Drawing Mohammed
The Brussels Journal have been updating us with this story since it first broke, now the mainstream media is finally picking up on it - everyone has been throwing their two cents in, so here’s mine. Kudos to Danish PM, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, for standing up to people’s rights to free speech. From what I’ve seen and read, he’s been consistantly reminding the world of how freedom of expression works, and not about to give in to pressures from abroad. It takes a Liberal leader to stand up to such things - I wonder how quicky Tarja Halonen would bend over?? Seconds you say?
Finland’s foremost expert on Islamic culture and religion, Professor Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila, says…
“One has to be careful with where to draw the line when freedom of speech and the freedom to tackle issues that others may hold precious is in question. Making fun of someone’s religion is a matter where caution is advisable, even in the name of common courtesy, if not for any other reason.”
Yes yes, let’s as a society curb our right to freedom of speech so we can remain “courteous”.
Abdi-Hakim Yasin Ararse of the Islamic Society of Finland says…
“My first reaction is that I became very angry.”[...]“Freedom of expression has progressed very far in the Nordic Countries, but common sense should tell that this is slanderous.”
Slanderous?? Pleeease. But I gotta hand it to Imam Khodr Chehab of the Islamic Society of Finland, he’s got a point when he says…
Imam Chehab notes that freedom of expression is not unlimited even in the West. “If you make jokes about the holocaust, you go to jail. Racism in Finland is illegal, and these drawings have racist characteristics.”
Quite true - and one of the reasons why I don’t believe racism is a “crime” in the legal sense, nor do I think someone should goto jail for making jokes about the holocaust.
If you haven’t already seen the cartoons, here they are.
I just don’t understand why we should give Mohammed any special treatment. 50% of Americans might get offended when people draw cartoons of George Bush, so should we ban that?
Comment by Phil — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 5:42 pm
If my religion had a doctrine about something, I wouldn’t force it on others.
I’d just be happy they’d end up in hell!
Comment by M — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 5:49 pm
_I just don’t understand why we should give Mohammed any special treatment_
Because he is a prophet and has 1.4 billion follower around the globe.
One question, if I burn the Finnish flag in the front of the Parliament in Helsinki, then do you real call this a “freedom” !
Your freedom ends when it humiliates others.
Comment by Abu Omar — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
So muslims never burned any flags?
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
>>>> Your freedom ends when it humiliates others
No it doesn’t. My freedom stops when i limit the freedom of others. If we had a Freedom from Humiliation Act, every person would sit in jail
Comment by Hunser — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
IS burning (a flag) still considered “speech” or “expression”? Burning a person?
Comment by Majava — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:20 pm
One question, if I burn the Finnish flag in the front of the Parliament in Helsinki..
Did someone go to a muslim country to draw those pictures, or were they published in Iranian newspaper?
That I would call slanderous.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:27 pm
The most stupid article I read about this topic….
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:28 pm
That guy in the picture above is a dead ringer for… gasp… Phil! Wow! Now we can have ourselves our OWN Conan Show. Phil can go visit Mecca because he looks like the Prophet himself!!! And he can flog (whoops, bad choice of words there) this likeness thing to death, and a-a-and, hey, maybe Fox News will carry a picture of the blog, and maybe there’ll be a video of his public stoning… way cool! Golly-gee! Bring it on!
Comment by Beelzebub — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
Because he is a prophet and has 1.4 billion follower around the globe.
How many billion followers do you need to have in order to be exempt from freedom of speech? Serious question.
One question, if I burn the Finnish flag in the front of the Parliament in Helsinki, then do you real call this a “freedom†!
Absolutely!
Your freedom ends when it humiliates others.
Then we’d never have any freedoms.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:32 pm
The most stupid article I read about this topic….
Glad that you came to save this discussion with you insightful comment.
Comment by M — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
“Because he is a prophet and has 1.4 billion follower around the globe.”
Ok, so he is a prophet to 1.4 billion people. That also means he’s in no way special to the rest of the world’s population - about 5 billion people.
Who decides how many followers you need to have to get some sort of immunity?
Believing that he’s a prophet doesn’t make him one. He might be something superior in your eyes, but not necessary to other people.
Comment by JP — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
*necessarily
Comment by JP — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:44 pm
In all fairness, Hämeen-Anttila also pointed out that we should understand that people in the Middle East react in a different (read: louder) way to even smaller issues like these. So even though the flag-burning and svreaming might look scary to us, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this is a big deal that will go on for a long time.
Also, we should try to understand that the Islamic tradition isn’t visual in the same sense as ours, so images can easily get interpreted in a stronger way than they would in our culture. We are so used to strong images that nothing really effects us any more, and even if we find something annoying or even hurtfull, it would probably only result in a letter to the opinion page of a newspaper or a note on one’s blog.
One part of the cultural-crash is that freedom of the press isn’t a concept familiar to most of the people who go out on a flag-burning rampage as printing images like the ones in Jyllands-Posten would be banned in their country and in most cases the government is controlling the media. Also, people who already hate everything western just love to spread these kinds of images out of their context to gather support for their own agenda.
All in all I agree with Phil on the remarks on Fogh Rasmussen. He shouldn’t apologize for something a privately-owned newspaper did. I also think that Jyllands-Posten had the right to publish the images as they were - as far as I know - used as illustrations on a article which was pondering the limits of critique and freedom of expression.
That said, they should have comprehended that controversial images like those might in today’s world easily end up in the wrong hands, i.e. used out of context to make unnecessary uproar. The question that they should probably have thinked through a bit more was “is it worth it”. Was it necessary to use so strong images to make a point? The bosses at Arla Foods would probably disagree. I personally, keeping freedom of expression (and the responsibility that comes with it) in mind, am not totally convinced either. Difficult issue.
Comment by Joonas — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 6:57 pm
Glad that you came to save this discussion with you insightful comment.
I was just about to say the same thing but he beat me to it.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
The whole ruckus for those cartoons - nah… Just watch this episode of Southpark for a bit more extreme stuff:
http://www.tv.com/south-park/bloody-mary/episode/589508/summary.html
Didn’t notice any big demonstrations after that episode was shown :-).
Comment by NN — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 7:24 pm
I, for one, plan on supporting our Danish brothers in distress by buying lots and lots of Carlsberg
One question, if I burn the Finnish flag in the front of the Parliament in Helsinki, then do you real call this a “freedom†!
Sure, go ahead I don’t really mind. Laws against burning a piece of cloth are pretty ridiculous in my opinon.
Comment by Gonzo — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 7:33 pm
So what are these islamic countries going to do now that a lot of other european countries have also printed these pics, also im with gonzo on the carlsberg thint, im willing to down a few to help out our scandi brothers and sisters
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
So what are these islamic countries going to do now that a lot of other european countries have also printed these pics, also im with gonzo on the carlsberg thint, im willing to down a few to help out our scandi brothers and sisters
Comment by sppuuddy — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
buying lots and lots of Carlsberg
I don’t get the whole Carlsberg thing, I rather have Koff, and Koff sucks! There’s no way it’s worth the extra $$ for a Carlsberg.
Comment by Phil — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 7:59 pm
Do you think if these cartoons had been published in a Finnish paper would the paper been sued for “jumalanpilkka” (blasphemy)? If I remember correctly just last year somebody was fined for making slanderous comments on a discussion forum. The law goes something like if you publicly dishonour or make offending comments of something the church or a religious community holds sacred you can be fined or sentenced to imprisonment. Wouldn’t this fall under the law?
Comment by hobbes — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
carlsberg would not be my first choice but im not doing it for me.
its all about helping out where we can ,ok we could buy danish dairy products but what sounds better 12 pints of yogourt or 12 cans of amber necter.
Comment by sppuuddy — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
Maybe by year 2100 those sand rats actually have a culture resembling something like modern day society. Now they are somewhere between the middle ages and 19th century.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
Joonas - I’m not sure what to make of Hämeen-Anttila’s point, its seems a bit bogus. Is this really any different to the US “freedom fries” boycott of French goods? All it is consumer power being demonstrated - its a shame for th 100 folk that Arla have laid-off they had nothing to do with the cartoons, but the French wine makers had nothing to do with the French position on Iraq.
Those Brit muscular liberals at Harry’s Place http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2006/01/31/not_so_long_ago.php also note that when the Last Temptation of Christ came out some fundy Catholic group in France firebombed a cinema causing many injuries. No one seems to have a monopoly on over reacting.
The internet has led to this being able to make a huge thing out of not very much - and arguably this form of protest has been pioneered by various US rightwing organisation (opposition to Clinton over the ‘Lewinsky-gate’ being a good early example). And look at the flap over Janet Jackson’s nipple!
Comment by Toby — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 8:54 pm
sieg phil! heil anonymous! i’m 100 percent behind freedom of speech, but i also believe that people should think before they act. i understand the irony presented by the cartoonist, but did he stop to think that the majority of the worlds muslims are not radical islamists and don’t wish to destroy western culture. for them to destroy western culture would be akin to a grandparent killing their grandbabies. the way we (the west) are today has a lot to do with what we learned from our former overlords (moorish european history etc.). as far as the boycott goes, its about time someone told the danes to keep their crappy cheese and shitty beer and legos. lets all boycott denmark;p
Comment by jenkki immigrant — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 8:58 pm
The responce from European people seem to be to defend the Freedom of Speech as furiously as Muslims are reacting to publishing of those images. The way I see it, is that this is just a clash between different values, westerners value Freedom of Speech, and muslims regard more highly about the religious agendas.
But to say, that Freedom of Speech is more valuable than religion is simply a cultural point of view. Anyone who says that western values are absolutely the better are simply not getting this.
I’m sad that common courtesy and respect has to stand aside when it comes to cultural values.
Comment by rdnk — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 9:00 pm
“But to say, that Freedom of Speech is more valuable than religion is simply a cultural point of view. Anyone who says that western values are absolutely the better are simply not getting this.”
