ALL MUSLIMS BOYCOTT DANISH PRODUCTS!!

[Modesty]

Socod_Badne, I don't know what your faith is but to me Islam is the best and most supreme religion. Secondly, the question isn't why should our religion be treated more special, the reason is because other religions are granted protection under the law, but not ours, Islam forbids the depiction of the prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him), so drawing a buddha will not offend a buddhist, and christians already draw "Jesus" (astuaghfirulah)and that's fine with them, and they never insult jews because that in most European countries is against the law, but no it's not about getting special treatment, we are asking for our faith to be respected under the law. Aren't they the ones saying they're democracies.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

quote:Originally posted by Say(y)id Qutb:

If Islaam isn't a religion of the "sword and bloodshed", how come that Islaam has spread so far?

 

Ok, I'm assuming you believe Islam wasn't spread by the sword, right?

 

Then you write this:

 

Let's return to the sword inshallah. I am not advocating for killing innocent people but I know that without the "sword" we will not be able to spread the risaalah (message) of al-Islaam.

 

 

Like to explain this apparent self-contradiction.

Yes - I have to agree - I did not understand this too.

[NGONGE]

These cartoons were not drawn in vaccuum saaxib. They're part and parcel of a real, overt and consistent attack on all that is Muslim, Arab, African, poor or all of the above.

Of course not, saaxib. Let us, for the time being at least, drop our habit of stating the obvious and take it as read that this insult/attack/offence had the implicit intention to offend and spread islamophobia. I could not put it in stronger terms than this, saaxib. However, in spite of that, I’d still say it’s not a big deal.

 

 

The newspaper claimed that it was conducting an experiment on the freedom of speech (or something along those lines). To deal with this adequately and attempt to follow your line of thinking, one will have to apply Western laws to this problem (ironic, but what the hay). You’ll note that I’ve already dealt with the Islamic position and why such protests are nothing but pointless tantrums.

 

Now, if you want to play the Western game and mention holocausts, Aryan races and the much-abused political correctness, you’ll be playing a different game altogether. One where people move the goalposts at will and can, when public opinion demands it, create laws, cancel laws or amend laws. Kindly note that if you decide to walk alongside that precipice, you’ll run the risk of falling into a few wrangles and disputes that might compromise and erode on your faith (remember that cause and effect nonsense we had in July?).

 

Talking of political correctness, I suppose it’s apt that one mentions the Religious Hatred laws that got defeated by one vote in the British House of Commons yesterday (all because, allegedly, Blair did not vote). This law would have made it a crime to express opinions that would cause religions ( and followers of these religions) problems or harm. As you might agree, this is a noble idea, however, it would have also made criminals of almost all our Friday sermon reading Imams. The ironic thing of course is that these laws were thought of to protect Muslims from unfair attacks and ‘racism’.

 

I apologise if I’m bombarding you with all these ideas and arguments. But since nobody here has bothered to narrow the discussion down to anything other than tantrums and crossed lines, I thought I’d best throw all I have into this post and let you (the readers) pick out your arguments and what all the rants you’ve posted above mean.

 

Now, can we please clarify where you stand on this and what all this anger means (I expect that anyone reading the last line would have the good sense to understand it without taking it out of context)?

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Modesty:

Socod_Badne, I don't know what your faith is but to me Islam is the best and most supreme religion.

 

Yes, Islam is the best religion to YOU, to ME but not the average joe six-packs next door or Prof Kemp down at the local Uni. To them they prolly see Islam along christianity, judaism and all other religions as myths.

 

You have to accept the unavoidable fact of life that people, in fact the majority of the earth's population, don't see things the way you do. This is the reason why in the West religious equality is priced so highly. Every religion is treated EQUALLY. And I'm fine with that. If you have problem with it, MOVE to purely Islamic country where anything deemed offensive to Islam is prohibited.

 

Living in the West for us muslims comes with multitude of costs. As we're finding out now, our prophet (scw) being subject of satirical cartoonist is one.

