I have moved to "Islam Makes Sense" (blog, hosted)
Labels: islam blog
posted by Abu Adam at
9:16 PM
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Wafa Sultan "Debate" Posted by Memri TV
The clip took place on February 21, 2006, when Al-Jazeerah TV aired a debate between Wafa Sultan, a secular ex-Muslim Syrian-American psychologist based in Los Angeles, and two Islamic scholars, Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli of Al Azhar University and Dr. Ahmad Bin Muhammad, an Algerian professor of religious politics who was the host of Al-Jazeerah.
The 'edited' clip was not from Al-Jazeerah. It's from MEMRI TV. MEMRI is the abbreviation for Middle East Media Research Institute, a pro-Israel organization with headquarters in Washington DC and its Media Centre in Israel - "... a non-profit in Washington DC that specializes in translating and circulating mainly Arab-language materials, selected to display the Arab world in a poor light, to the advantage of Israel." http://counterpunch.org/news03292006.html
This may enlighten you about their organisation ....... Fake Saddam Interview Put Out By MEMRI : SF Bay Area Indymedia
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1812222.php
"A knowledgeable US government official has informed "Iraq News" that the 'remarkable' interview with Saddam Hussein, published by MEMRI TV, is almost certainly a hoax." Read More: http://counterpunch.org/news03292006.html
Did you not wonder if it was a debate, why was Wafa Sultan doing all the gibber-gabbering? Where are the responses from the two (2) Muslim participants in the debate? Why were they not given the opportunity to have the same air-time to respond to this woman? The way the video clip was going on-and-off so many times, isn't it obvious to you that the debate was one-sided and had been edited! Some debate!!!
Wafa's statements are a flagrant distortion of the truth. When it comes to terrorism Wafa is totally wrong in sugarcoating Jewish history. She fudges her claims here because Israeli authors Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, Ilan Pappé and Benny Morris have written comprehensive and well-researched books about Israel's history and the major role terrorism had in it.
Here are some links on what the Torah/Talmud says about Jesus Christ and Christians for you to read (Please note we are only posting the following in order to show the inaccuracy of her arguments)
1. "FACTS ARE FACTS" by Benjamin H. Freedman - http://www.iahushua.com/JQ/factsR4.html
2. "The Talmud Unmasked" by the Rev. I. B. Pranaitis: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians
About Jesus and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them):
Here is an excerpt from Part 1, Chapter 1:
Article II No. 8 - Buried In Hell
The book Zohar, III, (282), tells us that Jesus died like a beast and was buried in that "dirt heap...where they throw the dead bodies of dogs and asses, and where the sons of Esau [the Christians] and of Ismael [the Turks], also Jesus and Mahommed, uncircumcized and unclean like dead dogs, are buried."
Please read more at this link: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/talmudx.htm
About Christians:
Here is an excerpt from Part 2, Chapter II:
Article I. - Harm must be done to Christians
A Jew is commanded to harm Christians wherever he can, both indirectly by not helping them in any way, and also directly by wrecking their
plans and projects; neither must he save a Christian who is in danger of death.
Article II. - Christians are to be Killed
V. A Jew who kills a Christian commits no Sin, but offers an acceptable Sacrifice to God, In Speher Or Israel (177b) it says: "Take the life of
the Kliphoth (see: http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/areadlbnaibrithmasonic.html)and kill them, and you will please God the same as one who offers
incense to Him." And in Ialkut Simoni (245c. n. 772) it says: "Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious is as acceptable to God as he
who offers a sacrifice to God."
Read more horrific Jewish teachings at this link: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/talmud2.htm
3. "The Truth about the Talmud" a documented exposé of Jewish Supremacist hate literature by Michael A. Hoffman II and Alan R. Critchley
http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/talmud.html
Wafa Sultan said: "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies." This is totally ridiculous accusation based on lies and prejudice. And predudice needs to be identified and censured wherever and whenever it appears. The Qur`aan repeatedly emphasises the unity of mankind and yet recognises the diversity within humanity. Dialogue that is respectful, thoughtful and tolerent of different religions and cultures is a goal worth striving for - this is the way of Islam.
Did she conveniently forget to mention the 1994 Abraham Mosque Massacre in Hebron when 30 Muslims were massacred by Jews as they were praying during the holy month of Ramadhaan?
No question, the behaviour of many Muslims and what is happenings in many Muslim countries are a shame but which faith community in the world does not have that kind of derailed people and that kind of incidents?
Portraying the entire Western world "civilised" and thereby including mass-murdering liars and warmongers like Bush, Rumsfled and Cheney into the group of the "good" (because they are non-Muslim westerners) while at the same time labeling all Muslims medi-evalists or violent is dishonest and unfair hate mongering. Read "The Hebron Massacre: Another "Defining Moment" in the Middle East"
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0494/9404015.htm
After reading the above information I provided you on the Talmud, please read the Qur`aan. If you're a truthseeker, find out for yourselves who the real terrorists are. http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/translations/yusufali/001.htm
Original Post by Karim (DDN) at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DDN/
________________________________
Jewish Glossary
http://www.jewfaq.org/search.htm
Analysis of Samuel Huntington's article "The Clash of Civilizations?"
by Edward W. Said
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011022/said
The clip took place on February 21, 2006, when Al-Jazeerah TV aired a debate between Wafa Sultan, a secular ex-Muslim Syrian-American psychologist based in Los Angeles, and two Islamic scholars, Dr. Ibrahim Al-Khouli of Al Azhar University and Dr. Ahmad Bin Muhammad, an Algerian professor of religious politics who was the host of Al-Jazeerah.
The 'edited' clip was not from Al-Jazeerah. It's from MEMRI TV. MEMRI is the abbreviation for Middle East Media Research Institute, a pro-Israel organization with headquarters in Washington DC and its Media Centre in Israel - "... a non-profit in Washington DC that specializes in translating and circulating mainly Arab-language materials, selected to display the Arab world in a poor light, to the advantage of Israel." http://counterpunch.org/news03292006.html
This may enlighten you about their organisation ....... Fake Saddam Interview Put Out By MEMRI : SF Bay Area Indymedia
http://www.indybay.org/news/2006/03/1812222.php
"A knowledgeable US government official has informed "Iraq News" that the 'remarkable' interview with Saddam Hussein, published by MEMRI TV, is almost certainly a hoax." Read More: http://counterpunch.org/news03292006.html
Did you not wonder if it was a debate, why was Wafa Sultan doing all the gibber-gabbering? Where are the responses from the two (2) Muslim participants in the debate? Why were they not given the opportunity to have the same air-time to respond to this woman? The way the video clip was going on-and-off so many times, isn't it obvious to you that the debate was one-sided and had been edited! Some debate!!!
Wafa's statements are a flagrant distortion of the truth. When it comes to terrorism Wafa is totally wrong in sugarcoating Jewish history. She fudges her claims here because Israeli authors Avi Shlaim, Tom Segev, Ilan Pappé and Benny Morris have written comprehensive and well-researched books about Israel's history and the major role terrorism had in it.
Here are some links on what the Torah/Talmud says about Jesus Christ and Christians for you to read (Please note we are only posting the following in order to show the inaccuracy of her arguments)
1. "FACTS ARE FACTS" by Benjamin H. Freedman - http://www.iahushua.com/JQ/factsR4.html
2. "The Talmud Unmasked" by the Rev. I. B. Pranaitis: The Secret Rabbinical Teachings Concerning Christians
About Jesus and Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them):
Here is an excerpt from Part 1, Chapter 1:
Article II No. 8 - Buried In Hell
The book Zohar, III, (282), tells us that Jesus died like a beast and was buried in that "dirt heap...where they throw the dead bodies of dogs and asses, and where the sons of Esau [the Christians] and of Ismael [the Turks], also Jesus and Mahommed, uncircumcized and unclean like dead dogs, are buried."
Please read more at this link: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/talmudx.htm
About Christians:
Here is an excerpt from Part 2, Chapter II:
Article I. - Harm must be done to Christians
A Jew is commanded to harm Christians wherever he can, both indirectly by not helping them in any way, and also directly by wrecking their
plans and projects; neither must he save a Christian who is in danger of death.
Article II. - Christians are to be Killed
V. A Jew who kills a Christian commits no Sin, but offers an acceptable Sacrifice to God, In Speher Or Israel (177b) it says: "Take the life of
the Kliphoth (see: http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/areadlbnaibrithmasonic.html)and kill them, and you will please God the same as one who offers
incense to Him." And in Ialkut Simoni (245c. n. 772) it says: "Everyone who sheds the blood of the impious is as acceptable to God as he
who offers a sacrifice to God."
Read more horrific Jewish teachings at this link: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/talmud2.htm
3. "The Truth about the Talmud" a documented exposé of Jewish Supremacist hate literature by Michael A. Hoffman II and Alan R. Critchley
http://www.stormfront.org/jewish/talmud.html
Wafa Sultan said: "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies." This is totally ridiculous accusation based on lies and prejudice. And predudice needs to be identified and censured wherever and whenever it appears. The Qur`aan repeatedly emphasises the unity of mankind and yet recognises the diversity within humanity. Dialogue that is respectful, thoughtful and tolerent of different religions and cultures is a goal worth striving for - this is the way of Islam.
Did she conveniently forget to mention the 1994 Abraham Mosque Massacre in Hebron when 30 Muslims were massacred by Jews as they were praying during the holy month of Ramadhaan?
No question, the behaviour of many Muslims and what is happenings in many Muslim countries are a shame but which faith community in the world does not have that kind of derailed people and that kind of incidents?
