Another view
I have held on my views about the controversial caricatures in deference to my many Muslim friends not because I do not share their indignation. I do. In fact, I would also consider it blasphemous if Jesus will pictured in the same manner. However, I do not subscribe to an extremist course of action. It is no different at all to the blasphemy of the caricatures. The burning of the Danish diplomatic office in Syria that affected other offices too is simply an inappropriate action that would not generate sympathy nor fraternity.
A Dane, Niklas Rasmussen, wrote GDN today and I would say amen to his honest and sincere views:
As a Dane who has lived in the Middle East in Jordan and Lebanon and who has many good friends in the area, please allow me to explain the recent events which have escalated in an unfortunate direction. I have a great affection for the Middle East and have many good friends whom I am in touch with as well as good memories from my years there.
I hope that this letter will explain some things and I hope that it will be posted and hopefully sent around to various newspapers in the Middle East. I hope I am not mistaken in that most people in the Middle East do want a proper debate from moderates without the fundamentalists in any country having the prime spot.
I maintain my and many Danes' opinion where one has the right to disagree with the caricatures, one has the right to discuss the sensibility and the taste of the artist. However one does not have the right in a country with freedom of speech to ban or not to express this art.
I can understand if people find it tasteless or offensive but then a discussion should take place and a healthy debate where one is allowed to disagree. We live in a country where we have paid a heavy price for our freedom which includes freedom of speech. This freedom of speech has meant that caricature and other offensive drawings and caricatures of Jesus have been published.
I would personally disagree with those paintings and with the taste but I WILL at every cost DEFEND the RIGHT of the artist to express his opinion no matter how offended I personally will be. This is a country which for a population of 5.5 million people has an amazing array of quality newspapers from www.berlingske.dk, www.politiken.dk, www. information.dk, www.jp.dk, www.raeson.dk and many other quality papers with various opinions.
We are allowed to discuss anything but there comes a time when people offended should take up the issue in a debate which the newspapers including Jyllands Posten have welcomed. However, death threats to the editors and artists cannot be tolerated. We can disagree with the artist but not with his right to express his opinion no matter if tasteless or provoking.
There has also been criticism of our Prime Minister and our royal family for not having banned these images. The Prime Minister made it clear that he personally disapproved of the caricatures but in a democracy cannot forbid them.
We are willing to enter a debate and dialogue and apologise if anyone feels offended by the caricatures. However, we do not apologise for having printed them or for the artists right to express them.
I look forward to a constructive dialogue from your side.
Niklas Rasmussen
posted by Meandering Shawarma @ 10:11 AM
7 Comments:
I do not know how much you know about Danish culture or whether you are properly informed about this whole mess, so I would like to provide you with a few facts and argumented opinions instead of the lies, rumors, and prejudice that started the whole mess.
There was absolutely no racist intent in printing the caricatures in the Danish newspaper. Whether it was right or wrong to publish the caricatures is not really the issue anymore as this was supposed to be an internal matter in Denmark; but a handful of fascist Imams changed that.
In Denmark, sarcasm and ironi are absolutely normaly ways of communication and you will probably not find anyone as Godless as the Danes anywhere in the world. At the end of the Viking Age, we were forced to give up our original religion in order to prevent being crusaded into extinction. Our native religion was dynamically passed from generation to generation by word of mouth and it was very tolerant of other religions. We have never really forgotten this lax approach to religion and a mechanism to preserve 'the original Danishness' has always been to poke fun at all religions. It is the general opinion that if it does not help crying over spilled milk, then it is a lot better to laugh over it!
This is Danish culture and if you are in Denmark then you will have to live with it no matter if you like it or not! Of course we cannot force you or anybody else in the world to see things the same way - and we do not want to!
Humor is also a normal approach to discussing issues that would otherwise be uncomfortable or taboo. A few years ago there was a comedy ('Festen') about a 60 years birthday with complications. I think few other countries would bring up a discussion about incest through a comedy, but it did allow people to share their thoughts about this issue in a constructive way. Maybe that can be misunderstood outside Denmark, but what do I care? It is a Danish movie and it is meant for starting a discussion in Denmark!