According to the same logic, burning witches and bringing evil cows to justice are actually quite OK. Who we are to say those wonderful ways of the middle ages are inferior to ours. So how’s your Inquisition, have you lost any limbs yet?
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
Should not Americans be politically correct? At least there is one religious group that is never offended by Hollywood. Same group is no longer offended in Germany, there is even law about that.
Why this sudden need to offend muslims?
Comment by jormanen — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
rdnk,
That’s a piece of cultural relativism I don’t buy at all. No-one is saying freedom of speech is more valuable than religion. They are saying that given that people believe different things, no one side should have the monopoly on values. In some muslim countries it’s fine to blaspheme against Christianity but not against islam. In most of the West it’s fine to blaspheme against anyone.
That is progress of the most important sort. When Bush talks about freedom I generally think he’s a dick, but on this he’s spot on. The West is superior by any non-metaphysical criteria. Questioning, dissent, challenging the orthodoxy - all of these lead to progress. Mill knew this over 150 years ago. The Muslim world has yet to understand it. That’s not a difference in values, it’s ignorance.
Comment by finnsense — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 10:02 pm
Jormanen,
The Last Temptation of Christ
The West Wing
South Park
The Simpsons
Dogma
And that’s just off the top of my head. Hollywood is a business. If it doesn’t offend christianity very often it’s about money. But it does do it - and much more often than it offends Islam.
Islam needs to made fun of the same as all religions. They are the breeding ground of ignorance. Not all beliefs have equal validity - the Enlightenment showed us that - and no serious thinker can defend them. Thus, they should be ridiculed.
Comment by finnsense — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
Actually it was Niinistö who said he was willing to give up civil rights if Finland came under terror threat. You seem to have some pretty weird illusions about Kokoomus.
Comment by m — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 10:14 pm
“According to the same logic, burning witches and bringing evil cows to justice are actually quite OK.”
It’s about time someone did something about those damn cows!
Comment by adynaton — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
Luckily nobody in the Middle-East has noticed chick.com yet: http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1004/1004_01.asp
Comment by m — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 10:28 pm
Hmpf…To be honest, I would rather see freedom of speech working the way it was originally intended, exposing corrupt and incompetent civil servants, presidents etc. rather than these piss-immersed christs, caricatured prophets and burned flags. But if the response to word or drawing is a bomb threat instead of other word of disagreement, there is not much of a cultural progress from the urban finnish hot-dog kiosk queue at 3am. and these people could be somewhat excused, because they are drunk.
I’m all in favor of peace and respect, but if confronted with postmodern relativism, I’m defending the west. First, the pain is not a social construction. My proof is the same as was with that english bishop, who hit his toe on the stone to prove the world is not an illusion. I’m happy to scrap any tribal beating or finger cutting ceremony based on some raving maniac’s revelation in approximately 3277 BC.
Second, the freedom of speech plus other western stuff do not come out of thin air and they are under constant discussion as they are right now even on this thread. The philosophers have discussed it, they have applied logic, deduction, induction, empirism, statistics etc. on it. It has been written on constitutions, tested in practice, challenged in courts.
Religion comes to somebody’s head and after the great council has cleaned off the worst discrepancies from the scriptures, preferably one or two thousand years ago, it is there, period. No criticism, no evolution, or you are a heretic, unless the Kurfursten is your best buddy and saves you from the inquisition with his influence. Then you can have your own church. There you are, stuck with your flat earth. I’d rather have a result of discussion and scrutiny, than a dictation from someone, who says it comes from the god, or at least Karl says so.
End of sermon.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 10:54 pm
France Soir-newspaper is not holding back anymore:
In Finnish:
“Ranskalainen France Soir julkaisi koko kahdentoista pilakuvan sarjan tulikivenkatkuisten kommenttien saattelemana.
“Me emme tule koskaan pyytämään anteeksi sitä, että olemme vapaita puhumaan, ajattelemaan ja uskomaan”, kirjoitti Serge Faubert.”
In English:
French newspaper France Soir published the whole set of 12 cartoons with an all-barrels-firing comment:
“We will never apologise for being free to think, talk and believe”, wrote Serge Faubert.
Sounds like…..hmmm….BRAVEHEART! GET SOME! GET SOME!:)
Comment by tim73 — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
Finnsense - in the immortal words of Homer Simpson - Doh! He didn’t mean Christianity. Everybody takes the piss out of Christianity.
Secondly, the Salafi-Jihadi ideology is all about “Questioning, dissent, challenging the orthodoxy”, their understanding of ijtihad is very challenging to conservative salafis and conservative Muslims more generally, but I really don’t see how it is leading to any “progress” at all.
Comment by Toby — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 11:02 pm
Denmark is a hypocritical society. Despite their outer mask of being a secular society it is in their constitution that the Evangelical Lutheran church is considered to be the state church.
[i]The Danish government Monday upheld the clerical suspension of a Lutheran minister who proclaimed last year that there was no God or afterlife, and he now could be fired or fined for declaring his beliefs in the pulpit. [/i]
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/g/archive/2004/07/15/ministersuspend.DTL
I’m pretty sure if some stereotypical cartoons of blacks or jews would have been published people here would have cried hoarse about ‘racism’ and ‘anti-semitism’ but apparently as it’s open seasons on the Muslims so it’s considered game.
The anger in the Muslim world is not on the fact that somebody drew prophet Mohammad (as the media is trying to portray it)…it is over the insulting and stereotypical view of the prophet as the ‘Muslim terrorist’ and it is this intolerance which has offended people.
Apparently old and left over intolerant tendencies are still lurking under the skin of most of us Europeans…emerging under the garb of ‘freedom of speech and expression’, which of course we always apply selectively.
Comment by Nokia Guy — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
“Apparently old and left over intolerant tendencies are still lurking under the skin of most of us Europeans…emerging under the garb of ‘freedom of speech and expression’, which of course we always apply selectively.”
Well, you Nokia guy, you could try to live outside Nokia, on your own and being out of Matrix, might open your horizon…take the red pill.
Comment by tim73 — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 11:39 pm
Heh
1) how is it racist? Islam is a religion, not a race.
2) This is so typical somehow. Like the Finnish Imam (or whatever) said how he understands the reaction in the Muslim world, and that how these pictures are trying to depict Islam as violent religion. How is threatening Danes and Norwegians, storming EU premises with assault rifles, threatening with murder, going to change that label? They deserve it.
Comment by Krisu — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 11:48 pm
http://skender.be/supportdenmark/
Comment by Krisu — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 11:49 pm
Shouldn’t this also be considered ‘freedom of speech and expression’:
[b]ROME, Jan 31 (Reuters) - AS Roma have been ordered to play their next home match at a neutral venue behind closed doors after their fans held up banners with neo-Nazi and anti-semitic slogans during a 3-0 win over Livorno in Serie A at the weekend.
The punishment, handed down by the Italian Football League’s disciplinary committee on Tuesday, will affect Roma’s game against Cagliari on Feb. 8.
It is the second time in the past two years that Roma have been ordered to play in an empty stadium because of the behaviour of their supporters.
Last season they played their last two Champions League group stage matches behind closed doors after Swedish referee Anders Frisk was hit by a coin thrown from the stands during their opening game at the Olympic Stadium against Dynamo Kiev.
The latest incident, however, is one of a series that have tarnished the image of Italian football this season.
Lazio striker Paolo Di Canio has twice been handed fines and one-match bans for making fascist salutes at the end of Serie A games against Livorno and Juventus last month.
In November Messina’s Ivorian midfielder Mark Zoro threatened to walk off the pitch after he was racially abused by Inter fans.
[/b]
As I said the selective application of this garb of so called ‘freedom of speech’ actually hurts the cause of freedom more than it helps.
The right of freedom of speech comes with responsibility…the responsibility to not insult and trample over other’s feelings as is the case with making fun of someone’s race.
Here is what Bill Clinton had to say about this display of intolerance:
Former US president Bill Clinton warned yesterday of rising anti-Islamic prejudice, comparing it to historic anti-Semitism as he condemned the publishing of the cartoons.
“So now what are we going to do? … Replace the anti-Semitic prejudice with anti-Islamic prejudice?” he said at an economic conference in Doha.
“In Europe, most of the struggles we’ve had in the past 50 years have been to fight prejudices against Jews, to fight against anti-Semitism,” he said. Clinton described it as “appalling”. “None of us are totally free of stereotypes about people of different races, different ethnic groups, and different religions … there was this appalling example in northern Europe, in Denmark … these totally outrageous cartoons against Islam,” he said.
Comment by Nokia Guy — Wed, Feb 1st, 2006 @ 11:58 pm
finnsense,
“no one should have monopoly on values” is not it’s the issue here. Muslims are not angry towards westerns that we don’t want to accept their values, it’s more like the other way around here.
“The West is superior by any non-metaphysical criteria. Questioning, dissent, challenging the orthodoxy - all of these lead to progress.” That’s a good point to start, were superior and that’s it, just because we have been developing these values of ours for a few hundred years. I believe (though I’m not an islamic scholar) that questioning and challenging has been happening on the islam as well.
Even if publishing of these images can be justified in our system under freedom of speech, their main purpose still has been to cast the whole islam in bad light. The images originally were published in right-wing magazine. And boy, what success they’ve had, now half of the europe has taken the bate. Wheres the first Finnish magazine to get on and defend our freedom and rights against the forces of backwardness?
Comment by rdnk — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 12:04 am
Denmark should have acted faster than it did -Finnish FM
1.2.2006 at 11:43
The Finnish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Erkki Tuomioja (soc dem), said in a Finnish Broadcasting Company (YLE) breakfast programme Wednesday that Denmark should have been quicker off the mark in its response to the Danish newspaper cartoons that have sparked outrage among Muslims.
[b]Mr Tuomioja added that the Danish government could apologise for the affront without endangering the freedom of speech.[\b]
“Perhaps the matter should have been taken more seriously already when ambassadors from 11 Muslim countries sought audience with the prime minister, and the prime minister refused to hear them,” Mr Tuomioja said.
