I apologize to you on behalf of 'Muslims'

[germanos]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I guess the thinking goes that Mohammad is the final prophet and so has a special place. I do not that in the west Christian fundimentalists used to get extremely angry over what they considered to be blasphomous depictions of Christ though it has been a very long time (centuries) since they espoused violence against those people who do dipict Christ in an unflattering way. There are routine protests when such are or movies are made (they've even gotten recent TV shows cancelled through their letter writting campaigns) but they don't threaten to burn things down or kill people any more.

Unfortunately, things can get a little hotter, literally.
Only 20 years ago 'the last temptation of Christ' by Martin Scorcese (sp?) caused widespread demonstratotions, arson in cinema's and death-threats to those who participated in the production of the film.

The christians stand on no higher ground then the muslims.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos


Unfortunately, things can get a little hotter, literally.
Only 20 years ago 'the last temptation of Christ' by Martin Scorcese (sp?) caused widespread demonstratotions, arson in cinema's and death-threats to those who participated in the production of the film.

The christians stand on no higher ground then the muslims.

afaik no major christian organization called for state censorship of the last temptation. At this point those who are PEACEFULLY calling for state censorship are ranked among the moderate majority of muslims.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I found this article interesting, especially in a European context:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2675&ncid=2675&e=13&u=/csm/20060208/wl_csm/odouble_1

By Mark Rice-Oxley, Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Wed Feb 8, 3:00 AM ET



LONDON - The violence over cartoons satirizing the prophet Muhammad has highlighted often inconsistent rules in Europe governing free speech, tolerance, and the boundaries of public expression.

Muslims in particular charge that hate-speech laws are implemented unfairly. Many countries, they say, do not abide anti-Semitic outbursts, but will tolerate cartoons that to many Muslims are deeply offensive.

"Most of Europe would not dare mock the Holocaust, and rightly so," says Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain. "Newspaper editors exercise good judgment every day when it comes to printing material so as not to cause offense, so why not on this occasion?"

In a bid to redress grievances, the French Council of Muslims has said it is considering taking France Soir, which reprinted the cartoons, to court for provocation. Last year, the Catholic church won a court injunction to ban a fashion ad based on the Last Supper. The judge said the ad was "a gratuitous ... act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs."

"This is what Muslims want - to be treated the same as other faiths," says Olivier Roy, an eminent scholar of Islamic affairs at the National Center of Scientific Research in Paris.

Roger Koeppel, editor in chief at German newspaper Die Welt, which published the cartoons last week, says that European societies have a right to make their own choices. "Every society has the right to have taboos, the things they don't talk about," he says. Mr. Koeppel says the cartoons were not published to annoy but to question a growing tendency for press self-censorship in delicate matters.

At times, he says, it may appear there is a double standard. "Evenhandedness cannot be a goal," he says. "It has to be clear that the majority culture rules and the minority culture has to accept the rules. If the rules are not acceptable, no one is forced to live there."

The general response from European politicians has been to frown on those who reproduced images first aired last fall in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper, while insisting that editors were within their legal rights to do so. Governments have refrained from apologizing to the Islamic community because they say publication is a matter for editors, not politicians. Muslim opinion, however, has not been appeased by this response.

"Muslims are complaining that they are not protected by the law as the other faiths are supposed to be," says Mr. Roy.

But if there are hints of double standards in the European approach, there are also suggestions of that in some Middle Eastern nations, which have exploded in fury at the cartoons but which are also liable to tolerate anti-Jewish sentiments. An Iranian newspaper has announced a plan to solicit cartoons about the Holocaust in response to the European position.

pe is warier than the US
When it comes to hate crime and defamation laws, there is no homogenous approach in Europe. Britain, for example, has long had a more tolerant approach to free speech than countries like Germany, France, and Austria, where Holocaust denial is a crime. "It's a mixed bag, a patchwork of practices and experiences in Europe," says Agnes Callamard, director of Article 19, a global freedom-of- expression campaign group. "It's very difficult to pretend there is a common position on hate speech."

But Europe is generally warier of free speech than is the US, with its First Amendment. Laws against inciting hatred and violence have sprung up in countries such as France, the Netherlands, Germany, and Denmark, resulting in criminal cases, convictions, and, in the case of foreigners, expulsions.

