Immigration Global Muslim anger at European depiction of Prophet Muhammad

[Mars Man]

Gentlemen, gentlemen,. . . If I may, for just a post (I do hope) suggest that we take a little time to do some deeper, and as well-balanced research on this matter as possible, and then come back to the table a bit later on; PLEASE !

I do know, and can well understand any emotions that may build when looking at what has been happening over the past 30 years or so in the Middle East and in many 'Muslim countries', and talking about it all up to the present. I think I can understand how both of you may feel, and think about the subject under discussion, and because of that, would like to ask, please, that we--including myself--take some time to collect some data, think about things from a number of angles, and then come back and present and discuss them on a thread that can deal with any 'possible' or 'seen' problematic future-scenerios, among other points.

I would hope, for now at least, that I could have your agreement to take a little time away from the present tension which seems to be bending in an unpredictable direction. I fully acknowledge that I have no authority whatsoever in asking such a favor, but just for my care for those involved, and my concern for making sure we get more secure data to present before going into hard argumentation. Thank you.

 

[bossel]

And you base this opinion on what exactly?

On obviously slightly less biased news sources than yours in Germany & the Netherlands.

Also known as blasphemy laws.

Since when?

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.

How do you know? Quite a crappy assumption.
If you need to know, there are numerous Muslims at the university where I study & quite a number where I work. Haven't yet heard any of them call for blasphemy laws.
&, as said before, my news sources do not only show one side of the Muslim world (the violent radicals, which you seem to favour), but also life & opinions of common Muslims as well as Muslim clerics. If you had access to (or were interested in) unbiased news sources, you would see that the Muslim world is not a monolithic fundamentalist bloc.

Bossel, what solution are you proposing exactly?

That people on all sides should refrain from stupid generalisations.

Do you want the government to step in and forbid the cartoon's publication?

Has been answered before.

You know very well that would be unconstitutional...

Depends on the constitution. Which do you mean?

Do you wish that newspapers would stop offending Muslims out of their good will?

Would be nice. But if they feel the urge to insult people, they should know that there are people who don't like to be insulted (& that there might be some fanatic idiots who get back at them in disproportional ways).

I think I can understand how both of you may feel, and think about the subject under discussion,[...]
I would hope, for now at least, that I could have your agreement to take a little time away from the present tension which seems to be bending in an unpredictable direction.

Don't worry, MarsMan. I'm not very emotional on the issue. Being an (agnostic, not fundamentalist) atheist myself, there are no religious feelings involved.

Independent & unbiased data on the issue would be nice to have, but is hard to get, as it seems.

 

[nurizeko]

A pakistani cleric offered a huge amount of $$$ and a car as a reward for anyone who killed the danish cartoonist (he obviously didnt know it was a collection of individual submissions) frankly, i will offer a reward for anyone who punches the next cleric/imam/preacher nut who opens his mouth to call for the death of someone over a cartoon.

 

[Void]

1

Gentlemen, gentlemen,. . . If I may, for just a post (I do hope) suggest that
we take a little time to do some deeper, and as well-balanced research on this atter as possible, and then come back to the table a bit later on; PLEASE !

Well, Mars Man, as Bossel said the unbiased and independent data on this issue seems hard to get. It is not impossible, but takes a lot of time to dig back into the history and look closer at current events. And even this doesn`t guarantee that people would gladly refrain from what they say, `cause it is often requires necessity to admit one`s own wrongs

Violence can`t be justified (no matter the reason), but roots must be found
every doctor would advise to treat the cause of desease.
As well as double standars which are widely used and accepted can`t be justified (i`m not talking about muslim countries, let them judge themselves)
---------------------
sorry for overquoting, but i had no time and will to keep in time with the
thread. I intentionally left the posters` names off, `cause i have no point
in personalizing them. You may consider it as small generalisation if you wish
----------------------

The French declared Universal Human Rights, which applied to people all over the world, whatever their ethnicity.

on paper i can write any utopia i`d like. It is said "every thought i confined with my words i must free with my deeds". I don`t think i have to tell when the last country in this world was decolonised or when people in Europe or US could enjoy all of their human rights. Even very-very recent history shows that this rights are tramped in the mud when it comes to the political or corporate interests. And it is known that human rights and civil rights do not correlate in some points. State interestes are often before individual rights

