Destroying a church and destroying civilian cars is not "defending" their religion. Or is it?
Buy on AliExpress.com
Cartoon anger is a misrepresentation (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Zé Tahir
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Enron said:
Growing up my football coach was Palestinian and he would tell us stories from Islam that helped on and off the pich. Even some crazy story about Muhammad and the one eyed monster when we came of age. But the Islam I know is not what I saw on the news last night and early this morning.
and FYI, even the story about the one eyed monster isn't either.Do not get me wrong Hambon, I am of Iranian origin and living in Sweden. I grew up in areas consisted mainly of muslim immigrants. I went to schools containing 80% muslims. I've been to several muslim nations numerous times, so I my opinion on muslims and Islam is far from stereotypical. I was simply mentioning how ReBeL here is acting up to the ignorant stereotypes of a muslim.
There's a huge difference between the West and Muslim world which is reflected in the newspapers just as you mention. In the Middle East religion comes first. Politics, culture, opinions etc. go hand in hand with religion. Jesus is a muslim prophet as well and thus he is treated as one and not disrespected in any way. However, it won't take long for me to find articles in certain Middle Eastern newspapers insulting or being biased against Israel or Judaism. An example of this lack of freedom of speech would be the recent arrest of the chief editor of a Jordanian newspaper which published these caricatures, together with a message for all muslims, asking whether sucide bombers or these cartoons do more damage to Islam. And I must say I agree with him completely. Would I be arrested as well over there?
Is that the kind of society I'd like to live in? No, and that's why I live in a nation where I can express my opinions without fear of getting threatened or killed. Otherwise I'd just move back to my roots. I also found my avatar somewhat amusing and not at all insulting, nor do I think it breaks any forum rules thus I'll keep it for the time being.
There's a huge difference between the West and Muslim world which is reflected in the newspapers just as you mention. In the Middle East religion comes first. Politics, culture, opinions etc. go hand in hand with religion. Jesus is a muslim prophet as well and thus he is treated as one and not disrespected in any way. However, it won't take long for me to find articles in certain Middle Eastern newspapers insulting or being biased against Israel or Judaism. An example of this lack of freedom of speech would be the recent arrest of the chief editor of a Jordanian newspaper which published these caricatures, together with a message for all muslims, asking whether sucide bombers or these cartoons do more damage to Islam. And I must say I agree with him completely. Would I be arrested as well over there?
Is that the kind of society I'd like to live in? No, and that's why I live in a nation where I can express my opinions without fear of getting threatened or killed. Otherwise I'd just move back to my roots. I also found my avatar somewhat amusing and not at all insulting, nor do I think it breaks any forum rules thus I'll keep it for the time being.
Pathetic post...That one kind of offends me. But seriously fellows are stereotypes not funny?
I mean looking at the cartoons they all make fun of Islamic stereotypes not the true Islam. Im of Irish and Lituanian descent so I am truly a walking stereotype. Ive heard tons of Catholic, potato, immigrant jokes growing up and Ive learned to laugh at them. Im not saying you guys should laugh at them because obviously some folks here are offended. I guess my question is how does a comedicization of a stereotype offend you?
I mean looking at the cartoons they all make fun of Islamic stereotypes not the true Islam. Im of Irish and Lituanian descent so I am truly a walking stereotype. Ive heard tons of Catholic, potato, immigrant jokes growing up and Ive learned to laugh at them. Im not saying you guys should laugh at them because obviously some folks here are offended. I guess my question is how does a comedicization of a stereotype offend you?
I understand you totally sadomin....you have been through both cultures and felt both sides of hatred......anyways bout your govt in Iran. I really take my hat off for the courage they have shown in not giving up on thier nuclear program. It really show the world that know one can really stop anyone from aquiring means of technology to improve their societies....India was allowed why isnt Iran??
Just the other day Isreal said that they were the ones that envoked the security council to look into the abolishment of the program
Also another thing to note....the american govt has said that they are willing to negotiate since they know they cant start another war since they are low on the cash flow. and also that the europeans will not jump in without the Yankees...
sadomin please take that avatar off....i really find it offensive...for the sake of humanity and the forum....thank you
Just the other day Isreal said that they were the ones that envoked the security council to look into the abolishment of the program
Also another thing to note....the american govt has said that they are willing to negotiate since they know they cant start another war since they are low on the cash flow. and also that the europeans will not jump in without the Yankees...
sadomin please take that avatar off....i really find it offensive...for the sake of humanity and the forum....thank you
I guess you have to know our beliefs in order to understand that. Prophet Muhammad is considered to the perfect man, and everyone should try live his/her life the way he did. In fact, in the Quran, God says that if he didn't create Muhammad, then he wouldn't have created the world. That's how important he is. There is no chance in hell that we can laugh at something like this.
