Islamic Comedy or Tragedy ?

[Johnny B]

The previous September, the Danish newspaper

Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons depicting the

prophet Muhammad. Over the next three months, indignation was

carefully and systematically nurtured throughout the Islamic world

by a small group of Muslims living in Denmark, led by two imams

who had been granted sanctuary there.12 In late 2005 these malevolent

exiles travelled from Denmark to Egypt bearing a dossier,

which was copied and circulated from there to the whole Islamic

world, including, importantly, Indonesia. The dossier contained

falsehoods about alleged maltreatment of Muslims in Denmark,

and the tendentious lie that Jyllands-Posten was a government-run

newspaper. It also contained the twelve cartoons which, crucially,

the imams had supplemented with three additional images whose

origin was mysterious but which certainly had no connection with

Denmark. Unlike the original twelve, these three add-ons were

genuinely offensive - or would have been if they had, as the zealous

propagandists alleged, depicted Muhammad. A particularly

damaging one of these three was not a cartoon at all but a faxed

photograph of a bearded man wearing a fake pig's snout held on

with elastic. It has subsequently turned out that this was an

Associated Press photograph of a Frenchman entered for a pigsquealing

contest at a country fair in France.13 The photograph had

no connection whatsoever with the prophet Muhammad, no connection

with Islam, and no connection with Denmark. But the

Muslim activists, on their mischief-stirring hike to Cairo, implied

all three connections .. . with predictable results.

The carefully cultivated 'hurt' and 'offence' was brought to an

explosive head five months after the twelve cartoons were

originally published. Demonstrators in Pakistan and Indonesia

burned Danish flags (where did they get them from?) and hysterica

demands were made for the Danish government to apologize.

(Apologize for what? They didn't draw the cartoons, or publish

them. Danes just live in a country with a free press, something that

people in many Islamic countries might have a hard time understanding.)

Newspapers in Norway, Germany, France and even

the United States (but, conspicuously, not Britain) reprinted the

cartoons in gestures of solidarity with Jyllands-Posten, which

added fuel to the flames. Embassies and consulates were trashed,

Danish goods were boycotted, Danish citizens and, indeed,

Westerners generally, were physically threatened; Christian

churches in Pakistan, with no Danish or European connections at

all, were burned. Nine people were killed when Libyan rioters

attacked and burned the Italian consulate in Benghazi. As

Germaine Greer wrote, what these people really love and do best is

pandemonium.14

A bounty of $1 million was placed on the head of 'the Danish

cartoonist' by a Pakistani imam - who was apparently unaware

that there were twelve different Danish cartoonists, and almost

certainly unaware that the three most offensive pictures had never

appeared in Denmark at all (and, by the way, where was that

million going to come from?). In Nigeria, Muslim protesters against

the Danish cartoons burned down several Christian churches, and

used machetes to attack and kill (black Nigerian) Christians in the

streets. One Christian was put inside a rubber tyre, doused with

petrol and set alight. Demonstrators were photographed in Britain

bearing banners saying 'Slay those who insult Islam', 'Butcher those

who mock Islam', 'Europe you will pay: Demolition is on its way'

and, apparently without irony, 'Behead those who say Islam is a

violent religion'.

 

 

In the aftermath of all this, the journalist Andrew Mueller interviewed

Britain's leading 'moderate' Muslim, Sir Iqbal Sacranie.15

Moderate he may be by today's Islamic standards, but in Andrew

Mueller's account he still stands by the remark he made when

Salman Rushdie was condemned to death for writing a novel:

'Death is perhaps too easy for him' - a remark that sets him in ignominious

contrast to his courageous predecessor as Britain's most

influential Muslim, the late Dr Zaki Badawi, who offered Salman

Rushdie sanctuary in his own home. Sacranie told Mueller how

concerned he was about the Danish cartoons. Mueller was concerned

too, but for a different reason: 'I am concerned that the

ridiculous, disproportionate reaction to some unfunny sketches in an

obscure Scandinavian newspaper may confirm t h a t . . . Islam and the

west are fundamentally irreconcilable.' Sacranie, on the other hand,

praised British newspapers for not reprinting the cartoons, to which

Mueller voiced the suspicion of most of the nation that 'the restraint

of British newspapers derived less from sensitivity to Muslim discontent

than it did from a desire not to have their windows broken'.

