The following excerpt from this article suffices:
The discrimination or defamation of Muslims, or of any other group for that matter, is of course reprehensible. But “Islamophobia,” as defined by Libya, Iran and the other Durban II organizers, covers any criticism of Islam, Muslims or their actions.
Indeed. It comes down to how you define “criticism” and “Islam” and we all know the kind of definitions Islamists like.
Hmmm… let’s see, Islamic law is not infallible, and in numerous cases, the horrendous way it’s practiced is outright disgusting.
Oh my, I just insulted Islam!
Most - but not all - terrorist attacks nowadays are unfortunately carried out by Muslims. Oh and beware of the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists. They have a nasty agenda.
Everybody scream “Islamophobiaaaaaaa!”
Do you see where I’m getting at?
Now of course, I’m against things like the Danish cartoons or super genius films like Fitna but that doesn’t mean I’m for criminalizing them. In fact, even European laws against Holocaust denial should be eradicated. I do realize my position puts me amongst a minority of Muslims but it is my position nonetheless. Let’s just say I like the American model of free speech.
The kind of laws being proposed by lovely regimes like Iran’s and Libya’s aren’t just meant to silence what includes a lot of legitimate concerns and criticism but also Muslim voices of reform. Seriously, do I even need to elaborate? The names “Iran” and “Libya” should be enough to convince any sane politically-aware person.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }
I don’t understand why the legality of a statement should be based on whom or what it is directed at rather than on whether it is true.
I am all for laws that prohibit Holocaust denial for the same reason that I am for laws that prohibit selling poison as apple juice. It’s wrong to lie to people.
But criticism of Islam comes in three classes:
1. Statements that are simply lies and just make people hate Muslims. “All Muslims drink the blood of Christian children and that should be taken into account when dealing with Muslims.” (That kind of “criticism” is usually directed at Jews rather than Muslims.)
2. Statements that disagree with or mock Islam, its prophet, or the Quran or some element of Islam’s jurisprudence or history. “Muhammed is NOT a prophet.”
3. Statements that disagree with or mock certain practices that are referred to as Islam by its adherents but are not even necessarily recognised as such by the person making the statement. “I think the Wahabis are pagan heretics and I do not recognise their barbaric and violent traditions as Islamic. Also I think that Iran is not an Islamic country and that the Iranian people should revert to believing in G-d rather than the idolatry of the self-proclaimed mullahs.”
The first should be illegal, the other two should be legal.
(Not what while I would mock Wahabiism at every opportunity, I would not usually mock Islam. Plus I don’t really have an opinion on whether Muhammed was a prophet or not. The statement was just an example.)
“In fact, even European laws against Holocaust denial should be eradicated.”
I gotta disagree with you on this issue, D., although I am a staunch advocate of freedom of speech and expression. Here’s why …
Limiting the right to speech is acceptable and in fact ethical when the speech results in a direct threat to public safety. It is for this reason why one cannot yell fire in a crowded public space, or why a cult leader cannot tell his followers to go and murder the first they can find without cupability.
In Europe, unlike elsewhere, Nazism has proved itself to be a direct threat to public safety — nothing has destroyed Europe’s various communities worse than Nazism, and therefore the case is unique. In the USA and everywhere else, it has not proved itself to be a direct threat to recent public safety, so there is no reason to ban it. But Nazism simmers under the surface in Europe, and the governments there have a very serious reason to keep it from boiling over. Holocaust denial in Europe is not just about speech, it is an active cultivator — the quintessential manure — of a destructive, hatemongering politic that sees certain groups of people outside of any possible redemption and therefore seeks to perpetuate genocide; and thus cannot possibly coexist with a diverse Europe.
Just to be clear, it is wrong to ban speech just because it makes some people emotional and then they riot, which is what the governments of Iran and Libya want to do. Speech should only be banned when it actively perpetuates a threat to public safety, not when it comes through backlash. Although free speech is a crucial civil liberty, since nothing has historically threatened Europe’s public safety the way Nazism has, I think it still should be banned for the time being.
“Now of course, I’m against things like the Danish cartoons”
Why, exactly? I see no “of course” about it. None of those cartoons offered any more than mild criticism. The one showing Mohammed with a bomb on his head made the point that Islam has effectively been taken over by terrorists. You might not agree with this, but it is hardly an unusual opinion.
I realise that Muslims are not supposed to make pictures or statues of Mohammed, presumably to discourage them from worshipping him. That rule is for Muslims and has no application to non-Muslims, who are not under any temptation to idolise Mohammed.
“nothing has historically threatened Europe’s public safety the way Nazism has”
Marxism-Leninism killed more people. I would say that Marxism and Nazism were equally dangerous, and indeed have much in common.
Hello everyone who is reading, allow me to add something please.
“(3) All media shall abide by professional ethics, shall refrain from inciting religious, ethnic, racial or cultural hatred and shall not agitate for violence or war.”
What I’ve quoted above is from the Sudanese constitution, and guess what? Given the *current* reality, I agree with it.
The American model of free speech works in America because American culture is generally compatible with it. Moreover it represents the most open model of free speech which in turn creates the most open market place of ideas in the entire world. Hence, this is why I like it, but I do understand that certain kinds of criticisms and speech will not go down well in many Muslim countries. In such cases, the safety of the public triumphs, BUT that should always be a discouraged direction to move in. The right direction to move in, would be developing a society that is civil, mature, capable of handling criticism and more importantly capable of having civil debates without the eruption of violence. That is the ideal we must strive towards. Establishing more laws that block the advance in that direction is not the right thing to do.
