« EUROPARLIAMENT TAKES A STAND ON HOMOPHOBIA --but will Brussels give it teeth? | Main | CAMEROUN: A PRESS WITCH-HUNT TARGETS LISTS OF 'HOMOSEXUALS' »

February 02, 2006

The cartoons that are causing riots in the Middle East: ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CARICATURE GOD

Cartoon_mohammed Cartoons of the Muslim propher Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper have caused riots in the Middle East (the cartoon is at left). Last autumn, the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten published a dozen irreverent cartoons of Mohammed, as "a test of whether fear of Islamic retribution has begun to limit freedom of expression in Denmark." The cartoons were reprinted a few days later by a Norweigian daily.

The Danish paper received death threats, and hired security guards to protect it and Cartoon_mohammed_being_drawn its journalists and cartoonists. But it wasn't until this past week that protests initiated by the extreme Islamist fundamentalist group the Muslim Brotherhood caused angry armed rioting and large street demonstrations in a number of Middle Eastern countries, including Palestine; accompanied by calls for boycotts of Danish and Norweigian products; several Arab countries recalled their ambassadors from Denmark and issued protests. (At left, another of the offending cartoons published by the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten.)

In response,  a number of leading European dailies published the cartoons in solidarity with the threatened newspaperk. Die Welt, Berliner Zeitung, La Stampa, El Mundo, NRC Handelsblad, Corriere della Sera and France Soir were among various European media who decided to publish the pictures, or create their own cartoons of Mohammed. The editor of France Soir, a once-huge Parisian daily tabloid now struggling with declining readership, published the cartoons -- saying he did so to show that "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society. Under the headline "Yes, we have the right to caricature God", France Soir ran a front page cartoon of Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim and Christian gods floating on a cloud. It shows the Christian deity saying: "Don't complain, Muhammad, we've all been caricatured here." After which, the editor was fired by the publisher.

Yesterday, two armed groups, the Popular Resistance Committee and Al-Aqsa Cartoon_mohammed_fuchsel Martyrs Brigades, threatened to harm Danes, French and Norwegians in the Palestinian territories after newspapers in France and Norway opted to reprint the Danish cartoons (ahere's another of them, with a translation of the caption. The Danish cartoonist who drew this one, Fuchsel, has announced he's donating the money he made from it to Pakistani-Kashmiri earthquake relief.) "Every Norwegian, Dane and Frenchman in our country is a target," said the Popular Resistance Committee and the radical Al-Aqsa brigades. If the three countries in question don't shut down their offices and consulates in the Palestinian territories, "we won't hesitate to destroy them." On Thursday, some 20 armed Palestinians scaled the walls of the European Union offices in Palestine and declared the offices "closed until further notice." (The EU is the major provider of economic aid to the Palestinian Authority.)

Now, "a Jordanian gossip tabloid has just defiantly published three of the cartoons. that have triggered outrage in the Arab and Muslim world," reports Deutsche Welle today. "'Muslims of the world, be reasonable,' said the editor-in-chief of the weekly independent newspaper Al-Shihan in an editorial alongside the cartoons, including the one showing the Muslim religion's founder wearing a bomb-shaped turban. 'What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?' wrote Jihad Momani.He told the Agence France Presse he decided to publish the offending cartoons 'so people know what they are protesting about... People are attacking drawings that they have not even seen.'"

Although Muslim doctrine forbids paintings showing the human image, this has not always been universally observed in Islamic countries. There was, for example, an important tradition of Shi'ite art dating back many centuries depicting human beings -- examples can be seen today in mosques and public buildings in Isfahan, for instance. And while depicting Mohammed's face is supposed to be "blasphemy," his face has frequently been represented in Islamic countries. with a veil to hide certain of his features. Moreover, a Muslim journalist of my acquaintance says that in his travels he has collected "pious" images and post-cards of Mohammed as a child, an adolescent, and as an adult in various Islamic countries, including Pakistan, Iran, and and the Arab Emirates. That there have been visual depictions of Mohammed throughout Islamic history can be confirmed by a visit to the enlightening Mohammed Image Archive.

