C L O S E R

“Muhammad (c. 570–632) The Prophet of Islam. He is depicted holding the Qur’an. The Qur’an provides the primary source of Islamic Law. Prophet Muhammad’s teachings explain and implement Qur’anic principles. The figure above is a well-intentioned attempt by the sculptor, Adolph Weinman, to honor Muhammad and it bears no resemblance to Muhammad. Muslims generally have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of their Prophet.” on the south wall of the Supreme Court of the US.

Well time for another small update. It makes no sense to give an overview on what’s happening on the WWW, but you might use Virtually Islamic for that. For example he refers to an interesting article in the Washington Post:
E-Mail, Blogs, Text Messages Propel Anger Over Images

Mohammad Fouad Barazi, a prominent Muslim cleric here, received a text message on his cell phone last week. It was a mass mailing from an anonymous sender, he said, warning that Danish people were planning to burn the Koran that Saturday in Copenhagen’s City Hall Square out of anger over Muslim demonstrations against Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

Hundreds of people — Muslims and ethnic Danes — turned out in response to the messages and the rampant rumors they sparked, and by the end of Saturday, police had arrested 179 people. In the end, no Koran was burned.

The messages, which were received as far away as the Gaza Strip and recounted on al-Jazeera satellite television, illustrate how modern digital technology — especially cell phones and Internet blogs — helped turn an incident in tiny Denmark into a uniting cause for protesters around the world in days or even hours.

Look again at the picture in this entry and read the lines below. It’s taken from the information of the Surpreme Court and states that it bears no resemblance to the prophet. A little bit strange of course. Another blogger (sorry sorry i forgot the name and lost the link) made the same point about the cartoons. Why does everyone just accept that they depict the prophet Muhammad while no one knows how he looked? Or in the US case, how can you say that it’s not him, if you don’t know how he looks?

But really, it doesn’t matter of course. On Opinionated Voice it is stated that everyone makes their own use of this affair and that’s probably correct.

In the ongoing affair of the cartoons that offensively depict Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), we have the usual anti-Muslim suspects such as Michelle Malkin, Jihad Watch, Atlas Shrugs and Little Green Footballs using it as an excuse to continue their defamatory commentary of Islam. There’s even an online petition that argues for the publishing of the cartoons even after agreeing them to be unacceptable. I can only view this as Islamophobic support for Jyllands-Posten who happilly slandered Islam, but would not do the same to Christianity and Judaism, recently confirming it “in no circumstances will publish Holocaust cartoons from an Iranian newspaper”. I’m not surprised that many Danish Web sites have been hacked in protest. The trend in their reporting is that they only quote western blogs and articles that unfortunately mostly report on the bad guys. Sabbah refers to one such article which states; “We have some advice for the PR department of Islamic fundamentalism: Get yourself some bloggers”. Although Sabbah highlights the articles ignorance of the presence of the Muslim blogosphere, which in majority condemn the cartoons, but I still think there is more scope in these words.

The editor of that blog, Jamal, is looking for a Muslim Blogger Alliance:

I would like to see in the blogosphere, an alliance of bloggers that actively seek to combat negative views on Islam that are perpetuated by both Muslims and non-Muslims. An alliance of balanced bloggers like Indigo Jo, Safiyyah, Eman, Osama, Omar, Aqoul, Al-Hiwar, Angry Arab and Religious Policeman to name but a few of the varied voices I’ve encountered, to spread the truth that Muslims and Islam don’t call for hate and violence, and those that do so are only a small part of the Muslim world. The majority of us are not fanatics, Islamists, fundamentalists, or even the new term being bounded around, ‘moderates’. We are just Muslims, and people need to be educated on this. Muslims differ from generation to generation, culture to culture, some are more devout than others and interpretations and practices of the faith are numerous. It may also be the case that the individual is Muslim by name only and chooses not to practice their religion.

A ‘Muslim Blogger Alliance’ is particularly needed in the current climate, with issues including Hamas, the cartoons row and snakes like Condoleezza Rice using it as an excuse to further the invasion plan of Iran and Syria. Apparently another ploy to make Americans think Iran is the biggest threat to the US, when the reality is that G.W Bush is the real king of terror. The Arab contingent is but one factor, as it is also the expansion of global government, war on terror, disunity and Islamophobia that is perpetuating this global discontentment.

We could see that as a coalition of the people who try to stay calm. Luckily there are many such as Angry Arab:

Danish Matters. I mean, I may understand if somebody wants to boycott the Danish publciation that printed the cartoons. But why boycott Denmark? The Danish people are not responsible for whatever a Danish publication prints. I have been to Denmark and find the people there to be friendly and nice. And I like the pastries. The Danish people may have been only guilty of electing a right-wing government that sent troops to Iraq. But that issue does not seem to anger Muslim/Arab demonstrators who are busy being angry at the cartoons. Angry Arab is often angry at Western and Eastern anger. I often identify with neither. Where do I go? Do they have soy milk on space stations?

The Glittering Eye has even a round up of Voices of Reason

There’s been an enormous amount of aburdity written about the cartoons of Mohammed printed in a Danish newspaper and now re-printed in a number of European papers. But through all the din a few voices of reason have managed to come through, some from rather unexpected sources.

Clive Davis does the same.

Meanwhile the above statue of the Supreme Court has raised some eyebrows

KARAMAH was contacted by a number of Muslim organizations, which were concerned about reports of a sculptured representation of the Prophet Muhammad in the historical frieze on the north wall of the Supreme Courtroom. KARAMAH was also asked by these organizations to contact the Supreme Court administrators and discuss the matter.

While KARAMAH fully identifies with the Islamic aversion to such representation of the Prophet, we are very pleased that Islamic contributions to law are recognized in the highest court of our land. We see that attempt in a tolerant light similar to that in which earlier Muslims saw Turkish and Persian art. It is well intentioned. While it is not what we would have chosen to represent Islam, we do appreciate this early attempt at recognizing Islamic contributions to American jurisprudence and we do not believe it is necessary to destroy it. In reaching this position, we have consulted with many Muslim leaders and relied upon the reasoned opinion of Dr. Taha Jabir al-Alwani, President of the Fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) Council of North America.

That of course makes a difference: the intention of displaying the prophet Muhammad. An article in the New York Times is also very insightful when you want a better picture of how the events and outrage crystallized:
At Mecca Meeting, Cartoon Outrage Crystallized

As leaders of the world’s 57 Muslim nations gathered for a summit meeting in Mecca in December, issues like religious extremism dominated the official agenda. But much of the talk in the hallways was of a wholly different issue: Danish cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad.

The closing communiqué took note of the issue when it expressed “concern at rising hatred against Islam and Muslims and condemned the recent incident of desecration of the image of the Holy Prophet Muhammad in the media of certain countries” as well as over “using the freedom of expression as a pretext to defame religions.”

The meeting in Mecca, a Saudi city from which non-Muslims are barred, drew minimal international press coverage even though such leaders as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran were in attendance. But on the road from quiet outrage in a small Muslim community in northern Europe to a set of international brush fires, the summit meeting of the Organization of the Islamic Conference — and the role its member governments played in the outrage — was something of a turning point.

After that meeting, anger at the Danish caricatures, especially at an official government level, became more public. In some countries, like Syria and Iran, that meant heavy press coverage in official news media and virtual government approval of demonstrations that ended with Danish embassies in flames.

In recent days, some governments in Muslim countries have tried to calm the rage, worried by the increasing level of violence and deaths in some cases.

But the pressure began building as early as October, when Danish Islamists were lobbying Arab ambassadors and Arab ambassadors lobbied Arab governments.

“It was no big deal until the Islamic conference when the O.I.C. took a stance against it,” said Muhammad el-Sayed Said, deputy director of the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo.