Cartoons of the Prophet: A Pitfall Trap
Were Danish Muslims correct in drawing international attention to the issue?
The “Muhammad Cartoons” issue sometimes reminds me of a pitfall trap. The principle of a pitfall trap is that a hunter digs a deep hole in the ground, then covers it with a thin layer insufficient to support much weight. He then attracts his prey to walk onto the cover, and of course to fall into the hole. So it has been with the cartoons. The press dug a hole, filled with sharp sticks like press freedom and human rights, into which they knew self-righteous Muslims would inevitably still want to jump. Now, four months into this saga, Muslims really need to be reminded that once you are in a hole, you should stop digging.
For those who have been watching other channels or not reading right the way through to the center pages of their newspapers, a quick resume of this story. On September 17, 2005, a Danish newspaper (Politiken) reported that a writer had trouble in finding an illustrator for a children's book on the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet. A rival newspaper (Jyllands-Posten) then decided to demonstrate that it could find several, where its competitor found none. In order to provide cover for this petty piece of journalistic bickering, Jyllands-Posten concocted a story about freedom of the press and the rights of journalists to print what they want. Its twelve clunky and crude caricatures were published on September 30, none of them showing any particular artistic merit, nor originality. Inevitably, cartoonists decided to wheel out old stereotypes about dodgy bearded Muslims, donkeys, headscarves, scimitars and crescents. Profound knowledge of Islam, Islamic culture or history was not particularly evident.
Inevitably, the article and cartoons offended many people. It was bone-headed – to say no more – to depict the founder of a billion-person-strong religion as a man with a bomb in his turban. Nor was it clever to include a poem like: “Prophet, daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb.” More than that, the pictures were produced in full knowledge of the offense they would cause. The editors knew full well of the Islamic tradition of aniconism, which proscribes figure paintings as leading to idolatry. The most important idolatry of all, for most Muslims, would be images of the Prophet himself, mixing the message fatally with the messenger.
How Blasphemy Could Have Been Opposed
If readers and editors were able to remain calm-headed, it is highly likely that the issue would not have exploded into an international crisis. In no democratic country is freedom of the press (i.e. the issue on which the newspaper launched its misguided campaign) an absolute right. Press freedom is always subject to a variety of conditions, such as truth, accuracy, privacy, public interest and a reasonable assumption of the likely consequences for public order. Those who feel that journalists have infringed these conditions always have a means of redress – through complaints mechanisms, ombudsmen, and ultimately through the civil courts.
And modern democracies also have plenty of experience in dealing with blasphemy and religious hatred cases in the media. To take the case simply of the UK, over the last two years there have been the highly effective protests by Christian groups against Jerry Springer: the Opera, television stations demanded that far-Right parties re-edit offensive election broadcasts, and indeed the Government intends to extend the protection given to Christianity in the blasphemy laws to all religions, in the new Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
The Jerry Springer: the Opera campaign could have been an excellent model for concerned Muslims about how to proceed. This is a play with an undoubtedly blasphemous premise – that Satan and Jesus publicly row and argue on an American television talk show. When it was broadcast in January 2005, a record 63,000 people contacted the BBC to complain, BBC management spent around 5 months being investigated by regulatory authorities, and the Arts Council refused funding for a nationwide theater tour planned by the organizers. Furthermore, due to consumer protests, several major shops have refused to stock the DVD.
What should be pointed out here is that Christian groups maintained their protests against those responsible for the offensive production, rather than holding the government responsible. They conspicuously protested against individual editorial judgements, rather than calling for blanket bans against “blasphemy”. And they kept their protest entirely within the UK, without calling on co-religionists in other countries to mount “sympathy protests”.
Muslims Fatally Undermining Their Own Cause
In the case of the Jyllands-Posten’s “Muhammad cartoons,” Muslims have failed to learn these lessons – and have once again succeeded in alienating the wider public, rather than winning sympathy against the crude racism that they were protesting against. We can see this, because the results have been the precise opposite to what Muslims wanted. Instead of blasphemous paintings being seen by 150,000 readers of a Danish newspaper, they have now been reprinted in Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Iceland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, USA, and UK – millions at the lowest reckoning.
There have been major failures in the pan-European Muslim campaign against the cartoons. The first has been the immediate assumption on the part of Muslims in Denmark that the government has a responsibility for editorial decisions in a newspaper. This is a basic, basic error. A free and critical press, entirely independent of State control, is intrinsic to the European concept of democracy.