Jyllands-Posten, a Danish daily, printed a dozen satirical illustrations of Muhammad in September, including one where the prophet has a bomb in his turban.
Comment by Nokia Guy — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 12:05 am
““We will never apologise for being free to think, talk and believe so go ahead sand rats, make your move.
Comment by tim73 — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 12:40 am
Guess who’s laughing now tim73?
Boycott may cost Danes 11,000 jobs
Copenhagen (dpa) - A long-term consumer boycott of Danish goods in the Middle East and other Muslim countries could threaten some 11,000 jobs in Denmark, a Danish bank said Tuesday.
Exports of food and agriculture products alone could cost some 4,000 Danish jobs if the boycott continues for a year, Jyske Bank analyst Claus Birn Jensen said.
Comment by Nokia Guy — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 12:54 am
“Boycott may cost Danes 11,000 jobs”
So what, you probably would sell your Espoo Wife because your principles are like a wet white sock. Anything goes, neighbour niggah fucking your wife while you are playing with the latest nokia gizmoh. I still strongly recommend living outside Nokia, my brother.
Comment by tim73 — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 1:07 am
I agree that the cartoon was ridiculous and insensitive, yet I think reactionary violence in response is even more ridiculous (and horribly tragic). But how does an apology on behalf of the Danish government constitute an inhibition of freedom of speech? Especially given the tumultuousness of the situation, as long as the offending company wasn’t punished by its governement in some way, an apology by that government is simply a diplomatic offer of peace.
I don’t intend this question to be offensive to anyone who feels the apology is a transgression of freedom of speech, but I truly don’t understand the reasoning (yet, perhaps). Thanks.
Comment by oy vey... — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 9:58 am
Just to clarify my position, I think the cartoons are insensitive and that the people who drew and published them (originally) are morons. BUT, I defend their right to be printed. It’s the core of civilisation.
I fully support the reprinting across Europe too. It’s being done because of the attack on our freedom of speech, not our anti-Islam.
Comment by finnsense — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:08 am
Go free speech! When will the next Radio Free Finland podcast be published???
Comment by Mika — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:21 am
Denmark should have acted faster than it did -Finnish FM
“Denmark” did what it should, and stayed out of it. Only a socialist would stick their noises in a private newspaper’s business like that. Seems like Rasmussen believes politicians and the press should be seperate!
Comment by Phil — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:24 am
When will the next Radio Free Finland podcast be published???
Hopefully this week! I’ve been busy with my new job and haven’t been proactive finding guests.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:35 am
oh yeah, i forgot to say: institionalized religion sucks (much of the time, anyway). so does violence.
also, anybody remember the (still-standing) episode with salman rushdie’s “the satanic verses”? i was reminded of the situation in a finnish article (don’t remember where). this british author’s death sentence fatwa is still present. (and i can’t believe ex-hippie cat stevens supported/s the fatwa!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#The_Satanic_Verses_controversy
Comment by oy vey... — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:50 am
# 35, France Soir´s Managing Director is SACKED today. In Swedish:
“Tidningens ägare säger att han med Ã¥tgärden vill visa respekt för alla människors tro och övertygelse.”
And my translation: “Owner of the magazine says doing so he shows his respect for every peoples faith and conviction.”
The pictures were also shown without drawers permission, so copyright was violated too. What abou You Phil, did You ask them?
Comment by jormanen — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:58 am
“It’s the core of civilisation.” No its not, don’t be silly. Just about every Western country puts some limits on free speech, amongst them: libel, slander, threats, lies in the media, hate speech, holocaust denial, blasphemy, espionage etc etc. Look at the the current Enron trial - they are accused of talking up their stock, they have no free speech right to that, even in the US with constitutional protection of free speech. It doesn’t mean that the newspaper was necessarily wrong to print the cartoons - but lets not be essentialist or holier-than-thou about it.
Comment by Toby — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 11:18 am
there is over 6 billion people in the world. It’s even hard to comprehend how this mad mass of insane to a various degree humans managed to coexist for all these thousands of years on this planet, leave alone some stupid cartoon.
Surenity now, surenity now. Festuvus for the rest of us!
Comment by conan — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 11:20 am
If I go and publish a paper where I claim the Jews deserved what happened to them .
If I wrote that Finland should accept Sweden’s superior authority and make swedish the main language.
If I were to draw a cartoon on the herald tribune, showing christ in new zealand shagging sheep, in greece shagging goats, in england shagging horses, etc, and say this is what religion does.
If I were to draw a comic showing the Vatican as anti-jews, as their name is unheard of in the second world war in general history books.
If I were to show Moses as a terrorist suicide bombing a Roman building, shouting “free gaza”…
Would I be praised?
Or would the Pope denounce me? The courts punish me? the society abolish me?
Double standards.
Comment by a german — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 11:40 am
Toby: “The internet has led to this being able to make a huge thing out of not very much - and arguably this form of protest has been pioneered by various US rightwing organisation (opposition to Clinton over the ‘Lewinsky-gate’ being a good early example). And look at the flap over Janet Jackson’s nipple!”
Yeah, you’re of course exactly right. What I think Hämeen-Anttila tried to say was that we shouldn’t get all worked up after seeing people shouting and burning flags, as that isn’t a unusual way to react to negative things in that region. As far as I understood, Hämeen-Anttila tried to in a sense calm us so that we wouldn’t get provoked into the same style retoric that has been used by certain religious hotheads as the whole issue is sure to just blow over after a while. This of course doesn’t mean that even other people in other parts of the world can overreact on a variety of issues and act in a way that might look ridiculous or even frightening to most of us.
Unfortunately we haven’t seen any signs of this going away, even though the Danish muslim community seems to have accepted the apology by Jyllands-Posten and are trying to spread the word to the Middle East as well. The reaction of some other newspapers around Europe, that lead to the publishing of those images again and again, does on the other hand look exactly like the thing that Hämeen-Anttila tried in a way to warn about. By making this into a big Freedom of Speech vs. Islamic Values fight they probably guaranteed that this won’t go away any time soon. This will most likely only lead to both sides digging themselves deeper into their trenches, which only make the whole thing sillier - all that just because of a few drawings! I don’t know which side is making a bigger fool of themselves, but it’s hard to see anything good coming outh of it all any time soon.
All in all the main problem is that people in general are idiots that get all worked up about virtualy anything. As for Erkki Tuomioja’s comments on how Denmark as a country should have somehow reacted or even apologized for something that a independent newspaper did several months ago just proves my point.
Comment by Joonas — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 11:50 am
a german,
Actually in most western countries you’d be denounced but would face no legal sanction. That’s the point.
Comment by finnsense — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
german -
I think that the whole point is that the people who disliked the images simply overreacted.
If they were upset with the images, they should have first contacted the paper and tell them what they think and ask them why they published them in the first place. If the explanations wouldn’t make sense or if the paper wouldn’t apologize, they could have taken the matter to the police and ask them to investigate if the images could be seen as racist or something. At the same they could have made the matter public in a calm but clear way and thus made the paper to explain their views in public.
That would have been the right way to go ahead, not taking the images out of their context and spreading them as an example of the moral decadence of the West. Not to mention the ridiculous idea that the government should somehow take responsibility for the actions of one independent newspaper. The boycott wasn’t a very contructive idea either as it has already lead to the closing of a Arla Foods factory in Saudi-Arabia (if I remember correctly) and some 800 local people (correct me if I’m wrong on this) loosing their jobs.
So it’s not really about double standards or whether you are a jew, christian, muslim or whatever - it’s simply about one newspaper that acted a bit thoughtless. Unfortunately that has been transformed to an minor international conflict due to arrogance and stupidity on both sides. First it was those who went out and published the images without thinking it through, then there were those who overreacted after seeing the images and then those who saw the republishing of the same images as a major stand for freedom of speech.
This really has more to do with us being humans (and thus unperfect) than any religion - may the god in question be Allah or Freedom of Speech…
Comment by Joonas — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
(Oh man, I really shouldn’t write today as the result looks even worse than usually… Besides, Finnsense actually already made the point in a far simpler way: Why not just think that the people who make stupid claims - or publish images that hurt the religious views of a lot of people - are idiots? Why would you waste all your energy on trying to get apologies from people who had nothing to do with the thing in the first place, like the prime minister?)
Comment by Joonas — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 12:32 pm
The sad thing is that there are so many people in the Muslim world who feel threatened. I can’t exactly blame them.
Fortunately, president Bush has been addressing this problem by bringing democracy tho the Midlle East. Nice. Unfortunatley there seems to a few muslims who don’t understand the moral purpose behind it all.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
“Fortunately, president Bush has been addressing this problem by bringing democracy to the Middle East”
Huh?
here is some good reading about “bridge-builder” Bush
http://www.michaelmoore.com
Comment by conan — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 1:08 pm
I vote for “we shouldn’t desecrate things that are important to other people”. Making fun of people with their ceremonies and ways to serve their gods is different than disgracing the subject of their worship.
Why is this done in first place? I’m no muslim, but I find it hard to believe that Mohammed would be such monster. Through out the history of christianity there has been horrible slaughter and torture in the name of our loving and forgiving God.
I’m not the first one here to say “think before acting”.
Comment by issi — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
Fogh-Rasmussen would not have needed to do anything more than shrug his shoulders and mutter a few polite remarks about his own personal distaste for the pictures, etc, etc., and “You understand that in a Western democracy… blah blah.. freedom of the press, yadda yadda yadda…” back in September 2005, and it would quite possibly all have gone away. It reminds me uncannily of the McDonald’s “hot coffee case” - let the lawyers (or in this instance the radical clerics) in, and you pour oil on a badly-stubbed cigarette butt.
So WHY did Fogh-Rasmussen remain aloof? Don’t cite the “freedom of speech” liturgy or “protecting the secular state from religious interference”, because I’ve already charged that he could have acted without compromising these, just as a government could distance itself from Madonna when she got sandbagged by zealots over that Kabbala (spelling?) song, or - on a more serious note - just as the Bush Administration distanced itself from Pat Robertson’s silly remarks about Chavez.
