Cartoons: Freedom to Abuse

[Castro]

^ War ileen balaayo. It's the peak of irony that someone who would refer to Muslims as "Moslems" would question the faith of others and refer to them as the "devil". Mr. Ismail's repeated and fallacious ad hominem attacks on Bashir Goth say more about him than his target. What Mr. Ismail is asking us, I suspect, is if we agree with what that kaafir Goth has penned. If such is the case then Mr. Ismail ought to know that even the kufaar speak the truth sometimes. I'm dissapointed at such an attack on the person of Goth and a shallow critique of his article. Of the many accusations he lays on Goth, none is more ridiculous than Goth's hatered of Arabs. The man lives and works in an Arab country if Mr. Ismail bothered to find out. One doesn't necessarily have to like the carrier of a message but one shouldn't, because of him, throw it away either. Ah well.

[xiinfaniin]

^^Adeer bal u yara kaadi .

 

Mr. Ismail has indeed penned a solid rebut on Goths apologetic piece. Goth has been dwelling in a sheer intellectual dishonesty for some time now, and I am not at all impressed with his article. An article, if I may add, that seems to have been written to appease the west than to reason, and counsel with his fellow Muslims.

 

Great article, I say.

[Castro]

^ Great article you say? I know you speak not of Goth's piece but one never knows. Though not a masterpiece, Goth's article hardly deserved the dismissal Mr. Ismail afforded him saaxib. Furthermore, it behooves you to refrain from using terms such as "intellectual dishonesty" without at least making an effort at providing some evidence. Finally, even if you have knowledge of Goth exercising the said dishonesty on previous occasions, shouldn't this latest piece be judged on its own merit? Come on saaxib, I know it's too late inaan bacaadka isla aadno but you're not giving me much to work with here.

[Khayr]

 

 

Bashir Goth has tried in his article "Cartoons put a great religion to the test" (WardheerNews.com, 10 February, 2006) to be too clever by half and has in the process laid bare both the bankruptcy of his argument and his malevolence towards Islam and Moslems.

The very title of his article is of course offensive to Moslems and is indicative of a schizophrenic-personality approach to treating an important and burning issue: ‘important’ because it has brought to the fore how the West and The Moslem World see each other,

and ‘burning’ because it is topical but, literally, too hot an issue to play with. .

 

What is Schizophrenia?

 

• A mental illness in which the person suffers from distorted thinking, hallucinations, and a reduced ability to feel normal emotions

• People with schizophrenia do not have a "split personality," or an idiosyncratic way of thinking which is correctable through psychoanalysis. People experiencing an acute episode of schizophrenia have a sudden onset of severe psychotic symptoms. To be "psychotic" means to be out of touch with reality, or unable to separate real from unreal experience. People with this disease can experience periods of distorted sense of reality or ability to think and also hallucinations and delusions. ...

• When used in reference to the field of Analytical Psychology originally named dementia praecox, It was thought to be a disorder of body chemistry. it is characterized by a splitting apart of thoughts, feelings and actions. Jung acknowledged a physiological component in the illness but considered that its primary origin was psychological - the domination of personality by a split-off complex.

Source

 

Bashir Goth:Is he a Schizophrenic Muslim?

[Castro]

Originally posted by Khayr:

Bashir Goth:Is he a Schizophrenic Muslim?

Are you? :rolleyes:

[NASSIR]

Kheyr, I think what angered Ismail was the title itself, "The writer would have been probably justified to choose as the title of his article words which would have reflected the view that the cartoons put the tolerance of Moslems to the test, " Not the religion itself.

 

 

Two important points i liked about his critique is, (a) we human being cannot emulate prophets and thus show forbearance and tolerance in times of adversity as them, (b)freedom of expression should have limits, for the lack of limitations would render all laws ineffective.

 

Overall, Goth made great points despite some of the flaws of his arguments. His article was a motivational

[NGONGE]

^^^ Heh. Both points are meaningless, saaxib. Think about it a bit longer, I say. To say that mere humans can’t imitate the prophets is to state the obvious. It’s also a misleading digression. Neither Goth nor any other person can and would expect ordinary Muslims to fully emulate the prophets. That’s a red herring, saaxib. However, what we all strive to and try to work towards is replicating a tiny grain of the prophet’s ways in our daily life. If one follows the author’s argument one’s conclusion would be that we should not bother at all. We’re only mere humans and, as such, we might as well know our weakness and continue on sinning instead of trying to punch above our weight by trying to emulate the prophets. With all due respect to you and the author, that’s utter nonsense.