It is to be noted that the public protests and street demonstrations are hardly universal in the Islamic world. There have been none to speak of in the country with the world's largest Islamic population, Indonesia. Nor have their been in Turkey, inheritor of the Caliphate empire (the Caliphate was abolished by the Turkish dictator Kemal Attaturk in 1924). No, the large and violent protests have largely been confined to Libya and the Arabic countries of the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Palestine) -- and these are all countries which have been repeatedly criticized in the West for purveying anti-Semitic charicatures and defamations, like that infamous forgery and hoax, the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion."  There is, therefore, not a little payback and hypocrisy in these protests.

What's really going on here is an attempt to extend to the West the kind of theocratic censorship Jesus_armed_cartoon that Islamic fundamentalists enforce by intimidation or law in countries from Morocco and Algeria to Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. There is a long and rich tradition in Western countries of caricatures of religious figures and leaders, including Jesus himself (example at left). Of course, we are not exempt from attempts to censor cartoon images (for recent examples here in the U.S., see the website of the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund.) Most recently, as The American Thinker  usefully pointed out today, Washington Post cartoonist Tom Toles has been the target of a Pentagon attempt at censorship. Pope_cartoon_4

We need to continue to defend the right of irreverence if we are to be free people.  One should be able to make fun of Mohammed or the Pope or any other religious figure without having one's life threatened or being subject to theocratic censorship. And I, for one, whatever the Islamic fundamentalists say, will continue to eat Havarti cheese or play with my Lego toys (Danish products both) any time I like!

You can read a different, longer, and more recent version of the above on Open Democracy by clicking here.

P.S.  More fundamentalist censorship in the Islamic Republic of Iran: Reporters Without Borders yesterday condemned the imprisonment of Elham Afrotan and six other journalists employed by the provincial weekly Tamadone Hormozgan, who were arrested on January 29 for “insulting Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic” and who face heavy prison sentences if not the death penalty. To read about this theocratic censorship, click here.

Posted by Doug Ireland at 08:55 AM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/91667/4176638

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The cartoons that are causing riots in the Middle East: ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO CARICATURE GOD:

» ISLAM: Actions often betray the secrets from The Sheep's Crib
... of a man's worldview more brilliantly than his words; words are handled with more care than actions since the latter tend to be reflexive. [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 2, 2006 10:13:32 PM

» the cartoons behind the embassy-burnings in Syria from Against Being Right
Don't yesterday's burning of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus add further support to the thesis that it's feelings of powerlessness against violations of sovereignty and tradition in Islamic societies that are the real root of violent ex... [Read More]

Tracked on Feb 6, 2006 11:32:07 AM

» MUSIC: Reunion Dept: The Specials? How Special! from in 25 years to
vision, and you leave it at whatever point you leave it, we left it at 'Ghost Town', and that's where it should have been left," If only [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 8, 2006 9:34:03 AM

» "We Deny That We Are Harboring Terrorists" from Islamic leaders
Islamic leaders aims to allay Western fears that the country will become a new front in the War on Terror [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 12, 2006 7:42:20 AM

» U.S. Offers $5M for Reputed Cartel Chief from up to $5 million
offers up to $5 million for capture of reputed leader of Mexican drug trafficking cartel [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 13, 2006 9:58:53 PM

» Baby Boomers Look for a Revved-Up Retirement from ctive Retirees
ctive Retirees Head to Cities, College Campuses Post-Career [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 15, 2006 11:57:28 AM

» Sensitive Nose Linked to Easy Cough from Nose Linked to
Nose Linked to Easy Cough Category: Health News Created: 6/14/2006 Last Editorial Review: 6/14/2006 [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 16, 2006 2:16:35 PM

» Mia Farrow Takes Darfur Goodwill Trip from Mia Farrow, 61,
the conflicted country. Her son Ronan, 17, accompanied her as a youth spokesman. [Read More]

