C L O S E R

The Blessed Balance Between Reason and Religion – part 3: Politics of Reason, Rage and Religion

Posted on September 18th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Internal Debates, Public Islam, Religion Other.

By now the Pope, in person, more or less expressed his regrets and the Vatican has tried to explain his comments. The reactions, among Muslim leaders, are mixed some welcoming the statement, others saying it is not enough, and again others are displeased because of his retractions, while others could not care less.
An important issue at stake here is of course the relationship between religion and violence. It would be mistake to think that Islam, or any other religion, is inherently violent. It would be also a mistake to think that Islam, or any other religion, is inherently non-violent. (more…)

9 comments.

The Blessed Balance Between Reason and Religion – part 2: Framing the whole thing

Posted on September 16th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Public Islam, Religion Other.

And yes, there we are: the Vatican has offered their apologies, but since he hasn’t done that himself it’s not enough for everyone. But let’s go back to the heart of the matter. The core of the pope’s message was:

[T]he world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.

In this he is attacking secularism with his exclusion of faith from the realm of reason but also Islam because of (in his view) the exclusion of reason from the realm of faith. This might partly be the case but his examples were not correct (not historical and not for the present) so in that view you can consider his speech as unjust, insulting and certainly stupid. What is more striking however, and I can imagine the Vatican is surprised by this, how this speech is immediately framed as either ‘anti-islam’ or ‘the truth about islam’. But in anyway related to Islam, so we can speak of Islamizing the Pope’s speech. (more…)

11 comments.

The Blessed Balance Between Reason and Religion

Posted on September 15th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Public Islam, Religion Other.

The choice of the regnal name Benedict, which in Latin means “the blessed,” is significant. Pope Benedict XVI carefully chose his name (which means ‘the blessed’):

Filled with sentiments of awe and thanksgiving, I wish to speak of why I chose the name Benedict. Firstly, I remember Pope Benedict XV, that courageous prophet of peace, who guided the Church through turbulent times of war. In his footsteps I place my ministry in the service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples. Additionally, I recall Saint Benedict of Nursia, co-patron of Europe, whose life evokes the Christian roots of Europe. I ask him to help us all to hold firm to the centrality of Christ in our Christian life: May Christ always take first place in our thoughts and actions!

Recalling this his recent words about Islam might seem strange although there has been some criticism to earlier remarks as well. (more…)

1 comment.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | G-had and suicide bombers: the rapper who likens Bin Laden to Che Guevara

Posted on July 4th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Multiculti Issues, Public Islam, Religious and Political Radicalization, Young Muslims, Youth culture (as a practice).

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | G-had and suicide bombers: the rapper who likens Bin Laden to Che Guevara
Extracts

I Reject

Reject your thieving foreign policies
Reject your elitist congregation
Reject your mini skirt liberation
Reject your concept of integration …

Parasites

But revenge will be mine, with my last breath I will rise to curse you
Because you, you dogs and parasites have made us helpless

Cookbook DIY

I’m strapped up cross my chest bomb belt attached
Deeply satisfied with the plan I hatched
Electrodes connected to a gas cooker lighter

(more…)

0 comments.

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | G-had and suicide bombers: the rapper who likens Bin Laden to Che Guevara

Posted on July 4th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Multiculti Issues, Public Islam, Religious and Political Radicalization, Young Muslims, Youth culture (as a practice).

Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | G-had and suicide bombers: the rapper who likens Bin Laden to Che Guevara
Extracts

I Reject

Reject your thieving foreign policies
Reject your elitist congregation
Reject your mini skirt liberation
Reject your concept of integration …

Parasites

But revenge will be mine, with my last breath I will rise to curse you
Because you, you dogs and parasites have made us helpless

Cookbook DIY

I’m strapped up cross my chest bomb belt attached
Deeply satisfied with the plan I hatched
Electrodes connected to a gas cooker lighter

(more…)

0 comments.

Muslims address silence on Europe attacks – Yahoo! News

Posted on June 25th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: International Terrorism, Murder on theo Van Gogh and related issues, Public Islam, Religious and Political Radicalization.

Muslims address silence on Europe attacks – Yahoo! News
I cannot speak of course for all Muslims in all European countries, in the case of the assassination of Van Gogh, Dutch Muslims rejected the murder outright, with one Muslim organization calling Van Gogh a martyr of the freedom of speech. Nevertheless, it seems necessary to talk about this topic, because in particular non-Muslims seem to do not have heard these comments. Therefore probably the debate among Muslims about the so-called silence on Europe attacks:

By SCHEHEREZADE FARAMARZI, Associated Press Writer Sat Jun 24, 11:56 AM ET

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands – Europe’s Muslims have remained largely silent in the face of terrorist attacks that have killed 254 people in Madrid, London and Amsterdam. Europeans want to know why.

Why have so few of them publicly condemned the train and bus bombings in Madrid and London? Why have so few spoken out against the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, killed because his work was considered an insult to Islam?

Talk to Europe’s mainstream Muslims privately, however, and it turns out they have a lot to say. (more…)

0 comments.

Pop Culture in the Name of Islam – Daily Muslims

Posted on June 17th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Public Islam, Young Muslims, Youth culture (as a practice).

Pop Culture in the Name of Islam – Daily Muslims
The following article: Pop Culture in the Name of Islam by YVONNE RIDLEY has gained considerable attention on the World Wide Web. Notwithstanding the presence of several ‘islamic’ boy bands such as ‘Seven 8 Six‘ and ‘Mecca2Medina‘, and not to forget an artist as Sami Yusuf (who is the target of Yvonne Ridley)many people seem to be uncomfortable about the link between Islam and Pop Culture.

I FEEL very uncomfortable about the pop culture which is growing around some so-called Nasheed artists. Of course I use the term ‘Nasheed artists’ very lightly. Islamic ‘boy bands’ and Muslim ‘popsters’ would probably be more appropriate.
Eminent scholars throughout history have often opined that music is haram, and I don’t recall reading anything about the Sahaba whooping it up to the sound of music. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for people letting off steam, but in a dignified manner and one which is appropriate to their surroundings.
The reason I am expressing concern is that just a few days ago at a venue in Central London, sisters went wild in the aisles as some form of pop-mania swept through the concert venue. And I’m not just talking about silly, little girls who don’t know any better; I am talking about sisters in their 20’s, 30’s and 40’s, who squealed, shouted, swayed and danced. Even the security guys who looked more like pipe cleaners than bulldozers were left looking dazed and confused as they tried to stop hijabi sisters from standing on their chairs. Of course the stage groupies did not help at all as they waved and encouraged the largely female Muslim crowd to “get up and sing along.” (They’re called ‘Fluffers’ in lap-dancing circles!)
The source of all this adulation was British-born Sami Yusuf, who is so proud of his claret-colored passport that he wants us all to wave the Union Jacks. I’m amazed he didn’t encourage his fans to sing “Land of Hope and Glory.” Brother Sami asked his audience to cheer if they were proud to be British ,and when they responded loudly, he said he couldn’t hear them and asked them to cheer again.
How can anyone be proud to be British? Britain is the third most hated country in the world. The Union Jack is drenched in the blood of our brothers and sisters across Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Our history is steeped in the blood of colonialism, rooted in slavery, brutality, torture, and oppression. And we haven’t had a decent game of soccer since we lifted the World Cup in 1966.
Apparently Sami also said one of the selling points of Brand UK was having Muslims in the Metropolitan Police Force! Astafur’Allah! Dude, these are the same cops who have a shoot-to-kill policy and would have gunned down a Muslim last year if they could tell the difference between a Bangladeshi and a Brazilian. This is the same police force that has raided more than 3000 Muslim homes in Britain since 9/11. What sort of life is there on Planet Sami, I wonder? If he is so proud to be British, why is he living in the great Middle Eastern democracy of Egypt? (more…)

5 comments.

C L O S E R – Land of Confusion

Posted on May 18th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam, Some personal considerations.

It is remarkable how many references there are to Hirsi Ali as a beautiful woman. I agree with these men (?), don’t get me wrong but why is that important? It’s very rare to see such a comment for a man. Does it contribute to her authority? If it does, it’s no wonder I have less authority :).

Meanwhile, several conspiracy theories have emerged. For example ZachtEi (which has an excellent overview of the events by the way)

The VVD party knew AHA had to be sacrificed to fend off a left-wing takeover of the country during the 2007 elections. Rita Verdonk added insult to injury because it increases her own chances of winning the party leadership, and the VVD honchos stand by idly because they know the hugely popular Verdonk may be the only thing standing between Labour Party leader Wouter Bos and four years of social-democratic misery.

So, a set up to lose two people who are standing between Labour and their victory in the election. According to Peaktalk:

The tone of the documentary called “Saint Ayaan” made by the VARA – which is a left-of-center public broadcaster affiliated with both the Labour Party and organized labour – clearly underlines its intent: to take down Hirsi Ali. Leon de Winter points out in his blog that the left may have been down but hardly out, and is now in full swing to restore the Dutch age of politically correct consensus by publicly executing Hirsi Ali.

That is a correct assumption. But what has not been discussed in detail is that the Dutch right, and notably Hirsi Ali’s own liberal party (VVD) may have decided that it is time to get shot of her. Ayaan’s lies will now be the subject of a formal investigation by Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk, who as it happens is also part of the VVD and is in the middle of hotly contested leadership struggle (to be concluded later this month) in which she faces a more moderate and centrist candidate. So, if Verdonk’s aim is to gain control over the VVD she will have to not only make sure that by investigating Hirsi Ali she is living up to her ‘going by the book’ reputation, but she will have to placate her party’s more centrist members. As such, Hirsi Ali is of no real use to her, and it is Verdonk herself who has grabbed the “less-government, tough on immigration” mantle that has been vacant following Fortuyn’s and Van Gogh’s respective murders. Hirsi Ali has served her purpose by formulating a number of highly controversial positions, something that no one previously dared saying, and now that the word is out it is up to others to take the message forward.