Also Arab News(Thanks to Marbelous) has an interesting story:

Freedom of expression is indeed sacrosanct, and the illustrative effusions of a political cartoonist are as much a function of good journalism as those of his textual counterpart. But the first thing a budding journalist learns in Journalism 101 is that a news story, or a news image, is governed by its newsworthiness. Does it have news value, relevance to the objective world it is reporting or commenting on, or is it motivated by a mean-spirited intent to defame? Does it go beyond satire into the realm of racial stereotyping, contributing to the demonization of a community in the eyes of another, and the hardening of the cultural divide among groups of different ethnic, spiritual and racial backgrounds?

That’s why we have editors looking over our shoulders, not to censor our work but to make sure that freedom of expression is not abused, that it is not license to publish, in this case, tasteless and inflammatory cartoons depicting the Prophet of Islam in a pejorative manner.

And in January 1999, David Howard, a top aide to the mayor of Washington was made to resign (read, fired) because he had haplessly said that he would use his budget “in a niggardly manner.” Niggardly, of course, is a perfectly legitimate word, with etymological roots in old Swedish, that simply means to be parsimonious or frugal. Unfortunately for the mayoral aide, who is white, “niggardly” sounded too much like the racial slur associated with the N-word, and thus his fate was sealed. The resulting debate, which became national after the story broke, finding its way to the Op-Ed pages and the talk shows, went beyond the incident and touched on the issue of political correctness.

Was that an improbable case where racial sensitivities were taken to an extreme? Yes, but it shows you how one should not mess with the self-definitions of a minority.

And so on with these tales. But brandishing guns and burning down embassies, assaulting EU buildings and sending bomb threats? I don’t think so.

Sponsoring a cartoon contest to make fun of Muslims! Oh, grow up, will you? Get a grip.

And guys, guys, you out there behind the arson and the guns and the bomb threats, get a grip.

Stop buying Danish products, if you must. Register your peaceful protest at a forum, in an Op-Ed, at a rally, if you’re so inclined. Whatever. And yes, by all means, cancel your subscription to Jyllands-Posten.

No bullies needed here — just a calm dialogue, not a rancorous clash, between our two cultures.

I’m thinking of doing an overview of Dutch sites and other media (in Dutch), so everyone is warned.

His work has appeared for thirty-five years in major Arab daily newspapers as well as in Le Monde and other international publications. Farzat has served as the head of the Society of Arab Cartoonists since 1980 and has won many awards, including the prestigious Prince Claus Award in 2002.

Ali Farzat Drawings Still Light the Way

The art of caricature was the right frame that combined my passion in painting and sense of sarcasm,” is how Ali Farzat started telling his story with caricatures to Arab News.

The head of the Society of Arab Cartoonists since 1980 and controversial Syrian cartoonist, Farzat started the first private Syrian newspaper since the Baathist Party controlled the country in 1963. He established the newspaper in February 2001 after the government granted him a license. Farzat named the satirical weekly Al-Domari, which means lamplighter.

“My caricatures are not limited to specific settings or people; however, they can apply to all places and times,” he said.

He also said it’s the readers’ decision to interpret what they see in a caricature.

“I draw caricatures that include ideas hidden within them, leaving the readers to use their imagination to understand the drawing ‘s meaning,” he said.

De organisatie Hizb ut Tahrir heeft een pamflet verspreid in Amsterdam Geuzenveld (zoals gebruikelijk daar of in Bos en Lommer) in een reactie op het plaatsen van de Deense spotprenten door Geert Wilders op zijn site. De bewuste brief vindt u hieronder.
Continue Reading »

As I said earlier, the Cartoon row/controversy/rage/riot/jihad or whatever you want to call it, seems to have world divided in two. One camp the white knights of freedom of speech and on the other side the martyrs of islam. See for example the editorial of the British Telegraph:

The right to offend within the law remains crucial to our free speech. Muslims who choose to live in the West must accept that we, too, have a right to our values, and to live according to them. Muslims must accept the predominant mores of their adopted culture: and most do. One of these is the lack of censorship and the ready availability of material that some people find deeply offensive: anyone who wishes to see the cartoons can find them within a few clicks on the internet.

Those Muslims who cannot tolerate the openness and robustness of intellectual debate in the West have perhaps chosen to live in the wrong culture. We cannot put it better than the editorial in an Arab paper in which the cartoons briefly appeared yesterday (before all copies were suddenly withdrawn): “Muslims of the world, be reasonable.”

or the website of the British extremist Al Ghurabaa (the strangers) about the trinity of evil:

It is the height of ignominy and profanity in Europe today that when Muslim women act upon the revelation and try to cover their flesh they are being banned and when Muslims defend their brothers and sisters from attack around the world following the command of God they are rounded up and imprisoned, all under the pretext of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’, whilst simultaneously so-called newspapers and magazines can insult Islam and the Messengers of God with impunity without any comeuppance.

Muslims take their ideology and belief very seriously and any insult to any Messengers and Prophets will never be tolerated, in fact the Messenger Muhammad (saw) said that we must love Allah (SWT) and his Messenger more than anyone else, including our parents and even ourselves. In light of this we will be holding a demonstration outside the Danish Embassy this Friday 3rd February 2006.

The Islamic verdict on individual or individuals who insult any Prophet needs to be passed by an Islamic Court and implemented by the Islamic State, rather than individuals carrying out the verdict themselves.

They refer to the demonstration last Friday. But then already the first cracks in this black and white picture become visible. MPACUK has called this demonstration a total disgrace.

We couldn’t believe our eyes. All across Britain’s screens were the members of Al – Mahajaroun with placards saying “Death to the infidel” and chanting, “7/7 is on its way”.

The Mosque leaders hadn’t organised a peaceful march, lobbying day, letter-writing protest, in fact the Mosque leaders didn’t organise anything at all. The un-elected, trustees of the Mosques showed just how out of touch they were with the community at large once again. Leaving young Muslims wanting to do something, but not knowing what to do.

In the vacuum, al Mahajaroun stepped in. It was a deliberate attempt at hijacking legitimate Muslim anger, at the Islamaphobic cartoons in some European papers.

It seemed the group served one function alone, that of “rent-a-bogeyman” to prove Muslims were “unreasonable fanatics”. Just one example of how desperate they were to get onto the Media to promote their hate and demonise Muslim’s further, was highlighted by the fact that when the story broke they even camped outside the BBC – tell us that isn’t a deliberate ploy to get attention.

It was disgusting to see these Muslims spouting their evil, helping the cartoonists who demonised the Prophet PBUH by making non Muslims think we are all some crazed fanatics who want to “kill the infidel” and harm more people with another bombing in London. The group number no more then 50 people. But they harm two million with their Media stunts to get on the TV.

MPACUK condemn’s the message that was given on the march on Friday by ex members of al-Mahajaroun and demand the Media do not give more airtime to these fringe fanatics, than to mainstream views or at least tell the public how unrepresentative this group is! We also urge the Mosque leaders to have elections open to all Britain’s Muslims so that we ourselves can choose the leaders we want, and our youth can be employed to further the high ideals of Islam and mankind rather than be waylaid by anger and frustration that some groups prey on.

The same is done by the Muslim Council of Britain:

The Muslim Council of Britain is deeply concerned by the continuing refusal of several European newspapers to understand and acknowledge the immense hurt they have caused to Muslims the world over by printing gratuitously offensive caricatures of the blessed Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him).

“We reiterate our absolute condemnation of the decision to publish these images in Denmark and view their republication in other European countries as a deliberate and senseless act of provocation. Newspaper editors must exercise restraint and good judgement instead of adding to the increasingly xenophobic tone being adopted in parts of Europe against Muslims. These newspapers should apologise immediately for the harm they have caused,” said Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

The MCB acknowledges the fundamental right of peoples of all faiths to freedom of speech and expression. This does not mean however that they should be free to create social unrest and instability. Neither should that freedom be abused to undermine national interests at home and abroad.