Tracked on Jun 18, 2006 11:03:39 AM

» Nowitzki Not Larger Than Life in Native Germany from headlines in
Bird is practically invisible in his native land, and not just because he's 4,000 miles away. There are no Dirk Nowitzki T-shirts [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 1, 2006 12:36:38 PM

» Expression Engine updates from are moments that
go all the way under the titles to fill up that area. Setting the height to 1 pixel did solve this. 404 page It's amazing [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 2, 2006 7:43:21 AM

» Itching for Answers to a Mystery Condition from them delusional,
doctors calling them delusional, a group suffering from nightmarish symptoms has pressured the CDC to look into their disease [Read More]

Tracked on Jul 31, 2006 8:07:55 PM

» "Gas can cut lung risk for early babies" from lung disease
2006). The broadly accurate report was based on reliable results of a well-conducted trial. [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 1, 2006 2:17:36 PM

» Operators, authorities call for restrictions to AMX entry from telcos and Puerto
telcos and Puerto Rico's local telecom regulator JRT are lobbying the US telecoms regulator FCC ... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 9, 2006 9:05:27 PM

» Spurs Sign Francisco Elson from to Spurs.com,
to Spurs.com, The San Antonio Spurs have announced that they have signed Francisco [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 15, 2006 12:22:05 AM

Comments

Correction 1:
Not ATATURK
MUSTAFA KEMAL ATATURK

Correction 2:
Which dictator is still in hearts after more than 69 years of his death?(1881-1938 Kasım 10)


Posted by: gülşah baydur | Nov 6, 2007 3:14:07 AM

.

Posted by: gülşah baydur | Nov 6, 2007 2:54:43 AM

Correction 1:

Not Attaturk, ATATURK

Correction 2:

Ataturk wasn't a dictator. He was a national hero. He lives in Turkish citizens' hearts. Which dictator is still in hearts after more than 50 years of his death? He is founder of the Laic Democratic Turkish Republic. He made war against Imperalism. You say dictator, because you lost. :D

We're just laughing to who says dictator to Ataturk.

And a picture to you!!!

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/2707/atam8tz.jpg

Your fathers, grandfathers were learnt to respect him. You'll learn too, if you read & search the truth...

Posted by: Can Serdar HASTÜRK | Mar 21, 2006 7:32:56 PM

what John Lacny said.

amazing Doug how in a world of suffering, human rights abuses and infringements on free speech your concerns always manage to dovetail neatly with racist American imperialism.

if you were writing about any other people in the same situation you would have examined the social and international context in which these cartoons arose and offended.

Like most establishment liberals, you are a racist, it's clear.

Posted by: crispy critter | Feb 15, 2006 11:37:09 PM

Of course one has the right to "caricature God" and to make fun of "prophets." But that is not what this is about. These cartoons were not caricatures of Mohammed. They were racist caricatures of Muslim PEOPLE published by an anti-immigrant newspaper, in a Europe that imports millions of immigrants to do its least pleasant jobs, herds them into wretched ghettoes, and generally treats them like shit. It is only incidentally about religion and really about race.

That reactionary Islamic groups have mobilized legitimate popular anger at European racism for their own opportunistic ends -- in their case, also playing on the "religious" facade -- is beside the point. If the Washington Times published a cartoon of a giant-lipped Sambo eating fried chicken and watermelon, I would hope that US liberals like you, Mr. Ireland, would object strenuously and not go off on tangents about how the real issue is somehow "free speech," even if some opportunist reactionary black group -- e.g., Khalid Muhammad's "New Black Panther Party" -- took advantage of the situation to score propaganda points.

But then again, I can't be too sure how you'd perform in that situation. People like you would probably ask for a pro forma denunciation of Louis Farrakhan before any black person could criticize the offending newspaper.

Posted by: John Lacny | Feb 13, 2006 5:02:57 PM

One day the EU will wake up under the Moors, again, and then what will they do? I don't think I will be sending my son over there to liberate those who so willingly relinquish liberty.

