Immigration Global Muslim anger at European depiction of Prophet Muhammad

[Maciamo]

For those who believed that it is only an non-representative minority of Muslims who were demonstrating against the cartoons, think again :

BBC News : Mass anti-cartoon rally in Beirut

Hundreds of thousands of Shia Muslims in Lebanon have turned a religious ceremony into a protest over cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.

The leader of the Hezbollah militant group told the crowd demonstrations must continue until Europe passed laws banning insults to Muhammad.

Thousands took part in marches in Cape Town, South Africa, and Bangladesh.

From what I heard on TV, it is 250,000 people who marched in the streets of Beirut, out of a population of 1.8 million, half of which is non Muslim. If we consider people working who couldn't join the demonstration, officials, old or unhealthy people, babies and their mother, etc., it was almost the entire Muslim population of the city who protested against the cartoons (showing their approval of the burning of the Danish embassy in that very city a few days before). If we consider than Lebanon is one of the least fundamentalist Muslim country, we can only deduce that anti-Western feelings are even stronger elsewhere.

BBC News : Islam-West divide 'grows deeper'

Malaysia's prime minister says a huge chasm has opened between the West and Islam, fuelled by Muslim frustrations over Western foreign policy.

Abdullah Badawi said many Westerners saw Muslims as congenital terrorists, but he added Muslims in turn must stop sweeping denunciations of the West.

Generalisations are obviously a problem on each side. The difference is that Europeans usually take "offending comments" with more philosophy and understanding than the reverse (this is not a generalisation but an observation, i.e. Europeans do not protest violently and burn down embassies at the slightest negative comment from Muslims). I guess that is because free speech makes people more "thick-skinned" or indifferent to all kinds of potentially offensive comments.

 

[nurizeko]

At least some reasonable decision from the Middle-East !
Times : Iranian paper launches Holocaust cartoon competition
This should show Muslims that (most) Westerners indeed do not care about sensitive topics being the object of jokes. I am looking forward to a similar contest about hilarious catoons of Jesus or anything related to Christianity.
Yesterday night I watched a French movie ("Les Rois Mages"), which was a satire of biblical Magi looking for the baby Jesus. The film was set in contemporary Paris, and the Magi supposedly travelled through time, wearing ancient clothes and speaking strangely, so that everyone they met in Paris thought they were lunatics escaped from a psychiatric hospital. They even made one of the Magi deal drugs. I am pretty sure that if they had made such a movie about Islam, Muslims around the world would have launched a full-scale jihad against Europe. Yet, there are many such movies mocking or satirising Christianity in the so-called "Christian nations". The Life of Brian by the Monty Python is well-known, but is still pretty mild compared to what I have seen on French TV. In fact, making fun of religion, be it Christianity, Judaism or Islam (the 3 favourite, it seems), is part and parcel of modern French humour (and to a lesser extent British, like the Monty Pythons).

I'm with you there, not only will it show our dedication to freedom of speech, but also not targetting property and people not involved with an independent newspaper, and not withdrawing diplomatic relations over it.
I wish we could get a photo of the iranian editor when he finds europeans arent like his barbaric violent countrymen.

The leader of the Hezbollah militant group told the crowd demonstrations must continue until Europe passed laws banning insults to Muhammad.

Hawhawhawhaw, let them continue their waste of energy in their own run-down country, europes not going to budge and the demonstrators will just get bored and go back to killing each other over something or another.

 

[bossel]

For those who believed that it is only an non-representative minority of Muslims who were demonstrating against the cartoons, think again :

If you addressed me here, I don't think a review is necessary. I only talked about a non-violent majority. Whether this majority tolerates or hates these caricatures is a different question. Most are probably indifferent.

From what I heard on TV, it is 250,000 people who marched in the streets of Beirut

You forgot to mention that they didn't demonstrate as such (nor were they all citizens of Beirut), but that it was a religious procession (Day of Ashurah) which was used by Hezbollah as a stage for showing its stance. You don't even know how many of those in the procession actually agree with the fundamentalist intolerance. I agree, that it is probably the vast majority, but your extrapolations are still questionable.

If we consider than Lebanon is one of the least fundamentalist Muslim country, we can only deduce that anti-Western feelings are even stronger elsewhere.

