Lebanese protesters torch Danish Embassy

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"?

Yep, that's what Jesus would do. Mohammed, on the other hand....

what about..'what would scooby doo?'

Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"?

Yep, that's what Jesus would do. Mohammed, on the other hand....

good pwnage

first of all in christian belief..Jesus is the son of God..Mohammed, PBUH, is a prophet.. so that is irrelevant

pwned

Brutha Dean,

Profound, as always

[almaty 19]

Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"?

Yep, that's what Jesus would do. Mohammed, on the other hand....

what about..'what would scooby doo?'

Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek"?

Yep, that's what Jesus would do. Mohammed, on the other hand....

good pwnage

first of all in christian belief..Jesus is the son of God..Mohammed, PBUH, is a prophet.. so that is irrelevant

pwned

Brutha Dean,

Profound, as always

thanks Arijit...i learned it from you and tom...

[czarina 0]

I am also totally disgusted with the violence because of the cartoon. However, these acts of violence and riots are un-Islamic and totally something our Prophet Muhammed would not do. He NEVER opted to violence and the killings of civilians. I would like to share with you a forward I received of a sermon given by an Islamic cleric (imam) from UK.

"...We would do well to reflect upon the Prophet's supplication in Taif.

This is the dua he recited with shoes full of blood, wounds all over his body and after having been insulted and abused by the people of Taif. What's more this all occurs after three years of suffering a boycott at the hands of the Quraysh as a result of which Muslims were reduced to eating grass and leaves off of trees.

The Prophet (s) as he walks out of Taif:

"O Allah! I complain to You of my weakness, my scarcity of resources and my humiliation before the people. O Most Merciful of those who are merciful. O Lord of the weak and my Lord too. To whom have you entrusted me? To a distant person who receives me with hostility? Or to an enemy to whom you have granted authority over my affair? So long as You are not angry with me, I do not care. Your favour is of more abundance to me. I seek refuge in the light of Your Face by which all darkness is dispelled and every affair of this world and the next is set right, lest Your anger or your displeasure descend upon me. I desire your pleasure and satisfaction until you are pleased. There is no power and no might except by You."

If those who claim to love the Prophet(s) so much that they are willing to infringe upon prophetic conduct with their blind rage and fury would reflect upon this prayer, it would be a guiding light for them and a clear instruction as to how a Muslim should respond to our current situation.

It is also the only salve by which troubled hearts and souls will find peace...

Are we to revert to pre-Islamic tribal norms of vengeance and retribution rather than see this as an opportunity to turn hearts by sharing the example of our beloved Prophet's centredness and compassion in the face of hate and enmity with those whose hearts are open.

Are we to fall into the major sin of dispair-fuelled violence rather than maintain hope as the Prophet (s) did when the angel of the mountains met him outside Ta'if following his supplication and offered to cause the mountains surrounding Taif to explode over the town and obliterate it to which the Prophet (s) replied 'No, I hope that these people will one day come to worship only Allah and Him alone'?

Unless we have the centredness and the Allah-consciousness of the Prophet (s) by which every event whether favorable or unfavorable (in material terms) offers us the opportunity of strengthening our relationship with Allah, we will continue to be the victim of every ruse and ploy. Rather than reacting with violence and rage we should intensify our work to share the beautiful and merciful message of the Deen!..."

This is just ONE example of an islamic cleric speaking out against the violence. Again, there are MANY imams and religious leaders who DO speak out against the violent insanity, but unfortunately their talks and sermons are not circulated or picked up by the media....I just want people to know that we Muslims are also outraged at this violence, that our Prophet would also have been appalled by and would greatly condemn what is happening and just because not everyone is hearing us speaking out against it, it does not it is not happening.

[Kaalyx 0]

IRAN'S largest selling newspaper announced today it was holding a contest on cartoons of the Holocaust in response to the publishing in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed.

"It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust," said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality.

He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

"The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," he said.

Iran's fiercely anti-Israeli regime is supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who maintain the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as well as other groups during World War II has been either invented or exaggerated.

news

Oh please. The Arab world taking stabs at the holocaust is nothing new. Why do they even try to pretend that it's just done to turn the tables? Denying or downplaying the holocaust and publishing tasteless and offensive material (including cartoons) is daily routine in the Arab world. Pffft. Who are they trying to fool?

Um, Iran is not part of the Arab world. Persian, not Arabic, is the language of Iran. And Iranians are not ethnically Arab. Iran is, however, part of the Middle East.

It might be good to learn something about the peoples of the Middle East before professing such deep knowledge of the media practices in Arab Iran!

