Mediale Bilder sind stark und sehr gefährlich. In den Protesten zu den dänischen Karikaturen hatte man sich nie die Frage gestellt, wer eigentlich die Randalierer sind. Vielmehr wurden durch geschickt (oder unbedacht) gewählte Zusammenhänge - sowoh…

You are right in some ways, that was a bad comparison on it was simplistic too. I take it back.

But this is my point in verbose (or should have been): You see, a muslim’s (physical/spiritual/eternal)identity is not determined by race, nationality, culture, etc as you probably know…but rather by certain beliefs and principles. Now, if these beliefs and principles would not be respected, effectively the muslim’s identity is not respected (since these beliefs are at the core of his/her identity). So, why hang around in a place where you are a persona non-grata…unless you are happy sacrificing parts of your identity in order to achieve some worthy results (whatever that would be). Please note tho that Islam is flexible and not as rigid as I am probably suggesting, there is prioritisation in principles, there are areas that can be “compromised”, but there are foundational areas that cannot. When you reach those core areas, a choice has to be made as to what you stand for, who you are, etc. This is what I meant by saying that he/she is not wanted in that place, or put differently he/she is not suppose to be in that place…. in the sense that your identity is not guaranteed under the law….because the law allows for trivialisation and ridicule of those core beliefs/principles that constitute your identity. True it may not be inciting to hatred or murder, but such ridicules and trivialisation still has some effect in the society. It is only a matter of time before it culminates in the likes of Jerry Springer’s portrayal of Jesus (peace be upon him), and ultimately mockery of Christianity. The outcome is evident. Religious values and its objectives are destroyed in the hearts of people.

Now, the idea of beliefs/principles being an indication of your identity is a powerful departure from our western secular conception of identity which is based primarily on race, culture, geography, sexuality… only secondarily on beliefs, etc. This is something that will take time to mature in a secular democratic construction.

For muslims, identity based on “accidental” attributes such as race, nationality, etc, are recognised and respected, but are seen as short sightedness. A man’s beliefs afterall is the most important determinant of his intent and actions. And what is a man worth if not his actions and intentions.

At the same time, this is not to demand of someone else to believe as we believe. The Koran says “Let there be no complusion in deen {i.e. way of life, religion}. Truth is clear from falsehood” Even in categories of thought. Man is free to do whatever he wants, even to self-destruct.

Coming back to earth…:), in some sense the fact that muslims can keep their identity in a majority non-muslim country is indeed a gesture of goodwill from that country. The first muslims to live in a Christian country were the companions of Muhammad (peace be upon him) himself. They lived in Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) under King Negus whom the Prophet himself (peace be upon him) described as a just king. They were good citizens and they did not cause him one problem, history records Negus saying they may practise their religion free of persecution even tho he knew that their beliefs were contrary to his beliefs.

Interestingly, the Koran talks incessantly about contracts/pacts. O you who believe, honour your pacts, honour your contract, honour your vows, etc. The Koran talks a lot about this, right from the first chapter - as if God is trying to telling you that - don’t enter into an arrangment where you will have to compromise yourself. Becareful what you sign your name too. So, if muslims have settled down in a majority non-muslim country, they have entered into an agreement to abide by the laws of that country, and they have to honour that agreement.

Now, what happens where there is a conflict between their “identity” and the mainstream identities favoured within the law of that country. The muslim will have to make a choice of either changing his identity (to fit in)…and not cause trouble (to honour his word/contract), or go somewhere else. And in between these two extremes, there are ofcourse a lot that can be done, such as lobbying, protests, boycotts, reaching out, negotiation, education, etc.

In any case, the muslim person has to be straight.

The Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

“Whoever deceives is not one us.”

No leading of double lives or anything of that sort, you either live as a muslim or as something less .

Sorry I waffled away a bit. The salient point here is that, the muslim identity has to be protected, otherwise is marginalisation. And that is not a problem in itself, so far as we say that we have a marginalist society as opposed to the “free” society we sometimes pretend that we have. This is not going to be solved by talking, there are lots fatal fallacies here which is only resolved by following The Prophets.

I think yours is a very good post, most of which hopefully most reasonable people would agree with. And as someone who is not a Muslim the story which you tell is very interesting.

One thing, however:

That means they don’t want you here! just as the nazis didn’t want the Jews in Germany.

I find this pretty offensive. Not having a law which bans depiction of the Prophet Mohammed does not mean we don’t want Muslims in our country. It just means we have different laws and different religious and cultural traditions. Please do not insult my country by such a comparison.

Cage Prisoners and Stop Political Terror, the people behind most of the recent demonstrations, make no reference to this demo or the issue behind it on their websites.

No, but the Al Ghurabaa did. That problably means something.

Yusuf says: That’s my point. Al-Ghurabaa’ (who are assumed to be the protesters on Friday afternoon) have a history of crashing SPT’s demonstrations; they actually used to call SPT “close to becoming munafiqeen” (hypocrites) on their site. So they despise SPT and don’t care if they are lumped in with the Ghurabaa as extremists.

As I said earlier, the Cartoon row/controversy/rage/riot/jihad or whatever you want to call it, seems to have world divided in two. One camp the white knights of freedom of speech and on the other side the martyrs of islam. See for example the edit…

A round-up of the news and commentary surrounding the Muhammed Cartoons controversy - good, bad and indifferent….

what do you and other people think of the idea of setting up an internet network of people who would be willing to counter-demonstrate if this kind of thing happens again?

Perhaps you think these people are just idiots and not worth bothering with - but they are really damaging the image of your religion. They make non-Muslims feel that Islam is about hating people who are different.

If we could organise a small group of both Muslims and non-Muslims demonstrating peacefully showing that the incitement of hatred and violence in this manner is completely unacceptable then we could dent that impression.

If we don’t, then the image of Islam that most of the non-Muslim British population get will be dominated by images of nutters like the guy who dressed up as a suicide bomber to go to the protest.

Please let me know your thoughts. It is so important not to let barbarism win.