Originally posted by Alle-ubaahne: NGONGE WROTE, quote: You display an uncharestarectic naivety on the workings of democratic societies! Decades of democratic rules and libertarian laws have ensured that the media is the strongest thing and most powerful in democratic societies. It’s not the government that influences the media, it’s the other way round, saaxib. Saaxiib, your linguestic tone appears to be very native liberal and born-westerner in nature, but fortunately we know the root causes of your "I know everything about the west's intentions, and you know nothing" laakiin, don't try that on us, saxib. The war has begun. It warms my heart to know that you read EVRY word I write, saaxib. With you, I don’t even expect you to agree or show indifference. As long as you read it all, I am happy. I fully appreciate the power of the mind and its ability to store and retain information that it abhors and disagrees with. Have you never sat there humming songs you’ve heard as a kid and as you hummed them you wondered why such a song suddenly came back to you? You sit and question yourself and with thinking you remember that when you first heard the song, you didn’t even like it! Now, you’re finding yourself happily humming it and wondering why you never found this song great the first time you heard it. Or like the irate old man who when telling off his son, he would see the son nod and say ‘insha Allah, aabo, insha Allah’. The old man gets really angry and says to the son, ‘ whenever I tell you to do something you keep saying insha Allah! Don’t think you can trick me with those words. War waxad tedhaahda, hadi Allah idmoâ€! Of course, the old man went all his life without knowing that insha Allah meant exactly that. It’s only when his son explained it to him that he knew what he didn't’ all those years. One day, my good friend, you too will know the meaning of Insha Allah.

Originally posted by Kashanre: Ngonge- On the first part of your commentary; democratic governments do not necessarily wield control over the press but they do generally, and especially western governments, hold influence over it when the image of the state is at stake. I cannot stress that point enough. The Danish government is not responsible for what that paper printed, but they are responsible for their initial support of the "caricature" and their willingness to ridicule and trample on the beliefs of a million plus people on this earth. The Danish prime minister laughed and turned away a delegation of Muslim ambassadors in the beginning, but then came running as soon as the heat was turned on. The Danish government became part of the problem sxb, the freedom of press was a lattar ruse. Here in the United States, I am completely convinced the State Department had something to do with the non-existence of those cartoons in the American media. There is a fine line between what constitues freedom of the press and what constitutes slander/libel. The more sophisticated and advanced the state, the sooner the distinction could have been drawn and the situation pacified. The faster one realizes that aspect of the problem the more clearer one sees the situation for what is sxb. As for the second part of your commentery; I but have one question to ask. Had the cartoons been about the Holocaust and Jews, would the response from the Danish goverment and initial response from the rest of the western world have been the same? Therein lies the answer that justifies the Muslim world's passionate response saaxiib. You stand up for what you believe sxb. However and in any mean you can. Appeasement only hurts you. Again. I fully disagree with both your arguments. You need to be following the news closely, saaxib. The Danish government apologised the minute the protest was lodged with them. They agreed it was unacceptable and made clear that they did not share the newspaper’s views. However, they refused, point blank to restrict that newspaper’s ability to print whatever it liked (because it was within that state’s law). You need to google, buy old newspapers, check out Islamic media sources (and whatever else that will make you believe that such events took place). Don’t even attempt to move ahead with this argument before you researched and made sure you understand how things unfolded. By the way, this is not about the Danish government’s motives. They’re not Muslim and it’s conceivable that they were gleefully pleased at what that paper printed. However, officially, they did declare their dissatisfaction with it and that’s all we can go by for now. I say, and you’ll confirm this once you’ve done your research, that our protesting Muslims wanted an assurance from the Danish government that the paper will be gagged, punished or forced to issue an apology. The Danish government refused THIS request and cited it’s own democracy and constitution for such a refusal. Still, even now (and I repeat this for the tenth time), neither the Danish government nor the paper concerned have issued a FULL apology and promised not to repeat the offence. However, we’re all (you and many of the protesters) treating this as some sort of victory! This, my brother, was the deal that was put on the table in the first place and it’s quite tragic that all this commotion took place only for us to turn round and declare our happiness and satisfaction that we got something out of the Danish. We got NOTHING. Again, don’t shake your head angrily and dismiss my words. Go back and read the news all the way from September 2005 until now to see that what I’m saying is the truth, the full truth and nothing but the heartbreaking truth. On your second point about the state being able to influence the media. You display an uncharestarectic naivety on the workings of democratic societies! Decades of democratic rules and libertarian laws have ensured that the media is the strongest thing and most powerful in democratic societies. It’s not the government that influences the media, it’s the other way round, saaxib. Why else do you think Robert Murdock is one of the most powerful men on earth today? That Danish paper had set out its stall for a fight and knew it was going to get one, had the Danish government intervened, it would have only hurt itself. The media is what makes governments, not the other way round, saaxib. Now, let me for a minute wax lyrical about the preposterous argument that almost everyone has been using to justify the protests. I’m talking about the Jews of course. The popular argument goes that if this was done to the Jews we would not have heard the end of it. Too right we wouldn’t. However, do you think it would have followed the same scenario? Let me give you an example here. One that will appear as if I’m praising the prudence and farsightedness of the Jews no less. Last summer, the Israeli Prime Minster decided to unilaterally withdraw from some of the occupied territories. He was going to destroy a few settlements and show the world that Israel was committed to peace. The fact that he was also claiming other bigger, better and more strategic settlements in the West Bank is besides the point here. The point I’m making is that he did go ahead with this withdrawal. The rest of the world was impressed with this man’s single-handed efforts for peace (a masterstroke if you ask me). Many Israelis were too. However, all the Israelis on the extreme right (and there are far too many of those) did not agree with this plan. Moreover, the people losing their illegal settlements also vowed never to leave ‘their’ houses and lands without a fight. Demonstrations and protests were organised. Threats were made and fortifications were put in place. But, when the day for the withdrawal came, hardly anyone got injured or killed. The Israeli army, when it had to evacuate the angry settlers, did their utmost (mainly for the benefit of the cameras) in showing how gentle and tolerant they are. They shed tears as they forcibly removed their fellow citizens from those settlements and quickly (and, seemingly, efficiently) brought that whole thing to a satisfactory (in their eyes) end. If you follow the news and know what happened next, you’ll know that the eruptions resulting from that decision (to withdraw from Gaza) carried on all the way to the Israeli Knesset and caused the dismemberment of the Likud party. There are clear divisions in Israeli politics now because of that decision (though I believe it to be a mere tactical move on the part of Arial Sharon). Still, throughout all of this, hardly any Jews were killed, any Jewish property destroyed (other than the settlements of course) and any damage done to the Jewish image in the eyes of the rest of the world. On the contrary, this actually made them look good and sensible as opposed to the seemingly ‘savage’ Palestinians! You rhetorically ask: had the cartoons been about the Holocaust and Jews would the response been the same from the Danish government and the Western world? Seeing that it is a question you (and I) already know the answer to, I shall not bother to answer it. However, I shall instead deal with why things are so. The Jews, you see, would not have come out in such demonstrations and waved placards promising another eleventh of September and other nonsense. The most you would have got from them would have been a few press conferences where they criticise the world for condoning such offensive rubbish and threaten to take their case to the highest courts of whatever lands. They would have then, slowly, covertly and very diligently have gone about the business of punishing the perpetrators. Rest assured that if that Danish paper had insulted the Jews, it would have got easily punished. But, where WE differ from them is that we protest for today and never plan for tomorrow. The Jews would have worked towards changing the laws that allow such a paper to insult them in such a way. This is why Austria (which is no lover of Jews) has laws that forbid anti-Semitic utterances. You think the Austrians, out of the goodness of their own hearts decided to install such laws? Holocaust arguments aside, it’s no secret that the Jews were hated and mistreated in Nazi Germany (and Austria) before the Second World War. They were; in fact, not very popular in many other parts of the world either. However, because Herr Hitler was foolish enough to declare war on almost the entire world, the proverb that says ‘my enemies enemy is my friend’ came into play and the Jews were welcomed with open arms by the Allies (you need to go back and read British newspapers prior to 1930 to see how much the Jews were hated back then). They then, as the war progressed (and because many of them were talented) went about pleading, granting favours and buying loyalties to make sure that nothing like what happened in Germany would ever happen to them again. There was no lashing out; rather meticulous long term planning that is bearing fruit today. They did it for Judaism and not for the Jews that lived at that time. Because, like how we believe with Islam, they believed that Judaism was for all time and not only today. Compare and contrast if you will. I am no fan of Jewish conspiracies or their ability to control the world. For that, you’ll need to go and read the efforts of other Nomads. What I am a fan of is COMMON SENSE. The Jews, Christians and countless other groups always try to fight their cases with calm and long term planning. Ours, as evidenced by this case and the dozen others throughout the years has always been a reactionary response with no plans whatsoever. This mentality of doing something for the sake of doing something has to stop if we ever want to achieve things. This business of standing up for what you believe in, by any means, is nothing but empty talk. Because, saaxib, if you have been paying attention, it has never been ‘by any means’, it has always been by violence and pointless anger. Be true to your words and try to consider the other means. The pointless rage is what got people to burn the Embassies in Syria and Lebanon. It’s what got them to destroy and burn the cars of civilians in Christian neighbourhoods in Lebanon (civilians who for the most part were sympathetic to the Muslim cause). It’s what got them to burn shops and businesses (and even schools)! It’s what got the numbskulls to carry banners threatening further bombings in London! As for your appeasement charge, it’s quite amazing that this is what you gleaned from all my words on this topic. What’s even worse is that, true to type, the minute you get angry about something concerning Islam and someone tells you that your anger is futile, you come out with such nonsense. Such angry nonsense is exactly the logic those that burn fellow Muslim property and shops use, saaxib. As you can clearly see and have just demonstrated yourself, this anger only serves to divide and erode on Islam rather than defend it and strengthen it. Will any of what I say ever make sense to you? PS I don’t passionately write all these words for the pleasure of reading my own words. I’m trying to drum some sense into your sentimental heads here. PPS I have written 1671 words above (thank god for word count). Lets hope some of them trickle through.