Even Britain has sought to push through a law recently to outlaw inciting religious hatred, to give religious groups like Muslims and Christians the same rights as racial groups. But the legislation was watered down over concerns about the implications for free speech.

Still, several recent prosecutions would appear to indicate a diminishing tolerance for invective. In perhaps the most high-profile case of its kind, a Muslim cleric, Abu Hamza al-Masri, was found guilty Tuesday of fomenting racial hatred and inciting followers to kill non-Muslims. He reserved particular vitriol for Jews.

Meanwhile, police are studying banners brandished at Friday's protest with slogans like, "Be prepared for the real Holocaust"; "Kill the one who insults the Prophet"; "Behead those who insult Islam"; and "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way." One man, a convicted drug dealer on parole who attended the rally dressed as a suicide bomber, was rearrested on Tuesday.

Reining in an anti-Semitic comedian
Other European cases hint at the preoccupations of individual jurisdictions. In France, where anti-Semitism remains taboo, a comedian named Dieudonne has been effectively sidelined for his anti-Jewish rants. Newspapers must even be careful not to equate the actions of Jews everywhere with the state of Israel following a recent case that punished the dailyLe Monde.

Roy says a form of self-censorship is in practice in France. "No mainstream newspaper would ever publish an interview with Dieudonne," he says. "He has been sidelined because he is supposed to be anti-Semitic."

French Muslims have questioned whether the outcome would have been the same if Dieudonne had aimed his humor at Muslims.

In Austria, a case of Holocaust denial charges is being prepared against British historian David Irving, based on two speeches he made in the country in 1989. He could face 10 years in jail if convicted. In Germany, antihate legislation that took effect last year has been used to rein in Muslim preachers who call for terrorist attacks or propagate hate.

In Turkey, the preoccupation is more nationalistic, as the recently dropped case against novelist Orhan Pamuk - for "insulting Turkish identity" in remarks to a Swiss newspaper about the killings of Armenians in the early 20th century - shows.

In Sweden, meanwhile, the most prominent case has involved a clergyman accused of inciting hatred against homosexuals. But in Britain, remarks by a Muslim leader that homosexuality was "not acceptable" have not resulted in criminal charges.

It is not always Muslims who are in the dock. Prosecutors are preparing a case against leaders of the right-wing extremist British National Party on race-hate charges linked to speeches in which one branded Islam a "wicked" faith, after they were cleared of two other charges last month.

And in Italy, a leading author, Oriana Fallaci, faces trial this year over charges that she slandered Muslims in her book "The Strength of Reason."

Those who find themselves on the wrong side of Muslim anger may also risk greater censure than those who challenge Christian precepts. Writer Salman Rushdie was forced into hiding for a decade because of a fatwa, or religious edict, imposed on him for publishing "The Satanic Verses." Though it was equally iconoclastic, there was no such response when Dan Brown published "The Da Vinci Code," seen by many as offensive to the Catholic church.

And as you can see by the end there, it is a pretty fair article (it is not saying Muslims are right and Europeans should burn in Hell or anything).

[lord of the mark]

"Paris show in anti-Semitism row

Dieudonne's TV act was heavily criticised
A French comedian whose show was banned by a Paris theatre amid allegations of anti-Semitism has taken his act onto the pavement in protest.
Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala told the crowd outside that he was fighting for freedom of expression.

The theatre cancelled Friday's shows on safety grounds, saying it had received several threatening phone calls.

The comedian provoked protests after appearing on television dressed as an Orthodox Jew and making a Nazi salute.


'Parodies'

Dieudonne, who faced heavy criticism for the sketch, lost an appeal against the ban.

Paris police advised the theatre they could only guarantee security outside the venue in the light of threatening telephone calls and faxes opposing the comedian's performance.

"Tonight is a battle for freedom of expression," Dieudonne told an audience of around 300, flanked by as many police officers.

"Don't gag me - I am one of the few black performers on the French stage."

Dieudonne has insisted that he parodies various religious, political and ethnic groups in a humorous way but without malice. "


But of course Dieudonne, who WAS offensive, was NOT banned. In fact he was protected by French police officers. Showing antisemites ARE protected in the West.

