• Home
• Projects
• Lifestream
• About

1. Hassan February 10th, 2006

   Speaking as a Muslim myself, I wouldn’t say my brothers’ reaction is a fanatical one. And even if it’s fanatical, it only says how serious we are about our religion.

   We regard our prophets very highly. Jesus, Moses, Jacob, and many other prophets linked to the Religions of the Books, Muslims acknowledge all of them as pious men of God. And our prophet Muhammad(PBUH) is considered the most important prophet of all among us, simply because he represents the community of our time ( we consider him the last prophet ).

   FYI, it’s not allowed for us (Muslims) to draw something likening to any of the prophets, angels or God Himself. Note here that the drawing doesn’t have to be insulting. Even ancient stories around these prophets which we consider a treasure, can’t be put into an illustrated form.

   So, when Muslims see some ignorant person doing up an illustration of our prophet, and plus the illustration was sadly insulting, we tell them it’s not respectful to our culture. The signal is clear: “We don’t like it”. And isn’t that clear enough for the West to stop already ? No. they go on. Publish more of these insults. Good job Mike.

   Simply put, if a person shows that he doesn’t like what another person is doing to him, then that other person should respect his want and stop. Unless that other person thinks he is the king and he can do whatever he wants.. which is what I think the West has shown a lot.

   More into international politics, I disagree with the notion of “Fight Against Terrorism” being campaigned by Bush & Blair. If they really wanted to fight terrorism, they could have looked into Africa. I mean really look into the problem, not just peek around drilling oil wells. Just grab anybody from Somalia or Nigeria and ask them about the situation there.

   Honestly, I’m disappointed with the way Western countries have reacted to international events around the world. And many of my brothers feel the same way too. Taking a look at the Israel-Palestine issue, if you fear of someone bombing you, then you should stop helping that someone’s enemy from bombing him. I call that logic.

   Hmm.. more like £2 from me. Feel free to flame back.
2. iaom February 13th, 2006

   Do they go after after the paintings of god, jesus, or moses drawn by other religions? I think the extremists need to get used to free speech. From what I’ve read muhammad preached tollerance unless someone realy attacked you. It’s a picture drawn my a heathen why can’t the extremists just live with that. Jesus if he was real I think was a much better prophet..
3. Hassan February 13th, 2006

   This is where free speech went wrong. It is being used as a permission to insult people. So is it okay to insult people because you are free to say anything ? If you say yes, I guess your civilisation is not open minded enough to be given free speech right.

   And talking about extremism, I can see how close-minded people can be. Who dropped the first nuclear bomb in our history ? Oh that can be forgiven because your land was being invaded ? Forget it. Your close mindedness scares the intelligence out of me.

   “It’s a picture drawn my a heathen why can’t the extremists just live with that”

   If somebody drew your mother/father in an embarassing position and publish it on the front page of newspapers over so many countries, will you not be angry ? If you still say “oh come on he has his right to free speech”, I hope your parents will be regretting they got you born.

   This is not addressed to anybody specific. I’m just disappointed that some people never learnt what respect & understanding means. All they care about is their free speech rights.
4. sadf February 15th, 2006

   Limiting free speech will not cause people to respect others. Neither will freaking out every time someone does something that offends you.
5. Achton February 19th, 2006

   Hi Hassan (and you others), I want to thank you for your views on this issue (particularly Hassan, since you can give insight into the minds of the people whom we have dishonoured).

   As I said, I’d like to do a longer piece about this and keep getting stuff to add to that article, so that’s why I’m keeping kinda quiet about it.

   Rest assured, this issue is on the minds and lips of every single Dane every single day. It deeply affects us all, and is considered the most significant foreign crisis in this country for 60 years (since WWII).

   I’m not going to comment on it much further right now, but I will say this: having lived in Copenhagen for 6 years now, and in Denmark all my life, studying and working in Copenhagen every day and spending almost all my time in the capital, it is my strong feeling that the majority of Danes do not find the drawings amusing, appropriate or a contribution to anything particular apart from a common offensive nature. The vast majority of Denmark wishes for, and has always wanted and supported, freedom of religion and are generally very tolerant in this matter (there are, for instance, 120 mosques in Denmark that aid in the practising of Islam for the 200,000 Muslims who live in Denmark).

   However, many Danes view the extensive violence and disruption these drawings have caused as a rampant and malicious attempt by some militant factions of Islamist groups to stir a hatred in Islam against the Western world. A situation that Denmark cannot control and does not have any part in.

   We have always loved peace and quiet.
6. Hassan February 20th, 2006

   Respect & peace.. that’s how we like it. At least I feel we do. I know how a lot of people outside of the Muslim community fear the extreme side of Islam.

   Just FYI, our religion doesn’t teach us to be violent. We don’t go to war without reason. But Islam does tell us to defend our country/pride when it’s being breached. In fact, this is an order which we must obey to. However, the way each individual goes to accomplish this, is not the same from one person to another. Not in today’s situation anyway, where we are not united under one nation.

   In my opinion, the violence experienced by the Western countries are happening because of the generalisation made by some Muslims. They try to damage any entities linked to whomever they believe is attacking them.

   From my personal view, Denmark was/is in a neutral position (maybe until the cartoon was published). If Denmark had reacted differently from what they have done, I’m not surprised it will become a target. But from what I see, the nation has shown respect by making an apology on the mistake ( yes I believe it’s a mistake to insult people even when you are free to do so ). I say thank you to Denmark people for respecting my pride & belief.
7. Hassan February 20th, 2006

   Holocaust denier Irving is jailed
   http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4733820.stm
   ==============================================

   I find the news story interesting. Can somebody tell me how ‘freedom of speech’ is defined as ? From what I have read here, the guy was merely expressing his opinion in a statement. And after 17 years has passed since the statement was made, the court decided today that he should go to jail.