If you threaten a Dane, mockery and humor is more likely to be the response as it is seen as a better alternative to futile agressiveness. This was the case when we were forced to accept Christianity, this was the case when we were forced to accept Nazi occupation (we did have a very active resistance movement though), and it is the case when rabid Imams (who have been welcomed to our country as refugees or immigrants) starts yelling about how worthless and infidel the Danish society is. This is not just a vain excuse, the Imams who escalated the situation are members of an organization who has it as a declared goal to introduce Islamic rule of law in Denmark.
As Denmark is a Democracy, we have to accept their rights to an opinion and can only ensure that they will be prosecuted every time they step over the line - such as calling for hatred or violence against somebody else which is forbidden by law. While it is relatively easy to 'police' the Neo-Nazis as they speak Danish, it is far more difficult to keep the crazy Imams in check when they preach hatred in Turkish or Arabic. In Denmark, there is no law against celebrating imagined superiority and how pure an Arian or Muslim one is as that would be a violation of the right to freedom of speech.
Back to the issue. The whole situation started with a childrens' book explaining Islam to Danish children, where the author could not find anybody to draw illustrations as they were afraid of the Muslim extremists in Denmark. Both Muslim extremism and Danish extremism (the Danish Peoples' Party) have grown in the past 10-15 years as they are both fuelling eachother in an unfortunate spiral.
The cartoonists were asked to depict Muhammed to show their generalizaton (that is the core concept of caricatures) of the radical Islam. That is why the caricatures were printed, in Denmark, to start a discussion about whether a small group of radical Muslims have the right to set the agenda in Danish society. As I said, whether it was right or wrong doesn't really matter, especially not to anybody outside Denmark. Fact is that it did happen and it actually started a healthy debate in Denmark from they were printed last summer until the rabid Imams from Copenhagen and Aarhus went on a a Middle East trip trailing lies and misconceptions.
After the caricatures were printed the rabid Imams exercised their democratic rights to have the case tested by the Danish courts to see if it can go to trial in court. Naturally, the Imams were refused to have the case tried in court as there was no laws being broken. According to the Danish way of life, you can ASK the courts to test a case if you feel offended or if you feel that wrongdoings have been committed against you. But contrary to the perception of the rabid Imams you cannot DEMAND a trial.
As the Danish court system could not be cowed by the rabid Imams they figured that they needed heavier artillery. So in a 'pure righteous ethical manner' the rabid Imams committed what the courts may deem as treason against Denmark - just to have it their Way!
Fact is that the rabid Imams were touring the Middle East and that A LOT of lies and/or misconceptions about the whole case followed in their trail.
Fact is that the rabid Imams claimed to represent 250,000 Muslims in Denmark. Fact is that their fascist organization represents about 5-8% of the about 180-200,000 Muslims living in Denmark. How many of the Danish Muslims who felt greatly offended is a big question. My guess is that a majority of them understands the society they live in and that the intentions were NOT to spread hatred against their being in Denmark!
Fact is that the rabid Imams lied or failed to correct the misconception that Jyllands-Posten is a government newspaper and a fascist newpaper. Whether it was intentional or not the courts will decide if the case goes to court.
Fact is that the rabid Imams lied or failed to correct the misconception that drawings of Muhammed as a paedophile, Muhammed depicted as a pig and a photograph of a praying Muslim being raped by a dog have been printed in Danish newspapters. Those are beyond what WOULD be printed in any Danish newspaper. I say WOULD, because the three images, complete with the 43 pages of rabid Muslim propaganda of which they form part (the documentation the rabid Imams brought with them on tour), have been printed on the website of a Danish newspaper to document the case! Whether this false impression was intentional or not the courts will decide if the case goes to court.
Fact is that the rabid Imams lied or failed to correct the misconception that publicly buring the Koran is the favorite pastime of the Danish population, that the Danish Government intends to publish an edited version of the Koran in Danish, and that Muslims are being persecuted and harassed every time they leave their home. Whether it was intentional or not the courts will decide if the case goes to court.
If a case against the rabid Imams goes to court, then it will be the first time the 'treason clauses' of the criminal code has been applied in peace time. Well, peace time is a fluid expression considering that it is the extremists on both sides who have hijacked the matter to serve their own ignorant purposes.
