Muslim boycott of Denmark/The cartoon controversy opinions please

Memnoch

Isn't this how a capitalist/free-market economy/democratic society is supposed to work?

If you don't like something.. vote with your wallet.. makes perfect sense. I may not agree with their view on the cartoons but I do agree with and fully support this form of protest. Though I think the products they should be boycotting really are americans. But unfortuantely to people obsessed with religion the misrepresentation of their prophet is far worse a crime than the murder of their fellows. Such is the idiocy of religion.

lucernarian

I'm not sure what side I should take in this debate but I think one point has to be emphasised. Someone on the Late Late Show debate asked whether Freedom of Speech is a right or a responsibility. People should consider this before rushing in to support either side.

Discretion is the better part of valour and I think the editors of the Danish paper have recognised this now.

Boggle

Hobbes wrote:

regardless of the papers initial intentions it knew after the fact that they were offensive. The reprinting of them when they knew they were offensive did nothing except inflame the matter.

See Sand's comments on this - its the same point I've made before and that you have failed to address.

Because like yourself people in the middle east aren't aware of everything that went on.

Again you've failed to address my point - preferring instead for the cheap dig approach. What gives them the right to insist that DENMARK censor its press? Again this is a point that I've made before and you appear to have sidestepepd.

About the same time other papers felt the need to post the pictures.

Is it not news? Should we, the public, have a rigt to an informed opinion about what is happening? And, correct me if I'm wrong, but these pictures are central to the story...

The original author could of got his story across by removing just the cartoons that were not openly offensive.

They were quite central to the evolution of the story... read up on it and you'll see. Did the reaction to the pictures not prove many of his points?

While the paper claimed it was freedom of speech it refused to post offensive cartoons of Jesus before the muslim pictures on the grounds it would offend.

Again, I've asked you before to demonstrate how these events are comparable - another point you sidestepped. (Basically was there a reason that these Jesus pictures were presented, were they commissioned, was there a story attached...?)

regardless of if there is a difference of not point in fact is that (a) the OA knew that it would of caused some offense and (b) Reposting them after the fact that complaints came in that they were offensive didn't help matters.

Regardless of if there is a difference??? Again, see sand's point about a papers duty (not right) to criticise/highlight the actions of any section of society when needed (even if its a religion involved).

To me the story basicacally highlighted the fear that many westerners have of the radical elements who associate themselves with the Muslim religion. Again, i ask you is it not a story worth printing??

No but from your original comments it seemed to imply that the first thing the Muslims did was riot.

Don't you mean, you chose to believe that was what I was getting at? I have never called them barbaric and I thought I'd done my best to highlight that the problems people had with the muslim's were not the muslim's themselves, but the nutjob fundamentalists who are willing to kill in the name of religion.

Wibbs

Sand wrote:

Seriously Hobbes, muslims are offended by the story. Thats a shame, but that should have no greater weight than the offence of Christians. I imagine youre still campaigning for the banning of Life of Brian because it offends Christians? You know, to be consistent?

Nah it's not fashionable any more to defend Christians. Which is a good thing.

It doesnt have to though Hobbes. You do not have to defend or advocate my views, and I do not have to defend or advocate yours. All free speech requires and implies is that you can say what you want within reason, and I can do likewise. Free speech implies that JP can put forward its own views, not that it has to be a platform for all views.

Exactly and if you dont' like it, don't buy it, sue them or boycott the company involved(which to be fair a lot of Muslims are doing, although sadly they're boycotting the whole country)

After all, freedom of expression is good for Islam as well, once they get their heads around the idea that what they hold sacred mightnt be held sacred by all others. Afterall, Christians could justifiably be offended by Muslim claims that Allah is the one true god. Free expression lets them say that though. Doesnt mean everyone has to agree with it though.

Agreed.

Gangsta wrote:

I was referring to battles in the prophet's lifetime which is when the rules regarding prisoners were made. But we're going off topic here.

Are you stating that women in Islam aren't on equal footing with men?

He fought 28 battles in his lifetime and has there ever been a woman caliph, but yea we're going off topic.