Andrew,
“I am all for laws that prohibit Holocaust denial for the same reason that I am for laws that prohibit selling poison as apple juice. It’s wrong to lie to people.”
One man’s lie is another man’s truth. Simplistic, yes, but a lie is something subjective, and when Holocaust denial (which is something utterly reprehensible and a true lie) is illegal, it sets a precedence for others to begin arguing to make the mention of what they view as lies too, also illegal.
Plus, what about Holocaust revisionism?
PeacefulVanguard,
“Limiting the right to speech is acceptable and in fact ethical when the speech results in a direct threat to public safety.”
Well, it depends on the context. Let’s just for a minute consider that the context is Europe. The steady release of genuinely Islamophobic material would then constitute a threat to public safety because:
1) Over time, it can - and probably will - dehumanize and make Muslims a target for hostile people and
2) It can incite violence by Muslim extremists
By your logic shouldn’t the Danish cartoons or Fitna for example have been illegal?
“since nothing has historically threatened Europe’s public safety the way Nazism has, I think it still should be banned for the time being.”
The fact that you added “for the time being” is something I find pleasing. In fact, now that I see it stated this way, I probably *could* agree.
Why? Because, it would be temporary and because I ultimately believe that such laws placed there indefinitely are a step in the wrong direction.
(Question: historically the deadly effects of Nazism are proven, but just because they aren’t in terms of Islamophobia, it doesn’t mean things can’t go badly eventually)
The ideal, I repeat, the *ideal* to strive towards is something in the direction of the American model of free speech. Societies should be engineered to gradually move there, and not the other way around.
A free market place of ideas in which ideas are exchanged and openly criticized is a mammoth and necessary component of a truly civil society.
Don Cox, as a *Muslim* I cannot personally support such cartoons. Hence, the “of course.”
And good point about the following…
“Marxism-Leninism killed more people.”
Yup! But it ain’t a reason to be tempted to make Marxist speech illegal now is it?
Hey Guys,
It’s me again
Allow me to add the following to your above statements:
“Capitalism killed as many more, if not a lot more…”
Hey it’s only the truth…
“But it ain’t a reason to be tempted to make Marxist speech illegal now is it?”
No it is not. If there are people who still think Marxism is a Good Thing, they are welcome to say so - and be laughed at by the rest of us.
I think I agree that making Holocaust Denial illegal in Germany (and Poland?) is unavoidable for a few decades. But it should not be permanent, and there is no reason to extend the law to the UK, Ireland, or the US.
‘as a *Muslim* I cannot personally support such cartoons. Hence, the “of course.”’
So, you are all for free speech as long as you agree with what it says? You didn’t say why you didn’t support the cartoons other than the fact of your religion. Was it because you don’t like the prophet being in a drawing? Was it that you think it is a lie that people might be of the opinion these days that Islam is being taken over by extremeist and terrorists? What exactly did you not like about the comics? Or was it that other muslims might be really pissed off at you if you didn’t agree with them?
I personally can’t stomach rap music but I don’t advocate banning it as a form of music.
“So, you are all for free speech as long as you agree with what it says?”
Eh?
Dear Lynn, did you read my post or long comment?
Allow me to quote Voltaire just in case I’m not clear enough.
“I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
As for the reason why I don’t support the cartoons, then I don’t simply because the Prophet is a figure I respect and wouldn’t choose to mock.
Would you support a cartoon making fun of Moses, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr.?
Would you support an anti-Semitic cartoon? I don’t think so.
“One man’s lie is another man’s truth.”
Clever statements like that work until one drink’s the apple juice.
Turns out lies are not always subjective.
“Would you support an anti-Semitic cartoon? I don’t think so.”
I remember when the Iranians came up with the anti-Semitic cartoon contest, many (Jewish) Israelis happily participated to show the world how ridiculous the whole thing was.
“Would you support a cartoon making fun of Moses, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr.?”
Yes.
I personally love cartoons about Moses parting his hair or movie scenes where Moses speaks with a Yiddish accent.
Making fun of Moses to me shows the deep connection Jews have with Moses and his leadership and prophecies.
A prophet is just a human being. And if people make jokes about a prophet of 3000 years ago like they do about current politicians, it only shows that Moses is still as present and important as current leaders are.
But I don’t think that a cartoon of Moses is anti-Semitic as such, even if it insults him personally and/or isn’t funny.
“the Prophet is a figure I respect and wouldn’t choose to mock.”
I can respect that position too.
All this is nothing new, all you have to do is look back in history towards Catholicism during the middle ages.
Religion has always been used by the powers that be too control the masses, and the fact that the majority of Musilm’s live in poverty and ignorance makes it even easier for governments and therefore religious bodies to make such outrageous decrees.
As a Muslim I’m all for secularism! The Imams have no place in politics….
Drima, I did read your post and your comment. Maybe where we are misunderstanding each other is on your use of the word ’support’? Does that mean that you wouldn’t laugh at it. That you wouldn’t draw them? That you wouldn’t look at them? Does it mean that you would shake your head in disapproval of their poor taste in humor? Or that you would be upset with the people that drew them and anyone who might have chuckled at them and want the thing outlawed?