I am really annoyed by the whole situation, because it is not making it easier to be a 'normal' moderate Muslim in Denmark nor is it making it easier for the 'normal' moderate Danes (Muslim as non-Muslim) to 'fight' the increasing power of the right wingers on both sides.
I am a bit pessimistic about the resolution of the case, because we (I and other moderates) can only do our best to contain the right wingers of both kinds in Denmark while we have no influence on the Muslim right wingers who have hijacked the situation in the Middle East.
The latest I heard was that the head of the rabid Muslim Imams in Denmark wants to go on TV with the Prime Minister to defuse the situation, which I think is a really bad idea. He was the one to start the whole mess and if he is now endorsed as a 'peacemaker' then he will get even more power in Denmark. If we give in to him, then he has won the power-play for influence on extreme Muslims in Denmark where the Muhammed caricatures are just on piece of the puzzle!
What makes matters more complicated is that the newspaper and the Danish Government can go no further than they have by appologizing for the hurt feelings. We cannot and will not give in to a few Muslim extremists and punish anybody for something that is not illegal in Denmark.
Thomas S. Nielsen
The Islamic Democratic Paradox
By Alvaro de Vasconcelos
Inquirer
Editor's Note: Published on Page A13 of the February 8, 2006 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
THE RAGE across the Arab world over the publication in Denmark (months ago) of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, together with the victory of Hamas in Palestine and the increasing radicalization of Iran's politics, has made "political Islam" a fundamental question of international diplomacy. But a one-size-fits-all response won't work. Indeed, we need to abandon the idea that there is a holistic or global Islamist movement.
Political Islam of all colors has emerged as the main alternative to secular Arab nationalist regimes whose legitimacy, based on the struggle for national liberation, has evaporated due to their inability to resolve economic and social problems, establish the rule of law, and guarantee fundamental freedoms. In Palestine, for example, the Islamists triumphed over Fatah because of years of bad governance under the harsh conditions spawned by Israeli occupation.
Successive European and American governments share an atavistic fear of the "Islamic alternative" to Arab secular nationalists like Fatah, and so have defended the status quo. But repression of all Arab opposition movements by the region's monarchs and secular dictators meant that "protection of the mosque" became the only umbrella under which to engage politically.
Now political Islam can no longer be contained, because democracy cannot be built by driving underground parties that have a strong social base, as was tragically demonstrated in Algeria 15 years ago. The only alternative to authoritarianism is to craft a transition that allows Islamists to participate in public life and encourages them to accept unequivocally the rules of the democratic game.
There are already many examples of more or less conservative Islamist parties willing to play along. It is no accident that there are Islamists in the legislatures of all the countries undergoing some form of political reform, including Lebanon, where Hezbollah is part of a freely elected government, as well as Jordan and Morocco.
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has become a strong force in parliament despite the limits imposed on the participation of Islamist groups in last year's elections. In Iraq, free elections have revealed the enormous influence of Islamist currents. In Turkey, the transition to democracy led the Islamist Justice and Development Party to power. That government has undertaken various important democratic reforms and initiated accession negotiations with the European Union. These Islamist parties have nothing to do with al-Qaeda, even though some of the most conservative among them have adopted somewhat similar ideological positions.
The risk of political transitions that may lead to the victory of Islamist parties is a democratic paradox that Europe and the United States must accept if they are to devise inclusive reform policies-in other words, policies that are the polar opposite of the type of democratic imposition practiced in occupied Iraq. Indeed, one of the less fortunate consequences of the intervention in Iraq was to reinforce the notion of a "clash of civilizations" between the West from Islam, which in turn serves to create a climate favorable to Islamist movements.
After all, political reform movements in the Muslim world emerged long before the US-led "war on terror," and reformists were not waiting for the EU to become stronger to press for change. These movements were not created in the United States or Europe after Sept. 11, 2001, and they will not wait for or depend on the United States or the EU to act. Nevertheless, the success of Muslim moderates might well depend on how the EU and the United States respond to pressure for reform and how they decide to encourage change.
