Good article about the recent protests over Danish newspapers depiction of islamic prophet.

Your taboo, not mine


The full article is in the link above but I want to post the last two paragraphs.

And there is, of course, the other blasphemy. It occurred on Sept. 11, 2001, when fanatics murdered thousands of innocents in the name of Islam. Surely, nothing could be more blasphemous. So where were the Muslim boycotts of Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan after that horrifying event? Since 9/11 mosques have been bombed in Iraq by Islamic terrorists. Where was the rioting condemning attacks on the holiest of shrines? These double standards reveal something quite clear: this call for "sensitivity" is primarily a cover for intolerance of others and intimidation of free people.

Yes, there's no reason to offend people of any faith arbitrarily. We owe all faiths respect. But the Danish cartoons were not arbitrarily offensive. They were designed to reveal Islamic intolerance--and they have now done so, in abundance. The West's principles are clear enough. Tolerance? Yes. Faith? Absolutely. Freedom of speech? Nonnegotiable.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...399263,00.html

'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam'

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch politician forced to go into hiding after the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh, responds to the Danish cartoon scandal, arguing that if Europe doesn't stand up to extremists, a culture of self-censorship of criticism of Islam that pervades in Holland will spread in Europe. Auf Wiedersehen, free speech.

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
I was doing a google search on why images of Mohammed are banned and still have no real answer. This link shows up and has pictures from many different Muslim countries of Mohammed as well as the offending images from the newspapers.

-Rudey

One such voice, Jihad al-Momani, editor-in-chief of the Jordanian weekly Shihan, was arrested for republishing the cartoons (to show Arabs what they were protesting). In an accompanying editorial - which his staff subsequently repudiated - Momani wrote: "Who offends Islam more? A foreigner who draws the prophet... or a Muslim with an explosive belt who commits suicide in Amman or anywhere else?"

-Rudey

Maybe there's not a definitive answer, I'm not sure, but I think people are upset over these because they are more widespread. The art shown wasn't widespread at the time. Also, no one said what these artists did was okay. We don't know what happened to them because of the paintings/drawings. Maybe nothing happened to them at all, but it does state in hadith that it isn't to be done:

http://www.islamicity.com/hadith/act...textS=pictures

They'll have to answer as to why they created them on Judgement Day.

I'm still not understanding. The easiest answer is that pictures of any kind are forbidden of anyone, but that wouldn't make sense.

-Rudey

I'm searching in the same hadith website under Muhammad and pictures but cannot find anything regarding specifically pictures of Muhammad, just pictures in general. I was taught not to have pictures of anyone hanging in the house, not just specifically the Prophet Muhammad. So, this would be pictures/images of Jesus, Moses, LL Cool J, whoever. Animals are also prohibited. Flowers and plants are okay. Perhaps someone else can add to their personal experience or knowledge with this.

OK but I know for sure that there are many, many pictures in the middle east. I guess that's where my confusion is. I told you about the example of the Ayatollah. I mean that's not exactly a group of people that know nothing about Islam that has pictures of him. Is it just in someone's house?

-Rudey

No, the rule is that the painting isn't even supposed to be created. I agree that these people definitely know the rules and aren't abiding by them. A lot of what people do also depends on culture, where they are in the world (Middle East as opposed to America), etc. etc. Another example of this would be women covering. In some countries, women cover their faces, while in other countries, women aren't even covering their heads, though there are clear rules regarding this.

In other words, people are people first, so regardless of how many rules there are, somebody is bound to go against them, make it convenient for themselves, interpret them differently, etc.

OK but is there any Muslim country that bans pictures and cameras and any type of painting?

-Rudey

Probably not, since you can have pictures of inanimate objects. Photos are looked at a little differently as well. I just know that in the household I grew up in, we couldn't have pictures of people or animals hanging up, but we did take pictures.

OK well today protestors in Iran burned the Danish embassy.

In Iran, there are pictures available everywhere of the Ayatollah and he is revered to put it mildly. Heck they kissed his hands and feet.

I'm not understanding this at all. I understand that people can be hypocrites but I think it's more than that and maybe pictures are allowed. Heck in Iran, everything is done with a decree out of Q'om and even sex change operations are regulated by the Ayatollah. It says something if he and the clerics were ok with those images being used.