The other aspect that should be underlined here is the deep resentment that success and ambition usually generate in The Netherlands. Dynamic careers, success, outspokenness, standing out in the crowd are things that have always been frowned upon, although that has changed a bit in recent years I guess. Still, the Dutch coined the phrase “act normal, that is strange enough” and a very ambitious black Muslim woman who built up a spectacular political career with international allure by holding a mirror in front of the complacent and politically lethargic Dutch was of course not something that would be rewarded with eternal gratitude.

For other it is just an ‘islamist‘ victory; something that keeps puzzling me: how did they end up here? The Muslim Contrarian has a different opinion, taking issue with Hirsi Ali’s lack of credibility:

It is clear that the credibility of Ayaan has taken a serious hit from these revelations. How easy could it be for her to falsely accuse Islam, a religion and a people she obviously hates, if it was so easy for her to lie on her refugee claims? To the neoconservative Christians who jump up to defend her, is it not said “thou shalt not bear false witness?”

Not only is she untruthful, but seemingly hypocritical. Herself an immigrant, she became a vocal critic of immigration as a member of the right wing Dutch VVD party. It was, in fact, her own party member, hardline immigration minister Rita Verdonk that called for her passport to be revoked. I suppose principle rarely gets in the way of politics and ambition.

In a way, I feel sorry to see her go out this way, used and betrayed. It is, however, understandable considering that western world, despite claims of freedom, justice, and equality, have a history of systemically exploiting and lynching Africans (Dutch apartheid, European colonialism, American slavery).

And not to forget others such as, Umar Lee:

The favorite Muslim of the West, that is an apostate who has become wealthy and famous scapegoating Muslims, Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali, has admitted that she lied in order to get her Dutch Citizenship and will now be kicked out of the parliament and will likely be stripped of her Dutch Citizenship. Who says good things never happen?

Yesterday, a writer I really enjoy, Steve Dunleavy (a real guy), apparently was smitten by the lying Ali, who now that she is being kicked out of the Netherlands is going to try and take her fraudulent act to America with the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Maybe she can handicap the battle going on in the streets of Mogadishu right now between an Islamist group, with local support, and a group of criminal gangs being funded by the West.

There is something to be said, for all these accounts. Problem is that in all of them facts and fiction seems to be blurred. This is no wonder, since to documentary with which it all begun, also mixed facts and fiction. Let’s try to deconstruct it and see what we know and don’t know:

1. We know Hirsi Ali lied about her history
2. We know if you lie about your credentials, your citizenship will be annulled.
3. We know that television program Zembla, for the first time questioned several facts of her past in one program
4. We know Hirsi Ali several times has mentioned that she lied.
5. She is leaving parlaiment because of this affair.
6. She is not leaving the country because of this. She already planned to go to the US and in case of losing her Dutch nationality, she still could stay because she is a refugee.

We do not know:

1. If she was forced to marry a man she did not want: it is her word against that of her relatives and her ex-fiancee
2. We do not know if there was a conspiracy within the VVD or by the left wing VARA (broadcaster of Zembla), labour party and ‘het journaal’ (Dutch news bulletin).

So what is left? Not much actually. Luckily there is Sunny on Pickled Politics, where there is always an attempt to look at things from a distant perspective.

I think it is important to take the Ayaan Hirsi Ali saga as a way to examine internal change.

Ali has always been presented as a ‘fearless woman’ who said ‘the truth’ about Muslims and would stop the Netherlands ’sliding into dhimmitude;’ etc. Certainly her choice of friends were suspect sometimes.

Whatever her detractors say, society certainly needs people who stick their neck out and say what they feel at the risk of antagonising relations. We need the BNP as much as we need the likes Harold Pinter. We also need the likes of Ali because she stopped Netherlands from bending over backwards excessively in the name of political correctness.

Let’s not gloss over the fact that there is still widespread instances of female genital mutilation and wife-beating in the Middle East, South Asia and Latin America. Domestic abuse is a serious problem in this country too. Ali may have lied about her personal circumstances but she did not make up the death threats.

But what Ali did was take advantage of the anti-Muslim climate, conjure up a story that would play well with them, and exploit them for her own agenda. It says more about those ‘anti-dhimmis’ because they want to hang on to what she said, rather than accept she simply lied to get in. If her political leanings went the other way they would be up in arms. they are the ones being taken for a ride.

The bigger question is how do you deal with such hardline ‘reformers’.

[…]

The problem for us who refuse to take a hardline against anyone is this. We know that if you want to reform a system, to attack it without knowing anything about it and demonising the people involved doesn’t work. It is a tactic that rapidly pushes you into the arms of people with ulterior motives and produces an ‘us and them’ barrier that becomes stronger than get broken down.

We know that change has to come, but it must do so on a platform of empowerment, not demonising. Ali did nothing to help the Muslim women who need power to reform their communities. She made it harder for them to stand up and take the middle ground.

If we all stood on a podium and waxed lyrically about how rubbish Asian values and culture was – nothing would change. And we can’t do that anyway, we still belong to that world.

Maybe it was the right time. Netherlands stopped letting in the religious fanatics who simply wanted to get on social security, but relations between Christian and Muslim Dutch people could never improve with a person so hell-bent on demonising all of them.

Finally, as someone at Pickled Politics says, a voice of reason. Some questions however (when we look back at the facts) are still unanswered.

1. Since it was well known that Hirsi Ali lied, why did it took so long for journalists to dive into the matter?
2. Was there a particular reason to it now?
3. There was nothing substantial new in the program, so why did they air it?
4. Because there was nothing new in it, and most of it was well known, why did the Hirsi Ali ‘supporters’ conceive it as a dirty personal attack? What I mean is if someone tells you over and over in that for example he has been cheating his wife, and there comes a tv program in which this is presented as a new fact and dozens of women are interviewed stating that they have been his mistress…you would laugh at the journalists probably. Old news! So why such a fuss?
5. Why did her opponents make such a problem of it, since they also knew?

7 comments.

C L O S E R – Hirsi Ali and the Shortcut to the US

Posted on May 16th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

C L O S E R

I came to Holland in the summer of 1992 because I wanted to be able to determine my own future. I didn’t want to be forced into a destiny that other people had chosen for me, so I opted for the protection of the rule of law. Here in Holland, I found freedom and opportunities, and I took those opportunities to speak out against religious terror.

In January 2003, at the invitation of the VVD party, I became a member of parliament. I accepted the VVD’s invitation on the condition that I would be the party’s spokesman for the emancipation of women and the integration of immigrants.
What exactly did I want to achieve?
First of all I wanted to put the oppression of immigrant women — especially Muslim women – squarely on the Dutch political agenda. Second, I wanted Holland to pay attention to the specific cultural and religious issues that were holding back many ethnic minorities, instead of always taking a one-sided approach that focused only on their socio-economic circumstances. Lastly, I wanted politicians to grasp the fact that major aspects of Islamic doctrine and tradition, as practiced today, are incompatible with the open society.
That transition from becoming a member of a clan to becoming a citizen in an open society is what public service has come to mean for me. Only clear thinking and strong action can lead to real change, and free many people within our society from the mental cage of submission. The idea that I can contribute to their freedom, whether in the Netherlands or in another country, gives me deep satisfaction.
Ladies and Gentlemen, as of today, I resign from Parliament. I regret that I will be leaving the Netherlands, the country which has given me so many opportunities and enriched my life, but I am glad that I will be able to continue my work. I will go on.

The above quote is from Hirsi Ali’s public statement today. Yes, she is leaving parliament and going to the US. For a nice report on today’s events, see the facts here. This is certainly not a Dutch event only. Several non-Dutch blogs are mentioning the affair, and not all very well informed. For example Melanie Phillips states:

Yet instead of being cherished as a national heroine, she is being broken and bullied out of the country by an unholy alliance of venomous leftists, spineless public servants — including those of a highly conservative disposition — and radical Islamists, all giving a victory to the forces of evil.

A shocked friend of Ms Hirsi Ali says that the mood in the Netherlands today reflects a thirst for a public hanging. But this public anger is being funnelled not at the clerical fascism that has caused Dutch public figures to be guarded day and night against the threat of murder, but at one of those very figures. Thus the victim of violence is turned into its cause, and her institutionalised lynching will purge the terror from the people.

There is no proof of such a conspiracy and certainly not one including radical islamists. Dutch Muslim umbrella organizations do have stated that they are not sad that she is leaving, but they are certainly not radical islamists. Also there is certainly not a blood thirsty crowd that wants her out. Several Dutch blogs as the Ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl and Frontaalnaakt.nl and Geenstijl.nl are supporting her. Many critics of her I have spoken to, even support her in this case. Of course there are also people who remain critical and are glad to see her leave. Her supporters are certainly more outspoken, also the ones abroad.

Important to note by the way, if Hirsi Ali looses her Dutch nationality, that does not mean she has to leave the country because of that: she is still a refugee and therefore she could stay.

When I got home from work this evening, I tried to get hold of NRC Handelsblad; a Dutch evening daily. It was sold out. Everywhere. This certainly is an event on the WWW. Several other blogs are also engaging with this issue, some with very short, but interesting, comments such as ‘Aqoul

A very queer bit of reporting on Somali-Dutch MP and possible immigration services deceiver Ayaan Hirsi Ali aka Ayaan Hirsi Magan, who appears to have not been quite in the situ she claimed re forced marriage when she won Dutch citizenship. The article is perhaps a lesson in the madness that is immigration laws and debates at present across the Developed-Developing world divide. It may, if the facts are right, also be a somewhat sad lesson in media hype as well.

