Slashdot Mirror
Danish, Western Websites Under Attack
caese writes "The BBC is reporting that almost 900 Danish websites have been defaced by crackers angry about the recent controversy over cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. From the article: 'What is extraordinary for this Danish case is the speed in which the community united'. Another 1600 or so Western websites have been defaced by the same group. The defacements have ranged from condemnation of the cartoons to outright calls for violence."
If they start defacing websites for just a cartoon, imagine what they will do if it was a offending movie/act: take whole servers and backbones down? Oh the horror.
Serious note: Lets take a look at this situation.
Attack: Cartoon
Defense: Death threats, burn down buildings, deface websites, protests, and the list goes on.
Conclusion: Overkill?
I wonder how long it'll be we're just all at war...seems to be what they want.
I mean seriously, if a supermarket had a sale on steak and put up cartoons of Vishnu, you wouldn't see Hindus violently protesting. Neither if they had a sale on pork and put cartoons in the window of YHWH.
People need to take a serious chill pill...
"Christ what a design! I could eat a handful of iron filings and PUKE a better emergency pump than that!"
They get angry over a cartoon but when they burn an American Flag it is OK.
Go figure.
It used to be possible to defend Islam to the right wingers in this country (USA) by saying that the terrorism and violence were coming from a relatively tiny number of the practicers of that faith with a very screwed up idea of what that faith meant. No more. Between the raging violence in France and the widespread violence and death threats coming from these cartoons, who can reasonably defend Islam as nonviolent any more?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Well, time to start the popcorn since I can't do much but watch. [1] Don't worry -- I won't let the tinfoil hat mess up the microwave popcorn.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
So they're getting all bent out of shape about a comic depicting them as violent and what do they do to protest the comic? They get violent, start riots and deface things.
Seems a bit counter-productive to me.
Cartoon is published that accuses my religion of supporting terrorism and violence.
I protest that characterization by calling for or comitting acts of terrorism and violence, both in the real world, and on the internet.
Nope, no hypocrisy here!
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
...it's a good thing it's not fundamentalist Christians doing the rioting.
That would be indefensible by the media.
Hey, come to think of it, there really isn't a lot of that rioting and setting-things-ablaze-for-days thing at all here in The West. Why d'you suppose that is?
g'head, g'head, discuss this amongst yourselves...
There's no genuine anger about the cartoons. They were published 6 months ago.
The cartoons are just an excuse. The cartoon riots are about rioting, not about cartoons. Rioters riot for fun and profit. Protests are arranged to gain political power for the people arranging them.
Web sites are defaced for the same reason bricks are thrown through windows. It's the same reason Reginald Denny was beat up. It's a combination of hate and the idea that "we can get away with it this time".
I advise not enabling the rioters and web-page defacers by giving them what they want: attention, concessions, etc.
I certainly respect the Muslims who feel offended, but if they are going to live in a liberal democracy, they're going to have to just accept the fact that they're going to be offended.
I'm agnostic. I get offended when my state's motto is "With God, all things are possible". I don't like hearing "God Bless America" every time George Bush opens his mouth. I do understand I live in a country with religious freedom, and I'm just going to have to take it. If I can't take it anymore, I'll move to a country that supresses religious liberties.
Many of the European Muslims think they can get the good benefits of a liberal democracy (decent jobs, market-based economy), while asking for special status for their religious beliefs. Someone needs to tell them part of living in a liberal democracy is having thick skin.
Q: How do you know you're blinded by Political Correctness? A: When you try and defend a religion that defines true followers by thier extremism.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
That's not gonna happen as long as a) the rest of the world needs oil, and b) the muslim world is sitting on most of it.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Where are the "peaceful" muslims?
They're at home living their lives, while the nutters are out dancing for the international news crews at the embassies. Would you want to go out into one of those riots if you weren't going to fit in 100%?
A tenet of almost all religions is that Theirs' is the One True Religion. They can't all be right.
All religions are superstitious fairy tales without a shred of proof.
(and don't call atheism a religion; atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby)
Trolling is a art,
I think you're really onto something - if these guys weren't sitting on anything but camels and sand, would we really care about what they're doing? We have got to get away from our dependance on oil. This is stupid.
