if that's what they want to say, fine, but my point is that it shouldn't be said that "the newspaper has apologized".
In the name of freedom of expression no one can do anything and everything. I have the freedom to stretch my hands as much as I can. This is my freedom. But if my stretching of hand is going to hurt the nose of someone who is standing closeby then the freedom to stretch the hands can not be excercised.
We talk about ethics but are we really ethical.I have never come across any incidence when muslims have used abusive language for the holy person of other religion.But if anyone will search on net, there will be tons of abusive material against prohet Mohammad.Why it is happening and who is patronising it must be looked into by the saner people of all faith across the globe.
For muslims Prophet Mohammad is next to Allah and their reaction was not unexpected.It would have been best if they had not turned violent.By turning violent at places they have weakened the cause of their protest.
The entire focus of media has shifted from discussing a wrong act of teasing muslims to the violent protests by muslims
Aftab,
Well said.
The "freedom" they are talking about is rooted in ignorance. It is a word which most people, including the so-called political leaders have grown up with but have really never thought about in any critical way. This incidence, inshallah, should help them do some thinking.
It is our duty as muslims to enlighten them as to what true freedom means; freedom from ugly and capricious trait - not freedom to act purposelessly like an imbecile.
Unfortunately however, the muslim protests has gone out of proportion to reveal even a deeper ignorance. I find this a shame. Big shame.
Consider the treaty of Udaibiya where the Quraysh asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) to remove "...rasulullah" from his name, which he did unhesitantly (because he knew they didn't believe that he was the rasulullah) We should think about this carefully.
Now, there are people dieing in Afghanistan and else where from protests. This is quite ridiculous. Protesters in Beirut smashing cars and attacking churches. There's something wrong, unless these stories are fake.
Protests, boycotts, etc are all fine and I think the boycotts should continue indefinitely until their prime minister concedes that it is not within human decency to insult other people. You would have thought a leader of a country would know this. Never take anything for granted!
But what is the point of civil disturbances and violence in all of this.
"For muslims Prophet Mohammad is next to Allah"
That is a dodgy statement, no one is next to the Almighty and you can not equate anybody to Allah.
Hypocrisy abounds...For years now, Arab/Islamic newspapers blaspheme Jews, Christians, and almost every country in the West. Yet I see no violent protests, mass destruction and the murder of innocent people. Clerics preach hatred of Western cultures and encourage a terrorists jahid.
The West with its freedom of speech expects all countries and cultures to respect its right of openness, but fails to make the effort to understand and appreciate that not all peoples have reach that plateau. And for economic benefit, will even selectively forgo the principle of free speech take GOOGLE allowing China to censor its web access engine.
The issue here is dignity and human respect, we all have a right to express views and the right to disagree, protest, demonstrate, and boycott. But noone has the right to destroy property and to take human life, and harm the innoncent.
SALAM TO ALL MUSLIMS!
In ISLAM,ALLAH CONVEY HIS MESSAGE THROUGH BELOVED PROPHET MOHAMMAD(PBUH)TO ALL MUSLIMS "PROPHET MOHAMMAD(PBUH) MUST BE SUPERIOR AND U MUST LOVE AND RESPECT HIM MORE THEN UR FAMILY,PARENTS,CHILDREN........"
IN SHORT PROPHET MOHAMMAD(PBUH) IS OUR IDEAL,WE LOVED HIM TILL DEATH,so how can sumone imagine to disrespect HIM and muslims wuld only sit watching them to do dat.......those who did so must understand one's feelings.....freedom of speech doesnt meant to hurt sumone feelings,beliefs,...and if they supports their so called freedom of expression then y they r upset about muslim's reaction,its also our freedom of speech,to express our reaction.
and in end it helps us to unite on one plateform
thanks
ans yup i agree PROPHET MOHAMMAD IS NEXT TO ALLAH
KHUDA-HAFIZ
i want to see the photes of prophate
*They are cartoons, not photos; but you can find them on many, many internet sites. I'm not linking them here.*
WHAT HAPPENED IS REALY BAD AND THE VERY MISS USE WESTERN FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, BUT IT SHOULD BE CONDEMNED IN A VERY ORGANISED NOBEL AND CUNSTRUCTIVE WAY. THE EASTERN CITIZENS ARE SPOILING THERE OWN PROPERTY AND NOTHING ELSE.
Aslam-o-alykum al muslims
i'm all for boycott of dis idiotic stuff done by senseless danish.if they dont behave respectfully 2 islam religion then surely they r going 2 face eternal hell not only in hereafter but now onwards too.
But v muslim should raised our voice wid unity towards this senseless danish stuff.AFTER ALLAH OUR NEXT EVERYTHIN IS OUR PROPHET(PBUH) N IF ANY CLASSLESS GAAFILS(LIKE DANISH GROUP,WHO HAV PUBLISHED)DISRESPECT OUR PROPHET(PBUH)THEN SURELY EVERY TRUE MUSLIM'S ANGER WILL SPLASH OUT SO DEFINATELY MAKE DUA TAT ALLAH PUNISH THESE DANISH GROUP WITH HIS WRATH N PUT MAGGOTS IN THEIR BRAINS SO THEY FURTHER CANT THINK TO STEP WITH SUCH DIS RESPECTFUL MANNER TOWARDS HOLY N BEST RELIGION ISLAM...inshALAH AMEEN.