^^^ A quote from the link you posted, saaxib. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility . Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable." The United States, seeking to strike a balance between competing rights, stopped short of urging U.S. media not to republish the cartoons , which include depicting Muhammad as a terrorist. This is more or less what Jack Straw said yesterday. It’s also what the Danish government said at the start of all this commotion. The argument was NOT about these governments finding such acts unacceptable, it was about these governments declaring them unacceptable and asserting that they’ll use their laws to punish any newspaper that prints such rubbish. So far, no western democracy has come out with such promises. The British newspapers for their part, all decided to be responsible about this issue and not print the cartoons. They did not do it because some law was going to stop them from doing so; they did it because they did not believe there was any ‘news’ value in (re) printing the cartoons. Their argument was that printing them once was fine and proved the paper’s freedom of speech, printing them again (like the other European papers did) was irresponsible and provocative. None of this however dealt with the freedom of speech issue. If you’re going to get angry for a cause, at least understand how it works and pay close attention to the details. In addition, your argument above about ‘doing something’ being better than doing nothing at all does not wash nor stand to reason. In such mass hysteria cases, it’s best to do nothing until calm returns and then set out to do well planned, reasonable and logical things that achieve the same goal. Unless, of course, the gaol is to let out some steam and deprive oneself of Danish butter for a couple of weeks! For while we were turning our noses up at the lovely Danish cheese, the other Europeans carried on printing the cartoons (and now I hear that even irrelevant NewZeland had joined that circus!). What’s more, all this hysteria gave (as it often does) the chance to all those with more temperament than sense to take over proceedings and confuse matters further! I will not at all be surprised if there is a death or two of some innocent passer by in the mistaken belief that we’re avenging our faith and prophet. A few more such scenes and this becomes the norm. Teenage numbskulls that probably don’t know where their local mosque is and are bursting with raging testosterone at the best of times, take it upon themselves to avenge Islam with disastrous consequences for all concerned. It’s a reckless man that rouses a mob into protesting and demonstrating with enraged anger then wonders why some of them went beyond what he considered to be the limit of protest! If any of you have a grain of sense, you would be careful with your rabble-rousing and how misleading and destructive your words might be.

Lawyers Vow Legal Action in Cartoons Row P.K. Abdul Ghafour & Abdul Maqsood Mirza, Arab News JEDDAH, 4 February 2006 — Lawyers in Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have decided to forge an alliance in defense of Islam following the publication of cartoons denigrating the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) in some European newspapers. The lawyers wanted to take legal action against those who insult and demean the Prophet. “I have contacted our colleagues in Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. They have all supported the idea,†Al-Madinah daily quoted lawyer Sulaiman Al-Sanie, who spearheaded the campaign. “We also need the support of businessmen and media persons to enact laws that would incriminate abuse of religions and prophets in all countries,†Al-Sanie said. The lawyers plan to set up a website in major foreign languages to explain the teachings of Islam and answer questions. Some 500 lawyers in Jeddah have supported the project, Al-Sanie said. “We have discussed a number of options on how to deal with the issue,†said Nidhal Atta, another lawyer. He emphasized the need for explaining the fundamental principles of Islam to secularists in countries such as Denmark, where people even do not know about their own religion — Christianity. Atta said the alliance would ask businessmen to stop dealing in Danish products in order to harm its economy. He urged all Saudis and Muslims to boycott the products of countries that insult the Prophet. “An economic boycott will help influence policies and decisions of countries,†he added. Muhammad Abdu Yamani, a former information minister, emphasized the need for taking decisive actions against those individuals and countries that insulted the Prophet. “We’ll not accept abusing our Prophet in any form,†he said. He stressed the need for educating the world on the greatness of the Prophet. Yamani urged non-Muslim governments to instruct their peoples and institutions to respect other faiths. Boycott of products alone would not be enough to correct the wrong committed by European dailies. However, he said it would give a signal to people in such countries that their interests would be in danger if they harm friendly people without any reason. Yamani urged more efforts to spread awareness of Islam and its Prophet. Abdul Aziz Turkistani, a member of the Saudi Media and Outreach Society, said the Danish cartoons were an attack on Islam. He referred to the coordinated Western media campaign against Islam and Muslims over the years. He called for a comprehensive cultural and media project as an answer to these smear campaigns. “Thanks to my long association with non-Muslims, especially in Japan and South Korea, I can tell that there is a lack of Islamic information. More than 50 percent of information they receive about the Islamic world comes from non-Islamic sources,†he pointed out. Turkistani, a known media figure, emphasized the need for promoting academic exchange. Seminars with the participation of European media persons can be organized to remove misconceptions about the Prophet. “Holding of exhibitions on the Prophet in major European capitals is another way to offset the damage caused by the cartoons,†he said. Establishment of academic chairs at Western universities with the financial support of Muslim businessmen and countries is another proposal. Muslim minorities in Western countries should be given necessary support to play a role in this awareness campaign, he added. Source

