BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Freedom of the Press versus Islamic Blasphemy

  
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
11:17 / 06.02.06
Haus' post, prior to edit, said that he was not proposing for your post to be deleted, M$, despite his feeling there was an argument that it should be. When moving to edit that post, the reason he gave for doing so was that Illmatic had addressed some of the things he wanted to address more constructively and comprehensively, so he felt that some of his comments were now superfluous. A good decision, I think, and one which ought perhaps to influence us all.

Whether someone's authority when posting about an issue on Barbelith should rely on their ability to list ways in which they are interacting with that issue outside of Barbelith is an issue that has come up several times before. It's not an easy issue by any means, this thing of words and deeds. My own view on this is that if someone presents their own personal deeds in a humble and plausible way, then that can be a source of authority, but that demands for other people to list their deeds (in order to have any authority when contributing to a discussion) are not useful - not least of all because such lists of deeds can be very hard to substantiate.

My view is also that since words do not exist in a vacuum, even here, there can still be said to be useful and less useful forms of commentary, even without reference to other, more intuitively 'real' deeds. The balance of activism-organising and commentary in the Switchboard has varied at various points in Barbelith's history. We now have a thread specifically on activism for the very purpose of encouraging and enabling people to translate words into deeds - and there is a strong argument that there should be more - however, I don't think this has to invalidate the commentary side of things.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:23 / 06.02.06
Flyboy's answer is a lot better than mine, in many ways. I'm bang off form at present.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:30 / 06.02.06
Ill - is this the essay you referred to upthread?

There are quite a few 'activism' threads in a forum search.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
11:56 / 06.02.06
Apologies for the miscontruing of your post, Haus, which I clearly (?? Not so clearly ??) misread. Your suggestions are all valuable.

Petey - all good points.

I apologise for my mirth dive-bombing into this thread, which I knew was basically inappropriate (I even apologised in advance in the post itself, which is not to excuse it...just, you know, saying...). It was ill judged.

Something about baying crowds demanding beheadings just pushes my Simpsons buttons and makes me want to a) Run and scream, or b) burst out laughing.

It's a coping mechanism.

Correct me if I'm wrong - as I understand it, the stated problem underlying these protests is less to do with the depiction of the Prophet as a terrorist/freedom fighter, which is simply additional (and, undoubtedly extremely ill-judged) insult piled on injury, and more to do with the actual injury - a graven image of the Prophet at all, particularly in a secular news media.

Allah is beyond conception, and cannot be captured in image of any sort - kind of overdoing the literalism of the concept, imo, but different strokes...I mean, to state that Oneness cannot be rendered in image is self-evident - any degree of accuracy would require a canvas at least as large as the visible Universe - but to make this a legal decree, punishable by death...YOU WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY ONENESS, IT IS FORBIDDEN!...Forbidden by whom? The egos of corrupt princes and shahs who hoard all of the wealth in their poverty afflicted nations while perverting the words of the Qu'ran to support their decadent lifestyles? Ummmm, missing something? Maybe I am...help me out here...)

Does this in any way alter the argument, and if so, how?
 
 
Mistoffelees
11:58 / 06.02.06
I'm burning a flag, right now.

I'm not gonna tell you whose flag.

It better not be this flag, Stoat, or your rum supply will be leavened with ninja snot.
  
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:03 / 06.02.06
Sorry, forgot to point out, in case it was not obvious, that this 'decree' as regards Allah, has been extended to Muhammed, also...so he is 'out of bounds' for depiction in any form. Censored. Too holy, you see.

So, in theory, if the Danish newspaper had, rather unlikelily (?), depicted the Prophet descending from the heavens to bring peace and justice to the strife ridden world, this would have been equally blasphemous, if less insulting, and presumably had the potential for equally zealous uprising and discontent.

How can this be reconciled? Is blasphemy blasphemy if you do not subscribe to the faith? If not, then how can one judge what is and is not appropriate when blaspheming in such a way in the popular news media?
 
 
illmatic
12:04 / 06.02.06
Money Shot: Yes mate, that's the one. More from me later, right in the middle of something.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:09 / 06.02.06
It's a coping mechanism.