Posted by: Josef Rosenfeld | Feb 11, 2006 10:22:20 AM

Being religious is asking for trouble. We, the smart ones, are way beyond religion, yes, deep inside we laugh at your insanity. We have a planet to save now, and a species to keep from dying out. We will not survive for much longer if we keep on pretending there are "superior beings" driving around in wooden cars on clouds or something.

You're not gonna pray to your Allah/God when your mobile phone runs out of power to make Him fix the problem, you're connecting it to your battery-loader. Your mobile phone's battery loader did not come from religion, it came from infidels using their heads, it came from scientific work. So if you're using a mobile phone AND you strongly believe in Allah/God, you are a hypocrite.

When that virus, asteroid, super-vulcano or anti-matter hits us, it's not gonna pick the country where the non-believers or gay people live, it will take us all down at the same time. And there will not be any virgins or chippendales waiting for us when we die. There is no heaven, and there is no hell. Those who know this are free from your fears, we don't have to worry if what we do will be approved by some fictional overlord of anything. I have never been punished by any god/allah for 'my sins', I have learned from being alive, from love and hate and experience.

When I tell people I don't believe in a god, they look at me like I'm ready to kill them. They see a man without values, a man totally ruined or something. Some people even ask me what is stopping me from going on a rampage. I have never been able to successfully tell them that these two have nothing to do with each other. Atheists are normal fun-loving people. They have their basic values. To know that killing and raping is bad doesn't need a god. People say Conscience is god. No, Conscience is the values you learned and you want to uphold. It is the basic YOU. You feel guilty not because god finds that you've done something bad but because YOU do.
I remember one particular incident when a friend of mine was talking about a person who has 4 wives. He said that "people who say they don't believe in God do all the wrong they want". I told him I don't believe in god either, and that this does not mean I can do any wrong. Well, his mind could only come up with "That means you believe in God in some corner of your heart". I really pity people who talk like this. They say that only a 'god-fearing person' can stick to values and morals. So, if somehow it is proven that god never existed, will this person still hold on to his values? If it's just god who is stopping you from raping or stealing, then what are you? What morals do you have? I think it's better to say
"God doesn't stop me from doing anything, I chose not to do it out of my own free will!"

Posted by: Julius | Feb 10, 2006 5:40:55 PM

The thread is old, nothing to see here anymore.
RE:
That crusade or actually just a conquering campaign what i was talking about -that was the main topic about a whole year in my primary school, so that means i have read something um,.. enough about it. My home country was named "Holy Mary's land" and then berried for good because "Holy Mary's land " could not be in the hands of "pagans". The leader of the campaign was the bishop Albert. He founded the "Swordbrothers Order" ,and the main military camp he founded in 1201 grew up to be Rigas city in Latvia later. (In wikipedia some fool says it was granted city rights..hell yeah.. it was a swamp or sth. before the camp) No doubt that the objective was to get more slaves and land but ..they were all wearing crosses and reading Pible (those literate ones) and prayers.

If those who are rioting just do not want them to be considered violent terrorists then they should stop rioting and setting fires. Maybe it helps.

But I think the same about the double morale. For example year ago there was a chip commercial in China using Hitler and the makers of it were forced to appologize and take the commercial off. The same time people can freely use communist symbolics despite the fact that communist crimes were far more worse ,wiping of millions and millions (fe. Starvation in Ukrain) and whole nations (fe. Ingerians)
The point is that it should be all total - allow Hitler in commercials and Cccp on shirts and Muhamed with bomb in his head or do not allow. Not allowing may in other hand escalate to allowing nothing and sueing for anything like in America.

Posted by: heinz | Feb 9, 2006 5:17:55 PM

Heinz,

Read some more about the Crusade and Crusaders; otherwise, you cannot be a liberal as you claim. Also, no nation or country was liberal some hundred years ago. Today, I am not sure how many of them really are.