Originally posted by Castro: ^ I'm afraid the clarity of vision and the ease with which you see the simplicity of this issue has eluded the legal and legislative branches of many a western nations. That you find Ngonge's argument enlightening is good, but to assume (incorrectly, of course) that it is the last word on this issue is mighty naive atheer. So, and I'll say this again in case you have comprehension issues, there is a line that freedom of speech cannot transgress against. That line is where other freedoms (freedom from harrasment and insults) begin to be infringed upon. You said you were going to think more about this, no? Go ahead. The hadeeth I used to illustrate my point was but one example. I assumed that such a simple point was obvious! It is these assumptions that get me in trouble time and again. Forget that hadeeth and ask yourself if some of the opinions, positions and doctrines that are found in Islam can be offensive to Jews, Christians or Hindus? Ah! Before you start ranting and say “who cares if they are?â€, let me remind you of the context this was put in. We’re asking for respect from THEM, in a land where they are the majority and not Muslim lands. Again, Castro, you speak of a line that should not be crossed. I asked you yesterday and I ask you again today, what is that line? Who decides where the line should be? The courts of law? What possible charge could you bring in a law court? Defamation of character? Slander? What? No court is going to try anyone on the simple charge of hurting other people’s feelings, saaxib. If such a law is put in place, everyone will resort to litigation at the merest hint of offence. The nearest thing to the law you demand is the Religious Hatred Bill that was recently rejected in the British Parliament. This is the reason I started this whole thread in the first place. I fully sympathise with Zero’s frustration above. You have rejected all the arguments we presented but never attempted to lucidly clarify your objection nor presented us with an alternative viewpoint. Zero, for his part, admitted that he’s not very comfortable with the points I presented and that they don’t sit well with him but he also agreed that, for now, and because of a lack of any other alternative, he has no choice but to reluctantly accept them. He and I are basically asking you and anyone that cares to join this discussion to roll up your sleeves and challenge our meagre deliberations. It was never meant to be the last word on the subject and if, by some miracle, someone decides to actually join the debate and throw in a different viewpoint altogether, we might end up (a few pages later) with a completely different position on this topic. When I joined the topic yesterday, I was of the opinion that we should resort to the law courts and seek orders that limit the freedom of speech of such troublemakers. But, the longer I thought about it, the more ludicrous that idea seemed to me. I already gave my reasons for that in my previous two or three posts. If anyone believes that we can use the law to silence all those that offend us without us later being hoist by our own petard (the law we helped introduce) I’d love to hear their logic and see their workings.

Khayer, You’ve given me two incomprehensible responses there, saaxib. Take your time, read my words and try to deal with them in the context they were posted in. Spare the bravado to your visits to the Danish discussion forums. My aim here is to discuss a problem that affects you and me as Muslims. I want to think of solutions to cope with and deal with such situations. I’m not here to question your faith or try to persuade you to abandon it. So, please, be the good mullah that you’ve always been and afford me the benefit of the doubt despite what your messed up instincts tell you. Castro, You chose to deal with the Danish issue being a form of hate speech but ignored my example of the hadeeth! If you have a law that stops the Danes from mocking your faith, that law will also apply to you PRACTISING your faith. Was I not clear there? Explain to me how could you conceivably stop a Jew or Christians from using that exact law that you demand, and taking any Muslim Imam to court for reciting a few verses from the Koran, which are not complimentary to Jews or Christians? It can’t be done. The Danes and others flaunt their freedom of speech and insist upon having their say but that right (when all is said and done) is not that important to them (the right to offend Muslims I mean). It’s, at most, a luxury the law provides them with. In our case and our ‘hate’ speeches they’re, for the most part, an obligation or at least a big part of our faith (a non-Muslim would regard some of our Islamic traditions and sayings as hate speeches). When the anger abates, this is what we’ll be left with, saaxib! The realistic and very imminent danger is that we’ll reject the bird we’ve got in our hand. Attempt to catch the two in the tree but end up having our shooting guns confiscated!

Khayer, So you want to use Islam as your yardstick in this discussion yet at the same time want to ‘utilise’ political systems? You will need to disentangle that little web for me, saaxib. I’m utterly confounded by your logic here. Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by NGONGE: We find their words offensive, they find our faith offensive! We both should be free to hold these opinions. Saaxib you had me nodding in agreement all the way till the last sentence. I do not accept this statement of yours if by holding an opinion you mean publishing it in a daily newspaper. I can hold an opinion all I want but when I walk up to someone's face and share that opinion with them, I better be damn sure they will not be offended by it, and if they are, I should be ready, willing and able to accept the consequences. Being offended by a faith does not give one the right to offend the faithful of that faith. Similarly, being offended by a lifestyle, race or color of a person does not mean I have the right to offend that person. My desire to offend directly conflicts with his desire not be offended. Edited: There is a risk of provocation we all take by exercising our free speech. That's where the gray matter lies. Why should you make sure that someone would not be offended by your opinions or views? What’s there to stop you? Manners? Etiquette? Religious rules? What if you don’t have manners, don’t care for etiquette and don’t adhere to any religion? What will stop you then? Ah! You alluded to ‘consequences’! What sort of consequences are we talking here? Will we huff and puff and blow their house in? Surely that’s illegal! What are the consequences and why should they matter to someone that expressed an opinion/view (in whatever form they wished) that whilst distasteful, was/is within the limits of law? In the case of the cartoons, the objections people had were twofold. First, we as Muslims objected to a picture of our prophet being drawn. Our faith forbids it. We’re rightfully offended that someone dared to draw these cartoons. However, since that someone is not a member of our faith, the prohibition of drawing such cartoons does not apply to him/her. We can be offended but since the ‘criminal’ and ‘crime’ took place in non-Muslim lands, we can’t (for now) realistically seek to gag the offender. The second objection (offence) is what those cartoons attempted to imply. The turban shaped as a bomb was not the subtlest of hints, the painter wished to communicate the opinion that Islam is a terrorist faith! This opinion/view/idea is not a new one in the Western media. It’s been implied, asserted and discussed for the past thirty years (and more). It was not picked up on then, why is it now? One can only conclude that it’s really the cartoons and not what they imply that are irking all the protestors. This conclusion is strengthened when one hears about the ironic threats of bombings, revenge and violent retribution. Now let us get a bit more controversial and really put the cat amongst the pigeons. This website is a form of media, right? It’s being read by dozens of people and has the potential of being read by millions (it’s free and online). Likewise with many other Islamic websites or even newspapers, right? Now, suppose that we decided to have a discussion about Israel and in the midst of that discussion (as is usually expected) someone argues from a religious angle. There is a hadith that although I don’t doubt the authenticity of, nonetheless know to be offensive to Jews and non-Muslims. It’s the one (and I paraphrase here) about the hour of judgment not beginning until the Jews and Muslims fight, and the trees and rocks help the Muslims by revealing that a Jew is hiding behind them and urging the Muslim to come and kill him! Such a hadeeth is casually and regularly voiced out in mosques, newspapers, Islamic publications and discussion forums (like this one). If someone should come to us and point out that the Jews are offended by such a saying, I suspect that our collective response would be TOUGH. No reason or plea is likely to change our minds about the saying or compel us to drop it from our publications and Islamic discussions! A court of law, however, can force us to at least stop printing such ahadeeth! What would our argument be to keep using such a hadeeth? Our freedom of speech? Religious Freedom? Surely you can clearly see that the use of such a hadeeth offends a section of society (where we live now)! If we want our right to be at liberty to practise our faith free from government interference and laws, should we not also fight for the right of the infidel to be an infidel free from government interference and laws? To curtail his freedom would also, sadly, mean curtailing our freedoms. So, I’ll repeat that, in my opinion, only when the opinion or views of the non-Muslim call for and incite physical violence should we seek to limit his freedom to air that opinion or view. If it merely causes offence, we should take it on the chin like the grown ups that we are and move on.

^^^ Expect and ignore, saaxib. Indifference does not equal acceptance. Edit Read the rest of my words in the context they were written in, saaxib. Accept and take on board in this instance was not meant to say that we should be happy to hear them make these insults. It rather meant that we should accept that TWO can play that game.

