ALL MUSLIMS BOYCOTT DANISH PRODUCTS!!

[Viking]

French editor fired over cartoons

[Allamagan]

Folks,

 

The western press' claim they are for the freedom of speech are all baseless and they are all hypocrites. To write the slightest critic about the jews and their their faith is considered anti-semite and in no way could be defended in the name of freedom of speech, yet when Isam is at the recieving end, then for them it is permissible and anyone who doing it, is exercising under his/her right of the freedom of speech and therefore should be praised and supported.

 

 

am

[Modesty]

Johnny, why would you show the cartoon here on SOL knowing that muslims are outraged all over the world? I think the moderators should delete that cartoon picture Johnny posted.

[Khayr]

^^^

 

Modesty,

 

The double standards apply on SOL too for RELIGION and the moderators are judge things

'subjectively' i.e. I feel, I think, Majority of nomads complained, Majority of nomads found that a Personal attack' etc....

 

Ngogne,

 

As usual u are accusing a nomad of lacking 'comprhension' and 'lack of reading skills'

...that you, like many others here, can not READ.

but if you would just control the verbal diarrhea saxib, maybe folks would understand what you are saying.

 

In anycase,

 

>>>>off to the next thread to continue the discussion inshallah!

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

Before the law of course. Why should what media does matter at all?

The media matters greatly - they shape the perceptions of the people who then go on to elect representatives that mirror those perceptions and then these lawmakers have the potential to make discriminatory laws. The media has a huge effect.

 

No, I did not say one -- living in a democratic country -- should move if he/she feels chagrined. As I explained before NO religion is given special consideration. Not even Christianity, the largest in many parts of the West. Every revered religious figure has been subject to, under the protection of FREEDOM OF SPEECH (or screech :confused: ), satirical and parodical work. Islam is considered, in the West, like any other religon. With same rights and freedoms as exercised by christians.

It is certainly true that it doesn't shock me that the such cartoons were printed because as you say almost all religions are insulted. But simply because all are insulted doesn't mean one has to take it. It's like arguing racism occurs everywhere in the world - just live with it.

 

Then these Danish derisory cartoons unfold, which I strenuously denounce and am chafed as much as next muslim, but my fellow muslims are asking that our prophet (scw) should be consider unique and be put in a special category of his own by a people who believe and shed blood to defend equality of religions. Who hold NO religious leader above another.

I do consider the Prophet unique but I don't expect these guys to hold him unique. What I expect is basic respect and tolerance. If Christians have ceded that right for Jesus - I don't know why Muslims should also.

 

It is in this context, I suggested that if one has a problem with the West's insensitivity towards revered religious figures that they should leave. To a place where their views are the LAW! Not suggesting one shouldn't fight or protest when one feels wronged. Protest to your heart's content. Sometimes feeling righteously indignated is soul soothing. I'm told.

 

Ok - a more logical argument but your conclusion is still premature. If one has a problem the LAST thing one should do is leave and to suggest it off the bat is inappropriate. That is why I was offended - I don't think you are a bigot - but those words are frequently used by bigots when they think others don't have the right to protest/change the prevailing circumstances.

 

But there is no chance in hell that Western governments will write a new and specific law for muslims ONLY banishing any satirical and/or offensive depictions of their prophet (scw). Certainly not while every other revered religious leader is a fair game. That would be they hight of hypocracy and double standards. And if that were to happen, you can bet other religions will demand the same rights.

40 or 50 years there were no protections for gays, the Holocaust, ethnic groups - but this changed - and I believe this will change also. Nor am I asking you protections for Islam only. And whatever protections I would ask for would be broadbrush stereotypes and mischaracterizations like the bomb-in-the-turban wielding caricature.

 

 

No one, including you, has yet made a defendable case for why the Danish paper that printed the cartoons should've been censored and reprimanded. Other then, the oft repeated , to

ad nauseam

, defense that Islam prohibits pictorial depictions and mocking of prophet Mohammed (scw). That is specious and doesn't fly.

Censored and reprimanded in the general sense - of course. Needlessly offensive and inaccurate caricatures have offended even you so yes they should be censored and reprimanded in the general sense. If you mean in the legal sense, it appears that Danish law has not provided for legal censor and reprimand. But that is not actually what I am looking for - it certainly would be nice. What I was looking for was an abject denounciation, condemnation and repudiation by the Danish government. Something which has not happened. In that case, it means that the Danish gov't which represents Danes is racist. Not a surprising confirmation since they have a racist party in their coalation - but for appearances sake I expected better.

 

The way I see it there is nothing we muslims possess to pressure Western governments to ban any depictions of our prophet short of asking for special consideration. Now, do we seriouly expect that demand to be granted?

The people in the Middle East are proving you wrong Sir! Who knows - I am unsure what the demand even is - but it is a clear message that freedom of speech has consequences and one should take them into account before exercising it.

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

The Point

,

 

Again, I humbly ask you to read my first post. It really is kids stuff and any teenager with an iota of comprehension (yes, that old excuse) can understand it.

