Yet again has some unprofessional newspaper , Dagbladet, gone ahead and posted caricatures that they find very amusing of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). The Norwegian newspaper thought it to be very funny if they replicate what the Danish paper did a few months back.
What I don’t get is why can’t anyone realize that disrespecting other religions is not called freedom of speech. 1000s of Muslim taxi drivers in Norway went on strike and that led to a few thousand passengers not reaching their destinations.
I would rather prefer these types of protests than burning or blowing up places. More protests are going to be held soon said the taxi drivers, but I myself will be in one of them very soon as a Norwegian Muslim citizen.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:07 am
I bet many of these taxi drivers on strike think its ok to steal money from the Norwegian state by cheating on the taxes so they can build big houses with house servants in Pakistan.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:11 am
Only those who respect their own religion can respect others religion N not go for somethin that might cause such “incidents” like these. Unfortunately N obviously those publishing these cartoon have no respect for their own religion. [If they got one, that is]. Sometimes protesting is needed, N then this type as you said are better than killing N burning flags.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:13 am
@ Bajas
Well I didn’t spam your comment just to see how different mindsets think. And this one showed that talking about the topic at hand is kind of a tough task for certain people.
@ Dua
Yups if one can’t respect ones own religion they won’t bother about others. I remember that ages ago the churches in Norway were full now majority is going away from their own religion so how can anyone expect a respectful attitude from anyone with that mind.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:38 am
The silly thing about this taxi strike is that it doesn’t affect Dagbladet any more than it affects the average citizen. The ones who are punished by this strike are those who are in need of a cab. The best way to punish Dagbladet would be to refuse to buy their products. God knows Dagbladet is already struggling financially. On the other hand, Dagbladet is a tabloid and is not exactly the most respected medium in Norway. Dagbladet is not as reliable as say, Aftenposten. I believe this strike will only backfire against muslims in Norway because it’s going to slightly annoy Norwegians in general. Muslims already have a bad reputation in Norway and this is not going to make that any better. The only positive purpose it will serve for these muslims is that a strike like this will temporarily strengthen the bond between conservative muslims.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:46 am
@ Dølle
Rightly said about the annoyance factor rising amongst Norwegians when it comes to Muslims. But I read somewhere that boycotting products or services in order to retaliate is not allowed in Islam. A proper debate or meaningful discussion on the other hand is. Strange isn’t it because I see lots of people saying boycott this or that whenever something goes wrong. Well I would still prefer that as a Muslim living in Norway who respects its laws like any other ethnic Norwegian would that my religion is not made fun of, because obviously not everyone would offer a discussion in exchange for this poking into sentiments that form our religion.
The Muslim reputation has lots to do with how media shows it. Saw in the news that a Norwegian Christian guy collected a few hundred million kroner from which only a few million went to the Children Cancer Research. Had he been a Muslim I am sure it would have been a frontpage. So media needs to grow up a bit and realize they form the opinions of how people think most of the times.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:25 pm
Your moral is commendable, but I wouldn’t necessarily define refusing to buy a particular newspaper as retaliation. You might define it as not paying them for mocking you.
Actually, I think the picture where Mohammed is portrayed as a pig is so childish you have to be full of hate and looking for a scapegoat if it doesn’t make you feel sympathetic with muslims.
Much depends on how satire is done. For instance the way Jesus is portrayed in the TV-show South Park I find rather intelligent and not really degrading of Jesus and his actions. Wonder if a similar depiction of Mohammed would cause outrage among muslims?
February 8th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
Yes Dølle, I guess their are various ways to go about showing ones discomfort.
I did speak to a few imams in Norway, and they are all open for a non-violent but progressive campaign that distributes pamphlets to non-Muslims in Norway and elsewhere. Because I guess where there is ignorance thats where issues pop up.
In Islam there is the Quran which states most of the things a Muslim should follow, but the major part of the religion is based on Hadeeth where how to perform the prayers and other aspects of life are described. Those that say Hadeeth is not valid but Quran alone is, can not explain how prayer timings, and the way they are performed came about.