Understood, and apologies. As you say, people affected in different ways, and I should have been less quick to tie that into any broader concerns about Switchboard.

Correct me if I'm wrong - as I understand it, the stated problem underlying these protests is less to do with the depiction of the Prophet as a terrorist/freedom fighter, which is simply additional (and, undoubtedly extremely ill-judged) insult piled on injury, and more to do with the actual injury - a graven image of the Prophet at all, particularly in a secular news media.

Way-ull... I think it goes both ways. The original issue was the difficulty in finding an illustrator for a book about TPM, with the final artist doing it anonymously for fear of persecution, because the depiction of TPM is forbidden. However, the paper, taking this up, decided to raise the stakes by adding a satirical intent, by depicting TPM in various satirical lights as well as depicting him simple. S, you've got offence on offence, there - it's not just representation, but it's an action calculated to mock TPM or Islam.

Things get more interesting, however, if the reports are true that the imans who travelled to the Middle East with copies of these images inserted three more, of unknown provenance, which where spectaculary and intentionally blasphemous. That is, presumably, either that there was a shocking failure of communications, or they feared that the images published would not actually be enough to cause sufficient fury to get the result they wanted - which may or may not have been the astonsihing reaction we've seen.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:25 / 06.02.06
How do people actually feel about these events:

Four people die in cartoon protests.

Call for arrests in London as Blair condemns protestors

In pictures: Beirut protests
 
 
All Acting Regiment
12:49 / 06.02.06
Nina- at the moment I'm still getting the latest updates, but aren't all the deaths protesters who've been shot?

Allah is beyond conception, and cannot be captured in image of any sort - kind of overdoing the literalism of the concept, imo, but different strokes...I mean, to state that Oneness cannot be rendered in image is self-evident - any degree of accuracy would require a canvas at least as large as the visible Universe - but to make this a legal decree, punishable by death...YOU WILL NOT ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY ONENESS, IT IS FORBIDDEN!...Forbidden by whom? The egos of corrupt princes and shahs who hoard all of the wealth in their poverty afflicted nations while perverting the words of the Qu'ran to support their decadent lifestyles? Ummmm, missing something? Maybe I am...help me out here...)

Does this in any way alter the argument, and if so, how?

So, you're saying: the strict rules about representing Allah or Mohammed (or governing the public's approach to religion in general) are put in place by a self-serving, powerful ruling class (often armed). Your general tone suggests that therefore, to you, this entire structure is essentially bankrupt- why are people following it, the sillies?!?!

You ask if you're missing something, and I think you are. Namely, you're missing the fact that your privileged position- possibly through your l33t magik skills, but mostly through being located outside the structure of practical Islam- affords you an understanding of the structure as a whole, from outside the will of the corrupt ruling class, which the people "on the ground" simply do not have.
 
 
alas
12:52 / 06.02.06
Haus, way back on page 2 you said Except that Islam occupies a partial existence as a quasi-state also...

I'm interested, because others have said, as I have thought, that Islam is a religion full stop. So I'm not sure I understand this argument--is it just the existence of Sharia law that makes Islam a quasi-state? (This is a sincere question, not any kind of a set-up, I assure you).
 
 
Not in the Face
12:55 / 06.02.06
I feel pretty sickened that people are dying over this whole issue but I can't help but feel that the riots are about the wider concerns in Islamic world - I think Mistofellees was bang on when ze said that it may be hard for people within these countries to distinguish between the newspaper and the government. Although I've no experience of the middle east, my time in China made it clear that for the chinese people the news agencies are clearly an arm of the state and that any polite fiction about independence and free speech is just that. They therefore judged western countries by the same standards and that negative comments about China in the western press were basically the govt of that country attacking China.

Its not a huge step to think the same applies to other countries. And of course all governments involved are allowing the protests and making sympathetic noises because its a hot button issue and like all governments they are happy to ride the wave of public opinion, especially when it won't actually go anywhere. In other areas the government control is weak or, in Afghanistan is strongly connected to the West.