I’m sure European Muslim representative organizations do understand full well – but before they could clarify this, the Islamic Society in Denmark had muddied its case. During a tour of the Arab world, to promote awareness of the blasphemous cartoons – which in itself is a curious decision in the nervy times we live in – a large amount of misinformation was spread in the Middle East. Firstly, the Islamic Society in Denmark put out that it represented all of Denmark’s 180,000 Muslims, although it has a membership of only around 15,000. Contrary to some reports, Jyllands-Posten is not owned by the government, nor by the ruling party. Furthermore, the Danish leaders condemned three new cartoons that were never published in the Danish media – and refused to reveal where they had originated from.
This decision to internationalize the issue was particularly misguided. It is just about possible to understand why Danish Muslim leaders did this – because the 1 billion Muslims outside Denmark are a fair bit more impressive than the 180,000 inside it. But this makes a mockery of democracy and law. It is like losing a fight in the playground, and pretending that bringing your big brother to sort it out is a just solution. The decision to internationalize the cartoons issue meant that Danish Muslims ignored possibilities to resolve their grievances within the Denmark they are supposed to be integrating into. If the representatives of Danish Muslims are the ambassadors and foreign ministers of foreign governments, what message does this send? Where is the space for democracy, if the Danish government has to choose between breaking its constitution (i.e. infringing press freedom) and seeing boycotts put up to 10,000 Danish jobs at risk?
What is most tragic about this case, is that Muslims across the world have reinforced so many of the negative stereotypes we have tried for years to break down. The original newspaper article suggested that western media cannot report freely without fear of retaliatory violence – and it appears to have proved entirely correct. More than that, reaction has been entirely non-discriminatory between a few journalists and the entire Danish nation. If Muslims object to being tarnished by the actions of a few extreme individuals, why should they believe that Danes do not? Where is the justice, when Muslim groups burn the Danish flag, demand that all Danish citizens leave Gaza and boycott all Danish products?
Conclusions
European Muslims made all of these same mistakes in the 1980s, with the Salman Rushdie Satanic Verses affair. There also, European assumptions of freedom of expression were met with incomprehension by local Muslims, burnings of flags and books, and threats of violence by foreign Muslim powers (in that case, Iran). What was the outcome? A public relations disaster, that failed in all its aims and created a host of negative stereotypes against Muslims that still exists. More recently, the Netherlands saw the Submission affair, a television program created by Ayaan Hirsi and Theo Van Gogh. While Europeans thought it tasteless, they were taken aback by an international outcry by Muslims, culminating in a brutal murder of Van Gogh in broad daylight. What was the outcome? Again, a public relations disaster that failed in all its aims and created more negative stereotypes against Muslims.
Encouragingly, some lessons seem to have been learned now in 2006. Many European Muslim organizations, with experience of the Iraq protests, have learned a little about influencing democratic politics. They know that they have to show targeted, mass local support, through the correct channels. The 63,000 complaints to the BBC over Jerry Springer: the Opera would seem an excellent target to emulate. It’s about using the pluralism of western media to debate editorial judgements in detail. It’s about cutting through the veneer of “the right to press freedom,” to demonstrate that editors often have poor judgement as to truth, accuracy and public interest.
But Muslims in Europe also have a new task for the twenty-first century – which is to convince their brothers in the developing world not to interfere. My contention is that European Muslims could have done without Palestinian organizations raiding the EU offices. They could have done without Arab dictatorships allowing their oppressed people to let off steam by burning foreign flags and attacking embassies.
And, as I am sure khatibs (imams giving Friday sermons) across the world have stressed, Muslims everywhere could help by channeling their energy to defend the Messenger’s name, in order to practice the message he brought in their own lives.
Were Danish Muslims correct in drawing international attention to the issue?
The “Muhammad Cartoons” issue sometimes reminds me of a pitfall trap. The principle of a pitfall trap is that a hunter digs a deep hole in the ground, then covers it with a thin layer insufficient to support much weight. He then attracts his prey to walk onto the cover, and of course to fall into the hole. So it has been with the cartoons. The press dug a hole, filled with sharp sticks like press freedom and human rights, into which they knew self-righteous Muslims would inevitably still want to jump. Now, four months into this saga, Muslims really need to be reminded that once you are in a hole, you should stop digging.
For those who have been watching other channels or not reading right the way through to the center pages of their newspapers, a quick resume of this story. On September 17, 2005, a Danish newspaper (Politiken) reported that a writer had trouble in finding an illustrator for a children's book on the Qur’an and the life of the Prophet. A rival newspaper (Jyllands-Posten) then decided to demonstrate that it could find several, where its competitor found none. In order to provide cover for this petty piece of journalistic bickering, Jyllands-Posten concocted a story about freedom of the press and the rights of journalists to print what they want. Its twelve clunky and crude caricatures were published on September 30, none of them showing any particular artistic merit, nor originality. Inevitably, cartoonists decided to wheel out old stereotypes about dodgy bearded Muslims, donkeys, headscarves, scimitars and crescents. Profound knowledge of Islam, Islamic culture or history was not particularly evident.
