What would you do? (in Re: The cartoons)

[Metella]

Asalamulikum


What would you do?

I want YOU, the reader, visitor, to read the article bellow;
I want YOU to absorb the sentences, the words, the letters;
I want YOU to taste the words you're reading.


Do you care about your mother?

Do you love your mother
more than you love yourself?

Would you defend your mother with all means necessary?

How would you feel if I insulted your mother in the most disrespectful and worst possible way you can think off?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

If you’re feeling ok, no fast heartbeats, no boiling blood, no itchy hands; if you feel relaxed, then you shouldn’t read any further. It’s of no use to you. Go join the army or something!

Do you care and love your children, sister, wife or someone who’s special to you?

What would you do if they were humiliated in the worst way you can’t even think off? Would you feel any rage, anger?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

If you don’t feel anything at all, then you’re already dead, you just don’t know it yet.

So why are Muslims so pissed off , oops, angry. I mean com’n people, it’s just a cartoooeeen. Is it?

We do live in a free country, right? Ehh, yeah, right. NOT!

You can’t even sing a song about the damm politicians, and I am supposed to call that Freedom Of Speech? Hell NO! It’s more the FREEDOM OF THE MONEY!


Websites are taken off the web because of the FOS (Freedom Of Speech), singers are being sued because of the FOS. Yepie yeh yo, a nice freedom we are living in!


The media is very aware of the fact that Muslims cannot use the same tactics to defend themselves. They know that all Messengers of God are
important to Muslims, more then life itself. No way that a Muslim can make a joke of any Messenger. It’s a duty of every Muslim to defend the Messengers, no matter how small the insult is.


Insults towards the Prophets is nothing new. These kind of things happened in the old times too, to all Messengers. To the Prophet Mohammed (Sallalahoe alleyhi wa sallam) and to the Prophets before him. Some among them were killed, others were beaten and others were insulted.

The Prophet (s.a.w.s) was physically and psychologically attacked. That’s why God made His Messenger to be patient like all the Prophets before
him.


“And Be Patient Like The oeloel-‘azm of the Messengers” [Quran 46:35]

These are Noach, Abraham, Mozes, Jesus and Muhammed.


The Prophet has been attacked with stones, until his face and his body was wounded. And still he did only complain to God, and forgave the ones who attacked him. And the behaviour of the Prophet was very excellent and this is made very clear by God:


“And you certainly have an excellent behaviour” [Quran 68:4]


And he (Sallalahoe alleyhi wa sallam) says about himself:

“I am a mercy which was sent!”


And God has promised to protect the Prophet against those who made jokes about him and insulted him:


“And we will take the responsibility concerning those who insult you”



Allah has taken the responsibility to protect His Messenger, when he was alive and after his death. And no matter if we did take action or not.



Nevertheless, it is an obligation to protect the image of the
Prophets, even with our weakest part of our believe; that we don’t allow it to get into our heart.



How would we react if someone made a caricature of our parents or women? So what do you expect if the same thing was done with the Prophet.



The latest events have waken up the Islamic community! Political and economic sanctions perhaps? Who knows, Iran is taking the
best action so far I suppose. Who’s next?

Not to forget how this is very convenience for the freedom fighters, Terrorists, Mujahideen.



The force of the Islamic community lies in it’s good reactions, actions in a positive way. To react in a good way to the bad things. Unfortunately people are attacking churches and other innocent people. Islam is against this kind of things, this is all forbidden.

The Prophet said the following during a battle:



“Do not touch a woman, do not touch a child, do not touch a man on the land, do not touch the religious people and people who are in their holly houses (churches, synagogues)! Do not cut down the trees and do not destroy the holly houses..!”



“What is all the fuss about?” thinks the world, not knowing what all these mean and what it has caused or at leased what it will bring us.

The
Islam, as a religion, basses itself on six matters which are necessary in a human life. Without these six matters, life would not be the same; that’s why Islamic Rules emphasizes the importance of protecting these 6 matters:

1. The religion

2. The soul

3. The brains

4. Property

5.
Offspring

6. Honour



Islam teaches people from the beginning to protect the honour of themselves, their family, community, friends, you name it.