And of course Germany and Austria have particular issues with holocaust denial. There are no such limits in the US or the UK.

Its true that Europe is less absolutist than the US, in many respects. But the overall tone of equivalency in the article is deeply misleading.

[Spiffor]

Actually, this fight against antisemitic expression is one of the specificities in the French debate. Everybody in France is aware that no journalist could get away with saying something hostile to Jews and not resign right afterward (whether it be true or fantasized is another thing, but I bet it's true). Antisemitic stand-up comedian Dieudonné is ostracized by pretty much the entire media, save for a few websites.

OTOH, the media is much more tolerant to Islamophobia. While browsing French Muslim forums two days ago, I encountered an impressive compilation of Islamophobic statements held by politicians or journalists. I'm not saying that every French journo is Islamophobic (very far from it), but none of these people had been burnt for their statements, whereas there would have been outrage if those statements had targeted the Jews. Or at least, that's how the Muslims of this site feel, and my impression is that there is much truth to it.
(edit: as a nuance, I'd like to add that the philosopher Alain Finkielkraut who ranted against the Blacks, Arabs and Muslims after the "ethnico-religious" riots of sepember, has been burnt - he escaped conviction because he apologized before the trial could occur, prompting the plaintiffs to stop the process, but he was savagely burnt by the press).

As a result, there is a broad feeling of unfairness, that the French laws protect the Jews from being offended in the press, whereas we defend as "freedom of speech" the right for the journals to offend the Muslims.

Note that most of it is self-censorship. The law only matters for incitement to hatred, which is why there are frequent trials, but they also often fail.

[moustafa]

Hello everyone,

was busy playing Civ4. Amazed that this post generated so much response. Also quite happy that the sorrydenmarknorway.com website has been created. I am not alone, and though I knew that all alone, I am very happy to get resinforcement of that belief.

I don't have anything new to say, you people have asked questions and answered yourself. Regarding a question by Az,

quote:
Originally posted by Az
Wait, what if he was a muslim, and then started to doubt his own faith in the same way? Is that suddenly ok?

Or is doubting his faith is also forbidden?


Btw, will anyone answer this question of mine?

Hey Az, I'm not an Islamic scholar or something, and I am not sure of the answer, so can't really tell you. You might try islamonline.com or islamqa.com (google it). The basic tenet is if you doubt Islam you are not a muslim anymore, but there is a huge body of interpretations on this matter (naturally) regarding the 'doubt' factor. The best Islamic scholars generally encourage questioning and allow for Ijtehad, Ijma and Kiyas (ways to broaden Islam and include new Islamic laws approved by the majority of the muslims/islamic scholars).

As I said, I liked some articles and opinions a lot, in fact so much so I want to quote some here...

Spiffor - In short, the eye of the ****storm is the Middle East. Unsurprisingly. Fortunately, not all Muslims are like the extremists in your neck on the wood

Yes the more extreme violence does seem to come from there. I am not an Arab and I really think that the whole Mid East region needs a major reformation/something. That's true for most of the Islamic world to varying extents, but I was extremely disappointed by Syria and Iran's reaction. I do like Iran as a country but since Ahmadenijad (sp?) is here it's going downward...

I also agree with this piece by Oerdin where he says that Islam will probably come to accept such things gradually...

Oerdin - I guess the thinking goes that Mohammad is the final prophet and so has a special place. I do not that in the west Christian fundimentalists used to get extremely angry over what they considered to be blasphomous depictions of Christ though it has been a very long time (centuries) since they espoused violence against those people who do dipict Christ in an unflattering way. There are routine protests when such are or movies are made (they've even gotten recent TV shows cancelled through their letter writting campaigns) but they don't threaten to burn things down or kill people any more.

I suspect that in Islam a similiar change will occur over time. People will still be offended, just as Christians are still offended by some illreligious depictions, though more and more of them will channel that anger in a useful and productive way like nonviolent protests, letter writting campaigns, etc... It is just a matter of understanding that violence hurts the cause and prevents people from hearing the merits of their case. The Christians did learn this but it took them a very long time to do so.