Crusades were organized by Roman Catholics and other European Kings were supported by the call of Popes. Here some are:

Crusade: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Crusades): (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades)

Northern Crusades
This article is about the medieval crusades. For other uses, see Crusade (disambiguation).
The Crusades were a series of several military campaigns—usually sanctioned by the Papacy—that took place during the 11th through 13th centuries. Originally, they were Roman Catholic Holy Wars to recapture Jerusalem and the Holy Land from the Muslims, but some were directed against other Europeans, such as the Fourth Crusade against Constantinople, the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars of southern France and the Northern Crusades.

Historical background
The origins of the crusades lie in developments in Western Europe earlier in the Middle Ages, as well as the deteriorating situation of the Byzantine Empire in the east. The breakdown of the Carolingian Empire in the later 9th century, combined with the relative stabilization of local European borders after the Christianization of the Vikings, Slavs, and Magyars, meant that there was an entire class of warriors who now had very little to do but fight amongst themselves and terrorize the peasant population. The Church tried to stem this violence with the Peace and Truce of God movements, forbidding violence against certain people at certain times of the year. This was somewhat successful, but trained warriors always sought an outlet for their violence. One later outlet was the Reconquista in Spain and Portugal, which at times occupied Iberian knights and some mercenaries from elsewhere in Europe in the fight against the Islamic Moors. In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given papal blessing to Iberian Christians in their wars against the Muslims, granting both a papal standard (the vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to those who were killed in battle. A plea for help from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus in opposing Muslim attacks thus fell on ready ears.

Posted by: Darvin Aking | Feb 8, 2006 4:33:47 PM

I occasionally read Mr. Ireland's pieces and quite often agree with him but I knew he would be totally clueless on this issue. To him and most western liberals, it's all about the easy black-and-white polar opposites: the good liberal western guys who are proud defenders of freedom of speech and all those evil subhuman western bogeymen those "fundies." Ireland is completely ignorant about the situation of Muslims in Europe. It is absolutely idiotic to say that "what's really going on" is an attempt to impose religious censorship. Absolute rubbish. It is about Muslims in Europe sick and tired of being depicted as subhuman violent fanatics, wholly discriminated against as a people, contantly being physically and verbally attacked (something totally off Ireland's radar). If Ireland took a glance at the other piece accompanying his essay over on opendemocracy.net by Tariq Madood (a FAR more rational, thoughtful and informed piece than Ireland's one-note simplistic drivel), he'd understand that this is about publishing cartoons equivalent to those published by the Nazis about Jews. THAT is what liberals are defending. The cartoons Ireland apparently admires so much depict Muslims AS A PEOPLE as innately terrorists. The equivalent would be if the Danish newspaper commissioned cartoons showing Moses (with a star of David) as a greedy financier or with blood-soaked hands shooting missiles into children. The simple fact is that this is about SELECTIVE freedom of speech and RACISM (yes, racism -- we consider anti-semitism racism, yet Jews are not one race since they come in many colors and nationalities). I use racism because the west treats Muslims as an indistinguishable mass of brown-skinned violent fanatics. Ireland is entirely ignorant of the fact that the Danish newspaper in question refused to print cartoons about Jesus for fear of offending its mostly Christian readers -- yet Muslims were fair game. It's ok to depict Muslims COLLECTIVELY as bearded violent fanatics (and a reason to bloviate about freedom of speech, scold Muslims and feel so innately superior) but not ok to publish (and republish ad infinitum) anti-semitic cartoons. Those newspapers in question would NEVER publish any anti-semitic cartoons; but Muslims (an oppressed, highly vulnerable minority in Europe) are powerless and an easy target, hated, despised and feared. Furthermore, this has NOTHING to do with depiction of the prophet per se but with the content of those depictions. As Madood says, "the cartoons are not just about one individual but about Muslims per se – just as a cartoon portraying Moses as a crooked financier would not be about one man but a comment on Jews. And just as the latter would be racist, so are the cartoons in question." None of this would've occurred if the cartoons had caricatured bin Laden or Arafat or various imams. Nor would Ireland and his ilk blather on about freedom of speech if newspapers had published and re-published cartoons of Jews like this one: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/diebow/cover.jpg

If such cartoons had been published, there would be an international outcry against those newspapers and Ireland wouldn't even bother his time with defending their right to publish them (oh, maybe a sentence or two).

