Here we go again. Two Tunisians and a Dane of Moroccan descent were arrested by the Danish police last month on charges of plotting to kill Mr. Kurt Westergaard, one of the 12 cartoonists whose pictures of Muhammad in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten sparked protests by Muslims around the world in 2006. Mr. Westergaard drew Muhammad with a bomb in his turban.
In response to these arrests, 17 Danish newspapers decided to offend
one billion Muslim believers around the world, by publishing the offensive cartoons, so as to declare solidarity with Mr. Westergaard.
Wise move indeed - for the Danish move only provoked another round of demonstrations by Muslims around the world.
I truly wonder how the Danish thinking process went - maybe it went something like this: "Three misguided men who profess to be Muslims, who are also potential murderers, are locked up in jail, and they will be sentenced for their plottings. But now we have to punish, belittle and insult scores of other Muslims around the world, who had no part of this plot at all! Afterall, one billion Muslims should be accountable for the actions of three individuals".
The ironic part is that people would have you believe that the issue at hand is about principles, democracy, liberalism and freedom of expression. It cannot be farther from the truth. Not even Mill went so far to suggest that all forms of expression were justifiable. In reality, freedom of expression is always to an extent regulated in all societies, for example, through hate speech laws in Western societies.
The editor at the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, Mr Felming Rose was quoted as saying "It was not about mocking a minority but a religious figure, the Prophet, so it was blasphemy, not racism. The idea of challenging religious authority led to liberal democracy, whereas the singling out of minorities, as minorities, led to Nazism and the persecution of the bourgeoisie in Russia. So this distinction is crucial to understand.”
Utter hogwash. It is blasphemy for the believer, to mock a religious figure, but not so for an unbeliever who holds nothing in the religion sacred. So it was not blasphemy the newspapers were guilty of. However, they could have been guilty of
blasphemous libel in countries where there is such a law, like in the United Kingdom or. New Zealand. When expressing an opinion on any religious subject, it should be expressed in
good faith and in
decent language. Commonsensical enough. Doing otherwise, amounts to blasphemous libel.
Now considering that Denmark does not have such a law, then we can assume that the newspapers were also not guilty of blasphemous libel. If they were not guilty of blasphemy or blasphemous libel, were they guilty of racism?
The cartoons showed Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban with a bomb. The implication is easy enough to understand. The beliefs of one billion Muslims are derived from two main sources two - the Quran, the literal word of God as revealed to the Prophet, and the Hadith, which are the saying and actions of the Prophet. The Prophet is central to the Islam as the transmittor of religion.
Taken in that context, the bomb in the Prophet's turban, signified the Dane's assertion that the Prophet taught Muslims to be a violent and murdering people - that violence is at the cornerstone of the religion. But anyone who has studied the religion would tell you differently.
In effect, the Danes were saying that all Muslims are inherently violent because of their faith. They were tarring all Muslims with the same brush.
How is that not racism?
Mr Rose further claimed that "images are open to interpretation, they’re different from words”.
Words are also open to interpretation - two people can hear the same speech and come away with totally different impressions; note for example reactions to Senator Obama's recent speech on race in America.
But the cartoonist who drew the bomb in a turban cartoon, Mr. Westergaard admitted openly that “cartoons always concentrate and simplify an idea and allow a quick impression that arouses some strong feeling".
So how is that not an incitement to hatred towards Muslims?
The crux of the matter is that this is
all about race and the blatant lack of respect accorded to Danish citizens who are not blonde or blue-eyed (bluntly said, but you know what I mean). Denmark has had to deal with its Muslim immigrants, especially with the younger generation of Muslims who were born and bred in Denmark, but who are now asserting their religious identity. The Danes are reluctant to accept the concept of multiculturalism as have successful multi-ethnic countries such as Singapore - why you have to ask them. Case in point, Denmark forces new immigrants to watch a video with unclothed females in it because they know it is offensive to Muslim sensibilities, just so they can force home the point that practicing Muslims are unwelcome in Denmark.
Try doing that in good old America and you'd have a proper backlash from feminists, evangelicals and so on!
To suggest that this is about something else other than plain racism is hyprocrisy.
Dedicated to those of you quick to precede the terms terrorists or fanatics with Muslim or Islam.
http://www.thelogicgirl.com/2008/03/baba-ali-who-hijacked-islam.html
Reply | | Report Abuse
Ms Logic, be at peace. learn to recognise your namesake when you see it.
Reply | | Report Abuse
You wrote: Silence of the majority of muslims for the unislamic acts of the terrorists (compd to loud demonstrations by muslims against a silly cartoon) would indeed be harmful in the long run".
Muslim religious leaders do speak out. But I (as many educated and thinking individuals) find it unneccesary because the people who engaged in terror acts, IMO, happen to be Muslims, and are NOT my religious leaders, much less my political representatives. They as much connected to me as they are to you.
But I don't need to tell you this - after all, didn't a Gujerati leader who was implicated in ordering the massacres of Gujerati Muslims, get re-elected to office last year? Electing into office a murderer, and I didn't hear any Indian dismay or outcry. And the man is an Indian political representative. This was the same man who deemed by the US state dept as being unworthyto enter the country.