And others just referring to other sources such as Sandmonkey, others pointing to the position of her party (VVD) that has a very firm standpoint on migration (…and lying), but not everyone in that party is very glad with that view in this case, others stating that she has some strange supporters. Some people think it might backfire to Dutch minister Verdonk.
During the debate in parliament it has become clear that there is room for reconsidering the withdrawal of Hirsi Ali’s Dutch nationality or even a new request for naturalization with a shorter procedure. So there is room for negotations and solutions.

If you want to read Hirsi Ali’s complete statement: (more…)

5 comments.

C L O S E R – Hirsi Ali and the Netherlands

Posted on May 15th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

C L O S E R

Last week the television program Zembla aired a documentary about Hirsi Ali. In it the makers claimed that Hirsi Ali lied about the reasons she has to fled to the Netherlands and about the way she did it. Nothing new, actually. She already admitted that in several programs, speeches and books. It just shows that people will always adjust their story in order to be granted asylum in a safe country. Who wouldn’t?

In my view there are two problems regarding this issue and Hirsi Ali. First of all her authority is partly based upon her past. The fact that she lied about it (even though she admits it) does not lend much credibility to her position as someone who has experienced it all herself. Second problem is that the Hoge Raad (Supreme Council) last year stated that the Dutch authorities were right in evoking the Dutch nationality of an Iraqi family who had lied about their past. If that can happen to them…

So now the rumour is that she will go to the US. Some American blogs are already very happy about that. I doubt very much that this incident is the cause for that. Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad reports that she would begin her new job next year, but because she has to leave her house, she asked if she could go to the US earlier to work for the AEI. This incident of course is nice timing for her to announce that.

Read the reactions at Expatica.com

This issue again proves that we still have difficulties in acting nuanced and sophisticated when it comes to Hirsi Ali. For some left wing people she is the devil who is one of the main causes for the polarization in this country.

Probably without realizing, the makers (of Submission I, Van Gogh and Hirsi Ali -Mdk) the used the same grammar Joseph Goebbels used in 1940 in his notorious movie ‘Der Ewige Jude’

For some others she is the saint who has lived all the atrocities she is talking about it and defends this country against the barbarians.

During World War II, eighty percent of Dutch Jews were deported to the camps and killed. They were often delivered to the Nazi’s by the Dutch themselves. They wanted to protect themselves and hoped that collaboration would make them safe.

The Dutch now desperately want to hang Ayaan in the hope to restore the multicultural dream. VARA created an atmosphere in which so-called ‘revelations’ mystify and falsify Ayaan’s past and present.

We are now witnessing in Holland the public execution of Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

And no I do not think that it is correct what Little Green Football reports (or should I say in this case: lying?) that the Dutch elites want Hirsi Ali to be deported (note the link to WWII they are making with the word deporting). Some critics argue that she should hand in her Dutch nationality, but I don’t think anyone would want her to go back to Somalia and that is certainly not what the critics are saying. Referring to them as the elite is ridiculous, also because it neglects Hirsi Ali’s supporters who also belong to the elite.

Tomorrow more about this and you can follow the recent news on this here.

2 comments.

C L O S E R – Al Turabi on 'unquestionable issues in Islam'

Posted on April 24th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Gender, Kinship & Marriage Issues, Internal Debates, Public Islam, Religious and Political Radicalization.

On Freedom for Egyptians an interesting article about the quite spectacular statements of the Sudanese Muslim Leader Dr. Hassan Al Turabi, still ignored by mainstream press. Thanks to my ISIM colleague Robbert for alerting me already two weeks ago:

Freedom for Egyptians الحرية للمصريين
Sudanese Islamic Leader Dr. Hassan Al Turabi gave new statements and released some new fatwas (religious opinions/edicts) that blew up many of what is believed to be basics or unquestionable issues in Islam, many related to the usurped righted of women.

In Islam, Muslim women are not allowed but to marry a Muslim man or a man who has converted to Islam. On the other hand, Muslim men are allowed to marry any woman from any faith with no restrictions.

Dr. Al Turabi, a party leader, said that a Muslim woman is allowed to marry a Christian or a Jew and not necessarily a Muslim. He asserted that forbidding her from marrying a man from another faith is aimed at dragging women backward. He added that Islamic Shariaa (Islamic jurisdiction) does not provide any restrictions for women to marry any man from another faith. He said that it was forbidden during war when Muslims were fighting with other armies. He said that when the reason is gone, the restriction is lifted.

Dr. Al Turabi, 74, in a seminar at the headquarters of the opposition Al Umma party said that women have the right to lead prayers. Current Muslim clerics forbid women from leading the prayers. Al Turabi said, if she has more knowledge, she has the right to lead the prayers. The criterion is the knowledge and not the gender.

He said that Prophet Muhammed permitted one of his followers who was a knowledgeable Muslim woman to lead the prayers at her home that included all men. He also cited the wife of the prophet, Aisha, as a model.

Al Turabi, PhD, said in this seminar entitled “The Role of Women in Establishing Good Governance” that women’s testimony at courts is equal to men. In Islam, one man’s testimony is equal to two women. Al Turabi denied this and said this is meant to go back to the dark ages and has nothing to do with Islam. He challenged anyone who could bring evidence that this is true.

He also refuted the idea of the Hijab, headscarves. He said that the Hijab is applied against the misinterpretation of some Quran verses and cannot be generalized on all the generations. He said that headscarves were made for the wives of prophet Muhammed not for all women.

Al Turabi called upon all women to invade politics, innovative, intellectual and sports domains and get all her rights and be an active participant in drawing strategies and stipulating legislations. He also attacked the Sudanese government and said the current regime does not enjoy any governance that is based on freedom, transparency and accountability and democratic participation.

Al Turabi said we living in Sudan in an age of corruption and there is a need for family and society reform and women’s inclusion. He emphasized the need for an election law that provides the participation of women so that they can play a role in political parties, elections and leadership positions.

Al Turabi also said that alcohol is not forbidden by Islam as agreed by most of Islamic clerics. He said that alcohol is only forbidden when drinking becomes an aggression. Practicing Muslims do not drink alchohol. Al Turabi’s article in Arabic.

On Memritv.org you can read the transcript and view the interview on Al-Arabiya TV: (more…)

0 comments.

C L O S E R – Al Turabi on ‘unquestionable issues in Islam’

Posted on April 24th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Gender, Kinship & Marriage Issues, Internal Debates, Public Islam, Religious and Political Radicalization.

On Freedom for Egyptians an interesting article about the quite spectacular statements of the Sudanese Muslim Leader Dr. Hassan Al Turabi, still ignored by mainstream press. Thanks to my ISIM colleague Robbert for alerting me already two weeks ago:

Freedom for Egyptians الحرية للمصريين
Sudanese Islamic Leader Dr. Hassan Al Turabi gave new statements and released some new fatwas (religious opinions/edicts) that blew up many of what is believed to be basics or unquestionable issues in Islam, many related to the usurped righted of women.

In Islam, Muslim women are not allowed but to marry a Muslim man or a man who has converted to Islam. On the other hand, Muslim men are allowed to marry any woman from any faith with no restrictions.

Dr. Al Turabi, a party leader, said that a Muslim woman is allowed to marry a Christian or a Jew and not necessarily a Muslim. He asserted that forbidding her from marrying a man from another faith is aimed at dragging women backward. He added that Islamic Shariaa (Islamic jurisdiction) does not provide any restrictions for women to marry any man from another faith. He said that it was forbidden during war when Muslims were fighting with other armies. He said that when the reason is gone, the restriction is lifted.

Dr. Al Turabi, 74, in a seminar at the headquarters of the opposition Al Umma party said that women have the right to lead prayers. Current Muslim clerics forbid women from leading the prayers. Al Turabi said, if she has more knowledge, she has the right to lead the prayers. The criterion is the knowledge and not the gender.

He said that Prophet Muhammed permitted one of his followers who was a knowledgeable Muslim woman to lead the prayers at her home that included all men. He also cited the wife of the prophet, Aisha, as a model.

Al Turabi, PhD, said in this seminar entitled “The Role of Women in Establishing Good Governance” that women’s testimony at courts is equal to men. In Islam, one man’s testimony is equal to two women. Al Turabi denied this and said this is meant to go back to the dark ages and has nothing to do with Islam. He challenged anyone who could bring evidence that this is true.

He also refuted the idea of the Hijab, headscarves. He said that the Hijab is applied against the misinterpretation of some Quran verses and cannot be generalized on all the generations. He said that headscarves were made for the wives of prophet Muhammed not for all women.

Al Turabi called upon all women to invade politics, innovative, intellectual and sports domains and get all her rights and be an active participant in drawing strategies and stipulating legislations. He also attacked the Sudanese government and said the current regime does not enjoy any governance that is based on freedom, transparency and accountability and democratic participation.

Al Turabi said we living in Sudan in an age of corruption and there is a need for family and society reform and women’s inclusion. He emphasized the need for an election law that provides the participation of women so that they can play a role in political parties, elections and leadership positions.

Al Turabi also said that alcohol is not forbidden by Islam as agreed by most of Islamic clerics. He said that alcohol is only forbidden when drinking becomes an aggression. Practicing Muslims do not drink alchohol. Al Turabi’s article in Arabic.

On Memritv.org you can read the transcript and view the interview on Al-Arabiya TV: (more…)

0 comments.

C L O S E R – I for Islam, M for Matrix and V for Vendetta

Posted on April 9th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Public Islam.

