Manal and Alaa's bit bucket free speech from the bletches

Assalamu Alaikum to my dear brothers and sisters that feel so strongly as i about our Beloved Prophet(SAAWS)

and to 'alaa, whom i am thinking is either مسيحي or يهودي (كافر)?...

oh, and this is to المسيحي, اليهودي, and كافر

as far as the cartoons go, the insulting part is merely the fact that our Prophet(saaws) was put into a drawing(which has been done by persians so i hear) then what y'all have labled as insulting add to it.

as y'all may not know, we don't like the idea of pics too much, some ppl don't believe to have pics in their homes of people b/c jinns live in the eyes in a picture, and i don't know about you, but i don't want no jinn in my house(especially my eye) they are said to do some pretty mean junk...

so anyway, pics are controversial.

making a pic of Muhammad(saaws) is even worse, b/c we were told not to do so, but i agree with the kufar on the idea that they made the cartoons, and they will have to answer to Allah for it... and it isn't like they are forcing us to look at it... and i agree that half the pics sound like some Mohammed من Persia... you don't even know they mean our Prophet(saaws)...

but anyway, the wrong action was definately taken, danish muslims should have just written letters or set up meetings with the newspaper to stop it, before it turned into world news, causing 1.5+ ppl emotional pain and later physical pain, and maybe more emotional pain(by-product of death)

i don't think we need to boycott the danish, just the newspaper, come on ppl, this IS a big deal, but it isnt Denmark's fault, it is the newspaper's fault, and nobody wants free speech to be against the law, except maybe bush, but thats another story for another time

(yes, i am اّميركي)

Allah Hafiz Mariam Abdullah

أنا لا ادعى الالمام بالسينما الامريكية ككل لكن لى تعليق مرتبط بالرسومات إذا نظرنا للسخرية من الالمان أو الروس فى الافلام الامريكيه (ولا داعى للقول إن المقارنة لاتعقل) فإذا كنت غير قادر على إحترام أدميتك فى بلدك فأنت لن لن لن تستطيع على جعل الغير أن يفعل لك ذلك. عوده الى الالمان: لم يختار الشعب الالمانى المقاطعة (وهو قادر إذ أنه يملك صناعة) لكنة إختار الاعتزاز بالنفس والعمل. لم أشاهد فى حياتى سوى فيلم وحيد ينصف الشعب الروسى (إذ أننى أهوى الافلام الامريكيه) لكننى قرأت أدب روسى واستطيع أن أوكد أن روسيا لن لن لن تقاطع لكنها ستجعل العالم المتمدن يحترمها. أما اليهود (بعد المحرقة) ولا أجادل فى العدد المحروق (بالمناسبة هوا عدد الغرقى بتوع عبارة السلام 98 كام إنسان) أقاموا دوله , عنصرية: نعم لكنها لا تقل عن عنصرية الامن المركزى فى ميدان مصطفى محمود. إستعمارية: أكيد لكن ماذا عن هوية مزارع شبعا (بجد أنا باسأل). أعزائى المقاطعيين: ندائى لكم أن تقاطعوا السلبية فى بلادكم وانا على يقين أن الاخرون سيحترموننا.

Under the pretext "freedom of press," my beloved prophet, peace be upon him, was being mocked 1,400 years after his death. What did he do wrong to be treated this way? Was it his call for humanity to worship the one God and abandon idol worshipping? Was it Islam's message that makes human beings accountable for their deeds, good or bad? Was it his call to stand for justice, compassion and equality? Freedom of press should be respected, and Muslims should be the first ones to protect and seek this right. However, freedom comes with responsibility, sensitivity and fairness. As much as you are not free to inflict physical harm on someone as a way expression, you should not inflict an emotional assault on 1.5 billion people and shield yourself behind the freedom of press. To me, Islam is the best way of life, and Muhammad is the best role model for humans. I share these feelings with 1.5 billion Muslims -- men and women, white and black, Arabs and Asians, professionals and illiterates, young and old, all over the globe. I do agree that, as was said after 9/11, Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by the terrorists. This is the feeling of the majority of Muslims. However, the war on terrorism is perceived as a war on Islam and Muslims. Islamophobia is spreading all over the Western world and hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise. Muslim masses feel that they are attacked not only by the West but also by their own pro-Western governments. At a time when Muslim detainees are stripped naked and tortured in Abu Ghraib, when Muslim women are prohibited from wearing hijabs in France, a Danish newspaper becomes the center of attention by publishing cartoons attacking the prophet of Islam. What is the cartoonists' motive? Who is benefiting from publishing them? At a time when sages across the world are desperate to build bridges of understanding, a detonator for a clash of civilizations comes from the north. Many Muslims are very emotional by nature. When they love, they would give everything, and when they hate, they turn into volcanoes of anger. Burning buildings, kidnapping people or hurting them is unacceptable under Islamic teachings. "You do not do evil to those who do evil to you, but you deal with them with forgiveness and kindness," the prophet once taught his companions. The Quran tells the prophet to "show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant." These are the teachings Muslims should follow as they express justifiable concern about the publication of the Danish cartoons. This unfortunate episode can be used as a learning opportunity for people of all faiths who sincerely want to know more about Islam and Muslims. It can also be viewed as a "teaching moment" for Muslims who want to exemplify the prophet's teachings through the example of their good character and dignified behavior in the face of provocation and abuse. As the Quran says: "It may well be that God will bring about love (and friendship) between you and those with whom you are now at odds."