Originally posted by Castro: ^ Why is it then, good Johnny, that pornography (certainly a form of "expression") not publicly available everywhere, even in the west? Or are you saying it's the public that decides what is decent or indecent in expression. Well if that's the case, why does denying the Holocaust send one to jail in Austria as Ngonge kindly reminded us? There is a huge gray area saaxib. Public pressure, lobbying, the opinions of the majority, economics, history and politics all combine to define what is free in expression. With all these inputs, Mr. Logic, there is no way freedom of expression is unlimited. Castro, Lets not get ahead of ourselves with this discussion. First of all (and Khayer might want to pay attention here), we have to set up some sort of point of reference that we measure (or base) our discussion against. Are we talking from an Islamic viewpoint (meaning: Islamic rules, laws and customs)? Or, are we talking from the Western rules and customs that deal with Freedom of Speech? Discussions become confused (not to mention obtuse) when we mix and match the two. In my opinion, Islam has already put clear barriers on the Freedom of Speech. We already know what we can and can not say. The instructions are clear and on the odd occasions where they’re not, our scholars do their utmost to clarify them for us using the holy book and traditions of the prophet. I‘m being very simplistic and brief for the sake of clarity (for this last bit can be a topic of its own). The Western way on the other hand is a bit more convoluted and muddled up. In my comments and posts so far, I’ve been trying to address and deal with the Western rules. When talking about Muslims and Islam I concerned myself with those living in the West and not the habitually indignant teenagers of Rammallah (burning a different flag each week) or the old men of Pakistan. Our brothers in those parts of the world don’t care for or understand the meaning of Freedom of Speech. They’re not interested in philosophical discussions about the offence, they only demand retribution. They deal with these incidents one-at-a-time and make great use of their legendry amnesia. What gets matters more muddy though is when Muslims residing in the West join the debate. Here we find ourselves with one foot in each camp. Like our brethren in the East, we too want retribution but unlike our brethren in the East we also want rights! Is it conceivably possible to have both whilst staying out of the political system? Someone above attempted to compare the quandary we have here to that of the Jews, Blacks or Homosexuals! They wondered why no newspaper would print cartoons ridiculing blacks or homosexuals! You yourself asked, when referring to the article I posted above, about Austrian laws regarding anti-Semitism. On all these questions, I’m sure that you and the other poster are aware of the situations that led to such laws or traditions to be put in place (Austria being the home of the Nazis, etc). The way I see it, and I’m going to be very simplistic again here, is that Freedom of Speech/Expression means that EVERYTHING GOES, until, someone brings up a valid complaint in a court of law. For example, despite the American constitution and declaration of independence asserting the equality of man, Rosa Park had to make a stand, get arrested and go all the way to the Supreme Court to receive the equal treatment that the American constitution said she deserved! The case of Wade v Roe did the same for the privacy rights of American citizens (abortion). In short, the democratic ideal protects and ensures Freedoms( Speech, Expression, etc) but also allows and makes room for these Freedoms to be tackled and challenged. Indeed, nothing is sacred unless the law says it is. And, the law, as one of Mr Dickens’ characters once remarked, is an Ãss! Now, let us get back to the Danish and their freedom of speech. Can we successfully prosecute that newspaper in a Danish court of law? Surely if there are limits to that paper’s freedom of speech we should be able to find them and use them to shut it (and all those that might dream of following its example) up! The argument that one would have to present will have to be waterproof and prove the transgressions of that newspaper. These transgressions should not include the Islamic command that no drawings should be made of the prophet or the creator. For, as you’re perfectly aware, Danish law does not recognise such a command. However, if we present a valid argument, Danish law might! If our argument is good enough in Denmark, it will (logically at least) be good enough in any other democracy. Still, such a move will only lead to similar retaliations that will, eventually, mean that many of our Islamic rights are curtailed. Like I already said, the boys in the Arab (Islamic) world can happily burn the flags (with the permission of their dictatorial governments) and then return to their normal lives and act as if nothing had happened! However, with us in the West, the game is different. We should try to stay a step ahead of all these events and try to know what our actions will cause. As things stand, suppressing a newspaper’s right to mock and ridicule and succeeding (with the help of the law) in doing so, will also mean that they can do the same to us (some will argue that they’re already doing it). We find their words offensive, they find our faith offensive! We both should be free to hold these opinions. As things stand, only when either of these opinions threaten violence should their owners be suppressed.

Originally posted by Castro: ^ Is there a limit on freedom of speech? Or is it unlimited, by definition? That's what Ngonge has been trying to bang into our heads for days now? I think our good Ngonge is confusing lack of comprehension with disagreement with him. Johnny, so is it unlimited? Is nothing sacred anymore? Lets not play that game, saaixb. In the times I had a dig at you in this discussion, I did so because you presented me with a weak argument and attempted to use the publishing of the drawings by French and Italian newspapers as proof! It was silly and I told you so. This had nothing to do with comprehension. Those that can’t comprehend still show no improvement. I have to go home now, but I promise that I shall reread our entire exchanges and see if I did accuse YOU of not being able to comprehend. I’m quite sure that I have not. But, in spite of my over all greatness and cleverness, I remain a human that, very occasionally, errs. Will continue later in the evening.

The article below does not deal with the Danish problem. In fact, it could have been a whole new thread (and debate) on its own. However, because it deals with the issue of the Freedom of Speech I thought it might be relevant here. We can't deny the deniersBEN MACINTYREAustria's action in locking up David Irving, the extremist historian, is offensive to free speech TODAY DAVID IRVING, the infamous and discredited British historian, languishes in an Austrian jail. Just writing that sentence makes me feel happy. The next sentence is much harder to write. He should be released. Irving was arrested in November during a visit to Austria to address a right-wing student group. He was charged with denying the Holocaust, a crime in Austria, in two speeches he had given in that country in 1989. The indictment quotes his description of the Nazi gas chambers as a “fairytaleâ€, and his claim that Hitler knew nothing about the slaughter of Jews: “There were no extermination camps in the Third Reich,†he is quoted as saying. If convicted, he faces up to ten years in prison. Irving’s views are repulsive and wrong. He is a deeply offensive crank, and a litigious one, who has tried to use the libel laws to silence his critics. Five years ago, he sued the American historian, Deborah Lipstadt, after she described him as a Holocaust denier, and lost. In a withering 333-page judgment, Mr Justice Charles Gray described him as an anti-Semite, a racist and a neo-Nazi sympathiser who had “persistently and deliberately misrepresented and manipulated historical evidenceâ€. Irving’s opinions are indefensible; his right to hold them, however, must be defended. For reasons of both principle and expediency, he should go free. Freedom of speech includes the right to be hopelessly, demonstrably and repeatedly wrong. It is not to be applied selectively, depending on the nature of the speech in question, but universally and consistently. The UN Declaration of Human Rights is unequivocal: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression.†To defend free speech when we happen to share the speaker’s opinion is an easy task. Take Orhan Pamuk, the Turkish writer who is facing trial for saying, in defiance of the official Turkish view of history, that his compatriots carried out the genocide of Armenians during the First World War. Many writers (including this one) have defended his right to do so. Far harder, but just as essential, is the defence of speech that we find morally disgusting and intellectually bankrupt. When a conference in Turkey on the Armenian question was cancelled under state pressure, the liberal West was outraged; when Iran recently announced a conference to question the authenticity of the Holocaust, the West was, once again, outraged. But in the case of both Irving and Pamuk, the issue should be settled in the court of public discussion, not the law courts; so long as speech does not directly incite racial hatred, it must remain free. In 1947, when the Austrian law against minimising Third Reich atrocities was promulgated the fear of resurgent Nazism was real. But should it still apply today, when Holocaust denial has been so thoroughly exposed for the malicious nonsense it is? There should never be an official version of history that cannot be questioned. History will often fall into the wrong hands, where it may be twisted to suit a preconceived prejudice, but that is a lesser evil than undermining freedom of speech. Lipstadt herself, after a career spent destroying the arguments of Nazi apologists, believes that Holocaust denial should not be a crime, and that keeping Irving in Josefstadt prison is counter-productive. The trial of Irving, due to start next month, risks saving him from the intellectual oblivion he and his views so richly deserve. Before the Austrian police arrested him, he was a fringe academic addressing a group of loopy far-right radicals wearing silly hats in a basement in Vienna. Now there is a real danger that he will become a martyr for the extreme Right. After his humiliation in the High Court, Irving all but vanished from the world’s attention; his arrest has generated headlines around the world, and by putting his views on trial, they will gain a credibility that they simply do not merit. For Austria, beset by the rise of the far Right in the unpleasant shape of Jörg Haider, Irving has appeared at a politically opportune moment. Sticking the “revisionist†in prison for something that he said 16 years ago, based on a law nearly 60 years old, is a neat way for Austria to demonstrate its liberal bona fides. Of the nine countries with laws banning Holocaust denial, Austria is the strictest. Yet the country has too often shied away from admitting its Nazi past. The Simon Wiesenthal Centre estimates that some 40 Nazi suspects are still living in Austria, and accuses Austria of a lamentable record in apprehending war criminals. Irving is in prison for writing about the Holocaust, in a country where people who took part in the Holocaust are still at liberty. Irving would be able to argue that the people who operated the gas chambers should be prosecuted before people who make speeches about them, except that he is on record as saying that the gas chambers never existed. Ironies don’t come much more savoury than that. Irving and his like have caused deep anguish to survivors of the genocide and their families. But the vast majority of people know that the Holocaust happened, that Hitler caused it, and that those who argue otherwise are not interested in the truth. We should not need laws to enforce that knowledge. The way to arrest the pernicious myth of Holocaust denial is not through the police, but with rigorous analysis, followed by disdain. When the deniers assemble in Tehran for their “scientific†conference on the Holocaust, their claims should be listened to attentively, demolished scientifically, and then laughed off the stage and forgotten. They should not be arrested. Let Irving go. In Lipstadt’s words, “let him fade from everyone’s radar screensâ€. He is a blip, a tiny spot beyond the outer edges of rational debate that has attracted unwarranted attention. He has a right to be wrong; and once he is at liberty, we can all exercise our own inalienable right to ignore him. Source