The movie ‘V for Vendetta’ seems to be a hit and has certainly received some attention at Muslim blogs and anti-islam, and ‘critical islam’ blogs. The Anti-Jihad Pundit sees it as ‘another pro-terrorism film‘

So the Totalitarian future State will repress free speech, homosexuals and Islam because it’s Christian. I am really no fan of the Wachowski brothers (I did not like Matrix very much and the 2nd and 3rd part were really rubbish), but now I have a very good reason not to see this Vendetta. I also am dissappointed to see that Natalie Portman plays a role in this film: I thought that as a Jewish herself, she was going to be more compromised against terrorism. Looks like she is not.

Frontpagemag.com has also picked up the issue “V” for Vicious Propaganda

It’s an exciting, quality Bin Laden film.But if you’re like the rest of mainstream America–you support our troops, believe in firmly responding to terrorists on our own shores, and/or respect Christianity–then, don’t waste your time at this piece of garbage masquerading as a superhero movie. It is anything but.

If most other Hollywood films subtly whisper of an agenda, “V” clocks you over the head with it with a still sizzling, iron frying pan of extreme leftism. It doesn’t arrive in theaters until March 17, but already the mainstream (ie. liberal) movie critics and entertainment media are raving about this egregious attack on our war on terror.

The probably most harsh critique and often cited and noticed on several blogs is written by Fjordman on Gates of Vienna: I’m a Terrorist Groupie, Hear Me Roar!

I have heard some people say that Western popular culture will destroy Islam. That is possible, but we need to remember that this is not a one-way street. What if the opposite happens? Sometimes the barbarians also influence the civilized people, and there is a disturbing amount of “understanding” for terrorists in Western movies and media these days. Creeps come crawling out of the woodwork, more or less cheering for the terrorists who are trying to bring society down. There are probably always people who are drawn to blood and mayhem. They would like to destroy the current political order, but aren’t capable of doing it themselves, so they end up as cheerleaders for those who are attempting to do so. Let’s call them “terrorist groupies.” I’m not just talking about the Oscar-nominated suicide bomber film Paradise Now. There are others examples of this mentality.

(more…)

1 comment.

Asharq Alawsat Newspaper The Cartoon Crisis: a Distorted Picture

Posted on February 28th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Public Islam.

Asharq Alawsat Newspaper The Cartoon Crisis: a Distorted Picture

Van Ardenne-van der Hoeven is the Netherlands’s Minster for Development Cooperation.

1. Freedom has many faces: the freedom to say what you think, but also to believe what you want. Freedom is worth discussing, worth defending – with the written word and with images. And that is what we have seen happening in recent days. However, the prevailing image of a confrontation between the West (as the standard bearer of freedom) and the Islamic world (as the champion of religion) is, in many respects, a distorted one. Due to globalisation we are seeing not a clash of civilisations, but rather a manifestation of the clash between the secular and non-secular worlds. If we look beyond the cartoon controversy for a moment, we can see that these days the secular tendency to ignore or even denigrate religion is leading to alienation instead of reconciliation.

2. In the first place, the West does not hold a monopoly on the concept of freedom. It was, after all, the birthplace of fascism and communism. Amidst all the verbal, visual and even physical violence of the present crisis, it pays to step back and listen to the wisdom of the past. In 1941, when the cause of freedom was under threat from all sides, Franklin Roosevelt used his State of the Union address to articulate humanity’s four basic freedoms: not only freedom of speech, but also freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. After World War II all countries of the world embraced these four freedoms. Under the inspiring leadership of Eleanor Roosevelt, who served as chair of the drafting committee, they were included in the Universal Declaration of the Rights of Man. Today these freedoms have, to a greater or lesser degree, spread all over the world, as witness the winners of this year’s Four Freedom Awards, which will be presented this spring in the Dutch town of Middelburg. The honourees come from all over the world and from all walks of life: Mohammed ElBaradei, the Egyptian head of the IAEA; Mohammed Yunus, a Bengali pioneer in the field of microcredit; Carlos Fuentes, a Mexican writer; Taizé, a French religious community, and Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the famous Burmese opposition leader.

3. The exercise of one’s freedoms is not an end in itself. Attempts to frame the debate as a matter of principle only are counterproductive, leading to greater conflict and robbing the discussion of its pragmatic dimension. This is a pity, since there are good pragmatic arguments for promoting open societies, certainly in my own field of development cooperation. In our global economy open societies are at an advantage: the free access to information in those countries leads to more innovation and greater productivity, reduces the risks associated with financial transactions, stimulates investment and improves the efficiency of businesses. Statistics show that poor democracies where freedom is generally respected score better than poor autocracies on a wide range of development indicators: 50% fewer children die before the age of five; twice as many children go on to secondary education; average life expectancy is ten years longer; and of the 49 poor countries that suffered through civil wars in the 1990s, 41 were run by despotic regimes of varying degrees of repressiveness. UNDP’s Arab Human Development Reports, produced by an independent group of Arab intellectuals, have successfully and objectively spotlighted the need for greater freedom and better governance in the Arab world: ‘If the repressive situation in Arab countries today continues, intensified societal conflict is likely to follow.’ This is why the Netherlands is supporting a project in Yemen for training independent journalists. This week I’ll be visiting that country, with which the Netherlands has had a successful bilateral development relationship since the 1970s. It is a relationship based on mutual respect. For that reason I will not hesitate to bring up the subject of the four freedoms and the decision to close down a number of newspapers in the wake of the cartoon controversy with the Yemenis I will meet on my trip (including students at the University of San’a).

4. We are duty-bound valiantly to defend freedom of speech from every assault, especially in the form of bricks through embassy windows and death threats to cartoonists. But setting aside the immediate issue of the cartoons, freedom of expression does not relieve us of the responsibility to immerse ourselves in the various cultures and religions of our globalising world.

5. The problem is that many people who are making the most commotion about freedom of expression are not prepared for this responsibility. All too often, the façade of tolerance masks indifference or even hostility towards other cultures and religions. It is not always said aloud, but religion is sometimes seen as a relic of backward times and places, and inherently dangerous besides. This attitude of fundamentalist secularists is not only regrettable, it is itself inherently dangerous. It is a plain fact that cultures and religions are the principal unifying factors of our time: if the 20th century was an age of ideology, the 21st will be an age of identity. If we do not use those identity-forming factors for peace and prosperity, others will misuse them for war and personal gain. On my many trips to Africa, I have had a chance to see for myself how important religion is in the daily lives of the people there and how more than half of the schools and hospitals are run by religious organisations. We have to remain respectful of this fact – not to win converts but to save lives. Last year a group of religious leaders set an inspiring example at a regional conference in San’a by establishing an international network to fight HIV/AIDS. ‘The virus should not be seen as a sin but as a problem we must join forces to fight,’ said one participant from Sudan.

6. As the British Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has observed, religion is like fire: it can burn people but also warm them. In his book The Dignity of Difference, he describes how representatives of all major world religions (including the Archbishop of Canterbury, an imam, a Hindu guru and a chief rabbi) came together at the spot where the World Trade Center was destroyed in 2002. At Ground Zero, for many a metaphor for the clash of civilisations, these people were able to find common ground, It was a rare moment of solidarity in opposition to the awesome human powers of destruction. If we want to keep globalisation from dividing us, we need to mobilise that solidarity. The question of who is ‘right’ in the cartoon debate should not distract us from this Herculean task.

0 comments.

Cartoonesque – BreakingNews.ie: Danish author ‘sad’ at violence over cartoons

Posted on February 17th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

BreakingNews.ie: Danish author ‘sad’ at violence over cartoons

Kaare Bluitgen thought his children’s book about the Prophet Mohammed would help bring ethnic Danes and immigrant Muslims closer together.

How wrong he was.

While the book itself was released two weeks ago without major controversy, it was Bluitgen’s problems finding an illustrator that triggered the conflict that has sent angry mobs rampaging against Denmark in Muslim countries.

“It’s horrible to see,” Mr Bluitgen said. “I tried to create understanding for a new religion and culture, and it all ends up with Scandinavian embassies being burned.”

The 46-year-old Copenhagen writer said he did not feel responsible for what had happened. But he looks back at the escalation of anti-Denmark sentiment in the Muslim world with alarm and disbelief.

“For four months I’ve been thinking that this just has to stop. But it has only gotten worse,” he said.

It all began when Danish media caught wind that Bluitgen had trouble finding an illustrator for his book, The Koran And The Life Of The Prophet Mohammed. The book was meant to give Danish children a better understanding of who the prophet was.

“I only used Islamic sources,” Bluitgen said.

Some illustrators did not have time. Others declined, saying they were afraid of reprisals from radical Muslims, since Islam is interpreted to forbid any illustrations of the prophet for fear they could lead to idolatry.

But Bluitgen insisted on having pictures of the prophet, saying it was part of European book-writing tradition to illustrate the main character. He finally found an illustrator for the job, on condition of anonymity.

A number of Danish media highlighted the issue. But it was Jyllands-Posten, a national newspaper based in western Denmark, that brought it to the world’s attention by inviting illustrators send in their own drawings of the prophet.

The rest is history.

“This has run completely out of control,” Bluitgen said.

As outrage over the Jyllands-Posten drawings mounted in the Muslim world, eventually spilling into the streets of cities including Beirut, Tehran and Damascus where Danish diplomatic missions were set afire, Bluitgen’s book hit the shelves in Denmark on January 24.

The reviews were not all good. Muslim critics said as a nonbeliever, Bluitgen was ill-suited to write a book about the Prophet.

Imam Abdul Wahid Pedersen, a Dane who converted to Islam 24 years ago, called the book “useless”, saying it unfairly described the prophet as “a really vicious, vile and unforgiving warlord”.

But he was not that concerned about the illustrations, which portray different stages of the prophet’s life, including his encounter with the archangel Gabriel, who Muslims believe transmitted the word of God to Mohammed.

“We don’t appreciate illustrations of prophets,” Pedersen said. “But there is a reason for doing it because he actually writes a story.”