The most talked about cartoon, the one picturing Mohammed with a bomb in his turban, is by a lot people(also Danes) frowned upon. Personally I don't find it degrading to Muslims, but that is related to what I see in the drawing.

As explained by Thomas, stereotypes are very common here in Denmark when it comes to satiric drawings. They are used to simplify complex situations and provoke the viewer to think and find his/her own opinion or at least remind us of how we feel. I see this very controversial drawing trying to communicate the question: "Is Islam the same as terrorism just because some fanatics blow them selves up in the name of The Great Prophet or Allah?" We in the western world is bombarded with pictures of fanatic Muslims doing all kind of crazy things in the name of Allah, I do not even know where to start, but is that the same as Islam being fundamentally evil? I and everyone I know will say no but some of us need this picture among other things to provoke and remind us of that. This might sound backwards, but this is how we sometimes debate and communicate in my country. Sometimes it requires a lot from the viewer and artists are often misinterpreted locally so of cause they are misinterpreted internationally.

I don’t know the real intension behind the drawing and it might be what we all are afraid of(hate), but remember that drawings like these are meant to be interpreted and there is rarely any singular truth in art(not that the drawing is very well made). Often the response or feeling awoken in the viewer tells more of the viewer than the art itself.

This is my opinion on this single drawing and not the whole controversy, which I find too confusing at this moment. Denmark being the root of so much evil??? Anyone who has any contact with Danes or Denmark must be asking the same question!

Hello everyone,

I was actually in Denmark when the paper came out, and I read it back then. I remember thinking, that if they wanted to help finding illustrations for that children's book (explaining the islam to children in Denmark, which in fact is contribuing to mutual understanding), why then didn't they ask for such illustrations. But everything beyond is speculation. Why don't we start to realize that we have more in common, than what seperates us. I am not saying that understanding is easy, and as a woman I can sometimes wonder about women's position in islamic countries even be offended by some of the things I see, hear and read, still I wouldn't impose my view. I may not agree, or approve of it but I respect the fact that not everyone is having it my way. To finish this off: I embrace this forum as a positive way to front the problem. I believe in the next generations and I hope we will learn from the mistakes our parents might have made.

Peace Lise

Dear Alaa, dear forum readers,

There seems to be a lot of misunderstandings on both sides of the "conflict", so i'd like to contribute to a better understanding of the western culture in relation to those caricatures:

- The history of most every western european country is strongly marked by the emancipation of the people against feudalism and monarchy _and_ against the political influence of (christian) religion, which was a pillar of the feudal and royal power and oppressiveness.

- The result is a democratic system where (among other points that don't relate that much with these caricatures) freedom, equality and secularity are key principles. Freedom includes liberty of speech and expression. Thus, the people control the state, the state is not allowed to control the people or the media.

- religion is a priori not allowed to have any direct power in this democratic structure. Besides the role played by (christian) religion before democracy could prevail, this is because

a) there had been many bloody religion wars not only outside europe, but also and expecially inside (especially between catholic and protestant christians), and that was a threat to any stability and peace. And

b) every religion has its own rules which are usually mutually exclusive and incompatible, so the only viable solution to allow for a peaceful coexistence of many religions was a completely secular state where no religion has the right to enforce its rules upon the people (especially, those who believe in another religion or no religion at all). That doesn't mean that the state is anti-religious, but it does mean that religion is considered to be a private thing that everyone is allowed to follow, but no one is allowed to force upon others. thus the rules of every religion are restricted to, at most, its own believers.

- While there is in Europe, a minority who dislikes people of other countries, religion, colour or sexual orientation, discrimination is widely frowned upon. As a matter of fact, the historical wound about the nazis deporting and killing jews, people of other religions, gay people, people of certain races, handicapped people and people who spoke up against the non-democratic nazi system led most european countries to have a system that doesn't tolerate discrimination and intolerance.