ConsultingFair.com
The issue about Islamic fundamentalism (and fundamentalism in general) is that it promotes simple responses to simple stimuli. Hypocrisy is simply beyond most of these people to comprehend. Worse, fundamentalists actively seek to ignore higher-level representations. Intelligent Design is about the appearance of adopting scientific thought while actively attempting to shut it down. Islamic militants consistently praise Islam as a religion of peace while threatening others, often taking out their wrath on people who do not have anything to do with the situation. Why? No higher-order reasoning.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
I dont care if they deface our website, we got backup.. The real issue is that 3 or more of our embassys have been attacked, and one of them burned down to the ground.
If those cartoons were published in the US or a other big country, they would not have dared to react like this.
Bottom line is these 14th century nitwits armed with modern technology are a danger to everyone for their ease of manipulation and lack of reason when it comes to anything remotely regarding Islam.
I really doubt Moslems are going to survive in their form for another 50 years. They either blunt themselves (as Christians did) or they're eliminated just like every other non-viable belief system. (Shakers, zoarastrians, et al)
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
It's not because cartoons were published depicting Mohammed as a terrorist, it's because cartoons were published. This is something that's completely forbidden in their Religion.
It doesn't matter if they depicted Mohammed as a peace-loving hippie, the reaction would have probably been the same.
Another big factor was the spread of fabricated cartoons and the incitement of violence through rumours spread via sms messages.
And of course, the fact that a few years ago Jyllands-Posten rejected Jesus cartoons on the grounds that their readers would find them offensive.
Where are the "peaceful" muslims?
;-) Muslims are everywhere, and clearly most aren't going violent about this. But as usual, a few extremists can make a lot of people look bad.
Well, these are still by far the most of this billion sized group. That's why we aren't having an all out world war about this.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
You know that old chestnut is wearing pretty thin these days. Every time these backwards fucks riot and start killing Westerners, we in the West are met with a politically-correct barrage of the old party line of "Oh, those are just a small number of extremists. Islam is actually a religion of peace, love, understanding, kindness, hugging puppies, etc." The problem is, they AREN'T in small numbers and they AREN'T being met with masses of much-larger crowds of Muslims calling for peace and puppy-hugging. It doesn't strike me that what we're actually SEEING holds up the party line very well.*SAY* what you want about Islam, but actions always tell the truth much better than words.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
In our lifetime, they'll sell all their oil. The other way they made money (historically) was as traders between China and Europe, when trade went over land. There's no money in that anymore though.
So they are looking at a future where they won't have much income.
The oil wealth has gone into a few pockets. They'll invest that in Europe/China/USA/Japan. It will not benefit the other guys.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
The fact that a series of harmless cartoons released by one independent newspaper, which I assume to be owned by a private corporation, was enough to set off such a widespread violent reaction in Muslim countries just goes to show why the world as a whole has such a negative view of the Muslim religion and Islam as a whole. Perhaps if they would've simply left well enough alone or gone about their protests in a peaceful, diplomatic way, the cartoons would've stopped long ago. At the very least, they might have gained some respect and reputation as a peaceful religion. Instead, they've reinforced the very image which sparked the protest in the first place.
KappaStone
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/2006/02/boy cott-egypt.html
No, the same cartoons in Arab new papers months ago without a hint of protests and death threats.
Hypocrisy? Yes.
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(Taken from my page. Seemed applicable since the indiscriminate labelling in this thread is just off the scale.)
Good and evil... right and wrong... even noble and dastardly... these are the social mileposts by which we measure ourselves and others.
In a rush to apply these labels, though, we often forget that these are not objective measurements. They are completely subjective, guided by our upbringing, our surroundings, our faith (or lack thereof), even our mood.
And when we seriously disagree with somebody elses viewpoint we often choose to label them "evil". One large, omnipresent example of this type of labelling occurred with the destruction of the World Trade Center.
It's difficult to rally people with a cry of, "Those people with different lives, values and backgrounds who felt it necessary to challenge us in a way that is foreign to our thinking must be dealt with in some fashion!"