Bluitgen said he had expected the book to draw more protests in light of the anger over the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

If anything, the conflict has been good for business. Originally printed in only 2,000 copies, Bluitgen said it’s been reprinted twice to meet demand.

“People have been curious, more curious than usual for a children’s book,” said Nanna Gyldenkjaerne of the Hoest & Soen publishing house that printed the book.

Bluitgen meets the success of the book with mixed feelings.

“It’s a sad way to make sales,” he said.

0 comments.

Cartoonesque – BreakingNews.ie: Danish author 'sad' at violence over cartoons

Posted on February 17th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

BreakingNews.ie: Danish author ‘sad’ at violence over cartoons

Kaare Bluitgen thought his children’s book about the Prophet Mohammed would help bring ethnic Danes and immigrant Muslims closer together.

How wrong he was.

While the book itself was released two weeks ago without major controversy, it was Bluitgen’s problems finding an illustrator that triggered the conflict that has sent angry mobs rampaging against Denmark in Muslim countries.

“It’s horrible to see,” Mr Bluitgen said. “I tried to create understanding for a new religion and culture, and it all ends up with Scandinavian embassies being burned.”

The 46-year-old Copenhagen writer said he did not feel responsible for what had happened. But he looks back at the escalation of anti-Denmark sentiment in the Muslim world with alarm and disbelief.

“For four months I’ve been thinking that this just has to stop. But it has only gotten worse,” he said.

It all began when Danish media caught wind that Bluitgen had trouble finding an illustrator for his book, The Koran And The Life Of The Prophet Mohammed. The book was meant to give Danish children a better understanding of who the prophet was.

“I only used Islamic sources,” Bluitgen said.

Some illustrators did not have time. Others declined, saying they were afraid of reprisals from radical Muslims, since Islam is interpreted to forbid any illustrations of the prophet for fear they could lead to idolatry.

But Bluitgen insisted on having pictures of the prophet, saying it was part of European book-writing tradition to illustrate the main character. He finally found an illustrator for the job, on condition of anonymity.

A number of Danish media highlighted the issue. But it was Jyllands-Posten, a national newspaper based in western Denmark, that brought it to the world’s attention by inviting illustrators send in their own drawings of the prophet.

The rest is history.

“This has run completely out of control,” Bluitgen said.

As outrage over the Jyllands-Posten drawings mounted in the Muslim world, eventually spilling into the streets of cities including Beirut, Tehran and Damascus where Danish diplomatic missions were set afire, Bluitgen’s book hit the shelves in Denmark on January 24.

The reviews were not all good. Muslim critics said as a nonbeliever, Bluitgen was ill-suited to write a book about the Prophet.

Imam Abdul Wahid Pedersen, a Dane who converted to Islam 24 years ago, called the book “useless”, saying it unfairly described the prophet as “a really vicious, vile and unforgiving warlord”.

But he was not that concerned about the illustrations, which portray different stages of the prophet’s life, including his encounter with the archangel Gabriel, who Muslims believe transmitted the word of God to Mohammed.

“We don’t appreciate illustrations of prophets,” Pedersen said. “But there is a reason for doing it because he actually writes a story.”

Bluitgen said he had expected the book to draw more protests in light of the anger over the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

If anything, the conflict has been good for business. Originally printed in only 2,000 copies, Bluitgen said it’s been reprinted twice to meet demand.

“People have been curious, more curious than usual for a children’s book,” said Nanna Gyldenkjaerne of the Hoest & Soen publishing house that printed the book.

Bluitgen meets the success of the book with mixed feelings.

“It’s a sad way to make sales,” he said.

0 comments.

Cartoonesque – MoorishGirl: Defend Freedom of Speech…Everywhere

Posted on February 16th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

MoorishGirl: Defend Freedom of Speech…Everywhere
Moorish Girl states: Defend Freedom of Speech…Everywhere

Her entry about the cartoon affair is a nice round up of several publishings in the Arab world, Morocco for example:

I have said it before, and I will, unfortunately, have to say it again: Leave the cartoonists alone! Okay, so maybe it’s not cartoonists this time, but it’s all the same. All together now: Leave the editors alone!

Jihad Al-Momani, the editor of the Jordanian daily Al-Shihane has been fired for reprinting one of the infamous Jyllands-Posten cartoons in the February 2nd issue of his newspaper, along with an editorial in which he asked: “What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?” Al-Momani was arrested on February 4th, while King Abdullah was on an official visit to the United States. He was released without bail, the following day. He is now awaiting trial.

Also in Jordan, editor Hashim Al-Khalida reprinted and denounced the cartoons in Al-Mihwar. He has now run into trouble. What’s interesting is that Al-Khalida reprinted the cartoons back in November, and only now has he been charged with “harming religious feelings.” Like Al-Momani, Al-Khalida is now awaiting trial.

Meanwhile, in Morocco, Annahar Al-Maghribiya reprinted the most offensive of the twelve cartoons, the one in which the Prophet is portrayed with a bomb in his turban, along with a caption attributing the drawing to Jyllands-Posten. The editor, Abdelhakim Badie, was asked to come to the police station to answer questions. He, too, expressed surprise, considering he had published two of the cartoons, without hitch, on October 20. It’s unclear yet whether Badie will be charged with a crime.

The latest arrests come from Algeria and Yemen. Kahel Bousaad of Errisala and Berkane Bouderbala of Iqraa are facing charges today in Algiers for reprinting the cartoons, even though the drawings were deliberately “fogged,” and were accompanied by articles denouncing them. Mohammad al-Asaadi, the editor of the English-language Yemen Observer, and Akram Sabra and Yehiya al-Abed of al-Hurriya weekly newspaper have all been arrested; a warrant has been issued against a fourth editor, Kamal al-Aalafi of al-Rai al-Aam.

Ironies abound, of course. President Bush, who was so keen on offering Denmark support over freedom of speech, didn’t bring up the case of Al-Momani or Al-Khalidi during King Abdullah’s visit. Freedom of speech, in this case, is secondary to Jordanian-American relations in the so-called war on terror. And France-Soir, La Stampa, Die Welt, and all those other European newspapers who were so keen on putting the cartoons on the front page in the name of freedom of speech might do well to offer front-page support to the Arab editors who face charges for the same decision. Similarly, let’s not forget that, despite the offense that Arab readers must surely have felt at seeing the cartoons in the local press, the fraction of them that ended up protesting on the street did so only at the behest of the Islamist parties, which were eager to pose themselves as the defenders of Islamic honor and identity against an imperial West. Finally, it’s also quite clear that the Moroccan and Jordanian governments had no problem with freedom of expression until the right-wing religious parties fell on the cartoons like flies on, um, a Danish.

She also lashes out at the ‘right-wing religious parties’:

Ironies abound, of course. President Bush, who was so keen on offering Denmark support over freedom of speech, didn’t bring up the case of Al-Momani or Al-Khalidi during King Abdullah’s visit. Freedom of speech, in this case, is secondary to Jordanian-American relations in the so-called war on terror. And France-Soir, La Stampa, Die Welt, and all those other European newspapers who were so keen on putting the cartoons on the front page in the name of freedom of speech might do well to offer front-page support to the Arab editors who face charges for the same decision. Similarly, let’s not forget that, despite the offense that Arab readers must surely have felt at seeing the cartoons in the local press, the fraction of them that ended up protesting on the street did so only at the behest of the Islamist parties, which were eager to pose themselves as the defenders of Islamic honor and identity against an imperial West. Finally, it’s also quite clear that the Moroccan and Jordanian governments had no problem with freedom of expression until the right-wing religious parties fell on the cartoons like flies on, um, a Danish.

0 comments.

C L O S E R – Cartoonesque Politics

Posted on February 12th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

One important thing of every affair of course is the battle for definitions. Different views of what is at stake here.

Arabist.net for example refers to an article of Olivier Roy in Le Monde:

The conflict over the Danish cartoons is often presented as the manifestation of a clash of civilizations between a liberal West and an Islam against freedom of expression. Believing in this thesis requires a lot of ignorance and even more hypocrisy. Freedom of expression in Western countries is already limited by two things: the law and social consensus. Anti-semitism is legally banned, but attacks on other communities too: in 2005, the French Catholic Church managed to have an ad featuring scantily clad women as the apostles withdrawn. This is exactly the same action that Muslim organizations are trying to carry out today. What newspapers published the banned ad back then in the name of freedom of expression?

And adds to that:

His basic point: religious conservatives are not only concerned about blasphemy, but a whole range of issues such as bioethics, gay marriage or abortion — human freedoms that they want to limit in the name of moral values. This is the biggest debate of our times. It does not oppose West and Islam, but exists inside the West itself. He says that the current storm draws strength in the West partly from hostility to Islam, which is really a hostility to immigration. In the Middle East, the violence that took place was largely organized by regimes that do not care about religion (he mentions Syria and the 1982 Hama massacre of thousands of Islamists.) But Arab governments want to use the large diasporas living in Europe in their diplomatic tactics. Here Europe is paying the price of greater diplomatic activism, a shift away from the non-interventionist “old Europe” that existed before the Iraq war to a Europe that is leading the charge against Iran and Syria. But this change in foreign policy is not publicly debated.

In the Netherlands yesterday there was demonstration in Amsterdam. A small one (100-200 people) that went well (although it was illegal) until afterwards a small group turned against the police and wanted to start rioting

The main Dutch Muslim organizations where against the demonstration, fearing that it would not be an effective manner to adress the issue.
Meanwhile the Danish muslims are divided over the cartoon affair.

Rabih Azad-Ahmad, chair of the Multicultural Association, said the row had become too confrontational.

“Now, we have to demonstrate that we are proud of being Danish and that we are supporting Danish values,” he said.