See to me your quote ,“I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” that means that you DO support the cartoons just as I would support any of the ones that you asked me about. I’m not sure that I know what an anti-semetic cartoon would be though. If that is one that incites someone to harm someone based on their race or religion then, of course, I would frown on anything that would suggest causing harm to ANYone.
But, if it is just mocking or expressing your opinion in a comic strip about Israel or Jews. Big deal. Shoot, someone could draw an unfavorable comic about me or my family and I wouldn’t care.
You can respect somebody and still see that the person has a funny side, or even major faults. Nobody is perfect, and they would be dreary if they were.
I respect Churchill, Beethoven, Shakespeare, and many others. Cartoons of them are fine. They all had their quirks and faults. And many Christians enjoyed “The Life of Brian”.
But the Danish cartoons were more about the image of Mohammed and the threat from extremists than about the man himself. However, there is room for a great comic novel about Mohammed.
“But, if it is just mocking or expressing your opinion in a comic strip about Israel or Jews.”
Actually, that would be an improvement if more people did that.
Usually those people’s weapon of choice is not mockery but a choice of weapons.
So in a way I support anti-Semitic cartoons, as an alternative to other expressions of hatred.
One must learn that there is a difference between critique towards a particular religion and INSULTING the religion in question. Many muslims dont get it, and many islamophobes dont get it either.
Critique becomes an insult when one does not accept the critical analysis of texts. When one annouces that Mohamed was a killer and a tyrant this does not constitute an insult at all, because it is true. He was an illeterate who was inspired by a so-called angel. The Koran cannot be the word of GOD, it is a plagiarized book of saying that add nothing to our knowledge of the world. Why would I care for stupid story of Abu Lahab why not a story of Plato, Aristotle, or Epicurius. These greeks philosophers should be first class unbelievers, yet not a word about them in the Koran. Surely they could have taught something to Mohamed if he really wanted to learn critical thinking, but instead just stories about the desert unbelievers and the orders from GOD that fall on him only when he need them to uphold his maniacal authoritarian grip on people. Is this a army general or an ordinary scholar? For an apostate like me A prophete of doom that I will beleive, but for others he is a prophete of peace. HEY RIGHT!!!!
Jesus christ story was also made up and it does not insult anyone. It just state the truth that Christianity was created or invented by Paul of Tarsus. The Gospels were written by poeple who NEVER have known this Jesus. The whole thing about the virgin birth and the passion of christ is a human invention. These claims are not insults, they are facts, even if they are not facts how can they insult anyone. An insult is when you insult someone like saying F*** U or your are a son of a Bitch. Drawing a head of turban wearing person with a bomb does not mean that that person is the prophete. Writing below that this person is Mohamed does not mean that it is Mohamed. How can it be? We do not know how Mohamed looks like, thus it is impossible to assign any image to the prophete. How can the muslims do not see this? Why do they fall into the trap of anger and destruction when they should know better otherwise.
I think that if one was to pass the test of criticising and insulting at the same time, he/she needs to insult all religions no exception. It is the only way out if this problem.
One must learn that there is the difference between people and ideas. People should be protected. That is why the leader of Hizbut Tahrir in Denmark has been convicted in court for instigating killings of jews “wherever you find them” and for threatening whith violence against the danish prime minister. On the other hand ideas should not be protected, even if somebody in some corner of the world might feel insultet. That is why Hizbut Tahrir is legal in Denmark. They have every right to expose themselves and their religious nonsense even when it is insulting to the rest of us.
Ahmad, I got a glimpse of that difference on my blog when a reader told me that I had insulted a prophet of Islam by posting a biblical story of King David and his affair with Bathsheba. He said prophets never sin. For us, the only prophet who DIDN’T sin was Jesus Christ.
It became clear that historical texts of Judaism and Christianity were an insult to Islam according to him and several others. My post contained no slander, no critique, no commentary about Islam at all, just a paraphrase of a story from the bible.
Not a lot of room for disagreement there. It was an epiphany of understanding that gave me little hope for a peaceful future.
Hi Drima. You said: “Let’s just for a minute consider that the context is Europe. The steady release of genuinely Islamophobic material would then constitute a threat to public safety because:
1) Over time, it can - and probably will - dehumanize and make Muslims a target for hostile people and
2) It can incite violence by Muslim extremists
By your logic shouldn’t the Danish cartoons or Fitna for example have been illegal?”
No because speech is banned with it poses a direct and proved threat to public safety, not when the threat to public safety comes from backlash.
Perhaps I am not explaining myself very well, so maybe this example will help some more … In the USA, the definition of assault is as follows:
“An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.”
Notice that actual physical contact is not necessary for an assult to occur (physical contact = Battery). Assault is merely about making a threat, and being able to carry out that threat. Hence, it’s largely about speech. So I cannot call my next door neighbor and threaten to kill him and his whole family if I decide I don’t like him. This type of speech is banned because it poses a direct threat to public safety by threatening people with extreme violence when I have every capability of carrying it out. In this case, my words by themselves would threaten the well-being of the individuals involved, forcing them to flee their homes, spend money getting away, etc. Maybe making someone with disabilities get hurt trying to escape the impending violence. Words that cause assault force the victims to take evasive action with very little thinking on their part — just get away. This is why it is criminalized.