 

I’m making a very clear and direct point. I don’t enjoy repeating myself when I’ve painstakingly moderated my words and ensured that they’re rabble-friendly. If you can’t comprehend what I’m saying, then we’re not on the same page and are never likely to be.

As you wish, Professor Ngonge but you can hardly expect me to attend any more of your incomprehensible lectures

[MR ORGILAQE]

I guess the grandads need their afternoon nap so boys and girls leave the old man to have some keep will ya! ngonge

 

you are tired dont run around with the little boys relax or you'll bust a vein in no time.We dont want to deal with strokes etc

[Khayr]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

I’m not too bothered with the ideas of those that don’t share the same faith as me. Their attempts to offend or gain publicity by attacking my faith should not move me or (move) any other Muslim. It is, after all, our protests that made Rushdie a millionaire. And here too, if this newspaper was clever enough, it would have copyrighted the drawings and earned a handsome sum from selling it to the world media. It’s very likely that everyone (including indignant Muslims) will want to see the drawings that caused all of this! Who then, says ‘crime’ doesn’t pay?

 

What’s really worth a discussion here is the actual reason for these drawings (or at least the ideas that this newspaper alleged were the reasons for the drawings). This takes us a full circle and brings us back to a topic we had here months ago. 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?

 

You see, the question here would not be one about errors in the Koran because, as Muslims, we can’t question the validity and correctness of our Holy Book. The question then, is likely to be one to do with application. It’s either that we are applying those verses in the Koran wrongly when talking about Jews and Christians, or, we are applying them correctly. If we are applying them wrongly, we need to study this area and find out the correct way. If on the other hand, we were applying them correctly, then our sense of fairness and justice (and our logic) would dictate that we should

expect, accept and take on board any insults

and criticisms the Jews, infidels and Christians would direct our way. Any other reaction would be extremely, utterly and hypocritically obtuse.

Just a point of contention here saxib,

 

As muslims we should EXPECT, but NOT accept and NOT take on board any insults coming from ANYONE.

[NGONGE]

^^^ Expect and ignore, saaxib. Indifference does not equal acceptance.

 

Edit

 

Read the rest of my words in the context they were written in, saaxib.

 

Accept and take on board in this instance was not meant to say that we should be happy to hear them make these insults. It rather meant that we should accept that TWO can play that game.

[Sayyid]

That doesn't go hand in hand with the islamic notion of "ordering the good and forbidding and preventing the bad", also that one should not stay passive in such things. If they see something that is "bad", we as muslims have a collective responsibility of condemning the act of "badness" forcefullyy if that is not feasible than wiht our "mouth" and again if that's not feasible either than we have to distance us from the "evil" and condemn it from our "heart".

 

There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" and the right for "intellectual reflection", when someone intentionally crosses the fine line of what is acceptable and what isn't. The taboo is well documented and anyone who tries to cross the line will be dealt with inshallah. They will be loosers in this world and in the hereafter the great fire is awaiting them. This might sound "cynical" to some in here but let me stress however anti-religion or islaam you're, you've to know that al-islaam is here to stay and it will become a "dominant and global" force inshallah to reckon with and if you don't like what I am predicting and you're angry and hateful than "die in your anger and hate "because Islaam will eventually rule the world, inshallah!

 

"muutu bi qaythikum".

 

This is a test for the ummah and islaamic nation and inshallaah we will prevail and accomplish our mission, that is spreading the risala and islaamic message to the whole wide world inshallah regardless of what the establishments of those countries about to be conquered think.

 

You either accept islaam or pay the jizyah.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by ThePoint:

The media matters greatly - they shape the perceptions of the people who then go on to elect representatives that mirror those perceptions and then these lawmakers have the potential to make discriminatory laws. The media has a huge effect.

 

While the media is highly influential in lands with freedom of the press, enforcing what they disseminate is beyond their influence.

 

First, it's regulated even in lands where freedom of press is guaranteed by law. There are codes of conduct for the press in much of the West. So they're not absolutely free to report as they please.

 

Second, to stay in business and keep audience since they're mostly revenue driven, the media can ill afford to grate public sensitivity sour points. For example, in the US (to the best of knowledge) there are no existing laws prohibiting the broadcasting of ghastly pictures: like dying americans soldiers. The american public would be extremely upset if they were forced to watch dying american teenagers on the telly, hence the media acquiescences its audience's expectations/wishes. Argueably the public has greater influence on what the media says than the other way around as you suggested.

 

Lastly, as every dictatorship of 20th century has shown, citizens don't readily buy everything their media tells them. The citizens of the Soviet Union knew their governments were lying to them even though the media was practically a mouthpiece of the government. Where does that leave your theory that the media considerably molds public's actions and demands? I would argue its the needs of the local time that drive publics actions and demands. Not what they've hear and see on the telly.

 

 

What I expect is basic respect and tolerance. If Christians have ceded that right for Jesus - I don't know why Muslims should also.

 

 

But Christians didn't voluntarily surrender the right of respect and decent artistic representation of Jesus, it was taken away from them. They protested, although not as loudly as us muslims are doing now, when Jesus was mockingly depicted in various art pieces.