Dude what are you on about? We were talking about tolerence for other religions not discussing at all which religion is right or wrong. Islam doesn't agree with persecution based on religious beliefs.

Your original point was that Islam considers equal rights for all religions. I disagreed. Under a purely Islamic Quran/hadeeth based society, Islam would be (naturally) on top. Jews and Christians would pay a non believer tax and all others(pagans) would be non citizens. The ban on idols alone would stop crucifixes, buddha statues etc. We wouldn't be even having this discussion in such a system. Whether this is good or bad depends on your viewpoint.

adonis

Freddie59 wrote:

I see you conveniently omitted Hitler from the main list.......Castro was INDEED a major threat. It had to be faced down. Period. It is off topic (and both of us risk censure for it) - I do agree with it. Not a perfect system by any means......but it's part of the constitution.

Nope i didnt omit hitler at all... Stalin was the commander that fought against hitler in stalingrad, so that makes him a good guy by your book as he was opposing hitler..not a bad guy. To the cuba Point, ill say yeah yeah..its a huge threat, always was...always will be, so much coffee.
My point about the right to bear arms was.... IF you agree with it, do you think that they should be going around shooting people at will?
i think its like the freedom of speech...Their is an implicit responsibility with it.

/end of off topic questioning of peoples dubious opinions

SeanW

adonis wrote:

Nope i didnt omit hitler at all... Stalin was the commander that fought against hitler in stalingrad, so that makes him a good guy by your book as he was opposing hitler..not a bad guy. To the cuba Point, ill say yeah yeah..its a huge threat, always was...always will be, so much coffee.
My point about the right to bear arms was.... IF you agree with it, do you think that they should be going around shooting people at will?
i think its like the freedom of speech...Their is an implicit responsibility with it.

/end of off topic questioning of peoples dubious opinions

This is probably the most ridiculous post in the history of boards.ie

First of all, Stalin only joined the allies when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

Second, there is nothing "implicit" about not going around shooting people. It doesn't matter whether you have lax gun controls or not.

Shellie13

Skitbra wrote:

The problem with this is that there is no right side to be on. On one side you have racists and on the other you have fundamenalists.

Denmark is one of the most racist countries in Europe.
The fundamentalists are also wrong. There is no excuse for what is happening over there. Burning embassies in Syria, which is being allowing by the Syrian government, is completely wrong. They have a right to protest but not this way.

Surely all danish people cannot be held responsible for the actions of one cartoonist/newspaper?!

If this was the case then followion that logic ALL muslims should be held responsible for 9/11- which is clearly ridiculous! I think it is definately understandable that muslims were offended as their beleifs are so scared to them. HOwever i think it was more ignorance than out and out hatred or racism. Non-muslims who are not educated in islamic beliefs may not even understand the whole non-drawing thing! And cartoonists are continually making controversial statements.
I Think they should have been serverly cautioned- jobs lost etc...hefty fines- a deterrant from doing it again!
The violent reaction however dosn't improve the misperceptions of the religion! Perhaps if forgiveness was displayed, a public apology made by the newspaper and a strong statement by an islamic leader about how it hurt Muslims east-west relations could be improved and such a fistasteful cartoon may bnver be dispalyed again?!

samb

SeanW wrote:

This is probably the most ridiculous post in the history of boards.ie

First of all, Stalin only joined the allies when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

Second, there is nothing "implicit" about not going around shooting people. It doesn't matter whether you have lax gun controls or not.

I think yours is way more ridiculous. Stalin joined the allies when hilter invaded the Soviet union, so. They still defeated them, what is your point. Because you don't like Russia you will not give them credit for saving Europe.
Don't worry I'm not saying they were the Goodies;)

Boggle

samb wrote:

I think yours is way more ridiculous. Stalin joined the allies when hilter invaded the Soviet union, so. They still defeated them, what is your point. Because you don't like Russia you will not give them credit for saving Europe.

Is there something wrong with the history forum?