IF Fogh-Horn had an ulterior political motive - and comments indicate that his inaction may have pandered to anti-immigration, anti-Islam feelings among his core supporters and those of the coalition partners - then he also has some responsibility for this mess. Then his actions now - as the public wakes up to feeling insecure and thousands of jobs are going - should be seen in the light of a man desperately trying to do some damage limitation for his own ends, and not to mollify the supposed aggrieved party.
Comment by Mose the Sheepshagger — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
So WHY did Fogh-Rasmussen remain aloof?
Cause it wasn’t a big deal back then in the media. If he would have made a public statement, then it would be a big deal. He shouldn’t have to remind people of basic fundamental rights, they go without saying.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
It has been a big deal in DENMARK ever since the original publication. The fact that it has not crossed OUR radar before now, because the international wire services and whatnot have chosen not to cover it - until the Zippos come out and the flags get torched - is not the issue. His actions would in any event have been in the form of negotiations - that he apparently refused to have - with diplomatic representatives, and he would not have needed to make “a public statement” as such, nor would he have needed to gag the press. You are being naive if you think that such discussions do not go on all the time between governments and diplomatic representatives - even, I suspect, between the State Department and the French authorities when people were going around exhorting folks to pour wine down the drain or boycott Brie.
Comment by Mose the Sheepshagger — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 2:52 pm
As I said the selective application of this garb of so called ‘freedom of speech’ actually hurts the cause of freedom more than it helps- Nokia Guy
I am afraid that you do not understand the boundaries of “Free Speech”. Free speech is not protected in a on private property. Such is the case in your Italian Football Leauge analogy. It was not the government that decided to move the games, but the disciplinary commitee of the football league. If you come into my house and say something that pisses me off, I can kick you out for that.
This is something that some free-speech advocates do not quite understand.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
If it were not for the world’s dependence on middle eastern oil, the ravings of the radical muslim culture, which is completely out of touch with anything resembling a reasonable way of dealing with the rest of the world, would be largely ignorred.
Comment by paul — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
It takes a Liberal leader to stand up to such things - I wonder how quicky Tarja Halonen would bend over?? Seconds you say?
i guess we’ll never know, phil, since finland doesn’t have a Liberal president. and there won’t be one in atleast 6 years. only the right wing wackos and muslim fanatics benefit from this confrontational situtation. you apparently want to belong to the first group. in finland, we have this thing called consensus.
you apparently don’t feel the need to back your statements up or defend them. you’re also acting like a sore loser. the election has been won by a candidate you didn’t support. big deal. get over it.
this blog doesn’t receive the attention it is getting.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
hehe. deserve that was…
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
It’s not just about these pictures.
I heard from the radio news today that 90% (or something) of Danish people fear the threat of terrorism. Reasons: terrorist cells possibly operating in Denmark etc. etc.
Radical islamists have threatened the NATO countries of Denmark and Norway before too, if you remember.
Thank Mohammed that bin Laden loves the neutral Sweden. And they probably think Finland is a province of Sweden anyway.
Comment by Donkey — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 9:06 pm
“French newspaper France Soir published the whole set of 12 cartoons with an all-barrels-firing comment:
‘We will never apologise for being free to think, talk and believe’, wrote Serge Faubert.
Sounds like…..hmmm….BRAVEHEART! GET SOME! GET SOME!:)”
Indeed, the Editor-in-Chief of that newspaper just got fired.
Here’s the news and some amusing photographs too:
http://www.hs.fi/ulkomaat/artikkeli/1135218594369
Comment by Donkey — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
“Holocaust denial” is a crime under EU law, even though that it dates back to 50 years ago, and it’s merely a historical fact.
The “freedom of speech” argument stops when it comes to the Holocaust.
Why? Can anyone answer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial#Public_reactions_to_Holocaust_denial
Comment by Abu Omar — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:13 pm
>>If they were upset with the images, they should have first contacted >>the paper and tell them what they think and ask them why they >>published them in the first place. If the explanations wouldn’t make >>sense or if the paper wouldn’t apologize, they could have taken the >>matter to the police and ask them to investigate if the images could >>be seen as racist or something. At the same they could have made the >>matter public in a calm but clear way and thus made the paper to >>explain their views in public.
That what has happend exactly. Check the events timeline
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons#Timeline
Comment by Abu Omar — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:18 pm
1. Quote:
The greatest offence was caused by a cartoon depicting Muhammad wearing a turban that had been turned into a bomb.
2. Quote:
Imam Khodr Chehab of the Islamic Society of Finland, which represents several different groups of Muslim immigrants in Finland, says that the cartoons are “deliberately offensive”, as they try to portray Islam as a violent religion.
3.Quote:
The offices of Denmark’s bestselling broadsheet newspaper were evacuated last night following a bomb threat - a day after the editor-in-chief apologised for publishing cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that offended Muslims.
QED
Comment by Hank W. — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:20 pm
you apparently don’t feel the need to back your statements up or defend them.
and you apparently don’t feel the need to back your statements up with a real name other than anonymous.
Comment by Phil — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
newsflash! known terrorist. may be in any bar in finland. might possibly offend you with his moronic drunk behavior, could be violent, may be armed with a puukko. last know alias:
matti bin drinkin
Comment by jenkki immigrant — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
“Holocaust denial†is a crime under EU law, even though that it dates back to 50 years ago, and it’s merely a historical fact.
If you would’ve bothered to read the article you posted you would’ve noticed this bit: “Seven European Union member countries including France and Germany have passed laws making the denial or minimization of the Holocaust a crime.”. Seven of the 25 countries that make up the EU have these laws. How does that make it an “EU-law”?
Comment by Gonzo — Thu, Feb 2nd, 2006 @ 11:44 pm
The difference between exercising freedom of speech and provoking this kind of response is maturity and wisdom.
As an adolescent, you might wear a t-shirt to school which may be offensive to others and rightfully claim that you are protected by free speech. But if you get beaten up for it, most would say you had it coming or that you should know better. Indeed, even in countries that ‘cherish freedoms’, adults will constantly advise you of what free speech is appropriate and what isn’t.
If Denmark was spitting distance from the Middle East, you can bet that Danes would not vehemently defend these cartoons, and think better about publishing them in the first place.
Through maturity or the school of hard knocks, we all eventually learn that we accept limits to our freedom of speech everyday, which is embodied in the basic principle of decency.
Finally, it is precisely the lack of maturity on both sides that makes this no-brainer topic such a “hot issue”.
Comment by mapleleaf — Fri, Feb 3rd, 2006 @ 2:40 am
From the IHT:
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/02/02/news/denmark.php
“If I had known that the lives of Danish soldiers and civilians would be threatened, if I had known that, as my finger hovered one centimeter above the send button for publishing the drawings, would I have hit it? No,” he [Carsten Juste, the editor in chief of the newspaper Jyllands-Posten] said. “No responsible editor in chief would have done.”
Bold, mine. QED.
Comment by mapleleaf — Fri, Feb 3rd, 2006 @ 2:59 am
Just as to why Fogh Rasmussen didn’t do anything in September… if you follow Danish internal politics you notice that Fogh Rasmussen’s party has been quite vocal in its anti-immigration stance. Last February they had a Parliamentary election, and the imams got on Fogh Rasmussen’s case then:
The electoral campaign was disrupted at the end of January by the intervention by Muslim religious leaders who publicly advised their followers to “vote justlyâ€Â, that is in favour of the parties that “respect immigrants†and “who want Danish troops to withdraw from Iraqâ€Â. The Prime Minister immediately issued a warning to the Imam. “In Denmark, religion and politics are separate and it would be unwise for religious leaders to advise their congregations to vote for specific political parties. Pastors do not use the Church for purposes of political agitation. The Imam should not do it either,†declared Anders Fogh Rasmussen. The Social Democrat Party rejected the implicit support of the Imam lamenting their involvement in the political debate. “This shows that they have understood nothing about living in a democratic society,†believes the party’s spokesperson, Anne-Marie Meldgaard.
So as there were local county elections in October, this was more or less timed as “imams meddling in elections” again.
Might atleast explain something.
Comment by Hank W. — Fri, Feb 3rd, 2006 @ 4:58 am
mapleleaf,
I think you might be missing the point. What angers people about the reaction of the muslim world is that we have freedom of speech in the west and that what a newspaper editor does is not the responsibility of the government. The Danish people are being punished, the prime minister blamed and people are being threatened because of something the newspaper editor did.
If the muslim world wants to denounce the newspaper, burn it in the streets and boycott it, I’ll join in. But blackmailing a government and a nation to give up free speech because you don’t like what a right wing paper prints is something we should condemn.
And let’s not pretend the muslim world is being unusually sensitive here. Salman Rushdie received a fatwah and had to live in hiding because muslims could not handle dissent towards their religion - and Rushdie’s hardly some right-wing rabble rouser, he’s one of the most highly regarded authors of his generation.
Comment by finnsense — Fri, Feb 3rd, 2006 @ 8:44 am
Well finnsense, Muslim nations are not mature enough for provacative freedom of speech, and the European press, evidently, is not mature enough to comprehend Muslim devotion and what Mohammed represents to a large percentage of people in our world. What you end up with is a predictable recipe for disaster.
The Danish press acted exactly like the 17-year old self-admitted redneck from Florida in the link above, the only difference is that the former is not 100% accountable for the impact of their actions. How unfortunate.
No sir, we are not all Danes now. At least not me.
Comment by mapleleaf — Fri, Feb 3rd, 2006 @ 10:51 am
Oops, just checked the link again, the self-admitted redneck was 18, not 17.
Comment by mapleleaf — Fri, Feb 3rd, 2006 @ 10:55 am
Donkey: “Radical islamists have threatened the NATO countries of Denmark and Norway before too, if you remember. Thank Mohammed that bin Laden loves the neutral Sweden. And they probably think Finland is a province of Sweden anyway.”