That is even a ridiculous assumption, far from an extrapolation. That was not an anti-Western demonstration, not even really anti-caricature. But even if most of the participants criticise the caricatures, that doesn't mean they are anti-Western. The caricatures do not represent the West. I am part of the West & I most probably would not have drawn such a crap.

BTW, what you should also take into consideration: those idiotic Muslims from Denmark who traveled Muslim countries in order to gather support, had caricatures in their possession which were drawn by Muslims & which were much more insulting than the original ones. One showed Mohammed as pig. I suppose these 3 caricatures stirred much more trouble than those of the newspaper.

What's also interesting: How do those Muslims who reacted so violently see the illustrator of those additional pics? They probably ignore the fact. That's much more worthy of criticism than some 250,000 people (who probably don't know about the fakes) with some critical banners.

 

[bossel]

There is an interesting Op-Ed piece in the NYT today. Some quotes:

"THERE seems to be some surprise that the Danish people and their government are standing behind the Jyllands-Posten newspaper and its decision to publish drawings of the Prophet Muhammad last fall. Aren't Danes supposed to be unusually tolerant and respectful of others?

Not entirely. Denmark's reputation as a nation with a long tradition of tolerance toward others ?\ one solidified by its rescue of Danish Jews from deportation to Nazi concentration camps in 1943 and by the high levels of humanitarian aid it provides today ?\ is something of a myth.

What foreigners have failed to recognize is that we Danes have grown increasingly xenophobic over the years. To my mind, the publication of the cartoons had little to do with generating a debate about self-censorship and freedom of expression. It can be seen only in the context of a climate of pervasive hostility toward anything Muslim in Denmark.
[...]
But before the release of the canon last month, Mr. Mikkelsen revealed what may have been the real purpose of the exercise: To create a last line of defense against the influence of Islam in Denmark. "In Denmark we have seen the appearance of a parallel society in which minorities practice their own medieval values and undemocratic views," he told fellow conservatives at a party conference last summer. "This is the new front in our cultural war."
[...]
This is not the only example of Denmark's new magical thinking. After the flag burnings, the Danish news media began to refer to the white cross on the flag's red background as a Christian symbol.

There was something discordant about this, for we've come to connect the flag less and less to religion. Denmark, after all, is one of the most secular countries in Europe. Only 3 percent of Danes attend church once a week.

Still, the news media were right. Up to a point. Legend has it that the flag fell from heaven during a battle between the Danes and the Estonians nearly 800 years ago. It was a sign from God, and it led the Danes to victory. Now that flag has become a symbol around the world of Denmark's contempt for another world religion.

Martin Burcharth is the United States correspondent for Information, a Danish newspaper."

 

[nurizeko]

Its no secret that danemark is feeling under seige by its muslim minority.

All of western europe is having to deal with the demanding muslim minorities, its not a case of contempt (though i dont deny some people are feeling threatened enough to feel contempt) its a case of people wondering if the minority of our muslim minorities will ever respect the laws of the society they are living in.

The flag of Scotland is the the flag of St Andrew?, and the english flag is the flag of St George, alot of old flags have religious connections, so does this mean that the modern country is basically still a medieval kingdom intent on warring on its neighbours and infadels and whatnot?.

Danemark is an old country, the british nations are old countries, thats why our flags had religious connections, we cant all be rife with revolution and rebellion and constant political chaos.

Anyway, no amount of suspicion from danes about their muslim minority justifies the attacking of property and people of other countries, and the laws of western society still dictate that the only blame for this lies on the newspaper, which means, that a dane not publishing the cartoons is innocent of any percieved offense, and if there is offense, you dont have the right to attack them over a cartoon, no matter what your crusty old bible/qoran says.

The problem im seeing is the world is continuing to progress but the major world religions are increasingly refusing to keep up.


Its going to get nasty, as far as i can tell, though im no fortune-teller.

Not now, maybe not this century, but theres going to be some kind of religiously inspired war between a religion and a secular society.

 

[Duo]

Not now, maybe not this century, but theres going to be some kind of religiously inspired war between a religion and a secular society.