Its in the hadeeth (Muhammeds pbuh way of life) its mentioned that pictures or motives of him aren’t allowed. The reason is quite deep if one thinks about it. Since when someone sees a picture, they start worshipping it in the long run. And the human mind always looks for comfort in something, and God never wished his prophet to be in a position where people saw him as God and went away from the religions basics which at its first serious point state that there is NO other God than Allah.
So yes there would be a concern if cartoons or images even made into the handomest form are created. Because the basic rule in Islam is the highest form of respect for Prophet Muhammed. I am sure that people who pray 5 times a day mentioning Prophets name in the call of prayer, mentioning the word “Muhammed” in the prayer numerous times would enjoy having him humiliated.
It’s not as much controlling what the media does or others say, it’s rather “Please let us follow our religion in Peace”
February 8th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Wouldn't that mean prohibition against illustrating any prophet within Islam?
If so, wouldn't there be a potential conflict between the customs of Christianity and Islam on this part?
I would believe that the Christian custom of depicting any religious person in illustrated form would be a violation of Islam since the prophets of Christianity are also prophets within Islam.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Yes the respect for the prophets is quite highly regarded in Islam. What I feel is that when one can't respect his or her own religion or prophets they have nothing to stand for.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
I don't think in any beliefs there is a freedom of making fun of other religions. I admire and respect the way the taxi drivers took the initiative. We should oblige, stand for this cause and protest to make them realize we are still awake.
My recent post Burj Khalifa!
February 9th, 2010 at 9:44 pm
Rightly said and I guess it's just that a few can't even digest a protest when something like this happens ..
February 10th, 2010 at 12:29 am
Wakas-
first, let me say that I do find the drawing in question, in itself, offensive. I'll return to that.
But there's something about this talk about respect for other people's belief that frankly baffles me a bit. The first is what I would say is the blatant hypocrisy, and that, I'm afraid, goes for you as well. You have two statements in your comments following the posting:
"What I feel is that when one can't respect his or her own religion or prophets they have nothing to stand for." and "majority is going away from their own religion so how can anyone expect a respectful attitude from anyone with that mind."
As I read these statements, they show scant respect for atheists, or even agnostics. My self, a liberal Protestant, I find the statements offensive: Do you think it is impossible to stand for anything if one does not follow a religion? Do you think people who have a different view on religion, on blasphemy, on whether or not specific statements are insulting, than you do are incapable of showing respect?
Both statements are ridiculous: Morals and ethics can flow from organized religion, but must not. And respect for the opinion of other's, well that hasn't really correlated well with religiosity throughout the centuries, neither in Christendom nor in Islam. That the trend lately has reached atheists is unfortunate, but hardly unique. I don't really believe that you mean to be disrespectful in the two sentences, but I do believe that there are many things about an atheist way of life that you don't really respect, even if you might tolerate it. However, if you do say something I find offensive, my response would be to articulate why I think you are wrong. It would not be a protest, and it would not be to say that you are a terrible person: It would be to say that I think you are wrong on the issues, and explain why. Some people, of course, have opinions that are so far out that I might not like them that much, and sometimes I would even like to demonstrate. However, I've difficulties seeing why you would apply this to Dagbladet in the current context.
I do believe it is quite common among muslims to comment on the way other people lead their lives. Sometimes, those whom the comments concern, feel that these comments are offensive, disrespectful. Issues like homosexuality, women's status or dress, and many others, spring to mind. Whenever any muslim says that homosexuals are sinners, that is, for any homosexual who happens to disagree, a caricature of him: Because to him, he is not a sinner, and to him is sexuality might be seen as something sacred. Every such statement could be seen as offensive by homosexuals. I've raised this issue with several muslims, who have disregarded the comparison by saying that, well, of course one might not want to offend homosexuals unnecessarily, but Muhammad is holy to us, and that's different. Well, you know what, the point of the kind of respect you propagate is that it is not different. Not one tiny bit. Not a millimeter. Not to those who feel the need to be respected, which in this case are homosexuals.
Do you believe that muslims who hold that opinion should never state their opinion? Out of respect for the homosexuals? I, for one, do not: If muslims believe that homosexuality is a sin, that is a statement that society must tolerate, even if they don't like it. Those who feel disrespected have only one weapon, and that is to refute the points other parties make. It is not for any one group to decide what is respect and what is not.