However, if I cannot carry out the threat, then the speech is not banned. If I am very poor with no method of transportation, and I call up someone thousands of miles away who is living in a wealthy, gated community, and threaten to kill him and his family within the next hour, clearly I cannot possibly follow through and hence, there is no criminal assault and no ban on that sort of speech in and of itself. If, in return, that same person across the country gets angry, freaks out, and goes out and kills his own next door neighbor because of my phone call got him all hot under the collar, and it just so happens his next door neighbor reminds him of me, I am not to blame, he is.
You see the difference.
So, in Europe, Nazism poses a direct and proved threat to the safety of its non-Aryan citizens, and it is organized by Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is like assault — not just to individual Jews, but to many diverse groups in Europe — because it actively cultivates a war machine that directly threatens to destroy entire communities with every intention and ability to carry it out.
Conversely, Islamophobia, as vile and shameful a phenomena it is, has not proved itself in Europe to be able to organize itself into a unified mindset that will destroy Muslim communities and wreak havoc on the global and continental economy, so it is regarded like the guy calling from far away, making threats and causing problems, but without any organized structure to follow through and destroy entire communities. Therefore, from a public safety standpoint, where Europe’s governments are concerned, it is clear why they feel the need to ban speech that denies the Holocaust and not Islamophobia.
Thanks.
Drima sez: “I don’t [support the cartoons] simply because the Prophet is a figure I respect and wouldn’t choose to mock.”
- which is all fair. The bomb-in-turban cartoon was a statement by a non-Muslim. Bad taste, yes. Insulting, no. It was directed at me, being a Dane.
“Would you support a cartoon making fun of Moses, Gandhi, or Martin Luther King Jr.?” Yes, especially if it’s funny…
AbuSkander sez: “One must learn that there is a difference between critique towards a particular religion and INSULTING the religion in question. Many muslims dont get it, and many islamophobes dont get it either.” I bet it wasn’t pleasant for you to watch back then. But - speaking both languages - can you dig the statement ” the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh) IN THE WRONG HEADS causes explosions” ? From a strictly Danish/secular POW it is not an insult to anyone, merely an opinion. Should it be banned in Denmark because some people in , say, Sudan misinterpret the message of the original article ?
Oh ye who believe, will we ever get over this ?
There is always a gray zone…
I think people should be pretty much free to even insult and they can deny the Holocaust if they wish.
I worry about words that lead to incitement or are clear intimidation…and much of this is the gray zone.
Still…if I am to err, it would be on the side of free speech…and yes..that does not mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater…so, like most things in life…this is a “spectrum” issue and time, place, context have a lot to do with it and therefore “precedent” or comparisons don’t necessarily help us with decide the OK from the not so OK
“that I had insulted a prophet of Islam by posting a biblical story of King David and his affair with Bathsheba.”
I have had discussions with self-proclaimed “Muslims” who happily claimed that King David didn’t exist, didn’t have a palace, wasn’t Jewish, and never lived in Jerusalem.
I think your story about King David is probably fine by their standards.
“I think people should be pretty much free to even insult and they can deny the Holocaust if they wish.”
Problem is, the legality of the current German state depends on the fact that the last government of Germany was illegitimate on account of its crimes against humanity.
Denying those crimes means denying the legality of the current government.
And that cannot be legal.
“For us, the only prophet who DIDN’T sin was Jesus Christ.”
I reckon putting a curse on a poor innocent fig tree is a sin.
“Denying Holocaust means denying the legality of the current government”
I think Germany should find a way to legalize Holocaust-denial. It’s more in line with the current European understanding of democracy, where Holocaust-denial is legal.
Drimas point about democracy as an ideal we are working towards, is important. Historically the content of democracy has changed from protection, to representation, to participation. Citizens today are expected to embrace the underlying values as part of a civil society. Now those values are challenged by immigrants, who advocate autocratic values from cultures back home (religion is just a codification of culture). Democratic values are also challenged by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (and possibly UN). When autocratic regimes in the Middle East (plus Russia and China) challenge our “way of life”, it’s time to form an alliance of democratic states.
“I think Germany should find a way to legalize Holocaust-denial. It’s more in line with the current European understanding of democracy, where Holocaust-denial is legal.”
My understanding of democracy is that the majority makes the law. The law against lying about the Holocaust is not meant to be democratic. It’s like the German constitution, a check and balance mechanism. Even if the majority of Germans wanted to deny the Holocaust, it should be illegal.
I don’t think lying should be legal, regardless of whether it is about something unimportant (like apple juice) or about something important (like the Holocaust).
I don’t think that most people who support legalising lying about the Holocaust would also support legalising lying about apple juice (as in selling poison to customers claiming that it is apple juice).
Incidentally, “Holocaust denial” is NOT illegal in Germany or anywhere in the world. It is merely illegal to LIE about the Holocaust. If you can manage to deny the Holocaust without lying, you should be perfectly safe, hence the court sessions about the statements made and the attempts to “prove” that the Holocaust didn’t happen.
Perhaps the choice of words is important. “Holocaust denial” sounds to me as if the statements referred to have no moral value and are criminalised based on what they are about and not what they are.
Holocaust denial: perfectly legal as such
Lying about the Holocaust: illegal
The fact that the one is not possible without the other is just a result of Holocaust denial being a lie. And if that is a problem, that’s tough.