That's exactly how i see it, not a battle between christianity and islam but more of Western secular society and a religious muslim one

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

Hawhawhawhaw, let them continue their waste of energy in their own run-down country, europes not going to budge and the demonstrators will just get bored and go back to killing each other over something or another.

I found this comment to be inappropriate and offensive.

 

[bossel]

Another op-ed from the NYT...

... this time written by a Pakistani.
"Agent Provocateur

"OF course this isn't about freedom of speech."

I've heard that line countless times in Karachi lately about the Danish cartoon controversy, including from journalists who fiercely guard their own right to work without censorship. There is nothing but condemnation here for European newspapers' publication of the cartoons.

But there are two separate threads to this condemnation. The first relates to the extreme religious offense caused by the cartoons, which has prompted an increasing number of protests, with a worrying trend towards violence. The small rallies a week ago were heartening in their peacefulness, but yesterday the protests claimed two deaths in Lahore and significant destruction. Though the numbers taking to the streets are still not vast by Pakistani standards they are growing.
[...]
"It's not the publication in Denmark I find most objectionable," said the other schoolteacher. "It's the re-publication in France after all the riots that happened there. This is their way of telling the Muslims: 'You are second-class citizens. We don't care about your sensitivities.' "

Later, over dinner, a member of my family said: "It's just racism. You act in ways that you know will provoke the extremists to start ranting and then you get bearded men frothing at the mouth, and ?\ because those are the only images that get significant news coverage ?\ you can then turn around and say, 'You see, all Muslims are fanatics.' "

"And that plays straight into the hand of the right wing in Europe whose greatest strength comes from racist polemic?" I finished. That really didn't seem a million miles away from suggestions of a conspiracy.

"Listen," said my father. "The most important thing here is not to confuse a group within an entity for the entity itself. Europeans, Muslims, European Muslims ?\ most people just want to live in peace. For us to start believing Europe is represented by its right-wing fanatics would be as wrong as for them to believe Islam is represented by our right-wing fanatics."

But until someone finds a way to turn "Muslims don't riot" and "Europeans don't conspire" into news stories, there doesn't seem any easy way to avoid precisely such confusion.

Kamila Shamsie is the author of "Broken Verses," a novel."

 

[kumo]

I've heard that line countless times in Karachi lately about the Danish cartoon controversy, including from journalists who fiercely guard their own right to work without censorship. There is nothing but condemnation here for European newspapers' publication of the cartoons.

So everyone in Karachi condemns the publication of the cartoons...Am I supposed to be surprised?

The first relates to the extreme religious offense caused by the cartoons

Ridiculous ideas are prone to being ridiculized. Ridiculous religions are prone to being ridiculized. If you don't want to be ridiculized, stop being ridiculous. If you want to be respected, be respectable. I can't find anything to respect in Muslims. Much to the contrary.

"It's not the publication in Denmark I find most objectionable," said the other schoolteacher. "It's the re-publication in France after all the riots that happened there. This is their way of telling the Muslims: 'You are second-class citizens. We don't care about your sensitivities.' "

No, that's just his interpretation. I am sure every religious group has been offended many times in France and in every other country; the solution is very simple: if you don't like it, don't read it. That they published it after the riots doesn't change the fact that the Muslims were to blame to begin with. Bossel, did you know the cartoons were published on an Egyptian Newspaper in October 2005? Why don't they boycott Egypt too? Is Egypt islamophobic because of that?

Later, over dinner, a member of my family said: "It's just racism. You act in ways that you know will provoke the extremists to start ranting and then you get bearded men frothing at the mouth, and ?\ because those are the only images that get significant news coverage ?\ you can then turn around and say, 'You see, all Muslims are fanatics.' "

Not all Muslims are fanatics, but the level of fanatism and its incidence in Islam is way higher than in any other religion; high enough for it to be a problem that needs taking care of, and this PC faction crap won't solve anything.