Portraying the entire Western world "civilised" and thereby including mass-murdering liars and warmongers like Bush, Rumsfled and Cheney into the group of the "good" (because they are non-Muslim westerners) while at the same time labeling all Muslims medi-evalists or violent is dishonest and unfair hate mongering. Read "The Hebron Massacre: Another "Defining Moment" in the Middle East"
http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0494/9404015.htm
After reading the above information I provided you on the Talmud, please read the Qur`aan. If you're a truthseeker, find out for yourselves who the real terrorists are. http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/translations/yusufali/001.htm
Original Post by Karim (DDN) at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DDN/
________________________________
Jewish Glossary
http://www.jewfaq.org/search.htm
Analysis of Samuel Huntington's article "The Clash of Civilizations?"
by Edward W. Said
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011022/said
posted by Abu Adam at
8:53 AM
Monday, April 10, 2006
Online Library of Documentaries in DiVX format
Online library of scientific, political, and religious documentaries in DiVX format, available fore free download.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
posted by Abu Adam at
7:40 AM
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Flemming Rose’s Inexcusable Excuses only Epitomize Hypocrisy
by Dr. Habib Siddiqui
I thought we had seen enough of Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the sensation seeking right-wing newspaper Jyllands-Posten. I was wrong. He appeared in the CBS Sunday (February 19, 2006) program - 60 Minutes. Even the prestigious Washington Post published his article in its Sunday issue: “Why I published those cartoons.”
As usual, Rose has been anything but sincere or honest. Unlike his TV interview in which he misleadingly claims that his paper makes funs of all religions, in the Post article, he confesses that he is not a ‘fundamentalist’ supporter of freedom of expression, and as such, won’t publish materials that are unethical, offensive to some readers. However, he audaciously claims that the ‘cartoon story is different.’ He argues, “I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam.” To bolster his argument, he says, “At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.”
Once again Rose exposes his sickening demented and depraved self by not understanding that what is acceptable within an ethnic or religious group does not necessarily make it okay for other groups. So, e.g., when an Afro-American comedian like Chris Rock curses Blacks and makes profane, racial jokes about his own people, these are perceived simply as harmless jokes. But if the same words are used by a white American comedian to talk about Black Americans, they become offensive and insensitive. People often get fired from their jobs for sounding racist or insensitive. The bottom line is what is acceptable inside home does not necessarily make it right outside in the public. Unfortunately, rogue, uncivilized, arrogant, racists and bigots would only think differently. They try to dictate that they are on a higher plane to decide what is acceptable and what is not for the rest of humanity. Offensive as it is, they also insist that if we disagree with their biased litmus test, we cease to be treated as rational and normal human beings, as if we are from a distant planet or belong to a primitive human group.
Fortunately, our experience has taught us that racists and bigots have low IQs, and are intellectually weak and unconvincing. No matter how hard they try, they cannot hide their despicable stupidity and lamentable hypocrisy. It was, therefore, all too expected that Rose would try to find some lame excuses for intellectual terrorism that has resulted in deaths of dozens of civilians from Pakistan to Nigeria. He does not disappoint us there. In his evasive way, Rose tries to delude us with an alleged interview of a stand-up comedian. He does not tell us that in spite of less religiosity of the Danes in particular, or Europeans in general, his own paper never published the image of that demented comedian urinating on the Bible. So much for his wild, imaginative claims!
Most Europeans are less religious than Americans. But such lack of religiosity still made Rose to ‘self-censor’ offensive cartoons about Jesus (and the Jewish Holocaust). So why satirize Muhammad (S)? There is a name for such a behavior: Hypocrisy. Pure and simple!
As if those offensive cartoons of the Prophet of Islam are equivalent to cartoons about himself, Rose argues that his paper portrays its cultural editors as a bunch of ‘reactionary provocateurs.’ Should we, therefore, feel euphoric? Such silly arguments only unearth his own inanity and cannot fool anyone but his kind.
About the most offensive cartoon, portraying Muhammad (S) as a terrorist, Rose says, “I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.” If he were genuinely concerned (not a chance!) about the image of Islam, he would have better served the cause with a cartoon of Zarqawi. But his paper did not do that. Instead of the obvious, it went for the most revered figure in Islam! He continues, “The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.” I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for this pathetic liar. He is either grossly disadvantaged intellectually or a very disingenuous person who appears running short of his ‘bright’ ideas. I believe that he is the latter.
If these were not enough to understand the mind of an intellectual terrorist, Rose goes on to impudently claim that with the publication of the offensive cartoons, the message to the Muslim community was: “We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.” What arrogance! It is like Hitler telling his victim: ‘I love you so much that I have to put you in Auschwitz concentration camps so that you could truly become part of the Third Reich.’ How insane and obtuse argument! Rose is similarly saying that “if you (Muslims) want to be part of Europe, be prepared to be treated as sub-humans the same way Jews were treated by Nazi Germany. Don’t complain. That is how we (Christian Europe) treat the ‘other’ people. It is in our European blood, tradition and culture to humiliate others.” No, thanks, Mr. Rose, we will let that happen.
We should not be oblivious of the fact that Rose is an admirer of one of the most anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant neocon ideologues of our time who has been depicting the Muslim world as inherently terroristic. In recent days, Rose, much like a foot soldier for the neocon warmongers, has been propagating neocon’s brainchild - ‘clash of civilizations.’ At the same time, nor can we forget that Muslim rage did not start until the republication of these insulting cartoons in February in several European countries.
If these republished cartoons and statements (not just from Rose but European leaders also) are the signs of what are to be expected from ‘New’ Europe in coming years, the concerned citizens of this world, who are already fed up with untamed prejudice and intolerance, must be concerned about the rebirth of fascism and Nazism by its modern-day practitioners. They must ask: is Flemming Rose of Jyllands-Posten any different than Julius Streicher of Der Stumer?[1] Are Prime Minister Andres Fogh Rasmussen and Queen Margrethe of Denmark the 21st century reincarnations of Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler? [2] If the Nazi experiment was such a ‘great’ experiment to integrate Jews of Europe, why is ‘Holocaust’ a dirty word today? Why its mere denial is a criminal offence today in its birthplace?
Interestingly, as I write this, David Irving, a British historian who questions the number of Jewish victims (six million or not) during the World War II, has just been found guilty in a Vienna court as a Holocaust-denier and issued a 3-year prison sentence. Lest we forget, his argument since 1989 has been that there were many victims (approx. 40 million) outside the Jews of Europe.[3] Nonetheless his views were deemed controversial, anti-Semitic and offensive to world Jewry. Per Austrian law, he was tried and found guilty of denying the Holocaust.
What Flemming Rose has done is no worse. Through those cartoons (republished later by many European papers) he has accused all Muslims as terrorists. This is no small matter, esp. in the post-9/11 era of prejudice and bigotry against Muslims. It is a hate crime designed to mold mass attitudes and whip up entire non-Muslim populations into a state of hysteria against Muslims. Those cartoons are, therefore, the very symbols of intellectual terrorism crafted skillfully to prepare the European ground for the third Muslim Holocaust in Europe in just over a decade.
It is, therefore, important that this messenger of hate be treated no differently than his predecessors for encouraging mass murder. My fear is that the right-wing government of Denmark is not about to prosecute Jyllands-Posten, nor will the EU – although they could do so, given the existence of "hate speech" legislation signed into law in both cases. By failing to incriminate this modern-day Streicher, Europe will once again solidify her long disturbing image as a continent that epitomizes double-standard. Shame on Europe for refusing to learn from history!
February 20, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] [http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm. One caption on Loyalty in Der Sturmer read:
“The sword will not be sheathed.
The Stürmer stands as ever
In battle for the people and the fatherland.
It fights the Jews because it loves the people.”
The remarks of the Danish Queen and other European leaders, let alone the European media, are not much different today except that the word “Jews” has been replaced by “Muslims.”]
[2] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4445579.stm. Heinrich Himmler was born in 1900 and died in 1945. He was to become one of the most feared men in Nazi Germany and Europe once World War Two broke out. As head of the SS, he had ultimate responsibility of internal security in Nazi Germany and was associated with helping to organize the Final Solution though Reinhard Heydrich had a major input into the organization of the Holocaust.]
[3] [BBC TV, February 20, 2006 (as heard at 7 p.m., Philadelphia time).]
Dr. Habib Siddiqui (saeva@aol.com) is an anti-war activist. His essays appear in a number of websites and newspapers. He has written six books.
His book on "Islamic Wisdom" is now available in the United States and Cananda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499_pf.html
Why I Published Those Cartoons
By Flemming Rose
Sunday, February 19, 2006; B01
Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.
I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.
But the cartoon story is different.
Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.
At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.
This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.
Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)
Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam.
So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.
We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.
The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal.
One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.
On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those.
Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.
This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.
I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult.
I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism.
As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.
The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.
Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them.
In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.
This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship.
Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons.
flemming.rose@jp.dk
Flemming Rose is the culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Dr. Habib Siddiqui
I thought we had seen enough of Flemming Rose, cultural editor of the sensation seeking right-wing newspaper Jyllands-Posten. I was wrong. He appeared in the CBS Sunday (February 19, 2006) program - 60 Minutes. Even the prestigious Washington Post published his article in its Sunday issue: “Why I published those cartoons.”
As usual, Rose has been anything but sincere or honest. Unlike his TV interview in which he misleadingly claims that his paper makes funs of all religions, in the Post article, he confesses that he is not a ‘fundamentalist’ supporter of freedom of expression, and as such, won’t publish materials that are unethical, offensive to some readers. However, he audaciously claims that the ‘cartoon story is different.’ He argues, “I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam.” To bolster his argument, he says, “At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.”