Sacranie explained that 'The person of the Prophet, peace be

upon him, is revered so profoundly in the Muslim world, with a

love and affection that cannot be explained in words. It goes

beyond your parents, your loved ones, your children. That is part

of the faith. There is also an Islamic teaching that one does not

depict the Prophet.' This rather assumes, as Mueller observed,

that the values of Islam trump anyone else's - which is

what any follower of Islam does assume, just as any

follower of any religion believes that theirs is the sole way,

truth and light. If people wish to love a 7th century

preacher more than their own families, that's up to them,

but nobody else is obliged to take it seriously . ..

Except that if you don't take it seriously and accord it proper

respect you are physically threatened, on a scale that no other

religion has aspired to since the Middle Ages.

 

source = R.D ---> the Relusion

 

________________________________________________

 

 

Nowadays , The average Muslim has became more receptive to anything that any person who claims to be Muslim and dislikes the " West" has to coin as the alleged " conspiracy agains Islam ".

 

Mostly ,this receptiveness drives its narration from the failures of westren politics or from the walls of the Vatican, but sometimes the sources of a Muslim tragedy is nothing less than the fabrication of a dishonest Muslim.

 

Had i not know Atheer Nuradin Farah in person, had i been sold the idea that he is an anti-Islam writer by people who are at war with the world from allegedly an Islamic point of view.

[N.O.R.F]

I see you have time on your hands these days ya JB.

 

'the restraint

of British newspapers derived less from sensitivity to Muslim discontent

than it did from a desire not to have their windows broken'.

I think that close to the truth!

 

the values of Islam trump anyone else's - which is

what any follower of Islam does assume, just as any

follower of any religion believes that theirs is the sole way,

truth and light. If people wish to love a 7th century

preacher more than their own families, that's up to them,

but nobody else is obliged to take it seriously . ..

Except that if you don't take it seriously and accord it proper

respect you are physically threatened, on a scale that no other

religion has aspired to since the Middle Ages.

The usual western 'we are superior in mind/intellect' nonsense. But why pick a fight with Islam/Muslims? Why so affraid of Islam? This is the question which needs to be explored ya JB. Maybe you can tell exactly why the west is depicting Islam/Muslims in such a negative light. What are they scared of?

 

The middle ground on Islam and West

By Roger Hardy

BBC Islamic affairs analyst

 

 

A new BBC poll shines light on one of the most pressing and contentious issues of our time.

 

What drives tension and conflict between Islam and the West?

 

Is there an inherent incompatibility between the two, making a "clash of civilisations" inevitable?

 

There are certainly Muslims and non-Muslims who hold that view.

 

 

Poll results: Common ground or conflict?

 

Osama Bin Laden and his global jihadists see the "crusader" West as inherently aggressive, waging a remorseless campaign to subjugate and humiliate Muslims.

 

Samuel Huntington, the Harvard professor who fathered the "clash of civilisations" thesis more than a decade ago, argues that cultural clashes - in particular between Islam and the West - have taken the place of the old ideological divide between communist East and capitalist West.

 

High-profile figures - such as the former Dutch MP, the Somali-born Ayaan Hirsi Ali - claim Islam is incompatible with democracy, women's rights and modernity.

 

Many Muslims, as well as specialists on Islam, reject the sweeping generalisations on which such opinions rest.

 

Last year, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's views were directly challenged by a prestigious think-tank in The Hague.

 

In a report submitted to the Dutch government, the Scientific Council for Government Policy said it was wrong to say Islam was at odds with democracy and human rights.