In an unexpected turn, the reaction to the attacks on Danish embassies could help promote integration in Denmark.

“I didn’t know there were so many Muslims in Denmark who are supporting Western values,” said Soren Espersen, an MP for the populist Danish People’s Party.

Politicians and the media have a tendency to see Muslims only as criminal, anti-social elements and as potential rapists
Open letter by Danish writers

His comments mark a turnaround for the party, which has grown to be the country’s third largest on a political platform of nationalism and xenophobia.

However, some of the strongest protests against the cartoons have come from imams who are part of the government’s integration think tank.

“We want the newspaper to promise that this will never happen again, or this will never stop,” said imam Ahmad Akkari of the Islamic Faith Society.

Ahmad Akkari says a similar incident must never happen again

For the Danish integration minister, Rikke Hvilshoj, that stance is a wake-up call.

“It is very clear that we cannot trust the imams any longer if we want integration to succeed in Denmark,” Mrs Hvilshoj says.

Another way to gain a little more indepth insight into the matter is to compare with other groups
Mohammad cartoon protests aren’t unique to Islam

The violence linked to cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad is not unique to Islam, experts say, and the protests reflect political and cultural passions more than the faith’s core values.

Looking for distinct features that would make Islam liable for the cartoon-related violence around the world does little to explain it, said the Rev. Patrick Gaffney, an anthropologist and expert on Islam at the University of Notre Dame.

“There are parallel behaviors in every tradition,” he said. “Buddhism has a violent strain despite its pacifism … You think about Hinduism and nonviolence but (Mohandas) Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu.”

Other examples of religious violence involving various faiths abound in recent and past history. But attention has focused on Muslims this year as at least 11 people have been killed in protests in the Middle East, Asia and Africa after the publication of cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammad in newspapers in Denmark and elsewhere.

“You can’t say Islam has a gene for violence,” Gaffney said. “It has to do with the dynamics, political and economic, that are at play right now,” especially in Europe where there has been a long history of anti-Islamic prejudice that represents “an underlying kind of powder keg.”

“It is often said in the media that Islam prohibits images of the Prophet,” Seesemann said. “This is not correct. Muslims themselves have portrayed the Prophet.

“The problem here is not the image but the way it has been published — as a terrorist with a turban shaped like a bomb. This is what Muslims direct their outrage against.”

Juan Cole, a professor of history at the University of Michigan, said in a commentary on his Web site that the current controversy “must be understood in historical context.”

“Most Muslim societies have spent the past two centuries either under European rule or heavy European influence and most colonial masters and their helpmates among the missionaries were not shy about letting local people know exactly how barbaric they thought the Muslim faith was,” he wrote.

3 comments.

C L O S E R – Cartoonesque the Netherlands

Posted on February 10th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

Prophet Muhammad at the Kaaba.

Ok even een Nederlands rondgangetje. We beginnen natuurlijk bij Ayaan Hirsi Ali die zich al eerder met deze zaak bemoeit had en dat gisteren nog eens dunnetjes overdeed.

the West pursued the principle of turning first one cheek, then the other. In fact, it’s already a tradition. In 1980, privately owned British broadcaster ITV aired a documentary about the stoning of a Saudi Arabian princess who had allegedly committed adultery. The government in Riyadh intervened and the British government issued an apology. We saw the same kowtowing response in 1987 when (Dutch comedian) Rudi Carrell derided (Iranian revolutionary leader) Ayatollah Khomeini in a comedy skit (that was aired on German television). In 2000, a play about the youngest wife of the Prophet Mohammed, titled “Aisha,” was cancelled before it ever opened in Rotterdam. Then there was the van Gogh murder and now the cartoons. We are constantly apologizing, and we don’t notice how much abuse we’re taking. Meanwhile, the other side doesn’t give an inch.

SPIEGEL: But Muslims, like any religious community, should also be able to protect themselves against slander and insult.

Hirsi Ali: That’s exactly the reflex I was just talking about: offering the other cheek. Not a day passes, in Europe and elsewhere, when radical imams aren’t preaching hatred in their mosques. They call Jews and Christians inferior, and we say they’re just exercising their freedom of speech. When will the Europeans realize that the Islamists don’t allow their critics the same right? After the West prostrates itself, they’ll be more than happy to say that Allah has made the infidels spineless.

Hirsi Ali: We could see the same thing happening that has happened in the Netherlands, where writers, journalists and artists have felt intimidated ever since the van Gogh murder. Everyone is afraid to criticize Islam. Significantly, “Submission” still isn’t being shown in theaters.

SPIEGEL: Many have criticized the film as being too radical and too offensive.

Hirsi Ali: The criticism of van Gogh was legitimate. But when someone has to die for his world view, what he may have done wrong is no longer the issue. That’s when we have to stand up for our basic rights. Otherwise we are just reinforcing the killer and conceding that there was a good reason to kill this person.

SPIEGEL: You’re working on a sequel to “Submission.” Will you stick to your uncompromising approach?

The Cartoon Jihad: Did European newspapers make the right decision by reprinting controversial Danish caricatures that disparagingly depicted the Prophet Muhammad?

Hirsi Ali: Yes, of course. We want to continue the debate over the Koran’s claim to absoluteness, the infallibility of the Prophet and sexual morality. In the first part, we portrayed a woman who speaks to her god, complaining that despite the fact that she has abided by his rules and subjugated herself, she is still being abused by her uncle. The second part deals with the dilemma into which the Muslim faith plunges four different men. One hates Jews, the second one is gay, the third is a bon vivant who wants to be a good Muslim but repeatedly succumbs to life’s temptations, and the fourth is a martyr. They all feel abandoned by their god and decide to stop worshipping him.

SPIEGEL: Is the Koran’s claim to absoluteness, which you criticize in “Submission,” the central obstacle to reforming Islam?

Hirsi Ali: The doctrine stating that the faith is inalterable because the Koran was dictated by God must be replaced. Muslims must realize that it was human beings who wrote the holy scriptures. After all, most Christians don’t believe in hell, in the angels or in the earth having been created in six days. They now see these things as symbolic stories, but they still remain true to their faith.

Haar toespraak met fragmenten:

I am of the opinion that it was correct to publish the cartoons of Muhammad in Jyllands Posten and it was right to re-publish them in other papers across Europe. Let me reprise the history of this affair. The author of a children’s book on the prophet Muhammad could find no illustrators for his book. He claimed that illustrators were censoring themselves for fear of violence by Muslims who claimed no-one, anywhere, should be allowed to depict the prophet. Jyllands Posten decided to investigate this. They — rightly – felt that such self-censorship has far-reaching consequences for democracy.

It was their duty as journalists to solicit and publish drawings of the prophet Muhammad. Shame on those papers and TV channels who lacked the courage to show their readers the caricatures in The Cartoon Affair. These intellectuals live off free speech but they accept censorship. They hide their mediocrity of mind behind noble-sounding terms such as ‘responsibility’ and ‘sensitivity’. Shame on those politicians who stated that publishing and re-publishing the drawings was ‘unnecessary’, ‘insensitive’, ‘disrespectful’ and ‘wrong’. I am of the opinion that Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark acted correctly when he refused to meet with representatives of tyrannical regimes who demanded from him that he limit the powers of the press. Today we should stand by him morally and materially. He is an example to all other European leaders. I wish my prime minister had Rasmussen’s guts.

Today, the open society is challenged by Islamism, ascribed to a man named Muhammad Abdullah who lived in the seventh century, and who is regarded as a prophet. Many Muslims are peaceful people; not all are fanatics. As far as I am concerned they have every right to be faithful to their convictions. But within Islam exists a hard-line Islamist movement that rejects democratic freedoms and wants to destroy them. These Islamists seek to convince other Muslims that their way of life is the best. But when opponents of Islamism try to expose the fallacies in the teachings of Muhammad then they are accused of being offensive, blasphemous, socially irresponsible – even Islamophobic or racist. The issue is not about race, colour or heritage. It is a conflict of ideas, which transcend borders and races.

I do not seek to offend religious sentiment, but I will not submit to tyranny. Demanding that people who do not accept Muhammad’s teachings should refrain from drawing him is not a request for respect but a demand for submission.

I am not the only dissident in Islam. There are more like me here in the West. If they have no bodyguards they work under false identities to protect themselves from harm. But there are also others who refuse to conform: in Teheran, in Doha and Riyadh, in Amman and Cairo, in Khartoum and in Mogadishu, in Lahore and in Kabul.

The dissidents of Islamism, like the dissidents of communism, don’t have nuclear bombs or any other weapons. We have no money from oil like the Saudis. We will not burn embassies and flags. We refuse to get carried away in a frenzy of collective violence. In number we are too small and too scattered to become a collective of anything. In electoral terms here in the west we are practically useless. All we have are our thoughts; and all we ask is a fair chance to express them. Our opponents will use force to silence us. They will use manipulation; they will claim they are mortally offended. They will claim we are mentally unstable and should not be taken seriously. The defenders of Communism, too, used these methods.

Zij sneerde onder andere naar Balkenende die uit een iets ander vaatje tapte:

Hij sprak donderdag in een nieuwjaarstoespraak tot het Landelijk Overleg Minderheden (LOM) „groot respect” uit voor „leiders van organisaties en vertegenwoordigers van religies”.

Balkenende: We laten ons hier niet gek maken

Zij „stellen zich verantwoordelijk op”, aldus Balkenende, om eraan toe te voegen: „We laten ons niet gek maken. We kiezen in Nederland samen de vreedzame weg. De weg van gesprek en van – zonodig- vreedzaam protest. En in laatste instantie de weg van de rechter. Zo hoort het”.