Should we make our decisions based on what some extremist groups somewhere say? Besides, doesn’t the fact that all this happened just because of a few drawings prove that the people who threaten others with violence can basically use anything as an excuse to wave their guns? Even if we would stay out of NATO we could instantly become targets of some of these looneys if for instance Helsingin Sanomat would make the mistake of publishing something that would be seen as controversial by them. Plus we are already EU members, so those guys who threatened the EU at the Gaza office in way already threatened us as well (and NATO didn’t invade Iraq and for instance NATO member France was strongly against the war and still had some of it’s citizens kidnapped in Iraq - the logic simply isn’t that simple).
Finnsense: “If the muslim world wants to denounce the newspaper, burn it in the streets and boycott it, I’ll join in. But blackmailing a government and a nation to give up free speech because you don’t like what a right wing paper prints is something we should condemn.”
That’s in essense the whole point. Critizising the paper was OK and they have already apologized - even though the pictures were taken out of context. The matter should be resolved as there are far more important issues to discuss about in the muslim world as well. Or so one would think.
Mapleleaf: “Muslim nations are not mature enough for provacative freedom of speech, and the European press, evidently, is not mature enough to comprehend Muslim devotion and what Mohammed represents to a large percentage of people in our world. What you end up with is a predictable recipe for disaster. The Danish press acted exactly like the 17-year old self-admitted redneck from Florida in the link above, the only difference is that the former is not 100% accountable for the impact of their actions.”
The conflict between our view of freedom of speech/free press and the policies of many muslim world governments is clearly the reason why this happened.
I still wouldn’t compare Jyllands-Posten with the teenager you are referring to. They clearly didn’t understand how much their images could anger people, and they admitted it was a mistake. Still, if you look at the traditionally open debate climate in the Nordic countries, you’ll know that we have seen a whole lot of provocative imaginary on a variety of subjects long before these pictures, so I’d say it’s pretty easy to forget that there are still a lot of people out there who get angered by simple images. I mean, we’re so used to seeing all kinds of gay-Jesus’ etc. in art exhibitions and such that most of us don’t even react to such images any more. Those who don’t like it usually avoid looking at it or sometimes write a complaint or something. No biggie to us, but some of those might still anger even in other more traditional parts of Europe.
In my opinion the only group that you could call as immature are those other European papers who republished the images as a symbol of freedom of speech.
As for that original point by imam Chehad on how racism is a crime and people who’d make jokes about the holocaust would go to prison in Finland, I just have to say untrue! If you joke about the holocaust, you wouldn’t end up in jail. You would just look like an ass. There is a difference.
These two don’t compare otherwise either as there are no major international jewish terrorist groups that threaten everybody with a suicide bomb when they feel like it. The negative image problem that Islam and all regular muslims around the world suffer from is largely caused by a few narrowminded extremist groups. The first step in building a better - and in my mind a more realistic and thruthful - image of the muslim world is denouncing these extremists and their ways all together.
After all, to put it bluntly it’s a bit hard to understand how a few images threaten the peaceful image of muslims when the critique is coming from masked people who threaten to cut throats and start a bloody war as a revenge. I’d say those are the people and the kinds of attitudes that should be boycotted by every muslim first, Arla’s yoghurts should be far behind on the list.
As a footnote I still don’t quite understand why all this energy is wasted on an issue like this. We humans just suck and all suposed gods too.
Comment by Joonas — Fri, Feb 3rd, 2006 @ 1:39 pm
“Do you think if these cartoons had been published in a Finnish paper would the paper been sued for “jumalanpilkka†(blasphemy)? If I remember correctly just last year somebody was fined for making slanderous comments on a discussion forum. The law goes something like if you publicly dishonour or make offending comments of something the church or a religious community holds sacred you can be fined or sentenced to imprisonment. Wouldn’t this fall under the law?”
“Uskonrauhan häiritseminen” can mean blasphemous public statements as well as disturbing the practicing of religion. The guy was fined for the latter. He trolled tirelessly on Christian discussion forums.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Feb 3rd, 2006 @ 8:19 pm
“Well finnsense, Muslim nations are not mature enough for provacative freedom of speech, and the European press, evidently, is not mature enough to comprehend Muslim devotion and what Mohammed represents to a large percentage of people in our world. What you end up with is a predictable recipe for disaster.
The Danish press acted exactly like the 17-year old self-admitted redneck from Florida in the link above, the only difference is that the former is not 100% accountable for the impact of their actions. How unfortunate.
No sir, we are not all Danes now. At least not me. ”
There are basically three options if we want to avoid WW III:
1) Islam is radically purged from violent and supremacist notions incompatible with the modern notion of human rights. A great reformation.
2) Islam is strictly compartmentalized in the minds of it’s followers in such a way as to have no bearing on their public behavior.
3) Muslims believers of any variety not descibed by the above are kicked out from non-islamic countries. The number of political muslims in free countries remains below the jihad threshold.
The other options include a growing number of non-assimilating muslims in the west and an eventual civil war if the original population refuses to submit to dhimmitude or convert.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Feb 3rd, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
There is no excuse for the threats that moslems have made. Boycott Denmark all they want, we Finns boycott different products as well, but there is no excuse for death threats.
Having said that I do, however, feel that there is a great deal of hypocrisy and double standards involved in saying that this is freedom of expression and all that sh1+. If a main stream news paper in Finland, say Helsingin Sanomat, were to publish a picture presenting some Dane as a terrorist, it would be plain naivety to say that it would go unnoticed in Denmark. Danes would definitely demand an apology instead of congratulating us on having a mighty free press. Infact, I bet the whole of Europe would be expecting us to apologise Denmark. And they would be right, too. As far as I know there are no Danish terrorists. Neither was Mohammed a terrorist. Neither are most moslems terrorists.
Comment by Olli — Sat, Feb 4th, 2006 @ 3:31 am
“Do you think if these cartoons had been published in a Finnish paper would the paper been sued for ‘jumalanpilkka’ (blasphemy)? … The law goes something like if you publicly dishonour or make offending comments of something the church or a religious community holds sacred you can be fined or sentenced to imprisonment. Wouldn’t this fall under the law?”
In THEORY that indeed would fall under it, the law is so loose. I mean, I could set up a religious community (how many members the law requires, 20?) which would worship Tarja Halonen, and then saying anything offending about Tarja would be clearly illegal, hah hah.
But in practice, that law has been used rarely and reluctantly, probably no way in this kind of case.
There seems to be somekind of law in Denmark too, obviously no-one has been sued.
Wikipedia timeline: “28 October - Danish police are notified by a number of Muslim organisations, claiming that the intention of the publication of the cartoons has been to ‘mock and deride’ the Muslim faith, something the Danish penal code prohibits (§ 140)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons
Comment by Sale — Sat, Feb 4th, 2006 @ 7:09 am
“Neither was Mohammed a terrorist.”
Mohammed was a military conquerer who dealt with prisoners of war in an extremely brutal fashion. He fouded a totalitarian cult movement, some followers of which commit acts of terrorism in his name and following his instructions to wage war against unbelievers until they convert, submit to dhimmitude, or die.
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, Feb 4th, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Olli,
I’m sure tha Danes would request an apology from Helsingin Sanomat but not from Finland as a nation. The stupidity here is that the muslims are blaming a nation for the actions of a handful of people. It’s childish. It’s like people who hate all Americans just because of what Bush has done.
Comment by finnsense — Sat, Feb 4th, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
The fact muslims all over the world are blaming a nation or a whole continent for cartoons published originally in one paper and later re-published by a few others reflects very badly on them.
Comment by Anonymous — Sat, Feb 4th, 2006 @ 1:21 pm
“I’m sure tha Danes would request an apology from Helsingin Sanomat but not from Finland as a nation. ”
Even so, I do not believe the average Dane would make a distinction between HS and the Finnish people in general. The average citizen is too dumb whatever their nationality. An incident like that would greatly hinder Finnish-Danish relations. That would be only natural, as pictures like the one Jyllands Posten published are very provocative. Yes, the picture had “press freedom” written all over it, but the message was more complicated than that, because it also attacked somebody else’s beliefs. Jyllands Posten knew that very well. That was the point when the newspaper mixed politics with religion, which is of course what this crisis is all about in essence.
Comment by Olli — Sat, Feb 4th, 2006 @ 1:38 pm
There are basically three options if we want to avoid WW III:
1) Islam is radically purged from violent and supremacist notions incompatible with the modern notion of human rights. A great reformation.
2) Islam is strictly compartmentalized in the minds of it’s followers in such a way as to have no bearing on their public behavior.
3) Muslims believers of any variety not descibed by the above are kicked out from non-islamic countries. The number of political muslims in free countries remains below the jihad threshold.
The other options include a growing number of non-assimilating muslims in the west and an eventual civil war if the original population refuses to submit to dhimmitude or convert.
Your arguments remind one of the sentiments in the pre-WW II, which led to the Holocaust.
Same fears, same sentiments, same arguments, ….,
Old Europe: anti-semitism
New Europe: anti-islam
Europe is Europe
Comment by Abu Omar — Sat, Feb 4th, 2006 @ 11:12 pm
Finnsense:
The stupidity here is that the muslims are blaming a nation for the actions of a handful of people. It’s childish. It’s like people who hate all Americans just because of what Bush has done.
In the same logic, Europeans (many of them) blame Islam because of what a handful of extremist fanatics are doing. This was emphasized in the drawings.
Comment by Abu Omar — Sat, Feb 4th, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
There’s a handful of violent racists in Finland but the majority of Finns openly hate them and do their best to put them to justice. There’s a handful of (put any extreme or violent movement here) in any western country, but the majority is acting to put an end to their terror.
And then there’s a majority of peaceful, loving muslims who sit and watch how a handful of extremist fanatics make world news and think “ah well, it’s unfortunate for the victims, but somehow I can understand.”
I’m blaming the silent majority!
Comment by Majava — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 12:00 am
Majava
I’m blaming the silent majority!
The majority was/is not silent at all !