Far more effective is the battle cry of, "The terrorists have engaged in evil acts, and must be hunted down and punished!"
Problem is, "evil" is an EXTREMELY subjective term. By many tenets of their upbringing and faith, these Muslims have every right to find the U.S. to be "evil", "decadent", even "doomed". By their morality, they are justified. They aren't wrong, because everything is a point of view. And I guarantee you that when they have their 8:00 a.m. morning meeting to discuss the agenda, the title on the page is not "Evil To Spread This Period". They firmly believe they are both "right" and "good".
There is no such thing as objective morality. There is no universal "good" or "evil". We choose to define these things the way we do because of who we are. But to expect the rest of the world - all 6 billion of us - to toe the line with respect to values is ridiculous.
I know the religious will claim that absolute "good" and "evil" exist. They'll also almost certainly believe that their particular religion is the source of these definitions. The problem is that religions are neither universal nor consistent within themselves. To declare ones own religion to be correct is to declare others to be incorrect. Many people will claim exactly that, though. To those people I have no response. There can be no meaningful discussion with somebody possessing complete, unshakeable faith. Such faith leaves no room for the idea that one might not be completely right.
But even within our own social sphere it's a big wash of grey. It's wrong to steal a stereo. It's not really wrong to steal bread when your child is starving - and no judge would sentence anybody for it. It's wrong to cheat on your fiance... unless he's a jerk and you're on board the Titanic and you meet a guy you dig - then it's romantic. It's wrong to kill. But it's not wrong to kill to defend your family. Everything is situational.
Western governments are big on tossing out the label of "evil" as an absolute. It's a useful tactic, employed by every government in wartime. The vilification of the enemy is practically a necessity. If the troops see the other side as thinking, feeling, fully-formed people, they will not kill them with the same expediency. Even more critical is the process of defining its own actions as "good", so that they do not come under scrutiny in the near term. After all, if we're "good" we shouldn't have to adjust our foreign policy (as an example).
We are a world at war. That has really only been brought home to the average North American in the last five years. And things are going to get worse before they get better.
But we can't expect to make any headway on peace through any means except by conquest unless we finally try to truly see both sides of each issue. And we can't do that until we stop painting everything in black and white. As long as we call a group "evil" we will never be able to see their side. It's a blinding mechanism.
Good and evil... right and wrong... judgments. Judgments that get in the way. These terms should only be used in measuring ourselves and our actions, because we are the only ones for whom these evaluations apply. As soon as you start evaluating others in this way, you are on extremely shaky ground.
Best post in this story, thanks.
I think we're all having a little trouble here fully understanding the differences between western and middle-eastern cultures. And yes, I do think they are over-reacting. However, the fundamental cultural differences are so profound that we just can't understand their reactions, and we see them as being backward and stupid.
Middle-eastern culture is very old. They have been stuck with self-appointed leaders for far longer than we have. One might argue that this has caused them to stagnate while the rest of the world has moved forward. Their entire culture is still very much religion-oriented, while we have managed to create a secular society where choice and individuality are the most important things. Not only that, but attitude, and atmosphere in these countries is much more reminiscent of how it was two hundred years ago or more, while for us, our own society is NOTHING like it was two hundred years ago.
Iraq has just started voting. Not that I agree with the reasons that Bush felt he had for forcing it upon them, but it has happened. One way or another, even if it is a slower process than it was for western culture, they will move on, into the future, and the radicalists of the past will be left behind. Sooner or later these kinds of events will serve to prove to them how irrational it is to live in the past. Sooner or later they will learn to secularize their own societies, and they will learn to appreciate the virtues of individuality and freedom of speech. I predict that this movement will be inevitable, eventually, even if it comes slowly. In the meantime, however, there is a massive cultural GAP that we are all having a lot of difficulty understanding and dealing with.
The only way to do so rationally is to be understanding and accepting, helping them along as they learn to live in the modern global culture.
Creating mean cartoons made specifically to needle them is not very constructive. But on the other hand, these kinds of self-criticizing charicatures are just another part of living in our post-modern world. They will need to learn to role with the punches as well as the rest of us have learned to do.