 

 

Islam forbids the depiction of the prophet Muhammad(peace be upon him), so drawing a buddha will not offend a buddhist, and christians already draw "Jesus" (astuaghfirulah)and that's fine with them, and they never insult jews because that in most European countries is against the law, but no it's not about getting special treatment, we are asking for our faith to be respected under the law. Aren't they the ones saying they're democracies.

Where do you live? If you live in the West, then why do you expect they would care what Islam 'forbids?'

[NGONGE]

Xiin

What else could the Head of that State do? If he apologised on behalf of Danish people he would be accused of interfering. If he asked the paper to apologise, he would be accused of curtailing its freedom of speech. In both cases, no matter how you look at it, the accusations will be correct. He had no way but to appease the freedom of speech supporters instead of Muslims. The paper won what it set out to do. Now we know for sure that in Denmark (at least) Freedom of Speech cancels out any other rights or grievances!

 

The paper itself went on to prove this by apologising for hurting the feelings of Muslims while reiterating its right to do it all again (if it so wished).

 

What are the long-term implications of this? How can Muslims take advantage of it? How can we prepare to deal with future instances of this ‘freedom’?

 

These are the questions we need to ask ourselves. All this boycott talk is only a passing cloud and soon (as was the case with all previous boycotts) Danish companies will return to trade in Muslim lands without having to issue the proper apology the boycotters demanded. I’d rather talk about freedom of speech if you don’t mind.

 

 

PS

I’m not arguing for argument’s sake, saaxib. If there is anything you don’t understand in what I wrote, be good enough to ask and I’ll be more than happy to explain.

[MR ORGILAQE]

I am supporting the boycott not just as a means to punish those that belittled our beloved Prophet Muhammad PBUH but also because of another reason altogether.

 

 

Fo so long now the muslim Ummah have been divided by artificial boundaries created of course by those who wish to see our downfall and they did indeed see that.

 

These little enclaves have been ruled by puppets of this enemies of Islam and they further kept the ummah apart to the point that when one side of the Ummah was being wiped out the others could not stand up for them as result of these divisions,and of course because they were forced to by these puppet leaders.

 

The ummah then became helpless not realising their potential power collectively.This instance to me represents a special opportunity to transcend all those divisions and For once show the Ummah what their collective power is.

 

The case would have been different if it were a more powerful nation such as USA but practice makes perfect and once the Ummah realise how to mobolise their collective power, develop the necessary connections between them that has been dormant for over a century,and of course no longer seeing each other as that group or the other group but as ONE UMMAH standing for one thing ISLAM then they will not stop doing the same against a much larger and stronger opponent.

 

It will also help the re-integration of the Ummah that have nothing more than their faith to share with each instead of the way it should be which was sharing a A WAY OF LIFE.

 

I feel this is a unique opportunity that needs to exploited to it's fullest and use this as practice run for a more bigger and better PEOPLE POWER

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

Of course not, saaxib. Let us, for the time being at least, drop our habit of stating the obvious and take it as read that this insult/attack/offence had the implicit intention to offend and spread islamophobia. I could not put it in stronger terms than this, saaxib. However, in spite of that, I’d still say it’s not a big deal.

I am not quite sure what you mean it's not a 'big deal'. Religiously - of course yes. On a personal basis - to me it is a (fairly) big deal. Will I go shoot up the Danish embassy - no. I probably wouldn't even march in a protest but I will express my views in a forum, petitions etc. Is it a big deal in that it will cause Muslims to abandon their religion, rethink the Prophet (PBUH) - no absolutely not. Their opinions on our religion and our Prophet will have little bearing on our practice but gratutious insults should be challenged.

 

I’ve already dealt with the Islamic position and why such protests are nothing but pointless tantrums.

Are you being facetious here? I hope so. Everybody is entitled to their protests and referring to one or the other's protests as 'pointless tantrums' simply is an indicator of where you stand, not the correctness of your argument.

 

 

This law would have made it a crime to express opinions that would cause religions ( and followers of these religions) problems or harm. As you might agree, this is a noble idea, however, it would have also made criminals of almost all our Friday sermon reading Imams. The ironic thing of course is that these laws were thought of to protect Muslims from unfair attacks and ‘racism’.