Inevitably some elements may seek to exploit this current crisis to provoke negative or extreme reactions among Muslims. The MCB urges fellow British Muslims to exercise the utmost restraint in the face of these provocations.

“There may be elements that would want to exploit the genuine sense of anguish and hurt among British Muslims about the manner in which the Prophet has been vilified to pursue their own mischievous agenda. We would caution all British Muslims to not allow themselves to be provoked. They should respond peacefully and with dignity at all times,” added Sir Iqbal.

Also on ‘the other side’ their are some blurred boundaries. Look for example at Gary Youngs opinion in the Guardian, referring to an incident with a cover of the New Statesman a while ago.
(in an article where Philip Hensher argues the opposite; that’s the way to do it):

In January 2002 the New Statesman published a front page displaying a shimmering golden Star of David impaling a union flag, with the words “A kosher conspiracy?” The cover was widely and rightly condemned as anti-semitic. It’s not difficult to see why. It played into vile stereotypes of money-grabbing Jewish cabals out to undermine the country they live in. Some put it down to a lapse of editorial judgment. But many saw it not as an aberration but part of a trend - one more broadside in an attack on Jews from the liberal left.

A group calling itself Action Against Anti-Semitism marched into the Statesman’s offices, demanding a printed apology. One eventually followed. The then editor, Peter Wilby, later confessed that he had not appreciated “the historic sensitivities” of Britain’s Jews. I do not remember talk of a clash of civilisations in which Jewish values were inconsistent with the western traditions of freedom of speech or democracy. Nor do I recall editors across Europe rushing to reprint the cover in solidarity.

Quite why the Muslim response to 12 cartoons printed by Jyllands-Posten last September should be treated differently is illuminating. There seems to be almost universal agreement that these cartoons are offensive. There should also be universal agreement that the paper has a right to publish them. When it comes to freedom of speech the liberal left should not sacrifice its values one inch to those who seek censorship on religious grounds, whether US evangelists, Irish Catholics or Danish Muslims.

But the right to freedom of speech equates to neither an obligation to offend nor a duty to be insensitive.

Also on the internet there is a lot of discussion that defies the strong boundaries between us and them. Read for example Opinionated Voice:

We were right to disagree with the cartoons, we were right to protest our disdain towards them. Although it is now time to move on, if the media did not start this row and then perpetuate it by reprinting the cartoons, things would not be as they are. But due to the actions of the extremist minority, this controversy has shifted to turn the focus of negativity back onto all Muslims, enabling even comparisons with Nazi’s to be made. Sunny at Pickled Politics suggests; “If all religions were companies, Islam would be the one with the worst public relations department”. However, if it was a company, Jyllands-Posten and the newspapers that followed it would have been sued for libel or defamation. Secondly, it is not the fault of Islam that the media generally tends to exclusively focus on the actions of the minority, without differentiating their representations from the majority, or proportionatly reporting on positive aspects of Islam and Muslims.

If we are to protest/take action, which at times may need/have to become intense, then the starting point should be against issues such as genocide in Sudan, war in East Africa, invasion of the Middle East, suicide bombings, global poverty, and those that distort Islam and the Muslim character, internally and externally. This obviously begins with education to combat the corruptability of the ‘blind faith’ that extremists exploit, and can be assisted by every Muslim reading/being read to and understanding the true meaning of the Qur’an in a language they understand.

The groupblog ‘Aqoul has several interesting stories. For example they ask themselves questions about the different forms of protests in different cities and countries.

Doesn’t anybody find it at least noteworthy that the Danish & Norwegian embassies were torched in - out of all places - Damascus? That there were only small demonstrations in Cairo? That there were almost no demonstrations at all in Iran? That the number of Muslim demonstrators in Europe was - given the overall numbers of Muslim inhabitants - ridiculously low?

I cannot answer all those questions. But the main issue at hand - that the protests have ALSO to be understood in their local/regional contexts - seems to be more important than most, if not all, of the commentators so far have realized. And at least in the region about which I do know a bit, the picture is a very complex one.

They also try to offer some backgrounds of the issue.

Well, “Islam” is a concept, not a agent. Thus it’s not “Islam” that forbids anything, but the (human) authorities on Islamic law. And, it’s not the “depiction of the religion’s founder Muhammad” that is forbidden, but either the depiction of any of God’s creatures (but particularly humans) OR the slander of a prophet - be it Muhammad or Moses or Jesus or Abraham, etc. Slandering a prophet would, however not fall under something like “slander” or “hate crime”, but actually be seen as “kufr”, i.e. unbelief/apostasy, as the assertion that a prophet was anything but a noble man . Of course, that only applies to Muslims. There is no provisio in Islamic law how to deal with non-Muslims who disparage a prophet, as they already are unbelievers. Also, the legal authorities in the Muslim world are quite unanimous in their verdict(s) that Muslims living in non-Muslim polities (i.e., states) should adhere to the law of the one in which they reside or travel.

Yet, after the ignorance on the side of newspapers and politicians, the next step could have been filing a complaint in a court of law. Denmark may have a very liberal press/media law, but it might also have laws that forbid incitement to racial/ethnic/etc. hatred. The outraged Muslims in Denmark did not go that path. The bolstering of the file of the 12 images with other, more hateful images (in some cases of unknown provenance) can be seen as an attempt to stir up emotions.

After having seen the cartoons (on - where else? - the very well written & researched wikipedia article) I would judge some of them as racist and meriting legal action against them. I would also sign a letter of complaint to the editor of Jyllands-Posten, who may be allowed by Danish law to post such material (after all, a few years ago the German authorities could not get a neo-Nazi radio station in southern Denmark be closed down, since Nazi propaganda was at that time not illegal in Denmark), because I think that they are propagating a picture of Muhammad (& Muslims in general) that is racist.

In the end, it’s a question of method & tone, as well as one of very patient explanation to the “West” why those cartoons are similar to the ones the anti-semites printed in the early 20th century. Of course, that would open the door for “well, since we’re on that subject - what about the racist anti-Jewish cartoons in Arab/Iranian/Pakistani/etc. newspapers?” arguments …

Anybody up for opening a “Non-Violent Struggle Center” in, say, Ramallah?

They also engage in a debate on Cartoons, Manufactured Outrage, Tolerance & Dissent

Now the, some further thoughts on this entire fiasco:

First, sadly the proliferation of idiocy about this shows no signs of abating. The prime reason here, in my opinion, is that it plays into the hands of the Salafi types who generally disapprove of relations with non-Muslims on principle, and are, in my experience, always seeking levers to blow up stories of how awful ‘infidel’ X are to the Muslims, etc.

In other words, typical ethnic separatist style pot stirring, any excuse. Builds their agenda for return to their mythical purified past, with the story of how awfully ‘oppressed’ their religious confreres are at the hands of the infidel, etc. A pack of exagerations, and often lies, but typical.

This sort of behaviour, deliberate fanning of separatist and anti-Euro/Xian feeling in the community (which is being hosted by the very people the Salafistes love to hate) is at once dangerous and hypocritical (as is the overdone reaction by many Muslims in the MENA region who are quite happy to repeat the most prejudiced nonsense about others - the enduring human - I do stress human - trait of navel gazing hypocrisy). While I have been banging on about the importance of discrimination against the immigrant Muslim communities in Europe, particularly France, the flip side of the coin is the anti-integrationist hypocritical lying agitprop of the Salafiste seperatists that want to prevent ‘Europeanisation’ of these communities. These people are as much a problem as the bigots on the other side of the equation. Mirror bigots, as it were.

On Pickled Politics Sunny gives a overview of the different voices in the debate: the dilemma that ‘free speech’ presents us:

If all religions were companies, Islam would be the one with the worst public relations department.

