Denmark opens up a can of worms

Remove all ads!

Is it OK to lump every muslim in with the (extremely small)number of muslims that actually do such things? And then make sweeping statements about muslims being "bad guests" when only a small number of muslims actually do what is being talked about here? Seriously, we need to watch our generalities. The western world also needs to realise it's own culpability in these misunderstandings.

 

If there's something that angers me is when few people make lots of people pay for their (the few) 'sins'.
I'm sure that people in general (those who work hard everyday to put food in their tables) is not the kind of extremist, religious or political; there were always these kind of people who decide what's wrong or right for the mass, promoting hate and violence sometimes.
And as many said here, not only Muslim people (the extremists) are violent in their religious path, there were (and are) lots of other groups and religions that have their extremist side; but Muslim are most expossed because there are more propaganda against them.
ETA is an armed group that wants the Vasque Country to get independant, they go around killing and threatening businessman/woman asking for money to finance their 'cause' and if a newspaper say something against them in any part of Spain, they bomb them, so every Spaniard hate/fear Vasque people because of that while Vasque people (I know lots of them) don't even want to know about getting independant.
Same happens with Catalunya, while politicians are fighting to get Catalunyan 'freedom', and the press make big fuse about it, caused that Spain boycot Catalunyan products.
We had our piece of extremist Muslim violence here too, many innocent people died, and all because few people decided that few people were acting against their religion.
Religion (any of them) always caused pain everywhere when it is supposed that religion has to bring hope and love (or so their Gods say).
Thanks that this cartoon matter just caused some controversy and nobody has died for it. I hope it stays this way, because it really hurts me when innocent people get caught in the middle of the fire of some stupid leaders.

 

I'm not a fan of funny pics of Muhammad. I don't think it's right to insult people's religions like that. And I don't know what the designers of that wanted to achieve.

 

OK, but that's not the point. I would like to know what the Danes did that you can call them bad hosts. You warn of generalisation - and I agree. However, you do just that. What did they, as a nation, do that calls for threatening their lifes, driving them out of the Middle East, recalling ambassadors?

Btw, I dont know what that comic was about, but it seems, if anything, the muslims in question have proven the Mohammed with bomb-metaphor right. Irony that is lost on them, no doubt.

 

Well in the light of the stabbing incident in Holland, they wanted to demonstrate the fredom of speech.

I guess, this is a nice opportunity for the dictators from the Middle East to gain positive attention in the streets, where they normally don't get much credit. A matter beyond homeland borders is what they needed for their own safety - easining the dictators control of the angry mob.

 

All this entire silliness makes me want to do is to draw a picture of Mohemmed and piss on it in front of any muslim I can find. People like this have no place in a free world, another example that religion is a horror and mindtwister that should be abolished and that rational thought and religious faith are strangers to each other. Lets burn all bibles and korans and turn churches and mosques to gaming centres or heck, even brothels or drug labs would be more beneficial to humanity.

 

No one has been killed in this. The Muslim world at large has non-violently shown their displeasure by engaging in non-violent protest and boycotts and we are criticising them? We should be encouraging this. Terrorism is caused by desperation. The feeling of impotence the Arab world has on the world stage is the cause of terrorism in the Arab world. If non-violent tactics like boycotts and protests meet with success, this empowers the Arab community. Less of them feel desperate enough to resort to acts of terrorism. If, instead, we piss on a picture of Muhammed again when the muslim community complains about us insulting their most sacred figure (something we don't do to christian religious figures without serious repercussions) this furthers that feeling of impotence.


@Dendri: My "bad host" comments were in direct response to the idea that Danish muslims were "bad guests" for being offended by a Danish paper attacking and making fun of their most important religious figure. Aside from the fact that I find the idea that all of these Danish Muslims were actually "guests" to begin with soewhat dubious(most were probably citizens), I was trying to point out that in my country it is bad manners to insult your guest. Hence, if the Muslims are bad guests, then Denmark is an even worse host.

[ February 02, 2006, 18:44: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Were there any specific reactions as to which of the cartoons people found problematic? And how many of the protesters have actually seen the cartoons?

Some of them seemed quite innocent... like the simple one of the bearded guy in a robe and turban. Others could be seen as a bit more offensive: a bearded guy wearing bomb instead of a turban, with "God is great" calligraphy on the bomb, or a bearded, turbaned guy with an evil look and a scimitar in front of two burka'ed women.

These last two are certainly going to offend people, but they do reflect the misgivings of the artists (and others in society) about the sorts of social practices and violence that some groups justify by appealing to Islam.