A Muslim can’t live without honour, that’s an answer to the eternal battle of suicide bombers. “Why do they do it and how can they?”
Well, that’s why.

If you insult a Muslim or anyone with honour by talking bad about their mother, then at least what he/she can do is become angry at you. If you stop the insults and apologized then you can be forgive by this person. And if you go to the press to put print your insults as “Freedom Of Speech” and distribute this through the country, then no wonder a person in question will be very angry and acts in an ‘abnormal’ way.

What I would do?

That’s secret! Uncle Sam might be watching!

But, the best way to act to these ‘Cartoon Battle I” is just boycott the products of the countries involved. If they can make Muslim hearts bleed, at least let us make their money blood. And we can see the result already. Europe is getting pretty nervous about the whole ‘issue’.


VIVE LA REVOLUTION!

[Metella]

Sorry for the long post above - it is an un-edited response I recevied to a very gentle inquire of a pakistan group I am a member of ......... I am far from anti-Muslim. I am far from blindly pro-America no matter what.

But this reply truly alarmed me. I would like your feelings on this reply I received - it was sent to the whole list - not just to me.

This reply is actually making me rethink my support or lack thereof of the renewal of the Patriot Act bill - which I'm sure will make Trisha's eye roll - but this is what I think we are facing.

[noc]

Thanks for sharing this e-mail. I'm not as educated on most political matters as most, but my thoughts are:

1. As far as the appropriate response, I would be angry and I fully agree with the idea of a financial boycott in terms of canceling subscriptions to news papers that printed the comic, Western products, etc. That seems to be much more positive a reaction than some of the violent actions taken. However, this e-mail helped me understand better why some of the reactions were so violent.
2. This is a little off subject, but I feel very strongly about what the United States should be about-freedom of religion. I know we don't come anywhere near doing this, and every day our fears are leading to a more limited view of the value of protecting the individual's rights. I also believe in freedom of the press, but my opinion is that the newspapers knew this would create problems and a newsworthy reaction-how could it not? Any one with any sense should have known this would create a violent reaction. And I don't know much about it, other than it seemed wrong.
3. With #1 being said, I probably will misquote it, but I love what the Dali Lama said once about the Chinese. Basically, he said he wasn't angry that everything had been taken away from him and his people. Then, he said if he gave them his anger, they would truly have everything. So, he won't be angry. I'm not that evolved, but I thought it was great. I probably misquoted and misspelled it, but I thought it was great. Dali Lama, Martin Luther King, and others have been pacifists and I think that's the best option. But, human nature is to react. Innocent people would be hurt by financial boycotts (in terms of jobs lost), but some of my mother's friends used to not eat tuna to protect the dolphins or not eat grapes to help support the migrant farm workers. Stikes also have economic impact. The religious right does economic boycots. I'm afraid of the effect on the economy, but it's better than violence.
3. The e-mail made me sad. It did help me to better visualize or empathize with the feelings these comics evoked. I wish there hadn't been such a violent reaction, but, wasn't it to be expected given what was ridiculed? When will the world put an emphasis on multi-cultural skills so that we can move toward peace at some point?

I may reread it and try to provide a better response. I don't know what can be done to prevent this, but I don't think it falls within the freedom of the press to provoke issues. Kind of like you can't murder someone even if you have diplomatic immunity. I just don't know how it can ever be enforced since people will twist limits on freedom of the press for their own use and interpretation. But, an economic boycott that would bankrupt the newpapers involved sounds like the lesser evil (vs. violence). I think it was stupid to run the comics and then to rerun them, supposedly to show what all the fuss was about.

Sorry for the long comment. I probably forgot the question by now!

[Metella]

No that was excellent for me to read .... made me think, that indeed the re-runs of the cartoons should not have been done ..... I am pretty much for a free press - print it if you want and I am free to ignor it - but I sure don't want anything supressed. But this outlook is not even in the realm of the real for Muslims - so perhaps journalists did need to censor themselves in this situation.