- So how come the states didn't intervene against the caricatures, then? some may ask. The thing is: a) the caricatures were much less critical or insulting than those published regularly about, say, christian religious figures and symbols (and no one protests about those). b) criticism and humour about religions explicitely falls under the liberty of free speech (remember it was criticism of religion and feudalism that allowed democracies to come up in the first place). As a matter of fact, if any christian church dared to question liberty of expression for the caricatures about christian figures and symbols (which they don't), you can be assured that there would be a democratic uproar against it. Compared to that, there's a much less severe criticism against muslim demands to restrict liberty of expression. Besides, humor and criticism, including the necessity to also be able to accept jokes and criticism about oneself, are an integral part of the european cultural identity.

- Another logical misunderstanding is when radical muslims demand excuses from the danish government. Besides the fact that all the caricatures lasting on for years about christians and jews in newspapers in arab countries make that criticism sound quite ridiculous, the thing is: what exactly did that government do that would have to be excused? here's what: it did not infringe against its own democratic rules and principles in order to apply the rules of a religion instead and restrict freedom of expression. One can hardly criticize the government for that. If they had tried, the people would rightfully have impeached that government for breaking basic rules of any secular democracy.

- So what about the newspapers then? The initial newspaper might have had some latent anti-immigrant tendencies (note that even if that was the case, it wouldn't even be about religion), but the others who reprinted the caricatures certainly did not in any way. they did it because they saw it as a necessary step to prevent a restriction of the liberty of expression and of the media. Remember: the people had to fight against one religion's influence in order to have democratic liberties. They don't want to lose that to any religion.

-Again: this is nothing anti-islamic or anti-muslim. It's just that no religion has any right to restrict democratic liberties and that the newspapers wanted to clearly draw that lign and protect their democratic rights, just as they did against the christian religion.

- So what's happenning now? Now people in Europe see that their flags and embassies are burnt and their people killed by people who do this in the name of the islam. they see that it's not just a small minority following this uproar, but real masses of people. So the image in Europe of islam and muslims is definitely suffering of this.

-It seems absolutely terrifying that a stupid caricature that depicts a relationship between islam and terrorism would seem to be confirmed by the very people who act in protest against the caricature itself (ouch!) by burning and killing innocent people who just happen to have the same nationality as some newspaper. how dumb.

-The minority far right-wing parties trying to make resentments against immigrants (and thus also against muslims) are happy to find an easy "confirmation" of their claim and are slowly gaining ground because of this shit. Similarly, the integrist islamists who want a war of cultures against the western world are gaining of this whole shit.

-Those who will suffer from all this are all the moderate and peaceful muslims who will have to more clearly show that they have nothing to do with those radical extremists which are burning and killing.

- So to sum it up: There is (still) no wide anti-islamic tendency in Europe (just a small far-right minority). People in Europe just don't want their democratic and secular order to be threatened by any religion. But with every human killed in the name of islam, every burned flag or embassy, every act of terrorism in the name of islam, the currently small percentage associating islam with these terrible acts quickly increases.

- The time has come for all moderate and peace-loving muslims to speak up, take distance from the extremists doing those violent things and make clear that islam doesn't stand for violence but for peace. That voice is clearly too weak now and the only loud voice claiming to represent islam right now in Europe is the voice of those who want to force the rules of their very own religious beliefs upon all people and upon the now secular state.

It is understandable that all longs for happiness not for suffering, in depth even the small insects. If one can't give happiness to others why think of harming others? For oneself can't bear the prick of needle, why think of chopping others head? If one cannot tolerate to see the mere cartoon image, why the Talibans destroyed Bamiyan Buddha, and many more historically! what was the re-action of world Buddhist community at that time? Nothing out of anger and hatred! because we are taught to tolerate and feel compassionate to the ignorant ones. Learn the way of tolerance and compassion, as the fire of hatred and anger will burn oneself, there is nothing to gain by following the views of radical fools.

Be a wiser being, learn to live in Peace and Harmony!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1703501,00.html

Gwladys Fouché Monday February 6, 2006

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

علي فكرة يا جماعة علاء بيقول كلمة حق يراد بها باطل هو بيتكلم عن حرية الراي في الدنمارك اللي من غير حدود طب اوكي انا معاك فعلا هما شعب ديمقراطي جدا وحرية التعبير عندة عالية لكن انا دلوقتي بتكلم عن اهانة الحكومة الدنماركية وجهتها للنبي بتاعي وبالتبعية وجهتها لكل المسلمين فاظن بالمنطق بتاعك دلوقتي انا من حقي اتظاهر واحرق علم الدنمارك واحرق الدنمارك نفسها واقاطع والعن واسبلهم الدين واسبلك الدين انت كمان لاني انا حر اعمل اللي انا عايزة وقت ما احب اعملة انا حر حرية مطلقة وهو دة اللي انت عايزة مش كدة

لا يا اسطي علاء انت فاهم الحرية غلط

وعموما احنا كسلمين وتحت اي مسمي انت تختارة هنعمل كل اللي ربنا يقدرنا علية عشان ندافع عن رسولنا وعن عقيدتنا