You wrote: "Cartoon is not only perception of reality. it is an exaggerated perception of reality by an individual. it is a caricature. if you are offended, ignore. or one can try go to court about it."
Demonstrations and the media publicity etc were necessary to highlight the issue. You wouldn't be aware of it ,if it was not done. When someone is offended, something is done to seek redress. I am not going to educate you on what has been (and is being done) In Denmark by Danish-Muslim citizens.
My little part is to write about it - it has been nice to see the genuine reactions of Hindus.
You wrote:" A rather crude method. but if the new immigrants can't bear to watch unclothed females, if they are offended by it, they might be perhaps better off seeking refuge in soudi arabia, pakistan, bangladesh etc etc etc."
That is really weak argument. It is sexist, racist and discriminatory. Period. It was a practice that was recently enacted, and as with all legislation, it is open to debate and repeals. And if you cannot figure out why, please enroll at your local university and take a course in politics and government 101.
Not a single one of you came forward with intelligent arguments. The Danes did a much better job arguing their point than the Indians here at Sulekha.
Reply | | Report Abuse
Silence of the majority would be far worse in the long-run.
Indeed it would be. Silence of the majority of muslims for the unislamic acts of the terrorists (compd to loud demonstrations by muslims against a silly cartoon) would indeed be harmful in the long run.
Cartoon is not only perception of reality. it is an exaggerated perception of reality by an individual. it is a caricature. if you are offended, ignore. or one can try go to court about it.
"Case in point, Denmark forces new immigrants to watch a video with unclothed females in it because they know it is offensive to Muslim sensibilities, just so they can force home the point that practicing Muslims are unwelcome in Denmark."
A rather crude method. but if the new immigrants can't bear to watch unclothed females, if they are offended by it, they might be perhaps better off seeking refuge in soudi arabia, pakistan, bangladesh etc etc etc.
Reply | | Report Abuse
I brought the point about forcing new immigrants to watch videos (a Danish government requirement) with unclothed women in it to illustrate the absurdity of such a policy. Any self-respecting, free and independent woman, never mind their race or religion, should find such a policy offensive. I suggested trying that in America - the response (rather the backlash) would be swift.
Go figure how you missed that glaring point - this isn't about when in rome, do as the romans do, as you had implied in your first response.
Reply | | Report Abuse
You wrote: "was referring to the "new immigrants" you mentioned in the above quote from your article...they are there by their own choice and not by invitation from the Danes, Ma'am".
I preceded that sentence with this: The crux of the matter is that this is all about race and the blatant lack of respect accorded to Danish citizens who are not blonde or blue-eyed (bluntly said, but you know what I mean). Denmark has had to deal with its Muslim immigrants, especially with the younger generation of Muslims who were born and bred in Denmark, but who are now asserting their religious identity. The Danes are reluctant to accept the concept of multiculturalism as have successful multi-ethnic countries such as Singapore - why you have to ask them.
Reply | | Report Abuse
You wrote: "It would be silly and foolish for an entire community of one billion people to react if muslims who respond to silly cartoons with bombs are called fanatical"
Silence of the majority would be far worse in the long-run.
I wrote in the blog: Mr. Westergaard (the cartoonist) admitted openly that “cartoons always concentrate and simplify an idea and allow a quick impression that arouses some strong feeling".
What he did was not "fiction" - it was a statement on his perception of a reality.
Again read what I wrote:" Taken in that context, the bomb in the Prophet's turban, signified the Danes assertion that the Prophet taught Muslims to be a violent and murdering people - that violence is at the cornerstone of the religion. But anyone who has studied the religion would tell you differently.
In effect, the Danes were saying that all Muslims are inherently violent because of their faith. They were tarring all Muslims with the same brush".
Reply | | Report Abuse
"If that person offers you a gift, it becomes yours, only if you accept it...so also with an insult...it becomes yours only if you accept (in our MODERN context "react" is the word I am looking for)it......."
Tell it to the person with a Muslim sounding name who gets randomly selected for extra security checks each time he boards a plan, and tell that to the person who is prevented from flying because his name resembles someone on a list.
Reply | | Report Abuse
"Case in point, Denmark forces new immigrants to watch a video with unclothed females in it because they know it is offensive to Muslim sensibilities, just so they can force home the point that practicing Muslims are unwelcome in Denmark."
I was referring to the "new immigrants" you mentioned in the above quote from your article...they are there by their own choice and not by invitation from the Danes, Ma'am
Best regards
Lakshmi
Reply | | Report Abuse
Frankly, this whole matter would have not even been particularly noticed by the rest of th world if it had not been made into such a big issue.....now the cartoonist must be rubbing his hands with glee for having the spotlight turned on himself.
Lord Buddha another great religious head (am not a Buddhist but accept wisdom in any form) said this to a person who came fuming and angry, complaining that somebody had insulted him:
"If that person offers you a gift, it becomes yours, only if you accept it...so also with an insult...it becomes yours only if you accept (in our MODERN context "react" is the word I am looking for)it......."
Faith is much stronger than a cartoon, in my humble opinion.....
Lakshmi
Reply | | Report Abuse
- 1
- 2
- 3
Displaying 1 - 10 of 22 Blog Comments