The majority of Muslims (all true Muslims) were against 11/9, Madrid and London terrorist attacks. Don’t forget that Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunis, Turkey, Indonesia and many other countries with Muslim majority were hit by the terrorists as well.
The extremists are terrorizing both Muslims and non-Muslims as well in the name of Islam.
Comment by Abu Omar — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 1:12 am
If that’s so, I’m not hearing anything from the majority.
Comment by Sale — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 5:36 am
Abu,
Again you’re confusing people allowing free speech with government support of the cartoons. Very few people support the cartoons.
Here the Danish government allowed freedom of expression. In Syria as you’ll read this morning, the government allowed its citizens to attack the Danish and Norwegian embassies despite it being obvious they would try.
And lets face it, there are a whole bunch of muslim governments that sponsor terrorism, some of them democratically elected (Iran!). I’ve read the Qu’ran and I know Mohammed isn’t a terrorist but it’s not a few fanatics hiding in the mountains. Islam has serious problems.
Funny as well how you charge Europe with anti-semitism when it supports the state of Israel. I haven’t heard much of the muslim world asking for anything but the complete destruction of israel recently.
Comment by finnsense — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 9:05 am
And now the Jordanians, one of the more forward-looking muslim states, have arrested newspaper editors publishing the pictures. The editors wrote this:
“What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?”
Comment by finnsense — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 11:00 am
Gods, religions and religious people that can be offended are pretty miserable. Islam and Chirstianity are the worst.
Interesting pictures of Mohammed: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
Comment by Dane by heart — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Sale
If that’s so, I’m not hearing anything from the majority.
Not at all. The majority has never been silent.
Simply because the majority has been the major target of terrorism in many Islamic countries: Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, …
So, how on earth do you think that they are silent
The problem is that the western media is very biased, so you don’t see the whole picture of action/reaction.
This is one of the most popular Islamic portals.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/index.shtml
Go to “Fatawa Bank” and search for “terrorism”. You will get so many Fatawa’s criminalizing any act of terror
Comment by Abu Omar — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 1:05 pm
Hello Abu Omar,
I wrote:
“There are basically three options if we want to avoid WW III:
1) Islam is radically purged from violent and supremacist notions incompatible with the modern notion of human rights. A great reformation.
2) Islam is strictly compartmentalized in the minds of it’s followers in such a way as to have no bearing on their public behavior.
3) Muslims believers of any variety not descibed by the above are kicked out from non-islamic countries. The number of political muslims in free countries remains below the jihad threshold.
The other options include a growing number of non-assimilating muslims in the west and an eventual civil war if the original population refuses to submit to dhimmitude or convert.”
You responded:
“Your arguments remind one of the sentiments in the pre-WW II, which led to the Holocaust.
Same fears, same sentiments, same arguments, ….,
Old Europe: anti-semitism
New Europe: anti-islam
Europe is Europe”
Please note that any liberal and moderate muslim is already included in either category 1 or 2, or both. If you follow the Quran to the letter, you have no choice but to wage war against unbelievers, that is, all non-muslims or apostates. Islamic fundamentalists are the kind of people who do not 1) practice a lighter, liberal version of islamic doctrine (that by necessity ignores some central tenets of islam, such as the suras written in the later Medina period when Mohammad and his followers use military force to spread their religion and gain power) or 2) compartmentalize their religion so as to refrain from implementing islam politically.
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Finsense
And lets face it, there are a whole bunch of muslim governments that sponsor terrorism, some of them democratically elected (Iran!).
Why do you think that Iran sponsors terrorism? Do you have any proof? Are you reiterating the “axis of evil” tales?
Be subjective when you answer the above questions.
Islam has serious problems.
Don’t forget that the Muslim world has been facing a continuous aggression from the “west”:
Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Lebanon, Chechnya, Bosnia are all Muslim countries. This should explain a lot.
Islam has coexisted peacefully with other nations for 1300 years.
Those serious problems appeared in the latest century only, which proves that they have nothing to do with Islam. Instead they are related with the accumulated anger and anxiety among Muslims because of the western aggression.
Comment by Abu Omar — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 1:23 pm
“Islam has coexisted peacefully with other nations for 1300 years.
Those serious problems appeared in the latest century only, which proves that they have nothing to do with Islam.”
So, the islamic aggression towards and conquest of India hundreds of years ago was not a serious problem? (I suppose it wasn’t from the Muslim point of view.)
“Instead they are related with the accumulated anger and anxietyamong Muslims because of the western aggression.”
So, the conquest of the Iberian peninsula and the (repelled) invasion of France were caused by “accumulated anger and anxiety among Muslims because of the western aggression in the last (20th) century”? And sure, the Ottoman conquest of Balkan was also motivated what western powers did in the 20th century. And yes, so was every other imperialistic war waged by muslims in Asia and Africa during the last 1300 years.
If your argumentation is typical of Muslims, then I’d say you collectively have a long way to go in the path of self-awareness and self-criticism. There is no way a civilization can ever advance than allowing self-criticism. It’s the only way to improve.
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
The majority was/is not silent at all !
So what have you done to oppose the radicals?
Comment by Mika Tuupola — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
Dear Anonymous .
If you follow the Quran to the letter, you have no choice but to wage war against unbelievers, that is, all non-muslims or apostates.
Could you please do tell me (and others) which verse of Quran commands the Muslims to wage a war against unbelievers?
Please, be subjective and give an answer.
Here are you a link to the meaning of Quran:
Quran indexed by subject: http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/
Quran translation with search: http://www.thenoblequran.com/sps/nbq/
Try to search for “war”, “disbelievers”, .. Etc
Believe me my friend, most of you are totally misinformed about Islam.
Waiting your findings.
Comment by Abu Omar — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 2:18 pm
Anonymous:
Islamic aggression towards ….
Did I mention the Christian aggression towards Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, … in my previous posting ?
Don’t you think that you (dear Anonymous) have fallen in the same “radicalism” trap that you are criticizing?
Why do you think that Ottoman conquest of Balkan was an Islamic aggression? Simply it was war politics as usual along the history.
In same logic, could I say that the war on Iraq is a Christian aggression?
Comment by Abu Omar — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
Abu,
You cannot possibly think that Iran does not sponsor terrorism. The government itself has called for the elimination of Israel and is hell bent on procuring nuclear weapons having repeatedly deceived weapons inspectors over the last 20 years.
The Western press is not perfect but in the muslim world you don’t know the meaning of the word “free press” as the Jordanian example shows. You find all opinions in the western press. On the BBC today is a programme from Dohar in which muslim and non-muslim experts debate how free muslim press is. The audience of muslim students voted that the muslim world has plenty to learn from the West about journalism.
Comment by finnsense — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Abu Omar,
I readily admit that Europeans have waged wars in the past against others using Christianity as a justification. For instance, for Crusaders religion was clearly a motivating factor.
What you should do is admit that Middle-Easterners, Arabs particularly, have also waged aggressive war against others using their religion as a justification - also in the past. Some readers may not know that under traditional Islam there is no distinction between political and religious power. The Caliph used to hold both secular and religious authority.
And what about the fact that Islam was spread through military conquest ever since Mohammed had gained strength and supporters after his years of exile from Mecca in Medina? During that time, there was no distinction whatsoever between religion and politics in Islam. Through military conquest, Islam took over in the Arabic peninsula and much of the rest of the Middle East.
My point is simply that your claim that Islam itself was never violent until after western aggression in the 20th century is simply false.
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
I really would like to belief that the majority of muslims are peaceful and perhaps they are, but again, they do nothing to stop an ever growing group of extremists in the name of their faith. It should not matter if violence is provoked. Violence can never be the answer if you’re fighting for a good cause. The majority only talks and worries.
Where is the imam that says to the youngsters that love to see a real jihad, instead of the jihad within a person (!) “and now you will clean the mosque for the coming three months and I will teach you what the prophet meant”? Were are the demonstrations that call for peaceful relations? Where is the Arab news channel that stops broadcasting news about suicide killings, abductions of westerners and coward video messages from carreer terrorists, because they start to realise that kind of news is radicalising people?
What have you done, Abu Omar?
Comment by Majava — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 4:37 pm
There are three major consequences of this attitude. The first is without any room for challenging the sanctity of all aspects of Islam, there is little room for discussions and/or reformation. The second is that a lot of unhealthy dynamics that have evolved over the past 14 centuries through the interactions of Islam with various societies continue unquestioned and are considered part of a sacred tradition. What is sacred is beyond analysis. The third and most important consequence is that in applying the unquestioning surrender principle (Islam means surrendering to god’s will) to crucial aspects of personal and social life, Muslim communities rarely encourage strong critical thinking skills within their members. This has had disastrous results for human rights and social welfare, as the current state of Muslim communities across the world demonstrates.
Muslims may succeed to force non-Muslims (or even enlightened Muslims) in not offending their religion by threatening them with assassinations, bombs and bullets, but increasingly they have a harder time to sell Islam as a religion of peace and tolerance. In fact sincere respect is rarely gained through initimidation.
A quote from Omid Paydar from Iran, who I consider to have better understanding of islam than me.
Comment by Majava — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 5:19 pm
I think it was for the Danes being to proclaim themselves in the world (freedom of speech n’ all that crap), well, their flags are burning all over the middle east now, good one…congrtatz!
Comment by conan — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
Majava:
So what have you done to oppose the radicals?
Quite many measures were taken after realizing the growing extremism (after 9/11), especially that many Muslim countries were hit by terrorism.
Many demonstrations took the streets, many books were authored, Friday speeches were devoted for clarifying the true Islam, huge number of TV shows, programs, etc.
But, guess what: after Iraq war, all efforts were trampled.
Comment by Abu Omar — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 8:30 pm
Finnsense
You cannot possibly think that Iran does not sponsor terrorism. The government itself has called for the elimination of Israel and is hell bent on procuring nuclear weapons having repeatedly deceived weapons inspectors over the last 20 years.