Once again Rose exposes his sickening demented and depraved self by not understanding that what is acceptable within an ethnic or religious group does not necessarily make it okay for other groups. So, e.g., when an Afro-American comedian like Chris Rock curses Blacks and makes profane, racial jokes about his own people, these are perceived simply as harmless jokes. But if the same words are used by a white American comedian to talk about Black Americans, they become offensive and insensitive. People often get fired from their jobs for sounding racist or insensitive. The bottom line is what is acceptable inside home does not necessarily make it right outside in the public. Unfortunately, rogue, uncivilized, arrogant, racists and bigots would only think differently. They try to dictate that they are on a higher plane to decide what is acceptable and what is not for the rest of humanity. Offensive as it is, they also insist that if we disagree with their biased litmus test, we cease to be treated as rational and normal human beings, as if we are from a distant planet or belong to a primitive human group.
Fortunately, our experience has taught us that racists and bigots have low IQs, and are intellectually weak and unconvincing. No matter how hard they try, they cannot hide their despicable stupidity and lamentable hypocrisy. It was, therefore, all too expected that Rose would try to find some lame excuses for intellectual terrorism that has resulted in deaths of dozens of civilians from Pakistan to Nigeria. He does not disappoint us there. In his evasive way, Rose tries to delude us with an alleged interview of a stand-up comedian. He does not tell us that in spite of less religiosity of the Danes in particular, or Europeans in general, his own paper never published the image of that demented comedian urinating on the Bible. So much for his wild, imaginative claims!
Most Europeans are less religious than Americans. But such lack of religiosity still made Rose to ‘self-censor’ offensive cartoons about Jesus (and the Jewish Holocaust). So why satirize Muhammad (S)? There is a name for such a behavior: Hypocrisy. Pure and simple!
As if those offensive cartoons of the Prophet of Islam are equivalent to cartoons about himself, Rose argues that his paper portrays its cultural editors as a bunch of ‘reactionary provocateurs.’ Should we, therefore, feel euphoric? Such silly arguments only unearth his own inanity and cannot fool anyone but his kind.
About the most offensive cartoon, portraying Muhammad (S) as a terrorist, Rose says, “I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name.” If he were genuinely concerned (not a chance!) about the image of Islam, he would have better served the cause with a cartoon of Zarqawi. But his paper did not do that. Instead of the obvious, it went for the most revered figure in Islam! He continues, “The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.” I don’t know whether to laugh or feel sorry for this pathetic liar. He is either grossly disadvantaged intellectually or a very disingenuous person who appears running short of his ‘bright’ ideas. I believe that he is the latter.
If these were not enough to understand the mind of an intellectual terrorist, Rose goes on to impudently claim that with the publication of the offensive cartoons, the message to the Muslim community was: “We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.” What arrogance! It is like Hitler telling his victim: ‘I love you so much that I have to put you in Auschwitz concentration camps so that you could truly become part of the Third Reich.’ How insane and obtuse argument! Rose is similarly saying that “if you (Muslims) want to be part of Europe, be prepared to be treated as sub-humans the same way Jews were treated by Nazi Germany. Don’t complain. That is how we (Christian Europe) treat the ‘other’ people. It is in our European blood, tradition and culture to humiliate others.” No, thanks, Mr. Rose, we will let that happen.
We should not be oblivious of the fact that Rose is an admirer of one of the most anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant neocon ideologues of our time who has been depicting the Muslim world as inherently terroristic. In recent days, Rose, much like a foot soldier for the neocon warmongers, has been propagating neocon’s brainchild - ‘clash of civilizations.’ At the same time, nor can we forget that Muslim rage did not start until the republication of these insulting cartoons in February in several European countries.
If these republished cartoons and statements (not just from Rose but European leaders also) are the signs of what are to be expected from ‘New’ Europe in coming years, the concerned citizens of this world, who are already fed up with untamed prejudice and intolerance, must be concerned about the rebirth of fascism and Nazism by its modern-day practitioners. They must ask: is Flemming Rose of Jyllands-Posten any different than Julius Streicher of Der Stumer?[1] Are Prime Minister Andres Fogh Rasmussen and Queen Margrethe of Denmark the 21st century reincarnations of Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler? [2] If the Nazi experiment was such a ‘great’ experiment to integrate Jews of Europe, why is ‘Holocaust’ a dirty word today? Why its mere denial is a criminal offence today in its birthplace?
Interestingly, as I write this, David Irving, a British historian who questions the number of Jewish victims (six million or not) during the World War II, has just been found guilty in a Vienna court as a Holocaust-denier and issued a 3-year prison sentence. Lest we forget, his argument since 1989 has been that there were many victims (approx. 40 million) outside the Jews of Europe.[3] Nonetheless his views were deemed controversial, anti-Semitic and offensive to world Jewry. Per Austrian law, he was tried and found guilty of denying the Holocaust.
What Flemming Rose has done is no worse. Through those cartoons (republished later by many European papers) he has accused all Muslims as terrorists. This is no small matter, esp. in the post-9/11 era of prejudice and bigotry against Muslims. It is a hate crime designed to mold mass attitudes and whip up entire non-Muslim populations into a state of hysteria against Muslims. Those cartoons are, therefore, the very symbols of intellectual terrorism crafted skillfully to prepare the European ground for the third Muslim Holocaust in Europe in just over a decade.
It is, therefore, important that this messenger of hate be treated no differently than his predecessors for encouraging mass murder. My fear is that the right-wing government of Denmark is not about to prosecute Jyllands-Posten, nor will the EU – although they could do so, given the existence of "hate speech" legislation signed into law in both cases. By failing to incriminate this modern-day Streicher, Europe will once again solidify her long disturbing image as a continent that epitomizes double-standard. Shame on Europe for refusing to learn from history!
February 20, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] [http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/sturmer.htm. One caption on Loyalty in Der Sturmer read:
“The sword will not be sheathed.
The Stürmer stands as ever
In battle for the people and the fatherland.
It fights the Jews because it loves the people.”
The remarks of the Danish Queen and other European leaders, let alone the European media, are not much different today except that the word “Jews” has been replaced by “Muslims.”]
[2] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4445579.stm. Heinrich Himmler was born in 1900 and died in 1945. He was to become one of the most feared men in Nazi Germany and Europe once World War Two broke out. As head of the SS, he had ultimate responsibility of internal security in Nazi Germany and was associated with helping to organize the Final Solution though Reinhard Heydrich had a major input into the organization of the Holocaust.]
[3] [BBC TV, February 20, 2006 (as heard at 7 p.m., Philadelphia time).]
Dr. Habib Siddiqui (saeva@aol.com) is an anti-war activist. His essays appear in a number of websites and newspapers. He has written six books.
His book on "Islamic Wisdom" is now available in the United States and Cananda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499_pf.html
Why I Published Those Cartoons
By Flemming Rose
Sunday, February 19, 2006; B01
Childish. Irresponsible. Hate speech. A provocation just for the sake of provocation. A PR stunt. Critics of 12 cartoons of the prophet Muhammad I decided to publish in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten have not minced their words. They say that freedom of expression does not imply an endorsement of insulting people's religious feelings, and besides, they add, the media censor themselves every day. So, please do not teach us a lesson about limitless freedom of speech.
I agree that the freedom to publish things doesn't mean you publish everything. Jyllands-Posten would not publish pornographic images or graphic details of dead bodies; swear words rarely make it into our pages. So we are not fundamentalists in our support for freedom of expression.
But the cartoon story is different.
Those examples have to do with exercising restraint because of ethical standards and taste; call it editing. By contrast, I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. And I still believe that this is a topic that we Europeans must confront, challenging moderate Muslims to speak out. The idea wasn't to provoke gratuitously -- and we certainly didn't intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.
At the end of September, a Danish standup comedian said in an interview with Jyllands-Posten that he had no problem urinating on the Bible in front of a camera, but he dared not do the same thing with the Koran.
This was the culmination of a series of disturbing instances of self-censorship. Last September, a Danish children's writer had trouble finding an illustrator for a book about the life of Muhammad. Three people turned down the job for fear of consequences. The person who finally accepted insisted on anonymity, which in my book is a form of self-censorship. European translators of a critical book about Islam also did not want their names to appear on the book cover beside the name of the author, a Somalia-born Dutch politician who has herself been in hiding.
Around the same time, the Tate gallery in London withdrew an installation by the avant-garde artist John Latham depicting the Koran, Bible and Talmud torn to pieces. The museum explained that it did not want to stir things up after the London bombings. (A few months earlier, to avoid offending Muslims, a museum in Goteborg, Sweden, had removed a painting with a sexual motif and a quotation from the Koran.)
Finally, at the end of September, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen met with a group of imams, one of whom called on the prime minister to interfere with the press in order to get more positive coverage of Islam.
So, over two weeks we witnessed a half-dozen cases of self-censorship, pitting freedom of speech against the fear of confronting issues about Islam. This was a legitimate news story to cover, and Jyllands-Posten decided to do it by adopting the well-known journalistic principle: Show, don't tell. I wrote to members of the association of Danish cartoonists asking them "to draw Muhammad as you see him." We certainly did not ask them to make fun of the prophet. Twelve out of 25 active members responded.
We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.
The cartoons do not in any way demonize or stereotype Muslims. In fact, they differ from one another both in the way they depict the prophet and in whom they target. One cartoon makes fun of Jyllands-Posten, portraying its cultural editors as a bunch of reactionary provocateurs. Another suggests that the children's writer who could not find an illustrator for his book went public just to get cheap publicity. A third puts the head of the anti-immigration Danish People's Party in a lineup, as if she is a suspected criminal.