The problem seems to be that both sides are arguing apples and oranges - western critics are emphasising freedom of the press as the most important value in the argument while Muslims are arguing that religous tenets are the most important value. I think it shows that Muslin countries need to have a debate about the role of the press within their countries but that debate probably shouldn't be started by a Danish newspaper.

As for those in London who protested - namely the bloke dressed as a suicide bomber - my own view is that he's an idiot but that I don't see that arresting him would help or hinder free speech. If we, and by us I mean the west, are so hot on it then we need to apply it consistently - nobody arrested Prince Harry in his nazi-outfit but he was widely condemned - the same should happen here.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
12:58 / 06.02.06
How do you feel about them, Nina?

My tuppence:

1) That people are actually losing their lives (you know, that thing that we all have, right now, which enables all of this. This life) over something so completely divorced from life, which exists only in the thoughts of people about life, in attempts to understand life, and abide by its nature, and flow in its Way, for long life, and loving life, and in love of life, and in a spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood with all life, is so tragic and demented and lost that it makes me want to cry.

2) Yes, they should be arrested, and prosecuted for incitement to hatred and violence, and I am flabbergasted that they weren't apprehended at the time. 'UK, better pray, 7/7 on its way!' ? Six months after that horrible event? Weep.

3) See 1)
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
13:27 / 06.02.06
So, you're saying: the strict rules about representing Allah or Mohammed (or governing the public's approach to religion in general) are put in place by a self-serving, powerful ruling class (often armed).

Yes, or certainly enforced as zealoutry and dogma and sharia by such. Perversion of the Prophet's words by Bedouin tribal lords pursuing their own power-hungry agendas.

Your general tone suggests that therefore, to you, this entire structure is essentially bankrupt

Yes, and at odds to the Qu'ran.

Why are people following it, the sillies?!?!

Not my words, yours. I don't think they are 'sillies'. I also don't think they are representative of Muslims at large, in general, certainly none of the Muslims I know, nor any of the Muslims they know. I also think it isn't helpful to conflate the Qu'ran and Islamic faith with the political maneuverings and agit-prop revolutionary posturing of these groups. So when you refer to 'following it' I'm not sure what you mean - Islam, or the perverted paramilitary revolutionary political wing that has sprouted from fundamentalist interpretation of it?

You ask if you're missing something, and I think you are. Namely, you're missing the fact that your privileged position- possibly through your l33t magik skills, but mostly through being located outside the structure of practical Islam- affords you an understanding of the structure as a whole, from outside the will of the corrupt ruling class, which the people "on the ground" simply do not have.

Which people "on the ground"? Do you know these people? How can you be sure they are so ignorant? In fact, why not scratch 'people' and just come right out and say 'victims', which is the tone of your post. Can you explain what you mean by 'the structure of practical Islam'? Practical Islam is a term I have not encountered before. As opposed to what, exactly? Theoretical Islam? And who are these poor ignorant victims that I, and by extension you, have so much more knowledge than? Have you read the Qu'ran? Have they, do you think? Do they have brains, and the ability to make informed conscious decisions, or are they, as in your depiction, servile drones of the ruling classes? You seem to be denying them the freedom to make choices based on the factors we all have to face in building our world-views predicated on their status as victims of oppression, while simultaneously affording them this oppression as justification of anti-life, violent hatred. You are speaking as if you know what you are talking about, but it seems perfectly possible to me that you don't, really. All wrapped up with a little dig about l33t something or other.