In other news, Muslim protestors attacked a US army base in Afghanistan in protest. Given that America had nothing to do with this and actually objected to the images, these people are absolute morons. This is a further testament that morons and religion should not mix because they create these fundamentalists. They should have beat everyone in the crowd until they stopped being stupid.

-Rudey

I agree, morons and religion shouldn't mix.

If you mean NO pictures or likenesses of anyone, period, then it would seem that Saddam offended millions with the enormous photos and pictures of his face plastered literally everywhere during his tenure.

Does that go back to your example of women who cover faces, heads, etc. versus some who don't cover at all?

The cartoons were unnecessary and offensive. The protests have exceeded both as a reaction.

You lost me.

Jihadists have repeatedly bombed areas with Westerners in Indonesia. They have attacked the Danish embassy and Denmark has advised its citizens to leave Indonesia.

"300 agitated muslim militants from the extremist "Islamic Defender's Front" have smashed lamps, and thrown around chairs in an orgy of vandalism, whilst screaming Allahu Akbar."

I'm not sure how many people see Indonesia as moderate.

Iran is now holding a competition for Holocaust cartoons. I blame Jimmy "I love the Ayatollah" Carter for that one. http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...ch&sa=N&tab=wi shows many images of the Ayatollah. Obviously pictures are not banned in Iran, especially not of religious figures.

Additionally, nobody has stormed Jordanian or Malaysian embassies and burnt them. This is clearly an indication of the pure vitriol and hate that is taught in the madrassas of that primitive region. It is not about the fact that there are cartoons of Mohammed when they burn buildings and threaten people.

-Rudey

"It is hypocritical for Muslims to protest cartoons caricaturing Muhammad when cartoons vilifying the symbols of Christianity and Judaism are found everywhere in the media of many Arab countries. After all, what's the difference? The difference is that those who draw and publish such cartoons in Arab countries believe in their content; they believe that Jews and Christians follow false religions and are proper objects of hatred and obloquy."--Stanley Fish, New York Times, Feb._12, 2006

"Since then the Danish media has not ceased to delve into Akari and Abu Laban's [the Muslim Danes that started the riots] past. Apparently, the Imam was deported from Egypt due to his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood. Other reports said Abu Laban sheltered Al-Qaida members in his house, including the organization's No. 2, when they were driven out of Egypt in the 1980s. "

-Rudey

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/in...gewanted=print

February 22, 2006
Furor Over Cartoons Pits Muslim Against Muslim

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN
and HASSAN M. FATTAH
AMMAN, Jordan, Feb. 21 — In a direct challenge to the international uproar over cartoons lampooning the Prophet Muhammad, the Jordanian journalist Jihad Momani wrote: "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 Yemen, an editorial by Muhammad al-Assadi condemned the cartoons but also lamented the way many Muslims reacted. "Muslims had an opportunity to educate the world about the merits of the Prophet Muhammad and the peacefulness of the religion he had come with," Mr. Assadi wrote. He added, "Muslims know how to lose, better than how to use, opportunities."

To illustrate their points, both editors published selections of the drawings — and for that they were arrested and threatened with prison.

Mr. Momani and Mr. Assadi are among 11 journalists in five countries facing prosecution for printing some of the cartoons. Their cases illustrate another side of this conflict, the intra-Muslim side, in what has typically been defined as a struggle between Islam and the West.

The flare-up over the cartoons, first published in a Danish newspaper, has magnified a fault line running through the Middle East, between those who want to engage their communities in a direct, introspective dialogue and those who focus on outside enemies.

But it has also underscored a political struggle involving emerging Islamic movements, like Hamas in Gaza and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and Arab governments unsure of how to contain them.

"This has become a game between two sides, the extremists and the government," said Tawakkul Karman, head of Women Journalists Without Constraints in Sana, Yemen. "They've made it so that if you stand up in this tidal wave, you have to face 1.5 billion Muslims."

While the cartoons have infuriated Muslims, the regional dynamics underlying the conflict have been evolving for decades, during which leaders have tried to stall the rise of Islamic political appeal by trying to establish themselves as guardians of the faith.