This has nothing to do with this thread... (although ye've thrown up so many posts on it that maybe it does at this stage)

SeanW

samb wrote:

I think yours is way more ridiculous. Stalin joined the allies when hilter invaded the Soviet union, so. They still defeated them, what is your point. Because you don't like Russia you will not give them credit for saving Europe.
Don't worry I'm not saying they were the Goodies;)

No, I'm justm trying to make sense of all the wierd directions this thread has tunred. Can we please get back on topic.

Qadri

Hi All,

This is text of a memorendum written by Shaykh-ul-Islam Prof. Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri who is taking up the issue of the publication of the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) with the UN, EU, OIC, governments of all member states of the UN and with all embassy missions in Islamabad. As part of this diplomatic drive, he will send a detailed memorandum to all of these concerned parties all over the world, including world human rights organisations.

Regards,

Z.U. Qadri (student of Prof. Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri_


A call to prevent a clash of civilisations

The world is facing yet another challenge following the world-wide controversy caused by the publication of blasphemous and defamatory caricatures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in some European newspapers. The failure of governments to address this situation has allowed it to spread all over the world, with no end in sight. This situation has been unnecessarily allowed to spiral out of control and has threatened the concept of peaceful co-existence. If not addressed, it can lead to a potential clash of not only civilisations but religions and societies as well.

This memorandum aims to put the issue in perspective and to propose realistic and practicable measures to address it. Much of this debate has focused on the 'right of freedom of expression' with its defenders advocating the sacredness of freedom of speech which needs to be upheld no matter what the consequences. However in reality the issue is not one of curtailing the right to freedom of expression since this is a right that is not absolute and no one can claim so. Rights are reciprocal and their enforcement is interdependent on other fundamental rights. To insist that a right is absolute is erroneous since such a right can infringe other basic human rights. Every country that claims to be part of the 'civilized and democratic' world has put its own limits on freedom of expression in the interests of society in order to maintain a certain level of human behaviour, be it based on local norms and customs, culture or religion but in essence to protect the dignity of their moral and religious, social, and societal values.

So to suddenly create an outcry that the right to freedom of speech is being undermined by Muslim protests is clearly a fallacy.

The free propagation of child pornography for instance or the incitements of religious or racial hatred in the media is banned in many countries and quite rightly so.

In many European countries it is a crime to deny the holocaust, being a criminal offence in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Switzerland, and is punishable by fines and a jail sentence. When the British newspaper, The Independent (27 January 2003) depicted the Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon eating the head of a Palestinian child while saying, ' What's wrong, You've never seen a politician kissing babies before', this caused an uproar in Israel and other parts of the world raising tempers especially in the Jewish and Israeli community around the world.

Whatever the matter of that caricature, the uproar was a natural reaction of a people for their leader. More recently when the Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi compared himself to Jesus Christ the Vatican including Italian politicians immediately expressed shock and anger at these comments. A senior Catholic Church official added, "I know he will say he was speaking in jest but such things should not be spoken of in jest."

The issue here is not one of curtailing freedom of expression but objecting to the ridicule and insult towards the scared elements of an entire civilisation.

There is also a law of defamation normally under the Law of Tort that can lead to an individual being compensated for offence caused. The absolute right to free expression is curtailed in order to balance the rights of an individual. In the same way an act that causes offence to a whole community can never be justified under the banner of freedom of speech. Moreover in many countries it is illegal or at least discouraged to degrade or abuse the constitution or certain national institutions such as the army, courts of law, or parliament.

Contempt of court also exists all over the world which severely limits freedom of speech, violation of which can lead to imprisonment. If the right to freedom of expression is absolute, why are there no objections to laws such as these?

To give respect to an individual's honour and dignity is a fundamental human right protected by law as is the prohibition on blasphemy and defamation as well as the right to religious freedom. The UN Charter, Constitutions and Laws from many countries provide protection to these rights.

The UN Charter recognises this right in Article 1(ii):

"To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion."

It is also recognised in the European Convention on Human Rights Article 9:

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." The constitution of the USA, Amendment I of Bill of Rights states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Some US states have blasphemy laws on their statute books. The U.S state of Massachusetts General Laws states (chapter 272 section 360) "Whoever wilfully blasphemes the holy name of God by denying, cursing or contumeliously reproaching God, his creation, government or final judging of the world, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost, or by cursing or contumeliously reproaching or exposing to contempt and ridicule, the holy word of God contained in the holy scriptures shall be punished by imprisonment in jail...