The original moral high-ground has been lost to the noise made by the gunmen, rampaging mobs and hysterical nutters.

And then there is the important point Munira Mirza makes at Spiked-Online:

Press freedom is the foundation of a free society. People don’t always like what they hear or see - if it challenges their cherished beliefs, it can hurt. It might also be dangerous, as the experiences of Theo van Gogh, the murdered Dutch filmmaker and journalists operating in repressive societies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia and China, demonstrate. It might also be expensive, as Danish producers and manufacturers are discovering with the boycott of their goods. But no matter the price, the principle must be defended. Unless we stand up for freedom of speech, we are unable to engage freely and hold belief systems - of all kinds - to account. Unfortunately, too many politicians and journalists are unwilling to make this stand, wanting above all a quiet (and safe) life.

Censorship in the West bolsters the moral authority of leaders in the Middle East to censor their own citizens. Indeed, the religious leaders in Saudi Arabia and Palestine have been opportunistic in using the story as a way of galvanising support and reinforcing the view that only they can protect Muslims from victimisation. Counter to the claims of unelected ‘community leaders’, Muslims do not benefit from censorship. In Denmark, large numbers of moderate Muslims have sought to oppose the stranglehold of extremist Muslim lobby groups who claim to represent them. In Arhus, they have organised counter-demonstrations. One Muslim city councillor who was involved said: ‘There is a large group of Muslims in this city who want to live in a secular society and adhere to the principle that religion is an issue between them and God and not something that should involve society.’ (2) It turns out that those sympathetic lefty anti-racists who believe censorship will protect Muslims are actually missing the point. Many Muslims want the same freedoms as everyone else to debate, criticise and challenge their religion.

Meanwhile Yusuf on Indigo Jo also noticed the extremist-take-over at the above mentioned demonstration where was at.

This afternoon, after jumu’ah, there was a demonstration outside the Danish embassy in Sloane Street, London, which was supposed to follow a march from the “Central Mosque” near Regent’s Park. I got to the embassy around 2:15pm, to find a collection of what one might call “the usual suspects” outside the embassy: men in kefiyyehs, brandishing black and white flags, with hostile expressions on their faces and yelling stupid slogans. (They had women there as well, although they were markedly less noisy.) Having arrived from the Sloane Square direction, I decided on arrival that I was going over to the other side and joining the media.

There, I set about telling various journalists, and some who were not journalists, that the core of the people across the road were in fact “serial demonstrators” who have a history of attending other people’s demonstrations, shouting slogans largely unrelated to the issue at hand, and casting a bad light over both Islam itself and the demonstration. So, last year the media reported that a demonstration had taken place outside Grosvenor Square at which former Guantanamo detainee Martin Mubanga spoke and violent anti-American slogans were chanted ([1], [2]). I later discovered that the demo had been crashed by people the organisers said were al-Muhajiroun. And I suspect that the same was true here.

The Standard also showed a picture of a young boy holding a banner with the words “EUROPE You’ll Come Crawling When Mujahideen come” (the rest was below the bottom of the picture, but you get the message). One of the earlier arrivals presented his own banner to some of the cameras, and it read that they would defend Jesus (’alaihi as-salaam) as readily as Muhammad (sall’ Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam), or words to that effect. The Standard obviously had so much room (they had to fit in the picture of the masked men in Gaza), but let’s see if someone else finds room for that picture. Cage Prisoners and Stop Political Terror, the people behind most of the recent demonstrations, make no reference to this demo or the issue behind it on their websites.

[Note by me: No, but the Al Ghurabaa did, see above]

It looks as if many Muslims are angry about what they see as double standards. The reference the cartoons of Jesus that were rejected by the Jylland Posten of course is often made. There was also this cartoon with a naked PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan and naked Danish Prime Minister Andres Fogh Rasmussen watching PKK’s Roj TV TV in bed together.

In reply to the cartoon, Denmark showed no tolerance with dailies complaining about the Turkish reaction, daily Hurriyet claimed.

For another good overview go to Mediawatchwatch.org.uk

Muhammad at the Ka’ba. Siyer-i Nebi: The Life of the Prophet. Istanbul, 1595. Hazine 1222

Trying to untangle the cartoon row? The BBC has a nice overview of the different viewpoints:

“The cartoons are humiliating and racist. Muslims love the Prophet more than their families”
Dr Yunes Teinaz, London Mosque and Islamic Cultural Centre

“We were not treating the Prophet any differently from anyone else in Denmark”
Flemming Rose, culture editor of Jyllands-Posten

“When you satirise something you should give it the credit of understanding it”
Stewart Lee, creator of Jerry Springer - The Opera

“Many Muslims want the same freedoms as everyone else to debate and criticise”
Munira Mizra, British journalist reporting on Islamophobia

“The illustrator may have been testing the waters but that was irresponsible”
Sayeed Nadeem Kazmi, Al-Khoei Foundation, an Islamic charitable group in London

“We are seeing a clash of two different notions of what is sacred”
Karen Armstrong, religious affairs commentator

“We think we are living in a secular society where even religion can be satirised”
Roger Koppel, editor of the German newspaper Die Welt

“In the Third World they hardly separate between the journalist’s and the government’s views”
Dr Lam Akol, Sudanese foreign minister

The Belgium newspaper Het Laatste Nieuws (Dutch) searches for theological explanations of the uproar as many others do. Islam would forbid people depicting images of the prophet Muhammad. That might be right but it does not explain the uproar taking place now. It also does not explain why the pictures I use here, were made by Muslims themselves.

More informative is then the article from AFP in Middle Eastern Times: Jihad call spreads on Internet amid Prophet cartoon row.

Muslim extremists are using the furor over the Prophet Mohammed cartoons published in European newspapers to rally the faithful to a jihad (holy war), in several Internet postings.

“Brothers, it’s war against Islam …, grab your swords,” says hardline Saudi cleric Sheikh Badr Bin Nader Al Mashari in a voice recording posted on an Islamist Website.

He said that the cartoons - first published by a Danish newspaper in September with several other European papers following suit over the past week - are “part of the war waged by the decadent West against the triumphant Islam”.

“To the billion Muslims: where are your arms? Your enemies have trampled on the Prophet. Rise up,” screamed the sheikh, who is the imam of a mosque in Riyadh, amid the cries of the faithful listening to his speech.

Muslim bloggers even launched a Website, www.no4denmark.com, exhorting the faithful to boycott Danish products.

Danish dairy products have already been banned from supermarkets in most Arab countries in the wake of the crisis.

But many bloggers said that trade sanctions will lead nowhere, calling for a more militant response.

“Boycotts and messages of indignation instead of bombs and explosives,” lamented female blogger Ashiqat Al Jihad (lover of the holy war) in one posting.

Another blogger singled out France, where the left-leaning paper Liberation reprinted two of the controversial cartoons.

The influential Le Monde also splashed a cartoon of the Prophet on its front page on Thursday, a day after France Soir reproduced all of the original cartoons that appeared in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten citing its right to free expression.

“Our Prophet was insulted again by France. The boycott will accomplish nothing. We need bombs and explosives,” said another blogger under the pseudonym Abu Badr.

A blogger using the name Ubda called on Islamic militants in Iraq, Palestine and Chechnya not to spare any Danes and Norwegians that they come across.

“Slit their throats in the style of [Abu Mussab] Al Zarqawi,” he said referring to Iraq’s most-wanted militant and leader of Al Qaeda in the war-torn country.

London-based Arab newspaper Al Quds Al Arabi published on Thursday a statement attributed to an Al Qaeda linked group, the Brigades of Abu Hafs Al Masri, warning Denmark and all those who insult the Prophet with a “bloody war”.