 

On the freedom of the expression point, I will repeat one more time that when the limits are NOT in place one is free to do what one wants. In the case of the cartoons, which the author (and you) unwittingly seem to overlook, such limits did not (and do not) exist. If and when they’re put in place they’ll make his argument valid. As things stand, he’s being idealistic and is refusing to deal with truth. This, of course, does not conflict with my previous argument that such laws should not exist anyway. That’s a different argument and is one that goes beyond what we’re talking about here. Alas, I doubt if the author has the ability or comprehension to reach such simple heights of reasoning. His attack is on the person of Mr Goth and not the arguments put forth.

 

He rebukes Goth for criticising Muslims and takes his words and ideas out of context to prove some vindictive point. Come and witness the mirthful and nonsensical logic of the man in these following quotes:

 

He states: “… the Danish people have the right to behave the way they want to behave on their own turf.†If we apply the logic of his statement to Moslems behaving as they wish in their own countries would it not justify the kind of behaviour he is condemning in Moslems?

Here, the author asks an obtuse and very child-like question. His words imply that Muslims should not speak out against wrongs done by other Muslims, because, they’re on their own turf. Steady now, I’m sure that this was not his intention, but when one clutches at straws and tries to score non-existent points, one (almost inevitably) ends up sounding obtuse. Though this was not his intention, this would be the natural conclusion of that point if we had to press him further. Or else, it could only be explained as a throwaway comment uttered in a moment of high emotions. Neither explanations flatter the author much. When all is said and done, Goth’s argument still stands unscathed!

 

Furthermore, he scoffs of Moslems finding satisfaction in new conversions to Islam as he says: “It is not uncommon to read reports in newspapers from Arab and Islamic world on Islam spreading in the West like a fire on a windy day. They talk with glee about European women converting to Islam in their hoards. In fact most of such reports come from Muslims living in the West. With such vitriol rhetoric and with the stereotype of the few Europeans converted to Islam turning their back on the norms and values of their home countries, changing their attire and adopting an alien look and attitude, it is just natural for the Western people to feel their values and their free speech were under threat.†(Emphasis mine). These words surely cannot be the words of a Muslim as they are, plainly and simply, an attack, not only on Moslems who pride themselves on the swelling of their ranks but also a blatant and unwarranted denunciation of those westerners who convert to Islam.

Here again, the author displays a laughable lack of comprehension and shows a deficiency in his attention span!

As is evident in his piece, this leads him to take Mr Goth’s words out of context and deal with ‘provocative’ sentences in isolation. When reading such shabby pieces I usually tend to conclude that the author lacks comprehension, I realise that this (by now) irritates anyone reading my words. But, accusing one of a lack of comprehension is a far better slur than accusing them of being dishonest. Here, the author is being blatantly dishonest. However, from experience alone, I highly doubt that he even realises it!

 

Mr Goth, as the quote below demonstrates, though not covering himself in glory in that paragraph, does not seem to espouse, denounce or intend to insult Muslims (and this I gleaned from reading the same piece that the author skimmed through)! Mr Ismail, if he’s reading this, needs to go over that paragraph once more and read it very slowly. He will note that Mr Goth starts by inviting us to ‘a little dose of SELF-criticism’. Mr Goth then goes on to explain how Muslims insult and make mockery of other people. He then speaks about the very real idea and dream that all Muslims have about turning the West into an Islamic land. Remember, we’re still at the self-criticism stage here. The reader is given a BIG hint as to why such sentences are written. Goth adds some opinions of his in the middle of the paragraph that, I personally, do not agree with. However, that’s a mere detour. His central theme remains the same. He’s still at the self-criticism stage and the very clear message is contained in his last sentence. Now, if Mr Ismail (or anyone for that matter) disagrees with Goth’s conclusions there, this is what they should tackle and not the man himself. In other words, Goth, after a little self-criticism (on all our behalves) concluded that it’s the actions and words of some Muslims, which made the West fear for it’s values and ways of life and, as a result, some Westerners drew those cartoons! His message seems to be that we should put our own house in order before we knock others. This is Mr Goth’s opinion and opinions are not always TRUE. Mr Ismail (and others) should have challenged that opinion (if they disagreed with it). Here is the quote in its entirety:

 

A little dose of self-criticism will show us that Muslims every day insult and make mockery of other people. Our Imams curse the Christians and pray God to destroy their houses, to shatter their unity, to wipe them out of the face of the earth; and all the faithful respond with a hearty Amen. I will not even mention the Jews whose ridicule is a daily bread for our clerics although I find it beyond my understanding why Muslims always drag Jews and the holocaust into the agenda whenever they have a debate with the Christian world. These are the beliefs with which every Muslim child grows up, my brothers and sisters, and no one in our self-righteous world has ever questioned how much disservice we are doing to our future by preaching such hate to the young minds.

