The original page, via this comprehensive image archive
Poor Danes. I bummed a Prince cigarette off some Norweigans (someone else’s relapse) and we laughed about the probable boycott on that Danish good. The Danes are some of the nicest and most mild-mannered people I know and it’s odd that they’re getting their embassies torched. It’s even more ironic that the pictures of Mohammed (peace be upon him) with a bomb in his turban are being protested as by, er, burning stuff, beating up Dutch journalists, and killing people. I read half of the Koran in the Dubai airport and, aside from scaring the shit out of me, I was impressed by how adequately small it made me feel. If I remember correctly, the concept of the greater Jihad (jihad al-akbar) was getting yourself in order, while the lesser Jihad dealt with other people. I’d say that those who inflict and call for violence against a nation for a set of cartoons are losing the greater Jihad to insecurity, fear, and hatred. I know quite a few people who Islam has made stronger, kinder, and wiser, but the people torching buildings just look like jobless jokers to me.
Sitting Nut brings up the broader issue of free speech, which I’m all for. Ahmadinejad of Iran sees fit to deny the reality of the Holocaust, Hamas promotes the fabricated ‘Elders of the Protocols of Zion’ and all and sundry preach hatred against Americans, but then they’re quick to anger at any perceived slight on them. I guess the work of stirring up hatred against a culture is easier than putting your head down 5 times a day and realizing that you’re really rather insignificant. My experience with faith is that its very easy to think it is something you have, rather than something that you work for every day. God is a good guy to know, but the relationship is very high-maintainence and he needs at least a phone call every day. Its easy to say your a Muslim or say you’re a Buddhist and act as if that word will somehow protect you. In fact, it becomes a part of your identity like Sri Lankan or Arab and you start to lose sight of the moment, where God lives. Faith is not a settled fact and it’s not a product you can keep or print. It’s a practice and anyone actually practicing is liable to be humble because the act is so god damn hard.
I think that the hard work of faith is not defending the symbols and icons of your belief, which is important house-keeping, but actually getting your heart right with God. Loving and fearing God is a full-time job last I remember, with precious little time for acting like a savage and trashing buildings. Muslims, especially, have a responsibility for Faith, Prayer, Charity, Fasting and Pilgrimage which should really take up most of your time if you’re doing it right.
Jihad Al-Akbar is the noble and honorable drive to know the oneness of God and the humility of yourself, and I think it’s great. There are lesser Jihad’s like Jihad of the tongue (speech, writing) and finally Jihad of the hand, but I think the people causing and inciting violence have the order all backwards. I mean, I’m no scholar, but shouldn’t you have your house right before you go burning down other peoples? Have Syria and Afghanistan addressed the corruption and suffering in their midst, or are they just taking the easy way out and unleashing hatred by their hands and calling it Jihad? I don’t advocate violence for any reason, but I think there is at least an order to things
Al-Hajj Talib ‘Abdur-Rashid, imam of the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood in Harlem, NY, defines three levels of jihad — personal, verbal and physical. Considering each in turn:
Personal Jihad: This is the most important form. This type of jihad, called the Jihadun-Nafs, is the intimate struggle to purify one’s soul of evil influences — both subtle and overt. It is the struggle to cleanse one’s spirit of sin. Putting “Allah ahead of our loved ones, our wealth, our worldly ambitions and our own lives.” Resisting pressure of parents, peers and society; strive against “the rejecters of faith…” (Qur’an 25:52) “…strive and struggle to live as true Muslims…” “Striving for righteous deeds.”Spreading the message of Islam. “The (true) believers are only those who believe in Allah and his messenger and afterward doubt not, but strive with their wealth and their selves for the cause of Allah. Such are the truthful.” (Qur’an, 49:15)
Verbal Jihad: To strive for justice through words and non-violent actions. Muhammad encouraged Muslims to demand justice in the name of Allah. When asked: “‘What kind of jihad is better?’ Muhammad replied, ‘A word of truth in front of an oppressive ruler(Nisai). According to M. Amir Ali, Jihad explained
The life of the Prophet Muhammad was full of striving to gain the freedom to inform and convey the message of Islam. During his stay in Makkah [Mecca] he used non-violent methods and after the establishment of his government in Madinah [Medina], by the permission of Allah, he used armed struggle against his enemies whenever he found it inevitable.