If the Iranian government has called for elimination of Israel, then do not forget that US government did eliminated many countries: Iraq and Afghanistan. So, do you say that US is sponsoring terrorism?
Did Iran use any of its military power in attacking any country? Well, US & UK did.
Did Iran use any kind of nuclear weapon? Well, US did in WWII
Please, recall the pre-Iraq-ware western media coverage about the Weapons of Mass Destruction, …
Don’t you remember the famous presentation by Collin Powel in the Security Council where he deceived the whole world about the Iraqi WMD?
If you open your eyes and watch all events in the world without prejudice, then you will discover who incites the terror in the world.
Comment by Abu Omar — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 8:46 pm
Abu (if that is your realname or does it come from Abu Omar aka Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr case?):
Quite many measures were taken after realizing the growing extremism… But, guess what: after Iraq war, all efforts were trampled.
No we asked what YOU have done to oppose radicals? I guess you live in Finland (or some neighbour country) since you read this blog. Saying quite many measures were taking is so vaque it does not say anything. What have YOU done in country you live (Finland?) to oppose the radical muslim movement?
Comment by Mika Tuupola — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 10:39 pm
“What have YOU done in country you live (Finland?) to oppose the radical muslim movement?”
Why should he be doing anything? As long as everyone gets on with life and does no one else any harm - what’s the problem?
What have you done to stop global warming? Your lifestyle (and mine of course aswell) is directly responsible for flooding people out their homes in Bangladesh. What have you done to help the Bangladeshi flood victims?
Or alternatively we could all lighten up a bit.
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 11:19 pm
Abu Omar: “If the Iranian government has called for elimination of Israel, then do not forget that US government did eliminated many countries: Iraq and Afghanistan.”
So, Iraq and Afganistan are now eliminated? Yeah right.
Both countries got their regimes ousted by military force. Ahmadinejad used the phrase “to be wiped off the Earth” when he said what should be done to Israel. He plainly meant the destruction of the state of Israel at the very least. Possibly something much more sinister.
Comment by Anonymous — Sun, Feb 5th, 2006 @ 11:35 pm
@Anonymous in 117. Honestly, I am doing things to safe energy. I recycle, I buy eko-shit and all. I also have worked for a global NGO that provided help for poor families. Also muslim families btw. Perhaps not what you expected?
I don’t think that to ask this question directly is such a bad idea, since I believe that every person is part responsible for creating society. You can’t always point at authorities for taking responibility for the acts of a society. Only when I feel there’s absolutely no use in trying, I will not try. And therefore the question: Is it’s too much asked to tell you neighbour, friend or family that violence is not the answer to disputes like these?
Why don’t muslims just pay us back with a cartoon from their side? Then we could perhaps say “wow, the guts!” and move on with out lives.
Comment by Majava — Mon, Feb 6th, 2006 @ 1:12 am
Abu Omar,
you asked me to find Quranic verses that command Muslims to wage war against unbelievers. Well, there is indeed many of them. Let’s start with these:
2.39. But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.
3.151 Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!
4.14. But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment.
4.74. Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
4.76. Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.
4.101. For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.
5.33. The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
5.51. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.
5.57. O ye who believe! take not for friends and protectors those who take your religion for a mockery or sport,- whether among those who received the Scripture before you, or among those who reject Faith; but fear ye Allah, if ye have faith (indeed).
5.69. Those who believe (in the Qur’an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
5.72. They do blaspheme who say: “(Allah) is Christ the son of Mary.” But said Christ: “O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.
5.73. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
5.82. Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, “We are Christians”: because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.
7.96. If the people of the towns had but believed and feared Allah, We should indeed have opened out to them (All kinds of) blessings from heaven and earth; but they rejected (the truth), and We brought them to book for their misdeeds.
7.97. Did the people of the towns feel secure against the coming of Our wrath by night while they were asleep?
7.98. Or else did they feel secure against its coming in broad daylight while they played about (care-free)?
8.12. Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
8.13. This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger. If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.
8.14. Thus (will it be said): “Taste ye then of the (punishment): for those who resist Allah, is the penalty of the Fire.”
8.15. O ye who believe! when ye meet the Unbelievers in hostile array, never turn your backs to them.
8.16. If any do turn his back to them on such a day - unless it be in a stratagem of war, or to retreat to a troop (of his own)- he draws on himself the wrath of Allah, and his abode is Hell,- an evil refuge (indeed)!
8.17. It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah. when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah’s: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself: for Allah is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).
8.18. That, and also because Allah is He Who makes feeble the plans and stratagem of the Unbelievers.
8.36. The Unbelievers spend their wealth to hinder (man) from the path of Allah, and so will they continue to spend; but in the end they will have (only) regrets and sighs; at length they will be overcome: and the Unbelievers will be gathered together to Hell;-
9.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
9.60. Truly, if the Hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and those who stir up sedition in the City, desist not, We shall certainly stir thee up against them: Then will they not be able to stay in it as thy neighbours for any length of time:
9.61. They shall have a curse on them: whenever they are found, they shall be seized and slain (without mercy).
9.64. Verily Allah has cursed the Unbelievers and prepared for them a Blazing Fire,-
33.5. But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
33.29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
33.30. The Jews call ‘Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!
47.4. Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
48.29. Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.
60.4. … there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone.
72.23. “Unless I proclaim what I receive from Allah and His Messages: for any that disobey Allah and His Messenger,- for them is Hell: they shall dwell therein for ever.”
98.6. Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
Comment by Anomymous — Mon, Feb 6th, 2006 @ 10:39 am
An apology to Norway and Denmark from moderate Arabic and Muslim youths regarding the violence:
http://www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com/
Comment by I — Mon, Feb 6th, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
>Luckily nobody in the Middle-East has noticed chick.com yet: >http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1004/1004_01.asp
That site would have been funny if I didn’t know people who actually believe that bullshit exist in western world.
That comic has nothing to do with freedom of speech or western culture instead it shows the narrow mindedness of the fundamental christians and is the cause of all cultural clashes all the way from the crusades…
It is sad.
Comment by jeejee — Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 @ 1:48 am
“If you open your eyes and watch all events in the world without prejudice, then you will discover who incites the terror in the world.”
Abu Omar,
after reading several of your posts like the one above, I started to wonder about a couple of things:
1) Why is it that you only see bad things done by one side, ie. “the West”? As so many other issues in this world of ours, even this isn’t black and white.
Bad things and wrongful acts have been committed on both sides of this artificial border of east and west. Why is it that you can’t admit that and instead keep blaming the other side?
2) People have asked you pretty straight forward questions anout Iran etc. Why is it, that instead of answering you just start to list countries that the U.S./the international community has attacked in the past for various reasons?
After all, those things aren’t news to anyone here, and I guess that most of us already have our own opinions on the justifications of at least certain aspects of those incidents. As it’s probably pretty safe to say that you oppose those actions, that’s not interesting either. Hearing your views on Iran and such (see previous comments for all those questions that you didn’t really answer) would however be very interesting.
All in all, always blaming the other party is simply not credible, as all humans are imperfect - and this has nothing to do with religion or race. Also, two bads don’t make a right. If we as humans want to evolve and go further, we simply have to admit those facts. Otherwise we will just waste our lives in finding someone else to blame for all the bad things that ever happened to us.
Comment by Joonas — Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 @ 9:50 am
166. Mika Tuupola
Abu (if that is your realname or does it come from Abu Omar aka Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr case?)
Yes, it’s my name (it means Father of Omar, and Omar is my son). I’m working Nokia Finland since 2000
One comment here.
Could you please explain why did you link me with “Hassan .. Nasr”?
Is it because I am Muslim?
Or, is it because I don’t agree with your opinion, so immediately you categorized me to be one of the “others”?
What have YOU done in country you live (Finland?) to oppose the radical Muslim movement?
Well, nothing!
So, what can I do publicly? I of course oppose terrorism and radicalism but I can not influence those in Tora Bora mountains in Afghanistan?
Can you please give me some suggestions?
Comment by Abu Omar — Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
Dear Anonymous,
I sincerely thank you for your research for “offensive” verses in Quran against unbelievers or anybody else.
My comments on each verse are in my next posting. However, I would like to highlight some general points:
- The basic unit of Quran is the “verse”, and most of the time the verse comes in a context. So, to understand the what the verse is addressing, you might need to read at least one verse before and one after
- All religions (and social systems) have the concept of rewarding and punishment. But at the same time, the individuals are not commanded to reward or punish any sinner. So, when ALLAH says that those who disobey him are going to hell fire, it does not mean anyhow that Muslims should burn the unbelievers ! I wanted to emphasize on this point before commenting each verse.
- Many of “fighting” verses are telling what happened in couple of battles between Muslims and Pagans. So, to understand them correctly, you need to have some knowledge about the related story. Below are couple of Wikipedia links about this subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Trench
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina
Comment by Abu Omar — Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verse 2:39
But those who reject Faith and belie Our Signs, they shall be companions of the Fire; they shall abide therein.
comments :
This verse warns those who disbelieve in ALLAH, that he the almighty will punish them in the hereafter. All religions have the concept of reward and punishment.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verse 3:151
Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the Fire: And evil is the home of the wrong-doers!
comments
To understand this verse, you have to read it in its context (verses 150, 151 & 152). In summary, this verse talks about the “Uhud” battle between Muslims and Pagans. (coming from Madina) and the Pagans (coming from Mecca). It describes the panic Muslims had in the battle where they left the prophet alone and escaped to the mountains.
So, this verse does not say anything about waging any war against unbelievers.
Please check out this page from Wikipedia to learn the context of these verses:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Uhud
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verse 4:14
But those who disobey Allah and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment.
comments
Please read the previous verse (4:13) and link it to this verse. Simply, verse 4:13 talks about the rewards for those who obey ALLAH, and verse 4:14 talks about the punishment for those who disobey ALLAH. There is no command to wage a war against anybody !