It is also perfectly legal to help, say, Mr Miller (an imaginary gentlement from Hamburg in northern Germany) find a car and drive to Russia.
But it is not legal to help Mr Miller buy a car and drive to Russia if Mr Miller is a convicted murderer wanted by the police.
In that case the fact that helping convicted murderers escape is illegal also makes helping Mr Miller illegal.
Calling for the legalisation of helping Mr Miller doesn’t even address the actual reason why helping Mr Miller is illegal. People should call for the legalisation of helping convicted murderers escape and see if they are still comfortable with it.
There are enough made-up events out there that people can deny if they feel like they have to deny something without being punished for it. Allowing them to lie while denying something is absolutely not necessary.
s/gentlement/gentleman/
“I don’t think lying should be legal”
Wow! That would change the world. It would be as revolutionary as making sex outside marriage illegal.
I think you are confusing sins with crimes.
One basic problem in your approach is that it assumes the Holocaust Deniers are both wrong and deliberately lying. I think they are wrong, because I have seen more than enough evidence to convince me that the events happened. But are they lying, or do they believe what they say?
But how about the Armenian massacres? In this case, it is illegal to claim that they did occur. It is the Turkish government that is denying the events.
And it is often much harder than you might think to establish a historical “fact”. For example, most people are well convinced that Moses led the Jews out of Egypt. A much smaller number doubt that this event ever happened.
I think the real objection to Holocaust Denial is the hidden message, which is “It didn’t happen, but it should have done.”
“Even if the majority of Germans wanted to deny the Holocaust, it should be illegal”
The German constitution was imposed on Germany after WW2 in order to indoctrinate Germans into democracy. The law against lying about the Holocaust is part of that. The whole indoctrination-project was a succes and today Germany is democratic. So now it’s up to the Germans to change their laws as they see fit – the constitution was not given by Moses.
“”Holocaust denial” is NOT illegal in Germany or anywhere in the world. It is merely illegal to LIE about the Holocaust
Thanks for the clarification.
I think it’s inconsequential to give special status to just one lie. It’s better to drop the regulation of truth and let the better argument win backed by evidence. The evidence for the existence of Holocaust is overwhelming, so if you lie about that, you just make a fool of yourself. I am aware that France recently made it a crime to lye about the genocide against Armenians, and I don’t like that either. Just my opinion. (The fact that it’s illegal in Turkey to mention the very well documented genocide against Armenians shows, that Turkey has a long way to go, before they can enter the EU).
“One basic problem in your approach is that it assumes the Holocaust Deniers are both wrong and deliberately lying.”
And that assumption is wrong?
It’s not like those people felt they had to deny something and picked the Holocaust. There are more than enough historical events that are less well-documented and can be denied.
If a Holocaust denier manages to prove that the Holocaust didn’t happen (and shows that all the evidence we have is fake, that all the memories are implants or lies, and that all the missing people are really hiding somewhere), I am all for letting him go unpunished.
“For example, most people are well convinced that Moses led the Jews out of Egypt. A much smaller number doubt that this event ever happened.”
Perhaps in three thousand years it will be more difficult to lie about the Holocaust, as by then it will be difficult to remember if it really happened.
“I think it’s inconsequential to give special status to just one lie.”
So do I.
It should be illegal to lie about the Holocaust, just like it is illegal to sell poison as apple juice.
“So now it’s up to the Germans to change their laws as they see fit”
I am a German citizen.
Digital-
I am trying to think of a time when religous people did not abuse political power…I imagine there are times when they did not. but it sure is easy to remember times when they did abuse that power…Muslims have no monopoly on that type of behavior…but they do have that market cornered during this period of history
Howie-
Very true, but the good thing about history is that its cyclical. the bad thing is that as Human Beings, we either out right refuse to learn from our mistakes or we just easily forget.
And another thing, how would the populations of Muslim Countrys who happen to be oppressed by such draconian laws react if they had a look at how the west was living,in respect to their own lives and governments?
Digtal…
Recently…I think it is splitting two ways and I would be interested in your response…
I live in the USA. My area has a HUGE Muslim population, especially Iranians…but many others as well…I see the split as:
1. Wow…this sure beats the shit out of where I came from…I want some of THAT or:
2. This is dangerous. We must circle the wagons, draw back and go deeply inside of ourselves and our roots.
The same thing certainly happens with other groups…but I see in the Muslim world that this tendency is more extreme. Politics let us down, freedom is a threat, let’s get back to the “good ole days”…
Freedom has enormous DOWNSIDES…it is not all freedom but also allows for choices that can be very threatening to family ways, cultures, societies etc. Freedom frightens a lot of people and, to some extent, with good reason.
I am summarize here…but do you see my point?
Howie’s descrition of the two reactions of Muslims in the US (and in Europe) is closely matched by the attitudes of the British in Asia during the days of the Empire.
“An insult is when you insult someone like saying F*** U or your are a son of a Bitch. Drawing a head of turban wearing person with a bomb does not mean that that person is the prophete. Writing below that this person is Mohamed does not mean that it is Mohamed. How can it be?”
- It is an insult, and as a muslim living in Denmark and as such being very familiar with this case in particular, i can assure you that i see this as an insult. Why?