Physical Jihad: This relates to the use of physical force in defense of Muslims against oppression and transgression by the enemies of Allah, Islam and Muslims. Allah commands that Muslims lead peaceful lives and not transgress against anyone. If they are persecuted and oppressed, the Qur’an recommends that they migrate to a more peaceful and tolerant land: “Lo! Those who believe, and those who emigrate (to escape persecution) and strive (Jahadu) in the way of Allah, these have hope of Allah’s mercy…” (Qur’an, 2:218). If relocation is not possible, then Allah also requires Muslims to defend themselves against oppression by “fighting against those who fight against us.” 2 The Qur’an states: “To those against whom war is made, permission is given [to defend themselves], because they are wronged – and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory.” (22:39) – via Wikipedia
You have to question whether you’re acting out of faith and righteousness or fear, insecurity and wounded pride. What face are you showing the world? That of a petulant child, or of someone mature and strong in their hard-earned faith, confronting a wrong? A child will react with violence and tantrums, and it is childlike to burn those embassies and lash out at the Danish people. Someone who has fought the Greater Jihad would be more secure in themselves, and able to show personal strength, restraint, and wisdom in their words. Any chimpanzee or soccer hooligan can trash property if you threaten their space, but I believe that Islam is something much higher.
In fact, the first pillar of Islam is the profession of faith and the acknowledgement of Allah and Mohammed as his messenger. Now, protestors say it is wrong for Dutch cartoonists to portray Mohammed as inciting violence, and then they go and do violence in his name. Which faith are they professing? Those who profess and incite hatred and violence against Jews, Europeans or anyone are hypocrites and idolators and are not people of true, deep and hard-earned faith. They act as if all the fire and brimstone in this world could somehow cover the emptiness and insecurity inside when, in fact, they are losing the Greater Jihad against themselves.
it must be said, the one about heaven running out of virgins is quite amusing.
according to an article in NYT today ,the riots are well organized by the governments ,it seems.
The decision was taken in a meeting in December .
it’s very 1984, like Hate Week before you go back to the surveillance and oppression
I’m all for freedom of speech and it’s true that violence is never the answer, but even if people do have freedom of speech it’s important for everyone to be sensitive to other people’s beliefs at the same time. People need to have respect for other religions and cultures even if they don’t agree wth them. You’re absolutely right in that the Muslim fanatics who lash out at the Danish people and wreck havok are acting immature and going against their religious teachings and that’s not right. When someone publishes a cartoon or writes an article making fun of someone elses religion, some people are going to upset and verbally or physically express it and it’s human nature to want to defend your belief when someone makes fun of it or otherwise attacks it. Although most people don’t go to the extent of physically attacking another country to get revenge.
With rights, such as freedom of speech and expression, comes responsibility and it must have been clear that publishing these cartoons this would incite some sort of (violent) response, let alone alot of hurt and disrespect. Having said that the response from some elements has been so extreme and disgusting it makes me feel like apologising to people for the rest of my ‘brothers’.
I think the West is still surprised by the strength of feeling that religious faith has in other parts of the world. I take my faith seriously and that should be enough reason not to shit on someone else’s.
I am glad you made the distinctions between the different types of jihad indi – its sad that not that many muslims understand it as well as you do.
right of freedom of expression is unconditional and universal
ppl have a right to express their views regardless of their effect on others for the simple reasons that
1) not expressing the views may also have a effect,
2) not giving expression may be hurtful to one’s own self.
3) effect of any expression of views cannot be predicted in advance with any certainty
4) ppl have no obligation to go out of the way to protect others
talking about responsibility is out of place and ppl who talk so should first unreservedly condemn the violence.
Sittingnut what you have said is true the right to free speech is inalienable and universal, but whether one should exercise that right is an altogether different matter. The world is too small to allow ignorance to be the defence for free speech for it demeans the whole concept of it. What the Danish newspapers and those who reprinted them did was ignorant and displayed a crass lack of sensitivity and thus respect for another human beings belief system, should they have the right to say those things, should people have the right to verbally trample on anothers life, you’d probably say yes but then it’s easy to do when you’re not on the receiving end.
You say “not giving expression may be hurtful to one’s own self” sure that may be so but is it so damn hard to survive if you do not call a person of African descent (non Arab) a nigger? Is it physically or emotionally painful to surpress jokes about holocaust victims… will you suffer years of intensive therapy because of it? I thought not, why because you are NOT an ignorant jackass. The way I see it a verbal attack is as bad a physical attack and since most verbal attacks are born out ignorance the right to be hurtful belittles the entire concept of free speech and free expression.