You may want to try affording people the benefit of the doubt as to being able to make and take responsibillity for their own actions. The 'people on the ground' probably have far more awareness of things than you are assuming, and to state that they 'simply do not' is trite at best. Evidence?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
14:18 / 06.02.06
You see, LR, even if they were unable to read, any recitation of the Qu'ran (and the Qu'ran is the words, spoken/recited/chanted, not the printed manuscript) would inevitably confront the believer with this, prefacing and starting all but one of the suras (chapters) within the text:

"In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful"

Referring to our friends at dictionary.com

be·nef·i·cent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-nf-snt)
adj.
1. Characterized by or performing acts of kindness or charity.
2. Producing benefit; beneficial.

mer·ci·ful ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs-fl)
adj.
1. Full of mercy; compassionate.

and, just for absolute clarity:

mer·cy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mûrs)
n. pl. mer·cies

1. Compassionate treatment, especially of those under one's power; clemency.
2. A disposition to be kind and forgiving: a heart full of mercy.
3. Something for which to be thankful; a blessing: It was a mercy that no one was hurt.
4. Alleviation of distress; relief: Taking in the refugees was an act of mercy.

Calls for massacre, beheadings, more bombs on tube trains, suicide bombs on buses, and similar do not, I feel, fall under this rubric, whether victim of an oppressive ruling class or not. Ask Gandhi.

Allah has many divine attributes, detailed in the 99 Beautiful names of God. Not until we get to 25 do we get any hint of anything but love and compassion, having journeyed from the above mentioned The Beneficent (Ar-Rahman / Al-Rhmn) and The Merciful (Ar-Rahim / Al-Rhym) as the first two, through The Holy (Al-Kuddus / Al-Qdws), The Forgiver (Al-Ghaffar / Al-GhFar), The Provider (Ar-Razzak / Al-Rzaq) and so on up to 25, The Destroyer (Al-Muzil / Al-Mdhil) - but even then we discover that the Power of this attribute is 'Protection from Jealousy'.

Later we get to 61, The Killer (Al-Mumit / Al-mmyt), but we note that it is bounded either side by Al-Muhyi, The Giver of Life, and Al-Hayy, The Living.

The only other divine attribute even vaguely reconcilable with any of this is the 81st Beautiful Name, Al-Muntakim, The Avenger, which promises Victory over Enemies. But, again, the Sufi within us notes that it is preceeded by Al-Tawwab, The Turner of Hearts, bringing acceptance of repentance, and followed by Al-Afuw, The Pardoner, who forgives all Sins, our own and those of our enemies.. For we are but One, yes? Within His Grace and Beneficence, etc. etc. The Absolute. Everything you do unto others, you do unto yourself, for all is God. M.O.N.O.T.H.E.I.S.M.

None of this, of course, has anything to do with all of the shit involving cutting peoples heads off and burning down embassies over drawings. All of that is political, and it is hugely unfortunate that Islam is besmirched with all of this power-wrangling by a bunch of truly despicable despot idiots and their friends in high places in the West. That of the 99 Beautiful Names of God, and associated Powers, just 2 or 3 provide most Western access and view of the entire Islamic faith, and the media collaborate in the portrayal of this as *Islam*, aided by the disaffected, disenfranchised revolutionary political contingent enjoying a huge groundswell of support within the wider world of Islamic faith.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:48 / 06.02.06
Alas - I fear I spoke with exactly the hastiness one would do well to avoid. Broadly, I was refering to the idea I have heard - admittedly primarily from people who had already decided that the whole thing was not really for them - that being Islamic had its own obligations which superseded the demands of nationhood - so, a muslim living in Britain was not British, but a muslim who happened to be in Britain, and if the laws of the land contradicted the mandates of the Qu'ran or the Hadith (or rather, and rather crucially, the particular interpretation of a particular religious leader), then it was the duty of a muslim to defy the laws of the state of which they were a citizen, because that statehood was invalid.
 
 
Digital Hermes
14:54 / 06.02.06
To clarify, M$, it is your contention that these riots are entirely political?

It's not impossible that the people committing these violences consider themselves devout and following Islam to a tee. They may be ignoring the tenents of Islam that you mention, but even if they have misconstrued them, that doesn't divorce their actions from being somewhat religion-driven. I don't know enought about the Muslim faith to comment if that violent fervour is being directed higher up in the religous power structure, for political reasons. Is there any information to clarify that? And what would those reasons be? Simply remaining in power?