One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.
On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those.
Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.
This is exactly why Karl Popper, in his seminal work "The Open Society and Its Enemies," insisted that one should not be tolerant with the intolerant. Nowhere do so many religions coexist peacefully as in a democracy where freedom of expression is a fundamental right. In Saudi Arabia, you can get arrested for wearing a cross or having a Bible in your suitcase, while Muslims in secular Denmark can have their own mosques, cemeteries, schools, TV and radio stations.
I acknowledge that some people have been offended by the publication of the cartoons, and Jyllands-Posten has apologized for that. But we cannot apologize for our right to publish material, even offensive material. You cannot edit a newspaper if you are paralyzed by worries about every possible insult.
I am offended by things in the paper every day: transcripts of speeches by Osama bin Laden, photos from Abu Ghraib, people insisting that Israel should be erased from the face of the Earth, people saying the Holocaust never happened. But that does not mean that I would refrain from printing them as long as they fell within the limits of the law and of the newspaper's ethical code. That other editors would make different choices is the essence of pluralism.
As a former correspondent in the Soviet Union, I am sensitive about calls for censorship on the grounds of insult. This is a popular trick of totalitarian movements: Label any critique or call for debate as an insult and punish the offenders. That is what happened to human rights activists and writers such as Andrei Sakharov, Vladimir Bukovsky, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, Boris Pasternak. The regime accused them of anti-Soviet propaganda, just as some Muslims are labeling 12 cartoons in a Danish newspaper anti-Islamic.
The lesson from the Cold War is: If you give in to totalitarian impulses once, new demands follow. The West prevailed in the Cold War because we stood by our fundamental values and did not appease totalitarian tyrants.
Since the Sept. 30 publication of the cartoons, we have had a constructive debate in Denmark and Europe about freedom of expression, freedom of religion and respect for immigrants and people's beliefs. Never before have so many Danish Muslims participated in a public dialogue -- in town hall meetings, letters to editors, opinion columns and debates on radio and TV. We have had no anti-Muslim riots, no Muslims fleeing the country and no Muslims committing violence. The radical imams who misinformed their counterparts in the Middle East about the situation for Muslims in Denmark have been marginalized. They no longer speak for the Muslim community in Denmark because moderate Muslims have had the courage to speak out against them.
In January, Jyllands-Posten ran three full pages of interviews and photos of moderate Muslims saying no to being represented by the imams. They insist that their faith is compatible with a modern secular democracy. A network of moderate Muslims committed to the constitution has been established, and the anti-immigration People's Party called on its members to differentiate between radical and moderate Muslims, i.e. between Muslims propagating sharia law and Muslims accepting the rule of secular law. The Muslim face of Denmark has changed, and it is becoming clear that this is not a debate between "them" and "us," but between those committed to democracy in Denmark and those who are not.
This is the sort of debate that Jyllands-Posten had hoped to generate when it chose to test the limits of self-censorship by calling on cartoonists to challenge a Muslim taboo. Did we achieve our purpose? Yes and no. Some of the spirited defenses of our freedom of expression have been inspiring. But tragic demonstrations throughout the Middle East and Asia were not what we anticipated, much less desired. Moreover, the newspaper has received 104 registered threats, 10 people have been arrested, cartoonists have been forced into hiding because of threats against their lives and Jyllands-Posten's headquarters have been evacuated several times due to bomb threats. This is hardly a climate for easing self-censorship.
Still, I think the cartoons now have a place in two separate narratives, one in Europe and one in the Middle East. In the words of the Somali-born Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the integration of Muslims into European societies has been sped up by 300 years due to the cartoons; perhaps we do not need to fight the battle for the Enlightenment all over again in Europe. The narrative in the Middle East is more complex, but that has very little to do with the cartoons.
flemming.rose@jp.dk
Flemming Rose is the culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
posted by Abu Adam at
11:20 AM
Thursday, February 16, 2006
(From DDN)
Danish Cartoons – Expression of Freedom or Abuse of Speech?
by Dr. Habib Siddiqui
In recent days, since the publication of the racist, Islamophobic, utterly despicable and offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad sallal-lahu alayhi wa-sallam (S) in a Danish newspaper, many other newspapers across Europe and America have joined the fray as what they disingenuously claim as ‘demonstrations of freedom of expression.’[1] Naturally, when protests across the Muslim world became louder and some Muslim governments decided to pull off Danish products from their market, Europe appeared to be stunned by such reactions.
In her latest column, Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer writes on February 12, 2006: “Global protests over the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad have sparked debate over the limits to press freedom in the West.” In a separate column, Jonathan Last, finds the western attitude in denouncing the cartoons as ‘smacks of paternalism.’ He opines that those cartoons, much like the tortures in Abu Ghraib prison, do not represent western attitude towards Muslims and the latter are capable of making the distinction between reprehensible acts of the few and the government. Evidently he does not like western apologies for such crimes.
Shortly after the recent controversy surfaced, in al-Jazeerah website, a Dane wrote, "No authority in the Danish State is responsible for written and spoken ideas from any free citizen not working for the State – nor either a stupid cartoon drawing. The cartoon drawer and the newspaper should be the ones to blame – there is a long tradition in Denmark of not making censorship before news is being published and that the government has nothing to do with such anti-Islamic cartoons."
An underlying assumption, often repeated by many westerners, is that it was all about freedom of press. I beg to differ with such an assertion. The cartoon controversy has little to do with freedom. Even the most diehard fanatic of freedom would agree that there is a limit to everything, including freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. So when my fist hits someone, it becomes violence and not freedom. In a civil society, Government essentially enacts laws to stop such violence.
Government is a voice of the people, albeit the majority, in a democratic society. So, when a democratic government commits crime, it is often a reflection of its people’s attitude to condone such crimes. [This statement may sound strange, but examples are plenty to prove the case.] It is, therefore, not surprising to find how certain war-criminals get reelected even when their horrendous crimes are widely known.
Background on Cartoon Controversy:
The offensive cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (JP), and reproduced later in other parts of the world, are a demonstrations of those countries’ attitude towards Muslims. It has been quite sometime that Danish and Scandinavian newspaper editors are on record stating that they published the cartoons as an act of defiance against ‘radical Islam.’[2] In April of last year, the queen of Denmark was quoted by the Telegraph newspaper of UK as saying that Danes should show their ‘opposition to Islam.’[3] She said, “We are being challenged by Islam these years – globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously… We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.”
With such a xenophobic and bigoted statement, it was left to the media to display their ‘opposition’ to Islam. And what could be more hurtful to Muslims than offensive cartoons of their Prophet? After all, there is no figure more venerated by Muslims than that of their Prophet Muhammad (S)! His is the most popular name on earth. Each time a Muslim takes his name, he supplicates (du’a) “sallal-lahu alayhi wa-sallam,” meaning -- May Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him. No Muslim prayer is complete without such supplications. No wonder that his grave is the most visited grave on earth!
One should not, therefore, be surprised at the Muslim reaction to those insulting cartoons. In their protests and anger, they simply have exhibited their freedom of expression and human feelings, of which they have every right. In the post-9/11 era of global crusade against Muslims and malicious campaigns against Islam, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that offensive caricatures of the Prophet of Islam were bound to enrage Muslims.
There is no denying that there are some active and dangerous groups, mostly led by the western neoconservative ideologues, which want to exploit the post-9/11 condition to bring about their desired ‘clash of civilizations.’ But how can you fight when your opponent does not want to fight and tries to get away from your marauding path? So, the strategy has been to enrage the opponent. And in this, sadly, these warmongers are succeeding. They have found a natural ally among the ill-equipped, disgruntled and nihilist Zarqawis among Muslims.
It is worth noting that in the global arena, Muslims have not been setting their agenda for many decades. Following Newton’s third law, they only react to the criminal manipulations of the western powers and their ideologues. The cartoon controversy is the latest of that criminal ploy. It further demonizes Muslims and, in turn, sets them on a collision course with a much superior force that is savage and immoral. It also hinders them from their much needed house-cleaning (C.O.P.S.) task in their own nation-states.
Here are some more facts about the cartoon controversy: Last autumn JP assigned 40 prominent Danish caricaturists to draw the Prophet Muhammad (S). Twelve responded and the results were published on September 30. The project was deliberately designed to provoke Muslims. According to Flemming Rose, JP’s cultural editor, the project was aimed at “testing the limits of self-censorship in Danish public opinion.” My question is: why then the paper previously rejected cartoons about Jesus? Was it for anything other than the realization that such cartoons would provoke an outcry within its Christian readers?[4] Recently, it again refrained from (and rightly so) offensive cartoons against Jews. So, why this charade about testing the limits of self-censorship in public opinion! Through its very bigoted action, this right-wing paper has demonstrated that such nonsensical tests are only reserved for Muslims. It is no fluke that the paper is infamous for its declarations of support for the Nazis in the 1930s. In recent years, it has played a key role in Denmark’s current shift to the reactionary Right. We are, therefore, not surprised to learn that when Rose visited Philadelphia, he had met neocon ideologue Pipes (known for anti-immigrant paranoia and Islamophobia), and wrote very favorably.
Rose says: “In a secular society, Muslims have to live with the fact of being ridiculed, scoffed at and made to look ridiculous.” In a crude, racist stereotype, one cartoon, in particular, depicted Muhammad (S) as a terrorist. The obvious implication is that every Muslim is a potential terrorist, thereby seeding Islamophobia in the minds of everyone.