 

[tolerant]

an opinion

It is amusing that Muslims are up in arms over the Mohammad cartoons. On the other side of the coin, Al Jazeera reports, for instance:
"Up to 300 Indonesian Muslims went on a rampage in the lobby of a building housing the Danish embassy in Jakarta on Friday. Shouting 'Allahu Akbar' [God is Greatest], they smashed lamps with bamboo sticks, threw chairs, lobbed rotten eggs and tomatoes and tore up a Danish flag."
These same outraged folks, however, have yet to express a peep of protest over cartoons that routinely appear in the Arab press, which poke fun at the 9/11 attacks and the Holocaust.
Mideast media watchdog Tom Gross has collected on his web site a few of the cartoons that keep some of these sensitive souls in stitches.
One knee-slapper that ran Qatar's Al-Watan newspaper nine months after the 9/11 attacks shows former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon watching as an Israeli plane crashes into the World Trade Center. The Arabic words alongside the Twin Towers are "The Peace."
Then there's the cartoon that appeared in the Jordanian newspaper Ad-Dustur in October 2003, which depicted the railroad tracks to Auschwitz-Birkenau.
The punchline? Israeli flags have replaced the swastikas flying above the death camp - with a caption that reads: "Gaza Strip or the Israeli Annihilation Camp.?E
And for those who can't appreciate the humor in that tableau, there's always the cartoon that ran in Saudi Arabia's Arab News in April 2002, which shows Prime Minister Sharon wielding a swastika-shaped axe to chop up Palestinian children.
As Mr. Gross notes: Most print media in the Arab world are under the full or partial control of the ruling regimes.
It seems they can dish it out, but can't take it!

You may agree with me friend that mocking and making sarcasm to ordinary people even if they are in the posts of prime -minister or a minister does not offend to the extent that you want to convey. However, mocking the most supreme and sacred symbol in one's religion is by all means offensive and denotes that the persons who did it does not have the least respect for his own culture and religion and thus he dared to offend others in their basic beliefs.

 

[tolerant]

look at this

So everyone in Karachi condemns the publication of the cartoons...Am I supposed to be surprised?
Ridiculous ideas are prone to being ridiculized. Ridiculous religions are prone to being ridiculized. If you don't want to be ridiculized, stop being ridiculous. If you want to be respected, be respectable. I can't find anything to respect in Muslims. Much to the contrary.


No, that's just his interpretation. I am sure every religious group has been offended many times in France and in every other country; the solution is very simple: if you don't like it, don't read it. That they published it after the riots doesn't change the fact that the Muslims were to blame to begin with. Bossel, did you know the cartoons were published on an Egyptian Newspaper in October 2005? Why don't they boycott Egypt too? Is Egypt islamophobic because of that?
Not all Muslims are fanatics, but the level of fanatism and its incidence in Islam is way higher than in any other religion; high enough for it to be a problem that needs taking care of, and this PC faction crap won't solve anything.

So what is so ridiculous about muslims? , can you clarify or just you have an excessive sense of humor to the extent that you see all around you ridiculous. Can you explain a little bit? what makes you think like this of the muslims?

Yes not all muslims are fanatics because Islam does appeal to peace and tolerance.

 

[tolerant]

view

This shows the difference of respect (non-Muslim) Europeans have toward Muslims, and (fundamentalist) Muslims have toward non-Muslims. The one who claim that Europeans have crossed the line of what is acceptable with the cartoons of Mohammed, are also the ones who think that making fun of the death of millions of people is acceptable. Does that underlie hypocrisy ?
This Iranian newspaper clearly thought that Europeans liked Jews, or even that Jews, Christians, Atheists, or whatever were basically the same as they were not Muslim. In other words, their world view is reduced to the simplistic "us" (Muslims) vs "them" (non-Muslim). In the same way as I criticised the Japanese for not distinguishing between non-Japanese, many Muslims (outside Western countries, at least) cannot make the difference between the various faiths of the world. The spokesman of an Islamic organisation that I heard on CNN call European states "Christian states" clearly shows this ignorance on the Muslim side. Europe is not Christian, it is multi-faiths (and Islam is the 2nd religion in terms of population in many countries).
Nevertheless, I am glad that an Muslim paper took to decision to publish its own caricatural cartoons, so that they can finally see that the reaction in Europe (or even Israel) was nothing like their reaction to the cartoons of Mohammed. In fact, there wasn't a single demonstration (AFAIK).

Do you think that Israel will stand watching and share laughing at the cartoons if they are published? I do not think so.