 

Analysing trends in a dozen Muslim countries, the report highlighted the diversity of Muslim thought.

 

While there were radical, jihadi trends, there were also mainstream movements moving, albeit gradually, towards democratisation.

 

Testing opinion

 

So what do ordinary people, Muslim and non-Muslim, think?

 

A new BBC poll taken by Globescan suggests there is a significant middle ground which rejects the view that Islam and the West are doomed to clash.

 

The pollsters questioned some 28,000 people in 27 countries.

 

An overall majority believes there is no inherent incompatibility between Islam and the West, and so no inevitable collision.

 

Problems arise from intolerant minorities - on both sides - rather than from cultures as a whole.

 

Muslims will welcome the finding that tensions are the result of conflicts over political power and interests, rather than differences of religion or culture.

 

They often argue that Muslim radicalism is the product of global inequalities of wealth and power - and Western foreign policy in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/Palestine and elsewhere.

 

The large Muslim minorities now living in the West also argue they are the victims of social disadvantage and "Islamophobic" prejudice.

 

Bucking the trend

 

Polls, however, need careful reading.

 

The BBC poll suggests significant numbers of people do not share the broadly optimistic view of the majority.

 

Nigerians are pessimistic about cultural and religious difference.

 

Kenyans and Poles are ambivalent.

 

A slight majority of Indonesians think violent conflict between Islam and the West is inevitable.

 

While 49% of Americans believe there are political reasons for tensions between Islam and the West, 38% believe they result from differences of religion and culture.

 

So the picture is mixed, and perhaps this is not surprising.

 

Polarisation

 

The current global climate is one of polarisation.

 

Many Muslims are angry about Iraq and Palestine and what they perceive as a Western drive for hegemony.

 

Since 9/11, the West has been nervous about the al-Qaeda threat.

 

The Madrid and London bombings kept that threat alive.

 

The sense of polarisation has been sharpened by recent controversies - over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, over the Pope's remarks about Islam, over whether face-veils hinder integration.

 

All these things have set relations between Islam and the West on edge.

 

Many Muslims, and some non-Muslims, blame the media for fanning the flames.

 

In a wired-up world, local disputes can quickly become global ones.

 

Most people, when asked, are likely to favour co-existence and tolerance.

 

But at moments of crisis, they do not always practise them.

 

VIEWS OF RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MUSLIM AND WESTERN CULTURES

 

Can find common ground Violent conflict inevitable

France 69% 23%

Germany 49% 39%

Great Britain 77% 15%

India 35% 24%

Indonesia 40% 51%

Italy 78% 14%

Kenya 46% 35%

Lebanon 68% 26%

Nigeria 53% 37%

Turkey 49% 29%

US 64% 31%

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/6369251.stm

[Johnny B]

Time is not what i get plenty of , but having somehow succeded in implanting that hint in your mind i've no choice but to carelessly agree,

 

As i'm getting older, let me bacome a light version of NGONGE and withhold a respectful but tiny suspicion of your comprehension of the gist of my previous post. for which i in advance apologize had it been about a deliberate disregard from your part.

 

You pose two, presumeably three connected yet independant questions,

1:why pick a fight with Islam/Muslims?

2:Why so affraid of Islam?

3:why the west is depicting Islam/Muslims in such a negative light?

 

First, i'd like to stress that i'm a westrener only to the sense and extent that i've lived more than a 3½ / 4 of my life in the West, thusly,it remains questionable weather i can give you answers in the name of a westrener.

 

Nevertheless, this is my 'ett öre'.

Question number one ,from my prespective, its not about west picking a fight with or against Islam , you may acknowledge or get mystified by this , but the West has already pacified Islam before it even could be a problem, and not by the crusades which are probably the first to occupy your mind, but by pacifying Christianity which is West's previlant faith and a direct or indirect Islamic source of faith.