“The infidels must know that the coming days will see a bloody war and a series of blessed conquests,” said the statement.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Friday after meeting with foreign diplomats including the ambassadors of 11 Muslim countries that his government could not apologize for the cartoons on behalf of a newspaper given Copenhagen’s strong tradition of free speech.

“A Danish government can never apologize on behalf of a free and independent newspaper,” he said.

Many influential clerics and government officials across the Arab world have demanded a clear and unequivocal apology from the Copenhagen government as well as Danish newspaper.

In an interview broadcast on Saudi-owned satellite television Al Arabiya on Thursday, Rasmussen said that he was “deeply distressed” over the row caused by the cartoons and called for calm when asked whether he was concerned about terrorist attacks against Denmark.

“I have a strong appeal to all groups that we do our utmost to cool down tempers and feelings,” he said.

The appeal of Rasmussen is one of the first I’ve heard. Very good and about time. Dutch daily the Volkskrant has received a threat by email yesterday. The bomb threat was made by the Khalid-Ibn-Walid Brigade. Under that same name an email was send to Hirsi Ali after the murder on Van Gogh, but I really don’t know if these two issues are related. The threat turned out to be hoax.

A Hamas surprise: Women secure victory - International Herald Tribune

A story by Ian Fisher of The New York Times about the Hamas elections victory and the role of women.

Hamas has been known and feared for its men, armed with suicide bombs. But in its parliamentary election triumph here last week, one secret weapon was its women.

To a degree that specialists said was new in the conservative Muslim society of the Gaza Strip, Hamas used its women to win, sending them door to door with voter lists and to polling places for last-minute campaigning.

Now unexpectedly in control of Palestinian politics, Hamas can boast that women hold six of its 74 seats in Parliament, giving the women of the radical group, guided in all ways by their understanding of Islam, a new and unaccustomed public role.

“We are going to lead factories. We are going to lead farmers,” said Jamila al-Shanty, 48, a professor at the Islamic University in Gaza who won a seat in Parliament. “We are going to spread out through society. We are going to show the people of the world that the practice of Islam in regard to women is not well known.”

If Shanty’s prediction is borne out, the role of women will certainly not be along the secular Western lines followed largely, and with real strides for women, under decades of leadership by Yasser Arafat’s now-defeated Fatah faction. The model will be Islam: Women in Hamas wear head scarves and follow strict rules for social segregation from men.
Continue Reading »

Internet jihad: tackling terror on the Web | csmonitor.com

An interesting article in CSMonitor.com about mr. Ahmad, a British citizen faces US charges for running a militant site hosted in Connecticut.By James Brandon, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor.

“Measuring the impact of this material is problematic,” says Bunt. “People sympathetic to this material might express it in different ways. It certainly doesn’t mean that everyone who reads these sites goes off and does jihad.”

Continue Reading »

A painting showing Muhammad’s trip in which he is shown sinners suffering in hell. This level of hell shows people who had cheated orphans. Muhammad is guided by the Archangel Gabriel and rides on a deer-like creature with the head of a woman, named Buraq.

Well as the situation evolves it’s not getting more clearer. According to some news items on blogs the Danish Islamic Foundation have used fake cartoons (added to some of the cartoons of the JP) to stir up emotions. According to GatewayPundit:

The organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons, bringing 3 additional images, which HAD NEVER been published in any media source. Evidently, the originals were not offensive enough for the trip so they had to add these three. The first of the three additional pictures, which are of poor quality, shows Muhammad as a pedophile demon. The second shows Muhammed with a pig snout. The third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.

BBC World also aired a story showing one of the three non-published images, on 2006-01-30, and wrongly claimed it had been published in Jyllands-Posten.

On the tour, the group claimed to represent 21 different Muslim organisations in Denmark, although many of these groups have disclaimed any connection.

Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to “give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims.”

Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten.

The society also allegedly exaggerated its membership, claiming to represent all of Denmark’s 200,000 Muslims, when the actual number of adherents is believed to be fewer than 15,000. [30]. 500-1000 people attend their Friday prayer gathering each week[31].

Imam Ahmad Abu Ladan is involved in an international group of Muslims who are known for supporting the anti-Western Islamist struggle of the school of global Jihad.

Imam Ahmad Abu Ladan also tried to block the re-election of the right-wing government in Denmark in the previous election.

Imam Ahmad Abu Laban, the leader of the organisation stated in Al Jazeera that Muslims should boycott Denmark, despite giving contradictory assurances to Western media. Ahmad Abu Laban, previously declared unwelcome in several Arab states, was one of the front figures on the tour [citation needed].

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said of Muslims criticising the country in the Arab territories: “I am speechless that those people, whom we have given the right to live in Denmark and where they freely have chosen to stay, are now touring Arab countries and inciting antipathy towards Denmark and the Danish people”[33].

Further misinformation spread among Arab Muslims include claims that Jyllands-Posten is a government-owned newspaper (it is privately owned) - spokesman for the Danish delegation Muhammed al Samha, and delegation member Ahmed al-Harbi said in the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram: “Jyllands-Posten, a newspaper belonging to the ruling Danish party - an extreme right-wing party - [was] publishing drawings and sketches of the prophet Muhammad.”

I already indicated in one of the entries below that in a mail that cruises the cyberspace only a few images of the JP are included and several other pictures (not the ones mentioned here) and powerpointformats together with a protest letter against the JP pictures.

Furthermore, questions have been raised about the legitimacy of the Islamic Foundatation’s (Islamisk Trossamfund) claims and actions. During its tour of the Middle East, the organisation claimed to represent 21 different Muslim organisations in Denmark. Many however have denied any connection. In addition the organisation appears to have exaggerated its number of members: all 200,000 Muslims in Denmark. Others believe it is more likely that they have 15,000 members and between 500 to 1,000 people who attend their Friday prayer.

In the Middle Eastern blogosphere there are now actions against the boycott against Denmark (boycott the boycott). Very interesting is Chan’ad Bahraini.

I can to an extent understand why some people may feel insulted by the cartoons, but at times like these I like to recall the adage: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but cartoons will never hurt me”… or something like that I think. Even more appropriate is a lesser known adage: “Better to concentrate your efforts on developing education, economic infrastructure, protecting human rights, and engendering genuine democracy and social equity at home than to wage Jihad against Danish cartoons”.

The most interesting aspect of this whole controversy is the way in which Denmark, as a state entity, has been targetted much more heavily than has the actual cartoonist or the newspaper editors. There are calls to boycott all goods produced in the Danish state. They demand an apology from no less than the government of the Danish state. As the honourable MP Shaikh Ali Mattar makes clear, thinking wishfully:

“If Denmark had an ambassador here, we would have immediately demanded he be kicked out of the country,” he said. (Continued)

This webpage hosts images of all the boycotted items, as well as banners to promote the boycott. On the site, “Jyllands-Posten” is mentioned only two or three times, while there are a million references to “Denmark”. The banners are quite interesting. This simple one says “Oh you who love Mohammed the Prophet of Allah, boycott Danish products”

But as you can see, in all of the banners, Denmark as a state is being held responsible for the acts of a private newspaper. I don’t really understand why people are making this relationship, but I have some ideas.

One possible theory of mine is that it is because people in much of the Muslim world aren’t fully aware of the relationship between the press and the state in Denmark. Here in Bahrain, as in many developing countries, the state keeps a watchful on eye everything that is printed in the newspapers. In some cases the line that separates the state and the press is very very blurry indeed. On the other hand, in Denmark and much of Europe, the state and the media are strictly independent. Maybe people here in the Muslim world are mistakenly assuming that what applies at home applies everywhere, and therefore they hold the Danish state responsible for everything printed in the Danish press.