Well, perhaps because the cartoonists afterwards clearly demonstrated hatred towards Muhammad (Salawat Allah 3alih)… Their cartoons were a product of this hatred. They intended to “mock and ridicule” Muhammad (saw). Of course, we muslims see that as an insult. That is not how one should do critique towards a religion.
Many people here in Denmark tries to make criticism of Islam, and i accept that, as long as it is CRITIQUE, not INSULTS. In many cases, Answering-Islam.de can handle criticism of Islam without insults. It is possible.
Fine, it was an insult. There is not, and should not be, a law against insulting someone or criticising someone. And slander is only slander if it it untrue and about a specific person. There are only laws against calling for the death or harm of someone. I was never insulted more than when I read a Saudi version of the Koran but it rather leaned more towards inciting hatred and calling for harm to be done against me. You cannot deny that, shoot, even the tame versions of the Koran are insulting to me and others of my ilk. Is there a public outcry to ban them? I think you can quit worrying about whether your religion was insulted and start worrying when someone creates a new religion mentioning on every other page how horrible you and your co-religionists (or non-religionist) are and how they should slay you as they see you. Then, you can talk about insults.
@ Ahmad
“…the cartoonists afterwards clearly demonstrated hatred towards Muhammad (Salawat Allah 3alih)… Their cartoons were a product of this hatred”
You are talking about cartoonists, not just one cartoonist. I have followed the case closely, and I have only heard ONE cartoonist commenting after the publishing. The rest are keeping a low profile, sometimes under police protection.
It’s simply wrong, when you say his cartoon expresses hatred towards muslims.
The cartoons were addressing a lot of different things most outsiders (and that apparently includes you) don’t get. That includes criticism of a specific Danish politician, a Danish writer, and even criticism of the cartoon-project itself.
The cartoonist that went public after the publishing, was the one depitching the prophet wearing a bomb turban with the lit fuse. He said: “What I wanted to say with my cartoon was that some muslims exploit the prophet to legitimize terror”. (Please note the word “some”).
That’s a perfectly legitimate startingpoint for a public debate, that invited everyone (including muslims) to participate. The public was worried about an increasing number of attemps at cencorship involving violence by people calling themselves muslims.
Later on, after pious muslims had tried to kill him in the name of their religion, he went public again and said, that he had turned his fear into anger. But again he stressed, that his anger was directed against specific groups and their ideas - NOT all muslims.
It seems to me, you are looking for insults. Or maybe you just dont understand the fundamental idea of a public debate. You know, the kind where everything can be debated.
Digital and Howie,
Most Sudanese and Iranians by now know the stinking shit that comes along with a theocracy and a government full of religious lunatics.
Islamism is horrendous.
It’s too bad most of the Muslim world still doesn’t realize that. Looks like they’re gonna have to learn the hard way. It’s for this reason that I actually think things will get worse before they get any better.
Let them get a taste of that illusionary “wonderland” aka the Islamic State they so desire.
Yaay to Freedom.
People forgive me for the EXTREMELY long post, but I think this poem illustrates the ills of the muslim world, it was written in the the late 60’s and sadly it is still relevant to our world today!!
—————————————————
Footnote to the book of the Setback
1.
Friends,
The ancient word is dead
The ancient books are dead.
Our speech with holes like worn-out shoes is dead.
Dead is the mind the led to defeat.
2.
Our poems have gone sour.
Women’s hair, nights, curtains and sofas
Have gone sour.
Everything has gone sour.
3.
My grieved country,
In a flash
You changed me from a poet who wrote love poems
To a poet who writes with a knife
4.
What we feel is beyond words:
We should be ashamed of our poems.
5.
Stirred
By oriental bombast,
BY Antaric* swaggering that never killed a fly,
By the fiddle and the drum,
We went to war
And lost.
*(Antaric: Antar(525-615), a pre-Islamic poet and hero of a popular epic bearing his name, is the symbol of the unbeaten knight)
6.
Our shouting is louder than our actions,
Our swords are taller than us,
This is our tragedy.
7.
In short
We wear the cape of civilization
But our souls live in the stone age
8.
You don’t win a war
With a reed and a flute.
9.
Our Impatience
Cost us fifty thousand new tents.
10.
Don’t curse heaven
If it abandons you,
Don’t cure circumstances.
God gives victory to whom He wishes.
God is not a blacksmith to beat swords.
11.
It’s painful to listen to the news in the morning.
It’s painful to listen tot he barking of dogs.
12.
Our enemies did not cross our borders
They crept through our weaknesses like ants.
13.
Five thousand years
Growing beards
In our caves
Our currency is unknown,
Our eyes are a haven for flies.
Friends,
Smash the doors,
Wash your brains,
Wash your clothes,
Friends,
Read a book,
Write a book,
Grow words, pomegranate’s and grapes,
Sail to the country of fog and snow.
Nobody knows you exist in caves.
People take you for a breed of mongrels.
14.
We are a thick-skinned people
With empty souls.
we spend our days practicing witchcraft,
Playing chess and sleeping.
Are we the ‘Nation by which God blessed mankind’?
15.
Our desert oil could of become
Daggers of flame and fire.
We’re a disgrace to our noble ancestors:
We let our oil flow through the toes of whores.
16.