Mind you, I do think cartoons caricaturizing any religion or group--racist or otherwise--should be published but only if done consistently. Muslims are pointing out the obvious hypocrisy: European newspapers have their many taboos but when it comes to racist cartoons against them, suddenly they cry discover freedom of speech. Yes, of course, the violence in some of the reaction in the Muslim world has been outrageous (and stoked by the region's regimes) but overwhelmingly Muslims around the world have been pretty quiet, even in Europe, where every day in the national media and in the mouths of pundits, politicians, media personalities they hear stuff like "Muslims are a cancer" to "our society" or that they're "goats and pigs", where they are consistently denied jobs in professions for which they've studied because of their last names and their physical appearance (a dear friend of mine in Denmark has had her veil torn away and ripped apart by street thugs that she's given up on buying anymore; the mother of an Algerian friend of mine in Holland doesn't even leave her neighborhood anymore). So go ahead, puff out your chest and enjoy indulging in your sense of superiority. Feels good doesn't it? But all European Muslims see is hypocrisy and double standards (something they're quite used to in their home countries). (And no, I'm not a Muslim -- I'm a Latina, feminist, secular, Catholic-raised New Yorker who studied in the Middle East).

Posted by: isabel | Feb 8, 2006 4:13:45 PM

Ups, crusaders killed and burned everything and everybody they could in my homeland 800 years ago and then made the population slaves. Is not printing any of these christian or muslim religious books an insult against my ancestors then? Because waving these symbols and speaking those words from those books these and all other religous atrocities have happened. These dids are nothing to do with religion and its symbols? So why are they considering these symbols and words holy when these do not help the same monsters claiming these symbols and words to be their guidance for doing things that should not be?
I keep away from religious groups because I dislike them as much as I have seen and I do not read Pible. I just keep away. Maybe it would be an advice from me for religious groups to keep away from liberal countryes and their newspapers then? Too civilized solution? no? What is the problem then?

Posted by: Heinz | Feb 8, 2006 4:04:52 PM

Julius,

You just demonstrated that you are the retard because you dont get anything about what I say. Where did I say that "drawing a funny cartoon is starting a battle." I said "you have not seen the anger of us and will not see it ever unless you battle with us." Do you know what the word "unless" means? I, of course, battle if you battle. Do I look stupid to you?

Also, my religion is not any religion. It is the last version of all sent by the only GOD. OK, got it? So, original Judaism and Christianity are actually the same with Islam but have only small differences .

>>Julius wrote: Get a clue. We have better things to do than to be busy with idiots and their gods.

If so, shut up and stop blabbering. We are no the ones who started this.

Listen what I say: if you dont care, I dont care either. That's exactly what my book says.

We will see who will be the people in a mental institute in the Hereafter. If you dont want to be surprised, search in the internet and find out what Allah says about ignorants.

By the way, if you are so clever, how come you talk about retards and mental institutes? If you can, defend you ideas and beat mines. Dont attack cowardly.

Ansd with "we" I am of course referring to those of use who are well educated and have masters and Ph.Ds from well-known universities all over the world, of course know very well what is brain and what is not.

With these ideas, yours dont sound to be brain to me. Lighten up.

Posted by: Darvin Aking | Feb 8, 2006 1:40:29 PM

So in your retarded views (any religion is for retards, in my opinion) you think drawing a funny cartoon is starting a battle?

Get a clue. We have better things to do than to be busy with idiots and their gods. And for all your blabber about your no-good fascist beliefs, trust me:
We don't care about any holy book. We usually skip those parts in your texts, because they remind us of people in a mental institute.