 

My dear brothers, even today, at the dawn of the 21st century, some of us dream of the day when Islam will again conquer Europe and a turbaned Muslim will occupy the American White House. I am not saying this, these are the words of Ayman Al Zawaheri, Al Qaeda's second man, and Abu Hamza Al Misri. The first uttered these words in one of his broadcasts in Al Jazeera and the latter preached them in his Finsbury Park mosque in London. It would have been understandable if this kind of fantasy thinking was confined to these unbalanced and misguided men, but it is very worrying and indeed scary when one discovers some of the learned men of Islam taking pride in such utterances and defending them in Arab televisions; not even feeling any shame to add the title of Sheikh to the name of these men. It is not also uncommon to read reports in newspapers from the Arab and Islamic world on Islam spreading in the West like a fire on a windy day. They talk with glee about European women converting to Islam in their hordes. In fact most of such reports come from Muslims living in the West. With such vitriol rhetoric and with the stereotype of the few Europeans converted to Islam turning their back on the norms and values of their home countries, changing their attire and adopting an alien look and attitude, it is just natural for the Western people to feel their values and their free speech were under threat.

 

 

[NASSIR]

QUOTE]Originally posted by NGONGE:

He states: “… the Danish people have the right to behave the way they want to behave on their own turf.†If we apply the logic of his statement to Moslems behaving as they wish in their own countries would it not justify the kind of behaviour he is condemning in Moslems?

Here, the author asks an obtuse and very child-like question. His words imply that Muslims should not speak out against wrongs done by other Muslims, because, they’re on their own turf.

Ngonge, Pardon me if err or offend, it seems you haven't comprehended the point the author was trying to make in response to Goth's statement above as you can see from the quotes inserted in the paragraph. Probably you have taught differently than was not meant by Ismail, nor were you correct in your assumptions of the gist of the point as you put it, he implied.

To clarify it, Ismail meant that if Muslims behave as they wish in their own countries, outrageous it may turn into, it would amount to profound deviations from standards constituting religious norms and thus Goth won't justify that as a freedom of expression but a wonton cruelty to harm and kill others. Why is that Bashir justifies the behavior of the Danish but paints the behavior of the Muslims whose tolerance were tasted as outlandish. Any person can perceive the degree to which Goth lends support the inequities of his comparative audiences because he is letting one have the freedom to do as they wish whereas he demands more restrain and patience from others. Isn't that inequity? And in your own effort, you are employing the straw man fallacy. By all accounts, Ismail only attacks the flaws of his theme and the unnecessary additions of ugly history and events in it. I don’t disagree there are elements of truth of What Goth reiterated but he went too deep as to make himself look the all-knower of Muslim problems with prejudicial overtones and at times eliciting extreme inferiority and self-doubts of his own people and their faith. As it appears from this quote, "In making few quotations from the Qur’an and by dropping few names of Moslem scholars he poses as someone who commands a good knowledge of Islam even though he had been previously exposed and castigated as a mere charlatan. But it seems that he never learnt his lesson."

 

On the other hand, religious conflict and rivalry had run amok for centuries and have been rooted in environment , demographic, and economic conflict. This conflict was part of one of the uncountable ones. It was wrong of him (Bashir) to attack our behavior as contemporary Muslims.

 

The caricatures the Westerns make in reference to others, except them, prescribes no bound, but today its now prevailing hot wind trends Islam. Prof. Hirsch , 1926, “Genetic Psychology Monographs†first, Jense’s “Educability and Group Differencesâ€---demonstrated both genetic and environmental causes for black children to be less educable, Hamstein and Murray, “The Bell Curve†and Today’s the "Cartoon Caricature" spearheaded by the Danish and the West in General to paint Muslims as intolerant, extremist, and extremely backward society. They all amount to profound racism.

[Baluug]

Originally posted by Castro:

quote:Originally posted by Khayr:

Bashir Goth:Is he a Schizophrenic Muslim?

Are you? :rolleyes:

I'm not. But I am......