Soon after publication of these cartoons, the right-wing Danish prime minister was approached by concerned Danish Muslims. But Andres Fogh Rasmussen ignored them. He also turned down appeals by concerned Arab ambassadors for talks to clarify the issue. When 22 former Danish ambassadors appealed to the prime minister to hold discussion with representatives of Islamic states, he rejected their appeal and bullied that “freedom of the press” could not be a topic for diplomatic discussion.
Rasmussen has been deceitful. He is a racist and a bigot. His coalition government includes right-wing neo-liberals and neocons, together with the Nazi-like xenophobic Danish People’s Party. The latter rose to notoriety in the 1990s when all the bourgeois parties of Denmark (including the ruling Social Democrats) resorted to racist campaigns. The People's Party declared at the time that Islam was a "cancerous ulcer" and "terrorist movement." Its leader Pia Kjaersgaard, notorious for her racist rants and slurs, declared that the Islamic world could not be regarded as civilized. "There is only one civilization,” she declared, “and that is ours." Rasmussen, as the leader of the right-wing Venstre party, adopted much of the racist demagogy of the People's Party.[5]
In the election campaign of 2001, Rasmussen demanded that "criminal foreigners" be expelled from the country within 48 hours. His campaign utilized posters featuring pictures of Muslim criminals to suggest that all Muslims were violent. It was because of such anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant xenophobic campaign that Venstre won the election and was able to form a minority coalition government. Since coming to power, Denmark’s immigration laws have been drastically tightened.[6] The country has troops in Iraq.
So it is not difficult to understand why Rasmussen’s Denmark and JP are taking the lead in this latest savage attack on Islam. What is true about Denmark vis-à-vis the cartoon controversy is reflected in other parts of Europe! Time and again Europe has demonstrated that she is not ready for a genuine debate or dialogue of civilizations on a mature level. She craves for foul and mean things. She is not ready for pluralism or multi-culture. She remains true to her innate savage root.
Phony Talks of Tolerance and Freedom:
Europe talks about tolerance. But it has never been tolerant of others. It has presented us the Inquisition, Pogroms, Genocide and Holocaust, and continues to disgust us with newer gadgets and displays of mass murder, intolerance, bigotry and racism every now and then. Yes, the victims may now look different, but the art of dehumanization has not changed a bit. It is probably a little bit more sophisticated to mystify others. But just as they needed Der Stürmer before the Jewish Holocaust, they now need those offensive Danish cartoons to prepare the ground ready for the third Muslim Holocaust in Europe (after Bosnia and Kosovo). If they are a tolerant bunch, why in recent days did they raze scores of Muslim shops, mosques and schools, even vandalize Muslim graves? What is more despicable than that?
Europe talks about freedom of speech, but she wastes no time to gang up on others’ right to such expressions. If she really means freedom, why were her leaders irate about Iranian president’s remarks about Israel, threatening to dismember Iran from the UN? Why do they arrest Muslims when they react verbally to criminal onslaught against them? Why is radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza tried and jailed in Tony Blair’s England for expressing his views? Why is it a crime in France, Germany and some other European states to express views that question the Holocaust? Why such selective use of law limiting the so-called freedom of speech when it comes to Holocaust but nonchalant about materials that are offensive to nearly one quarter of humanity? [Lest you forget, I am against any forms of hate speech, publication, etc. that dehumanizes anyone.]
If hate speech is undesirable, criminal and punishable (for its gross impact on the society), why were not the European leaders upset about scores of offensive remarks against Arabs made by Israeli leaders - from the past to the present? How about the xenophobic speeches by the European leaders, including those of the current Danish prime minister? How about publication of offensive materials that incites violent reactions, which almost always lead to death? [Scores of Muslims, including an 8-year old child, were killed by police. Why that Pakistani child had to die when he did not even participate in demonstration? Could he have lived if those Danish cartoons were not published? Should not the Danish government and the JP management be held responsible for aiding in the unlawful deaths of those civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan?] Where was the application of the article of the Danish constitution that says - “The law prohibits publicly disseminated statements, which threaten, insult, or degrade persons based on their religion” – when it came to the obvious racist and bigoted message disseminated by the Danish cartoons? How about prosecuting the management of the JP according to the Danish Penal Code: Section 266b that states: "Any person who publicly or with the intention of dissemination to a wide circle of people makes a statement or imparts other information threatening, insulting, or degrading a group of persons on account of their race, color, or national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years"?
Why a different standard when it comes to Islam?
If the messengers of hatred, racism and bigotry are bad guys, why do Europeans continue to elect such monsters to head their governments? Why such an incongruity between what they say and what they do?
Am I surprised? No, I am not. I simply get amused with European creativity on how they reinvent themselves to mislead others! Their behavior can be summed by a single word: hypocrisy.
In case our European friends find the term foreign, here is an English definition from Mr. Webster. He defines hypocrisy as a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not. Hypocrite is one who affects virtues or qualities he does not have. In plain English, hypocrite is a person who says something and does something contrary. The Prophet Muhammad (S) had a better definition when he said, “A hypocrite has three distinguishing signs: first when he talks, he lies; second when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and third when something is entrusted to him, he misappropriates it.” [Bukhari and Muslim: Abu Hurayrah (RA)]
How so appositely said from the fountainhead of Islamic wisdom!
Some Recommendations:
Muslim nation states should stop trading with all those European nations that encouraged the publication of those offensive, slanderous and racist cartoons. Obviously, Denmark should be on the top of that list.
The OIC should demand that the Danes responsible for the publication of those cartoons, which have resulted in deaths of many Muslims, be extradited and tried for causing sedition, death and violence in a Muslim court, appointed by the OIC. The trial would reciprocate already invoked western laws that demand extradition and trial of material witnesses and suspected terrorists.
The OIC should also demand that western countries enact laws that ban any form of bigotry and racism, failing which the OIC member states should not trade with them.
Here are my recommendations for Europe: Europeans need to shred their image as a hypocritical people. If they are genuinely offended by Holocaust-denials, they should equally be offended by any public exhibit of elements that are offensive to Muslims (and for that matter any religion or race). If they are irate about hate speeches, they should not allow the merchants of hate -- the publishers and writers – who are doing Julius Streicher’s demonic job today -- to spread hatred. They simply cannot pick and choose that epitomizes their unnerving hypocrisy. Nor can they hide behind laws that are hypocritical and racist to the core, and still claim to be civilized and rational. They also have to change their attitude on whole bunch of things in a world that is changing fast. They have to learn tolerance of ‘other’ people. They have to learn that with freedom comes responsibility. They have to debate what does those terms mean to them individually and collectively? In my humble opinion, they have mistakenly equated their promiscuity and sexual freedom/preference/perversion as symbols of their freedom and tolerance. They should know that liberalism does not necessarily translate into tolerance.
Lastly, let me state clearly that something that is offensive to someone cannot be good. Only a vulgar, mean-spirited, evil man takes delight at other’s pain and suffering. True humanity is about compassion and respect for fellow beings, and providing protection against their sense of being violated. Such demands a feeling of shame and outrage with anything that is insulting to a fellow human being.
So, the civilized people of Europe should demand an apology from their press and government to the Muslim people (for the right reason and not political expediency). They should demand enacting laws, much like what they did for the Holocaust-denial, banning and prosecuting merchants of hatred and bigotry. Anything short of these would only seal their identity as a hypocrite people. Let them reflect upon what the 13th century sage Shaykh Sa’di had said:
O thou whose interior is denuded of piety
But wearest outwardly the garb of hypocrisy
Do not display a curtain of seven colours.
Thou hast reed mats inside thy house.
- [Gulistan]
February 15, 2006
[1] See, e.g., Trudy Rubin’s column on February 5, 2006 in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
[2] See, e.g., Richard Itani’s essay: “Cartoons and Hypocrisy” in the www.counterpunch.org.
[3] See Tarek Mishkhas’s essay: “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark,” Arab News, 5 February, 2006.
[4] See the Guardian reporter filed by Gladys Fouche on the cartoon controversy. See also Siraj Wahab’s piece: Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons, Arab News,
February 9, 2006.
[5] See Peter Schwarz’s “Denmark and Jyllands-Posten: the background to a provocation,” World Socialist Website, February 10, 2006.
[6] ibid.
Dr. Habib Siddiqui (saeva@aol.com) is an anti-war activist. His essays appear in a number of websites and newspapers. He has written six books.
His book on "Islamic Wisdom" is now available in the United States and Cananda.
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of the disseminator of the information. These are offered as a means to stimulate dialogue and discussion.
Danish Cartoons – Expression of Freedom or Abuse of Speech?
by Dr. Habib Siddiqui
In recent days, since the publication of the racist, Islamophobic, utterly despicable and offensive cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad sallal-lahu alayhi wa-sallam (S) in a Danish newspaper, many other newspapers across Europe and America have joined the fray as what they disingenuously claim as ‘demonstrations of freedom of expression.’[1] Naturally, when protests across the Muslim world became louder and some Muslim governments decided to pull off Danish products from their market, Europe appeared to be stunned by such reactions.
In her latest column, Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer writes on February 12, 2006: “Global protests over the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad have sparked debate over the limits to press freedom in the West.” In a separate column, Jonathan Last, finds the western attitude in denouncing the cartoons as ‘smacks of paternalism.’ He opines that those cartoons, much like the tortures in Abu Ghraib prison, do not represent western attitude towards Muslims and the latter are capable of making the distinction between reprehensible acts of the few and the government. Evidently he does not like western apologies for such crimes.
Shortly after the recent controversy surfaced, in al-Jazeerah website, a Dane wrote, "No authority in the Danish State is responsible for written and spoken ideas from any free citizen not working for the State – nor either a stupid cartoon drawing. The cartoon drawer and the newspaper should be the ones to blame – there is a long tradition in Denmark of not making censorship before news is being published and that the government has nothing to do with such anti-Islamic cartoons."