Inevitably, the article and cartoons offended many people. It was bone-headed – to say no more – to depict the founder of a billion-person-strong religion as a man with a bomb in his turban. Nor was it clever to include a poem like: “Prophet, daft and dumb, keeping woman under thumb.” More than that, the pictures were produced in full knowledge of the offense they would cause. The editors knew full well of the Islamic tradition of aniconism, which proscribes figure paintings as leading to idolatry. The most important idolatry of all, for most Muslims, would be images of the Prophet himself, mixing the message fatally with the messenger.
How Blasphemy Could Have Been Opposed
If readers and editors were able to remain calm-headed, it is highly likely that the issue would not have exploded into an international crisis. In no democratic country is freedom of the press (i.e. the issue on which the newspaper launched its misguided campaign) an absolute right. Press freedom is always subject to a variety of conditions, such as truth, accuracy, privacy, public interest and a reasonable assumption of the likely consequences for public order. Those who feel that journalists have infringed these conditions always have a means of redress – through complaints mechanisms, ombudsmen, and ultimately through the civil courts.
And modern democracies also have plenty of experience in dealing with blasphemy and religious hatred cases in the media. To take the case simply of the UK, over the last two years there have been the highly effective protests by Christian groups against Jerry Springer: the Opera, television stations demanded that far-Right parties re-edit offensive election broadcasts, and indeed the Government intends to extend the protection given to Christianity in the blasphemy laws to all religions, in the new Racial and Religious Hatred Bill.
The Jerry Springer: the Opera campaign could have been an excellent model for concerned Muslims about how to proceed. This is a play with an undoubtedly blasphemous premise – that Satan and Jesus publicly row and argue on an American television talk show. When it was broadcast in January 2005, a record 63,000 people contacted the BBC to complain, BBC management spent around 5 months being investigated by regulatory authorities, and the Arts Council refused funding for a nationwide theater tour planned by the organizers. Furthermore, due to consumer protests, several major shops have refused to stock the DVD.
What should be pointed out here is that Christian groups maintained their protests against those responsible for the offensive production, rather than holding the government responsible. They conspicuously protested against individual editorial judgements, rather than calling for blanket bans against “blasphemy”. And they kept their protest entirely within the UK, without calling on co-religionists in other countries to mount “sympathy protests”.
Muslims Fatally Undermining Their Own Cause
In the case of the Jyllands-Posten’s “Muhammad cartoons,” Muslims have failed to learn these lessons – and have once again succeeded in alienating the wider public, rather than winning sympathy against the crude racism that they were protesting against. We can see this, because the results have been the precise opposite to what Muslims wanted. Instead of blasphemous paintings being seen by 150,000 readers of a Danish newspaper, they have now been reprinted in Norway, Sweden, Belgium, Iceland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Netherlands, USA, and UK – millions at the lowest reckoning.
There have been major failures in the pan-European Muslim campaign against the cartoons. The first has been the immediate assumption on the part of Muslims in Denmark that the government has a responsibility for editorial decisions in a newspaper. This is a basic, basic error. A free and critical press, entirely independent of State control, is intrinsic to the European concept of democracy.
I’m sure European Muslim representative organizations do understand full well – but before they could clarify this, the Islamic Society in Denmark had muddied its case. During a tour of the Arab world, to promote awareness of the blasphemous cartoons – which in itself is a curious decision in the nervy times we live in – a large amount of misinformation was spread in the Middle East. Firstly, the Islamic Society in Denmark put out that it represented all of Denmark’s 180,000 Muslims, although it has a membership of only around 15,000. Contrary to some reports, Jyllands-Posten is not owned by the government, nor by the ruling party. Furthermore, the Danish leaders condemned three new cartoons that were never published in the Danish media – and refused to reveal where they had originated from.
This decision to internationalize the issue was particularly misguided. It is just about possible to understand why Danish Muslim leaders did this – because the 1 billion Muslims outside Denmark are a fair bit more impressive than the 180,000 inside it. But this makes a mockery of democracy and law. It is like losing a fight in the playground, and pretending that bringing your big brother to sort it out is a just solution. The decision to internationalize the cartoons issue meant that Danish Muslims ignored possibilities to resolve their grievances within the Denmark they are supposed to be integrating into. If the representatives of Danish Muslims are the ambassadors and foreign ministers of foreign governments, what message does this send? Where is the space for democracy, if the Danish government has to choose between breaking its constitution (i.e. infringing press freedom) and seeing boycotts put up to 10,000 Danish jobs at risk?