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verse 4:74 and 4:76
Verses 4:74 and 4:76 are excerpted out of context. To understand what are they talking about, you have to read the skipped verse, which is 4:75. The three verses are listed below in order. In these verses, ALLAH commands Muslims to fight back those who oppressed them (read verse 75 carefully)
4.74. Let those fight in the cause of Allah Who sell the life of this world for the hereafter. To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah,- whether he is slain or gets victory - Soon shall We give him a reward of great (value).
4.75 And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)?- Men, women, and children, whose cry is: “Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!”
4.76. Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who reject Faith Fight in the cause of Evil: So fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verse 4:101
….. For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.
comments
This is only one sentence from the whole verse!
Please read the whole verse to understand the topic. Here is the complete verse (4:101)
When ye travel through the earth, there is no blame on you if ye shorten your prayers, for fear the Unbelievers May attack you: For the Unbelievers are unto you open enemies.
Simply, the verse asks Muslims to be careful during their prayer and to shorten it if they fear an attack by their enemies.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
===== this is very important
verse 5:33
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;
comments
This verse talks about the punishment of those who terrorize others. It is stated clearly that those who terrorize others (Muslims and non-Muslims) are -at the same time- waging a war against ALLAH and his Messenger. Here you can find how Islam looks at terrorism.
To understand the point of terrorism in this verse, you should read the previous one (verse 5:32) which says:
On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people : and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.
comments
As you can see, any one who slew a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people.
=> Do you see how much terrorism is renounced in Islam.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verses 5:51 to 5:82
comments
Verses from 5:51 to 5:82 describes the relation between Muslims, Jews, Christians and Pagans.
In those verses, there is no mention anyhow of war or waging it against others. Please read the verses again carefully.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verses from 7:96 to 7:98
comments
=> I don’t see in those verses any mention of war or fight against unbelievers. Please read them again carefully.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verses from 8:12 to 8:18
comments
These verses talks about the “Badr” battle between Muslims and Pagans. In that battle Muslims were around 300 and were not prepared for any fight, whereas pagans were around 1000 warier fully equipped with weapons. The verses describes how ALLAH supported Muslims in that battle and how he instill terror into the hearts of pagans.
The rest of the battle is described in verses 8:41 to 8:49.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Badr
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verse 9:5
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
comments
Again, here you have to look at the previous verse 9:4 to understand verse 9:5. In general verses 9:1 to 9:6 talks about the victory of the Messenger and his followers when they entered Mecca. At that time, Mohammad (PBUH) was very merciful to those who hurt him and expelled him. Nevertheless, he gave them 4 months to choose among three options: either they sign treaties not to fight Muslims, or to leave Mecca, or to convert to Islam . Read verse 9:4 carefully to get this idea.
Now, look at verse 9:6 what it says:
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verses 9:60, 9:61 and 9:64
comments
Maybe you mean verses 33:60, 33:61 and 33:64 (the above numbering does not match)
These verses talk about those who stir up sedition and those who provoke dissent in Madina (treason). So, ALLAH asks his Messenger to warn them or otherwise he should fight them and expel them from his city (Madina). This is what verses 33:60 to 33:64 talk about.
Again, I don’t see any command to wage a war against unbelievers.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verses 33:5, 33:29, 33:30
There is a mistake in the numbering. Maybe you mean 9:5, 9:29 and 9:30. The verse 9:5 was discussed earlier.
Verse 9:28 says:
O ye who believe! Truly the Pagans are unclean; so let them not, after this year of theirs, approach the Sacred Mosque. And if ye fear poverty, soon will Allah enrich you, if He wills, out of His bounty, for Allah is All-knowing, All-wise.
And verse 9:29 continues to say:
Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
So, those unbelievers mentioned in 29 are the same as those who were initially been warned to select one of three choices: either to sign a treaty with the Messenger, or to leave Mecca or to accept Islam, otherwise, the Messenger has the right to fight them.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verse 47:4
Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah.s Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost.
comments
This verse talks about what should Muslims do when they are engaged in a war, and ask them to be firm. There is no command to Muslims to wage any war.
verse 47:29
Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.
comments
This verse call Muslims to be firm and strong when they face their enemy. At the same time it does not command them to start any war against the unbelievers.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verse 60:4
(the complete verse): There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: “We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever,- unless ye believe in Allah and Him alone”: But not when Abraham said to his father: “I will pray for forgiveness for thee, though I have no power (to get) aught on thy behalf from Allah.” (They prayed): “Our Lord! in Thee do we trust, and to Thee do we turn in repentance: to Thee is (our) Final Goal.
comments
Abraham people were worshiping idols. Therefore, the meaning is restricted to this case.
One more point, the verse says “there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred for ever”, which means between both sides Abraham and pagans. It does not mean at all that the enmity and haltered should arise between Muslims and non-Muslims who follow Abraham, i.e. Jews and Christians.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verse 72:23
“Unless I proclaim what I receive from Allah and His Messages: for any that disobey Allah and His Messenger,- for them is Hell: they shall dwell therein for ever.â€Â
comments
I don’t see any inciting to wage a war in this verse. ALLAH the almighty will punish those who don’t believe in him in the hereafter.
-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.
verse 98:6
98.6. Those who reject (Truth), among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures.
comments
Again, this verse describes the destiny of those who don’t believe in ALLAH. No command to wage a war here.
Comment by Abu Omar — Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 @ 3:54 pm
Abu Omar,
this naming system is interesting. So, abu means “father”, and, as far as I know, bin means “son”.
I’m not asking you to tell your surname, but I assume you do have have a surname, too.
Do you all have patronymes in addition to first names and surnames like Russians?
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
Phil:
“I just don’t understand why we should give Mohammed any special treatment. 50% of Americans might get offended when people draw cartoons of George Bush, so should we ban that?”
Short answer: oil and gas.
Let’s wait until oil and gas become prohibitively expensive to use or their use is curtailed because climate change becomes too obvious to ignore. Then we can pay them back with interest.
Comment by Anonymous — Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 @ 8:24 pm
Hello Anonymous,
This “Abu Omar” name is just a nickname or an alias i.e., it is not written in any official paper.
“Abu” means “father of”, and “Bin” means “Son of”.
“Bin” is not commonly used except in some Gulf countries, whereas “Abu” is very common in many Arab countries.
Another suffix is “Abd” which means “Servant of” and it is used only with God names. (ALLAH has 99 names).
Here are some useful links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_%28Arabic_term%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/99_Names_of_God#List_of_Names
Comment by Abu Omar — Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 @ 9:36 pm
Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1703552,00.html
What does this prove?
Comment by Abu Omar — Thu, Feb 9th, 2006 @ 9:41 pm
130: All it proves is that not all material - particularly unsolicited material - that is offered to the press automatically gets published. The press does not operate like that.
Surely you don’t claim that the Western media never publishes Jesus cartoons, or even God cartoons for that matter? It happens a lot and is not considered anything remarkable at all. If you’ve somehow failed to see any, you obviously haven’t been looking very hard - just look into Gary Larson’s highly popular Far Side, for example. And such cartoons are not always very respectful, either.
(Of course, if you find such cartoons offensive, don’t go look at them. But don’t claim they don’t exist and aren’t published, because they most definitely are, all over mainstream Western press.)
Comment by Niora — Fri, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 11:49 am
Abu Omar,
thank you very much for your thoughtful reply in the debate about what is written in the Koran about jihad. I will get back to the issue after I’ve read the material you pointed to. You’ve obviously devoted a lot of thought to this matter. I’m also glad that you’re one of those who interpret your religion in a peaceful manner. Your contribution is be of great value.
Comment by Anonymous — Fri, Feb 10th, 2006 @ 3:09 pm
I was searching the web and found your entry. I really like your site and found it worth while reading through the posts. I am looking to publish a comprehensive site reviewing many different articles and blogg. Please feel free to take a look at my blog at free stock images and add anything your want.
Comment by free stock images — Tue, Feb 14th, 2006 @ 12:10 am
There are zillions of misconceptions about islam and Mohammed (P.B.U.H). Islam doesnt allow killing of an innocent, it doesnt support wars and terrorism and homosexuality.It doesnt like pre-marital sex relations wich give birth to bastards and u all know that almost 90% of ppl in christian and jewish countries are bastards. U all know that 95% gals get raped and are deflowered as soon as she is over 14 years of age and last week i saw someone raped and killed a 5 years old (Thats wat SKY NEWS REPORTED). U all know that most of the ppl in non-muslim countries are alcoholics and smokers and drug addicts.Islam neva allow a muslim to use drugs for enjoyment and alcohol and heroin and cocain, it doesnt even allow cigar and cigarettes.
In Holy Quran, there is a whole chapter about Mary and jesus christ and its about the purity of Virgin Mary and that Jesus christ is a High profile messenger of Supreme God whom we call Allah and u may call yahweh or Jehova or wateva.
Quran tells us about the super-human tests imposed over Abraham and his super-human faith. Quran tells about Jacob and issac (the two sons of Abraham) Quran has detailed explanations about those prophets and Moses and David and Noah.
A muslim cant be a muslim untill he believs in those prophets. But u all know that Bible and other divine books have been subjected to lotsa changesfrom time to time. Thats why God sent Prophet MOHAMMAD wid QURAN in wich not even a single word has been changed, its the same as it was 1400 years ago.If any of u can find me jes one single word changed then im ready to turn jew or christian or wateva u want.
If u can show me only one verse wich says that Jesus christ or Abraham or noah werent prophets then kill me.
Quran got one chapter on “THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL”.
Comment by islam foreva — Sat, Feb 18th, 2006 @ 4:50 am
Good judgment comes from bad experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment. just my 2c…
Comment by myfreepaysite — Wed, Mar 8th, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
What about the previous post? I think that’s an important note as well.
Comment by Drug Detoxification — Tue, Mar 28th, 2006 @ 6:36 am
Hello, Your site is great. Regards, Valintino Guxxi
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, May 7th, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
http://www.bebo.com/StudentLoansS
Comment by candlebo — Wed, May 28th, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
http://www.xfire.com/blog/bestloans/199132/
Comment by glorybox — Wed, May 28th, 2008 @ 2:54 pm