An underlying assumption, often repeated by many westerners, is that it was all about freedom of press. I beg to differ with such an assertion. The cartoon controversy has little to do with freedom. Even the most diehard fanatic of freedom would agree that there is a limit to everything, including freedom. With freedom comes responsibility. So when my fist hits someone, it becomes violence and not freedom. In a civil society, Government essentially enacts laws to stop such violence.
Government is a voice of the people, albeit the majority, in a democratic society. So, when a democratic government commits crime, it is often a reflection of its people’s attitude to condone such crimes. [This statement may sound strange, but examples are plenty to prove the case.] It is, therefore, not surprising to find how certain war-criminals get reelected even when their horrendous crimes are widely known.
Background on Cartoon Controversy:
The offensive cartoons in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (JP), and reproduced later in other parts of the world, are a demonstrations of those countries’ attitude towards Muslims. It has been quite sometime that Danish and Scandinavian newspaper editors are on record stating that they published the cartoons as an act of defiance against ‘radical Islam.’[2] In April of last year, the queen of Denmark was quoted by the Telegraph newspaper of UK as saying that Danes should show their ‘opposition to Islam.’[3] She said, “We are being challenged by Islam these years – globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously… We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.”
With such a xenophobic and bigoted statement, it was left to the media to display their ‘opposition’ to Islam. And what could be more hurtful to Muslims than offensive cartoons of their Prophet? After all, there is no figure more venerated by Muslims than that of their Prophet Muhammad (S)! His is the most popular name on earth. Each time a Muslim takes his name, he supplicates (du’a) “sallal-lahu alayhi wa-sallam,” meaning -- May Allah’s blessings and peace be upon him. No Muslim prayer is complete without such supplications. No wonder that his grave is the most visited grave on earth!
One should not, therefore, be surprised at the Muslim reaction to those insulting cartoons. In their protests and anger, they simply have exhibited their freedom of expression and human feelings, of which they have every right. In the post-9/11 era of global crusade against Muslims and malicious campaigns against Islam, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that offensive caricatures of the Prophet of Islam were bound to enrage Muslims.
There is no denying that there are some active and dangerous groups, mostly led by the western neoconservative ideologues, which want to exploit the post-9/11 condition to bring about their desired ‘clash of civilizations.’ But how can you fight when your opponent does not want to fight and tries to get away from your marauding path? So, the strategy has been to enrage the opponent. And in this, sadly, these warmongers are succeeding. They have found a natural ally among the ill-equipped, disgruntled and nihilist Zarqawis among Muslims.
It is worth noting that in the global arena, Muslims have not been setting their agenda for many decades. Following Newton’s third law, they only react to the criminal manipulations of the western powers and their ideologues. The cartoon controversy is the latest of that criminal ploy. It further demonizes Muslims and, in turn, sets them on a collision course with a much superior force that is savage and immoral. It also hinders them from their much needed house-cleaning (C.O.P.S.) task in their own nation-states.
Here are some more facts about the cartoon controversy: Last autumn JP assigned 40 prominent Danish caricaturists to draw the Prophet Muhammad (S). Twelve responded and the results were published on September 30. The project was deliberately designed to provoke Muslims. According to Flemming Rose, JP’s cultural editor, the project was aimed at “testing the limits of self-censorship in Danish public opinion.” My question is: why then the paper previously rejected cartoons about Jesus? Was it for anything other than the realization that such cartoons would provoke an outcry within its Christian readers?[4] Recently, it again refrained from (and rightly so) offensive cartoons against Jews. So, why this charade about testing the limits of self-censorship in public opinion! Through its very bigoted action, this right-wing paper has demonstrated that such nonsensical tests are only reserved for Muslims. It is no fluke that the paper is infamous for its declarations of support for the Nazis in the 1930s. In recent years, it has played a key role in Denmark’s current shift to the reactionary Right. We are, therefore, not surprised to learn that when Rose visited Philadelphia, he had met neocon ideologue Pipes (known for anti-immigrant paranoia and Islamophobia), and wrote very favorably.
Rose says: “In a secular society, Muslims have to live with the fact of being ridiculed, scoffed at and made to look ridiculous.” In a crude, racist stereotype, one cartoon, in particular, depicted Muhammad (S) as a terrorist. The obvious implication is that every Muslim is a potential terrorist, thereby seeding Islamophobia in the minds of everyone.
Soon after publication of these cartoons, the right-wing Danish prime minister was approached by concerned Danish Muslims. But Andres Fogh Rasmussen ignored them. He also turned down appeals by concerned Arab ambassadors for talks to clarify the issue. When 22 former Danish ambassadors appealed to the prime minister to hold discussion with representatives of Islamic states, he rejected their appeal and bullied that “freedom of the press” could not be a topic for diplomatic discussion.
Rasmussen has been deceitful. He is a racist and a bigot. His coalition government includes right-wing neo-liberals and neocons, together with the Nazi-like xenophobic Danish People’s Party. The latter rose to notoriety in the 1990s when all the bourgeois parties of Denmark (including the ruling Social Democrats) resorted to racist campaigns. The People's Party declared at the time that Islam was a "cancerous ulcer" and "terrorist movement." Its leader Pia Kjaersgaard, notorious for her racist rants and slurs, declared that the Islamic world could not be regarded as civilized. "There is only one civilization,” she declared, “and that is ours." Rasmussen, as the leader of the right-wing Venstre party, adopted much of the racist demagogy of the People's Party.[5]
In the election campaign of 2001, Rasmussen demanded that "criminal foreigners" be expelled from the country within 48 hours. His campaign utilized posters featuring pictures of Muslim criminals to suggest that all Muslims were violent. It was because of such anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant xenophobic campaign that Venstre won the election and was able to form a minority coalition government. Since coming to power, Denmark’s immigration laws have been drastically tightened.[6] The country has troops in Iraq.
So it is not difficult to understand why Rasmussen’s Denmark and JP are taking the lead in this latest savage attack on Islam. What is true about Denmark vis-à-vis the cartoon controversy is reflected in other parts of Europe! Time and again Europe has demonstrated that she is not ready for a genuine debate or dialogue of civilizations on a mature level. She craves for foul and mean things. She is not ready for pluralism or multi-culture. She remains true to her innate savage root.
Phony Talks of Tolerance and Freedom:
Europe talks about tolerance. But it has never been tolerant of others. It has presented us the Inquisition, Pogroms, Genocide and Holocaust, and continues to disgust us with newer gadgets and displays of mass murder, intolerance, bigotry and racism every now and then. Yes, the victims may now look different, but the art of dehumanization has not changed a bit. It is probably a little bit more sophisticated to mystify others. But just as they needed Der Stürmer before the Jewish Holocaust, they now need those offensive Danish cartoons to prepare the ground ready for the third Muslim Holocaust in Europe (after Bosnia and Kosovo). If they are a tolerant bunch, why in recent days did they raze scores of Muslim shops, mosques and schools, even vandalize Muslim graves? What is more despicable than that?
Europe talks about freedom of speech, but she wastes no time to gang up on others’ right to such expressions. If she really means freedom, why were her leaders irate about Iranian president’s remarks about Israel, threatening to dismember Iran from the UN? Why do they arrest Muslims when they react verbally to criminal onslaught against them? Why is radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza tried and jailed in Tony Blair’s England for expressing his views? Why is it a crime in France, Germany and some other European states to express views that question the Holocaust? Why such selective use of law limiting the so-called freedom of speech when it comes to Holocaust but nonchalant about materials that are offensive to nearly one quarter of humanity? [Lest you forget, I am against any forms of hate speech, publication, etc. that dehumanizes anyone.]
If hate speech is undesirable, criminal and punishable (for its gross impact on the society), why were not the European leaders upset about scores of offensive remarks against Arabs made by Israeli leaders - from the past to the present? How about the xenophobic speeches by the European leaders, including those of the current Danish prime minister? How about publication of offensive materials that incites violent reactions, which almost always lead to death? [Scores of Muslims, including an 8-year old child, were killed by police. Why that Pakistani child had to die when he did not even participate in demonstration? Could he have lived if those Danish cartoons were not published? Should not the Danish government and the JP management be held responsible for aiding in the unlawful deaths of those civilians in Pakistan and Afghanistan?] Where was the application of the article of the Danish constitution that says - “The law prohibits publicly disseminated statements, which threaten, insult, or degrade persons based on their religion” – when it came to the obvious racist and bigoted message disseminated by the Danish cartoons? How about prosecuting the management of the JP according to the Danish Penal Code: Section 266b that states: "Any person who publicly or with the intention of dissemination to a wide circle of people makes a statement or imparts other information threatening, insulting, or degrading a group of persons on account of their race, color, or national or ethnic origin, belief or sexual orientation shall be liable to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years"?
Why a different standard when it comes to Islam?
If the messengers of hatred, racism and bigotry are bad guys, why do Europeans continue to elect such monsters to head their governments? Why such an incongruity between what they say and what they do?
Am I surprised? No, I am not. I simply get amused with European creativity on how they reinvent themselves to mislead others! Their behavior can be summed by a single word: hypocrisy.
In case our European friends find the term foreign, here is an English definition from Mr. Webster. He defines hypocrisy as a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not. Hypocrite is one who affects virtues or qualities he does not have. In plain English, hypocrite is a person who says something and does something contrary. The Prophet Muhammad (S) had a better definition when he said, “A hypocrite has three distinguishing signs: first when he talks, he lies; second when he makes a promise, he breaks it; and third when something is entrusted to him, he misappropriates it.” [Bukhari and Muslim: Abu Hurayrah (RA)]
How so appositely said from the fountainhead of Islamic wisdom!