Edited February 9, 2006 by Kaalyx

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Um, Iran is not part of the Arab world. Persian, not Arabic, is the language of Iran. And Iranians are not ethnically Arab. Iran is, however, part of the Middle East.

It might be good to learn something about the peoples of the Middle East before professing such deep knowledge of the media practices in Arab Iran!

Congratulations on having successfully split hair. In their hate and stabs against Israel and the Jewish people, Arabs and other Muslims are kind of hard to distinguish. I know that there are otherwise differences and when it's warranted to point them out, I'll be sure to do so. In this case, it wasn't.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To add: The anti-semite and anti western cartoons are fairly easy to access on the internet. One doesn't need (nor have I ever claimed to have) deep knowledge of the media process in that part of the world to pull that up. Them folks hate Israel and it's people. Don't tell me you're surprised to hear that...

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I am also totally disgusted with the violence because of the cartoon. However, these acts of violence and riots are un-Islamic and totally something our Prophet Muhammed would not do. He NEVER opted to violence and the killings of civilians.

Never opted to violence eh? I'm sure there were civilians in the caravans. Ya gotta do what ya gotta do to survive but to pretend it didn't happen? weak.

"Muhammad turned to raiding caravans bound for Mecca. Caravan raiding (al-ghazw) was an old Arabian tradition; Muslims justified the raids by Meccan's confiscation of all their property left at Mecca and the state of war deemed to exist between the Meccans and the Muslims. Secular scholars add this was also a matter of survival for the Muslims. They owned no land in Medina and if they did not raid, they would have to live on charity and whatever wage labor they could find, both of which were in short supply in the small oasis.

In March of 624, Muhammad led some 300 warriors in a raid on a Meccan merchant caravan. The Meccans successfully defended the caravan and then decided to teach the Medinans a lesson. They sent a small army against Medina. On March 15, 624 near a place called Badr, the Meccans and the Muslims clashed. Though outnumbered more than 3 times (1000 to 300) in the battle, the Muslims met with success, killing at least forty-five Meccans and taking seventy prisoners for ransom; only fourteen Muslims died. This marked the real beginning of Muslim military achievement."

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

Edited February 9, 2006 by rch99

[tnh9479 1]

Them folks hate Israel and it's people. Don't tell me you're surprised to hear that...

I disagree. I probably would have thought the same BEFORE I got to know my husband or even read the Quran. My husband comes from an Islamic state that has Jews living peacefully in it for more than a century and a half (you can thank the Christians for that one...driving the Muslims and Jews out of Spain).

[Kaalyx 0]

Um, Iran is not part of the Arab world. Persian, not Arabic, is the language of Iran. And Iranians are not ethnically Arab. Iran is, however, part of the Middle East.

It might be good to learn something about the peoples of the Middle East before professing such deep knowledge of the media practices in Arab Iran!

Congratulations on having successfully split hair. In their hate and stabs against Israel and the Jewish people, Arabs and other Muslims are kind of hard to distinguish. I know that there are otherwise differences and when it's warranted to point them out, I'll be sure to do so. In this case, it wasn't.

Confusing an entire people's ethnicity has major consequences on the conclusions one draws. Just that small misstep in your post lets me know how little you understand about the situation on the ground. How bold to draw conclusions on subjects unknown ... ! (Frankly, it sounds a lot like Paul Bremer's comment that the Shi'i were not a religious people. He's a tour de force! And you see where his deep knowledge of Iraq led him -- on the first plane back to the US days before scheduled. He didn't want press around to memorialize his failed attempts at establishing authority over a pluralistic society he hadn't bothered to learn about.) To familiarize the argument, do you think an Eritrean would appreciate being described as Ethiopian? Or an Italian with a Frenchman? There are real historical and cultural distinctions, in addition to the obvious national/ethnic ones.

As far as this all relates to the cartoon issue and anti-Israeli sentiment, the Islamic Republic of Iran has had a peculiar history with Israel (AND internally AND with Western colonizing powers, particularly the British, who orchestrated the establishment of Israel) that is not shared by all Middle Eastern nations. (Iran does not have diplomatic ties with Israel, thereby encouraging the extremist political and rhetorical tactics you've described.) There are indeed Middle Eastern regimes that do not condone the actions of Iran. Don't tell me you're surprised to hear that! As tnh9479 has just pointed out, the Moroccan government and peoples have had a most friendly relationship with Jews and also with Israel. ... Similarly, Jordan has a reputation for being quite friendly (diplomatically) with Israel. In fact, this "inclining" towards Western powers was one of al-Zarqawi's justifications for bombing the Amman embassy. Additionally, Egypt has proven herself accommodating to her northern neighbor. Anwar Sadat was assassinated for his accommodationist stances vis-a-vis Israel. Of course, I'm speaking of governments, not individuals, but this overriding hate you describe is not fostered in countries ruled by moderate goverments.