This whole event seems like a domino effect. The current strife does not equal the original event, but both sides yelling at each other has brought it to a volatile level. Nobody's entirely innocent, but it raises some questions, particularly, a) if political correctness should become more important then freedom of speech (a freedom widely exercised on this board) and b) if countries are having policy created, essentially, by a religion that is not their dominant one, (especially if there is a fear of violence) what sort of world would that create?

It's been repeated that many Muslims do not advocate the violence perpetrated by militant groups, but what do they and/or we, do about those groups, without looking like a pogrom?
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:14 / 06.02.06
Hmm..I doubt if anything is entirely [thing], unless [thing] takes into account, well, everything...maybe monotheism has a lot going for it, eh?

It is difficult if not impossible (and essentially pointless) to draw a line and say this is the political aspect of this situation and this is the religious aspect of it, they are entwined, of course. However, the protest and manner of dissent is political, I believe, and driven more by political unrest and the wider political context in which it is occurring, than religious wrangling. It's very much about power, and the imbalances thereof. Religion provides a powerful, compelling battleground in which to establish the terms of disagreement. The radical fundamentalist wing of so called Islamic militancy is primarily a political movement, a revolutionary political movement, pretty much akin to every other similar revolutionary group throughout history, given added dogmatic zealotry and purpose and some kind of twisted integrity in the minds of those who would adhere to it by fundamentalist interpretation of small parts of a religious text, which, as time wears on, and certainly of great sales benefit to media-sexiness, becomes less and less easily extricated from the supposed religious roots. This is why and how it appeals mostly to, and is carried forward and enacted on the world stage by 'angry young men'. Revolutionaries. Always had 'em, ain't going away anytime soon.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:22 / 06.02.06
It's not impossible that the people committing these violences consider themselves devout and following Islam to a tee.

Black can be white if you try hard enough. The problem with following anything to a 'tee' is that's not how life works. Life is not bounded, like text, and teachings. Life is very complex. So one must have a baseline principle which dictates interpretation of such contrivances as spiritual teachings. And pretty much all of them make this abundantly clear - they are intended to elucidate principles in the service of life. To reveal, as clearly as possible, the shining of the Light.

Any twat can read the Bible or the Qu'ran and use it justify the murder of those they disagree with. They can, logically and reasonably, claim to be devout and following the religion to a tee. But you know, and I know, that they are full of shit. Right?
 
 
Alex's Grandma
16:22 / 06.02.06
I also don't think they are repesentative of Muslims at large, in general, certainly none of the Muslims I know, nor any of the muslims they know

This, I think, is a very good point, especially with regard to the perceived 'Muslim anger' (quoted from Sunday's Observer,) sparked by the offending cartoons. The actions of an extremist subset (who may or may not have a legitimate grievance, though I tend to agree that this particular incident has been blown way out of proportion, to say the least,) really shouldn't be confused with the the views of the religion as a whole - to do otherwise is to very much play into the hands of the uglier elements on both sides of the debate.

Also, having spent a bit of time in the kind of countries that might be broadly identified as being part of the Islamist community (it's a bit travel-bore to say so, but Egypt and Morocco,) I'll admit to being fairly uncomfortable about some of the assumptions being made about what 'people there' are 'like.' The short answer being, 'really not all that different.'
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:40 / 06.02.06
"People on the ground", you mean?

Yes, they are very similar to the rest of the human race, aren't they? My brother lived in Saudi for seven years, and I met many locals and travellers from the region while he was there. And you know what? Sense of humour? Check. Keen appreciation of how the world perceives them? Check. Broad knowledge of global politics? Check - No more nor less than you'd expect to find anywhere else. Far more so than the US ex-pats working on the base, not that that's indicative of anything much. Religion as a personal, life affirming aspect of their character? Check. Slightly annoying tendency to want to share it and warn non-adherents of the error of their ways? Check. Broad ability to laugh and shrug at indifference and mild rib-poking in the face of such attempts? Of course.

Just people, much like anywhere else in the world, trying to get by, and live happy lives.
 
 
Digital Hermes
17:09 / 06.02.06
They can, logically and reasonably, claim to be devout and following the religion to a tee. But you know, and I know, that they are full of shit. Right?