I can think of lots of cases where Christian figures have been similarly used in cartooning or art: Jesuses, Marys, Popes, Saints, popular religious figures, etc. I can understand the frustration this may cause in some believers, but I believe that the alternate to allowing such things, that is, the banning of the use of religious symbols if they might in any way be offensive to a particular religious group, is the path to ruin.

For example, Serrano's "Piss Christ" and Ofili's portrait of the Virgin Mary (which included balls of dried elephant dung on the canvas) were perhaps more provocatve than meaningful (both of these pieces set of social controversy in the US). It is within the right of any religious group to be offended by these things, and to complain about them, and to try to convince people that they aren't worth seeing. But I could *never* support banning the production and exhibition of such works. If certain people find religions or religious symbols disturbing or problematic, they should be allowed to express this, just as religious people should be allowed to express their approval of religion.

In the US, some religious groups have complained at limits on displaying religious symbols in public places of power: i.e., the crech on the front lawn of town hall; on in the display of "anti-religious" imagery in publically funded museums.

But imagine if the "anti-religious" actually demanded the same things: anti-religious symbols on the front lawn of town hall (perhaps a large "Piss Christ"), or banning religious images from public museums (buh-bye 95% of Western Medieval Art). But no one really advocates this, do they? It just goes to show how weighted things are towards the favor of the religious in the US at this time...

 

@ Drew
I still dont get how one can come up with the notion of Denmark being a bad host? Simply because this isnt a campaign of sorts funded by the Danish people or run by their government?

I still dont get the kind of mindset of anyone speaking out against generalisations made about muslims, yet faulting the Danes when muslims do that to the Danes? Namely bringing out the broad brush against a whole people, attacking its citizens in their respective nations, over a flipping comic strip in an independent newspaper?

And what kind of "guests" are those muslims in Denmark then, who go about rousing hate against their "host" by spreading this material around, knowing its effects among their peaceloving brothers?

Please, explain?

 

(Italics added for emphasis) I don't actually think Denmark is a bad host. However, if we are going to use the actions of a few muslims to determine that the muslims of Denmark are "bad guests", then we can use the exact same logic to say that Denmark is a bad host because of the actions of a Danish newspaper. It was an illustrative example of why it is faulty logic to call muslims "bad guests" for being offended by something that anyone with half a brain knew they'd find offensive.
The other thing is that I have a huge problem with characterising these muslims as "guests" in the first place. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. The reason for this is that many, many people convert to islam. The vast majority of these muslim "guests" are actually citizens.

[ February 02, 2006, 20:37: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Well I don't hope Denmark is a bad host. Trouble is, this could be printed anywhere in the western world. This time it started in Denmark. The muslims (VERY generally speaking according to certain reactions nowadays) are not coping with "freedom of speech". It's too far from their everyday I guess. Perhaps this stems from their lack of a sort of democracy?

Well as far as I heard the drawing with Mohammad carrying a bomb in his turban was especially offending to some.

 

The problem isn't lack of democracy. Let's look at what has actually happened:

1. Peacefull protests.
2. A boycott.
3. A few blank threats.

Issues #1 and #2 are, in fact, democracy in action. Issue #3 is isolated and does not really bear any connection to the greater islamic community. I'm not convinced that there's any problem at all.

 

You could be right about a problem or not. But in my eyes the lack of democracy is apparent - ie you can't even criticise anything without being condemned. Wonder what would had happened if it was printed in Saudi Arabia.

A boycott is aok, as far I'm corcerned, but not when it's government-carried. This "democracy" you are talking about isn't a democracy - it's theocrats (priests) whom dictate what to do - not elected people.

How many is "few"?

 

"Freedom of speech" is relative; you are allowed to express your opinion UNLESS it has something to do with anything illegal. Take warez, for example; all talk about it is shunned on this board and this board is supposed to be in a democratic country. Then take another example: anything concerning Muhammed is shunned in islamic countries and talk about him will get you something else than just a ban. All authorities impose their own rules and when another questions them, they grow afraid. So are we that different then?

IMO, the only real difference is the religion and the role it has around there. I have always said that religions make people fanatic and this case proves it yet again. There is simply no way to reason with islamic zealots.

 

I wouldn't want to call any death threats blank threats, that's the gravest mistake one can make when there's muslims involved. Theo van Gogh also received several death threats, which he himself didn't take too serious, and neither did most of us, until someone gutted him in the streets in Amsterdam, and planted a note on his chest with a ceremonial dagger, warning everyone that there were more to follow. People from the government here need around the clock security, because they are on an Islamic hitlist. Danish travellers all around the world now face the same dangers as our politicians, because Islamic religeous leaders more or less outlawed them.