? I don't know. but the seathing so close to the surface also made me sad. I posted that exact phrase to the group & they are still discussing it - most of them also feel boycotting is the way to go (as do I) but some still feel that there are lines at which to strike back (as do I - but I set the lines much closer to personal self defense - not idea defense).

I am really curious to see if you, TechGuy have any input on this topic.

[rosemary]

I must admit that I fail to understand that letter. First of all, I'm not a Klingon, the word "honor" doesn't mean so much to me. I prefer to talk about respect. And I have full respect for all true religions, and I think Islam is one of them. I never joke about religion(s) and I wouldn't draw disrespectful cartoons on that subject, either. And I don't swear. I don't use "God" or "Jesus" as an interjection, and I was pissed off when my thesaurus program told me the alternatives for "Jesus" were "bullshit" and "fxck". As a somehow believing Catholic (I talked about this subject earlier with techguy, the lapsed altar boy) I also disapproved of making a Virgin Mary out of crap and porno magazines. But I wasn't actually angry. I believe in God, but I also believe that God is too great to be offended. Same for His prophets (I count Mary among them). Not all Christians share this opinion, but that's what I think. Period.
As far as the father/mother/daughter/sister thing is concerned… I would be offended, if somebody insulted one of my relatives, and I would also say this to the person who's done this. But I wouldn't want to defend my relatives "honor" by quarreling or even physical violence. I wasn't happy when I heard that my younger brother got into a fistfight because some dude said that I was *beep*...

[Techguy]

metella said:

Go join the army or something!

metella said:

I am really curious to see if you, TechGuy have any input on this topic.

Been there, done that, so I'm not sure if I can be completely objective about this issue but I'll give it a go.

My military service gave me the opportunity to on occasion interact with the local populations where I was stationed. Specifically with regard to my time during the Gulf War when I interacted with a predominantly Muslim population, I became even more aware of how cultural and religious differences can impact how individuals from different backgrounds attempt to find common ground to communicate and peacefully coexist with each other.

Having said that, in regard to the cartoons, we in the West might not perceive the insult to the degree that Muslims do. While I am in favor of free speech and the press, and understand how and why the cartoons were first published, I do not understand or agree with the decision to publish them again to show what all the fuss was about. Freedoms come with responsibilities, so when the firestorm erupted, the sensitive and compassionate response would have been to express regret at the insult, and publish a well researched and informative article about the beliefs and traditions of the Muslim faith. This is not censorship, this is a function of journalism to shed more light than heat on an explosive issue.

Claiming freedom to speak or publish without regard for the fallout is the journalistic equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There must be some recognition of, and respect for, the culture and belief system of the intended targets, otherwise journalism is little more than an exercise in lighting a fuse to a combustible and explosive situation.

And having said all that, and taking into account the differences in cultures we are talking about here, I know of no religion or right minded practitioner of any faith who would justify mindless violence--terrorism and suicide bombing--as a legitimate response to an insult. Careless disregard of the civilian population is counter-productive and undermines the position of the protesters. If anything, it provides validity and credibility to the cartoons that wouldn't be there if not for the nature of the violent response.

Finally, even with the threat of terrorism facing the US and the rest of the West in the 21st century, I am reluctant to allow the government a carte blanche of powers to combat the terrorism, such as domestic spying, wiretapping, etc. It seems the US tries to compensate for inferior intelligence and competition between the CIA and FBI by taking extraordinary steps like the so-called Patriot Act to what end? To convince its citizens it's OK to give up some of their civil liberties in order to feel more secure? I quoted Benjamin Franklin before and I'll paraphrase here: those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve NEITHER and are in danger of losing BOTH.

[trisha]

I had a very lengthy and pretty in-depth reply for this last night, but the server ate it and I couldn't get it back. So, here's a more to-the-point response (which I have a feeling you'll prefer anyway, Ms. Pithy Metella )

To start with, yes, I did roll my eyes, but just a little because I understand the fears that messages like that impress on people, especially in a post 9-11 America. I'm not afraid, though, and shame on that person for using fear and threats of violence to attempt to legitimize an argument, especially one with no merit according to their own supporting evidence.