But I think a more plausible explanation is that sitting here in Bahrain we have no means to directly punish the cartoonist or the newspaper. No one in Bahrain speaks Danish (except maybe the Al Khawaja family), so calling for a boycott of the Jyllands-Posten isn’t really an option. So the angered folks are targetting the government and state of Denmark as the next best proxy for the newspaper (which it really isn’t). People are annoyed and they want to do something — anything — about it, whether it makes sense or not. And our governments seem to be content with this all as it temporarily draws the spotlight away from their own scandals.

Anyways, I’ve seen a number of lists of Danish products that people are being told to boycott, and I realized that the Danes make some top quality stuff. I have fond childhood memories about several of the iterms, so I don’t think it’s fair that all of those producers should suffer because of some newspaper cartoons that they had nothing to do with. So I’m calling for an anti-boycott to encourage you to buy Danish goods.

1Pakistan gives an overview of several incidents that could have enraged Muslims worldwide (but hardly did).

On Freedom for Egyptians, the writer wonders:

I wonder why Muslims do not get so fervent about a dying patient for the lack of medicine, about a corrupt government that is stealing all their money and leaving them in shit, about the right to enjoy life in freedom protected by the laws and legislation, about bribing police and traffic officers to cancel contraventions, about more than one million street children in Egypt abused by the people everyday, about injustice in general…the list so long to continue.

And he calls upon people to join Sandmonkey in his Anti-retardedness Mission.
The website no4denmark.com has a listing of all kinds of products that can be boycotted and also some pictures such as the next one:

RNW has an overview about the situation among European media.

Some of the papers

The editor of a French newspaper that reprinted a cartoon featuring the Prophet Mohammed on its front page has been sacked for offending Muslims. Jacques Lefranc was dismissed by the Egyptian owner of the paper, France Soir, in a developing row between Muslims and European press.

Danish paper Jyllands Posten first printed the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in September 2005. Their publication has since sparked protests by Muslims around the world, who say the pictures are offensive.

Now other European journals, among them Italy’s Corriere della Sera and Germany’s Die Welt, have now reprinted the images.

Radio Netherlands spoke to Die Welt’s foreign editor Jacques Schuster to ask him why the decision to republish the cartoons had been taken:

“We did it because, after discussion, we thought it would be good to support our Danish colleagues in their struggle or fight for freedom of the press and freedom of opinion. So, there was a debate in our [office about whether we might] hurt the feelings of Muslims, but after a while the majority stood in favour of the freedom of the press, and so we decided.”

Fear of threats
The paper in Denmark which originally published the cartoons has since been targeted by hate mail and bomb threats, but is this something which also concerns Die Welt?

“Yes, in a way we are worried and today we had a lot of ‘attacks’ by e-mail. But I think we are not allowed to accept censorship. We stand for cultural freedom and the freedoms of the west, and because of an abstract or maybe a very real danger, we couldn’t hide ourselves.”

Those who disapprove of the cartoons argue that their publication shows a lack of respect for religious beliefs; an argument which Mr Schuster appreciates:

“Yes, maybe so, but look at the Life of Brian film, this also maybe hurt the feelings of Christians, but we are journalists and we want to cover the news. And one of the news [stories] came from Denmark, so we only repeated this. We have to accept this balancing between religious feelings and the freedom of the press.”

Provocative
When asked if the republication of these pictures in his paper may not be too provocative given the current situation across the globe in terms of religious sensitivities and other events, he replies:

“On the one hand, yes, on the other hand no, because look at the very aggressive pictures coming from the Arabian world against Jews and against America. Or look at the victims in Iraq, even now the German victims, I didn’t hear [anything] from Muslim representatives condemning these kinds of pictures, this kind of violence. So, I think again that we should not hide ourselves.”

Moreover, he claims that the cartoons are not really offensive: “I don’t know if you know these pictures, they are very harmless in a way. I think you have to ask yourself [each time before you publish] if this is acceptable or not, and in this case we decided that we will and we can publish them.”Principles
As to whether the action by Die Welt could cause problems for Germany, just as the original publication of the cartoons has done for Denmark, Jacques Schuster comments:

“Yes, it could. But again we are journalists, and I want to cover the reality, and I can’t think about these possible problems.”

“I think we have our rules, and we have our principles, and one of our main principles is freedom of opinion and the press. In this case, I think that we stand for freedom of the press.”

Also AP has a story on that.

Dutch politician Wilders has published the photos out of solidarity with the Danes and to support freedom of speech. This kind of messages are spread worldwide now for example on Infinite Monkeys with Legomohammed:
Against Wilders several complaints were made at the Dutch Complaints Bureau for Discrimination on the Internet

For a nice and up to date overview see also Wikipedia.

Trouw, hetNieuws| nederland - Mohammed B.: imam is vervloekt

door Kustaw Bessems en Hélène Butijn
Mohammed B. heeft gisteren in zijn pleidooi de Haagse imam Fawaz een ’hypocriete ongelovige’ genoemd.

Wie ’duidelijke bewijzen’ van Allah verbergt, wordt door hem vervloekt, waarschuwde B. Hij haalde verzen uit de Koran aan waarin iemand die mensen bedriegt over het geloof, in de hel terechtkomt.

De radicale imam Fawaz predikt een andere leer dan B. De Haagse imam zegt dat hij gewapende strijd in Nederland onder de huidige omstandigheden niet goedkeurt. B., de moordenaar van Theo van Gogh, zei dat heidenen mogen worden gedood als die zich niet bekeren. Hij bekritiseerde iedereen die denkt dat de islam pacifistisch is.

Imam Fawaz moet lachen als hij van B.’s kritiek hoort. Via een tolk zegt hij: „Alleen Allah weet of iemand is vervloekt. Niemand anders.” De uitlatingen van B. noemt hij ’nog geen stof op mijn schoenen’. De imam voelt zich niet bedreigd. „Ik hoef niet bang te zijn omdat ik de waarheid vertel. Een misdadiger, die moet bang zijn.”

Fawaz adviseerde vorig jaar enkele vrouwen die Hofstad-verdachten kennen mee te werken met justitie. Dat leverde belastende verklaringen op, al zeggen sommige vrouwen dat hun woorden zijn verdraaid.

Bouyeri’s courtroom lecture

by Eric Hesen*, 2 February 2006

The Hofstad trial

Mohammed Bouyeri, the convicted killer of Theo van Gogh, wanted to argue his own case in the trial of the alleged network of terrorists known as the ‘Hofstad’ group. The court in Amsterdam let him do so, as all the people in the courtroom were able to witness - at length - on Thursday.

Bouyeri, whom the Public Prosecutor’s office says was a leader of the group, ended up giving a ‘lecture’ lasting almost three hours. A lecture about his vision of Islam, about violence, the Prophet Mohammed, and about what the Koran says should happen with ‘unbelievers’.

However, what his address did not deal with was the Hofstad group, meetings of its members or any arguments in justification of possible attacks - a major disappointment for the court, the prosecution and indeed those defending the accused. After all, Mohammed Bouyeri had previously been much more talkative on the subjects of the group and his murder of Theo van Gogh, and it had been hoped that he would do the same on Thursday. He clearly had other plans.

M. Bouyeri

Bin Laden
The only personal aspect of his address came in the first few minutes, when he commented that it was wrong of the public prosecutor to mention his name in the same sentence together with that of Osama bin Laden: “By doing that you do not do him justice and you give me too much credit”.

However, he also told how he is filled with pride at how the world now sees him as the black standard-bearer of Islam, adding a short while later that he hopes God will show mercy to Mohammed Atta, one of the 11 September airplane hijackers.

Train of thought
For the rest, his speech was a long string of quotations from books, encyclopaedia and journals of various kinds, touching on all kinds of issues and people: the Koran and the Prophet Mohammed, but also Plato, Machiavelli, Socrates and even quotes from a number of columns written by Dutch academic Paul Cliteur. There seemed to be no particular order to the issues he touched on. There was no clear train of thought in what he said and no trace at all of any kind of final conclusion.