[Khayr]

Cartoon furor exposes double standards

Feb. 23, 2006. 01:00 AM

HAROON SIDDIQUI

 

 

Gary Younge, the New York-based black British columnist, has written this about the Danish cartoon controversy in The Nation magazine:

 

"Muslims have, in effect, been vilified twice: once through the original cartoons and then again for having the gall to protest them. Such logic recalls the words of the late South African black nationalist

Steve Biko: `Not only are whites kicking us, they are telling us how to react to being kicked.'"

 

Confusion continues to mark the Western response to the issue. Some of this is because we are in uncharted waters. But something else is at work — double standards and insidious attempts at delegitimizing the Muslim protests.

 

Notorious British historian David Irving has just been sentenced in Vienna to three years for denying the Holocaust. Radical British Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al Masri has been jailed, among other things, for inciting hatred. About time.

 

Yet there's silence from freedom of speech advocates who were on their pulpits just days ago.

 

Denying the Holocaust is not the same as poking fun at a prophet, some might say. Muslims might respond that the cartoons contravened the historical fact that Muhammad was not a terrorist with a bomb in his turban.

 

Masri's case offers a better parallel. Besides terrorism-related charges, he was convicted of fomenting hate against Britons. Muslims said the Danish cartoons did exactly that to them. How does a democracy decide which hate is worse?

 

In France, the Catholic Church last year won a lawsuit against a fashion designer depicting The Last Supper with semi-nude women instead of the apostles. Where were the noisy advocates of freedom of speech then? Or, do they pop up only to claim the right to bash Muslims?

 

The cartoon episode has little or nothing to do with blasphemy. Some Muslims invoke it but that's a tangent democracies need no longer take.

 

The real issue is that freedom of speech has limits, by law and by social dictates (self-censorship).

 

Newspapers do not publish cartoons that may be hurtful, hateful, xenophobic or racist.

 

Do thinking people want to make the case for resurrecting the old caricatures of fat-lipped blacks, hook-nosed Jews or cross-eyed Chinese?

 

"I don't find the cartoons offensive," some people say. That's not the point. Nor is it that some Muslims think so. That's like invoking a lapsed Catholic to tell most Catholics what to think.

 

It's best in a democracy "to let each group decide what it finds most offensive, so long as the implied taboo is not too onerous," writes Robert Wright in a thoughtful opinion page article in The New York Times. He is the author of The Moral Animal.

 

"Look, here's an old depiction of Muhammad," some others say, to discredit the assertion that Islam forbids depiction of the Prophet.

 

There's no denying such depictions exist. Miniatures featured Muhammad in various scenes but only a few showed his face, while others blanked out the space. Some centuries ago, Muslims came to a consensus against such depictions.

 

We risk breaking the democratic balance when we poke people in the eye about their beliefs. Doing so to Muslims in these tense times is especially reprehensible.

 

The worldwide protests are being portrayed as the work of radicals or of such governments as Iran and Syria. Some no doubt are. But manipulating the public is not the exclusive preserve of Muslim radicals or Muslim governments.

 

Suggesting that only the fanatics are upset is to minimize the offence caused by what the United Church has called an "incitement to racial and religious hatred."

 

Those defending the Danish newspaper keep saying it did not mean to offend Muslims. Really?

 

Here's Flemming Rose, the editor who commissioned the drawings, talking about Danish Muslims: "This is about the question of integration and how compatible is the religion of Islam with modern secular society — how much does an immigrant have to give up and how much does the receiving culture have to compromise." And: "People are no longer willing to pay taxes to help support someone called Ali who comes from a country with a different language and culture that's 5,000 miles away."

 

Sympathy is also shown poor little liberal Denmark that can't quite believe its portrayal abroad.

 

Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen is in a coalition with the People's party, which has called Danish Muslims "cancer cells" and "seeds of weeds." It is pondering a total ban on Muslim immigration. Just think: Keeping people out because

Steve Biko: `Not only are whites kicking us, they are telling us how to react to being kicked.'"

Source

[BonaFied_CriTic]

[Castro]

^ Bone, who do you think is being insulted in this cartoon?

[BonaFied_CriTic]

If that cartoon is meant to insult me then it is not doing it job -

[Khayr]

Originally posted by BonefieD_CriTic:

If that cartoon is meant to insult me then it is not doing it job -

Are you the one that the man is holding by the hair? If so, then it is all about you!

[Castro]

Originally posted by BonefieD_CriTic:

If that cartoon is meant to insult me then it is not doing it job -

That's not what I meant. The cartoon is intended to insult Arabs (the name Abdul) and muslims (the jilbaab) by insinuating that beheadings are such natural part of their life, they use it as an offering to their loved ones. It's a racist and Islamophibic cartoon.