Just take a look at the “points” the person tried to make … all I can say is what a bunch of double talking CRAP. He needs to take a rhetoric class if he’d like to be taken seriously. His response is all pathos, no logos. Would I be upset if someone insulted me or my mother? Yes. Would I strap a bomb to my chest and kill a bunch of people? Um, no. What would that get me? What would it get my mother? Besides, that doesn’t support his argument. You can’t back up an argument with, “I’m willing to kill you if you refuse to see it my way.” !!! Attacking embassies and worse, other human beings, many of whom had NOTHING to do with the cartoon, is impulsive and irrational. Rioting on and on from one target to the next also makes the people doing it look stupid and uncivilized; like a herd of dumb animals suffering from group-think.

I do think that journalists should be responsible in their reporting so as not to fan flames without a justifiable purpose, but I don’t support anyone or anything that would endanger freedom of the press or freedom of speech in order to prevent hurt feelings. Where does that end?

To quote a Muslim friend of mine, "Sticks and stones, sister."

Btw, the cartoon in question was actually originally run in SEPTEMBER. Talk about your delayed reaction, hu? And they were not rerun to show what the fuss was about. They were rerun to send a message to the tyrants of the world that would like to stop the freedom of the press and impose their believes on the rest of the world.

I’ve also heard (from Colbert, so I don’t know if it’s true or truthy,) that the original cartoon was altered by the Muslim group who decided to call attention to it in order to make it more offensive. I haven’t researched this to find out if there’s any validity to it, and I don’t care to as it wouldn’t change my opinion one way or the other on the subject. But, if anyone else cares to, I wouldn’t mind hearing what you find out.

[Techguy]

trisha said:

I do think that journalists should be responsible in their reporting so as not to fan flames without a justifiable purpose, but I don’t support anyone or anything that would endanger freedom of the press or freedom of speech in order to prevent hurt feelings. Where does that end? I say I understand why it happens, not that I agree with it.

Trisha, I'm with you most of the way, except we both know there are loaded words that are especially offensive to certain minority groups. Is the use of the N-word or other epithets acceptable in the name of freedom of speech, regardless of what "hurt feelings" might result? If we yell "Fire!" in the crowded theater of humanity, we shouldn't be surprised if some folks are inclined to throw gasoline on the flames rather than attempt to put out the fire. I certainly don't condone such a response, but I understand why such things can happen.

I can see where Muslims might view the cartoons in the same way an African-American might view the use of the N-word. Where do we draw the line? Where or will it ever end? I'm not sure there is a black-and-white answer to those questions. But I agree with you, using honor and the need to respond to insult are poor excuses to justify killing, rioting and other forms of mindless violence.

[janetcatbird]

The original response, I think, was trying to give non-Muslims a sense of the outrage felt, and in that they succeeded. I find the cartoons awful, and I'm used to religious visuals and tacky stuff in the media (to use a very mild, understated word). But cartoons do not justify violence, and if the article was trying to excuse the attacks and deaths the author flopped.

But like many people here, feelings of anger don't justify the violent reaction. Boycotts, letters and editorials, peaceful protests; to those I say go right ahead. But attacking the embassies and people in the street? From places that didn't have anything to do with it? Pardon my response, but Hell No!

My understanding, which I think came from the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, was that the cartoons were published in Denmark in September. Boycotts, editorials, etc. immediately kicked in around Denmark and Scandinavia but weren't getting much media attention. So somebody passed it on to the more radical segments in the Middle East, who made sure to get the people all whipped up about it and press coverage.

I think it was stupid and irresponsible of papers to not only show it the first time, but to keep doing it. I thought that MSNBC's website had the right approach, if you wanted to see the cartoons that started the whole thing you had to click a specific link that had the warning "Some viewers may find these images offensive", but they didn't plaster them all over the coverage. I am all for the First Amendment, but people need to recognize consequences. I certainly don't believe in the Patriot Act as censorship or Big Brother. As to the wire-tapping, I understand monitoring suspicious persons but you damn sure get a legal procedure/secret warrant in place. (Again, sorry for the language but I'm hacked over this one.)