 

It seems to be about Islam whining to be redefined and entitling itself for a rematch against a West that is more of a different class nowadays.

christianity as west's prevelant faith had been tamed to what a faith should be, a theological idea that competes about followers at home against not only Islam which it sees an adultred version of itself but against all possible/probable faiths mankind has known.

 

Question number two assumes a non-existant fear, so there is no legitimate or genuine answer.

 

Question three, Islam and Muslims in the West as in any other faith are subject to exposure in terms of conformity to reality, an exposure Islam doesen't seem to be used to in its own home-town,due to lack of competition from equally privileged doctorines.

 

That Islam is reconcileable with the West is a well entertained mindset in my circles , but it remains to be seen if West is reconcileable with Islam, i'm an optimist as i consider myself a living proof for such a Reality.

[N.O.R.F]

Ahh, the ‘comprehension’ escape route is very convenient at times ya JB. You posted an article critical of Muslims and their affections for the Prophet (peace be upon him) disguised as ‘unfunny’ comedy. It portrays Muslims as lagging behind in terms of ‘enlightenment’. In other words they are backward – see the numerous references to the 7th century etc.

 

If people wish to love a 7th century

preacher more than their own families, that's up to them,

but nobody else is obliged to take it seriously . ..

Except that if you don't take it seriously and accord it proper

respect you are physically threatened, on a scale that no other

religion has aspired to since the Middle Ages.

This (these type of articles) I’m afraid ya JB is being repeated across many shores as we are in the Muslim/Islam bashing years. To a man without religion this may be nothing but to a Muslim it implies backwardness. This I have touched on in my previous post referring to it the west’s ‘superiority’ complex in it’s perceived notion that it’s ‘modern’, ‘progressive’ ‘open minded’ etc.

 

I have not addressed the cartoons as this article proves nothing. The damage has been done and I don’t remember the paper stating that it did not ‘publish’ the cartoons (regardless of who produced them). I remember an apology if my mind serves me correctly.

 

The article is disguised as some sort of reprieve for the Jyllands-Posten with accusations towards Muslims that are yet to be proven. However, one cannot help but notice the ‘dig’ at Islam and Muslims in general in the following paragraphs. The first paragraphs describe the aftermath of the cartoon controversy (most of it unproven by the way) and in the last paragraph we hear what Igbal Sacranie said about Salman Rushdie in the late 80s! Then you have the comment I referred to earlier about Muslims/Islam being backward. This makes the whole article a pile of, well, xashish!

 

The motives of the article are plain to see ya JB which is why i asked those questions.

[NGONGE]

Johnny,

 

You’ve got to concede that the article you’ve used is not the best example to help you get your point across, my friend.

Such an article with its collection of falsehoods, tilted facts and biased opinions would test the resolve of the most reasonable of people. Yet, you post it as some sort of longwinded and convoluted example for the irrational ones amongst us!

 

 

I have to admit that I had to read the article three times (and then read your footnote five times) before I understood your target here. I don’t think Northerner can be blamed for missing your point. I think you’ll find that many people would find it hard to comprehend your exact argument because of the nature of the article you posted. You see, it has too many other scenarios and presents far too many arguments for one to ignore and remain focused on your original goal and direction. It’s almost like constantly slapping someone very hard on the ears and simultaneously telling them that you love them! Can you really blame them if they’re unable to hear your loving whispers?

 

Now, from what I understand, you chose this article because (in parts) it talks about some Muslims that have (allegedly) distorted the truth about the Danish Cartoons, their origins and the ownership of that newspaper. You equate this to the alleged false accusations against a certain Somali author (Mr Farah). This, you seem to hint, shows a certain ready receptiveness amongst Muslims to feel prosecuted and blindly accept the existence of endless dark plots against Islam!

 

I don’t at all disagree with the central idea here but I’m very uncomfortable (and disappointed) with the way you chose to present it. I’m finding it hard to discuss that part of the argument whilst suppressing the temptation to take some pot shots at the biased, foolish, paranoid and irritating article that you posted there.