In Jordan, King Abdullah II, who has been trying to control the most extreme religious forces in the region, came out with such a powerful condemnation of Shihan, the newspaper Mr. Momani edited, that even some of his allies were taken aback.

The newspaper printed three cartoons without obscuring them, including one depicting the prophet in a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse. Many of the king's supporters said he felt the need to respond as firmly as he did partly because of the rise of Hamas, which won parliamentary elections in Gaza, and to strip the Islamists in Jordan of an issue to rally around.

"What Shihan did was a corruption on earth, which cannot be accepted or excused under any circumstances," the Royal Court said in a statement.

But now there seems to be a growing concern and in some circles a degree of regret for unleashing a wave of anger that has claimed lives. In Jordan, authorities moved quickly to release the journalists from detention. In Libya, where spontaneous protests are unheard of, allowing protests over the cartoons seemed a safe bet for the authorities — until protesters began criticizing the government. At least 11 people were killed in clashes with the police.

"Anyone who insults the prophet must face the sword," said one imam in a recent Friday sermon in Yemen. Another announced, "The government must execute them."

"I am telling my people, 'Be rational, think before you go into the streets,' " he said. "Who harms Islam more? This European guy who paints Muhammad or the real Muslim guy who cuts a hostage's head off and says, 'Allah-u akbar?' Who insults our religion, this guy or the European guy?"

-Rudey
--Please see link for full article

This is a great quote. Perhaps people are starting to wake up.

This is exactly the kind of work and action it's going to take to win against the fundamentalists. I think more money should be funneled into groups that promote this type of introspection.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/11/in...nt&oref=slogin

March 11, 2006
The Saturday Profile
For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats
By JOHN M. BRODER

LOS ANGELES, March 10 — Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims.

Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.

In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.

She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.

Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.

In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.

"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.

Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words: "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."

Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling."

She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."

She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."

Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We have been discussing with her the importance of her message and trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the organization.

She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported.

DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that — if it is published — it's going to turn the Islamic world upside down."

"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."

The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."

Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.

But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.

"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."

She and her husband, who now goes by the Americanized name of David, laid plans to leave for the United States. Their visas finally came in 1989, and the Sultans and their two children (they have since had a third) settled in with friends in Cerritos, Calif., a prosperous bedroom community on the edge of Los Angeles County.

After a succession of jobs and struggles with language, Dr. Sultan has completed her American medical licensing, with the exception of a hospital residency program, which she hopes to do within a year. David operates an automotive-smog-check station. They bought a home in the Los Angeles area and put their children through local public schools. All are now American citizens.

BUT even as she settled into a comfortable middle-class American life, Dr. Sultan's anger burned within. She took to writing, first for herself, then for an Islamic reform Web site called Annaqed (The Critic), run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix.

An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.

In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."

Her remarks set off debates around the globe and her name began appearing in Arabic newspapers and Web sites. But her fame grew exponentially when she appeared on Al Jazeera again on Feb. 21, an appearance that was translated and widely distributed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, known as Memri.

Memri said the clip of her February appearance had been viewed more than a million times.

"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."

She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.

The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.

Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.

One message said: "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." She received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said, "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."

Dr. Sultan said her mother, who still lives in Syria, is afraid to contact her directly, speaking only through a sister who lives in Qatar. She said she worried more about the safety of family members here and in Syria than she did for her own.

"I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and hardest 10 miles."

-Rudey

:eek: I'm almost afraid to respond to this.

Said all that I want to say. I'm Muslim and I only know a few words of Arabic.

But we can because there's some relations to other "fundamentalist" movements in the world. I don't think it'll be TOO difficult to read as long as people relate the movements to the topic of your discussion. Ignoring other radical movements is dishonest because you're only telling half the story.

Oh and while we're talking terrorism and bloodshed and linking it to relgion.

Do we really have to compare blood drawn in the name of Christianity to blood drawn in the name of Islam? Some of ya actually believe Muslims just go from Country to Country blowing shit up. Trust me, for every bloody incident (Islamic) you can bring up, I can name a more than a few atrocities linked to religion that isn't Islam.

So can I, but giving the worlds current political climate, islamic extremists are newsworthy. Christianity has had some very bloody moments in history, but most of it was the PAST, whereas Al-Quada is still to this day/minute/second planning to kill.