Other countries having blasphemy laws are:

1. Austria (Articles 188, 189 of the criminal code)
2. Finland (Section 10 of chapter 17 of the penal code)
3. Germany (Article 166 of the criminal code)
4. The Netherlands (Article 147 of the criminal code)
5. Spain (Article 525 of the criminal code)
6. Ireland: Article 40.6.1.i of the constitution of Ireland provides that the publication of blasphemous matter is an offence. Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred act 1989, this includes hatred against a group on account of their religion.
7. Canada Section 296 of the Canadian Criminal code. Offence against the Christian religion is blasphemy.
8. New Zealand Section 123 of the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961
Churches for instance hold sanctity in the Christian world and are protected under the constitution in some European countries. An example is the constitution of Denmark, section 4 [State Church] which states:

"The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State." It is evident from the above mentioned laws that freedom of speech is a fundamental right but this right is not absolute. There are hundreds of books and newspaper articles that have been published attempting to criticize Islam and the basic tenets of its faith yet Muslims never object to scholarly debate since they are well aware that this is part of an ongoing debate on Islam and within the tenets of 'freedom of expression'.

There have been countless newspaper articles completely misrepresenting Islam, often publishing clear lies and exaggerated stories about Islam and its law yet Muslims are tolerant and appreciate that this is part and parcel of living within societies who claim this to be part of their 'liberal democracies'. However when this right of 'freedom of expression' is abused and the most sacred elements of Islam are deliberately insulted then this will definitely create great unrest among Muslims around the world.

By depicting the Holy Prophet of Islam (PBUH) as wielding a knife and wearing a bomb disguised as a turban on his head is a deliberate attempt to insult and stir up controversy, presenting him and his followers as violent terrorists. Another caricature portrays him as supporting suicide bombers and saying "Stop, Stop we have run out of virgins". How can such caricatures be justified under the banner of free speech?

Qadri

Moreover these caricatures were not printed within a vacuum but in an environment of an anti-Muslim bias where tensions were already running extremely high within the Danish community and indeed throughout Europe. Only recently the Queen of Denmark had made controversial remarks stating that: "We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

Moreover many countries have passed anti-terrorist legislation, severely restricting the civil liberties of individuals, with the legislation drafted in a manner that is clearly aimed at focusing upon Muslims in the countries concerned. There is a strong feeling that a substantial minority is being continually abused and misrepresented in the mass media through the portrayal of negative images not based upon reality, and then subjected to humiliating checks and procedures when going about their lives on a daily basis, all in the name of freedom of speech and national interest.

It is thus highly surprising that the sacred elements of its faith are ridiculed just in the name of freedom of expression and speech knowing that the reactions will be extremely tense. There is no doubt that the publishing of these caricatures by the newspapers involved was an exercise to demonstrate control and power directed against Muslims, either subscribe to our culture and way of living or suffer the consequences and be ridiculed and debased.

Realising the significance of this right some world dignitaries have condemned the publication of these caricatures and have emphasised the restriction of the right of the freedom of speech too.

Kofi Annan: "I also respect the right of freedom of speech. But of course freedom of speech is never absolute. It entails responsibility and judgment." Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary: "There is freedom of speech, we all respect that. But there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. I believe that the re-publication of these cartoons has been insulting; it has been insensitive; it has been disrespectful and it has been wrong. "There are taboos in every religion. It is not the case that there is open season in respect of all aspects of Christian rites and rituals in the name of free speech. Nor is it the case that there is open season in respect of rights and rituals of the Jewish religion, the Hindu religion, the Sikh religion. It should not be the case in respect of the Islamic religion either. We have to be very careful about showing the proper respect in this situation."

The US State Department: "These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims." Spokesman, Kurtis Cooper, said: "We all fully respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatred in this manner is not acceptable." Philippe Douste-Blazy, French Foreign Minister: "The principle of freedom should be exercised in a spirit of tolerance, respect of beliefs, respect of religions, which is the very basis of secularism of our country."