I agree with the latter of this, but I'm having a hard time with the former. I don't think logic or reason has anything to do with the firebombings whatsoever. And those revolutionaries who whip up this kind of fervour are essentially trying to make people do things impulsively in the name of something more noble then how they're using it.

So yes, from the militant revolutionary leadership on down, using obscure elements of the holy texts to validate violence, that is full of, as you say, shit. But I don't think, at least on the street level, the actual violence and death can be looked at as a rational choice, or a logical one. If anything, the power of faith to override logic is what is being utilized by that leadership. Though perhaps I'm disempowering those who are commiting the violence, I find it hard to consider that each one of them has made a reasoned choice to throw a firebomb. And though I'm sure religion may not be on their minds at the moment of attack, either, I think it's faith that took them there, at the street level, in the midsts of the mobs we've seen the coverage of. Not of Islam as a whole, but of these mobs.

I feel as though we are ultimately in agreeance, M$, but we're haggling on the defenitions and descriptions! That said, clarification is good goal...

I think a problem I'm having is the general level of explanation that is being given for the violence. Though it might be useful to consider their point of view, to understand where the anger springs from, it seems like a treacherous scree slope into advocacy. Rex Murphy in the Saturday Globe and Mail wrote,

"Artists, writers and the press in Western Democracies have the right to create and write what they please. And so they must. It is why we are democratic. And no fundamentalism, of religion or any other variety, should be given the slightest leverage over that right."

Though this may have implicit in it a notion of Western power in the world, it's also a statement that those selfsame Western societies have something important to fight for, and defend, as well.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
18:35 / 06.02.06
Ah, I think I see what you mean...I do not, in any way, mean that burning down a building is logical or reasonable...in the context of 'likely to achieve anything beneficent'.

However, I was trying to point out the limits of logic and reason when applied to something as old, monolithic and intractable as a Holy Text. It cannot be used to interpret every happenstance of the immensity and complexity of Actual Life As It Happens, becasue the latter is simply far too big to fit the former. The former will, inevitably, creak under the strain.

So, logically, it is possible to obtain literally anything from a Holy Text, according to what your agenda may be. Need to find a mathematical code predicting the assassination of JFK, Yitzhak Rabin, The Pope, the Chernobyl disaster, Three Mile Island, Dale Winton's wedding? No problem. Already done. Need to justify your overwhelming desire to murder doctors who perform pregnancy terminations/homosexual people/drug users/people of a different faith to your own? It's all in there, if you want to find it.

The problem of course being, that the point of the text, the very raison d'etre of trying to communicate Unity and Oneness is to foster compassion, brotherhood and sisterhood and love for all. Unfortunately, a large population of oafs will always dash to the front with clubs/spears/automatic weapns and shout 'Love! Compassion! Justice! OR ELSE!!!' *ackackackackackack*

Missing the point *just a tad*.

So, no advocacy here at all.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
19:01 / 06.02.06
Daily Kos has an opinion on why this is an issue now considering the cartoons were posted so long ago, but also links to the Religious Policeman, which has the Muslim Offense Level.
 
 
Digital Hermes
19:57 / 06.02.06
Assuming what's in the Kos blog is even remotley true, then this is very interesting. It definitely puts your statements, M$, into a strong light.

I never gave anythought as to when the cartoons were published. Hearing now that it was in September, and it took Saudi religous leaders and newspapers running the story constantly to get things to this point...

Well, this seems scarily constructed. At this point, what I'd like to know is if the Saudi leadership and media ever intended for it to go this far?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
20:08 / 06.02.06
Thanks for the link Our Lady, it's definitely given me a lot of food for thought about this.
As for whether the Saudi government thought the protests would go this far, I doubt they care (providing of course that the Daily Kos article is accurate)- the protests are directed at foreign governments instead of them for providing inadequete security at Mecca.
 
 
the Fool
01:30 / 07.02.06
There is also this to help muddy the waters...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4686536.stm

The propaganda factor

One aspect that these governments might also want to examine is how they can counter false information.