I am not so sure it would have made criminals of 'all our...Imams'. Of those that engage in diatribe sermons - they tend to criticize Jews/Israel rather than Judiasm. And the second most popular diatribe subject is 'gays and pigs etc.'

 

I apologise if I’m bombarding you with all these ideas and arguments. But since nobody here has bothered to narrow the discussion down to anything other than tantrums and crossed lines, I thought I’d best throw all I have into this post and let you (the readers) pick out your arguments and what all the rants you’ve posted above mean.

The discussion is not that broad to me. The major Danish daily has gratutiously and pointedly insulted the Prophet and Muslims in the guise of 'freedom of expression'. The issue was what would the elected Danish government say or do - it turned out to be next to nothing. Muslim governments recalled their diplomats, Muslims protested in the streets and started to boycott Danish products. Just as the newspaper was entitled to its freedom, these governments and peoples are entitled to theirs.

 

On a similar note - I just don't understand this concept that 'freedom of expression' has no consequences. You may certainly have the freedom of expression to insult my mother - but don't expect that you won't get a knuckle sandwich.

 

Now, can we please clarify where you stand on this and what all this anger means (I expect that anyone reading the last line would have the good sense to understand it without taking it out of context)?

I am afraid you have to further clarify - preferrably in one paragraph and staccato sentences. Because after reading your posts - I am still unsure where it is you stand or whether your criticisms are of the major or the minor kind.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

You have to accept the unavoidable fact of life that people, in fact the majority of the earth's population, don't see things the way you do. This is the reason why in the West religious equality is priced so highly. Every religion is treated EQUALLY. And I'm fine with that. If you have problem with it, MOVE to purely Islamic country where anything deemed offensive to Islam is prohibited.

I am at a loss to understand where you get 'every religion is treated equally'. If you mean in the courts, generally yes, but in the media - of course not.

 

If one has a problem, one has to move to another country? WHOA!!!!!!! That is the talk of bigots!!!!! Just as they would tell blacks in the States 'If you don't like it here, just go back to the jungle'. In a democracy, everyone has the right to express themselves and protest/boycott etc. Why are Muslims supposed to take it? The newspaper has the 'freedom' of expression but Muslims don't????

 

Living in the West for us muslims comes with multitude of costs. As we're finding out now, our prophet (scw) being subject of satirical cartoonist is one.

Whatever the costs - one should take action if it is within your power to do so. This is a defeatist attitude.

[Castro]

Ngonge wants to narrow this to freedom of speech and I don't mind that at all. Provided, of course, he would acknowledge that such freedom is not immune to verbal offences and that the prosecution of such offences is subject to historical, economical and political considerations.

 

I'll be back later.

[NGONGE]

The Point,

Take your time and read everything I wrote. I think it would be a real waste if I had to rewrite all.

 

The only one I would reply to here (and think is worth clarifying) is the quote below:

 

 

Now, can we please clarify where you stand on this and what all this anger means (I expect that anyone reading the last line would have the good sense to understand it without taking it out of context)?

When I posted it, I hoped that you would understand that I’m asking you to expand on your expressions of anger and explain why you’re this angry and what it all means to YOU. What I didn’t want were replies similar to Xiin’s above. Telling me that you’re with the boycotters is no help at all. Telling me that you’re angry is silly (I can already se that). Sometimes, even if the words are not too clear, you need to use your powers of deduction and try to work out what they mean.

 

Now, would you do me the favour (along with Xiin) of reading my words again? This time, I hope you read them and try to digest them before hurrying to reply.

 

 

PS

With this being the highly charged thread that it is, I will not be surprised if you find my words grating and irritating. I give you my word that this is not at all my aim. However, I think it’s best to be blunt and straight now so that we can move on with the discussion instead of frustrating myself (and you) with the retyping and repeating of arguments and posts. I’m assuming that I’m discoursing with adults that share the same goal with me here, and not a bunch of angry people.