I'll shut up before I get too far off-topic.

--Catbird

[Cassie]

In 1988 the book "Satantic Verses" by Salman Rushdie hit the bookstores, then the Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran condemned the author to death in Feb of 89‘. Because the main character in Rushdie’s book was modeled after the Prophet Muhamad and quotes from the Quran where tweeked a bit. Rushdie went into hiding for almost 10 years, until the Iranian Government lifted the death warrant, “fatwa” (which is a legal statement/law in Islam) . I believe that this newspaper should have known better. I feel they provoked the Muslims, especially since they published the cartoon twice. I am also not saying that the rioting was right. But, w all know that there is a small group of Muslims that want to start the “Holy War“. Not all Muslims, but some are encouraging it, provoking it. (Remember 911) And I can’t help but feel that someone on this newspaper knew this would fuel their fire.

On the other hand the Ku Klux Klan is allowed to hold public marches to spread any hate they want to. Other religious figures, Jesus, Moses, the Blessed Virgin, etc. are allowed to be mocked. So we have to ask ourselves the questions do we live in fear of offending the Muslims only, or everyone?

[BegToDiffer]

I have such mixed emotions about this whole cartoon mess. I live in a country that accepts offensive language, movies, cartoons, attacks on authorities and religious figures as a part of free speech. We don’t always like these things, but we accept them. I am offended by many things, but object by writing letters, making phone calls, voting, protesting and yes, boycotting. I have yet to burn anything, hurt anyone or blow up buildings. My family and my God are important to me, but would I kill if someone offended their honor? Absolutely not! On the other side, I have heard people say, “What is all the fuss about?” But then I go to work everyday for an international organization and am reminded that many people do not want the life that I accept so willingly.

At the same time, I don’t understand why these protesters who are so offended by this cartoon refuse to follow their own religious teachings. Is this reaction of burning, bombing and hurting innocent people easier than taking a non-violent stand? Aren’t they offending their own religion by going against what true Muslims believe? Hurting innocent people is far more offensive than any cartoon would be, including the one they published of Anne Frank, which only shows that the Middle East can be just as insensitive as Danish newspaper publishers.

And then there is the fact that someone will always be offended by things others do. Recently, we LOCI fans saw how offended Mr. DeLay was over a comment made on the show. We shrugged it off. Some people worship Satan. Do devil cartoons offend them? As someone who believes Satan to be evil, should I even care what they think? So many questions, so many mixed emotions.

[NicoleMarie]

I read somewhere that Muslims were saying America and the West must pay for the cartoons. Excuse me? The cartoons were ran DENMARK, so why blame the USA?

The problem with this is people confuse the fanatics for the real Muslims. Not all Muslims are fanatics. The agenda that these fanatics push is not Mohammed's Islam. Mohammed taught peace, not violence.

Oi...I feel the need to go here too: The fanatics need to accept that not every person will accept their religion and accept that not every country is founded on Islamic Law. Denmark, naughty as they were, have the right to create and print those cartoons. Offensive? You bet. But so is porn, sex, graphic violence, and swearing to others biut you don't have the right to dicate to others what they can or cannot do just because you don't like what they do.

In essence, most European nations and America do have the right to offend someone to a degree, as crazy as it sounds. It's called free speech. I have the right to say I'm not a Christian and not embrace Christian priniciples which will offend some Christians. I have the right to say I'm not a Muslim and do not embrace Muslim principles which will offend Muslims.

Now, if punch you in the face, that is a different matter. If I have your family kidnapped and slain, that is another matter as well. I am actually, literally hurting you. However, not being your religion or making fun of your religion is not actually, literally hurting you. It is hurting your ego or your pride. It is hurting your pride of your religion. However, that is not a crime in the West or even the East. It is only a crime in Islamic Law. And THAT is a crime in itself!

Those who live under or legislate Islamic Law need to get their heads out of the sand (no pun intended!!!) and realize that the entire world is not ran, and will not be run, by Islamic Law. They EXPECT us to be tolerant of their religion and laws, so it's about time they became tolerant of OUR religion and laws!