People keep saying "if they made fun of Jesus in Caroons, there would be no violence against Muslims in the street over here!"
But this is not a fair comparison--Christianity does not hold the same moral status here that Islam does there. But we have our sacred cows. Imagine what would happen here if the press across the Middle East ran any of these over and over, in increasing frequency despite our protests and objections:
- A series of cartoons showing black people being lynched, raped, and whipped, with the word "Niggers" appearing prominently in them in various ways
- A series of cartoons showing famous molested children like Jean-Benet being graphically fondled by prominent political figures like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
- A series of cartoons graphically and gleefully depicting the 9/11 disaster victims meeting their deaths in various amusing ways
You can bet that if these kept getting reprinted in the prominent Arab press, protests here would rise to violence, to riots, and to a general call by the citizenry to GO TO WAR WITH THE ENTIRE REGION, NOW. The streets would not be full of Americans congratulating Islam on its embracing of free speech if a cartoon with Bush's hand up a little girl's wa-wa or MLK hanging from a tree were being shown on the news every night.
That is what we have done to them: assault their sacred cow, make fun of their deepest moral conviction. Those cartoons have one possible effect: to offend someone. They are not clever, or original. They do not lend a new insight to anyone in the west. They're just designed to create outrage.
And that they have done.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Allow me to comment on this as a Danish citizen.
What happened was
A Danish newspaper, who have been at the forefront of an ongoing hetz against immigrants and especially muslims, published a number of cartoons depicting Mohammed in ways that can only have been meant to express contempt. Further, if you have been following Danish news, you will know just how vitriolic and hatefilled the debate has been there for a very long time; and this is prominent politicians we're talking about. This has even been commented on in foreign news, with horror and disgust. To a moslem depicting the profet is totally forbidden, apparently, which the newspaper in question certainly knew; and not surprisingly a group of Danish moslems vented their anger in their home countries.
Personally I think it could have been defused then and there if the newspaper or the prime minister had had the decency and backbone to simply apologize; after all, there is such a thing as simple politeness, and no one would need to give up fundamental freedoms etc. How much would it actually have cost anybody if our PM had said something like: 'It is not Danish policy to insult people of other cultures, and I apologize for the distress these insensitive pictures have been published. However, I can not dictate what the newspapers print'? Not a thing.
Instead there has been a load of stilted nonsense about 'freedom of speech' - what a load of crap. Freedom is not the right to get away with whatever you do - there is a responsibility for all your actions as there should be. If you kick a hornets' nest, you'll get stung.
So, to sum it up: Denmark is festering in xenophobia and inflamed rhetoric; a newspaper decides to try to cash in on stirring up the shit and behave a spoiled brat; instead of being mature and apologize, the West is spiteful. Whatever one may think of the moslem world, this is simply not an honourable way to behave.
I generally think we should respect religion... and not go out of our way to insult it.
But, the thing is, too many religions are also political philosophies. Once you bring your religion into politics, your religion should be fair game for ridicule, insult, or any sort of nasty speech. Islam, (as well as Christianity, but I could go on and on about that, so I will leave it out of this post), is also a political ideology. It is being used as a basis for laws, for systems of government... Heck, even where I live in Canada people are pushing to have Sharia Law enforced in family courts!!!
Once you cross that line, then watch out. There is nothing wrong with insulting Islam as a political ideology, any more than there is anything wrong with insulting Socialism, or Capitalism, or Facism, or Communism. There is nothing wrong with making an insulting cartoon of Muhammad, than making an insulting cartoon of G. W. Bush. It is all part of free political discourse. Political satire is a of democracy and free expression.
If you don't want your religion insulted, then don't try to force your religious ideals on me through the political system. If you are promoting Intelligent Design, or Sharia Law, or anything else on me and at my expense through the political system, I have a right to call out your retarded political philosophy.
Instead of defacing websites, any person who is upset about having their ideology insulted should adopt the lifestyle of the 5th century from which Islamic philosophy began... That way they will not have to be exposed to a diverse global media of the 21st century. If you are going to adopt an ancient political ideology, you need an economic system and technologic lifestyle that is compatible with your belief system. It has worked pretty well for the Amish and Mennonites.