   Where is the freedom of speech then ? Should it become no. 2 when a person/community is hurt by the statement ? I’m not trying to extend the argument over the cartoon stuffs. Make it a discussion, please.
8. Achton February 21st, 2006

   Hey, Hassan – yeah, I was kind of mind-boggled about that thing too. I mean, how can anyone get sentenced to prison because they deny that an event ever took place. Who exactly are the losers in such a situation? I’d say only the guy himself is losing out – it’s kind of like making suicide illegal, in my opinion.

   But beware, Hassan, that this guy was prosecuted in accordance with Austrian laws (that apparently prohibit denying of the Holocaust – as do other countries like former Czechoslovakia, Poland and Lithuania whose Jews were all but annihilated by Nazi Germany, so I suppose it’s a sort of courtesy law to make sure everyone recognizes the tragedy.. but anyway ..)

   I know you don’t want to mix these two issues up, and I understand why people tend to generalize about the West in this cartoon-case where many Western countries claim the right to freedom of expression, and then this thing comes up.

   I really do feel though, that it is unfair to bring up every little case that undermines the Danish argumentation about free speech, because there will always be minority groups that can be used by the opposing parties to misdirect the discussion.

   In my opinion the Muhammad situation is still an ideological discussion about freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and how globalization demands great self-justice and respect from each individual on this planet.
9. Hassan March 5th, 2006

   http://doombot.com/2006/02/25/on-the-offensive/
   Quotes:

   “Political correctness is like affirmative action in some ways: an idea that means well, but tries to fix a problem by treating the symptoms instead of the cause of the symptoms. Being respectful of cultures other than your own is important, but it shouldn’t mean that you can’t discuss your differences and even disagree.”

   “And while I find myself in the position of knowing more than the average bear about Islam, and thus understand the issue of sensitivity around depicting the Prophet, I don’t think that it justifies rioting and violence.”

   “I’ll repeat my earlier point, because it bears repeating: just because you can say something doesn’t mean that you should. In the end, it comes down to the same central tenet that’s been repeated by everyone from Jesus to Sesame Street: treat others as you would want others to treat you. We work hard to teach our kids this ethic, and yet we seem to forget it ourselves soon enough.”

   How I agree with him. The violence caused by the rioting isn’t justified at all. Plus, Islam itself doesn’t condone violence against the public (which includes people, animal, plants, buildings, as long as they are not used against muslims). Peaceful demonstration & boycott are better ways in which we can project our objection to the offence.

   From what I’ve heard, people burning cars in the street & causing damage during the riots were mostly doing it for the joy of wreckage. They don’t really have any idea of the actual purpose of the gathering; a peaceful expression of objection. These are bad people in your eyes, and in our eyes as well. I dunno where they came from, probably from houses nearby the street, instantly joining the commotion for the fun of it. But know that damaging neutral assets & people is not from our religion’s teaching.

   I guess this topic has become a non-issue now. But I hope we’ve learnt something from this. To quote from the above blog rant: 1) “just because you can say something doesn’t mean that you should”, 2) “and treat others as you would want others to treat you”. Also, violence isn’t the answer to foolish actions & admitted mistakes.
10. iaom March 17th, 2006

    I wouldn’t violently attack someone for drawing my parents in some embarassig position. And thats just the point.
11. DrIdiot March 28th, 2006

    In America, freedom of speech is (supposed to be) pretty much what it says it is – complete freedom of speech. There are some cases where it’s limited (slander/libel). But offense speech is not censored by the government.

    There is no right to not be offended. I’ve been taught to ignore comments that offend me, or respond to them rationally. If someone makes an offensive comment that displeases me, I can simply choose to ignore it (consistent harassment, however, is illegal). There’s no use getting riled up over some idiot’s comments.

    The problem with censoring “offensive” speech is that “offensive” is, in the end, a subjective criteria. What is offensive to one may not be offensive to another. In the extreme case, people may take offense to “unpatriotic” views, which ties censorship of offensive speech to censorship of dissenting speech. Limiting one area of freedom of speech effectively limits other areas as well. That’s why it’s good to allow as much as possible, and teach people to be tolerant and level-headed.

    As for the cartoons – bad taste? In my opinion, yes. Offensive? To some, yes. Worth protesting? No, it’s not like they’re forcing you to plaster it on your walls, but you could protest if you wanted (because you have freedom of speech). And finally, illegal? Definitely should not be.

    To say you can’t draw pictures of Muhammad is the same as saying you can’t use the lord’s name in vain (one of the commandments I believe). But we know not everyone follows that, and people who take offense to that have just got to deal with it.

    By the way, I’m non-religious, and I am also in an ethnical minority.
12. Achton March 28th, 2006

    Hey, DrIdiot (rather unfortunate handle, eh? – you said it very well, thanks.

    Basically, I understand that people are offended, and respect that. I also think a few of the drawings were rather bad taste. But from there to finding it necessary to express your offense in such a violent manner as we have seen is too much, in my opinion.

    And as you said – it’s a drawing in a miniscule country, in a relatively small newspaper (compared to say, the whole of the Muslim community), and I still cannot understand that so many have found it necessary to protest against such a small offense (pun intended).

Powered by Hemingway flavored Wordpress.

Entries RSS Comments RSS