Vatican cardinal Achille Silvestrini condemned the cartoons, saying Western culture had to know its limits. It is thus clearly apparent that using freedom of speech to imply that there are no limits to what one can say or do is a myth. An act that offends the religious and moral values of a community such as solidarity, integrity and sanctity, resulting in endangering the peace, cannot be regarded as a right to express ones freedom of speech. Islam too teaches the principle of tolerance and co-existence, to live and let live. It discourages the defamation of other Gods and religious symbols teaching respect to mankind. (Al-Quran: Al-An'am: 6:108). Islamic Law lays great emphasis on the security, dignity and respect of all other religions together with their beliefs without any discrimination.

If internationally recognised principles of tolerance and co-existence are put aside and moral and religious values are dishonoured then the present situation will worsen and the prevailing tensions will intensify. Europe considers itself to be an educated and civilized society but its response to the gross infringement of the basic right to religion of one of its minority communities has become un-understandable. There needs to be some mechanism to put an end to these horrific occurrences which may prove a potential threat to world peace.

Those who advocate that the right to freedom of speech is being eroded and any restraints upon it cannot be tolerated must look within their own 'democratic societies' and the extent to which their civil liberties have been eroded through the recent anti-terrorist legislation. These are the measures that have curtailed the rights and liberties of individuals and have much more serious implications which need to be addressed. Muslims are feeling alienated and targeted thus when newspapers begin to ridicule the most sacred elements of their faith, reactions will inevitably be high. If the publication of the caricatures is not taken seriously and steps are not taken to resolve the situation, then it can generate socio-political and economic crises which may lead to a conflict between civilizations and between nations.

These are the reasons behind the anger against the publication of these condemnable caricatures and the anger at the disregard shown by the governments towards the rightful protests of the Muslim world against the offence. 1.25 billion Muslims all over the world have been deeply insulted and instead of creating moves to resolve the matter, the act is being continuously justified prolonging world-wide unrest.

In order to solve this international issue and dissolve the serious tension it has caused, I propose the following solutions be implemented:

1. All newspapers that have published the caricatures must unreservedly apologise and withdraw their publications.
2. Clear legislation needs to be passed by all Governments which balance the right to freedom of speech with the rights of individuals and communities that their sacred beliefs should not be insulted and ridiculed.
3. All Governments should then ensure that any such legislation is enforced through the due process of the law and this type of incitement and ridicule never happens again.

I expect that common sense will prevail and responsible leaders will rise to the occasion and repair the damage that has been done to inter-civilization relations. I also expect that the concerned leaders of the countries will display leadership and bravely extend cordiality to the Muslims of the world.

Prof. Dr. Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri
Founding Leader Minhaj-ul-Quran International (MQI) www.minhaj.org
Chairman Pakistan Awami Tehreek (PAT) www.pat.com.pk

---

Delboy05

Qadri wrote:

Moreover these caricatures were not printed within a vacuum but in an environment of an anti-Muslim bias where tensions were already running extremely high within the Danish community and indeed throughout Europe. Only recently the Queen of Denmark had made controversial remarks stating that: "We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."

where's the 'anti-muslim bias' in what the Queen of Denmark said above!!!! And how is it controversial????? As a female head of state, I think she has more right to make a statement like that than most europeans - after all, if she had been born in Saudi Arabia, she would'nt be allowed drive a car never mind being at the top of a royal family.
Like it or not, a large part of the islam world is unplatable to europeans and our way of life.....we don't agree with it, we don't want to see it here and thus we have a right to say that and to stand up for our own way of life. If that causes offence, well thats your problem....

Sand

1. All newspapers that have published the caricatures must unreservedly apologise and withdraw their publications.

Quadri, I think all concerned have apologised for any offence caused already. They will not apologise for exercising their rights though so no other apologies are possible imo. I think more than likely, as the situation calms people will be far more careful in what is published but currently there is a tit for tat approach where the more people feel they are being demanded not to produce images of the Prophet, the more they do so to prove they can.