Your third point is no longer valid as information is too readily available not to have a firm idea about consequences. Public broadcasts denying the holocaust, advocating racial segregation or talking of stripping women of the right to choose is guaranteed to yield a backlash as is an attack on religious beliefs. You have the right to say it but to deny not expecting consequences is laughable and frankly a tad stupid.
Your fourth point is just plain wrong, people DO have an obligation to protect those who cannot protect themselves, why do you think there was that massive reponse to the tsunami or the Pakistan earthquake. The obligation to defend and protect a sibling or your child is exactly the same as your obligation to help the helpless, it is what makes us human after all. If people didn’t feel obligated there wouldn’t have been a Nelson Mandela, Mahtma Gandhi, Rosa Parks or the entire civil rights movement.
So while you have the “right” to say anything and everything, the responsibility in choosing when to exercise that right still lands squarely on the individual and this is where you can make a choice not to because the negatives far outweigh the positives.
The physical violent backlash from the extremist community for the cartoons unfortunately reinforces sterotypes of Muslims and it should be condemened in the strongest possible terms but they have the right to protest and in defence of their freedom to express themselves they even have the right to call for the deaths of Danes. Whether they should call for the deaths of all Danish people knowing that their WILL be hardliners who will be more that happy to carry it out, well that’s where the responsibility kicks in. Think about it.
I agree with Tariq’s points on personal responsibility (tho I think that’s different from rule of law), however, on this point..
I think the Danish cartoons are actually very important artistically, and they were not published with the intent of attacking Islam. A writer had been unable to find anyone to illustrate a children’s book involving Mohammed, so the paper decided to explore how Danish cartoonists would portray him. Some of the cartoonists are actually in the images. They were exploring Islam as it is perceived today and, unfortunately, one of those perceptions is that Islam is strongly associated with terrorism. As hurtful as that is to moderate Muslims, that perception is very strong and I think an artist is being neglectful if they don’t portray it.
These artists didn’t manufacture that image, it is something that is present in Western culture which they simply represented, as is the duty of the artist. They also did it in a responsible context, with multiple representations and discussion. So, I don’t think the portrayal is ignorant. What people are mad about is that the West actually does think Islam is associated with terrorism. That is the cultural reality, and that pisses the Arab World off. Ironically, so much that they get violent.
We can pretend that the reality doesn’t exist, fight wars, Jihad of the hand, etc. On the other hand, we can allow our artists to explore our culture freely and allow these issues to be discussed and worked out through free and open speech. That is, in fact, the precise value of Free Speech, that it lets us fight our Jihads through words rather than violence. Reality is a bitch, but if we don’t allow our artists to explore it without restriction we are doomed to ignorance, violence and tyranny. It is precisely the most hurtful parts of culture that we need artists to explore so we can develop the language and frames to deal with them in a mature way. That is why free speech is so vital, especially when it hurts.
I dont think it was the portrayal of Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist that was so much the problem but the portrayal of him at all. Any depiction of the Prophet or Allah is strictly forbidden in Islam. And there are reasons for this. Valid reasons. Probably why no one would illustrate that children’s book.
I am not denying that there are hardline extremists in Islam. Terrorism within Islam IS an issue – to deny or ignore it would be just silly. It should definitely be discussed openly even if it may be hard for some. The association of Islam with terrorism is not something a Western journalist made up. In fact, i would argue that it is used by extremist fanatics themselves to recruit and indoctrinate many. If Islam is being proactively used to promote terrorism, the Muslim community should be the first to condemn this.
Any religion should be able to withstand questioning and critisism. This can be done with sensitivity or without. As Tariq says, thats an individual responsibility. During his lifetime, i am sure the Prophet faced much more threat and critisism than a cartoon caricature.
Its the physical depiction of the Prophet that i find insensitive and yes, ignorant. Just as i found the movie poster of a boy squatting on Lord Buddha’s head insensitive and ignorant. Or the pictures of a pot smoking Lord Ganesh on t-shirt worn by some skater kid insensitive and ignorant. I would say a Virgin Mary snowglobe may be pushing it…but you can buy one at the Vatican so who am i to argue?
I wonder why the retaliation to this cartoon was not spontaneous??!! It took a few days to react….I wonder why?? An older a culture is more tolarent it is i guess….thats why we did not witness any buddhists thrashing american embassies after Buddha bikines came out last year , or any Hindus thrashing some company or other after Shiva sandles …
you have a point….but iconography is part of Buddhism and Hinduism and so perhaps less of shock?