What is most tragic about this case, is that Muslims across the world have reinforced so many of the negative stereotypes we have tried for years to break down. The original newspaper article suggested that western media cannot report freely without fear of retaliatory violence – and it appears to have proved entirely correct. More than that, reaction has been entirely non-discriminatory between a few journalists and the entire Danish nation. If Muslims object to being tarnished by the actions of a few extreme individuals, why should they believe that Danes do not? Where is the justice, when Muslim groups burn the Danish flag, demand that all Danish citizens leave Gaza and boycott all Danish products?
Conclusions
European Muslims made all of these same mistakes in the 1980s, with the Salman Rushdie Satanic Verses affair. There also, European assumptions of freedom of expression were met with incomprehension by local Muslims, burnings of flags and books, and threats of violence by foreign Muslim powers (in that case, Iran). What was the outcome? A public relations disaster, that failed in all its aims and created a host of negative stereotypes against Muslims that still exists. More recently, the Netherlands saw the Submission affair, a television program created by Ayaan Hirsi and Theo Van Gogh. While Europeans thought it tasteless, they were taken aback by an international outcry by Muslims, culminating in a brutal murder of Van Gogh in broad daylight. What was the outcome? Again, a public relations disaster that failed in all its aims and created more negative stereotypes against Muslims.
Encouragingly, some lessons seem to have been learned now in 2006. Many European Muslim organizations, with experience of the Iraq protests, have learned a little about influencing democratic politics. They know that they have to show targeted, mass local support, through the correct channels. The 63,000 complaints to the BBC over Jerry Springer: the Opera would seem an excellent target to emulate. It’s about using the pluralism of western media to debate editorial judgements in detail. It’s about cutting through the veneer of “the right to press freedom,” to demonstrate that editors often have poor judgement as to truth, accuracy and public interest.
But Muslims in Europe also have a new task for the twenty-first century – which is to convince their brothers in the developing world not to interfere. My contention is that European Muslims could have done without Palestinian organizations raiding the EU offices. They could have done without Arab dictatorships allowing their oppressed people to let off steam by burning foreign flags and attacking embassies.
And, as I am sure khatibs (imams giving Friday sermons) across the world have stressed, Muslims everywhere could help by channeling their energy to defend the Messenger’s name, in order to practice the message he brought in their own lives.
Is There Nothing Sacred?
By Bashy Quraishy*
In any democratic society, it is the duty of the state to safeguard the rights of its minorities
I have lived in Denmark for over 35 years. During most of this time, I have enjoyed all the great traditions of this lovely country that I used to call my second home. I have always appreciated values which have made Denmark famous all over the globe — democracy, humanism, solidarity with the underprivileged, human rights, respectful dialogue, and non-violent protests. On top of all this, one quality which I have most benefited from, without fear or harassment, is the freedom of expression.
During most of the 25 years of my political work, the process of criticizing the powerful and the mighty, then being criticized in return, went on until 2003 when Ekstra Bladet carried out a deliberate character assassination campaign against me, through front page lies and manipulation of words. It was that horrible experience that made me realize the power of the media and how the noble concept of freedom of expression was being monopolized by some arrogant and unprincipled journalists who had no scruples in destroying an individual's lifetime work.
I could see that an irresponsible section of the media succeeded in creating a poisonous atmosphere in public debates. The Danish People's Party's Islamophobic attitudes and statements, as well as the society's acceptance of racist utterances, were dutifully transmitted under the banner of the freedom of expression. It created conflicts and hatred against most ethnic groups, especially Muslim communities. The more one explained, the more xenophobic response one felt and saw.
I was so disheartened with the situation that I moved many years of struggle for the rights of ethnic minorities in Denmark to elsewhere in the EU. Since that time, I have traveled all over the European continent, giving lectures, speaking at conferences, organizing NGOs, and interacting with EU institutions. This work has come to fruition. International media, EU politicians, educational institutions, European organizations, and the ordinary public now know what is happening in Denmark.
I and many others like myself have had to inform the outside world in order to put pressure on the authorities in Denmark and to return it to the path of civilized behavior. It is heartwarming to note that the harsh tone of minority debates is now being questioned by intellectuals, authors, priests, doctors, former ambassadors, and some responsible section of the media in Danish society. Unfortunately, the prime minister still refuses to come out clean and to correct the mistakes he has committed. He continues to insist that the debate tone is fine and he has no complaints about it.
When audiences abroad ask me why Denmark has become such an unfriendly place to live, I never blame Christianity or Jesus, nor do I put down Denmark or the Danish people. I just use my freedom of speech to inform and criticize Denmark's treatment of ethnic minorities. It is interesting that Mr. Bertel Haarder, who until recently was the minister of integration and who never gets tired of lecturing ethnic minorities about respecting the freedom of speech, demanded an apology from me for speaking my mind about Denmark to the foreign media. Maybe he believes that a person with a Muslim background should be grateful to the country instead of just being critical.