 

The reality is, as things stand, a western artist can depict ANY revered religious figure or politico anyway he likes. Am I perturbed by it? You bet I am. Not only me, a muslim, but some nonmuslims as well. It is disrespectful and inconsiderate to mock someone's deeply held believes.

 

Having said, what exactly is our outcry aimed at?

 

Concesoring and reprimanding the cartoons and their authors? On what grounds? They havne't broken ANY laws. None! The Danish government has NO legal right to stop the newspaper from printing the cartoons or punish them. We can't demand from the Danish government what they can't legally do and we can't simply say we don't like these pics because of their nature and seriously expect to see change.

 

Since our explicit wish is to not see cartoons mocking our prophet (scw) blasted on front pages, we must look into changing the laws relating to freedom of speech as they are. That is our best option and guarantee against future cartoons of the same flavour.

[Socod_badne]

Originally posted by Say(y)id Qutb:

You either accept islaam or pay the jizyah.

I don't get it. Could you be more perspicuous and explain what you mean above?

[ElPunto]

Originally posted by Socod_badne:

While the media is highly influential in lands with freedom of the press, enforcing what they disseminate is beyond their influence.

I didn't claim they enforce anything - they simply help to mould public opinion which in turn decides how/what to enforce.

 

Second, to stay in business and keep audience since they're mostly revenue driven, the media can ill afford to grate public sensitivity sour points. For example, in the US (to the best of knowledge) there are no existing laws prohibiting the broadcasting of ghastly pictures: like dying americans soldiers. The american public would be extremely upset if they were forced to watch dying american teenagers on the telly, hence the media acquiescences its audience's expectations/wishes. Argueably the public has greater influence on what the media says than the other way around as you suggested.

There is definitely a give and take between the public and the media - but the media definitely has the greater influence. The media is an organized and concentrated medium of influence while the public is disparate and dispersed. In the example you cited above - what happened as compromise was to show the bodies of the dead Americans in coffins as they landed at the air force base. From slavery, to civil rights, feminism, to gay rights etc. the press has been well ahead of public opinion and they were instrumental in shaping/moulding and changing that public opinion - which then got reflected in changing laws.

 

 

Lastly, as every dictatorship of 20th century has shown, citizens don't readily buy everything their media tells them. The citizens of the Soviet Union knew their governments were lying to them even though the media was practically a mouthpiece of the government. Where does that leave your theory that the media considerably molds public's actions and demands? I would argue its the needs of the local time that drive publics actions and demands. Not what they've hear and see on the telly.

Of course not but the western media is hardly the press of a dictatorship - thus the comparison does not apply. Generally, the western press is accurate and truthful - and thus people give them credence.

 

But Christians didn't voluntarily surrender the right of respect and decent artistic representation of Jesus, it was taken away from them. They protested, although not as loudly as us muslims are doing now, when Jesus was mockingly depicted in various art pieces.

It was taken away from them? Are they little children or functioning members of a democratic state? Anytime you don't fight for your just rights - you have, in effect, ceded them.

 

Having said, what exactly is our outcry aimed at?

Our outcry is aimed at showing our displeasure at the newspaper and more so at the Danish government which has not condemned/repudiated/disassociated itself from this cartoons. In fact, their PM hemmed and hawed at it and said press freedom. Through this action - it is an implicit support and agreement with the caricature.

 

Concesoring and reprimanding the cartoons and their authors? On what grounds? They havne't broken ANY laws. None! The Danish government has NO legal right to stop the newspaper from printing the cartoons or punish them. We can't demand from the Danish government what they can't legally do and we can't simply say we don't like these pics because of their nature and seriously expect to see change.

I thought I made this clear - there is no dispute that legally they haven't broken any rules. My issue is with reaction of the Danish government - that is independent of whether any laws had been broken. My demand from the Danish government is as above. And perhaps an examination of whether press freedom should include insulting/degrading and false characterizations of religion.

 

We can only expect change - when we act to show our displeasure and ALSO to suggest remedies that would help to resolve the dispute. However, throwing up our hands in the air and saying they haven't broken any laws acheives nothing and worse, lets on the impression that you don't care about this matter - that it doesn't matter to you. That is when you have ceded the issue and your right to take offense at free speech.

 

Since our explicit wish is to not see cartoons mocking our prophet (scw) blasted on front pages, we must look into changing the laws relating to freedom of speech as they are. That is our best option and guarantee against future cartoons of the same flavour.

We must look into that - but you have also have act to show your real feelings - otherwise people will not take you seriously.

[Pi]

So it is necessary that we boycott the Danish from an Islamic perspective? I mean will I be committing a sin if I contiune to buy their products? Just curious.....

[Foxy]

So it is necessary that we boycott the Danish from an Islamic perspective? I mean will I be committing a sin if I contiune to buy their products? Just curious

 

Nope, its not a mandatory, its just a an optional choice, should You feel that the danish products are an absolute must have in your daily life, than by all means buy it, it doesnt say anywhere in the holy book that one shouldnt buy any Danish by products let alone danish products.....in the mean time till its proven Go hard

 

cheers

 

PS....dont take my word for it, ask the protestors