The same goes for islam, and also, unfortunately, for the Prophet Muhammad. If there are people who believe that Muhammad's teachings are sinful, they are entitled to say so, and yes, even to ridicule him. If people really hold these beliefs, such statements will appear every now and then. The only sane response in a civilized community is to argue against the statements: Not saying they shouldn't be made, but by explaining why they are wrong.
So, that is the first point: This talk of respect, what does it mean?
To be continued…
February 10th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Hi "Common Sense"
Well let's see. Respect is something that I feel keeps the doors of communication open and lets things that are totally nonsense out of the mind. I feel any talk that doesn't include respect can just be ended right on the spot as its a waste of time for both parties or probably the one explaining.
There are two types of people that I have come across, one are those that like to discuss things rationally and want to reach a conclusion where both somehow say "Great, now I understand what you mean" and the second are those that just want to discuss for the sake of discussing. Let's see..
Ok as for Prophet Muhammed PBUH and how we see him. Well that issue can not be compared with homosexuality in my view since one is the physical way a person is towards a like gender while the issue of Prophet is in the Muslims point of view of a very grand nature. In a Muslims point of view the prophet is the holiest of prophets and creations of God. The things that are revealed in Quran made their way to the desks of scientists just in the recent years, so I wouldn't say we are dealing with a book just for the sake of following it. Facts are there it's just how much someone wants to read and get into it.
I feel personally that Dagbladet should have been responsible enough to not atleast PRINT what they did. If I run a radio show which is heard by thousands of Indians as well, since I am Pakistani. I would NOT ever mention anything to hurt their sentiments even though its 100% right for me to do so as a Pakistani. I would just not do it, why? because I feel as a responsible person it's my job if I can atleast not add up to the hate already present here.
And no it's no "book talk" I am doing here, that's how practical people should live. Practical people who run newspapers or read them, should know that its not one or two people they are making fun of, but billions of Muslims around the world pray five times a day mentioning the name of Muhammed pbuh in their prayers and the call of prayers. And yes everyone has the right to criticize others but does having a right mean you should go ahead and do it?
I mean if I have a knife, I have the right to use it to cut butter or kill someone with it. So why would I choose the second option while the first one is more reasonable and more humane.
I mean to say Common Sense.. just answer this question.
Do you think it's a very nice thing to make fun of someone's ideology. And no Islam is not a religion, it's the way of life for Muslims. So it's not the religion people are making fun of but their lifestyle and values. And yes other peoples values might differ but that doesn't mean that day in day out publishing houses keep on printing and Muslims can just say "ok we pay billions in taxes but we have no right to protest"
I am not a big fan of people who say "If you can't follow our rules so get out of Norway" Why should I
It's as much my country as the little ethnic baby who might be born this very minute in a Norwegian hospital maybe even more than him, since I have paid a LOT in taxes. But then again, is it the taxes I have paid that make it my country, my religion, my belief, or should I have to accept every thing that I am not comfortable with to be considered Norwegian..?
I don't drink, I don't go out clubbing, I don't sleep around.. but If i start doing that, will I be considered a good Norwegian maybe? Because to tell you the truth, after speaking to some Norwegians I feel that it's "respected" by them if I do the above then say "Ok I am off to the prayers in the local mosque" ..
All I would say is, respect is the basic element. If everyone respects each others beliefs and lets them live with them, the world would be amazing
February 10th, 2010 at 2:30 am
Wakas-
Firstly, I would never say that you or any other Norwegian citizen should leave Norway. You are absolutely right, it is as much your country as mine.
Second, I, for my part, and as I define it, respect you and all muslims I know, as most of them are decent people.
No, I don't think it is a nice thing to make fun of someone's ideology, way of life or values. I would not do it just for the fun of it. Sometimes, though, I'd criticize other people's stances, and thus, implicitly or explicitly, their values. I feel quite confident that you would to – in fact, I believe you do. I don't see that as a lack of respect, though. Sometimes, such criticism could take the form of making fun of something. That is natural in heated debate. (Let me at this point reiterate that I would never have made a drawing such as the one we discuss here, I do find it offensive to muslims, and to non-muslims too.)