[Johnny B]

Now that the smoke is settled ,i can lean back and harvest the fruits of my earlier apology regarding comprehension beeing as slippery as eel.

 

It'd be plain dishonesty from my part to claim complete un-awareness or miss-understanding of the religious beef and reef at stake for the reading beleiver, yet to catch the falling star, i needed to stick to the article's ever shrinking common middle-ground, so to speak.

 

With that out of the way, the need to dap our hands at the different kettles to fish for 'the truth'about Islamic activism gets even more sensitive , experience tells us that one gets green about the gills by finding out an un-favored reality,thusly, letting the Autopilot on is a natural and expected defence mechanism .

 

Yes, dear Ngonge, It's this neither fish nor flesh of 'Islamic activism's role i question , and without clinging to the righeousness/errorenousness of the 'Article' ( it actually is from R.D's book ) it is a tragedy / comedy that is so played you can't tell where the Comedy fades and Tragedy appears.

 

None of those "wanna be activists "did spare the rod and spoiled the child,as they state clear in their judgement, and giving the dog a good name never been a forte so to put it.

That it is a mutual exposure to the extremes of one's nightmare coulden't be more of a reality and pragmatic platform to boot from, hence the constant slapping.

 

All one needs to do is claim beeing Islamic activist and voila , you've a penalty against the elleged 'enemy' at your disposal, and there is where the gallery is fed , Tragedy for lunch, Comedy for dinner.

 

And i don't disagree with you regarding the constant slapping and the amount of sidekicks in the 'Article'.

[N.O.R.F]

Sorry for jumping the gun ya JB. I totally missed your footnote TWICE! It was probably due to the article’s ‘revelations’ and constant put-downs. Apologies on my part.

 

Nowadays , The average Muslim has became more receptive to anything that any person who claims to be Muslim and dislikes the " West" has to coin as the alleged " conspiracy against Islam ".

 

Mostly ,this receptiveness drives its narration from the failures of westren politics or from the walls of the Vatican, but sometimes the sources of a Muslim tragedy is nothing less than the fabrication of a dishonest Muslim.

 

Had i not know Atheer Nuradin Farah in person, had i been sold the idea that he is an anti-Islam writer by people who are at war with the world from allegedly an Islamic point of view.

I shall return with my take on the above god willing

[Fabregas]

 

 

but the West has already pacified Islam before it even could be a problem, and not by the crusades which are probably the first to occupy your mind, but by pacifying Christianity which is West's previlant faith and a direct or indirect Islamic source of faith.

 

Mere opinions and hearsay disguised as critical logical thought!The West "pacified" Islam how, when and where?

 

It seems to be about Islam whining to be redefined and entitling itself for a rematch against a West that is more of a different class nowadays.

 

I would probably agree with you there.But why can't the conflict/confrontation be the other way around? Or even both sided? I Detect a certain bias(towards the superior West) in your analysis(opinions).....

 

christianity as west's prevelant faith had been tamed to what a faith should be, a theological idea that competes about followers at home against not only Islam which it sees an adultred version of itself but against all possible/probable faiths mankind has known.

 

A gross over generalisation which means nothing to anyone engaging in a serious discussion.All you have done is regurgitate the history of Christianity and its "pacification" in the West.Then you have somehow, without explaining linked this to Islam.Something(Islam) you haven't even defined.....

 

i'm an optimist as i consider myself a living proof for such a Reality.

Please, do elaborate

[Paragon]

So let me see if I understand the points of the article and JB's ensuing comments.

 

To begin with, the fellow who wrote the article says, look, all the fuss was really about nothing. He further explains that there has been a deliberate attempt by some Danish Muslims to conjoin un-offensive cartoons with 'really' offensive cartoons, in order to incite a world Muslim fury! In context, he continues to claim, if one wishes to call a cartoon offensive, then, there were three cartoons. But these three cartoons were not Danish by origin of publication. In fact, one of them was a cartoon entered into a 'pig' related contest. So that particular offensive cartoon isn't Danish at all! So you see, the fuss was about nothing!