TuQ underlines that free speech is not absolute, it is limited by restrictions on incitement to hatred or violence. By the very same logic, a religions right to respect is not absolute either. There are very many tenets of several religions faith and practise that are disagreeable. For example, it is part of the moral values espoused by religions including most brands of Christianity and Islam that Im aware of that homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of God and immoral. Should respect for religion imply that no one can disagree with this tenet of the faith?

Also, whilst Muslims may justifiably find these cartoons offensive, Im confused by the reaction. TuQ asks how anyone can justify the "run out of virgins" cartoon under the banner of free speech. I might ask how anyone can justify that suicide bombers would receive 70 virgins under the banner of Islam in the first place? This is something I feel the cartoon was pointing to. And yet, we have not witnessed the same violently angry reaction in the Muslim world to suicide bombers claiming to be martyrs and justifying their actions using Islam, which surely is as insulting to Muslims as cartoons parodying the idea that suicide bombers are rewarded in heaven.

The introduction of ritual human sacrifices by extremists in the name of Islam has not sparked the same degree of rage as cartoons depicting Mohammed with a bomb as a turban, which (in my opinion) points to how violence has been associated with Islam - due to the actions of these extremists. People might feel bothered by why cartoons are so vitally important to Muslim opinion, but murderous perversions of their faith are seemingly not.

2. Clear legislation needs to be passed by all Governments which balance the right to freedom of speech with the rights of individuals and communities that their sacred beliefs should not be insulted and ridiculed.

The UK already attempted to bring such legislation into force, but AFAIR they failed. Europes experience has been after centuries if not millenia of religiously inspired warfare and inquisitions, of which the Crusades was merely a relatively small part, that religions deserve as much respect as their beliefs justify and that people may disagree with those beliefs. Theres a very deep resevoir of feeling that religions are best challenged at every point, based on memories of that religious conflicts. I think Islam is probably one of the most respected religions in the West, as quite simply it hasnt been mocked or ridiculed as completely as Christianity has been.

Im not sure though what laws TuQ wants passed? Is the problem that images of Mohammed were produced at all? There are thousands of images of Mohammed that already exist without sparking any angry reaction. If it is blasphemy to produce them then many Iranian Muslims will be the first charged. As for blasphemy itself, most of these laws are throwbacks to earlier times that are not enforced, and would not be passed today. The last time a case was brought under blasphemy in Ireland was in the 1960s and it lost.

If TuQs concern is not that the images were made, but that the images themselves were hateful or demeaning then there are laws against the incitement of hatred or violence in practically all countries that can be readily employed to bring a case against the newspapers and cartoonists.

democrates

I expect that common sense will prevail and responsible leaders will rise to the occasion and repair the damage that has been done to inter-civilization relations. I also expect that the concerned leaders of the countries will display leadership and bravely extend cordiality to the Muslims of the world.

I don't see what good could possibly have come from the publication of the cartoons, it was deliberately provocative. I don't have any great problem with the remedial measures proposed.

At the same time, I don't think it's helpful to characterise the situation as a potential clash of civilisations. The professor appeals to leaders of nations to act. The populations of these nations have diverse beliefs. Though the majority of Spanish were against Spain getting involved in the war in Iraq, the Spanish leaders got involved. Representative democracy is weak in this respect, the people are not so in control of those in power in our countries.

Just as many of us have listened to and understood muslims telling us that extremists are in the minority and do not represent mainstream islam, we would ask that muslims extend us the same courtesy, and not fall into the trap of tarring all people in any nation with one brush. I think we should all do well to remember that there are more hands of friendship in the world than fists of fury.

Wibbs

democrates wrote:

Just as many of us have listened to and understood muslims telling us that extremists are in the minority and do not represent mainstream islam, we would ask that muslims extend us the same courtesy, and not fall into the trap of tarring all people in any nation with one brush. I think we should all do well to remember that there are more hands of friendship in the world than fists of fury.

Well said.

feckidyparp

There's a storm coming...