I would vote against it of course. Because, as I said earlier and Khayer said above, I stand to lose more with such a law in place than I would gain as a Muslim. A bill that bans religious hatred will be interpreted in so many ways and none of them would be helpful to Muslims in the west. Now, do I rather be able to actively practise my faith. As for one not cancelling out the other (i.e. freedom of speech v freedom of faith), it is assumed that those installing the law would make allowances for that. However, there will always be grey areas and most those insulting a faith will claim not to mean the insult. With a lack of proof of someone’s intentions, how could we demand that such opinions and acts be curtailed? Would you suppress something because there is a chance that if you don’t, it might lead to things that might offend people? Again, on the insulting of the prophet point, I reiterate my point that it should not raise nothing more than pity and distaste. Anger is a disproportionate emotion to apply to the actions of a disbeliever. I believe that for us people living in the West it’s a very dangerous thing to attempt to suppress the freedom of speech. It’s one of the only things that allow us to express our ‘alien’ opinions without fear of gagging or censorship.

^^^ Isn’t that what I alluded to in my first post in that other thread, saaxib? :confused:

^^ Heh. You amuse me, saaxib. Now Muslims can be racially profiled too? Is it the name or the look? You know something though, in spite of your nonsensical and very obtuse way of expressing yourself. Despite your liberal and very nonchalant use of Quranic verses. In spite of your very impulsive replies too, I really don’t think we’re that far apart in what we believe in or what our argument is about. The only difference we have (vomit bag at the ready) is that you, like many others here, can not READ. It’s an impulse thing, dear. If you ever manage to harness your emotions, you’ll soon look back at it all with shame. Nonetheless, lets not hurry your evolution and let things happen naturally, eh!

Originally posted by Ducaqabe: Sxb, do you seriously buy their argument that the cartoons were a work of experimenting freedom of speech. A bogus argument if you ask me. Let them enjoy their freedom while Millions of Muslims around the world continue to boycott ( freedom of choice ) their product. I don’t think a single Muslim will die as a result of the boycott. Of course I do. It’s not a bogus argument at all. It’s an ingenious one in fact. They’ve chosen a topic that is the bedrock of any so called democracy and applied it to a contemporary problem. Many people in the Western world HATE Islam and Muslims. Many laws in the Western world prohibit discrimination and racism (and Muslims fall under both categories). There is also that grey area of Political Correctness. Many writers and journalists experimented with these and tried to cross the line here and there. But, thanks mainly to those on the left wing, they were pushed back or pounced upon with such ferocity that they didn’t dare to try again. However, lately, the effort has been intensified. A few months back for example, an employee of the British Council wrote a collection of articles in the British Daily Telegraph. In these articles, he referred to Muslims as dogs and made a number of insults against Islam and Muslims. Many Muslim organisations complained and protested. The paper refused to apologise. But, someone somewhere found out who this secret writer was and reported him to his employers. Because these employers operate anti-discrimination and racism laws, they had no choice but to suspended this employee and investigate the allegations that he was the author of those articles. If my memory doesn’t let me down here, I think he got sacked for gross misconduct (I apologise for the sketchy narrative of course). Journalists believe they have a privilege above and beyond that of everyday people. They fight and insist on their freedom of speech and expression. They do not believe that a democracy should impose barriers and laws that suppress this freedom of speech and think that it should be down to the various editors to toe the line. This of course does not include areas where it’s unlawful to enter into (such as Castro’s so called ‘breach). However, in the case of these Danish cartoons and judging by the reactions of the Danish president, the paper did not commit any crime (under Danish law). It’s possible that the paper was worried about the legality of its actions and wanted to see what such a risk would bring it. Well, judging by the reactions! The paper got world, fame, extra revenue and the more important knowledge that if it decided to do this again the Danish government is not going to prosecute. This also set a precedent for newspapers and media outlets in all of the democracies of the world to follow and act upon. So, as you can clearly see, this experiment was far from bogus. Xiin Is it I who is not debating here, saaxib? Why have you not dealt with a single point I've made? Could you not read it, understand it or are you not in the mood? Saaxib, twist, turn or write me a full Somali poem, my words are clear and they're there for you to tackle if you think you can dope with them. My arrogance and superiority, as I never tire from telling you, is the result of your weak arguments and inability to admit that you don’t want to understand. I need not refer to your bad comprehension or ask you to read these exchanges again. I can see from your replies that you got my drift. Now let us hope that you’ll put your pride aside and be humble enough to pay me my deserved dues.