None of this is to deny the phenomenon of protests in the Muslim world or the accompanying rage over the recent cartoon controversy. A blind man could see that. I merely want to show you that by not ascribing a certain complexity to a people (that I imagine you'd be willing to acknowledge for Canadians and Americans, or Russians and Ukranians), you undermine your statements. (i.e., The actions/rhetoric of Iranian president Ahmedinejad do represent those of Muslims around the world.) ... Once you begin to understand the political, historical, social and religious backgrounds of a people, you will see that rage or extremism is not a global Muslim phenomenon, as you've suggested. These phenomena are particular, not universal, and once the particularities are grasped, addressing the problem and combatting it will fall within America's grasp.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Taken from Opendemocracy.net

A carnival of stupidity

Neal Ascherson

6 - 2 - 2006

The conflagration over Danish cartoons of Islam's prophet reveals that Europe's balance of freedom, mutuality and coexistence is at a trigger-charge moment, says Neal Ascherson.

The affair of the Danish cartoons is both a scandal and a storm signal. It is scandalous, as a horrific carnival of stupidity, hypocrisy and manipulated outrage celebrated with equal enthusiasm in the Muslim world and in "liberal" Europe. It is a storm signal of worse to come. Five people in three countries have already died in the last two furious days of riotous confrontation. But even if the tumult soon peaks and begins to subside, the world has been left a more dangerous place.

Millions of peaceful Muslims, small farmers in Sumatra or Bengali waiters in European cities, are now inclined to listen more respectfully to those who tell them that the west and its leaders intend to exterminate Islam by slander and humiliation as preludes to war. Millions of Europeans, reading posters like those carried by demonstrators in London on 3 February ("UK, you must pray – 7/7 is on its way", with calls for the killing of British editors and broadcasters) are reluctantly wondering if any compromise is possible between democracy and the religious dogmatism of a minority. The city authorities of Rotterdam are about to decree that only Dutch may be spoken in their streets. This week, rather fewer Dutch people will see this for the imbecile provocation that it is.

A slow-burning fuse

The most curious thing about the affair is why the fuse burned so slowly. It was on 30 September 2005, more than four months ago, that Jyllands-Posten in Copenhagen published the cartoons of Mohammed (heavily unfunny, but extremely rude). The newspaper was barging into an already running story, about the reluctance of Danish illustrators to contribute to a life of Mohammed for children. Jyllands-Posten is a rightwing paper, in tune with the present Danish government in its resentment of Muslim immigrants, and it meant to make trouble. There followed some small demonstrations, and several death threats to the cartoonists.

None the less, the trouble could have been contained. The fatal element was the insistence of the prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, on posturing as a friend of liberty who knew how to stand up to repressive aliens. He brushed the protests from Danish Muslims aside. He then refused to receive the ambassadors of Islamic nations, who were demanding the prosecution of the newspaper. They reported back to their own publics on "Danish intransigence".

By now, it was late October. The cartoons, accompanied by lurid stories of "persecution" were already trickling into the Islamic media bloodstream all over the world, carried by emails and a variety of websites. Late last year, a delegation of Danish imams, variously described as "extremist" or "conservative", left for Saudi Arabia and Egypt, with a portfolio of "blasphemous" Danish cartoons, including some pornographic images which nobody in Denmark could remember seeing.

More diplomatic protests were ignored in Copenhagen. But in Saudi Arabia, a campaign to boycott Danish goods broke out in late January, and the Saudi ambassador to Denmark was recalled on 26 January. Too late, Jyllands-Posten published its regrets for any offence the cartoons had given and Rasmussen agreed to speak to Muslim ambassadors, begging for calm. All over the Islamic world, taking the Saudi lead, anti-Danish outrage spilled into the streets. It was then that France-Soir and Die Welt in Germany, alleging that the Danes were surrendering to threats, published the cartoons, followed by papers in Norway, Spain, Italy and Ireland. The target of Muslim anger now became Europe itself.

Was this a genuine moral contest between free expression in democratic societies and Islamic intolerance? "Freedom Go To Hell" read one of the London posters, and "Butcher Those Who Mock Islam". These were intolerable slogans, especially in Britain where – astonishingly – not one single newspaper has so far republished the cartoons. But motives are not that clear. On both sides, and not just among the Muslim public, ambitious agitators are trying to ventriloquise and appropriate stacked-up feelings of insecurity and threat, as much as to make a stand on principle.

The road from tolerance

Freedom of expression has to be fought for and defended, in every European generation. But freedom should not be defended by a "'neocon" doctrine of pre-emptive strikes. Anyone who can read knows that portrayals of the prophet, even without insult, are profoundly upsetting to pious Muslims who are not necessarily at all "extreme" or "Jihadist". What Jyllands-Posten did was to publish something it knew would provoke Muslims (though it had no idea how much) in order to flaunt its own "liberal" credentials. That was unforgivable.

In the same way, rights – like the freedom of the press – inherently offer us the right to decide when to use them. The grounds for that decision include common sense and prudence. I may have the right to throw away a cigarette near a pile of leaky petrol drums, but I will probably choose not to do so, and will be held criminally responsible for a conflagration. Publishing insulting cartoons of Mohammed at a moment haunted by suicide-bombings, fanatical murder and American-led war or threats of war in Muslim countries was an act of that kind.

Back in the noisy 1960s, Herbert Marcuse used to preach about "repressive tolerance". Something has gone wrong with the concept of tolerance in both Denmark and the Netherlands , where it has become not so much repressive as aggressive. Both these small nations have become used to being regarded as decent, liberal places, their democracies deeply rooted, their record of respect for human rights and individual liberty admired by the rest of the world. Everyone remembers how the Danes once saved their Jews from the Nazis, and how open Holland has been to life-experimenters and counter-cultures. In both nations, the idea that they are tolerant has been adopted as part of their identity.

And yet this has now become an obstacle. The arrival of fresh waves of immigration, especially from north Africa and Asia, seems more threatening to the national culture than it would in their bigger European neighbours. Sharing an open society with others suddenly turned out to be problematic.

At a recent conference in Copenhagen, I heard a Danish professor say that "Denmark has difficulty in accepting difference, or that other ways of being Danish can exist. This country has done well by sticking to a mono-ethnic model, and finds it hard to change". Mandana Zarrehparvar, from the Danish Institute of Human Rights, is part-Iranian. She said: "Integration in Denmark has failed. There are no mosques, no Muslim graveyards, no Muslim councils. Denmark fancies itself a monocultural society, which it is not".

The notion of multiculturalism, so popular in Britain, is rapidly losing ground in both these countries. The strangers, it's now said, must assimilate or leave before they swamp their hosts. But in both countries it's argued, paradoxically, that anti-immigrant policies are actually a defence of tolerance. Islam is presented as inherently intolerant, and therefore incompatible with Dutch or Danish values.

In short, both these ancient societies are struggling through a crisis of identity. And to assert that identity, marshalled round its supposed core value of tolerance, it has seemed necessary to show intolerance to others who are different. But is this anxiety really about Islam, its dislike of criticism or resistance to Enlightenment liberalism? Or is it, at root, no more than the hostility of a tightly-knit community to strangers who have arrived to share the family home? Jyllands-Posten suggests that its main concern has been for freedom and democracy. I doubt that. It has certainly damaged both of them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Confusing an entire people's ethnicity has major consequences on the conclusions one draws.

As does putting another's statement into an unrelated context.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Um, Iran is not part of the Arab world. Persian, not Arabic, is the language of Iran. And Iranians are not ethnically Arab. Iran is, however, part of the Middle East.

It might be good to learn something about the peoples of the Middle East before professing such deep knowledge of the media practices in Arab Iran!

Congratulations on having successfully split hair. In their hate and stabs against Israel and the Jewish people, Arabs and other Muslims are kind of hard to distinguish. I know that there are otherwise differences and when it's warranted to point them out, I'll be sure to do so. In this case, it wasn't.

When I was in the Navy patrolling the Persian gulf we were actually told that the proper name was the Arabian gulf. We were told to call it the Arabian gulf when we interacted (drank) with the locals.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My husband comes from an Islamic state that has Jews living peacefully in it for more than a century and a half....

Yes, Morocco. I read an interesting article about the refreshingly different state of affairs in Morocco - there might just be hope out there: Morocco's King Aims To Build a Modern Islamic Democracy

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Taken from Opendemocracy.net

A carnival of stupidity

Neal Ascherson

6 - 2 - 2006

... He then refused to receive the ambassadors of Islamic nations, who were demanding the prosecution of the newspaper. They reported back to their own publics on "Danish intransigence".

Prosecute the newspaper for what? I don't see what law they broke...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Taken from Opendemocracy.net

A carnival of stupidity

Neal Ascherson

6 - 2 - 2006

... He then refused to receive the ambassadors of Islamic nations, who were demanding the prosecution of the newspaper. They reported back to their own publics on "Danish intransigence".

Prosecute the newspaper for what? I don't see what law they broke...

I think they mean that by not receiving the ambassadors, it allowed them to the dictate the public discourse on this at home, which made the situation worse than it could have been.