Time and scale. If I see Christian terror groups today get the backing of countries and going around blowing up skyscrapers, I'll consider them on equal footing.

ETA: All religions are illogical. It's why it's called faith. However, it seems that any time there is a differing voice in the masses for Islam, they're silenced by a Saudi funded machine. Christianity and Judaism have people all over hating on them from the inside with no real effort to silence them.

-Rudey

Backing of countries? KKK?

Al-Queda doesn't get the backing from countries actually. Back would be like the US backing rebels in South America and Haiti. Backing would be what the US did for Saddam in the early 80s.


No effort to silence the anit-Judaism and Christianity voices? Come on Rudey at least be honest on this one.


PiKA, whenever you're ready to compare the body count, please be my guest.

KKK is trying to spread Christianity? Not really.

Al Quaeda gets funding from Arab royalty and was hosted in countries like Afghanistan with government approval.

And I am being honest. Where are all the Muslim critics? They're all being silenced and worry about fatwas calling for their death. Heck I would be too. Plus as an American, you have much more freedom to be a Muslim critic than you would if you were living in Jordan. Just look at the story of the woman above. Catholic critics are all over the place (filing lawsuits against child molesting priests fore example and pushing for the Church to change its ways).

-Rudey

This is amazingly ironic, considering your current signature.

Also, are you inferring that the KKK is funded by the government? Can you provide a citation for this?

That's a good question.

Can't say it's funded by the government but I can say it has it's hands in the government.

Let me make sure I got this right, no middle eastern country has any ties to ever backing terrorism, and the US is funding the KKK?

The KKK is not spreading christianity.

It attacks Protestant Blacks.

-Rudey

Please re-read my comment.

I said it has it's hands in it. NOT BEING BACKED BY IT.

There's a difference.

Just like Hamas NOW has it hands in the Palestine government.

Who said anything about spreading? This part of the dialogue was about backing.

There IS a difference. The CRUSADES were about spreading.

The "Islamic fundamentalist" that you're talking about ARE NOT TRYING TO SPREAD ISLAM. They're not tyring to "convert" people.

They're trying to get rid of Western Influence.

It's funny how Hamas and the KKK are different.

Hamas is a religious organization (founded as a branch of the Muslim brotherhood) and separates itself from the other terror groups in the area by that religion factor. If the whites and black and whatever races are there in Israel converted to Islam tomorrow and Israel became a Muslim state, Hamas would be happy. Currently Hamas runs the Palestinian government.

The KKK attacks protestant blacks because they are black, not because they are of another religion. The KKK was founded as a social organization. Currently the KKK does not run the American government.

-Rudey

I'm not sure there is much wiggle room between the two, but either way "According to statements broadcast by al-Qaeda on the internet and on satellite TV channels, the ultimate goal of al-Qaeda is to re-establish the Caliphate across the Islamic world, by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow secular or Western-supported regimes. "

-Rudey

Dashboard Mohammed for sale by an ex-Marine:
http://www.dashboardmohammed.com/proofs.html

I don't understand what this has to do with the growth of Radical Islam. If anything, it deserves a thread on its own about how prejudicial or disrespectful individuals are towards Islam and the followers of Islam.

Oh well, what can you do, right?

Can you provide some evidence that the KKK has its hand in the US Government? Last time I checked we weren't living in the 1920's and early 1930's..........when the Klan actually did control several state governements and had a large effect on the DNC.

I have no problem with it. People are allowed to be disrespectful towards Christians, Jews, etc., so why not Islam?

If they want to have riots and trample each other to death, that sounds like their own problem. I really don't see why the west cares. They're only doing this because so far, we have responded by giving them what they wanted. The Pope apologized, the Danes apologized, everyone apologized. If we continue to reward this behavior, we can expect it to continue.

Kevin, if someone insulted your way of life, your religion, ethnicity, etc. you have the right to speak out against it. Hate speech or the like should no be tolerated, right? If you a Christian, and a group berated your religion, would you not say something about it? That's how I feel.

Second, who's they?

Third, last time I checked, I was part of the west and so are many other muslims. Are you saying we dont have a right to speak against those who attack our way of life? Geez, ,and I thought this was America.