Questions thus arise: Have not the good-natured Danish politicians witnessed the rising tide of Islamophobia in the West, especially in Denmark? And how has the media misused the concept of the freedom of expression to insult and degrade not only the Muslim communities, but to a larger degree, the religion of Islam, the Qur'an, and even the Prophet Muhammad.
I wonder how a self-respecting politician can miss such a drastic development?
Could it be that Danish politicians, most of the media, and the people in the street have no qualm about calling Muslims nazis, terrorists, fascists, and many other insulting names? Even the Parliament's podium is being used for such attacks. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can notice that slowly but steadily, all discussions about ethnic minorities, their position in the society, their socio-economic problems, and their integration have been termed as Islamic issues. The whole racist discourse has moved from being ethnic or racial to cultural assimilation and religious compatibility. This gives free rein to everyone to say and write whatever he or she pleases under the guise of the freedom of expression.
Another Fundamental Question
This development raises another fundamental question. Is nothing except the freedom of expression sacred? The answer can be found in the sad and dangerous situation created by the largest daily newspaper, Jyllands Posten. It went one step further when it instigated the commissioning of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad to test the limits of the freedom of expression. The result was that 12 well-known artists drew very insulting sketches of the Prophet, which the newspaper published on September 30, 2005.
Fortunately, contrary to some people's expectations, the Muslim communities in Denmark peacefully protested against this uncalled-for provocation. When I saw these caricatures, I felt hurt, angry, and at a loss to understand Jyllands Posten's intentions. Many ambassadors from Muslim countries also felt this way and requested a meeting with Prime Minster Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Their goal was not to discuss the issue of the freedom of expression with him, but rather to explain to him how they felt about the issue. The response of the Danish authorities and the media was an arrogant defense of the newspaper and its right to insult whomever it pleases. Muslim communities were politely told to shut up and to accept the treatment they were given.
International media has also taken notice of the Danish Islamophobic atmosphere. Besides the huge outcry in the Arab and other Muslim countries, members of the media all over the world are criticizing Denmark. The latest to join this endless line of criticism are the International Herald Tribune (31 Dec 2005), The Economist (7 Jan 2005), New York Times (8 Jan 2006), and the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet (17 Jan 2006).
The Danish government's response has been its same old mantra: "The surrounding world does not understand us. We are democratic and want to protect our freedom of speech."
I wish to say to those who have a desire to use, or who have used in their comments, uncivilized language about the Qur'an, the Prophet Muhammad, Islam, or other religions, "Please use your logic and don't be ignorant. By abusing Islam, you are not serving the purpose of a dialogue between different communities in Denmark or the Western world."
There is a big difference between criticism of Muslims, Islamic practices, and even the religion of Islam, and publishing insulting cartoons of the Prophet which portray him as a terrorist and an oppressor of women. Because the Prophet is not around to give his reaction (although I am sure he would have forgiven Jyllands Posten), the duty falls upon his followers to react. It is very logical. They have a right to react in a peaceful manner, which they did. Some 1.4 billion Muslims love and respect their Prophet Muhammad as much, and if not more, than Denmark values the freedom of expression.
While talking about the freedom of expression, it must be remembered that it has never been unlimited or unrestricted, nor was it intended to give a license to the media to insult, degrade, and make fun of others. It is governed by the law and should be practiced with responsibility. The freedom of expression was created basically to protect the average person in the street who might wish to raise his or her voice against the power elite. Article 29 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that too.
In any democratic society, it is the duty of the state to safeguard the rights of its minorities, be they ethnic or religious minorities. Here Denmark is failing. Of course, Jyllands Posten can print whatever it likes, but accordingly, Muslims should be able to drag the publication to the courts. But for those of you who do not know the Danish Courts, it is next to impossible to win a case of such nature.
The Danish system values the freedom of speech over the religious or ethnic rights of Muslims. On the other hand, if a cartoonist made fun of the Dalai Lama or the Holocaust, praised Hitler, or attacked the gay community, he or she would be dealt with by the Danish authorities and the legal system in a quick manner. And I would be very happy when such persons are dealt with and punished. By focusing on and attacking only Islam, the Danish media has proven its enmity towards Muslims, which is historically based.
There are other examples in Denmark, such as when an artist drew a dirty painting of a naked Jesus and it was taken away immediately, and rightly so. Denmark has laws against blasphemy that protect the honor of the regent and private citizens. Law 266b forbids insulting racial and degrading public remarks and propaganda against a group of persons on the basis of their religion.
