Muhammed drawings and free speech

[Tormod]

Considering that France has the largest Muslim population in Europe, I wonder why we haven't seen any news that they are behaving like protesters elsewhere.

 

It's starting. There was a clash between Muslim demonstrators and police in Copenhagen yesterday, and there have been small demonstrations in Oslo. However, it's nothing compared to what we're seeing in Muslim countries yet.

 

We are seeing reports from other European countries. I fear bad things will happen during the next week if the situation doesn't calm down soon.

[Tormod]

There seems to be a failure to recognize the difference between freedom and license. Freedom is the right to do anything that is within acceptable limits; license is the use of power to act outside of the acceptable limits.

 

In principle yes. But I do not hold the publishers of the cartoons responsible for the terrorist attacks performed by the angry mobs who are pillaging and torching down European embassies in Damaskus.

 

There are two sides to this issue.

 

1) The papers have all had the right to publish the cartoons. The judiciary system of each of these countries open for the possibility to take legal action against the editors and owners of the papers in question. This would be an excellent starting point.

 

2) The Muslim fury we are seeing is defacing Islam. The angry mob is behaving in a way that has taken this issue *far* beyond free speech. What was a free speech issue has turned into cries for holy war against nations which mostly have nothing to do with the printing of the cartoons.

 

For example: In Norway, the cartoons were printed by a right-wing paper with a circulation of 5,000 readers (at best).

 

This prompts religious leaders of Islam to threaten the country of Norway, and all of it's citizens, with acts of terror. They also have no qualms talking about Westerners in general as "respectless", an over-generalization at best.

 

It is the story of the feather that turns into five hens. It's a lot of fire from a wee bit of smoke.

[C1ay]

There seems to be a failure to recognize the difference between freedom and license. Freedom is the right to do anything that is within acceptable limits; license is the use of power to act outside of the acceptable limits.

And who is to decide what these acceptable limits are? I think it is unacceptable that any group should think that they can dictate to other nations what is acceptable or unacceptable speech by their media. The democracy of any nation should not mean that foreigners are entitled to any input on national policies. As an American, I personally reserve the right to offend anyone I please. I usually choose not too but I still reserve the right.

[TINNY]

As a Muslim myself, I also a little bit surprised that this issue had been blown out of proportions. I think there was already a big momentum building up to this from misrepresentation of Islam in major mass media about the war on terrorism. So somehow or another, certain groups were waiting for an issue to surface for them to voice out their dissatisfaction. Too bad you innocent Norwegians also suffer the consequences.

 

Other than the anger, there was also more peaceful means of showing dissatisfaction through boycotts of Danish products in the Middle East which I haven't seen being discussed in this thread. What do you think about this then? Is it cruel to the Danish companies?

[TheBigDog]

As a Muslim myself, I also a little bit surprised that this issue had been blown out of proportions. I think there was already a big momentum building up to this from misrepresentation of Islam in major mass media about the war on terrorism. So somehow or another, certain groups were waiting for an issue to surface for them to voice out their dissatisfaction. Too bad you innocent Norwegians also suffer the consequences.

 

Other than the anger, there was also more peaceful means of showing dissatisfaction through boycotts of Danish products in the Middle East which I haven't seen being discussed in this thread. What do you think about this then? Is it cruel to the Danish companies?

As a Muslim, can you clarify the misrepresentations about Islam for me? It is fine to say that the mob members are out of the mainstream, but is there a protest of the against violence scheduled in your community? Would you be willing to step up and speak out against the violence publicly as a Muslim, and offer peaceful alternatives for resolution to your fellow Muslims?

 

Boycotting goods and services from Norway is, I am sure, very much preferable to destruction of life and property.

 

Bill

[TINNY]

So far, I haven't come across a single islamic website that demands muslims to wage a holy war against danish civilians. The modernists appear to urge Muslims to just let it by, while traditionalist/fundamentalist groups are pushing for a boycott of Danish products. Those who advocate violent means toward such petty issues are on the furthest edge of the fringe of mainstream Islam. Even radical Iranian clerics were reported by BBC to condemn the violence.

 

An article here states clearly the positions of Imams from the two holiest mosques of a boycott, and not a hint of any violence.

[TheBigDog]

An article here states clearly the positions of Imams from the two holiest mosques of a boycott, and not a hint of any violence.

This article is from 1/28. Much has happened on this story since then, including all of the violence in the streets. As a Muslim, do you feel a personal responsibility to help the world have an accurate understanding of Islam? Or a personal responsibility to denounce those who act against the guidance and wisdom of the holiest Imams and in doing so defame Islam?

 

Bill

[CraigD]

Like many Americans and Europeans, I’ve spent considerable time attempting to understand the reaction of people such as those who vandalized the Norwegian (and Sweden and Chilean) embassies today. This is difficult, because such reactions are nearly unknown were I live.

 

The conclusion I’ve reached is that the most important causative factor is not religious, but the culture’s prevailing understanding of the relationship between the individual, the business, and authority.

 

In my culture, (the US) most people assume that government has little control over cartoonists or their publishers – which, in most North American and European countries, is true. This condition is generally termed liberty. In countries such as Syria, I believe most people assume that government has great control over individuals and businesses – which, in Syria, is true. In Syria, the Muhammad (peace be upon him) drawings are actually illegal, as they are in Jordan, where 2 editors of a paper that reprinted the drawings are being sought for arrest, while a 3rd (Jihad Momeni) appears to have avoided prosecution only because of his prestige and influence as a former member of the Jordanian Senate.