SeanW

All this is a bit rich considering the level of intolerance shown in their countries. Like Saudi Arabia, which bans all form of non-Islamic religious worship, women can't drive cars, Jews cannot even enter the country - and they preach Wahibbi Islam which is the most intolerant and sectarian of the lot.

And they have the balls to accuse Westerners and Danes of being intolerant (in whose countries you have freedom of religion and generous immigration), insulting, rascist and w/e. Makes me sick, as do the people here who pander to them.

Hobbes

SeanW wrote:

Jews cannot even enter the country

Where did you pick that gem up from? As far as I recall some tourist website posted it. Which was later removed along with an apology added.

did you know there is a Jewish community in Iran too?

Vangelis

democrates wrote:

I don't see what good could possibly have come from the publication of the cartoons, it was deliberately provocative.

Deliberately provocative?

Said who? There are rumours down in the Middle-East that publishing of these caricatures were arranged by the Denmark government. Outrageous! Then you could speak of deliberatley provocative!

Sand

Where did you pick that gem up from? As far as I recall some tourist website posted it. Which was later removed along with an apology added.

did you know there is a Jewish community in Iran too?

Its not too hard to credit. Any religious observances other than Islamic ones are illegal in Saudia Arabia. Its hardly the land of religious freedom so its not impossible that Jewish people would be forbidden entry. They would certainly not be permitted to worship during any stay in Saudia Arabia, and they could not be citizens as being Muslim is a requirement. As it is, any non-Muslim presence in the Arabian peninsula is against fundamentalist doctrine.

It does demonstrate that the West doesnt need any lessons in religious tolerance from the Middle East though. Muslims are perfectly free to worship publically or privately here, and perfectly entitled to claim citizenship and demand the same rights as everyone else.

fly_agaric

Don't know where to start with that long screed. You could spend hours picking the inconsistencies to bits if you had the time.

However in reality the issue is not one of curtailing the right to freedom of expression since this is a right that is not absolute and no one can claim so. Rights are reciprocal and their enforcement is interdependent on other fundamental rights. To insist that a right is absolute is erroneous since such a right can infringe other basic human rights. Every country that claims to be part of the 'civilized and democratic' world has put its own limits on freedom of expression in the interests of society in order to maintain a certain level of human behaviour, be it based on local norms and customs, culture or religion but in essence to protect the dignity of their moral and religious, social, and societal values.

So it seems freedom of expression is to be governed from now on by Islamic and Muslim norms even in countries which have not got a muslim majority.

As for blasphemy laws - I wonder when was the last time anyone was charged with and convicted of blasphemy in any of the Western states mentioned? No doubt if new blasphemy laws are brough in specially for muslims they will be expected to have teeth, won't they? He says as much at the end.

that claims to be part of the 'civilized and democratic' world.

must look within their own 'democratic societies'

Nice bit of mockery.

Europe considers itself to be an educated and civilized society but its response to the gross infringement of the basic right to religion of one of its minority communities has become un-understandable. There needs to be some mechanism to put an end to these horrific occurrences which may prove a potential threat to world peace.

The EU is a really big prison state where muslims are opressed and can't freely practice their religion. They try to escape to the Middle East and Asia and freedom but getting out of Western Europe is like getting into it over the Berlin Wall during the cold war.

bravely extend cordiality to the Muslims of the world.

Would that be newspeak for lick the bootheels of those who would try to intimidate you and and grovel for their mercy?!

Wolff

You'll usually find its citizens of israel that are barred entry from a lot of arab countries - not specifically jews

Also anyone with a israeli visa

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Its not too hard to credit. Any religious observances other than Islamic ones are illegal in Saudia Arabia. Its hardly the land of religious freedom so its not impossible that Jewish people would be forbidden entry.

Except that I have already said they were allowed into the country. Or do you have a link to where they are declared as banned. Catholics are also forbidden in Saudi in openly worshipping thier god. However both cases there is nothing wrong with worshipping in private.

Incidently, Iran actually allows other religons in the country and has quite a few Jewish people in it.