And that makes them different from the average western people
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Sure, freedom of speech is great, but it comes with a lot of responsibility --- a responsibility Jyllands-Posten (the paper that originally published the drawings) apparently can't handle. I think I'm pretty much your average christian-by-culture/atheist-by-belief dane and I understand why the muslims are so pissed! These drawings show nothing but disrespect for the entire muslim community, both here and in the rest of the world.
Jyllands-Posten even refused to print some drawings joking with Jesus back in december, 'cause as the editor said, it would offend the readers...(!) (The drawings were something like "rising from the dead doing a double somersault" and stuff - pretty hilarious actually.) How's that for hypocrisy?
Now, I don't think the government should start apologising on behalf of the paper, neither should they start censoring the danish papers in any way --- the danish papers should simply learn a thing or two about respect for others and their religion(s).
Jyllands-Posten has even been rumoured (e.g. on CNN) to want to print the Iranian holocaust-drawings, but the editor in chief (is that what it's called?) has disputed that. Hopefully he won't change his mind.
The Muhammad drawings were stupid and absolutely needlesly provocative --- it has nothing to do with freedom of speech and it never had.
Freedom of speech != duty to speak.
"Live free or don't."
On Slashdot, you don't have to back up criticism of Christianity.
Yes, but why give Islam some special status here. I see contempt for the Christianity in many publications including evening sitcoms. This is offensive to Christians. So in your view should Editors, Presidents, Prime Ministers start off every morning apologizing for freedom of thought and expression that may have occured in the prior day.
If you kick a hornets' nest, you'll get stung.
So we should make our freedom's subject to the fear of reprisals. The Hamas leader said that if someone would have been successful in acting on the Ayatollah's fatah to kill the Novelist S. Rushdie then these cartoon would not happen.
Whatever one may think of the moslem world, this is simply not an honourable way to behave.
And burning embassies and issueing death threats to cartoonist for lines on a piece of paper is? Actually the death and kidnapping threats extended to any citizen from the countries that published these cartoons regardless of affiliation.
I sure hope you do not represent the average Danish thinking.
It's just like Jon Stewart says. The moderate is quiet primarily because you don't see moderate protestors out on the streets, chanting "USE COMMON SENSE! FOR SHAME, THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE DOING BEFORE YOU DO IT!"
/* however, I really do think that a large portion of muslims living in islamic countries do believe in this sort of protest. the funny thing is that most of these people who are protesting have never seen the cartoons. and the real funny thing is that many of the protestors in the most extremist groups can't actually read the papers in arabic, much less the ones printed in european languages. you're really dealing with an ignorant, uneducated minority group in that case, and that population of people isn't going to stop burning shit */
What kind of protest would that be?
Yes, the Dutch and European papers have the free speech right to publish this cartoon, and I would vigorously defend that right, just as Salamon Rushdie was rightly defended against fatwas, etc. But we also have to ask are they using their freedom wisely? Racist, sacrilegious, cartoons help no one, whether it's intentional desecrations of Islam or anti-Semitic cartoons published in the Arab world BOTH should be morally condemned. Not censored by the government, but condemned as unworthy in a world that is capable of producing figures like Martin Luther King and Ghandi. Having the freedom to publish sacrilegious cartoons and saying it's a good idea or helpful to the world are very different things. We must simultaneously defend the right of the people publishing the cartoons while questioning their motives. Qui bono?
Know that the neo-cons are using this incident to inflame passions against Muslims in a build up to an attack upon on Iran. Think before you condemn all Muslims or their governments for the destructive acts of a few. If you do that you are playing into the hands of neo-cons who are counting on western hatred of Muslims to justify their imperialist plans to make over the middle east, most likely to prevent any country from trading oil in Euros, and to "defend" Israel who has angered the Arab world by violating international law by illegally expanding it's 1967 green line borders into the Palestinian territories.
Demonization of an entire people based on their religion is always a bad idea, did the holocaust teach us nothing?