Some Recommendations:
Muslim nation states should stop trading with all those European nations that encouraged the publication of those offensive, slanderous and racist cartoons. Obviously, Denmark should be on the top of that list.
The OIC should demand that the Danes responsible for the publication of those cartoons, which have resulted in deaths of many Muslims, be extradited and tried for causing sedition, death and violence in a Muslim court, appointed by the OIC. The trial would reciprocate already invoked western laws that demand extradition and trial of material witnesses and suspected terrorists.
The OIC should also demand that western countries enact laws that ban any form of bigotry and racism, failing which the OIC member states should not trade with them.
Here are my recommendations for Europe: Europeans need to shred their image as a hypocritical people. If they are genuinely offended by Holocaust-denials, they should equally be offended by any public exhibit of elements that are offensive to Muslims (and for that matter any religion or race). If they are irate about hate speeches, they should not allow the merchants of hate -- the publishers and writers – who are doing Julius Streicher’s demonic job today -- to spread hatred. They simply cannot pick and choose that epitomizes their unnerving hypocrisy. Nor can they hide behind laws that are hypocritical and racist to the core, and still claim to be civilized and rational. They also have to change their attitude on whole bunch of things in a world that is changing fast. They have to learn tolerance of ‘other’ people. They have to learn that with freedom comes responsibility. They have to debate what does those terms mean to them individually and collectively? In my humble opinion, they have mistakenly equated their promiscuity and sexual freedom/preference/perversion as symbols of their freedom and tolerance. They should know that liberalism does not necessarily translate into tolerance.
Lastly, let me state clearly that something that is offensive to someone cannot be good. Only a vulgar, mean-spirited, evil man takes delight at other’s pain and suffering. True humanity is about compassion and respect for fellow beings, and providing protection against their sense of being violated. Such demands a feeling of shame and outrage with anything that is insulting to a fellow human being.
So, the civilized people of Europe should demand an apology from their press and government to the Muslim people (for the right reason and not political expediency). They should demand enacting laws, much like what they did for the Holocaust-denial, banning and prosecuting merchants of hatred and bigotry. Anything short of these would only seal their identity as a hypocrite people. Let them reflect upon what the 13th century sage Shaykh Sa’di had said:
O thou whose interior is denuded of piety
But wearest outwardly the garb of hypocrisy
Do not display a curtain of seven colours.
Thou hast reed mats inside thy house.
- [Gulistan]
February 15, 2006
[1] See, e.g., Trudy Rubin’s column on February 5, 2006 in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
[2] See, e.g., Richard Itani’s essay: “Cartoons and Hypocrisy” in the www.counterpunch.org.
[3] See Tarek Mishkhas’s essay: “Something is rotten in the State of Denmark,” Arab News, 5 February, 2006.
[4] See the Guardian reporter filed by Gladys Fouche on the cartoon controversy. See also Siraj Wahab’s piece: Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons, Arab News,
February 9, 2006.
[5] See Peter Schwarz’s “Denmark and Jyllands-Posten: the background to a provocation,” World Socialist Website, February 10, 2006.
[6] ibid.
Dr. Habib Siddiqui (saeva@aol.com) is an anti-war activist. His essays appear in a number of websites and newspapers. He has written six books.
His book on "Islamic Wisdom" is now available in the United States and Cananda.
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of the disseminator of the information. These are offered as a means to stimulate dialogue and discussion.
posted by Abu Adam at
7:15 PM
Friday, February 10, 2006
Quotations from Famous People on the Prophet Muhammad
By Dr. A. Zahoor and Dr. Z. Haq
In the quotations below, Western writers have used the word Muhammadanism for Islam. The word Muhammadanism connotes worship of Muhammad, an absolutely unworthy statement for any learned man to use. Prophet Muhammad's mission was to propagate the worship of the One and Only God (in Arabic Allah), the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. His mission was essentially the same as that of earlier Prophets of God. In the historical context, many such terminologies about Muhammad, Islam, and Muslims were borrowed from earlier European writings of the Eleventh to the Nineteenth century, a time when ignorance and prejudice prevailed. The quotations below attest to the facts.
"The lies (Western slander) which well-meaning zeal has heaped round this man (Muhammad) are disgraceful to ourselves only."
"A silent great soul, one of that who cannot but be earnest. He was to kindle the world, the world�s Maker had ordered so."
A. S. Tritton in 'Islam,' 1951
The picture of the Muslim soldier advancing with a sword in one hand and the Qur'an in the other is quite false.
De Lacy O'Leary in 'Islam at the Crossroads,' London, 1923.
History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.
Gibbon in 'The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' 1823
The good sense of Muhammad despised the pomp of royalty. The Apostle of God submitted to the menial offices of the family; he kindled the fire; swept the floor; milked the ewes; and mended with his own hands his shoes and garments. Disdaining the penance and merit of a hermit, he observed without effort of vanity the abstemious diet of an Arab.
Edward Gibbon and Simon Oakley in �History of the Saracen Empire,� London, 1870
"The greatest success of Mohammad�s life was effected by sheer moral force."
�It is not the propagation but the permanency of his religion that deserves our wonder, the same pure and perfect impression which he engraved at Mecca and Medina is preserved after the revolutions of twelve centuries by the Indian, the African and the Turkish proselytes of the Koran....The Mahometans have uniformly withstood the temptation of reducing the object of their faith and devotion to a level with the senses and imagination of man. �I believe in One God and Mahomet the Apostle of God� is the simple and invariable profession of Islam. The intellectual image of the Deity has never been degraded by any visible idol; the honors of the prophet have never transgressed the measure of human virtue, and his living precepts have restrained the gratitude of his disciples within the bounds of reason and religion.�
Lane-Poole in 'Speeches and Table Talk of the Prophet Muhammad'
He was the most faithful protector of those he protected, the sweetest and most agreeable in conversation. Those who saw him were suddenly filled with reverence; those who came near him loved him; they who described him would say, "I have never seen his like either before or after." He was of great taciturnity, but when he spoke it was with emphasis and deliberation, and no one could forget what he said...
Annie Besant in 'The Life and Teachings of Mohammad,' Madras, 1932.
It is impossible for anyone who studies the life and character of the great Prophet of Arabia, who knew how he taught and how he lived, to feel anything but reverence for that mighty Prophet, one of the great messengers of the Supreme. And although in what I put to you I shall say many things which may be familiar to many, yet I myself feel, whenever I reread them, a new way of admiration, a new sense of reverence for that mighty Arabian teacher.
W.C. Taylor in 'The History of Muhammadanism and its Sects'
So great was his liberality to the poor that he often left his household unprovided, nor did he content himself with relieving their wants, he entered into conversation with them, and expressed a warm sympathy for their sufferings. He was a firm friend and a faithful ally.
Reverend Bosworth Smith in 'Muhammad and Muhammadanism,' London, 1874.
"Head of the State as well as the Church, he was Caesar and Pope in one; but he was Pope without the Pope's pretensions, and Caesar without the legions of Caesar, without a standing army, without a bodyguard, without a police force, without a fixed revenue. If ever a man ruled by a right divine, it was Muhammad, for he had all the powers without their supports. He cared not for the dressings of power. The simplicity of his private life was in keeping with his public life."
"In Mohammadanism every thing is different here. Instead of the shadowy and the mysterious, we have history....We know of the external history of Muhammad....while for his internal history after his mission had been proclaimed, we have a book absolutely unique in its origin, in its preservation....on the Substantial authority of which no one has ever been able to cast a serious doubt."
Edward Montet, 'La Propagande Chretienne et ses Adversaries Musulmans,' Paris 1890. (Also in T.W. Arnold in 'The Preaching of Islam,' London 1913.)
"Islam is a religion that is essentially rationalistic in the widest sense of this term considered etymologically and historically....the teachings of the Prophet, the Qur'an has invariably kept its place as the fundamental starting point, and the dogma of unity of God has always been proclaimed therein with a grandeur a majesty, an invariable purity and with a note of sure conviction, which it is hard to find surpassed outside the pale of Islam....A creed so precise, so stripped of all theological complexities and consequently so accessible to the ordinary understanding might be expected to possess and does indeed possess a marvelous power of winning its way into the consciences of men."
Dr. Gustav Weil in 'History of the Islamic Peoples'
Muhammad was a shining example to his people. His character was pure and stainless. His house, his dress, his food - they were characterized by a rare simplicity. So unpretentious was he that he would receive from his companions no special mark of reverence, nor would he accept any service from his slave which he could do for himself. He was accessible to all and at all times. He visited the sick and was full of sympathy for all. Unlimited was his benevolence and generosity as also was his anxious care for the welfare of the community.
Alphonse de LaMartaine in 'Historie de la Turquie,' Paris, 1854.
"Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim, since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been imposed between man and his Creator, to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore the rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing. Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design, no other instrument than himself and no other aid except a handful of men living in a corner of the desert. Finally, never has a man accomplished such a huge and lasting revolution in the world, because in less than two centuries after its appearance, Islam, in faith and in arms, reigned over the whole of Arabia, and conquered, in God's name, Persia Khorasan, Transoxania, Western India, Syria, Egypt, Abyssinia, all the known continent of Northern Africa, numerous islands of the Mediterranean Sea, Spain, and part of Gaul.
"If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astonishing results are the three criteria of a human genius, who could dare compare any great man in history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws, and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled away before their eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples, dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls.