SeanW

It still shows a paradox - go to Saudi Arabia, you cannot practice your religion openly at all. Come to any Western country, you can worship just about whoever or whatever you want with no (legal) need to hide.

fly_agaric

Hobbes wrote:

Except that I have already said they were allowed into the country. Or do you have a link to where they are declared as banned. Catholics are also forbidden in Saudi in openly worshipping thier god. However both cases there is nothing wrong with worshipping in private.

Incidently, Iran actually allows other religons in the country and has quite a few Jewish people in it.

Sand gave me an idea to drive home the point being made.

Would you rather be a muslim in Denmark or a non-muslim in Iran (ignoring financial reasons for preferring one over the other)?

I'm sure all of the just above is American Propaganda.:)

pete

fly_agaric wrote:

As for blasphemy laws - I wonder when was the last time anyone was charged with and convicted of blasphemy in any of the Western states mentioned? No doubt if new blasphemy laws are brough in specially for muslims they will be expected to have teeth, won't they? He says as much at the end.

yeah imagine how unfair having blasphemy laws that favoured just one specific religion would be.

Q: How often is it used?

The last man to be sent to prison for blasphemy was John William Gott. In 1922 he was sentenced to nine months' hard labour for comparing Jesus with a circus clown. In Scotland, there has not been a public prosecution since 1843.

In 1977 moral campaigner Mary Whitehouse brought a private prosecution against the Gay News for publishing a poem, The Love That Dares To Speak Its Name, depicting a centurion's love for Christ.

Some British Muslims unsuccessfully called for author Salman Rushdie to be tried under the law after the publication of his controversial novel, The Satanic Verses. But the law only recognises blasphemy against the Church of England.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3753408.stm

Terry

Sand wrote:

It does demonstrate that the West doesnt need any lessons in religious tolerance from the Middle East though. Muslims are perfectly free to worship publically or privately here, and perfectly entitled to claim citizenship and demand the same rights as everyone else.

see, this is where the problem begins.
muslims can come over here, they can worship allah, they can wear their traditional clothing and they can enjoy all the freedoms that we enjoy. but it seems to me that some of them seem to want to impose the laws of their country of origin on the rest of us. this just won't cut it. i for one will not stand for this. i have been offended my many things in my life, but i just let them go.
take the episode of hte simpsons that portrays Irish people as drunks who roam the streets fighting. it didn't make me take a protest to the american embassey in Dublin.
the muslim communities in western ocuntries need to realise that they will be open to ridicule. it's part of our way of life. i'm going to say it and not a lot of people are going to like it, but here it is anyway.
if you don't like our way of life, don't live in our country.
we will not change our ways just because you don't lie them.
this is how we live. this is what we do. learn to live with it or stop complaining and get the hell out of here. that goes for everyone, not just muslims.

democrates

Vangelis wrote:

Deliberately provocative?

Said who? There are rumours down in the Middle-East that publishing of these caricatures were arranged by the Denmark government. Outrageous! Then you could speak of deliberatley provocative!

I say. Beacuse I don't believe the news media in denmark are unaware of the sensetivities of muslims, particularly after that film maker was murdered. Some of them have been very angry since, and bristling for a conflagration, that's my guess. I don't think I'm way off the mark. Feel free to offer a better explanation of their actions....

Wolff

Hobbes wrote:

Except that I have already said they were allowed into the country. Or do you have a link to where they are declared as banned. Catholics are also forbidden in Saudi in openly worshipping thier god. However both cases there is nothing wrong with worshipping in private.

Incidently, Iran actually allows other religons in the country and has quite a few Jewish people in it.

http://www.projectvisa.com/countryinfo.asp?countrycode=il

Having an Israel stamp in your passport will stop you from visiting;
Algeria, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Sudan, UAE and Yemen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport


Muslim countries not accepting Israeli passports are:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Comoros, Djibouti, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia (except with written permission from the Malaysian government), Oman, Maldives, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia (Jewish persons are not allowed entry, regardless of nationality), Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates (sources conflict over whether or not passports with Israeli stamps are accepted), Yemen.


I can personally vouch for Libya - where Ive seen people being sent home on flights for Israeli stamps - So god knows what they do to an Israeli passport.