We're not talking about just a few muslims here, we're talking about thousands upon thousands of fanatics.

 

Yeah, and I'm kind a relieved, that other european papers today printed the drawings also - in spite of the islamic reactions.

@Wirhe: yes you're right, and yes - we are under a coorporate democracy, where warez and such are banned.

 

The government (at least, the American government, and I presume the same holds true for most other western nations) cannot restrict your speech (barring inciting to violence and such). Tal is not the government, this board is privately owned. He can't infringe my freedom of speech, no matter what restrictions he places on this privately owned board.

 

I imagine that some of you don't know the Muslim religion enough, reading the posts here.
It is forbidden in their religion to picture the Prophet and the Allah, with the penalty of death.
And if you think that muslims are like Christians in the way they follow their religion you are gravely mistaken for the majority of them.
Quran is not just a Holy Bible kind of book (allthough Holy bible does have a guideline for everyday life too), it is a way of life that describes in every detail the everyday life of faithfulls.
So where you see a small number of extremists that go around screaming death threats againsts the offenders of their faith, i see a huge group of (mainly uneducated in terms of anything else but religious reading) faithfull that will boycote anything comes from Denmark, Norway, France, Spain or any others country newspaper has the bright idea to offend their religious beliefs. And there is a smaller but considerable size people of religious fanatics that will even commit death to defend their beliefs.

Is it? I believe you miss the point. The right term is Muslim market not Arab. If you think that only Arabs were offended i can tell you you are wrong. Muslim is one of the prime religions in Asia too and has a considerable target group in Africa and America (North and South).

Muslims never said that tolerance thing. Muhhamed said in his teachings that his word must spread like fire across the word, and if not heard then by sword and fire it will. So tolerance is more a political option of the leaders (during the eras) than a religious hint. And Christianism is just lucky because Jesus is considered a prophet too in Quran.

I am sorry but i believe it does lie in religion. As i said before, the way we live as Christians differs a lot form the way they live as Muslims. To put it bluntly the vast majority of Christians, are Christians only by name and because they were baptized in a very young age rather than really believing it.
On the other hand the vast majority of the people living in these countries (and not living too), they are being raised with the teachings and obligatory learning by heart of the Quran. So even if they did not really liked it (which is becoming obvious at later stages) it becomes a part (or better yet way) of their life. And by offending Quran, you offend their way of life.
It is easy for a Christian to mock or make a joke about Christ or God or any Saint of the Christian religion. It is our religion and we have every right to do that, knowing that in the end if God really exists and was pissed off with our joke, He has a very special gift for us....HELL.
I bet that many of the jokes we have made about our religious figures, made many muslim to laugh. But we don't take our religions as seriously as they do.
Rushdi is still hiding and his Fawtah is still valid and vigilant. Van Gogh paid with his life not the offend of the Muslim religion but the offend of the Muslim way of life. Which is in the end the same thing.
And many more people have died for that offend too. Does anyone remembers the video with the public execution of the two women in a football stadium in Afganistan? These women had viloated the Sharia and the penalty was death. I have also heard (i can't say it is valid) that in Iran ( a purely fundamentalist state where Sharia is still active de facto) thieves do get their hands chopped off for stealing in some areas.
Anyway, i believe that even if the pics were funny (i haven't seen them and frankly i don't care), they shouldn't have been published. And the editor who took this choice did this out of purely idiotic arrogance, believing that muslims are like the muslim friends he may have. Believing but not quite following the principles.
Well he is wrong, he managed to start a fire that will not quench with a sorry i did not meant to offend you, put the majority of the EU in danger of retaliation from extremists, and Danish people in the target scope of many crazy trigger-itching people.
If you think that this is a joke then i am not laughing.

 

You know, as an ex-Arabic linguist (I did it in the Navy), I think my words carry a little bit of weight when I say that the vast majority of muslims do not think that way. Before you start to argue about what is in the Quran (or what isn't), let's take a look at what the bible has to say. I seem to remember stoning as the prescribed punishment for a great range of crimes...homosexuality among them. I also remember a passage in the new testament where Jesus said he would not change Jewish law. Yet, I don't find a lot of Christians or Jews that actually advocate stoning gay people. (Unfortunately, I have met a few who actually do.)

To those of you making generalities about what the Arab community feels about things, I want to ask if you have sat down and actually talked to an Iraqi Kurd, Saudi woman or a Morrocan Immigrant. I have. The Arabs aren't very different than we are, and most Arab nations are actually quite westernised. There are only a few theocracies. The misunderstandings between the western world and the Middle East goes both ways and, most of the time, I think we misunderstand them worse than they misunderstand us.