His precise intention, therefore, remained totally unclear. The only point he appeared to make was that the Prophet Mohammed had regularly called for the use of violence against unbelievers. He raised numerous examples as to how and why unbelievers ought to be killed, an aspect of his ‘lecture’ which must have had the lawyers acting for the other defendants grinding their teeth. They have been endeavouring for weeks to convince the court that the ideas adhered to by the Hofstad group do not automatically have to result in violent acts.

Library texts
Even Islam expert Ruud Peters of the University of Amsterdam and Professor of Law Afshin Ellian of Leiden University could follow but little of Bouyeri’s address. Mr Peters commented that he seemed to have provided a picture of everything that could be found in the library at the high-security prison in Vught rather than provide any insight into his own thought processes.

The sentences sought against the accused range from 14 months to 20 years. No sentence - only a guilty verdict - has been requested in the case of Mohammed Bouyeri since he is already serving a life term for the Van Gogh murder.
Ruud Peters examined all of Bouyeri’s and the Hofstad group’s texts for the current trial, but had never heard of the passages quoted by the defendant in court on Thursday. This caused Afshin Ellian to comment that Bouyeri might well have quoted from a gossip magazine as well if he had happened to read one in prison.

The prosecution will respond to Bouyeri’s arguments next Monday, then all the accused in the Hofstad trial will each have an opportunity to make a final statement. The Amsterdam court will issue the verdicts on 10 March.

* translation by the RN Internet desk

In the trial against the so called Hofstadgroup today Mohammed B. held his three hour defense. Well defense…It looked more like an expose about violence, violent jihad and Islam (I am told by others; I wasn’t there).

Expatica’s Dutch news in English: ‘I’m no Bin Laden,’ Van Gogh killer says in court speech

The man jailed for life for the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004 insisted in court on Thursday the Prophet Mohammed sanctioned the use of violence.

Dutch-Moroccan Mohammed Bouyeri, 27, spoke for almost two hours and thirty minutes in the high security Amsterdam-Osdorp courthouse. It was the closing stages of the trial of 14 Muslim men accused of membership of a terrorist organisation.

Investigators monitoring the men prior to their arrests dubbed them the Hofstad group or network. The accused men claim they met together only to discuss Islam.

Layers for other defendants have already made closing addresses to the three-judge panel.

Bouyeri, who cannot receive another sentence under Dutch law, opted to make a personal speech. It was expected it would contain some fireworks.

But observers afterwards agreed it was too long and confusing. Bouyeri did not address the prosecution’s contention about the existence of a terrorist organisation, or the central role he allegedly played in it.

Journalists in court estimated 70 percent of his speech consisted of citations taken from a range of writers, including Michael Ignatieff and Jessica Stern. Bouyeri gathered the material from the prison library.

Dressed in a traditional Arabic garment with a red and white scarf on his head, Bouyeri began his address with a Muslim confession of his faith in Arabic. A translator interpreted his words for the court.

“Comparing me to Osama bin Laden does the man a great wrong and extends me too much honour I don’t deserve,” Bouyeri said.

“But it fills me with me with honour, pride and joy that you see me as the standard-bearer of Islam in Europe,” he told the prosecution.

I will listen to the audio-tape of part of his exposé and get back to you about that.

Muhammad and Abu Bakr visit poor Bedouins who have no sustenance to share until the Prophet makes their ewe give milk

The row is spreading. On the one hand European media is more and more inclined to show the Danish cartoons. Such as the French newspaper France le Soir.
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | France enters Muslim cartoon row

France Soir said it had published the cartoons to show that “religious dogma” had no place in a secular society.

Their publication in Denmark has led to protests in several Arab nations.

And also the BBC wants to broadcast the cartoons, following other media: Cartoon Controversy: Bomb Shaped Turban Upsets Muslims

The role of the media here, gets more interesting by the day. See for example also the website of Almedina.com where you can send a protestemail:

Dear Minster of Cultural affairs (Norway) Dear Minster of Cultural affairs (Denmark) (Norway) and Magazinet newspaper (Denmark) in Jyllands Posten newspaper (PBUH) The Muslim world has been following with anger and sorrow the humiliating cartoons. That were published for the Nobel Prophet Muhammad harassment!thin a negative attitude and picturing him as a person representing evil force does firmly form a sever compound and complicated act of aggression conducted against our believes, hearts, minds and souls.

Muslims can hardly think of any worse cultural In Islam, embodying Prophet Mohammad PBUH in a picture, drawing or a statue is completely prohibited; even within a context of showing respect, admiration or recognition. As a result, and as you may have found out already, drawing Prophet Mohammed wi slims who consider Prophet Muhammad as the messenger of mercy. We strongly believe in freedom of expression and freedom of press. However, what was published in those two newspapers is inappropriate and goes beyond freedom of expression. It humiliates, without any reason or purpose, approximately one billion Muslims in because publishing them again will cause more tensions between nations, will harm Muslims’ feelings and their beliefs.We forward you this letter to express our strong condemnation for what was published and we hope your respect to others’ beliefs and religious symbols will motivate you to condemn these drawings and make sure that they will not be published once again.

www.almadinapress.com
reporters@al-madina.com

At the same pace the outrage among Muslims seems to spread: Cartoon Controversy: Bomb Shaped Turban Upsets Muslims

And at the same pace call for solidarity with the Danes among non-Muslims spread (France Soir is an example already mentioned) on e.g. Brusselsjournal.com (We are all Danes now!) and Dutch newspapers such as Trouw by Ephimenco It looks like one monolithic bloc against the other. No wonder Ephimenco concludes this time that the Islam does exist: this row is the ultimate proof. Sadly he is wrong and he is wrong because he neglects the voices among Muslims who condemn the actions of for example Saudi Arabia. Among them Radikale Venstre member Naser Khader who wrote an open letter in which he states that it is Saudi Arabia who should apologize for their open contempt for human rights. Also the one of the islamic organizations seems to be out for peace and quiet now.

BBC NEWS | Magazine | Travels with my beard

Interesting story by Rajesh Thind

After the 7 July London bombings could growing a beard completely change the way people treated a British Asian? There was only one way to find out.

It’s interesting to see how stereotypes work: among the ‘victims’ of stereotypes and among the people who act because of these stereotypes (who doesn’t?). See als the reactions on this article.
Continue Reading »

ABC News: Documents Show Army Seized Wives As Tactic

Documents Show Army Seized Wives of Suspected Insurgents in Hopes of ‘Leveraging’ Surrenders

By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent
The Associated Press

- The U.S. Army in Iraq has at least twice seized and jailed the wives of suspected insurgents in hopes of “leveraging” their husbands into surrender, U.S. military documents show.

In one case, a secretive task force locked up the young mother of a nursing baby, a U.S. intelligence officer reported. In the case of a second detainee, one American colonel suggested to another that they catch her husband by tacking a note to the family’s door telling him “to come get his wife.”

The issue of female detentions in Iraq has taken on a higher profile since kidnappers seized American journalist Jill Carroll on Jan. 7 and threatened to kill her unless all Iraqi women detainees are freed.

The U.S. military on Thursday freed five of what it said were 11 women among the 14,000 detainees currently held in the 2 1/2-year-old insurgency. All were accused of “aiding terrorists or planting explosives,” but an Iraqi government commission found that evidence was lacking.

Iraqi human rights activist Hind al-Salehi contends that U.S. anti-insurgent units, coming up empty-handed in raids on suspects’ houses, have at times detained wives to pressure men into turning themselves in.

Iraq’s deputy justice minister, Busho Ibrahim Ali, dismissed such claims, saying hostage-holding was a tactic used under the ousted Saddam Hussein dictatorship, and “we are not Saddam.” A U.S. command spokesman in Baghdad, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, said only Iraqis who pose an “imperative threat” are held in long-term U.S.-run detention facilities.