 

[tolerant]

Actually no. If we are too tolerant we will always end up being at the receiving end of such violence and retaliations. Western Europe has been way way too lenient with muslim outbursts of violence. Let's not forget that Van Ghogh was murdered in his own country by a radical muslim because of his documentary on the mistreatment of muslim women. Our tolerant attitude has allowed for muslim immigrants to do as they please in Western Europe with no regard for the host society. Why do they have this beleif that they should always be respected and they are free to walk on Western society? I am for full retaliation on this. Denmark and Norway did nothing wrong. It is freedom of speech, if middle-eastern muslims are not ok with this and they assault our right to live with gov. backing btw, then the EU and Europe should take severe measures against Syria seeing as the lives of their citizens were put to stake. How about on some embargoes to Syria for Western goods. Also not allowing any syrian citizen into the EU for the period of a year. Of course these are radical examples but sometimes something like this is needed to give sign that Europeans and Europe can't just be walked upon. If we want to draw mohamed as a turban terrorist so bloody be it... it is in our right... we don't need to asnwer to no one. Did everyone forget the sexually explicit depction of Chirac, Queen Elizabeth and of Dubbya in together in those EU posters in Austria? I saw no burning of Austrian Embassies anywhere. I'm getting sick and tirede of these kind of responses from aggressive arab and middle eastern muslim against Europeans. I see these actions as more straws being added to the Camel's back as the saying goes. Our tolerance has a limit, which is being seriously tested in these latter years...

Once again you and others mix between making sarcasm to ordinary people and that to holy figures like the prophets. it seems that values and ethics in your point of view have no starts or ends. I can not see any clear vision of this is correct or not. It is just a big confusion dreesed in fanaticism and blind arrogance that you are European.

 

[bossel]

That they published it after the riots doesn't change the fact that the Muslims were to blame to begin with.

The Muslims?

Bossel, did you know the cartoons were published on an Egyptian Newspaper in October 2005?

Didn't know about Egypt, but as I mentioned earlier, they were published in Jordan, too. So what? This only shows that it is not the Muslims who cry out in anger but a small fanaticised/politicised minority with certain aims.

Why don't they boycott Egypt too?

How would I know? Maybe they (whoever you mean) do. BTW, where in this article did it say something about a boycott?

Is Egypt islamophobic because of that?

Maybe? Why you ask me?

this PC faction crap won't solve anything.

Strange, exactly that part which you commented with "PC faction crap" is the least PC & closest to the truth about many Western media (except for the racism part). These pictures of a few hundred or thousand rampaging idiots get by far the most coverage. &, as can be seen by the generalisation trend that some people here seem to follow, it works just in the way as described in the quote.

 

[kumo]

Didn't know about Egypt, but as I mentioned earlier, they were published in Jordan, too. So what? This only shows that it is not the Muslims who cry out in anger but a small fanaticised/politicised minority with certain aims.

"Angry Muslims" are the minority? Ok, prove it.
If you show me an opinion poll taken on a Muslim country where people who wants blasphemy laws imposed on Europe are on the minority, then I might agree with you. Until then your opinion is as much of a generalization as mine.

 

[Duo]

Once again you and others mix between making sarcasm to ordinary people and that to holy figures like the prophets. it seems that values and ethics in your point of view have no starts or ends. I can not see any clear vision of this is correct or not. It is just a big confusion dreesed in fanaticism and blind arrogance that you are European.

I don't see why muslims deserve such deep respect from westeners when they don't reciprocate. Let's face it, muslims enjoy all rights available here, freedom of speech, movement, religion and are safe. It is not the same for christians in the middle east. Many arab states perscute still christians. Saudi Arabia being one of them. Blind arrogance? Do you think it's fair that there are mosques in the middle of Rome but there is no church in Saudi Arabia. What's so special about muslims that they should be allowed priveleges. Why should western europeans allow muslim immigrants from the middle east such freedoms when the countries of these individuals don't reciprocate. I don't think there is arrogance from Europeans. Western Europeans have shown to be very accepting, it is muslim immigrants who can't do the same. Why should Europeans allow muslims to adopt their local customs here in Europe, ie such as wearing the veil, and western european women forced to wear veils in arab countries. Why can't our customs be respected in Arab countries ? Our women don't wear veils so why should we be forced to and muslim women not forced to remove it? Who's really arrogant? Why do muslims think that europeans should walk on eggshells around them? Aren't we supposed to be preaching to the same god? Even early muslims recognized that they should respect christians because they prayed to the same god, yet i see no such attitude today. After 9/11 I saw no big muslim outcry against the act, some even went in the streets and celebrated. Whereas when the US was about to invade Iraq most european countries had huge protests. Anyways to stay on topic, I don't think two small caricutares are ground to burn embassies and threaten the lives of people, but if muslims think so then there is a def incompatability with Europe.