Twelve cartoons were originally published by Jyllands-Posten. None showed the Prophet with the face of a pig. Yet such a portrayal has circulated in the Middle East (The BBC was caught out and for a time showed film of this in Gaza without realizing it was not one of the 12).

The finger of suspicion has been pointed at a delegation of Danish Muslim leaders who went to the Middle East in November to publicise the cartoons. The visit was organised by Abu Laban, a leading Muslim figure in Denmark.


According to the Danish paper Ekstra Bladet, the delegation took along a pamphlet showing the 12 drawings. But the delegation also showed a number of other pictures which they claimed had insulted Muslims in Denmark. These also got into circulation.

Western diplomats appear to have missed this entirely and seem to have made no attempt to counter some of the arguments in the pamphlet or to distinguish between the various portrayals.

It might not have made much difference but it shows how rapidly propaganda can add to fuel to the fire.

.......

Another of the 'fabricated' pieces apparently shows the prophet as a pedophile...

Deliberate provocation, but now with the shoe on the other foot...
 
 
Alex's Grandma
01:53 / 07.02.06
I find it hard to consider that each one of them has made a reasoned choice to throw a firebomb

Without wishing to have a go, DH, why do you think this? If the people responsible were 'Westerners' ie, (and I'm sorry to say this - I'm sure it's not what you mean,) white Europeans, as opposed to one of the other kinds, would you be inclined to assume the level of mind control that you appear to be hinting at?

I don't mean to harp on about this, but one of the key problems here, with the whole insane, and to my mind anyway completely unnecessary supposed 'war' that Islam and the West are currently 'fighting' would seem to be the idea that Muslims are something 'other.' This is absolutely not the case. And anyone who tells you otherwise has, I'd imagine, got a lot more interest in propagating the conflict than ending it.
 
 
Digital Hermes
05:10 / 07.02.06
If the people responsible were 'Westerners' ie, (and I'm sorry to say this - I'm sure it's not what you mean,) white Europeans, as opposed to one of the other kinds, would you be inclined to assume the level of mind control that you appear to be hinting at?

Oh, of course. (And by Western, I'm lumping North America in there too, having had its culture so affected by Europe.) I'm not saying that the irrational choice to firebomb is made because they're Muslim, at all. In this case, they happen to be. I'm saying this sort of mob violence can't be examined as a logical, resaoned reaction, because by the time the mob is thinking thusly, it's simply no longer a reasoned process. No matter your skin colour.

I think this seems to be the politcal-correctness tightrope to walk, mainly because (and I'm open to new information) Islam fundamentalism may be one of the few faiths to still have extremely militant members. The Catholic/Protestant Irish thing is about something other then God, as far as I can tell, (please correct me otherwise) and any fundamentalist Christian groups in North America, at least in Canada, are looked down upon, and punished quickly, if they commit any kind of violence. The difference for me in Western and Eastern, come down more to geography and history then prioritization and aggrandizement. I hope I'm not implying a shining West and a barbarous East. That said, if someone or some group, East or West, commits a bararous act, should we speak out against it, or should we keep silent, so as to not offend the whole people?

By the way, I am not saying that Islam advocates miltancy, simply that it may be one of the few faiths that has splinter militant reactionaries, as M$ put it, that provoke a spectrum of their followers to violence.

I'm sure it is going to be pointed out to me the myriad ways in which splinter militant western individuals have perpetrated violence, but I'm looking at scale, which I don't think can be compared in North America. If I say that Islam, though not supporting violence, may be one of the last of the major monotheisms to still have these sorts of splinter groups, at these sorts of levels, am I blasphemous? The question is, am I being oppressive or disrespectful to speak about a pattern I've noticed? Should I censor those ideas because they might offend?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:00 / 07.02.06
The problem is that when Muslim groups do disown the radicals they are pretty much ignored. I'm also not sure if the groups work this way. I suspect (and could well be wrong) that in Islamic countries worshippers get their information from their mosques, the mosques then plug in to a larger theocratic government structure. You don't get that here.