It is now necessary to show that democracy is the best path for Palestinians to attain their national goals. This depends largely on the new Hamas government and its transformation into a democratic force that respects the rule of law, democracy and international legality. But it also depends on Israel and the international community, which must do all they can to ensure a future Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
Supporting Palestinian democratization does not mean that the international community should not demand that Hamas abandon terror once and for all, demilitarize, respect the Palestinian constitution and accept the existence of the state of Israel. But it also does not mean supporting sanctions that would hurt the Palestinian people after they have expressed their will democratically. This would be a terrible mistake in any effort to consolidate Palestine's new democracy, with a negative impact in other reforming countries in the Arab world.
Similarly, accepting the right of non-violent Islamists to participate in public life does not mean giving up on the political and ideological struggle to defeat ultra-conservative, and in some cases totalitarian, conceptions of society. Combating racism, promoting tolerance and respecting the religious sentiments of others do not mean that we need to question press freedom or accept the Islamists' demands for censorship, even when real religious sentiments are offended, as in the case of the Danish caricatures. Islamist conceptions of society that violate individual rights must be rebutted politically.
That political challenge is one of the paradoxes of democracy, which allows all ideas to compete freely with each other. Political Islam is a risk, but we can minimize it only by devising intelligent, case-sensitive strategies that promote democracy, not by denouncing the results of democratic choice. Project Syndicate
(Alvaro de Vasconcelos is director of the Portuguese Institute for Strategic and International Studies.)
Martin Luther King, Jr once said, "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter".
When looking at the cartoons published by the Danish newspaper, one has to wonder what the artists were thinking when they drew such depictions of the Prophet.
Were they thinking that Muslims around the world would just laugh it off and not say a word?
I strongly believe in freedom of speech and freedom of the Press, but I also believe that Muslims should not sit back and let the world mock Islam in such a fashion.
I also strongly believe that violence is the worst way to solve a problem, but staying silent about things that are important and about things that you believe in is the worst thing you, as a person, can do.
But what does that mean? Does it mean boycotting products or preaching hate messages or trying to hurt innocent civilians that had 'nothing' to do with this?
Peaceful negotiations/communication comes to mind, but we who believe this are in the minority I fear.
I wonder what all of these people are thinking when they're out setting fire to embassies and burning Danish flags which, by the way, has a cross on it - so does that mean that they are burning or putting down Christianity, and in their eyes does that make it right?
Will the violence ever end and does it solve anything?
Isn't tolerance, peace, acceptance, love and forgiveness very important aspects of Islam and every religion? Wouldn't it be better to discuss these issues/cartoons as adults and as a nation with an open mind and as a people who forgive instead of trying to kill and hate with such malevolence?
The cartoons were deliberatedly published to promote an outcry from the Muslim community - particularly the orthodox part of the community. The outcry was desirable for the newspaper in sofar as it would further a political agenda. What nobody had anticipated was that the outcry would spread outside Denmark and cause an international crisis. Various parties and groups have subsequently sought to exploit the situation to further their own interests. At the heart of the matter is that two hardline groups are facing each other, lines have been drawn and I have no idea how this is going to end. Personally I hope that, despite my misgivings, Mr Fogh Rasmussen will act as a responsible statesman and seek consensus with moderate Muslim groups and parts both here in Denmark and abroad. Hopefully he will also realise what dallying with political agendas as promoted by the Danish People’s Party means.
http://www.bookish.dk/?p=894
I watched with horror on cable TV the row over the cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban. I am not a Muslim. I am more of a free-believer. Nonetheless, I sympathize with the countless poor and marginalized Muslims around the world who feel insulted by the cartoons.
The issue has been presented as a choice between press freedom and respect for religion. The Danish editor of the paper that published the cartoons said that no religion should impose its will on the public domain. I think he is missing the point. I have this notion that religious belief often forms the only source of identity and hope for a group of people who feel oppressed and exploited by outside forces.
Now, Muslim immigrants in Europe and the United States often experience racism and discrimination. Many remain jobless and mired in poverty. The situation in the Arab world is worse. There, dictatorial and oppressive governments are propped up by the United States just because they are pro-West. It is in this context that most Muslims find the controversial cartoons on their Prophet Muhammad very insulting.
Press freedom? Why don’t the Western media protest more about racism and discrimination against Muslims in Denmark and Western Europe? Why don’t they complain more about the lack of democracy in the Arab world?