In Denmark, the media also exercises self-censorship. For example, even if Jyllands Posten had the information, it would never write about a minister being a victim of depression or about a minister who wears ladies' clothes and has a male lover, or an ex-minister who used to regularly beat up his wife. Now, when Jyllands Posten does show restraint in such private issues, what purpose did it serve by intentionally provoking the Muslim communities? By the way, the very same Jyllands Posten that claims to champion the freedom of expression for artists, has for years refused my articles. Some of my articles were written in response to attacks on my person. I had to threaten the paper with a "right to reply" lawsuit before I succeeded in getting only one response published in the paper. I also know many other individuals whose articles were rejected because they had criticized a particular publication.
So much for the freedom of expression.
I propose that we all step back and ask ourselves, did this cartoon series help the integration of minorities, did it make radicals more mature, did it give the ignorant Danes more knowledge of Islam, or did it bring people together? If the answer is yes, then I welcome these cartoons. If the answer is no, then we should ask ourselves whose political agenda did this provocation serve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Bashy Quraishy is the President of the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), Belgium, and a member of the EU Commission’s High Level Group on Integration,Belgium.
By Bashy Quraishy*
In any democratic society, it is the duty of the state to safeguard the rights of its minorities
I have lived in Denmark for over 35 years. During most of this time, I have enjoyed all the great traditions of this lovely country that I used to call my second home. I have always appreciated values which have made Denmark famous all over the globe — democracy, humanism, solidarity with the underprivileged, human rights, respectful dialogue, and non-violent protests. On top of all this, one quality which I have most benefited from, without fear or harassment, is the freedom of expression.
During most of the 25 years of my political work, the process of criticizing the powerful and the mighty, then being criticized in return, went on until 2003 when Ekstra Bladet carried out a deliberate character assassination campaign against me, through front page lies and manipulation of words. It was that horrible experience that made me realize the power of the media and how the noble concept of freedom of expression was being monopolized by some arrogant and unprincipled journalists who had no scruples in destroying an individual's lifetime work.
I could see that an irresponsible section of the media succeeded in creating a poisonous atmosphere in public debates. The Danish People's Party's Islamophobic attitudes and statements, as well as the society's acceptance of racist utterances, were dutifully transmitted under the banner of the freedom of expression. It created conflicts and hatred against most ethnic groups, especially Muslim communities. The more one explained, the more xenophobic response one felt and saw.
I was so disheartened with the situation that I moved many years of struggle for the rights of ethnic minorities in Denmark to elsewhere in the EU. Since that time, I have traveled all over the European continent, giving lectures, speaking at conferences, organizing NGOs, and interacting with EU institutions. This work has come to fruition. International media, EU politicians, educational institutions, European organizations, and the ordinary public now know what is happening in Denmark.
I and many others like myself have had to inform the outside world in order to put pressure on the authorities in Denmark and to return it to the path of civilized behavior. It is heartwarming to note that the harsh tone of minority debates is now being questioned by intellectuals, authors, priests, doctors, former ambassadors, and some responsible section of the media in Danish society. Unfortunately, the prime minister still refuses to come out clean and to correct the mistakes he has committed. He continues to insist that the debate tone is fine and he has no complaints about it.
When audiences abroad ask me why Denmark has become such an unfriendly place to live, I never blame Christianity or Jesus, nor do I put down Denmark or the Danish people. I just use my freedom of speech to inform and criticize Denmark's treatment of ethnic minorities. It is interesting that Mr. Bertel Haarder, who until recently was the minister of integration and who never gets tired of lecturing ethnic minorities about respecting the freedom of speech, demanded an apology from me for speaking my mind about Denmark to the foreign media. Maybe he believes that a person with a Muslim background should be grateful to the country instead of just being critical.
Questions thus arise: Have not the good-natured Danish politicians witnessed the rising tide of Islamophobia in the West, especially in Denmark? And how has the media misused the concept of the freedom of expression to insult and degrade not only the Muslim communities, but to a larger degree, the religion of Islam, the Qur'an, and even the Prophet Muhammad.
I wonder how a self-respecting politician can miss such a drastic development?
Could it be that Danish politicians, most of the media, and the people in the street have no qualm about calling Muslims nazis, terrorists, fascists, and many other insulting names? Even the Parliament's podium is being used for such attacks. Anyone with a modicum of common sense can notice that slowly but steadily, all discussions about ethnic minorities, their position in the society, their socio-economic problems, and their integration have been termed as Islamic issues. The whole racist discourse has moved from being ethnic or racial to cultural assimilation and religious compatibility. This gives free rein to everyone to say and write whatever he or she pleases under the guise of the freedom of expression.
Another Fundamental Question
This development raises another fundamental question. Is nothing except the freedom of expression sacred? The answer can be found in the sad and dangerous situation created by the largest daily newspaper, Jyllands Posten. It went one step further when it instigated the commissioning of cartoons of Prophet Muhammad to test the limits of the freedom of expression. The result was that 12 well-known artists drew very insulting sketches of the Prophet, which the newspaper published on September 30, 2005.