The following speech is from the debate that was held in the British parliament regarding the Religious hatred bill which the Blair government wants to make into law. I’m not sure if it’s a coincidence that this bill is being discussed at the same time as the furore about the Danish cartoons. Still, I think some of the arguments make great reading. They might even answer some of Castro’s questions in the other thread. Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): It is a great privilege to be called to speak after my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright). In their speeches, both were tremendous advertisements for independence of mind. It is independence of mind that is under assault in the Bill before the House this evening. If the Government get their way and their amendments are carried, we will see not only a significant curtailment of freedom of speech in this country, but perhaps the most significant undermining of religious liberty since 1688. I mention the 17th century advisedly, because that was the last time in this country when questions of political and religious strife put lives at risk on the mainland of the United Kingdom. During that period of the 17th century, one of our greatest writers, Milton, even at that time of strife, made a heartfelt plea for liberty in his work, "Areopagitica". Milton pointed out that truth did not need the law to suppress falsehood in order to prevail. In open debate, those who are confident of their beliefs will not want the state to intervene on their side, because the confidence in their beliefs will be enough to sustain them. It is significant that almost all the religious groups in this country which are organised and respectable are opposed to the Bill. They have sufficient confidence in the strength of their own beliefs not to pray the state in aid. It is striking that there are only one or two significant exceptions to that rule. One of them has been the Muslim Council of Britain. Its head, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, has throughout his career been a doughty fighter against prejudice against those whom he represents. I would happily acknowledge that there is much that can be done by Government and by all politicians to fight prejudice and racism against Muslims and other minorities, but I suspect that in the past few weeks Sir Iqbal and others have begun to realise how dangerous it is to criminalise free speech in this country. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald pointed out, Sir Iqbal himself was on the receiving end of the attentions of the police for words that he uttered on Radio 4—words that I find offensive, but which I believe that he has every right to utter on whatever platform is given to him. Because of that intervention in Sir Iqbal's right to speak freely, we can all see the dangers of criminalising speech. Sir Iqbal was referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) in the context of the debate about "The Satanic Verses". It is appropriate that we consider for a moment the controversy that surrounded the publication of Salman Rushdie's novel. If we imagine that the law that the Government intend to pass today were in place then, I submit that "The Satanic Verses" would never have been published by Penguin. Let us look at proposed new section 29K and the references to abusive and insulting behaviour and to recklessness, and ask ourselves this question: if we had been executives at Penguin and had read that text and calculated the effect that it was likely to have on the Muslim community in this Britain, would we have calculated that it would abuse the Muslim faith? We would certainly have made that calculation. Would we have known that individual Muslims would be insulted? Of course we would have recognised that. Would we have known that, by publishing, we could have been accused of recklessness? We would have been aware that that accusation would be flung at us. Would we therefore have taken the risk of publishing? I suspect that we would not, and that, to me, would have been not just a loss for freedom of speech, but an attack on the creative spirit and a loss of what makes us a distinctive and cherishably free country. That chill factor, which would have applied to "The Satanic Verses" if the legislation had been in place, has been mentioned by several hon. Members. It is a worrying curtailment of liberty and an ominous extension of state power. There are two other areas that I shall cite briefly where the state extends its power in an ominous way in the Bill. First, there is an unwarranted and ominous extension of Executive power in the reliance that the Minister places on guidance to the prosecuting authorities and to the police. As nearly every hon. Member who has referred to the guidance has pointed out, we all have complete faith in the Minister to frame guidance that would be sensible and proportionate, but whatever our beliefs about the immortality of the Minister's soul, we know that he will not be permanently in office. We cannot trust future Ministers and future Governments necessarily to frame guidance that will be proportionate and correct. It is quite wrong for us to trust the Executive to decide what prosecutions could and should be brought in the future. We should decide now and write that into the Bill as we discuss it. There is one final area where the state arrogates to itself unwarranted power in the Bill—that is, in the very definition of what constitutes religion. It is wrong that the state should be able to extend to any group of believers a privileged status by saying that they constitute a fit and proper religion. If we consider recent reports about what happened in the Navy when an individual officer claimed for himself, on the basis that he was a Satanist, a safe religious space in which to enact his rituals, we can see that the present Government and future Governments may extend to all sorts of cults and other unsavoury groups the protection that is in the Bill. I have no hesitation in saying, safeguarded by privilege as I am, that I regard Scientology as an evil cult founded by an individual purely in the interests of enriching himself and sustained by those who are either wicked or wayward. But if the Bill were to pass and I were to repeat those comments outside this House as an ordinary civilian, I would lay myself open to prosecution simply for having sought to point out the dangers of a fraudulent organisation masquerading as a religion. I have pointed to three dangers—three extensions of state power—which are three very good reasons why I believe that the Government should withdraw their amendments and we should accept the wisdom of the other place. PS 1- Michael Gove is a Times journalist turned Member of Parliament 2- The bill was rejected by the House of Lords and they suggested some amendments that the government refused to introduce 3- The government was defeated by one vote when this bill was discussed two days ago. Source

The Point, Again, I humbly ask you to read my first post. It really is kids stuff and any teenager with an iota of comprehension (yes, that old excuse) can understand it. I’m making a very clear and direct point. I don’t enjoy repeating myself when I’ve painstakingly moderated my words and ensured that they’re rabble-friendly. If you can’t comprehend what I’m saying, then we’re not on the same page and are never likely to be. Xiin, Same as the above, saaxib. When you’ve calmed down and are good and ready to discuss this, I’ll be here ready and able to lock horns. Castro, Are you really blaming the decision of the other European newspapers to print the cartoons on the Danes? The link and article you posted is only stating that newspapers reported NEWS! This news was started by a Danish paper in September and only became real news when our Muslim brothers decided that it should become a big deal. Naturally, news outlets from Copenhagen to Calcutta all went ahead with reporting it (non-Muslim outlets were not too shy or diplomatic when it came to printing the drawings too). I can’t believe I’m even summarising such logical action! I am actually offended that you’ve been reduced to such a basic level of debating, saaxib. I realise that when one feels insulted or perceives some sort of a slur, one might express oneself with a little bit more venom than is usual or allow one’s emotions to add a bitter twinge to one’s words. However, I’d still expect the logic and rational to still remain. Still, the argument is about the freedom of speech here. All these media outlets are backing up their Danish brothers because without their right to freedom of expression and speech they’ll be nothing. However, and to answer your question here, this does not mean that You or I can’t take them to court and prosecute them for it (we might win or we might lose. It depends on our argument). In a democracy (if that’s the yardstick you choose to use) we should at least be able to get our case heard in court. I understand that many people are extremely angry/unhappy/offended by these cartoons. I think them distasteful and cringe worthy. However, I believe that the crime of those that drew these pictures has always been bigger than simple drawings. These people (mostly) don’t believe in God! It might sound silly, simplistic and naive of me but I can’t get offended by their words. It’s a bit like those daft people that upon hearing about the Saddam Hussein killings of innocent Iraqis would also pipe up angrily and shout “he also stole their moneyâ€! This you see might be true but it becomes very trivial and frivolous when put alongside the greater crime of murder. Likewise is getting upset about people insulting our prophet when we already know they don’t believe in that prophet’s creator and god! Tell me please, is it me that’s senseless or is that proverbial song reaching its crescendo in Eden? Khayer In the case of NGONGE V people with bad comprehension skills, the defence rests its case your honour.

The Point, Take your time and read everything I wrote. I think it would be a real waste if I had to rewrite all. The only one I would reply to here (and think is worth clarifying) is the quote below: Now, can we please clarify where you stand on this and what all this anger means (I expect that anyone reading the last line would have the good sense to understand it without taking it out of context)? When I posted it, I hoped that you would understand that I’m asking you to expand on your expressions of anger and explain why you’re this angry and what it all means to YOU. What I didn’t want were replies similar to Xiin’s above. Telling me that you’re with the boycotters is no help at all. Telling me that you’re angry is silly (I can already se that). Sometimes, even if the words are not too clear, you need to use your powers of deduction and try to work out what they mean. Now, would you do me the favour (along with Xiin) of reading my words again? This time, I hope you read them and try to digest them before hurrying to reply. PS With this being the highly charged thread that it is, I will not be surprised if you find my words grating and irritating. I give you my word that this is not at all my aim. However, I think it’s best to be blunt and straight now so that we can move on with the discussion instead of frustrating myself (and you) with the retyping and repeating of arguments and posts. I’m assuming that I’m discoursing with adults that share the same goal with me here, and not a bunch of angry people. Happy foruming. PPS Castro, Not at all. If there is any point to the other type of talk, I'm more than happy to take part in that too. I read the six pages of this thread and did not see any point other than the simple sentence of "we are angry, let us boycott the Danes". I'm saying move on and make a discussion out of this thing.

Xiin What else could the Head of that State do? If he apologised on behalf of Danish people he would be accused of interfering. If he asked the paper to apologise, he would be accused of curtailing its freedom of speech. In both cases, no matter how you look at it, the accusations will be correct. He had no way but to appease the freedom of speech supporters instead of Muslims. The paper won what it set out to do. Now we know for sure that in Denmark (at least) Freedom of Speech cancels out any other rights or grievances! The paper itself went on to prove this by apologising for hurting the feelings of Muslims while reiterating its right to do it all again (if it so wished). What are the long-term implications of this? How can Muslims take advantage of it? How can we prepare to deal with future instances of this ‘freedom’? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves. All this boycott talk is only a passing cloud and soon (as was the case with all previous boycotts) Danish companies will return to trade in Muslim lands without having to issue the proper apology the boycotters demanded. I’d rather talk about freedom of speech if you don’t mind. PS I’m not arguing for argument’s sake, saaxib. If there is anything you don’t understand in what I wrote, be good enough to ask and I’ll be more than happy to explain.