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I get the point that you are trying to make, but I can't help but notice in almost all of the examples you cite, it is GOD who is doing all the smiting and death dealing, not hebrews and cristians. In the examples cited above in the Koran, all the examples involve the reader taking action and killing enemies of the faith.
If these are really accurate samplings of the respective texts, it would seem pretty clear why the Islamic faith seems to have such a violent face to it. There is a big difference in reading about how your god is going to punish the faithless, and being told it is your duty.
(Intelligent musings aside, and straight into offensive blasphmey) Perhaps Allah isn't powerful enough to smite the unbelievers himself. Has to recrute people to do it for him. If he were all badass like the cristian god in the old testament, he would just zap people with bolts from the blue.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Most of this comment isn't even a reply to what I wrote, but here:
"If you want to try to cure yourself of the problem and remove the cultural blinders, you have to do a Nigger Thought Experiment. If you prefer, you can do a Kike Thought Experiment. Instead of the Danish cartoons, image a big-lipped, bug-eyed 'nigger' eating a giant watermelon. Or perhaps you'd prefer a cloaked, hook-nosed 'kike' with a giant bag of gold 'jewing' some gentile out of his money? Would you be defending the right of the papers to publish such cartoons based on the 'enlightenment values' of the West? Would you be so proud of your precious 'free speech'?"
Yeah. This is allowed. Organizations like the KKK? Allowed to spew their hatred. That argument is totally bogus. The civilized world doesn't riot when people publish offensive stuff. Most of the time, it gets an hour or so of press and then ignored.
The cartoons were targetted at a very specific and very vocal muslim population that uses violence as a means to solving their problems. As people who want to be in prominent places, they can be ridiculed. I can see how the way it was done is *highly offensive*, but that doesn't make it okay to burn stuff down. You're just deluding yourself into the most extremeist form of political correctness if you think so.
"Here is a small list of some of the things we do to Muslims, without even a hint that there might be some moral issues involved"
You and I both know that's bullshit. No one imprisons muslim women to take them away from their families just for fun. No one bombs innocent children, calls it a mistake, but really meant to do it on purpose. No one chops down olive tree groves just to laugh at dejected muslim faces.
Lastly, It's clear you've never read the history of the Palestinian refugees and how they got there. Before you reply - and I'm pretty sure there's going to be a reply here - go look up exactly what forced Palestinian people from their lands. [Try "Arab Israelis" as a start"]
Unlike other "prophetic" figures for whom there is little or no written history, Mohammed's actions are recorded in written histories that date to his time. I invite you to Google for information on the history of Mohammed: see how bloody his hands were. Then come back and give us your informed update.
If you think of Mohammed as some kind of otherworldly "prophet", or as a purely religious leader or as a man with his head in the clouds, then you are seriously misled. He did much more than preach to spread his ideas: he was a military leader and conqueror as well.
No actually, that's a pretty close example to the islamic situation. The cartoonists are commiting blasphemy against mohammud.
And christians in the west wouldn't think of killing someone for blasphemy against god these days (tho they might if they got too much power again).
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
This is ridiculous. The criticism of radical Islamic individuals killing people in a cartoon form is a reasonable thing. What you're talking about is just obscenity.
People are selfish. Why?
Disclaimer: Norwegian here (so this is a reply from a somewhat norwegian perspective) & I've posted about the cartoons before on Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=176319&cid=14 646689). Also I do support freedom of speech even if I often get offended by it myself (I consider flagburning a part of freedom of speech). Hell I've long ago gotten used to offensive stuff and ridicule: it's a natural price for having opinons that go against the flow. I'm not too fond of organized religion, I'm anti-nazi, anti-socialism/communism, pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war, pro-individualism, pro-transparency, pro-F/OSS and in the opinion of some by implication pro-schizophrenia lol :) Oh yeah and I don't fear the puzzle palace...
As others have pointed out they're not silent in the west, and a lot of them are fed up with having to distance themselves from fruitloops calling themselves muslims in other parts of the world. Anyone can get fed up if they always have to defend actions they have nothing to do with but which others link them to by some common denominator. That being said one can't exactly fault people for asking either; it's part of getting to know someone to ask about their opinons isn't it?