We run wildly through the streets
Dragging people with ropes,
Smashing windows and locks,
We praise like frogs,
Swear like frogs,
Turn midgets into heroes,
And heroes into scum:
We never stop and think
In mosques
We crouch idly,
Write poems,
Proverbs
And beg god for victory
Over our enemy.
17.
If i knew I’d come to no harm.
And could see the Sultan,
I’d tell him:
‘Sultan,
Your wild dogs have torn my clothes
Your spies hound me
Their eyes hound me
Their noses hound me
Their feet hound me
They hound me like Fate
Interrogate my wife
And take down the names of my friends.
Sultan,
When I came close to your walls
And talked about my pains,
Your soldiers beat me with their boots,
Forced me to eat my shoes,
Sultan,
You lost two wars,
Sultan,
Half our people are without tongues,
What’s the use of people without tongues?
Half of our people
Are trapped like ants and rats
Between walls’
If I knew I’d come to no harm
I’d tell him:
‘You lost two wars
You lost touch with children.’
18.
If we hadn’t buried our unity
If we hadn’t ripped its young body with bayonets
If it had stayed in our eyes
The dogs wouldn’t have savaged our flesh
19.
We want an angry generation
To plough the sky
To blow up history
To blow up our thoughts.
We want a new generation
That does not forgive mistakes
That does not bend.
We want a generation
of giants.
20.
Arab children,
Corn ears of the futures,
You will break our chains.
Kill the opium in our heads,
Kill the illusions.
Arab children,
Don’t read about our windowless generation,
We are a hopeless case.
We are as worthless as a water-melon rind.
Don’t read about us,
Don’t ape us,
Don’t accept us,
Don’t accept our ideas.
We are a nation of crooks and jugglers.
Arab children,
Spring rain,
Corn ears of the future,
You are the generation
That will overcome defeat.
Written after the Six Day War and banned throughout the Middle East; Nizar Qabani, 1967
“Nizar Qabani, 1967″
Wow.
“banned throughout the Middle East”
Probably except Israel.
“God gives victory to whom He wishes.”
I have always wondered about how (anti-Israel and anti-US) Muslims reconcile that fact* with the wars lost against Israel and with the wars Saddam’s Iraq lost against the US and Britain.
Every time the Arabs go to war lately the Arabs lose.**
Is G-d on the other side?***
*I assume it’s a fact for Muslims since nothing happens against G-d’s will, or does it?
**This is not actually true. In Iraq Arabs are winning battles against Al-Qaeda and Israeli Arab units happily win battles against other Arabs.
***Yes.
Digital…
Am I going to find myself defending the Arabs, so many of whom probably hate me (without evening knowing me)…
Look…what could be wrong?
Are Arabs or Muslims:
1. Dumb- No
2. Genetically predisposed to insanity- No
3. Incapable of learning or progressing- No
4. Somehow different than any other human- No
5. Etc.
So we have lots of humans…like a billion or so…What is wrong with the picture then? I don’t know, but have my guesses…
1.Horrible leadership
2.Suffocating dictatorship
3.Somehow a lack of self-reflection in so many cases
4.A culture that got stuck and can’t get unstuck and I don’t know why for certain
5. A culture that has put WAY too much emphasis on fighting and glory
Something is stuck…and I seem Islam…IN GENERAL…as now looking backwards for answers (as I said earlier), that nationalism, Arabism, Nasserism, Communism etc. did not provide. And the poem says it so well…Hey shoot the fucking messenger…I think that is another bad Arab habit. Ban the messenger, fatwah the messenger…I don’t know…but STUCK…with the oil draining through the toes of whores…yep…sold by whores to whores in many cases…I do understand that part…What a tragic waste…what could have been done with the last 50 years worth of talent, enormous wealth, and ambition? Buying Soviet rockets and tanks sure didn’t do the trick.
Digital…
Oh..let me ask the hard question…somewhat related to the poem…
If “you” would have WON that war…then everything would be fine?
Fine in;
Lebanon
Chechneya
Yemen
Egypt
Algeria
Libya
Saudia
Syria
Iraq
Iran
Croatia
Albania
Darfur
Nigeria
Afganistan
Pakistan
Bangladesh
Khasmir
Yes…I believe it would be…that would have solved it all.
Drima-
Utopianism…how is that for a word…
The Puritans were going to create a utopia
Marx was, Hitler was, Osama wants to, Khomeni was gonna do it…and I guess history is filled with utopias gone wrong…sometimes just didn’t happen and sometimes a horrific, murderous disaster…but they never, never work.
This is part of what I am talking to Digital about. The utopia of going back to the good ole days of Islam…look we Jews have some of that…like some of the guys that retreat to extremely insulated and religious neighborhoods but thank the good Lord they have little POLITICAL power. They too would abuse it and have tended to abuse the power they do get…
So yes…give me democracy with all its weaknesses…give me freedom of press, speech, assembly, right to protest, to vote and yes…even insult me…come on Jesse Jackson let’s go to Hymie Town…fine and Farakan…sure “gutter religion” say it brother…I know the price is sometimes listening to pure idiots talk crap…but as long as they are not saying “let’s go to Hymietown and kill us some gutterfolk…go ahead dude…you are free to make an asshole out of yourself.
Howie,
First of all Im glad the poem made such an impact
its one of my personal favorites!