The way I see it, the difficult part is deciding when criticism and/or making fun of is warranted by a disagreement, and how that bears on the concept of respectfulness, or whether there are cases where one should not be respectful. If we for a moment leave aside the current drawing, and return to the ones printed by Jyllandsposten, this question becomes much clearer. Many people in the West, but also, as I'm sure you're acutely aware, many Pakistanis, fear the islamist radicals that operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and their ideology, which leads to terrorism and violence. These people justify their actions in Islam and in the life of the prophet. As abominable as their justification is, the fact that they do so, cannot be disputed. For some people it thus becomes paramount to criticize and, yes, make fun of, that ideology, the radical islamist agenda. (For the record, the radical islamists are obviously not the only ones with a violent agenda – but other people with violent agendas and ideologies should be criticized too!)
The question, then, becomes whether it is wrong for someone too express their criticism and ridicule of that ideology, for fear of the reactions of moderates. I believe it is not necessarily wrong. The kind of liberal society I envisage leaves room for people too express themselves when they find another ideology abominable. You could, of course, say that they do not need to do it in that particular way. However, that is a difficult position, and my feeling is that you do not really see the question from their point of view. (Let us for the time being assume that the JyllandPosten caricatures were intended directed solely at radicals, not at islam.) Instead, you say that your view on what counts as an insult should take precedent. On the other hand, you say that the comparison with homosexuality is invalid, because YOU, again, feel that the prophet is very special, whereas the way in which a person is physically with someone of the same gender is not so special. I BEG you, for the sake of being able to have a rational conversation based on respect, to reevaluate that argument again. I know so many homosexuals who are deeply, deeply offended, and feel deeply disrespected by people who lightly proclaim their sexuality as an abomination. You say that their feeling does not count, and the only logic I'm able to find is that their feeling is not yours. Well, your feeling is not theirs, either, and if that is the state of the argument, it seems impossible to get further.
I think it is necessary to recognize that noone is in a privilged position to define what counts as respect and what counts as values or lifestyles that good manners should keep you from criticizing or making fun of. That does not mean that good manners should not keep us from unnecessary insults; only that as a society, we have to recognize that the judgments underlying those manners will vary. That is why the response to something one feels is an insult must be arguments.
You say one other thing that I find deeply troubling: "I mean if I have a knife, I have the right to use it to cut butter or kill someone with it. So why would I choose the second option while the first one is more reasonable and more humane. "
To be continued…
February 10th, 2010 at 12:29 am
When it comes to Dagbladet's publication, it is obvious that it was not intended as an insult of muslims. If you have ever read Dagbladet, their editorial line has been quite consistent in decrying islamophobia and racism. It was part of a story questioning islamophobia on the web. There was no harmful intent, there was no message blinking "Dagbladet believes that the Prophet Muhammad is a pig". Could you explain to me why, then, that is disrespectful?
The drawing itself, though, was offensive. It stems from a Russian West Bank settler belonging to the Kahane terrorist organization, which has been outlawed by the Israeli government, and which has attacked and killed Palestinians and Israelis alike.
There is a marked difference, of course, between the publication in the West Bank more than ten years ago and in Dagbladet now: And that is the intent. Void of intent, the drawing is just that: A drawing. It is not like the Nazi caricatures in the 30s, which were a call for action against Jews, and it is not like the West Bank in the 90s, where it was similarly a call for action against Palestinian Arabs.
I do understand that many muslims find particular cartoons offensive. However, what I would like, is an honest attempt to see the whole issue from Dagbladet's point of view: The publication was not intended as an insult, and not intended as a wish to say that the prophet Mohammad is a pig.
OK – this was too long already. Look forward to your response.
CS
February 10th, 2010 at 8:04 am
Here is a link that might shed some light on what Muhammed PBUH was and what others said about him..
http://www.prophetofislam.com/what_did_he_do.php
Ok let me ask you one question as a humanbeing to another humanbeing who wishes peace and understanding. What do you think would be a better option, strikes after strikes or pamphlets that explain "Who Muhammed pbuh was and is?"