But documents describing two 2004 episodes tell a different story as far as short-term detentions by local U.S. units. The documents are among hundreds the Pentagon has released periodically under U.S. court order to meet an American Civil Liberties Union request for information on detention practices.

In one memo, a civilian Pentagon intelligence officer described what happened when he took part in a raid on an Iraqi suspect’s house in Tarmiya, northwest of Baghdad, on May 9, 2004. The raid involved Task Force (TF) 6-26, a secretive military unit formed to handle high-profile targets.

“During the pre-operation brief it was recommended by TF personnel that if the wife were present, she be detained and held in order to leverage the primary target’s surrender,” wrote the 14-year veteran officer.

He said he objected, but when they raided the house the team leader, a senior sergeant, seized her anyway.

“The 28-year-old woman had three young children at the house, one being as young as six months and still nursing,” the intelligence officer wrote. She was held for two days and was released after he complained, he said.

Like most names in the released documents, the officer’s signature is blacked out on this for-the-record memorandum about his complaint.

Of this case, command spokesman Johnson said he could not judge, months later, the factors that led to the woman’s detention.

The second episode, in June 2004, is found in sketchy detail in e-mail exchanges among six U.S. Army colonels, discussing an undisclosed number of female detainees held in northern Iraq by the Stryker Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division.

The first message, from a military police colonel, advised staff officers of the U.S. northern command that the Iraqi police would not take control of the jailed women without charges being brought against them.

In a second e-mail, a command staff officer asked an officer of the unit holding the women, “What are you guys doing to try to get the husband have you tacked a note on the door and challenged him to come get his wife?”

Two days later, the brigade’s deputy commander advised the higher command, “As each day goes by, I get more input that these gals have some info and/or will result in getting the husband.”

He went on, “These ladies fought back extremely hard during the original detention. They have shown indications of deceit and misinformation.”

The command staff colonel wrote in reply, referring to a commanding general, “CG wants the husband.”

The released e-mails stop there, and the women’s eventual status could not be immediately determined.

Of this episode, Johnson said, “It is clear the unit believed the females detained had substantial knowledge of insurgent activity and warranted being held.”

On the Net:

First document: http://www.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/t2614 2616.pdf

E-mail exchange: http://www.aclu.org/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOD044843.pdf

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

C L O S E R

As said yesterday there are many depictions of the prophet Muhammad. Such as this one where angels visit Muhammad to prepare him for the Miraj. It’s a detail from The Progress of the Prophet, Turkey, 16th century.

Today the first company seems to be hit by the boycott: Nordic firm hit by Arab boycott

We have taken 40 years to build up a very big business in the Middle East, and we’ve seen it come to a complete stop in five days
Astrid Gade Niels
Arla spokeswoman

Also more condemnations from the Arab world, this time from 17 Arab countries.

Also the Dutch newspapers have discovered the item. In the Dutch daily De Volkskrant several artists who are reluctant in depicting the prophet. Except for Gregorius Nekschot (pseudonym) who will publish a book soon with a picture of the prophet Muhammad in a compromising situation with Aicha.

The editor of Jylland Posten has published a statement in which he legitimizes himself towards Muslims and says he regrets people felt insulted:

I am sorry that the publication of a few cartoons in the Norwegian paper Magazinet has caused unrest among Muslims. I fully understand that these drawings are seen to give offence by Muslims worldwide. Islam is a spiritual reference point for a large part of the world. Your faith has the right to be respected by us.

The cartoons in the Christian paper Magazinet are not constructive in building the
bridges which are necessary between people with different religious and ethnic backgrounds. Instead they contribute to suspicion and unnecessary conflict.

Let it be clear that the Norwegian government condemns every expression or act which expresses contempt for people on the basis of their religion or ethnic origin. Norway has always supported the fight of the UN against religious intolerance and racism, and believes that this fight is important in order to avoid suspicion and conflict. Tolerance, mutual respect and dialogue are the basis values of Norwegian society and of our foreign policy.

Freedom of expression is one of the pillars of Norwegian society. This includes tolerance for opinions that not everyone shares. At the same time our laws and our international obligations enforce restrictions for incitement to hatred or hateful expressions.

This conflict seems clear: Muslims enraged about depicting Muhammad by Westerners and Westerners enraged by Muslims who disrespect freedom of speech. Nevertheless, several questions have to be asked.

1) The reason for this conflict seems clear: the twelve cartoons of the Jylland Posten. But it is not the first one; there are pictures of the prophet Muhammed that exists for ages. Such as the ones I include on every entry on this issue (made by - mostly Shia - Muslims) but also less friendly ones. Such as the next illustration taken from La vie de Mahomet, by M. Prideaux, published in 1699. It shows Muhammad holding a sword and a crescent while trampling on a globe, a cross, and the Ten Commandments.

So again, we know that this is a sensitive topic, why the conflict now and why in Denmark?

2) The conflict started in October 2005 (correct me if i’m wrong). It’s now January: three months later. Why does it escalate now? In this age of internet, mobile phones and so on, it shouldn’t be that difficult to attrackt attention in let’s say Saudi Arabia. Why do the Arab countries interfere now?

3) The conflict is represented as a conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims or Arabs and Europeans. But the picture is actually a little more diverse. Yesterday I showed comments of a Danish Muslims who disagreed with the major organizations and stated that they do not represent everyone. Also, as my good colleague Robbert told me today, the EU has protested against the cartoons:

Franco Frattini, the Deputy EU commissioner for Justice, Freedom, and Security, noting the publication as “foolishness and indiscretion” condemned the cartoons Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rassmussen backed up on the grounds of “freedom of speech and thought”.

Such publications, Frattini emphasized, will serve to radicalism by fomenting hostility against Islam and foreigners.

In response to the “freedom of press” that Mr. Rasmussen used as an excuse, the EU official said the media is not free to make a news story out of anything. Frattini assessing the issue in his personal perspective said if the publication were about his own values, it would hurt him personally as a Catholic Christian and he would have taken great offence.

To be honest, such codes of behavior will accelerate Islamophobia across Europe, said Frattini, emphasizing his respect for the freedom of speech.

Frattini emphasized the cartoons published in Jyllands Posten did not affect people’s ideas on Islam and noted despite everything he is against restricting the freedom of the press.

Also Bill Clinton protested against the cartoons.

“So now what are we going to do? … Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?” he said at an economic conference in the Qatari capital of Doha.

“In Europe, most of the struggles we’ve had in the past 50 years have been to fight prejudices against Jews, to fight against anti-Semitism,” he said.

Clinton described as “appalling” the 12 cartoons published in a Danish newspaper in September depicting Prophet Mohammed and causing uproar in the Muslim world.

“None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions … there was this appalling example in northern Europe, in Denmark … these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam,” he said.

So on both sides the boundaries between us and them are blurred. In many newspapers (Dutch ones) there is no attention to that. Why not?

4) What kind of role does internet play? My colleague Robbert showed me an email today with several not very respectful pictures of the prophet. Some of them were from the Jylland Posten but several other ones (such as one with a pig) you can find here.
It also included two PowerPoint presentations with (I thought) a sort of bio of the prophet. And the following letter:

Danish Consulate
Dubai, UAE
Fax: 04 - 2235751

To Whom It May Concern:

It is with great displeasure that I write to you to express my shock and anger at the extreme disrespect and thoughtlessness your government has shown in reaction to the offensive cartoons published in the Danish daily, Jyllands-Posten.
The blasphemous cartoons picturing Prophet Mohammed were insulting to the 1.3 billion Muslims all over the world, whose feelings you have inconsiderately ignored. What was even more distasteful was your government’s support for the newspaper’s