Balkenende zei ook, dat het kabinet meewerkt aan de oprichting van een Huis voor de Culturele Dialoog. „Kennis van culturele verschillen kan ons helpen onbegrip en misverstanden te overwinnen,” aldus de minister-president. Het Huis voor de Culturele Dialoog moet als ontmoetingsplaats voor verschillende culturen daaraan een bijdrage leveren.

Natuurlijk, want het gaat om de vrijheid van meningsuiting, een discussie op Frontaal Naakt:

Genocide in Darfur, kinderexecuties in Iran, bij moslims krijg je de pis daar niet lauw mee. Maar publiceer een paar cartoons en de pleuris breekt los. Niet alleen onder extremisten en fundamentalisten. O nee, ook menige gematigde moslim vindt dit hét moment om zijn schaapskleren af te werpen.

En zoals daar ook is opgevallen heeft ook Anja Meulenbelt zich in de strijd gemengd:

Ik wist wel wat er zou gebeuren als ik me in de cartoon-controverse zou mengen: heftige reacties. De eerste stroom daarvan heb ik opgenomen, daarna heb ik het gestopt. Omdat het voornamelijk herhalingen werden van steeds dezelfde zaken, maar ook omdat de toon steeds verder begon te escaleren. Daar hadden we de bekende geluiden weer: ‘een echte moslim is een gevaarlijke moslim!’ En de bekende aanvallen op mij: slinkse linkse fascist, vals loeder, megakreng, walgelijk secreet, apologist voor moslimgeweld! En nadat ik reacties had gestopt uiteraard het verwachte geschreeuw over censuur! Een senator die censuur toepast! Het lijkt wel of religieuze fanatici meer rechten hebben dan atheisten en seculieren!

Het interessante is dat diegenen die alleen maar de vrijheid van meningsuiting zien, het niet in tegenspraak vinden om me voor rotte vis uit te maken als ik diezelfde vrijheid van meningsuiting ook voor mezelf opeis.

En niet te vergeten de internationale socialisten die van deze rel gebruik maken om hun strijd tegen racisme en klasseongelijkheid naar voren te brengen:

De rellen tegen de cartoons in het Deense blad Jyllands-Posten worden door rechtse opiniemakers als Afshin Ellian en Leon de Winter (de Volkskrant, 7 februari 2006) neergezet als een nieuwe episode in de ‘oorlog tussen de beschavingen’, de oorlog tussen het westen en de islam. Politici als Geert Wilders werpen zich op als de voorvechters van de vrijheid van meningsuiting. Aan de andere kant staan de verdedigers van religieuze dogma’s. De pen versus het zwaard, secularisme versus fanatisme, de Verlichting versus het obscurantisme, dit is het beeld dat ons voorgeschoteld wordt.

Maar in dit conflict is niets wat het lijkt. Het draait noch om het vrije woord dat ten onder dreigt te gaan, noch om religieuze dogma’s. De vrijheid van meningsuiting is een groot recht dat verdedigd moet worden. Maar degenen die dit als een mantra blijven herhalen, zwijgen over de dubbele standaards die gehanteerd worden en ontkennen de context waarin sommigen alles kunnen zeggen terwijl anderen nauwelijks een stem hebben. En wie aan de andere kant de woede onder moslims toeschrijft aan hun religieus fanatisme sluit zijn ogen voor wat de oorlogspolitiek van Bush en zijn bondgenoten, waaronder Nederland en Denemarken, en de toenemende islamofobie in het westen hebben aangericht.

Islamofobie is de nieuwe vorm van racisme. Degenen die zeggen dat het hier om kritiek op religie gaat en niet om moslims maken een domme fout (in welke inhoudelijk discussie wordt de tegenstander steeds uitgescholden?). De meeste moslims komen uit het Midden Oosten en Noord-Afrika. De generaliserende uitspraken van rechtse politici en commentatoren over moslims vermengen zich met bestaande vooroordelen over ‘buitenlanders’ tot een racistische brei. Er is een simpele test. Vul op elke plek waar over moslims gesproken wordt het woord ‘joden’ in en je zult zien wat voor racistische uitspraken eruit komen rollen. Uit onderzoeken blijkt dat de meeste Nederlanders ondertussen ‘allochtoon’ gelijk stellen aan ‘moslim’. Ook het directe effect is duidelijk. Allochtonen, in Nederland met name Marokkanen, worden gediscrimineerd bij het vinden van een baan of stageplaats. Het is geen toeval dat na 11 september 2001 Europa overspoeld wordt door een golf van islamofobie. In de afgelopen jaren is geweld tegen moslims en het brandstichten in moskeeën en islamitische scholen enorm toegenomen. In de Koude Oorlog was het ‘communisme’ de gezamenlijke vijand, nu is dat de islam. Moslims zouden geneigd zijn tot terreur en fanatisme. Deze racistische onzin wordt gebruikt om oorlogen voor hegemonie en olie te rechtvaardigen.

Ondertussen profiteert extreem-rechts van de acceptatie van islamofobie. De racistische dynamiek die de cartoons en andere uitingen van islamofobie teweeg brengen blijkt ook uit de reacties van extreem-rechts en fascisten. In Denemarken organiseerden neo-nazi’s een demonstratie om de Koran te verbranden. In heel Europa hebben fascistische partijen hun racisme verpakt in de ‘kritiek’ op de islam door in hun campagnemateriaal het woord ‘buitenlanders’ te vervangen door ‘moslims’.

Dan is er de woede onder moslims. Die woede gaat over meer dan alleen de cartoons. De cartoons waren een vonk die een reserve aan opgekropte frustratie tot explosie brachten. Die frustraties zijn niet alleen het resultaat van decennia kolonialisme. De recente politiek van oorlog en bezetting heeft het meest hieraan bijgedragen. In de oorlog tegen Irak en Afghanistan stierven meer dan honderdduizend mensen. In Palestina lijdt de bevolking al meer dan een halve eeuw onder permanente bezetting van Israël die gesteund wordt door westerse landen. Dictators in de regio zoals Mubarak van Egypte en het Saoudische koningshuis, worden ook door westerse regeringen gesteund. De uitbuiting en onderdrukking die veel moslims ondergaan is heel reëel. Ze zien echter geen strategie om zich hiertegen te verzetten. Het bestrijden van het ‘culturele imperialisme’ door het verbranden van vlaggen en het gooien van stenen is dan het enige wat overblijft.

Wat de IS niet lijkt te beseffen is dat frustratie nog geen rel tot gevolg heeft. Daar is mobilisatie voor nodig. En dat weet de IS heel goed:

Er is weinig moed nodig om het vrije woord te gebruiken om de belangen van de machthebbers te dienen. Maar wie geeft een stem aan de stemlozen? Wie durft op te komen voor de mensen die onderdrukt en achtergesteld worden? Socialisten hebben altijd gestreden voor vrijheid van meningsuiting, om die vrijheid te gebruiken in de strijd tegen uitbuiting en onderdrukking en voor emancipatie. En laat er geen twijfel over bestaan, de meerderheid van de moslims wordt onderdrukt, zowel in het Midden Oosten als hier in het westen. Dat is waarom socialisten juist nu opkomen voor moslims om samen te vechten voor een betere wereld, zonder racisme en oorlog.

Natuurlijk is de IS niet de enige groep die gebruik maakt van deze rel. Ook radicaal rechts doet dat zoals bijvoorbeeld Geert Wilders die dan wel gelijk aan klacht bij het MDI aan zijn broek heeft.

Ook onders moslims wordt er druk over gediscussieerd. En laat u niks wijs maken, bijna iedereen veroordeeld het maken van cartoons omdat men inschat dat deze gemaakt zijn om te provoceren; verder is het verdeeldheid troef ook op internet.

Vergelijk bijvoorbeeld de discussies op Al-Thabaat.com, Wijblijvenhier.nl en Maghreb Magazine.

Die laatste bevat ook de oproep tot stil protest op de Dam en wel morgen. Een vreemde oproep mijns inziens:

Beste moslim broeders en zusters,

Bij deze roepen wij u allen op om op zaterdag 11 februari om 13.00 uur aanwezig te zijn op de Dam in Amsterdam bij een demonstratie tegen de belediging van onze profeet en onze godsdienst.

De bedoeling van de demonstratie zal zijn om te tonen dat de ook de moslims in Nederland zich beledigd en vernederd voelen door de plaatsing en herplaatsing van de Deense spotprenten door o.a. De Volkskrant.

Met de demonstratie willen wij een vredige boodschap overbrengen. Namelijk dat wij als moslims ons kunnen verenigen op een vredige manier om onze stem te laten horen.

Wij willen heel graag dat u met zijn allen aanwezig zult zijn. Tijdens de demonstratie is het de bedoeling dat wij zwijgend zullen protesteren.

Wij roepen u allen op om uw verantwoorselijkheid als moslim te nemen en aanwezig te zijn zodat wij massaal een boodschap kunnen overbrengen.

Mensen die van plan zijn om voor ongeregeldheden te zorgen vragen wij uitdrukkelijk om thuis te blijven. Breng ons aub niet wederop ten schande!!!

Ons geloof is een vredelievend geloof waarin respect centraal staat. Dus ook respect voor andere religies en andermans eigendom enz.

Moge Allah ons steunen in ons voornemen, Inshaallah.

De moslimgemeenschap in Nederland

Vreemd want wie ondertekent er nu met de moslimgemeenschap in Nederland. Wie mag dat dan wel zijn? Inzendingen via comments en email mag.

De grotere reguliere organisaties lijken er niet achter te zitten anders hadden ze hun naam er wel op gezet. Geen wonder dat er nu dus berichten als deze komen:

Ik heb afgelopen week een topic geopend nadat ik via een mailtje te horen heb grekegen dat er een demonstratie zou plaats vinden op zaterdag 11 februarie. Ik ben er nu dus achter dat dit een ‘illegale’ demonstratie is waar geen organisatie achter zit en tevens ook geen vergunning voor is. Wij verzoeken jullie dus thuis te blijven en niet te gaan demonstreren op de Dam. Het zal voor niets zijn en je zal toch worden verwijderd door de politie. Dit kan gaan leiden tot geweld en rellen..!!