And with "we" I'm of course referring to those of us who will survive all your silly tribal wars and use their brain.

Posted by: Julius | Feb 8, 2006 11:33:22 AM

Ok, let us look at the freedom of speech from the smallest scale, at an individual's scale.

For example, if I as an individual has a good will towards my neighbor, but can I curse his/her belief or say anything bad on his/her sacred things? Is that what you think the freedom of speech? So, those who made the cartoons have good wills towards Muslims but their work should not objected and must be called as freedom of speech, huh?

If some people, but not all Europeans, in Europe think that Muslims or people mostly living in the Middle East do not deserve to be treated as neighbors, don't those people also deserve to be treated the same?

But, fortunately we Muslims cannot and do not curse on anybody's religion or prophets because our religion is the last version of all the religions commanded by the only God (Allah) and we believe and accept all the prophets from Adam to Mohammed, including Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and so on.

Last, I think publishing those cartoons is not the job of sane people, but insane, and they can harm neither GOD( the most merciful) nor PROPHET (peace be upon him).

Let me also remind this short story from the history. It was the time before Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) was born. In his grandfather's time, a King called Abraha got jealous of the Kaba, Allah's House in Makkah, and wanted to demolish it. He ordered to gather a big army supported by huge elephants. Once all is ready, he started his journey and arrived the city of Makkah. The grandfather of Mohammed (PBUH) was told about this big army of King Abraha. He said that the Kaba belong to Allah and took his family with him to high mountains away from the Kaba. King Abraha arrived and when everything is ready, he ordered to attack, but before the soldiers and elephants reach the House, small birds carrying small stones with their beaks attacked, and whole army was destroyed except the ones who could escape.

So, what I am saying is that you have not seen the anger of us and will not see it ever unless you battle with us. Allah will uphold the honor of his prophet and will never let down until Doomsday. And on that day, Prophet will be treated as the most respected one of all of the humankind, jinns and angels. But who could save those who curse the Prophet and call this freedom of speech from Doomsday and Allah’s wrath?

Posted by: Darvin Aking | Feb 8, 2006 11:16:40 AM

The issue at hand is not freedom of speech, we all KNOW we have freedom of speech in Europe, and if there's doubt about going too far you can go to court over it. If you want to trade stuff with our countries, you respect the rules we have mad about it here, which is we can draw whatever we want whenever we want in a newspaper. If you decide to go live in our countries, you show respect to their inhabitants, you don't post death-threats in protests and get away with it, you don't go burn embassies or execute our citizen.

I'm highly disappointed in our governments leaders! They are NOT doing what its citizen ALL expect and want from them; To show some gorram spine!
What kind of weak response are they giving here? They ALLOW this to freely take place:
http://cherenkov-radiation.blogspot.com/2006/02/peaceful-muslim-protestors-in-london.html
months after (allegedly) being terrorised by similar idiots IN THE SAME CITY? Try doing this in New York somewhere in 2002, or in Madrid months after the terrorist strike. The protesters would all be taken away to an obscure prison somewhere with Jack Bauer bending the rules where necessary. I'm not saying the prisons are all okay, but just sitting back like wussies as if they lost some fight and apologizing for things they shouldn't even be apologizing for, come on. That's just stupid.

Posted by: Julius | Feb 8, 2006 9:04:26 AM

tricky, tricky, tricky. i think this issue touches on an almost prophetically accurate article by the pakistani writer pervez hoodbhoy(who has written a lot of other good articles), written fairly closely after 9/11 when he said that if we are to avoid what future historians may refer to as "the century of terror" we are going to have to navigate a very trecherous course between the scylla of american imperial arrogance (although he might now add some eurpoean arrogance in the mix) and the charybis of islamist fundamentalist fanaticism. kudos to westerners calling for more insulting cartoons mocking jesus and the neo-cons and to muslims calling for demonstrations to be less violent and indiscriminate.