For many people civilization is defined by a nation's wealth (e.g. GDP per capita), technologies, cultural richness, human development (education, life expectancy, happiness, freedom, democarcy...), respect of human rights, and advancement of its public institutions (government, courts, public services...). If we take that as the basis of civilization, then by definition third world countries are generally less civilsed than developed countries and
democracies (often the same countries).

actually there are several approaches to the difinition of civilization (not
mention culture), we stuck to this, coz it perfectly fits current system of
political and economical relations of dominating countries

However, the countries that make up this "First World" have constantly changed throughout history. For instance, Japan was not "First World" until the 20th century. Eastern Europe may have been part of the "First World" until 1918, and may soon be part of it again, but not in between. Southern Italy, Spain, Portgual, Greece and Ireland were all second of third world until a few decades ago, but all can now be considered first world (if not always
economically, at least politically).

To be "first world" doesn`t include only economical well being, it also includes
political attitudes of other countries (when one is treated like equal or at
least almost equal) Neither of Southern Italy, Spain, Portgual, Greece or Ireland were considered alien.
Second, i tend to agree to "worldsystem" approach. And therefore - at currently given world political and economical systems all countries can`t be "the first world", someone has to move to the outskirts. I doubt that the Europe or US (or any other of prosperous states) would like to move to outskirts

Anyway, there is no much from the Muslim world to boycott, apart from oil,
which would only hurt Western economies. They know it, and that's why they can afford to act abusively and boycott Western products, as the trade
balance is largely in the favour of Western countries.

This trade balance describes well the core or current economical system,
it has to be unbalanced like this if one country wishes to be more prosperous
than the other (often at the expence of this "other")

 

[Void]

2

We are already in a clash of civilizations. That is what is meant that some people have a post-September 11 mentality and others a pre-September 11 mentality. The economies of the world are already heading in chaos mode. Looked at the prices at the gas pump lately? It is creeping up again. The good people of the countries where the cartoons were published did nothing wrong, yet they are the one being penalized with boycotts and other actions that have been mentioned.

I`d advise you to look at works of Vallerstein (sp?), he made a lot of good points We are in the ass since 1968 (i dare say politicaly even earlier - from the beginning of XX century).
And one queston about this "clash", it became very popular to mention it.
No one was talking (and doesn`t now) about clash of civilizations when, for example, when Spaniards demolished american culture, or when the world of native northern americans was wiped off, or when China was pushed to fall,
or when Britain ruled in India, or when after WWI Ottoman empire was rehashed, and WWII wasn`t a clash of civilizations.
But now when the dominating part of the world feels its own weakness it
starts to appeal to clash of civilizations... a bit too late, isn`t it?

Face it, folks. We are in a friggin' war. And we have Jimmy Carter to thank for it. If it wasn't for Carter greasing the skids for the fall of the Shah of Iran, we wouldn't be in this mess today. All this Islamic radicalism crap spread from Iran. We are dealing with barbarians and they should be treated as such.

sorry, pal, you can`t accuse only Iran for this, there are plenty of reasons
to add to this list Saudi (and there will be old Great Britain to blame %) - back
to the end of WWI and even WWII when the world was changed to fit the interests of national groups and their rights.... just wonder, what nations and what rights were on the top list :?)

It is one thing to be outraged, quite another to burn down an embassy.
There are many ways of expressing yourself that don't invlolve property
destruction or violence. Not only does the response seem disproportionate,
it actually seems to work counter to its purposes. Mike Cash, I believe you
may be right in your assessment-- perhaps it has become a culture of outrage.

well, what else left to do when you are heard only when you are outraged?

Few more points, when it was convinient Bin Laden and terrorists` groups
were hand-fed (although it was known from the very start that he didn`t want to see ANY unfaithful on Arab land).
After WWI those of brits and americans who showed protectorship to Saudi knew that they belonged to vahhabism (very traditional and fundamental teaching of Islam).
When it suited USSR they actively supported the creation of Israeli state, but when it became more advantageous to coop with arab countries they turned to them.
When it fits financial and political interests "west" gives a helping hand to
its middle east allies, whatever they are, (sorry can`t refrain from being sarcastic) but when the wolf goes loose "west" turns its butt and washes hands for just in case.
Just wonder, what nation likes to be a tool, and be fed with tales of better
life to come very soon, maybe, even tomorrow.
If every day you`ll be reminded that your religion is a crap (when one`s of a reminder is not much better and reminder doesn`t really act according to high moral standards). What would you do? Only honestly...
----------------------------------

On the other hand the Jordanian government did arrest the editors and charged them with defamation of Islam- which carries a prison term.

Not really surprising if you think about what countries surround Jordan and what natural resoursed those countries have. If you wish to keep your own country in one piece, you have to compromise, coz i really doubt that the "west" will rush to save Jordan in case its actions will bring neighboors wrath on its own head.
Want it or not state (not rare when they correlate with personal) interests
are always above any moral, human rights or nation rights in any country of any religion.

 

[Void]

3

...the intolerance on the muslim side is non ending...

and on the western side?
======================world scale================

You are correct that it is only a violent few who are causing the trouble.
They are giving the Muslim community around the world a bad name. The problem I have is that the 1.4 billion + change Muslims aren't comdemning the violence and the radicalism of the "few thousand." One can interpret their silence as tacit approval.

so? we silently (well, almost silently) approved bombing of Yugoslavia,
Afganistan, Iraq. And these are just recent ones. Do you enjoy looking at
the list of "western" military "achievemnets" during XX century?

Surely not the attitude of the whole nation, but if even just 1% of the population is stupid enough to burn embassies because of a cartoon, then we have a serious problem that needs taking care of. Of course, seeing the consequences of the boycott on Danish products, we can be sure the percentage of stupid people is way higher than 1%.

so, it is OK for western countries to lay embargo on the whole country and forbidden for other countries to reject some products for whatever the reason is (when only corporate interess are to suffer and small group of workers)?
======================local level=======================

and for the first time I really wish that Western powers invade a Middle Eastern country in retaliation. There is no way we are going to let Muslims attack Western citizens and burn Western embassies for a stupid cartoon !

But in the same way as most Muslims haven't condemned the burning of the
European embassies, I wouldn't condemn the burning of mosques or Muslim
embassies if they happened. If it was up to me, all religious buildings (from any religion) that didn't have a historical significance ("national heritage") would be torn down.

that would be very civilized and tolerant decision, i think

While this might be very desirable, religious buildings are still private property and can't be simply torn down like that

so, is this the only thing that prevents some "western" people from ruining churches?

i have always been highly tolerant of the actions of muslim groups and nations, though i havnt always agreed, but this time round ive been
finding myself strongly wishing for once the west showed these muslim
fundies that we arent going to be pushed around and threatened forever,
we need to show them that threatening the west and its way of life, while
expecting tolerance in return is not acceptable, and that if they want a
war with the west, we should show them that they will have made a
big mistake...understanding is getting few results, maybe an hard efficient
blow against a muslim nation preaching hatred of the west will finally knock
the rest in line to STFU and live and let live.
(...)
we should show them what its like to live in a world without powerful and
understanding (really?) friends, lets see how they enjoy having europe support US military actions against their sovreign regimes instead of
calling for a stayed hand and peaceful negotiation.

maybe, a carpet bombing will do? :? just make it at the midst of civil cities,
farther away from oilfields. Or should it be one nuke blow? :?

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.

looks like it is OK to forget about human rights and such at some occasions? %)

I can't find anything to respect in Muslims. Much to the contrary.
(...)
"Angry Muslims" are the minority? Ok, prove it.

Bossel already several times mentioned that Islam is not monolith. Would people kindly turn to at least Wiki and learn more about it?
I live in a country where second religion is Islam (all of its branches).
I have several muslim friends. And i have smth to learn from them. And from
this point of view i find generalizations like "All muslim..." or "Islam is..."
actually offensive and groundless...
And, btw, they (my friends and majority of RF muslims) don`t want the West to impose blasphemy laws

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.

Well, i already was told here that "west" is really superior and better.
So, if it is true, then it should act consequently, and not retaliate as a kid
in a sandbox "you broke mine shovel therefore i`ll break yours and punch you in a nose" (omitting the fact that the kid is older and has bigger brother nearby) There is a freedom of religion, Islam (some of its congregations) requires woman to wear veil. Should it be denied to them in western countries? Should mosques be destroyed, coz christian churches are not allowed in some middle east countries?

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.

isn`t it ridiculous to believe in human rights when they are constantly being
"abused" by the "west"
===============================
It all looks rather sad. Are we really better as would like to impose, or just
better nurtured, a little bit better educated, and live in much more better
and comfortable economical and social conditions. But if we will be put into
the boots what middle east population was wearing, where would our gloss go?
Antisemitism, racism, fascism and many other -isms are considered a "bad taste" why not to include islamophobia into this list, certainly it doesn`t look
good on a face of civilized world

 

[Mars Man]

Bossel, Void, thanks for your attention and comments to my plea; I'm grateful for your thoughts there.

Well, Mars Man, as Bossel said the unbiased and independent data on this issue seems hard to get. It is not impossible, but takes a lot of time to dig back into the history and look closer at current events.

It could be said, that that was my whole idea--to inject some time into the discussion--although, I do feel it would make it a healthier discussion.

Of course, I could be wrong. I myself, I'll admit, am quite 'Islam-dumb', and have been telling myself for some three years now to get going into that area as well. If we were discussing matters of Christianity, I have due confidence that I could discuss it well, with hard data to back up my arguments, as you may understand. Talking about Islam, I've too, a lot to learn.

I do feel that it would be better, more productive, and accomplish far more for us to take that time to do deeper research on it--the development of its holy writ, its dogma, its historical development, its culture, and so on, and then, even as we go, discuss just how that may or may not have led to the present 'attitude' that is arising more greatly in these past 30-40 years.

Well, at any rate, I, for one, will start off on that path simply because I do have resources that can provide me with resources to study on Islam. So, after some time, I may well open that thread. For now. . . I think you have gone to some length of trouble and effort, Void, to present a fair case from how the 'other eyes' may view things. I do agree with much you have said. I think that was a very good job !!!

(and I will admit to one great pain in my heart and soul regarding the general matter--I do feel that those governments, esp. US, that plied and wriggled for the upper hand during the Cold War, over used, abused, and cared little for the inhabitants of many Muslim lands, and we may be seeing the bitter fruits of that selfishness just surfacing in these past 30 years. [of course not only this])

 

[bossel]

Talking about Islam, I've too, a lot to learn.

A good starting point to do so, is probably Wikipedia with its links. A view from the inside can be found at Muttaqun online, though absolutely biased it gives you quite some information on some issues (& there is an online English Koran).

I do feel that it would be better, more productive, and accomplish far more for us to take that time to do deeper research on it--the development of its holy writ, its dogma, its historical development, its culture, and so on, and then, even as we go, discuss just how that may or may not have led to the present 'attitude' that is arising more greatly in these past 30-40 years.

Learning more about the historical development of Islam is a commendable notion, but there lies a problem in connecting it to the present attitude. Because there is not one attitude that led to the violent protests. You'd have to analyse every event on an individual basis. Eg. the riots in Syria are probably not the result of Islamic fundamentalism, but of political considerations (perhaps the Syrian secret service instrumentalised local fundamentalists, though).


BTW, I found links to the hoax cartoons, used by the Danish Muslim fundamentalists to instigate the current situation:
Dog screwing a praying Muslim
Mohammed as a paedophile
& as a pig (which actually is a bad photocopy or fax of a photo of some French clown, if I'm correctly informed)

 

[bossel]

Solutions

Sorry to have another go right away, but since Kumo specifically asked for solution proposals, here are some (taken from the Libertarian Enterprise):

Solution No. 1: Re-Release Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ

One of the best things to happen to Muslims over the last few years was the release of Gibson's seminal Christ movie, which, for a time, shifted focus away from the persecution of Muslims and onto the persecution of Jews. Clearly, a re-release of this film would go a long way towards easing current Danish-Muslim tensions. The only problem with this solution, however, is that Gibson already re-released The Passion once and, when he did, he took out half of the good (i.e., bloody) parts. At this rate, if he re-re-released it, it would probably only be five minutes long. However, if we tacked on an episode of NBC's The Book of Daniel, it would probably buy us another 45 minutes. That should be long enough to keep folks preoccupied while we come up with a better solution. So I say do it.

Solution No. 2: The Ann Coulter "Convert 'Em All" Solution

The problem here is that Muslims and non-Muslims can't see things through one another's eyes, right? So how about this: While the world is asleep, forcibly convert all the Muslims to non-Muslim and non-Muslims to Muslim. When they wake up, non-Muslims will stop printing anti-Muslim cartoons because they'll be former Muslims and won't want to make themselves angry anymore. And Muslims, meanwhile, will stop caring about those cartoons because they'll realize, as former non-Muslims, they're the ones who printed them. So getting angry would only be like a form of repression.

Solution No. 3: The Nuclear Option

Just wipe the entire eastern hemisphere off the planet. Why not? We have the weapons to do it. Isn't that what they're there for? Of course, on the surface, this solution sounds terrible. However, it would work for two reasons. One, because it would, indeed, end the Danish-Muslim conflict. In fact, it would end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it would solve the whole Iranian nuclear weapon crisis, to boot. Two, this option would work because it would leave us in a world comprised only of America, South America, and Canada. As an American, I am relatively sure we would dominate such a geopolitical landscape. Which would be great, because then we wouldn't feel threatened anymore, and airports would no longer make me take off my shoes.

Solution No. 4: The Rhythmic Method

By abstaining from sexual intercourse during the fertile period of a woman's menstrual cycle, unrest between Danes and Muslims can be safely avoided without the use of contraceptives.

And, finally, Solution No. 5: A Very Special Episode

In the 1980s, all of the world's major problems?\such as homelessness in America and teen drug use in America?\were solved by "very special episodes" of popular primetime sitcoms. I propose that such a solution be applied to the cartoon controversy. Here's how it will all go down: On a very special episode of Special Report w/Brit Hume, the Danish press and a mob of angry Muslims will accidentally become handcuffed together. This will make them angry at first, but then everything will be turned upside down when they get stuck on an elevator together, with a bomb on it. Bruce Willis will guest star as "Third Man on the Elevator," who knows how to defuse the bomb, but who's too high and too pregnant to do it. The Danes and the Muslims will then have to work together to deliver the baby and defuse the bomb, while ironing out their differences. Everyone will learn a valuable lesson on tolerance and drug abuse, and the phrase, "I don't like you. You don't like me. We don't have to like each other, but we do have to work together," will be used. Former First Lady Nancy Reagan will also appear.

 

[Mars Man]

A good starting point to do so, is probably Wikipedia with its links. A view from the inside can be found at Muttaqun online, though absolutely biased it gives you quite some information on some issues (& there is an online English Koran).

Thanks a lot for the information and another lead to follow up on!!

Learning more about the historical development of Islam is a commendable notion, but there lies a problem in connecting it to the present attitude. Because there is not one attitude that led to the violent protests. You'd have to analyse every event on an individual basis. Eg. the riots in Syria are probably not the result of Islamic fundamentalism, but of political considerations (perhaps the Syrian secret service instrumentalised local fundamentalists, though).

I agree with you for the most part on that. There have been some newspaper articles on that particular line also, as one in the Los Angeles Times, for example, which came with The Daily Yomiuri today.

I still have a hunch, however, that even beyond that immediate truth, there is something else that, when going back and looking in detail, may come to a point of intersection with developments in Islam history. Anyway, I'll take that up on my own for now. Thanks again !! (the sites are good information too.)

 

[chop347]

Pretty new here so will keep this short. Yes it was only a cartoon and the reaction seems over the top to most. But you have to remember these are people that pray 5 times a day, fast for a month. all for allah. These people are completely absorbed in there god and the Koran, It is very sacred to them. And now a days they look for any opening to show there anger against the western world. If not this cartoon they would find something else to protest about.

 

[Mars Man]

I think you would be in a postition to say something there, looking at your work experience--and those are some good points. AND please do forgive me, chop347 san, I have not been able to make the New Member's area these last 5 or 6 days, and missed giving you a big welcome !! WELCOME to the forum !!