In fact, I have 'learned' from this debate, and though not all the arguments are not to my liking, it has changed my faith and belief structure a lot, hopefully for the positive. Thank you, all!!

[Thorn]

*I'm reporting your post to homeland security*

j/k

[Imran Siddiqui]

Its true that Europe is less absolutist than the US, in many respects. But the overall tone of equivalency in the article is deeply misleading.

What equivalency? The fact that Muslims want to be protected like Jews in Europe? It isn't misleading to claim that in Germany (or Sweden for that matter) you can't show a swastika.

[lord of the mark]

spiff

Im sorry that islamophobic statements seem to be acceptable in France - ive seen and denounced such statements in my own country. Though I would note that in my own country those made by halfway reputable journalists tend to focus on the tenets on islam, not hatred for muslims, and tend to focus on its political and social beliefts, not on its theology.

I wonder though if islamaphobic statements in france become more prevalent after the Paris riots?

I am certainly glad the number of antisemitic incidents in France has declined. It is good to hear the atmosphere has changed in that regard

And I note that this is a question of social acceptability - i see nothing in your post indicating a difference in treatment by the law.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Its true that Europe is less absolutist than the US, in many respects. But the overall tone of equivalency in the article is deeply misleading.

What equivalency? The fact that Muslims want to be protected like Jews in Europe? It isn't misleading to claim that in Germany (or Sweden for that matter) you can't show a swastika.

Fine. In any county in Europe which has committed genocide, killing muslims by the millions in the last 80 years, denials of that extermination should be illegal, and showing the symbols of the antimuslim party that carried out that extermination should be banned.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Its true that Europe is less absolutist than the US, in many respects. But the overall tone of equivalency in the article is deeply misleading.

What equivalency? The fact that Muslims want to be protected like Jews in Europe? It isn't misleading to claim that in Germany (or Sweden for that matter) you can't show a swastika.

"It is not always Muslims who are in the dock. Prosecutors are preparing a case against leaders of the right-wing extremist British National Party on race-hate charges linked to speeches in which one branded Islam a "wicked" faith, after they were cleared of two other charges last month.

And in Italy, a leading author, Oriana Fallaci, faces trial this year over charges that she slandered Muslims in her book "The Strength of Reason." "

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Fine. In any county in Europe which has committed genocide, killing muslims by the millions in the last 80 years, denials of that extermination should be illegal, and showing the symbols of the antimuslim party that carried out that extermination should be banned.

Ah, I see... so only if your group has suffered a genocide (oh wait... only a genocide from the 1920s onward!) can you seek the benefit of hate crime laws .

And you wonder how come there is still anti-semitism in the world with attitudes like this?

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Ah, I see... so only if your group has suffered a genocide (oh wait... only a genocide from the 1920s onward!) can you seek the benefit of hate crime laws .

You can seek anything you want in a democracy. If you seek things that are unreasonable, like making it illegal in a non-muslim country to show Mohammed with disrespect, youre not going to get very far.

And you wonder how come there is still anti-semitism in the world with attitudes like this?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you posted that in anger and frustration at a difficult situation. Cause its really beneath you, Imran.

[moustafa]

An Islam question: "Would I be right in thinking that the extreme veneration of Mohammed by Muslims is not actually supported by Koran?"

An oversimplified answer: Yes, not supported. In Quran Muhammad is called a MAN, a simple man. The Wahabis/Salafis also follow such doctrine. Subcontinental Islam is just the opposite, generally, with sufism mixed in.

However, the thing is EXTREMELY complicated and is a major debate. Google for a vast amount of web info.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Its true that Europe is less absolutist than the US, in many respects. But the overall tone of equivalency in the article is deeply misleading.

What equivalency? The fact that Muslims want to be protected like Jews in Europe? It isn't misleading to claim that in Germany (or Sweden for that matter) you can't show a swastika.

By the way, I doubt very much that the ban on Nazi symbols in Germany was originally instituted to "protect" the Jews (or the Gypsies, or Slavs, etc) It was instituted to protect the post war German state both from Nazis (not necessarilly neo, originally) and from the reputation for Nazism. About Sweden, I have no idea.