These cartoons were not drawn in vaccuum saaxib. They're part and parcel of a real, overt and consistent attack on all that is Muslim, Arab, African, poor or all of the above. Of course not, saaxib. Let us, for the time being at least, drop our habit of stating the obvious and take it as read that this insult/attack/offence had the implicit intention to offend and spread islamophobia. I could not put it in stronger terms than this, saaxib. However, in spite of that, I’d still say it’s not a big deal. The newspaper claimed that it was conducting an experiment on the freedom of speech (or something along those lines). To deal with this adequately and attempt to follow your line of thinking, one will have to apply Western laws to this problem (ironic, but what the hay). You’ll note that I’ve already dealt with the Islamic position and why such protests are nothing but pointless tantrums. Now, if you want to play the Western game and mention holocausts, Aryan races and the much-abused political correctness, you’ll be playing a different game altogether. One where people move the goalposts at will and can, when public opinion demands it, create laws, cancel laws or amend laws. Kindly note that if you decide to walk alongside that precipice, you’ll run the risk of falling into a few wrangles and disputes that might compromise and erode on your faith (remember that cause and effect nonsense we had in July?). Talking of political correctness, I suppose it’s apt that one mentions the Religious Hatred laws that got defeated by one vote in the British House of Commons yesterday (all because, allegedly, Blair did not vote). This law would have made it a crime to express opinions that would cause religions ( and followers of these religions) problems or harm. As you might agree, this is a noble idea, however, it would have also made criminals of almost all our Friday sermon reading Imams. The ironic thing of course is that these laws were thought of to protect Muslims from unfair attacks and ‘racism’. I apologise if I’m bombarding you with all these ideas and arguments. But since nobody here has bothered to narrow the discussion down to anything other than tantrums and crossed lines, I thought I’d best throw all I have into this post and let you (the readers) pick out your arguments and what all the rants you’ve posted above mean. Now, can we please clarify where you stand on this and what all this anger means (I expect that anyone reading the last line would have the good sense to understand it without taking it out of context)?

Originally posted by Castro: ^ Indeed. I am wondering, however, if good Ngonge would kindly remind me of a time, or place, a muslim publication insulted the prophets or the gods of any religion. Sure we tear into the flesh of the followers. I believe that's fair game as Ngonge so eloquently mentioned. But there's a line that's been crossed saaxib. And unfortunately, its one muslims cannot not and will not reciprocate in kind. Only because our faith does not allow us to, saaxib. And even then, that’s applied to divine faiths only. All the others are fair game. I would imagine that the Muslims in India DO OFTEN reciprocate the insults they receive from the Hindus and Sikhs? Still, the issue is one about the supposed line that has been crossed. You’re implying that this is the first time this line has been crossed, saaxib! I can’t, for the life of me, understand why you would imply such a ludicrous idea. However, it is possible that I misread you and that your meaning differs from what I understood. I’ve got to admit that this ‘line’ description has crept up a few times now. I’d love to know who set up that line and how long has it been in place? What, in other words, stops a non-believer from saying that Islam and Muslims (and that sadly would include our prophet too) are such and such and such (fill in your own defamatory phrases here)? I see no reason for one to be ‘loyal’ to a ‘team’ he/she does not belong to. Yes there are etiquettes and decent practices but these, sadly again, are not compulsory (unless the non-believer lives in Muslim lands).

One can’t help but wonder if the people behind these cartoons were Jewish. After all, it stands to reason that such a disgusting act could not be thought up, planned and executed by anyone other than a Jew! Any passer by would think that I made the above up or that I’m unfairly accusing Jews of crimes they’re not responsible for. This is not the case at all. I’m making an educated guess here (a very educated one indeed). Almost all my ‘Islamic’ newspapers, intellectuals and scholars talk about the wickedness of the Jews. The Star of David appears in more Arabic newspapers than Western or Jewish ones! We know all their tricks and manners. Jews today don’t follow the correct faith. Christians diluted their own. We, as Muslims and being the only followers of the true faith, are not obliged to respect either. When we insult them, we insult infidels, non-believers, and filth. Now, these Jews have dared to make a few demeaning drawings of my prophet! How dare they? How dare they? How dare they? I agree with the boycott. It shall go with the all the other boycotts we had in the past and will rub the noses of these Jews in the mud. Have they not seen the riots and protests we’ve had when it was reported that a couple of American soldiers desecrated our holy book? Have these Danish Jews never learned from our Boycott back then? Did they not learn from our protests and Fatwa about Rushdie? Did the killing of Van Gogh not scare them? Well, and to be serious for a moment, NO, I don’t think they’ve learned or cared about the previous protests of Muslims nor do I think that such protests will stop future insults against Islam (also, for the hard of reading, I’m not very serious about the Jewish conspiracy above). What’s to be done then? Panic and riot every few months because some pointless western newspaper/individual had published some petty (in the sense that its author is a nonentity) nonsense about Islam? I’m not too bothered with the ideas of those that don’t share the same faith as me. Their attempts to offend or gain publicity by attacking my faith should not move me or (move) any other Muslim. It is, after all, our protests that made Rushdie a millionaire. And here too, if this newspaper was clever enough, it would have copyrighted the drawings and earned a handsome sum from selling it to the world media. It’s very likely that everyone (including indignant Muslims) will want to see the drawings that caused all of this! Who then, says ‘crime’ doesn’t pay? What’s really worth a discussion here is the actual reason for these drawings (or at least the ideas that this newspaper alleged were the reasons for the drawings). This takes us a full circle and brings us back to a topic we had here months ago. One’s right to offend! How far does it go and should it take priority over everything else? I say it should. Let the Danes insult our prophet. Be offended, get angry and curse them until you go blue in the face but do NOT demand that they be censored or insist on an apology. For as long as they are free to offend and insult, we too are free to offend and insult. As long as Danish journalists are able to write offensive articles about Islam (or any other faith), Muslim journalists, scholars and presidents (see the Iranian jewel) can also do the same. To complain about religious hatred and try to argue and dissect these points will only lead us to the dark alleyways of questioning our own faith, holy book and revelation. For if we don’t accept insults from the Jews and Christians, why are we reciting verses from our Holy Book that talk about how bad both groups are? Does not respect go both ways? You see, the question here would not be one about errors in the Koran because, as Muslims, we can’t question the validity and correctness of our Holy Book. The question then, is likely to be one to do with application. It’s either that we are applying those verses in the Koran wrongly when talking about Jews and Christians, or, we are applying them correctly. If we are applying them wrongly, we need to study this area and find out the correct way. If on the other hand, we were applying them correctly, then our sense of fairness and justice (and our logic) would dictate that we should expect, accept and take on board any insults and criticisms the Jews, infidels and Christians would direct our way. Any other reaction would be extremely, utterly and hypocritically obtuse.

^^ A slow clap? How kind of you! In other news: Gates pledges £500m to tackle TB Last Modified: 27 Jan 2006 Source: ITN Microsoft founder Bill Gates has pledged £507.1 million to fight TB after kicking off a £17.4 billion campaign to tackle the disease. Tuberculosis kills one person every 15 seconds and is widespread in Third World countries. Mr Gates said: "This is a very tough disease. It is going to take all of us - private sector, the pharmaceutical companies, philanthropy and governments in countries that have the disease - to participate as well." Joined by Chancellor Gordon Brown and Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Mr Gates called on world leaders to back the new World Health Organisation action plan. The campaign aims to treat 50 million people and prevent 14 million deaths worldwide over the next ten years. Mr Brown intends to put the case for new cash to fight the disease to next month's meeting of G8 finance ministers in Moscow. "If 2005 was the year of commitments, 2006 must be the year of delivery," he said. "That's why, when the G8 finance ministers meet in Moscow in only a few days time, I will put on the agenda how we can meet the commitments to fund this specific plan." Brown also said he would propose to the G8 ministers expanding a debt relief agreement made last year to some of the world's poorest nations. Source