*Sorry if I sound like I was ranting*

[LOCIfan]

Yes, I agree with all those who've said that responding with violence is neither an answer to the problem, nor in keeping with the Islamic faith. However, I also believe that we in the west do not have a true grasp of why the Muslim world, including the fanatics who go to extremes, have such a problem with the US and Western Europe.

Metella, the response you received on your list serve seems to me to not go far enough. That response replaces "your mother" with the image of "your god" and though doing that does pack a wallop, I don't think it goes far enough in explaining the extreme reaction of many Muslims.

They are responding to decades of what they perceive to be full-scale support for Israel on the part of the West -- an Israel that HAS slain their family members (yes, of course there are two sides to that story, and I am not at all anti-Israeli -- being a Jew myself) but there is a feeling in the Islamic world that the west neither respects, nor understands what is most important to them (and, perhaps most importantly, that it doesn't care to understand). And also that the west will use its might, time and time again, to support Zionist fanatics who wish to destroy their culture and way of life. The notion of the cartoons humiliating their mother is perhaps more akin to the notion of watching their mother being raped and dismembered as the entire western culture laughs at a cartoon about it. Islamic cultures are awash in Western cultures and values. American culture, in particular, is inescapable throughout the world. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly isn't a two-way street. The fact that so many westerners fail to see why/how a few cartoons could spark such riotous violence is a testament to that.

Even fanatics don't resort to violence without provocation. And until we in the west recognize (not necessarily agree, but recognize) the depth of the resentment and anger of Muslims -- even Muslims who are not fanatics and would never resort to violence -- we will continue to scratch our heads and wonder how these crazy people could behave as they do. Just as we were scratching our heads in 2001 when they flew planes into buildings.

Am I justifying the violence? NO WAY! Do I agree with it? Absolutely not! I lost a relative and several dear friends in the attacks of 9/11.

Does the press have the right to print cartoons offensive to Muslims? Of course. And perhaps if those cartoons were balanced with some indication from western culture that we are not just laughing and dismissive, but are also trying to understand and respect a worldview that is completely foreign to our own, it wouldn't have been the straw that broke the camel's back.

Anyone who watched those planes fly into the World Trade Center on 9/11 witnessed an act of pure rage. But to simply condemn it without simultaneously asking WHY? compounds the tragedy.

As I mentioned above, I am Jewish. My family is one of those who came out of the Holocaust believing that God is dead, and if not, that we hate him. Nonetheless, as secular Jews, my parents now live full-time in Tel Aviv. Because we also believe in the existence of a state where Jews can live without fear of execution. Without fear of being hunted simply because of their Jewishness.

On the day that the Academy Awards were announced, my mother called me from Tel Aviv and said that she had cried tears of happiness when she heard that Palestine had a film that was nominated for Best Foreign Film.

The fact that she was able to cry tears of joy for the Palestinians is, I believe, a place we should all aspire to be with respect to those who have inflicted pain on us. Those whose worldviews we don't share, but whose suffering and humanity we can all recognize.

Peace,
LOCIfan

[NicoleMarie]

I was going to leave ny oewn religion out of this but after lreading LOCIfan's post, I think it is relevant now.

My mom is Catholic, my dad Jewish. My parents taught me the foundations of both religions, and taught me about other religions as well. Thus, I am quite familiar with the Muslim idea that Zionists are out to destroy Islamic and their way of life. However, I say that is utter BS and completely unjustified.

The Muslims may not like the support for Israel but if they would stop attacking Israel every two seconds, maybe the West wouldn't HAVE to give to much support to Israel. You reap what you sow! I am in no way anti-Muslim nor anti-Palestine but, bombings and violence is no way to co-exist.

[LOCIfan]

Sadly, NicoleMarie, I think you have missed the point at the heart of my post. Also sadly, I am not enough of a philosopher or scholar to make that point with greater clarity than I have already attempted to do. So once again, my friend, we will have to agree to disagree.