Newsnight last night was depressing, with the representative from one of the British Islamic groups interupting and shouting down everyone else (and nice to see Newsnight ignore the third largest political party in the UK and get someone from UKIP in instead). It does seem that there is a strain of Islam which apparently cannot be argued with, who has a set of extremely restrictive beliefs about what Islam means and wants Sharia Law over the world. Although they are in a minority of British Muslims there is the question of how many they are.

It's worrying to consider how many Islamic countries can benefit from their people rioting over this. As Kos says, Saudi Arabia distract from complaints about the Hajj. According to Newsnight Iran have distracted their people from the nuclear issue and have linked the cartoons to the 'Zionist menace' that the leaders claim is threatening them (and will now run cartoons satirising the Holocaust), in Palestine seeing as the Israelis have refused to recognise Hamas they can use this to have people riot to bolster their support and also distract the people from the fact that Hamas may not know how to run a country.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
08:05 / 07.02.06
I think this seems to be the politcal-correctness tightrope to walk, mainly because (and I'm open to new information) Islam fundamentalism may be one of the few faiths to still have extremely militant members.

Before one even talks about the people waving pictures of dead babies in the face of women entering abortion clinics in the US, there are plenty of Christian churches in Africa and elsewhere preaching extremist disciplines, Hindu Nationalists in India, ongoing religious conflicts involving Sikh separatism... Islam is the one in which people who are not white are regularly threatening those who are, so you're more likely to see it on the news in the US, is all. Pretty much every faith outside the Bah'ai is kicking up some shit somewhere.

I'm not sure what political correctness means, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it means.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
13:41 / 07.02.06
The Sun will be happy that Abu Hamza has been found guilty of race hate and inciting murder. Which makes me wonder why the Government are so agin' prosecuting the more extreme western-phobes we've seen on the streets in the last few weeks. Why is it the only Muslims it's okay to persecute are those you have no intention of charging with any crime?
 
 
Not in the Face
14:13 / 07.02.06
In the case of Abu Hamza, the length it took to take him to trial, was probably out of concern that a court case would reveal that the police and specal branch have kept an eye on him for years and basically told him he was ok to carry on until Sept 11th, which might not look to good next to the government's current rhetoric.

Also, although it doesn't seem to have come out, it would be embarrassing to hear that for the late 90's the main opponents of Mr Hamza and his branch of Islam were other congregationalists in Finsbury Park mosque whose complaints, including evidence of calls to armed Jihad, were ignored by the police and charity commission. Such was my personal experience of helping them (and ironically hindering them)
 
 
Digital Hermes
14:48 / 07.02.06
I'm not sure what political correctness means, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean what you think it means.

I guess two responses to this, the first somewhat facetious. If you admittedly don't know what it means, then how can you be sure I'm wrong?

Second, what I mean in this case, to be clear, is that it seems to speak about the the Muslim (or perhaps any) faith, and be anything other than totally unoffensive, to say anything other than that we understand how these cartoons incited the issue, is to be painted as generalizing the faith with a broad brush, though I've tried to be specific in my comments.

I beleive political correctness, in terms of trying not to offend anyone, has been well-served on this board, while likewise people have spoken their mind. If anything, I tried to allow for those other examples of non-Muslim violence, but then I spoke of scale. It seems to me, that at least lately, between the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran's latest craziness, and now these cartoons, that these elements of the faith's practioners are working on a larger scale than your examples. That does not exclude violence occurring elsewhere, but I'm talking about these issues. Do you beleive they are not as important or dangerous as the groups you raised? On the world stage, they are moreso, with many World nations watching and even in some cases getting involved.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
15:07 / 07.02.06
between the Israel-Palestine conflict, Iran's latest craziness, and now these cartoons, that these elements of the faith's practioners are working on a larger scale than your examples.

A total of around 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda were killed by Hutus, and a further 2 million made homeless. In comparison to the current protests, this makes, by your logic, Roman Catholicism by some distance the most extreme and dangerous religion in the modern world.
 
  

Page: 12(3)45

 
  
Add Your Reply