DUS ER IS GÉÉN DEMONSTRATIE ZATERDAG 11 FEBRUARIE..!!

Ook de UMMAO staat er niet achter:

Aan het begin van deze week werd op diverse internetpagina’s een oproep gedaan om zaterdag te demonstreren op de Dam. Voor deze demonstratie is bij de gemeente geen aanvraag ingediend. De gemeente weet ook niet wie achter de oproep zit.

„Wij hopen dat iedereen bewust is dat het hier om een illegale demonstratie gaat. Wij staan daarom niet achter dit idee. Rekening houdend met de sfeer in Amsterdam lijkt ons dit niet de beste manier om de spotprenten aan te kaarten.” Volgens Ait Bilal zijn er talloze andere manieren om hier mee om te gaan „zoals de dialoog”.

Een dergelijke reactie levert (natuurlijk) weer een tegenreactie op:

PERSBERICHT

Amsterdam, 10 februari 2006.

Moslimorganisaties incompetent in het overbrengen van de gevoelens van de moslimgemeenschap in Nederland.
Wij zijn wederom zeer teleurgesteld in de organisaties die, ons moslims, in Nederland menen te vertegenwoordigen. Helaas hebben wij, de initiatiefnemers van de oproep tot een vreedzaam protest op de Dam, het werk voor deze organisaties moeten doen.

Met veel verbazing hebben wij ons heel lang geërgerd aan het feit dat geen van de moslimorganisaties zelf het initiatief heeft genomen om op te roepen tot een vreedzaam protest. Het enig initiatief dat zij wel toonden is het afraden van hun zogenaamde `achterban` om naar de demonstratie toe te komen.
Het is nu al zo ver gekomen in Nederland dat moslims er liever voor kiezen om zich te `verschuilen`dan om voor hun recht op te komen. Begrijpelijk vinden wij. Kijk maar naar alle reactie´s die onze oproep heeft opgeroepen. Dat is ook de reden waarom wij liever voor anonimiteit hebben gekozen.
In de eerste instantie wilden wij met onze oproep de moslimorganisaties wakker schudden. Dat is gelukt. Alleen hebben zij wederom niet hun verantwoordelijkheid genomen om zich achter het protest te scharen en hierbij ook het voortouw te nemen.
In de tweede instantie wilden we met de oproep ook bewijzen dat het opzetten van een dergelijk protest heel makkelijk te realiseren is zonder de hulp van die organisaties. De moslimorganisaties worden door de overheid en de media zo nauwlettend gevolgd dat ze geen enkele verantwoordelijkheid meer durven te nemen. Hierdoor voelen wij ons als moslims MONDDOOD! Wie gaat er nu nog voor ons opkomen? Waar zal onze stem gehoord worden? Waarom zouden we zwijgen?
We zijn verdrietig, we zijn boos, we zijn teleurgesteld en we zijn gekwetst. Wanneer houdt de hetze jegens ons dierbaar geloof nu eens op? Wat volgt er hierna? Wij weten het niet. Wat we wel weten is dat de moslimgemeenschap het meer dan zat is om constant beledigd en gekwetst te worden.
Voor alle duidelijkheid nog eens:
• De moslims hebben geen aanslagen gepleegd in Amerika, Spanje, Engeland en andere landen. Dat zijn individuen geweest die behalve het hebben van een moslimnaam niks met de islam te maken hebben,
• de moslims roepen niet op tot haat of geweld. Degenen die dat wel doen zijn individuen die niks met de islam te maken hebben,
• de moslims hebben Theo van Gogh niet vermoord. Dat heeft Mohammed B. gedaan,
• de moslims vragen u om u te verdiepen in de leer van de islam zoals de Koran en de Soennah alvorens over ons te oordelen of ons te veroordelen.

Met nadruk hebben wij in onze oproep de mensen gevraagd om het protest VREEDZAAM te laten verlopen. Dat is meteen ook de wens van de gehele moslimgemeenschap in Nederland. Wij hopen met hart en ziel dat de aanwezigen tijdens het protest zelf goed een oogje in het zeil houden om ongeregeldheden te voorkomen.
Het klopt dat wij geen vergunning hebben aangevraagd. Bij deze doen we het alsnog via deze weg. De enige reden waarom is omdat wij ervoor kiezen anoniem te blijven. Niet omdat we ons willen verschuilen. Niet omdat wij de verantwoordelijkheid hiervoor niet willen nemen. Maar gewoonweg omdat wij geen organisatie zijn. Wij is eigenlijk geen wij. Wij is ik. Ja, ik als enige zit achter de oproep. Daarom kies ik er ook voor om anoniem te blijven. Ik zou alle media commotie niet aan kunnen. Ik heb dit gedaan om de boodschap van mijn moslimbroeders en zusters over te brengen. Wie ben ik vraagt u zich misschien af? Ik ben een in Nederland geboren Marokkaanse moslim die hard zijn best doet om “Nederlands” nuchter te blijven onder alle commotie rondom moslims en Marokkanen in Nederland.

Met vriendelijke en vredige groeten,

(Ik denk dat ik wel mag tekenen met): De moslimgemeenschap in Nederland.

EINDE BERICHT

Is dit dus een eenmansactie? Niks mis mee hoor, maar ik heb toch zo mijn twijfels wat dat morgen moet worden. Mocht deze persoon dit lezen,mag hij/zij zich natuurlijk altijd bij melden.

Er is vandaag wel een demonstratie geweest in Maastricht van zo’n 150 jongeren.

Moslim-jongeren verbranden vlaggen in Maastricht

Een groep van meer dan honderd moslimjongeren heeft vanmiddag in Maastricht gedemonstreerd tegen de Deense spotprenten over de profeet Mohammed.

De politie heeft de groep weggeleid bij het station, waar het protest begon, en van daaruit naar het Plein 1992 geleid. De jongeren scanderen leuzen en verbrandden vlaggen. Er waren tientallen agenten op de been. De Deense spotprenten leiden op dit moment tot wereldwijde protesten van moslims. De demonstratie in Maastricht was de eerste Nederland. In de islam is het verboden de profeet Mohammed af te beelden.

Daar zou ik dan ook nog wel wat meer van willen weten. Wie zijn ze? Wie heeft het georganiseerd? Over het algemeen vind ik namelijk dat gezien de gevoelens van frustratie en woede die af en toe erg hoog oplaaien, de actiebereidheid onder moslims opmerkelijk en zorgwekkend laag is. Dat het gevoel van frustratie hoog is, was gisteren weer eens te zien bij Rondom Tien.

Daar is natuurlijk niet iedereen het mee eens, vandaar waarschijnlijk ook de oproep tot een andere demonstratie op 25 februari om de link met WOII maar weer eens te leggen (die had ik totnutoe gemist).

Oproep tot demonstratie.

Een ieder die pal wil staan vóór de vrijheid van meningsuiting gaat naar de Dam op zaterdag 25 februari om 13.00 uur. Op 25 februari vond eerder een demonstratie plaats. De staking. Deze vond plaats op 25 (en 26) februari 1941. Ik hoef niet uit te leggen waar dat om ging.

De Dam, de vrijheidsplaats bij uitstek, wordt 11 februari gebruikt om te protesteren tegen delen van de vrijheid van meningsuiting. Dat mag, ook dat kan in een samenleving waar deze vrijheid een groot goed is. Het is aan hen die deze vrijheid niet ingeperkt willen zien, dat duidelijk te tonen zaterdag 25 februari. Zonder krachtig tegengeluid is anders de eerste stap op weg naar het verlies van meer dan have en goed gezet…

Zegt het voort…

Tot zover even dus de update. Als ik iets gemist heb, hoor ik het graag. Kijk echter ook eerst even op het onvolprezen Hetkanwel.net: Blogosfeer democratiseert nieuws/ Babylonische spraakverwarring

0 comments.

C L O S E R – Cartoonesque Voices of Reason

Posted on February 9th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

“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.

1 comment.

C L O S E R – Cartoonesque Marking the Boundaries?

Posted on February 5th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

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

0 comments.

C L O S E R – Cartoonesque Backgrounds and Viewpoints

Posted on February 4th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

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.

1 comment.

C L O S E R – Cartoonesque Rage

Posted on February 4th, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

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.

0 comments.

C L O S E R – Cartoonesque Part 1001

Posted on February 2nd, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

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.

1 comment.

C L O S E R – Cartoonesque Today

Posted on February 1st, 2006 by martijn.
Categories: Misc. News, Public Islam.

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 bigotry, calling it “freedom of speech.” Perhaps you could try denying the holocaust and calling that a “freedom of speech”?
The increasing anti-Muslim prejudice in your country is repulsive. It is worth mentioning that the consequences of your insensitivity and passiveness may have skipped your notice: Muslims around the world are campaigning to boycott Danish products. Flyers and pamphlets listing Danish products are being actively distributed everywhere.
As a UAE national, whose country hosts 189 different nationalities living together in harmony, respecting each others’ faiths and cultures, I wish to extend an invitation to your government to learn civilized manners from my country.
The least your government could do now is to apologize to Muslims all around the world, and take disciplinary actions against the newspaper that caused this tension. An appropriate response from your government is demanded.

The authors name is left out here-MdK

That whole message is send troughout the whole world via email conflating several incidents with the prophet Muhammad with the incident of the Jylland Posten. An interesting phenomenon.

1 comment.

« Previous Page — Older » « Newer — Next Page »