But take a look at those few non-cleric muslims who have spoken in favour of freedom of speech concerning the cartoons in the middle east. In slightly more relaxed countries like Egypt and Jordan they've been sued and harassed. It is no wonder that the silent majority (at least I hope it's a majority) "down there" are afraid of voicing opinion that run counter to an extremist interpretation of Islam. It's even more understandable if it's something they don't give much tought; almost all muslims in those countries live in extremely homogenized countries where almost everybody is a muslim, that's not an environment conducive to thinking about freedom of expression of those that think differently.
Speaking up in a place like Syria or Iran is tantamount to germans voicing criticism against the treatment of jews in 1940: you've got to be extremely brave to do it and you've got to expect very bad consequences of doing so. I wish they would speak up but I can't but sympathize that they don't; it so much simpler to just go with the flow and if necessary blame Israel, the US, or the EU, or Denmark, or Norway, or *insert scapegoat de jour here* for everything one doesn't like from time immemorial. Yes some people do the same here in the west; stupidity knows no boundaries of culture, gender, or ideology.
There's a lot of info that's not getting attention either in the west or in muslim countries:
- some pretty hefty misunderstandings by danish imams and muslims (however the situation is different in Denmark than in Norway, from my perspective I would say that the communities in Denmark are much more disjointed). Some danish imams when talking about the matter to fellow believers in the muslim world managed to mix up the issue with completely non-relevant pictures and impressions exaggerating their "victimization". Some of those issues didn't have the least to do with anything about Islam (or at least the prophet Mohammed) and to such a level that one can wonder if they had ulterior motives -- it's either that or they have almost no understanding of the country and continent they're living in.
- the rumour mill in the arab world, but elsewhere as well, ran completely out of control: there's a lot of misinformation out there that's 100% false and exaggerated
- a severe lack of knowledge about how important the concept of freedom of expression is in the west, what the background and philosophy is, what it actually means. There's a need for an introduction to Voltaire
- a severe lack of knowledge about how the relation between free press and the state is in western democracies
- a severe lack of understanding about the fact that in the west you are not (as an individual or as a state) expected
this comment is provided "as is" and without any express or implied legibility or congruity [...]
That's what I always try to remember before I start hating.
I started hating when a person I actually know (a high genius in fact) was bashed into retardation by a pack of young Muslim males. And lots of girls in my community have been pack raped by similar gangs of Muslim males. Is it okay if I hate for that?
We need to love one another and try to work stuff out. How can we do that, though, if everyone remains ignorant and only listens to their leaders for direction, rather than trying to find the Truth for themselves?
I DID find the truth for myself. From some Egyptian, Iranian, Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian friends who were chased out of their own damn country because they were NOT Muslim. They as refugees in my country are the loveliest people. I can't say the same for their Muslim nationals who came here as refugees.
Europe is one country now. What do you think WWII was about? WHO CONTROLS THE BANKS. England won.
England REJECTED the Euro for the longest time. This is completely crazy. BTW, England didn't start the damn war.
That's right, we flag and ribbon wearing, Jesus loving, George Bush electing Americans have more in common with those Flag Burning, Mohammed loving, Hamas electing Muslims than we have with George Bush and the upper echelons of our government.
Come on man, give me a break. You're making the West out to be the moral equivelent of the terrorists here. This must be a joke. We don't surround embassies with guns and blow them up if a newspaper prints something we don't like. We don't send our women and children to blow up random people on the street trying to live their lives peacefully in order to be greeted by 76 virgins when we arrive in heaven. We don't hijack planes and fly them into buildings in nations that don't declare our religion as the official religion. We don't kidnap journalists, construction workers, or doctors and cut their heads off and send the video out over the internet. We don't send suicide bombers to a wedding reception. We don't murder people that have political dissagreements with us.
I think you really need to spend some time thinking about this more and doing more research. Sometimes there IS right and wrong, good and evil. Muslims are not evil, but there is a small group of people that are EVIL that have hijacked this noble religion.
No Sigs!