 

So, where Americans lampooned in the Jutland Post would perceive their insulters to be limited to the artists and editors, and might cancel subscriptions and withdraw advertisements from the paper (which would, I suspect, have little impact on the paper), or at very worst commit crimes against these individuals, significant numbers of Syrians and other middle-easterners perceive their insulters to be the entire government and people of Denmark, or even all of the people of all nations friendly with Denmark.

 

Although I’m reluctant to take the stereotypical right-wing position that the governments of countries like Syria should have legal and political systems more like my own, I believe exactly that. If the people of Syria would afforded greater freedom by their own governments – it they enjoyed greater liberty - I think, they would be more tolerant of insults by individuals - in other countries, or in their own.

 

Increasingly, I have come to see the concept of liberty, as it relates to the relationship between individuals and authority, as being the most important, and most in need of promotion, in the world today.

[C1ay]

This article is from 1/28.

This article from 2/2 says, "Iran's Foreign Ministry has summoned Austrian Ambassador Stigel Bauer, as representing the European Union, to protest the publication, the Islamic Republic News Agency reported." I think it represents a rational response from an Islamic nation.

[ughaibu]

Protests involving violence may be out of fashion but they are not "nearly unknown" in either the US or Europe. To come from a culture in which the most violent members prefer crime or football to politics or religion isn't necessarilly something to feel superior about.

The most interesting feature of this thread is the number of posters saying how the muslims should or should not behave, this is the expression of a personal belief. Years of observation has established how muslim extremists are likely to behave in reaction to various stimuli. Ignoring that evidence and attempting to insist on one's belief expresses a phenomenon I would normally associate mainly with this site's creationists.

[questor]

the Muslims are showing their true feelings. i don't blame them for being

pissed about the cartoons, after all i was pissed about the Piss Christ, but i

didn't burn buildings or threaten death to anyone. the apologists and pacifists

on this site don't seem to have a clue about the murderous intent and the barbaric nature of a great many Muslims (if not the majority), even though this nature is demonstrated quite unequivocably every day. why should we make excuses for the Muslims? they have liquid gold under their country, but instead of joining the civilized countries of the world in peaceful trade, they

have chosen the path of murder of innocents and disruption of any attempt

to bring them into civilization. they don't deserve our respect. let them show their ethnic group and their holy men and their religion deserves respect and maybe they will get it.

[C1ay]

the apologists and pacifists on this site don't seem to have a clue about the murderous intent and the barbaric nature of a great many Muslims (if not the majority), even though this nature is demonstrated quite unequivocably every day.

I don't know to whom you are referring on this site but it looks like you are coloring all Muslims with the same pen yourself. It is not all Muslims that are behaving this way or condoning these acts, it is the ones that are catching the media's attention. There are more than a billion Muslims in the world and we are not even seeing protests by a million of them. It is not a majority that are acting this way, only the loudest attention getters. There are extremist barbarians in many religions, not just Islam.

[Tormod]

Protests involving violence may be out of fashion but they are not "nearly unknown" in either the US or Europe. To come from a culture in which the most violent members prefer crime or football to politics or religion isn't necessarilly something to feel superior about.

The most interesting feature of this thread is the number of posters saying how the muslims should or should not behave, this is the expression of a personal belief. Years of observation has established how muslim extremists are likely to behave in reaction to various stimuli. Ignoring that evidence and attempting to insist on one's belief expresses a phenomenon I would normally associate mainly with this site's creationists.

 

Who is saying how the muslims should or should not behave? I am trying to focus on the fact that militant muslims are torching embassies and threatening with further acts of terrorism against innocent people.

 

Are you completely missing the facts that A) the Muslims in questions are "offended" yet have no problems burning, say, other countries' flags in public, and :cup: they are responding in a way where they are fighting against freedoms in countries in which they do not live.

[Tormod]

Protests involving violence may be out of fashion but they are not "nearly unknown" in either the US or Europe. To come from a culture in which the most violent members prefer crime or football to politics or religion isn't necessarilly something to feel superior about.

 

I fail to see your point. Are you saying we are "feeling superior"? We are defending our rights against roaring fundamentalists.

[ughaibu]

Tormod:

You have said that you dont approve of the actions of the Danish newspaper but you support the principle, as far as I can see all that's going on is one group of people is picking a fight with another group, I cant see how the situation involves any principle to miss breakfast for, never mind "defend to the death". You also support the principle that victims of print have a claim for damages but dont support the actions of the terrorists. That strikes me as fair enough if it stays at that level, on the other hand, if comparitive judgements are made concerning how bad the actions of the conflicting sides are with respect to the two principles, then you are involved in the fight yourself and claiming superiority, regardless of which side you prefer. The responsibility for continuing hostilities devolves to you.

[questor]

it is not the westerners that are beheading, bombing and slaughtering the innocent by design. it is not the westerners blowing up nightclubs and knocking down tall buildings full of innocent people. it is not the westerners

gassing and murdering thousands of people because of their ethnicity.

''The responsibility for continuing hostilities devolves to you.'' what kind of thought process would lead to this statement? do you need the scimitar at your neck to understand the problem?

[questor]

Defense of Islam?

would those who defend Islam answer some questions?

1. why do Muslims prevent the education of women?

2. why do ''honor killings'' still take place for adulterous women?

3. why do the ''good'' Muslims not rise against the terrorists?

if there are a billion Muslims and only a million are bad, where are the voices of the 999,000,000?

4. why do the ''good'' Muslims not turn in the terrorists living in their midst so their coutry can be at peace with a representative goverment?

5. which of the Islamic countries advocate peace with Israel, or the US?

6. do Muslims want to live in a progressive modern society or society of their choosing would they rather be killing infidels?

7. what are all the ''good'' Muslims doing to help bring reace to the Middle East?