 

[bossel]

"Angry Muslims" are the minority? Ok, prove it.
If you show me an opinion poll taken on a Muslim country where people who wants blasphemy laws imposed on Europe are on the minority, then I might agree with you. Until then your opinion is as much of a generalization as mine.

"Crying out in anger" is different from simply "being angry". I understand crying out in anger as taking part in these violent demonstrations, as should be obvious from the context. As you probably have seen (or maybe not, as your earlier generalisations show) the violent demonstrations were rather small, from 200 people in Tehran to several thousand elsewhere.

 

[kumo]

"Crying out in anger" is different from simply "being angry". I understand crying out in anger as taking part in these violent demonstrations, as should be obvious from the context. As you probably have seen (or maybe not, as your earlier generalisations show) the violent demonstrations were rather small, from 200 people in Tehran to several thousand elsewhere.

So, do you agree that the majority of Muslims wants blasphemy laws especifically for Islam (thus obviously violating freedom of speech) or not?
I know very well that violent demonstrators are a minority. That's not my concern at all. What I'm concerned about is Muslims trying to push their medieval values into our laws and society; this, IMO, is the worst thing that could happen to "the west". Do you agree that the majority of Muslims wishes that or not?

 

[bossel]

So, do you agree that the majority of Muslims wants blasphemy laws especifically for Islam (thus obviously violating freedom of speech) or not?

I doubt that the majority wants blasphemy laws imposed in the West. What they probably want is that their feelings won't get hurt on purpose.*
But since you seem so sure that the majority wants the West to impose blasphemy laws, you can probably provide some opinion polls to substantiate your position.

* As it seems, the Danish newspaper that published the originals cartoons is not that keen on freedom of speech when it comes to cartoon Christian topics:

"The paper that published the Muhammad cartoon, it turns out, had earlier rejected cartoons of Christ because, as the Sunday editor explained in an e-mail to the cartoonist who submitted them, they would provoke an outcry."


&, before you ask, I still don't have much of a problem with publishing religious cartoons. What I find rather crappy, though, is the obvious anti-Muslim intent that is shown in publishing these particular cartoons. These oh-so-innocent defenders of press freedom from the Jyllands-Posten seem to be as guilty of religious bias as their attackers are.

 

[kumo]

I doubt that the majority wants blasphemy laws imposed in the West.

And you base this opinion on what exactly?

What they probably want is that their feelings won't get hurt on purpose.

Also known as blasphemy laws.

But since you seem so sure that the majority wants the West to impose blasphemy laws, you can probably provide some opinion polls to substantiate your position.

Maybe our Egyptian friend Tolerant can find something for us. I can't read arabic, and I couldn't find anything in english. I base my opinion on the simple fact that I'm yet to see any Muslim who doesn't want blasphemy laws imposed in the West, and I've talked to many. Not very scientific I admit, but it still seems to be more substantiated on reality than your opinion.

&, before you ask, I still don't have much of a problem with publishing religious cartoons. What I find rather crappy, though, is the obvious anti-Muslim intent that is shown in publishing these particular cartoons. These oh-so-innocent defenders of press freedom from the Jyllands-Posten seem to be as guilty of religious bias as their attackers are.

As far as I know a cartoon is still just some ink on a paper, the problem is only in the eyes of the beholder. The solution is very simple : if you don't like it, don't read it.

Bossel, what solution are you proposing exactly? Do you want the government to step in and forbid the cartoon's publication? You know very well that would be unconstitutional... Do you wish that newspapers would stop offending Muslims out of their good will? If so, I must say you are being very unrealistic. So, what are you proposing exactly?