Fortunately, contrary to some people's expectations, the Muslim communities in Denmark peacefully protested against this uncalled-for provocation. When I saw these caricatures, I felt hurt, angry, and at a loss to understand Jyllands Posten's intentions. Many ambassadors from Muslim countries also felt this way and requested a meeting with Prime Minster Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Their goal was not to discuss the issue of the freedom of expression with him, but rather to explain to him how they felt about the issue. The response of the Danish authorities and the media was an arrogant defense of the newspaper and its right to insult whomever it pleases. Muslim communities were politely told to shut up and to accept the treatment they were given.
International media has also taken notice of the Danish Islamophobic atmosphere. Besides the huge outcry in the Arab and other Muslim countries, members of the media all over the world are criticizing Denmark. The latest to join this endless line of criticism are the International Herald Tribune (31 Dec 2005), The Economist (7 Jan 2005), New York Times (8 Jan 2006), and the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet (17 Jan 2006).
The Danish government's response has been its same old mantra: "The surrounding world does not understand us. We are democratic and want to protect our freedom of speech."
I wish to say to those who have a desire to use, or who have used in their comments, uncivilized language about the Qur'an, the Prophet Muhammad, Islam, or other religions, "Please use your logic and don't be ignorant. By abusing Islam, you are not serving the purpose of a dialogue between different communities in Denmark or the Western world."
There is a big difference between criticism of Muslims, Islamic practices, and even the religion of Islam, and publishing insulting cartoons of the Prophet which portray him as a terrorist and an oppressor of women. Because the Prophet is not around to give his reaction (although I am sure he would have forgiven Jyllands Posten), the duty falls upon his followers to react. It is very logical. They have a right to react in a peaceful manner, which they did. Some 1.4 billion Muslims love and respect their Prophet Muhammad as much, and if not more, than Denmark values the freedom of expression.
While talking about the freedom of expression, it must be remembered that it has never been unlimited or unrestricted, nor was it intended to give a license to the media to insult, degrade, and make fun of others. It is governed by the law and should be practiced with responsibility. The freedom of expression was created basically to protect the average person in the street who might wish to raise his or her voice against the power elite. Article 29 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights clearly states that too.
In any democratic society, it is the duty of the state to safeguard the rights of its minorities, be they ethnic or religious minorities. Here Denmark is failing. Of course, Jyllands Posten can print whatever it likes, but accordingly, Muslims should be able to drag the publication to the courts. But for those of you who do not know the Danish Courts, it is next to impossible to win a case of such nature.
The Danish system values the freedom of speech over the religious or ethnic rights of Muslims. On the other hand, if a cartoonist made fun of the Dalai Lama or the Holocaust, praised Hitler, or attacked the gay community, he or she would be dealt with by the Danish authorities and the legal system in a quick manner. And I would be very happy when such persons are dealt with and punished. By focusing on and attacking only Islam, the Danish media has proven its enmity towards Muslims, which is historically based.
There are other examples in Denmark, such as when an artist drew a dirty painting of a naked Jesus and it was taken away immediately, and rightly so. Denmark has laws against blasphemy that protect the honor of the regent and private citizens. Law 266b forbids insulting racial and degrading public remarks and propaganda against a group of persons on the basis of their religion.
In Denmark, the media also exercises self-censorship. For example, even if Jyllands Posten had the information, it would never write about a minister being a victim of depression or about a minister who wears ladies' clothes and has a male lover, or an ex-minister who used to regularly beat up his wife. Now, when Jyllands Posten does show restraint in such private issues, what purpose did it serve by intentionally provoking the Muslim communities? By the way, the very same Jyllands Posten that claims to champion the freedom of expression for artists, has for years refused my articles. Some of my articles were written in response to attacks on my person. I had to threaten the paper with a "right to reply" lawsuit before I succeeded in getting only one response published in the paper. I also know many other individuals whose articles were rejected because they had criticized a particular publication.
So much for the freedom of expression.
I propose that we all step back and ask ourselves, did this cartoon series help the integration of minorities, did it make radicals more mature, did it give the ignorant Danes more knowledge of Islam, or did it bring people together? If the answer is yes, then I welcome these cartoons. If the answer is no, then we should ask ourselves whose political agenda did this provocation serve.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Bashy Quraishy is the President of the European Network Against Racism (ENAR), Belgium, and a member of the EU Commission’s High Level Group on Integration,Belgium.
I must say I'm not really happy seeing our dear president having control over nuclear weapons (which I'm sure is what they're making down there). The Iranian government is basically demanding to be attacked or sanctioned with it's current actions. But considering 27 years of struggle has not reached anywhere, I'm inclined to believe that this inevitable conflict will be good for Iranian people in the long run...
Nice article btw (the first one).
Nice article btw (the first one).