February 10th, 2010 at 10:49 am
Wakas-
I definitely think the better option would be to explain who Muhammad was and is to you – the pamphlet format is somewhat outdated, but op-ed-pieces in newspapers would be good:) Furthermore, I think it would be good, if you believe that terrorists are unislamic, that you would be more active in propagating this idea – "not in my name" – so that maybe some of you opponents would change the way they think about radical islam and terrorism (i.e. that "radical islam" has little to do with what you see as islam).
However, at least for a non-muslim, it is not meaningful as a practicality to say that islamic terrorism has nothing to do with islam. When you say that "as for Jyllandsposten I wouldn't say it was targeted towards radical Islam, because there is no such thing as radical Islam, anything that goes into the extreme and ends up making Islam into a terrorist organisation is not what the religion teaches" – I think you demand to much from your non-muslim brethren. You say that from a conviction that islam is a just religion and that the prophet taught only good things. I have deep respect for that, and I admire many muslims for the way in which religion is a positive force in their lives. However, again as a human concept, it is not an objective fact what islam is or is not. It depends on those who claim to be followers. Just as the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades are part of what Christianity has led to, radical islamism is part of what islam – as an earthly concept – has contributed to. Or at least: That is my view, and that shapes how I see public debate about issues relating to islam, radical islam, the infallibility of the prophet etc. Can you understand and respect that position?
On the other hand, though, what the JP cartoons criticize is not islam as a eternal, non-earthly concept, but these particular practices, which do occur under the name of islam. It is, regrettably, a fact that a substantial number of people, not least in Pakistan, who are sympathetic to various radical groups, self-identify as muslims. For me, islam is not homogeneous, any religion consists of various movements that are what its adherents make of it. You could of course say that perfect islam is something else – but then again, everyone has their interpretation of that. What is important, is that any condemnation of radical islamism should not lead to demonization of muslims in general. There is definitely a danger of that happening, and here I think we agree about how dangerous that is. However, that is a separate question from the publication of the cartoons.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:08 am
1. Yups the "not in my name" is something I am doing in media and via sites I create. Here is one in UK http://www.islamispeace.org.uk/ and the other signature campaign up here http://www.ireallydontcareanymore.com/
2. And yups I really do understand where you are coming from when you say radical Islam exists. The term does, but the radicalism isn't appreciated by the teachings of the prophet. That's what I meant.
3. Demonization of Muslims has always been happening since the religion got its name. But what I am concerned about is the fact that our next generation of Muslims and your next generation of Christians might suffer being in a situation where they wouldn't be able to stand each other..
February 10th, 2010 at 2:30 am
(continued)
No, you do not have the right to use the knife to kill someone. Again, this equivocation between speaking and killing troubles me tremendously. You could say that insulting someone (or kutting butter) is bad, but it is not bad in the same way as killing someone. The two are just incomparable. A society where people cannot voice their disagreements through words – which will sometimes be considered hurtful or disrespectful – quickly develops into a society where people voice their disagreements through knives. I get the impression that you sort of hint at a third option, where strong value disagreements are not voiced at all, but I don't believe that to be feasible.
In conclusion, I do believe the pig drawing is offensive. I do not quite understand how the reprinting of it in this context is seen as offensive, but I respect that you feel that way. However, that feeling is not the only feeling an editor has to consider, and the fact that someone sees something as offensive is on principle and in practice a poor guide to action. For instance, conservative muslims must be allowed to voice their view on homosexuality, offensive and deeply disrespectful as I find it. Furthermore, the fact that people sometimes say things we find disrespectful, should, as far as possible, not lead us to disrespect them. For me, that is a more important test of whether we respect others.
February 10th, 2010 at 8:04 am
And as for not being in a position to state what is disrespectul or not yes I agree to that because everyone has their own viewpoints but still I would beg to differ that just being in the position of not agreeing doesn't give us as human beings to keep on doing something which causes someone pain.
As for Jyllandsposten I wouldn't say it was targeted towards radical Islam, because there is no such thing as radical Islam, anything that goes into the extreme and ends up making Islam into a terrorist organisation is not what the religion teaches.