"On the basis of a Book, every letter which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blend together peoples of every tongue and race. He has left the indelible characteristic of this Muslim nationality the hatred of false gods and the passion for the One and Immaterial God. This avenging patriotism against the profanation of Heaven formed the virtue of the followers of Muhammad; the conquest of one-third the earth to the dogma was his miracle; or rather it was not the miracle of man but that of reason.
"The idea of the unity of God, proclaimed amidst the exhaustion of the fabulous theogonies, was in itself such a miracle that upon it's utterance from his lips it destroyed all the ancient temples of idols and set on fire one-third of the world. His life, his meditations, his heroic revelings against the superstitions of his country, and his boldness in defying the furies of idolatry, his firmness in enduring them for fifteen years in Mecca, his acceptance of the role of public scorn and almost of being a victim of his fellow countrymen: all these and finally, his flight his incessant preaching, his wars against odds, his faith in his success and his superhuman security in misfortune, his forbearance in victory, his ambition, which was entirely devoted to one idea and in no manner striving for an empire; his endless prayers, his mystic conversations with God, his death and his triumph after death; all these attest not to an imposture but to a firm conviction which gave him the power to restore a dogma. This dogma was twofold the unity of God and the immateriality of God: the former telling what God is, the latter telling what God is not; the one overthrowing false gods with the sword, the other starting an idea with words.
"Philosopher, Orator, Apostle, Legislator, Conqueror of Ideas, Restorer of Rational beliefs.... The founder of twenty terrestrial empires and of one spiritual empire that is Muhammad. As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask, is there any man greater than he?"
Mahatma Gandhi, statement published in 'Young India,'1924.
I wanted to know the best of the life of one who holds today an undisputed sway over the hearts of millions of mankind.... I became more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days in the scheme of life. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers, his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle. When I closed the second volume (of the Prophet's biography), I was sorry there was not more for me to read of that great life.
Sir George Bernard Shaw in 'The Genuine Islam,' Vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.
"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."
�I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion for from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Savior of Humanity."
"I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.�
Michael Hart in 'The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons In History,' New York, 1978.
My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world�s most influential persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely successful on both the secular and religious level. ...It is probable that the relative influence of Muhammad on Islam has been larger than the combined influence of Jesus Christ and St. Paul on Christianity. ...It is this unparalleled combination of secular and religious influence which I feel entitles Muhammad to be considered the most influential single figure in human history.
Dr. William Draper in 'History of Intellectual Development of Europe'
Four years after the death of Justinian, A.D. 569, was born in Mecca, in Arabia, the man who, of all men, has exercised the greatest influence upon the human race... To be the religious head of many empires, to guide the daily life of one-third of the human race, may perhaps justify the title of a Messenger of God.
J.W.H. Stab in 'Islam and its Founder'
Judged by the smallness of the means at his disposal, and the extent and permanence of the work that he accomplished, his name in world's history shines with a more specious lustre than that of the Prophet of Makkah. To the impulse which he gave numberless dynasties have owed their existence, fair cities and stately palaces and temples have arisen, and wide provinces became obedient to the Faith. And beyond all this, his words have governed the belief of generations, been accepted as their rule of life, and their certain guide to the world to come. At a thousand shrines the voices of the faithful invoke blessings on him, whom they esteem the very Prophet of God, the seal of the Apostles.... Judged by the standards to human renown, the glory of what mortal can compare with his?
Washington Irving in 'Life of Muhammad,' New York, 1920.
His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vain glory as they would have done had they been effected by selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manner and appearance as in the days of his adversity. So far from affecting regal state, he was displeased if, on entering a room, any unusual testimonial of respect was shown to him.
Arthur Glyn Leonard in 'Islam, Her Moral and Spiritual Values'
It was the genius of Muhammad, the spirit that he breathed into the Arabs through the soul of Islam that exalted them. That raised them out of the lethargy and low level of tribal stagnation up to the high watermark of national unity and empire. It was in the sublimity of Muhammad's deism, the simplicity, the sobriety and purity it inculcated the fidelity of its founder to his own tenets, that acted on their moral and intellectual fiber with all the magnetism of true inspiration.
Charles Stuart Mills in 'History of Mohammadanism'
Deeply read in the volume of nature, though extremely ignorant of letters, his mind could expand into controversy with the wisest of his enemies or contract itself to the apprehension of meanest of his disciples. His simple eloquence was rendered impressive by a manner of mixed dignity and elegance, by the expression of a countenance where the awfulness of his majesty was so well tempered by an amiable sweetness, that it exerted emotions of veneration and love. He was gifted with that authoritative air or genius which alike influences the learned and commands the illiterate.
Philip K. Hitti in 'History of the Arabs'
Within a brief span of mortal life, Muhammad called forth of unpromising material, a nation, never welded before; in a country that was hitherto but a geographical expression he established a religion which in vast areas suppressed Christianity and Judaism, and laid the basis of an empire that was soon to embrace within its far flung boundaries the fairest provinces the then civilized world.
Stanley Lane-Poole in 'Studies in a Mosque'
He was one of those happy few who have attained the supreme joy of making one great truth their very life spring. He was the messenger of One God, and never to his life's end did he forget who he was or the message which was the marrow of his being. He brought his tidings to his people with a grand dignity sprung from the consciousness of his high office, together with a most sweet humility.
W. Montgomery Watt in 'Muhammad at Mecca,' Oxford, 1953.
His readiness to undergo persecution for his beliefs, the high moral character of the men who believed in him and looked up to him as a leader, and the greatness of his ultimate achievement - all argue his fundamental integrity. To suppose Muhammad an impostor raises more problems that it solves. Moreover, none of the great figures of history is so poorly appreciated in the West as Muhammad.... Thus, not merely must we credit Muhammad with essential honesty and integrity of purpose, if we are to understand him at all; if we are to correct the errors we have inherited from the past, we must not forget the conclusive proof is a much stricter requirement than a show of plausibility, and in a matter such as this only to be attained with difficulty.
D. G. Hogarth in 'Arabia'
Serious or trivial, his daily behavior has instituted a canon which millions observe this day with conscious memory. No one regarded by any section of the human race as Perfect Man has ever been imitated so minutely. The conduct of the founder of Christianity has not governed the ordinary life of his followers. Moreover, no founder of a religion has left on so solitary an eminence as the Muslim apostle.
Washington Irving 'Mahomet and His Successors'
He was sober and abstemious in his diet and a rigorous observer of fasts. He indulged in no magnificence of apparel, the ostentation of a petty mind; neither was his simplicity in dress affected but a result of real disregard for distinction from so trivial a source.
In his private dealings he was just. He treated friends and strangers, the rich and poor, the powerful and weak, with equity, and was beloved by the common people for the affability with which he received them, and listened to their complaints.
His military triumphs awakened no pride nor vain glory, as they would have done had they been effected for selfish purposes. In the time of his greatest power he maintained the same simplicity of manners and appearance as in the days of his adversity. So far from affecting a regal state, he was displeased if, on entering a room, any unusual testimonials of respect were shown to him. If he aimed at a universal dominion, it was the dominion of faith; as to the temporal rule which grew up in his hands, as he used it without ostentation, so he took no step to perpetuate it in his family.
James Michener in �Islam: The Misunderstood Religion,� Reader�s Digest, May 1955, pp. 68-70.
"No other religion in history spread so rapidly as Islam. The West has widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by the sword. But no modern scholar accepts this idea, and the Qur�an is explicit in the support of the freedom of conscience."
"Muhammad, the inspired man who founded Islam, was born about A.D. 570 into an Arabian tribe that worshiped idols. Orphaned at birth, he was always particularly solicitous of the poor and needy, the widow and the orphan, the slave and the downtrodden. At twenty he was already a successful businessman, and soon became director of camel caravans for a wealthy widow. When he reached twenty-five his employer recognizing his merit, proposed marriage. Even though she was fifteen years older, he married her and as long as she lived remained a devoted husband."
�Like almost every major prophet before him, Muhammad fought shy of serving as the transmitter of God�s word sensing his own inadequacy. But the Angel commanded �Read�. So far as we know, Muhammad was unable to read or write, but he began to dictate those inspired words which would soon revolutionize a large segment of the earth: "There is one God"."
�In all things Muhammad was profoundly practical. When his beloved son Ibrahim died, an eclipse occurred and rumors of God 's personal condolence quickly arose. Whereupon Muhammad is said to have announced, �An eclipse is a phenomenon of nature. It is foolish to attribute such things to the death or birth of a human being'."
�At Muhammad's own death an attempt was made to deify him, but the man who was to become his administrative successor killed the hysteria with one of the noblest speeches in religious history: �If there are any among you who worshiped Muhammad, he is dead. But if it is God you Worshiped, He lives for ever'.�
Lawrence E. Browne in �The Prospects of Islam,� 1944
Incidentally these well-established facts dispose of the idea so widely fostered in Christian writings that the Muslims, wherever they went, forced people to accept Islam at the point of the sword.
K. S. Ramakrishna Rao in 'Mohammed: The Prophet of Islam,' 1989
My problem to write this monograph is easier, because we are not generally fed now on that (distorted) kind of history and much time need not be spent on pointing out our misrepresentations of Islam. The theory of Islam and sword, for instance, is not heard now in any quarter worth the name. The principle of Islam that �there is no compulsion in religion� is well known.
Jules Masserman in 'Who Were Histories Great Leaders?' in TIME Magazine, July 15, 1974
Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Mohammad, who combined all the three functions. To a lesser degree Moses did the same.
(Copyright 1990, 1997, All Rights Reserved)
http://jews-for-allah.org/Why
-Believe-in-Allah/What-non -Muslims-sayabout-Muhammad.htm #note
posted by Abu Adam at
7:27 AM