 

Happy foruming.

 

PPS

Castro,

 

Not at all. If there is any point to the other type of talk, I'm more than happy to take part in that too. I read the six pages of this thread and did not see any point other than the simple sentence of "we are angry, let us boycott the Danes". I'm saying move on and make a discussion out of this thing.

[Castro]

^ This is what I meant by full breach:

 

Newspapers across Europe have reprinted caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad to show support for a Danish paper whose cartoons have sparked Muslim outrage.

 

Source

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

When I posted it, I hoped that you would understand that I’m asking you to expand on your expressions of anger and explain why you’re this angry and what it all means to YOU.

Expand, how? Not sure what you mean by this. Why am I angry? Angry may not be the best word - irritated and annoyed is more like it. Why am I irritated and annoyed - because they have insulted something dear to me - my religion and my Prophet. I don't think I can explain that in any more meaningful way.

 

What I didn’t want were replies similar to Xiin’s above. Telling me that you’re with the boycotters is no help at all. Telling me that you’re angry is silly (I can already se that). Sometimes, even if the words are not too clear, you need to use your powers of deduction and try to work out what they mean.

 

Now, would you do me the favour (along with Xiin) of reading my words again? This time, I hope you read them and try to digest them before hurrying to reply.

I am afraid that I have and I still don't understand your point. Simply telling me to re-read your posts is not a help. This reminds of situations in university where you go to a prof and say -'Prof, I didn't understand your textbook, could you explain?' Prof:'Just re-read, it's self-explanatory'. Under breath: 'Moron, I wouldn't have asked you if it was'.

 

From your postscript to Castro - if your point is that it is time to 'move on' then you may be correct. But this whole thread was about informing and then venting - and I don't think there is anything wrong with that.

 

 

I’m assuming that I’m discoursing with adults that share the same goal with me here, and not a bunch of angry people.

This is precisely the point. What is your goal? Where do you want this discussion to go? And if people are angry and wish to express it - why is that so bad or in need of admonishment? Simply don't participate if you don't like it.

[Castro]

Ngonge, there are exceptions to freedom of speech which are classified as criminal acts (verbal offences). Examples:

 

1) Fighting words such as insults that have a likelihood to lead to immediate and violent response.

2) Patently offensive or obscene words (or images)

3) Slanderous and defamatory speech (which is also patently false) without carrying any literary value.

4) Malicious injury to character or reputation.

 

Do you believe the cartoons of the prophet (pbuh) fall under any of the categories above? If you do, then you have no choice but to agree such speech cannot be protected under freedom of expression.

 

I don't see why that newspaper shouldn't be taken to court by an able attorney and be faced with a libel suit.

[Khayr]

NGONGE said:

 

I say it should.

Let the Danes insult our prophet. Be offended, get angry and curse them until you go blue in the face but do NOT demand that they be censored or insist on an apology.

No deletion of such comment.

 

Double standards in the world for religion is also reflected on this site.

[Castro]

^ Here's the entire quote saaxib. Don't misquote the man to suit your needs.

 

Ngonge wrote:

 

One’s right to offend! How far does it go and should it take priority over everything else?

 

I say it should. Let the Danes insult our prophet. Be offended, get angry and curse them until you go blue in the face but do NOT demand that they be censored or insist on an apology. For as long as they are free to offend and insult, we too are free to offend and insult. As long as Danish journalists are able to write offensive articles about Islam (or any other faith), Muslim journalists, scholars and presidents (see the Iranian jewel) can also do the same. To complain about religious hatred and try to argue and dissect these points will only lead us to the dark alleyways of questioning our own faith, holy book and revelation. For if we don’t accept insults from the Jews and Christians, why are we reciting verses from our Holy Book that talk about how bad both groups are? Does not respect go both ways?

What I want to hear from Ngonge is if he believes there are any exceptions to the freedom of expression (to offend, if you will). And if so, what are these circumstances and who decides on them? The criminal offences I listed earlier are for the United States. Here, freedom of expression does not include the listed crimes, and crimes they are which the law prosecutes.