More often than not, the issue of press freedom arises when the one repressing it is the state. Muslims are not in power. They form a marginalized group in Denmark and the rest of Western Europe.
The Muslims are pressuring the media to conform to the Islamic prohibition on the depiction of Muhammad? Come on, mainstream Muslim groups are only asking the media to respect their religion and to apologize.
Talk about a sense of balance, not to mention cultural sensitivity. As far as I know, there has never been any cartoon in the West that even remotely suggested Jesus Christ (arguably the equal of Muhammad among Christians) as someone who had something to do with violence.
Ultimately, the question is: Is press freedom more important than the right of a sector or a community of people to have their religious beliefs and traditions respected? In this particular case, I believe the answer is “No.”
Press freedom is not a license to malign religious beliefs
By William Esposo, Higher Ground, Philippine Daily Inquirer
The Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons row rages on and portends to get even uglier. Reprints by newspapers in the UK, Germany, Spain and France and later, comments made by Islamic figures of respect and authority to journalists form part of the evolving collage of developments pitting two extreme cultures and mindsets.
On the one hand, we have Denmark representing perhaps the more extreme from of Western-style values founded on openness, liberalism and the various forms of democratic freedoms. Denmark legalized pornography in 1960, was the first country to legalize gay marriages and has long been identified with various ‘blasphemous’ practices, including an officially-commissioned mural of a naked Jesus with an erect penis at a railway station.
On the other hand, we have the extreme side of Islam—which by Western standards is religion far too obsolete, restrictive and inflexible. Islamic nations run according to Allah’s laws and many Muslims find difficulty understanding the Danish dual perspective on belief and individual freedoms. To many Muslims, the Mohammed cartoons are an unforgivable insult and must be dealt with most severely.
Muslims all over the world spilled out into the streets in violent protest. Anything Danish was taboo, from products to Danish nationals to foreign diplomatic postings. The managing editor of France Soir was sacked for echoing the sentiments of most Europeans that the Muslim reprisal was an infringement on press freedom.
It took more than four months before Jyllands-Polsten had decided to apologize—and only because the worldwide outrage had reached very alarming proportions. All this conjures a déjà vu of Salman Rushdie’s nightmare for having authored “Satanic Verses” which had put him on the death list of the more fundamentalist sects of Islam. Iran had issued a Fatwa prescribing a death sentence on Rushdie in 1989. A Fatwa is a binding directive issued by an Islamic religious authority. Rushdie went into hiding. Wary of the risk of inviting Islamic reprisal that would endanger passengers, Air Canada refused to take him on any of their flights.
Muslim piety is seen by other people as fanaticism. Catholics honor martyrs for dying for their faith but the idea of strapping a bomb around one’s body to die for an Islamic cause would be unthinkable. To the Muslim, this is the shortest and surest path to paradise.
In 1976, the movie, “The Message” (starred Anthony Quinn and Irene Papas) told the story of Islam and the Prophet Mohammed. This caused a stir among Muslims, although not to the extent of triggering a Fatwa. But Muslim clerics banned the faithful from patronizing the movie. Muslim countries forbade its exhibition. The issue focused on the depiction of the Prophet in a movie, a gross impropriety to Muslim religious leaders.
That surprised me because I saw the movie and from my Catholic orientation I could not perceive anything irreverent. What I saw was a depiction of the Prophet Mohammed rendered in the pre-‘60s mode of depicting Jesus Christ—no front facial view. During that time, moviemakers (mostly Italians) believed that face shots would be most inappropriate and a form of disrespect to the Son of God whose image and divinity can never be replicated by any mortal actor.
But belief is reality to the believer. The stronger one’s religious convictions, the more one will fight to uphold them. The longest-drawn wars and conflicts involved leaders and nations driven by the fires of religious fervor. The conflict between Islam and Judaism (and Judeo-Christianity) in the Middle East as well as the conflict between Islam and Judeo-Christianity in the Balkans prove that.
Moviemakers, writers and artists who play around themes of faith and religion tread on sensitive or even sometimes, dangerous grounds. Religious tenets cannot be subjected to creative license.
In 1988, the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” which was directed by Michael Scorsese riled Christian sensitivities.