A reworking of an old Somali tale As her son lay in bed and coughed his heart out, Mariam looked down at him and was wondering if this is, yet another, harmless cold like all the ones he used to suffer from in his childhood. Her mind strayed a little and she was, suddenly and irrationally, worried that this might be something graver than a mere cough. As the awful thought crossed her mind, she instinctively, like all mothers the world over, smiled and started stroking her son’s head. A week passed and Elmi (the son) was still coughing! He was always tired, always coughing, always sweating at night and seemed to be suffering from chills and fevers! Elmi had tuberculosis (TB). By now, his family had recognised the symptoms and knew how contagious this disease was. They discreetly took him to a doctor in the neighbouring town and were given medicines and told to isolate him from people until his condition improved (or didn’t!). The family were presented with a great quandary. No other disease loses you friends, isolates you from loved ones and shuts down your business like TB does. At the mere hint of a sneeze or a clearing of throat, everyone within the vicinity panics and hurries to gargle with all sorts of oils and bleaches in the vain hope of arresting the disease! Elmi’s family were business people and had a respectable standing in the community. His parents’ advice and counsel was sought out by everyone and his siblings were the cream of the town. Even Elmi himself was looked upon as one of the best young men of his generation, most able and articulate. But all of that would have meant nothing against the destructive menace of TB. The family knew they would have to concoct a story as to why Elmi is always locked up in his room and the type of illness he suffers from. Miriam and her husband gathered all their children round and presented them with the situation. They told them about the impact such news would have (if it ever leaked out) on their status in the community. Everyone was certain that Elmi was going to make a full recovery and they only wanted to dream up a temporary story to distract people. Elmi had a younger brother called Abdi. This Abdi was the cleverest, finest and most articulate young person in that town. He was also a hopeless romantic and was forever making up little ditties about unrequited love and heartbreak. This Abdi, as expected from someone of his ability and disposition, suggested that the family pretend that Elmi is madly in love and that this love is what’s making him ill! The family, of course, rejected this silly idea and told him to come up with something more sensible. But, as they spoke to him and rebuked him for his silly suggestion, this idea was growing on Abdi. He thought of all the famous love stories and sighed as he tried to invent one for his brother. The story, he knew, had to be one of an unreciprocated love. The girl had to be a local girl but not one that personally knew Elmi! The next day, while hard at work, Abdi saw a girl that radiated a peculiar sort of beauty. She was not attractive and, in fact, many people would argue that she was ugly. However, Abdi, with his bard eye, saw something in her that made his poetic juices overflow and helped him create his first ever full love poem! The girl, like a modern Dona del Toboso, blissfully went about her business unaware of the poet, the impact her presence had on him or how she inspired him. That day, Abdi went home and read his poem to his family. They were all very impressed and proud to be related to such a wordsmith. Abdi took that opportunity to repeat his suggestion about the love deception. He promised them that if they agreed to his idea, he would write a poem each day talking about his (brother’s) unrequited love and how he (Elmi) has locked himself in a room until his beloved would agree to momentarily let the rays of her gaze fly in his general direction. The family were again; impressed with their son and the eloquent way he presented his argument. They all agreed that his was an ingenious idea and that most people would be so appalled with this grown man’s love troubles to worry about the holes in his misleading story. In the weeks that followed, Elmi coughed, Abdi created poems, and the family spread the news about Elmi’s love-induced suffering. Elmi’s cough aside, everything else worked out beautifully. The entire town was fascinated with this debilitating love story and wanted to know the name of the girl. They soon found out her name and all flocked to her house to have a peek at the glorious beauty that made poor Elmi ill. The girl’s name, of course, was Hothan. Although she had heard Abdi’s poems she did not know that she was Elmi’s supposed object of affection. On that day when the crowds were gathering in her street to view her, she was coming out of the house to hang up some washing. As she hung up and stretched out the washing, she started humming and singing a couple of Abdi’s words! The crowd, who were still trying to have a good look at Hothan, were outraged by her impertinence and cold heartedness. Some started shouting over to her and tell her to stop torturing the poor man. Others started begging her to have mercy on him; ‘his only crime is that he loved you’, they cried. Hothan was shocked to hear all these people shout and point fingers at her! She dropped whatever washing she was carrying and quickly darted back into her house. The crowd hung around and stared at the windows. They kept on shouting and making accusations at the twitching window curtains. But, apart from the odd latecomer, they all soon dispersed and left Hothan, inside her house, and wondering when her mother would come back to extricate her from this infuriating fix! Another two weeks passed and there was no improvement in Elmi’s condition, no shortage or decrease in Abdi’s fine poetry and no let up for Hothan and her family from the usual crowds milling outside her house. Poor Hothan, like her supposed lover, was under house arrest! She begged, she cried, she denied it all and even pretended to be mad. But the mob was on Elmi’s side and thought her evil incarnate. One day, a heavily disguised Hothan managed to leave her house and sneak unnoticed past the rabble. Once she made sure she wasn’t being followed, she made her way to Elmi’s house. She was determined to confront this Elmi and ask him why he decided to drag her name through the mud in such a way! When Hothan reached the house, she saw Abdi walking out with his hands in his pockets and whistling quietly to himself. She stopped him and asked him to take her to Elmi. Abdi, not recognising Hothan under all that disguise, shook his head and told her that Elmi is only interested in Hothan. He tried to soothe her by saying that this is not a personal slur on her beauty or marriage-worthiness but that Elmi’s infatuation does not allow him to see the beauty of any woman other than his beloved Hothan. Hothan thought it unfair that this liar is getting all kinds of beautiful women throwing themselves at him as a result of his big lie, while she has to run the gauntlet of an angry mob when she did nothing wrong. She sighed to herself as she listened to Abdi telling her about all the girls that come daily to offer themselves to his ill brother. Abdi tried to console her some more but she cut him off and theatrically removed her disguise to reveal the face that, whilst no Helen of Troy, still launched a thousand poems. Abdi was flabbergasted! She demanded to see Elmi. Abdi panicked. She insisted that she see Elmi. Abdi almost gave in to the power of her plea. As he turned around to conduct her to Elmi’s room, he remembered the TB and the reason for this whole lie! He could not tell her about the illness. He couldn’t explain the reason for the lie either, so he decided to convince her that Elmi is really in love with her and that seeing her might kill him. He told her that the family don’t agree with Elmi’s madness and that they would do everything they can to restore her good name and reputation. He begged her not to see Elmi and promised her that, soon, Elmi will recover his health and leave her alone. It was the turn of Hothan to wilt under the strength of Abdi’s argument. She agreed to walk away and, like the good-hearted girl she always was, wished Elmi a speedy recovery. The dignified way in which Hothan dealt with the situation, her kindness and the sparkle in her eyes throughout this encounter, moved Abdi and inspired him into writing another classic love poem. It was a poem so great that before the sun had set on that day, the entire population of the town were either already reciting it or listening to it. By the following morning, Hothan’s family had heard the poem and found out about their daughter’s visit to the stricken man’s house! Her brothers wanted to kill him and her. Her father was on the verge of disowning her and her sisters, secretly, hated her for driving such a sensitive man to such a sorry state. Meanwhile, her mother was quietly plotting and trying to find a way to secure a respectable future for this wretched child of hers. A decision was finally made. Hothan is to be married as soon as possible. The husband shall be anyone but Elmi. On the following Friday, Hothan was wed to her new husband. To her utter joy and total delight, this new and hastily unearthed husband, turned out to be everything she ever wished for in a man. On that night, as the new husband unwrapped the subject of all those great poems, Mariam was weeping as she covered the body of her dead son! Hothan went on to have a great married life. Elmi’s name lived on as testament, symbol and icon of unrequited love (and uncured TB). While Abdi, like all real and unassuming heroes, went back to obscurity and the only occasional praise he got was usually the result of his more illustrious brother’s reflected glory. He wrote poems of better quality and greater wisdom than the ones he wrote in the name of Elmi, but when the people compared them to the sacrifice of giving one’s life in the name of love, all his poems were found wanting. In a house several streets away, the fake love bug struck again... -------------------------------- Never say I don’t do sentimental claptrap and emotions. :cool:

I resent the elderly label! :mad: