Lebanese protesters torch Danish Embassy

[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...

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.

Quite possible, though, that the radical imams were set to exploit this one from the very beginning - no doubt that they sufficiently have done so. Not sure that anything could have avoided that. I haven't seen rational action taming that violent, murderous mob yet.

[czarina 0]

CAIR CONDEMNS IRANIAN HOLOCAUST CARTOON CONTEST

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 2/8/06) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations today condemned a plan by an Iranian newspaper to solicit cartoons denying the Nazi Holocaust.

Iran's Hamshahri newspaper says the contest is in reaction to the publication in Europe of cartoons mocking Islam's Prophet Muhammad. The controversy over those cartoon sparked worldwide protests.

In a statement, CAIR said:

"Now is the time for responsible people of all faiths to avoid inflammatory actions that are clearly designed to incite hatred. We call on Hamshahri newspaper to drop its plans to denigrate the immense suffering caused by the Nazi Holocaust and urge the Iranian government to repudiate such an insensitive proposal.

"The Quran, Islam's revealed text, states: 'Goodness and evil cannot be equal.

Repel (evil) with something that is better. Then you will see that he with whom you had enmity will become your close friend. And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint.' (41:34-35)

"The Holocaust, like all other acts of genocide, represents one of the lowest moments in human history and should not be the subject of derogatory cartoons. One cannot demand responsible behavior from others while at the same time acting irresponsibly."

Previously, CAIR and other American Muslim groups rejected the use of violence in response to the defamatory caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad published in European newspapers.

In reaction to the cartoon controversy, CAIR officials met with the Norwegian and Danish ambassadors to express the Muslim community's concerns about the caricatures and urged American Muslims to educate others about the legacy of the Prophet Muhammad.

CAIR, America's largest Muslim civil liberties group, has 31 offices and chapters nationwide and in Canada. Its mission is to enhance understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

[bhajishah 4]

Zarina

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

CAIR CONDEMNS IRANIAN HOLOCAUST CARTOON CONTEST

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 2/8/06) - The Council on American-Islamic Relations today condemned a plan by an Iranian newspaper to solicit cartoons denying the Nazi Holocaust.

Very good! Thanks for posting this.

[almaty 19]

Zarina

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

More voices of reason:

Interview with Muslim Leader Tariq Ramadan on the Caricature Conflict

"We Have to Turn Up the Volume of Reason"

With unrelenting Muslim anger over the Muhammad caricatures, sentiments between Islam and the West once again have all the delicacy of a powder keg. SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke with Tariq Ramadan, Europe's leading Muslim scholar, about the overreaction of the Muslim world, rampant anti-Semitism and the frustrations of Muslim immigrants in Europe.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The Muslim world's reactions to the publishing of the Muhammad caricatures first in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten and then in other European publications have not done much to improve the image of Islam in the West. Are Muslims overreacting?

Tariq Ramadan: Of course. The reaction has been way too severe. I traveled to Denmark back in October and I told Muslim leaders there not to react emotionally, because it would be the reactions and the emotions of the Muslims that would become the center of attention. The best thing would have been for us to take an emotional distance. But now, all you see is angry faces, crying and rage on the television. This is not the way forward for the Muslims.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But clearly there are deeper reasons for this enormous outburst of emotions than just a handful of offensive cartoons. It's as though huge amounts of pent up frustration are finally being released. Is there something larger going on here?

Ramadan: Of course it started with a few people being hurt by the cartoons. But then a few people took the cartoons to the Middle East. Some governments there were very happy to present themselves as the great champions of Islam. One reason, of course, was to gain legitimacy in the eyes of their own people. But secondly, it was to direct the attention of the people, living under these dictatorial governments, toward the West and to provide their people with a vent for their own frustrations. And it worked -- it became Muslims against the West. All the first reactions from the Islamic majority countries came from those countries (and places) where there is a difficult relationship with the West: Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Gaza, and then Iran. It's more than just the cartoons. It's part of a broader picture that we have to keep in mind.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Where does this intense resentment against the West come from?

Ramadan: There are a number of countries, like Syria or Iran, in the Islamic world which are under tremendous pressure from the West. The governments present themselves as victims and turn their people against the West. In Gaza, to take another example, there is a perception that the West is speaking about democracy, but when the votes are tallied, it considers the result unacceptable. There is also a perception that Israel is supported to the disadvantage of the Palestinians. So there are many things that add up and the result is a perception that the war on terror isn't only against terror but it is also against Muslims. The cartoon showing the Prophet's turban as a bomb didn't help.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: None of this is terribly new. After all, burning American flags in the Middle East has become something of a tradition. But Muslims living in Europe also talk about an anti-Islam prejudice.

Ramadan: If you're living in Europe as a Muslim, it's in the atmosphere. There is the presence of far-right parties and their discourse -- even though such parties don't have much support. But even mainstream political parties have accepted and propagated a discourse which is perceived by Muslims to be a continuous and permanent attack.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: There are also plenty of people and political parties preaching tolerance and doing their best to help Muslims in Europe. Why focus on the negatives?

Ramadan: I have long been saying that we Muslims have to get rid of this victim mentality. But it's there. And it's hard to ignore the Islamophobia or racism that is present. Many allow themselves to be hurt and their emotional reaction spins out of control. Muslim leaders in Europe have a responsibility to help shape the response of the Muslims to the West and of the West to Islam. We have to somehow take the emotion out of the response.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: How is that possible when the Muslim world and some radical Muslim leaders here in Europe are constantly saying that the West is the source of all evil?

Ramadan: The great majority of Muslims in Europe feel they are Europeans. They may face troubles sometimes and may face negative perceptions, but the great majority of Muslims in Europe are demonstrating that they are citizens of Europe and want to change the image of Islam. We have to pay more attention to these people than to the vocal radicals on the margins who think that Europeans will never accept Muslims.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: But there are many who listen to these radical voices on the fringes.

Ramadan: But there are many who don't. The media should speak about these Muslims who are trying to become active and committed European citizens and who are accepting European culture. They need to be helped. Media pressure is undermining our work and we are regressing. Every six months you have some new event which ratchets up the pressure and focuses the attention on emotions, reactions and on Muslims committing violence. The latest event just happens to be the Muhammad caricatures. But these events really undermine the process of reform, the process of settling down and the process of dialogue. Today, there is no dialogue, there is no debate. It's a power struggle and it's very, very vicious.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Which of course proves the point the radicals are trying to make -- namely that Islam and the West are incompatible.

Ramadan: Exactly. On the positive side, what we Muslims experience in Europe will have a tremendous impact on Islamic majority countries. We now have experience with living in democracy and living in free societies. But there is a danger. If Muslims and Europeans, as equal citizens living together in a democracy, are not able to trust each other, if we are not able to talk to each other, if we are not able to come to a reasonable agreement about how to live together, we are sending a signal to Islamic majority countries that there is no way for Muslims and Westerners to trust each other. We in Europe have a great, great, great responsibility. It's important that European citizens understand that if mutual knowledge and mutual respect are improved, then we are sending the signal that it is possible. Right now, though, we are sending exactly the opposite message.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Not to be overly pessimistic, but that sounds like a pretty tall order.

Ramadan: It has to happen at the local level. It's up to each and every citizen to choose if they are ready to know more about their fellow citizens and the Muslims living around them. There is a lot of mistrust between the two groups. People need to break out of their intellectual ghettos, break out of their religious and cultural ghettos and come to some common, universal values. And these values do exist. We can't just wait for the next crisis and then react. This needs to be a pre-emptive strategy based on a true understanding of what pluralism requires.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Outside of Europe, the Muslim world doesn't seem to have understood that Europe and the West really is committed to freedom of the press, freedom of opinion and other democratic values.

Ramadan: That's true. Many in the Muslim world think that European governments are responsible for the caricatures. They don't realize that it doesn't work like that. These people are living under regimes where the president controls both the government and the media. But that's not the only misconception of the West. There is a perception in the Muslim world that the West is a lost civilization with no moral standards and no ethics. But this is, of course, wrong. It's important that the Muslims living in Europe tell them that even in the West, there wasn't just one single response to the caricatures. Many Europeans and Westerners are arguing that the West has to be wise in the way it exercises its freedom of expression.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: So you're saying that a lot of people in the Muslim world don't understand that there is a debate going on?

Ramadan: The same thing works in reverse. In the West, when you look at the violent reactions in the Muslim world, you have the perception that these are the Muslims. But that's not right either. There are different trends in the Islamic world as there are here. Because the radical voices are loudest and are covered more by the media, they have the upper hand. We have to turn up the volume of reason and ensure that our discourse gets the upper hand.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What different trends do you see emerging in the Islamic world?

Ramadan: There is a power struggle going on. The Muslim world is afraid of being self-critical because they feel that plays into the hands of the other side -- the West. If you ask too many critical questions, you are perceived as having switched sides and become a Westerner in Muslim dress. There is a perception that whereas yesterday it was political colonization from the West, today it is economic colonization and cultural imperialism. But you can't forget that the great majority of the Arab-Islamic countries are not democracies. Many people in Europe ask about the rights of Christians in Saudi Arabia, for example. What about the rights of Saudis in Saudi Arabia? What about the people. The reality is that it is a dictatorship. That's what makes it difficult to get some movement within the Islamic majority countries. We Muslims in Europe have to speak out, but the Islamic world as a whole also has to stop blaming the West and to ask ourselves, from within, what is wrong with us. The average discourse in the Islamic majority countries is that all our problems are imposed on us. No. They are a consequence. There is no freedom, there is no political will to solve the problems.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about the Iranian paper's idea to hold a contest to create Holocaust caricatures? Why is every perceived provocation from the West answered by anti-Semitism?

Ramadan: Muslims have to realize that double standards cannot be allowed. We are confusing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- a political conflict -- with all the Jews. We have to condemn something which is harmful and anti-Semitic. The Holocaust is a deep and hurtful part of the European conscience. Exploiting that, and exploiting a people who were hurt and suffered and treated in a horrific way -- which is what the Holocaust caricature campaign does -- is not acceptable. It is to be condemned.

SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is there a connection between the current cartoon conflict and Iran's potential quest for nuclear weapons?

Ramadan: Yes, there is. The cartoon conflict provides the Iranian government -- which postures as the defender of the Muslim world against the West -- with legitimacy. We as free citizens and democrats need to stand between the two extremist sides -- between the Iranians and those calling for war against Iran. We need to stand between the people who are prophets of a very dark tomorrow. If we end up with a clash of civilizations, we are both going to lose. If there is a dialogue of civilizations, then we are both going to win. We have to realize that whether we win or lose, we are going to do it together.

Source

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"The Holocaust, like all other acts of genocide, represents one of the lowest moments in human history...

Excellent. The choice of language here leaves no wiggle room at all - CAIR is clearly distancing itself from Holocaust denial!

A question for the Muslims... this stems from a blog I read in haste yesterday while trying to figure out why video playback doesn't work on my PC anymore

What precisely does the Quran prohibit - depictions of the Prophet by Muslims or all depictions by anyone, anywhere?

Judging by the reaction of Muslims, it appears it is the latter. If it was the former, it would have been no big deal as the editors were not (as far as I know) Muslim.

[Fischkoepfin 1]

More voices of reason:

Interview with Muslim Leader Tariq Ramadan on the Caricature Conflict

Slated to teach at Notre Dame U, Tariq Ramadan was refused a work visa last year(Source)on the grounds that his grandfather was the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and he thus has ties to a terrorist organization (said the NYTimes). From the perspective of DHS, he's a radical even though he is known as one of the leading moderate Islamic Studies scholars.

Thanks for posting this!

[almaty 19]

"The Holocaust, like all other acts of genocide, represents one of the lowest moments in human history...

Excellent. The choice of language here leaves no wiggle room at all - CAIR is clearly distancing itself from Holocaust denial!

A question for the Muslims... this stems from a blog I read in haste yesterday while trying to figure out why video playback doesn't work on my PC anymore

What precisely does the Quran prohibit - depictions of the Prophet by Muslims or all depictions by anyone, anywhere?

Judging by the reaction of Muslims, it appears it is the latter. If it was the former, it would have been no big deal as the editors were not (as far as I know) Muslim.

The spreading Muslim protests against newspapers that reprinted cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad stem from the deepest religious roots.

Islam forbids visual depictions of the prophet, and regards violations by Muslims as highly sinful and by non-Muslims as the ultimate sort of insult.

The prohibition is in part an application of the Quran's strict opposition to idolatry, the worship of a physical object as a god, including any hint of such devotion toward the faith's revered human prophet.

In the Quran, "shirk" (Arabic for "partnering" or "associating" anything with God) is the one unforgivable sin: "God does not forgive the joining of partners with him: anything less than that he forgives to whoever he will, but anyone who joins partners with God is lying and committing a tremendous sin" (4:48).

The Quran does not specifically address artwork of Muhammad, and through history a few Muslims have painted him. But the ban has been virtually universal in all branches of the faith from its earliest days.

The rule extends to artwork showing others regarded as prophets by Islam, including Jesus, even though Christians have often visualized their divine savior in paintings, statutes and films.

Muslims disagree among themselves on whether it's proper to portray the prophet's early followers, known as the Companions. Unlike Sunnis, Shia Muslims allow images of their greatest saint, Ali, Muhammad's son-in-law.

Some Muslims oppose any art that depicts humans, and Muslims have tended to specialize in nature paintings, decorative arts and calligraphy. Some were wary of photography, too. But Zahik Bukhari, director of Georgetown University's American Muslim Studies Program, says those attitudes are fading.

A second aspect of the depiction ban is noted by John Esposito, editor of "The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Modern Islamic World." Besides shunning any hint of idolatry, he says, the practice also expresses "the deep reverence and respect Muslims have for Muhammad" as "the ideal Muslim." He notes that when the prophet is named, believers always add "peace and blessings be upon him" and that he is sometimes called "the living Quran."

Bukhari says the cartoons, first published in Denmark, constitute a triple offense for Muslims: first by depicting Muhammad at all; second by treating him disrespectfully; and third because "in the present circumstance it is a symbol of the clash of civilizations that they want to insult the prophet and the whole of Islam."

Esposito, who is Roman Catholic, says the ban is so important that, for Muslims, the cartoons reinforce "a deep-seated belief that respect for Islam doesn't exist" in Europe.

"It can be read as a deliberate attempt to provoke and test, not only religiously," he said. "It expresses the tensions toward immigrant communities. It says this is what democracy is about: nothing is sacred."

Sayyid M. Syeed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America, said it's important that non-Muslims distinguish between freedom of opinion on religious matters and needless offense.

Muslims respect free speech rights, Syeed said. But "in a democratic environment, living in a pluralistic society, people should know they have to respect the sensitivity of Muslims on this issue. It does not muzzle their freedom of speech in rejecting Muhammad as the prophet."

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The Quran does not specifically address artwork of Muhammad, and through history a few Muslims have painted him. But the ban has been virtually universal in all branches of the faith from its earliest days.

The rule extends to artwork showing others regarded as prophets by Islam, including Jesus, even though Christians have often visualized their divine savior in paintings, statutes and films.

Looks like we're in a real pickle...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Islam forbids visual depictions of the prophet, and regards violations by Muslims as highly sinful and by non-Muslims as the ultimate sort of insult.

So the Quran takes upon itself to regulate the conduct of non-Muslims? I find that highly offensive.

[almaty 19]

Islam forbids visual depictions of the prophet, and regards violations by Muslims as highly sinful and by non-Muslims as the ultimate sort of insult.

So the Quran takes upon itself to regulate the conduct of non-Muslims? I find that highly offensive.

nah...not most muslims but...

Islam forbids visual depictions of the prophet, and regards violations by Muslims as highly sinful and by non-Muslims as the ultimate sort of insult.

see it as an insult..the same as a christian would regarding a defamation of christ

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Islam forbids visual depictions of the prophet, and regards violations by Muslims as highly sinful and by non-Muslims as the ultimate sort of insult.

see it as an insult..the same as a christian would regarding a defamation of christ

Does the Bible specifically speak to conduct by non-Christians? Does the Quran really speak to conduct by non-Muslims or is that just a non-textual interpretation?

[almaty 19]

Islam forbids visual depictions of the prophet, and regards violations by Muslims as highly sinful and by non-Muslims as the ultimate sort of insult.

see it as an insult..the same as a christian would regarding a defamation of christ

Does the Bible specifically speak to conduct by non-Christians? Does the Quran really speak to conduct by non-Muslims or is that just a non-textual interpretation?

i think there is parts of the bible that did at one point in time...and has been used for all sorts of areas that really never applied to the bible..

the bible is a sacred book to Muslims also....

I think Arijit, that it is non-textual interpretationin allot of the muslim world .but some more consevative areas and folks take in more literally...

[Careless 0]

Gotta say I agree with fishdude somewhat there.

How would it be taken if a western non-muslim person paraded down the street screaming 'death to the followers of allah' or 'lets have more wars in Iran' and burning middle eastern flags.

It wouldn't happen would it?

Do we allow white supremacists (god help us all if these people reckon they are the pinnacle of the white race..I think IQ points just dropped across the board from just THINKING about that) to go marching around holding up placards saying 'yay slavery'?

Or facists advertising 'bring back the gas chambers'?

We do not.

So why do we allow this?

For free speech??

Isn't this less about free speech and more about incitement to hatred???

But We do allow white supremacists to run around talking about their superiority. That is protected speech. on the other hand, "bring back the gas chambers" would, I suspect, be beyond the protection as it is advocating murder. As far as I know, none of the cartoons involved a map of the middle east with an arrow saying "nuke here"