 

That is what the fellow is saying in a nutshell. But the problem with his article is his choice of words and references. If he was really trying to show how ridiculous it was for Muslims to riot, then he could have done so very plainly. Instead, he sounds like a teenage-girl who makes a point that is accompanied by angry words and insults. It is these angry words and insults and not the shoddy points which the writer makes that become automatically visible to many. I guess angry words and insults have bright colours quickly recognizable by the alarmed mind. It is this that usually tangles matters of discussion. The offensive individual and the defensive one, both lose time over unnecessary analysis of peripheral sentences rather than concentrating on the core matter deserving of attention.

 

Now, having said that, I think JB is somewhat quick to appraise the writer's article to commence a discussion. As far as I could read, the writer only mentions the pig-headed cartoon, which he says is French in origin. However, there were other equally offensive cartoons- among them the cartoon depicting a bearded man with a bomb atop his head. Unless the writer is telling us this cartoon and other similar ones aren't Danish in origin, then it somewhat becomes clear that he/she has really failed to divert blame from the Danes. What has he achieved with his writing of the article if the writer cannot tell us the cartoon I have mentioned just earlier (which may I add is more sensitive and contagious considering current International Relations), isn't by the Danish newspaper? Nothing much really and it would have been much more gracefully appropriate for the writer to keep his gob shut .

 

PS: No comment on Nurraddiin

 

Thats all folks...

[Johnny B]

Northerner,

Apology is on my part for beeing so vauge and terrible to have presented such a vulgar 'article'.

 

i look forward to your two cents, preferably a densy explanation of the trigger-happiness that seems to prevail.

 

Abu_geelJire,

unless there is a wolf in a sheepish clothing i think it's fair to say that Christianity is a Islamic source of faith or Islam is a spurious/genuine younger brother of Christianity in the Abrahimic theology's dynasty,without superfluous explanation for the read,and you can always be out for a Duck as they say.

 

One has to almost be a mouth breather to assume Islam is new in the west, and i've given myself the right to not 'define' Islam for the obvious reason that it needs not another defination, if you're of the idea that we need to define it,i'd gladly be all ears.

I must have been two sandwiches short of a picnic to have thought that it went without saying that Islam theologically adds little if any to Christianity,nonetheless, taking that leap of granting you that knowledge has shown to be the only gross generalization i've commited.

 

Paragoon,

 

I,as in the one who presented the 'article', coulden't have claimed to have digested the gist in the whole thing as you did, but allow me to fall short as far as the Author's failure of shifting or diverting a blame is concerned.

 

I think not that neither the Author nor me are such slow in the uptake to insinuate a diversion of blame, it is rather a question about the genuine justification of an Islamic Activist's dishonsty for an honest religion, for that let me introduce you to the three add-on pictures and an interview with one of the men who did it .

 

hence, my questioning of the moral justification of Muslim's immoral deed, if and when it seems to be in the intrest of Islam for a that particular Muslim.

Having said that, or be that as it may, there is this unforgiveable gullibility of a forever apologetic attitide towards such immorality in the gallery, i'd be lucky if someone took the time to explain it for me and for those who're not dealing from a full deck.

[N.O.R.F]

We apologize the site you are attempting to visit has been blocked due to its content being inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political and moral values of the United Arab Emirates.

 

If you think this site should not be blocked, please visit the Feedback Form available on our website.

[Johnny B]

Are you under censorship?

[N.O.R.F]

Yes.

 

Is it wrong?

[Johnny B]

Well, it is not wrong if you want to be censored , but it is if you don't want to be censored.

 

Do you want me to open a remote connection to my server so you can access that site to see it?

[N.O.R.F]

No saxib. I dont want to get into trouble besides i dont know what your talking about. I dont trust you!