Posted by: Agnostic Fundamentalist | Feb 6, 2006 8:30:04 PM

Shame! Shame on all those who are calling the publication of those “insulting” cartoons wrong. Shame on Bill Clinton, shame on the State Department, shame on Jack Straw. Shame on those who still think that Islam is a “religion of peace“. Cheers to the brave newspapers in Europe who are standing up to the outrageous Muslim demands. Where is the American media’s outrage? Why are we trying to make excuses the behavior those who are only exercising freedom of the press? Muslims all over the would, not a tiny minority of extremists, are demanding that the west apologized to them. They are telling us that their religion is more important than our freedoms, they are telling us that they are more important than us. Because, in their eyes, their religion has been insulted, they are calling for death, death to Demark, death to Germany, death to everybody. They are rioting and carrying signs demanding the beheading of the “guilty” parties. If we back down before these childish temper tantrums, we will be giving up the freedom that so many have fought and died for. The Muslim demands are wholly unacceptable, no religion has the right to demand others to follow or respect it. Islam is not respectful of any other religion, Islam calls Jews pigs and monkeys. Islam states that no other religion has any value. Islam has been spread through death and destruction as its armies spewed out or Arabia, sweeping all before them. Islam will not rest until the entire world is Dar al Islam. Islam wants to destroy western culture root and branch and replace it with the Sharia. We must take the time to learn about what Islam is really about, not what their pleasant falsehoods tell us. We have fought world wars to stop evil governments with desires to conquer the world. The threat from Islam is no less dangerous.

Quotes
Gods of all other religions shall be the fuel of Hell (21:98-100)
All Gods except Allah are created, dead and false, they all lead to hell (16:20-21, 25:17-19, 29:41-42,37:22-25)

Posted by: Rojo46 | Feb 6, 2006 1:48:11 PM

I've been fascinated by the reaction of the fellows over at 'Lenin's Tomb' to this issue - classifying the publication and defence of said acts of publication as racist: while I completely disagree with them, they do have a point in it being neccessary to be cautious of the creation of or maintenance of 'otherness' - something that Islam seems to have great facility in doing, however.

Posted by: Leonard Jordaan | Feb 6, 2006 8:24:34 AM

Thank goodness SOMEONE is standing up for our rights to free speech! In addion to those papers, there are a few web sites I've come across that are joining the fight (e.g. www.DrawMohammad.com)

Dorin

Posted by: Dorin Wasky | Feb 5, 2006 4:09:48 PM

I think europeans and muslims are all fanatical freaks, one way or the other. If it's not islamofascism, it's facism alla Karl Marx. I say torch europe AND the middle east! You're birds of a feather!

Posted by: Mario | Feb 5, 2006 4:05:11 PM

I like to print articles and read them at my leisure. How about a "PRINT FRIENDLY" page?

Posted by: gary pruitt | Feb 5, 2006 12:15:16 PM

Page link to Mohammed Image Archive is not working - would like to see it:) Cant help thinking that Too Much Testosterone is being dressed up as a Theology here.

Posted by: nina | Feb 3, 2006 9:10:09 PM

Hi Doug,
This is a tough issue and I think both sides have a little bit of ill will. The Europeans have a boyish motivation to show they can provoke and stand up to the Moslems in their midst, while the Moslems (especially Euro-Moslems) could try a little bit harder to understand the meaning and the history of the free press.
One point though. Like you said, portraits of the Prophet have surfaced in Shiite regions, because in Shia Islam there isn't a total prohibition on representing the Prophet. But it is strictly forbidden in Sunni Islam, no matter the school of thought, and that's why the Sunnis have protested so much.
The European press is thankfully free to publish whatever they want, but I, and many other progressive Muslims like me have the right to say the move was a cheap shot, purposefully inflammatory, and in very poor taste. If Europeans don't think publishing those images constitutes an incitement (a possibility that does limit freedom of speech in western democracies), they need to take a refresher course in modern religion.

Posted by: Mehammed Mack | Feb 3, 2006 6:41:13 PM

Post a comment