As for your question pertaining to the so called “WAR”, honestly no! Violence will not achieve anything in respect to the Muslim world. I believe the key to our problems lies in economics.
In the words of roosevelt, “True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.” roosevelt
So, who ensures that they stay out of a job and hungry? Those with a vested interest in the becoming the dictatorship of course.
It’s easy to criticise the Arabs for not being peaceful, democratic, sensible, etc; but I think it is only a small difference in timing. The Arabs today are no more violent and stupid than the Europeans were in 1914-18. Germany was then ruled by a Kaiser who was no better than, for instance, Assad in Syria today.
Women had the vote in very few countries.
That is all less than 100 years ago, which is a tiny fraction of recorded human history. (Which in turn is a tiny fraction of the history of life on Earth.)
The attitude that any criticism of the prevailing religion is blasphemy and therefore a crime was equally common in Europe 400 years ago, and there are still plenty of religious folk in the US who get angry with anyone who doubts the absolute truth of the King James translation of the Bible.
I think it is a matter of time, or generations, as the poet says.
“there are still plenty of religious folk in the US who get angry with anyone who doubts the absolute truth of the King James translation of the Bible”
Oh boy do I know those people!
They don’t care if a (English) word changed meaning since the translation was written and they don’t care if the Hebrew text says something else.
For them Biblical truth is whatever American English currently says a random translation might be saying.
Don Cox…
Yep…that is my point…
I see the Muslim world as STUCK…not as some kind of genetic anamoly. On a macro level…Europe was the perpetrator of great horror for a long long time…On a micro level, there were groups like the Mayans who led the league in horror. The Chinese have been miserable, the Japanese were horrific and on and on. Muslims have no monopoly on cruelty and abuse…
Of course, nowadays, much more pain can be caused in many more places, more extensively and at a faster rate (what would Hitler have done with nucs, the Internet, supersonic jets, long range missles etc. ??? Shudder shudder)…So the Muslims potentially can do much more horror than any of the other fuck ups that came before them…
This is the Muslim period of time in terms of moving towards good or continuing on a path of destruction…And I am also nervous about China and Russia is certainly getting stupid again…all non-democratic entities with little accountabilty, public influence, public protest, vote, debate etc.
Digital…
I am going to steal a line from Dennis Prager. Though economics are a huge issue…without a change in the basic value system…no there won’t be much progress…
I like Dennis’ line…”economics do not determine behavior, values do”…and I think he is somewhat overstating the case, but he is basically correct.
Digital…have you read “The Arab Dream Palace”??
Howie,
Ya ive read “The Arab Dream Palace”. Although “Fouad Ajami” makes a few valid points, he’s theories scream “orientalist”!
Drima,
You never responded to my questions. I will repeat:
Drima, I did read your post and your comment. Maybe where we are misunderstanding each other is on your use of the word ’support’? Does that mean that you wouldn’t laugh at it. That you wouldn’t draw them? That you wouldn’t look at them? Does it mean that you would shake your head in disapproval of their poor taste in humor? Or that you would be upset with the people that drew them and anyone who might have chuckled at them and want the thing outlawed?
See to me your quote ,“I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” that means that you DO support the cartoons just as I would support any of the ones that you asked me about. I’m not sure that I know what an anti-semetic cartoon would be though. If that is one that incites someone to harm someone based on their race or religion then, of course, I would frown on anything that would suggest causing harm to ANYone.
But, if it is just mocking or expressing your opinion in a comic strip about Israel or Jews. Big deal. Shoot, someone could draw an unfavorable comic about me or my family and I wouldn’t care.
So, what do you say?
“I see the Muslim world as STUCK”
But not permanently stuck so long as there are Muslims who are prepared to think, rather than huddling in a mental corner. Drima is only one of many Muslims who are moving forward, while others are kicking, screaming and blowing themselves up.
Traditional Islam is stuck like a plaster on hairy skin, which is being painfully ripped away.
Yes, I agree with you Drima. Both what is called “Islamophobia” and “Holocaust denial” should not be a matter of courts.
A court has not the ability to determine what did or did not happen in the past. Freedom of speech should only be limited when it is calling for violence (or falsely shouting “fire” in a cinema).
œAndrew Brehm
“If a Holocaust denier manages to prove that the Holocaust didn’t happen (and shows that all the evidence we have is fake, that all the memories are implants or lies, and that all the missing people are really hiding somewhere), I am all for letting him go unpunished.”
Courts do not permit that a denier can bring evidence. If they permit it (like in the Zündel trial in Canada) then revisionists are able to prove it. However, in Germany evidence is not allowed in court because of the Holocaust “being obvious” (”Offenkundigkeit”).
Yes the nazis tried to wipe out the jews in Europe, no doubt about it, and damn near succeded. Do you know this. Muslims exterminated more christians and jews in that same period of time then the nazis killed of jews.
And this genocide is still happening today, and so is slavery in the Islamic world. Stuff all you wankers with your “the real Islam is peaceful” and rubbish like that. The real Islam is not what you “want” it to be, or what any person muslim or non-muslim “wants” it to be. Islam is what you see when muslims have total control of a country, then you see the “real” Islam. If you disagree with that then I suggest you leave Islam because you will just be an infidel anyway in the eyes of the majority of muslims. Think not……then show me a country that has Islamic law that is anything but an inhumane shithole whose main features are human rights abuses.
Leave a Comment