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

دي أول مرة أكتب فيها تعليق على البلوج دا الموضوع يهمني جدا

1. أول حاجة من الهبل الاعتقاد بأن وجود مقدسات لا يمكن الاقتراب منها يضر بحرية التعبير فالدنماركي الذر صور النبي محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يستطيع أن يصور شارون أو المحرقة
2. تاني حاجة بقا الاعتقاد السائد بأن الغرب عندهم حرية التعبير 100 في المية غير صحيح لانهم مايقدروش ييجوا جنب اليهود
3. ثالثا إننا يكون عندنا مقدسات دي مش حاجة وحشة ولا عيب ولا تدل على إننا متخلفين فالبوذيين عندهم بوذا واليهود عندهم أكم من المقدسات الباطلة اللي محدش يقدر ييجي جنبها
4. رابعا ودا الاهم أنا ضد نشر الرسوم دي وتداولها فهمها آه لكن تداولها لا لان دا هيدي الرسام أكتر من حقه في الشهرة والفلوس طبعا

وأنا بقا متشدد جدا ومتعصب وإرهابي وبدعو إلى مقاطعة جميع المنتجات الدنماركية والنرويجية والامريكية لان ببساطة وبعيدا عن صور الاساءة إلى خير البشر كفايانا بقا إتكال عليهم وإذا كانت دي إمكانياتنا نعيش على قدها ومش لازم فشخرة على الفاضي

أيوا أنا مع المقاطعة

ومع اللي بيحصل دلوقتي من غير عنف لان دا هيؤدي إلى حاجة حلوة قوي اسمها الحوار

Please, please seek to understand before you get carried away with your discussion. E3kal. Unfortunately, you misinterpret many discussions (and go in uncontrollable insult fits) because your English is WEAK.

So calm down, respect people's opinions, breathe, ok, breathe again. Now think and reply.

As Alaa told you many times, go ahead and boycott, that's your right but please relax. Using a public forums like this to insult people and their wives is unecessary. So one more time, Relax

Thank you and I hope you feel better.

ش فارقة معايا كتير نقاطع أو لا نقاطع, نشجب أو ندين, بس نفسي اعرف .. بلاش من ناحية دينية, طيب من ناحية قومية أو عروبية, بزمتكم مش حاجة تفقع البيضان إن الرسومات دي بتجمع و بتلخص القومية الشرق أوسطية كلها في نمط أو قالب واحد و أهبل:

لو شفتم الصور حتلاقوا الملابس خليط بين الزي الهندي و الافغاني و المملوكي و العثماني و شكل الرسامين متأثرين بشكل أونكل (بن لادن) بتاع ال جيمز و رسائله المصورة في قناة الجزيرة مع أونكل (أيمن الظواهري) و بتوع طالبان و الجماعة اللي بتخطف الأجانب في العراق..

لو كانوا عملوا الكاركاتيرات دي قبل أحداث سبتمبر, كنت حتلاقي يمكن الزي الخليجي من غترة و دشداشة كممثل للزي الإسلامي, زي الشخصيات العربية اللي كانوا بيطلعوها في الأفلام الامريكية في السبعينات و الثمانينات, كنت تشوف العربي لابس الغترة و العباية و نضارة سودا و بيلعب قمار في لاس فيجاس.. يعني حتى ولاد المتناكة اللي رسموا ما تعبوش نفسهم في البحث عن الشكل الذي كانت تبدو عليه الملابس في (الجزيرة العربية) قبل 1400 سنة, و ده على أساس إن الرسوم في الاصل كانت مصنوعة لتنشر في كتاب للأطفال يتحدث عن النبي محمد.. http://yakhya7a.blogspot.com/2006/02/blog-post.html

سؤال بمناسبة حرية التعبير في الدنمارك:

هل يمكن نشر هذه النكتة في يولانس بوستن؟

"ما هو الفرق بين البيتزا و اليهودي؟"

ج: البيتزا لا تصدر صوتاً حين توضع في الفرن, بينما اليهودي يصدر صوتاً عالياً داخل الفرن النازي..

بعيدا عن الشتايم و اللغه المتدنيه الي بيستخدمها البعض هنا و بيضطروا الواحد يستخدمها عشان يرد اذا كان يا علاء الرسومات مش مقصود بيها الرسول برغم انها نشرت في اطار مسابقه للرسومات الرسول ليه الحكومه الدانماركبه موضحتشي ده

مجهود جميل ياعلاء.. كتير جدا بيجعجعوا من غير ما يشوفوا الكاريكاتور .. الاخ اللي قال سبيلبرج اتحط في دماغ اليخود لانه انكر المحرقه يروح يتفرج على الفيلم الاول بعدين يتكلم ... صباح الفذلكه اللي من غير علم .. بجد نرفزتني