Since Dan Brown’s book “The Da Vinci Code” broke records on the bestsellers lists and in through the current run-up to the release of its movie version, Christian scholars and Church authorities had been busy trying to crack the code. On the February 3 edition of the Jonathan Mann-hosted CNN INSIGHT, “The Da Vinci Code,” fiction though it is, was called an elaborate libel done on the Roman Catholic Church.
A year ago, Mel Gibson’s “The Passion” had its own share of controversy. In this case, the Jews felt that they had been unjustly and excessively portrayed as mean, cruel and brutal. But this issue was not as critical as those involving “The Last Temptation of Christ” and “The Da Vinci Code” because:
1. The point that some Jews raised had nothing to do with mangling the essential beliefs of a faith.
2. The portrayal of meanness and cruelty has solid basis in the Biblical accounts.
In the case of the “The Last Temptation of Christ”—Christians protested the creative license that showed more than the known and accepted relationship of Christ with Mary Magdalene. The movie contained scenes and dialogues that had absolutely no basis in the accounts of the New Testament. One such scene was when Christ visited Mary Magdalene (alleged to be a harlot) at work, servicing her customers—a scene that was not in any of the New Testament versions written by the four evangelists. These scenes and dialogues were mere creations of the film makers.
Because of the controversy, I rented a laser disc (before it became a useless piece of technology) of “The Last Temptation of Christ” so I can draw my own conclusions. Although I do have a bit of the liberal and the conservative with regard certain issues, I do tend to be more liberal in the case of creative works. Writers, after all, find their truths by having a free roam of the landscape. Being in the business of film distribution myself, I would have another reason to favor the liberal line.
Not having even completed a quarter of the film, I was filled with disgust at film’s utter disregard for Christian piety and devotion to Jesus Christ. That was the only time I grudgingly had to agree with the views of former censors chief Manoling Morato
I now remember my reaction to the Scorsese film when I read about the debate surrounding “The Da Vinci Code” which is clearly a work of fiction but has now seemed to have taken a ‘factual’ life of its own. I have no intention to discuss the points of debate on “The Da Vinci Code” but rather to delve on the impropriety of toying around with the foundations of a faith just to exercise one’s creative license or to provide entertainment. To me, the sensibilities of a person’s religious belief are neither the material for creative license nor a source for entertainment.
Silly question to ask now is if anyone of these religion-taunting filmmakers would still want to do a potentially controversial film on the life of the Prophet Mohammed. Or, would any actor/actress, movie crew or what not want to have anything to do with it?
Western-oriented writers, on the other hand get away twittering Christian sensitivities just because most Christians practice a separation of Church and State and value democratic freedoms. In the end something’s gotta give.
You may email William M. Esposo at: w_esposo@yahoo.com
This whole issue is not just about freedom of speech or respect for Islam, but it is also an issue about freedom to not being Muslim!
Fact is, that the Mohammed caricatures were not a completely unprovoked response - probably not the best response, but a response.
The Mohammed caricatures were meant to provoke a discussion about Muslim extremism in Denmark and whether a handfull of fascist Imams who represent less than 5% of all Muslims in Denmark (who themselves represent 5% of the Danish population) have the right to force their perverted interpretation of Islam onto the entire Danish population.
Threathening several Muslim and non-Muslim Danish parliamentarians on their lives because they are 'an enemy' to hardline Islam is just as insulting to a democratic country as the Mohammed caricatures are to a Muslim. Demanding that Islam must be taught in public schools in a country that is very serious about separation of church and state is not just extremely rediculous, but it also shows that the fascist Imams are ignorant of and lack respect for Danish culture.
The large majority of Danish Muslims do not agree with the views of the fascist Imams, but it is only very very few who have the courage to speak up against the intolerance and hatred preached by the fascist Imams. In Denmark it is seen as anti-social and completely unacceptable behavior to use threaths or force on other people. That is why the Danish Imams who went on their 'Hate and Ignorance Tour' in the Middle East will not get any more respect than we give to Neo-Nazis - which is abosolutely NO respect.
In Denmark, violense is not seen as a valid option to a conflict, so instead of burning down the Koran schools of the fascist Imams we make fun of them. Whether the Mohammed caricatures went over the line can be discussed, but what cannot be discussed is whether Danish culture is inferior and must submit itself to Islam.
Post a Comment
<< Home