Monday, 18 February 2008

Except the Prophet

Many of us decent peaceful Muslims stood against the crimes committed by some so called extremists Muslims, I myself do not consider a person that blows up a train or bus and kill many innocent people as a Muslim, they are plain murderers, yet as a Muslim I have been offended in the name of so called freedom of press, freedom of choice or whatever other name it is called, 2 years ago, many Danish newspapers published offensive pictures of the prophet Mohammad (PBUH) which they knew would offend all Muslims, whether extremists or moderate and even if we accept the fact that they didn’t know it was going to upset Muslims all over the world, well they soon found out and their action caused a lot of violence and deaths around the world.
Few days ago most Danish major newspapers decided to publish the offensive pictures again, what message is this giving us? As a law abiding decent Muslim living in the west, this is telling me that "we are not going to respect your most respected and admired person (the prophet) so do not except anything else from us" is this right? Is this really freedom of speech? I am with freedom of speech but does that give me the right to insult and offend any group of people? Do I have the right to offend people because of their religion, colour or sex? There is a limit to what we can express, if it is offensive then decency and common sense should be used.
As a Muslim living in the west, I have never harmed anyone in the name of my religion, I have never supported any violence in the name of my religion, yet almost on daily bases I am seeing hostility against Muslims increasing, I am hearing and seeing programs on the radio and TV where they do not have anything to talk about except attacking Muslims and then saying I have nothing against THOSE PEOPLE! we are becoming known as those people!!, many people are so ignorant they think that Muslims have only arrived in the west recently and think of us as terrorists, violent people that are bringing up suicide bombers into the world.
Britain has been decent enough so far by not allowing these offensive images to be published but how long is that going to last?
Yesterday I found out that Wikipedia published the offensive pictures and even though many complained and asked for them to be removed, Wikipedia refused to do so.
A petition was created to protest about Wikipedia’s decision, their goal was to collect 10,000 signatures, so far they have 219,077 signatures and rising, you can sign the petition Here, yet still Wikipedia is saying it is freedom of press or whatever! I mean I am sure they have a page about Paedophilia; does that mean they have the right to show pictures of children being abused by adults or pictures of women being raped? Because that is what they are telling us. Offensive pictures are the same, it does not matter what the contents are. There is another petition there for people that want to keep the offensive pictures, their goal is 100,000 signatures, so far they have 1321 and hardly rising!
All I can say is that I will continue to be a decent peaceful Muslim and hope all Muslims continue to be the same and ignore these ignorant trouble provoking people that continue to offend us.
God bless all peaceful decent Muslims everywhere and our prophet's (PBUH) place in our hearts will never be affected.


I myself could not bring myself to look at what pictures Wikipedia published of the prophet Mohammad as I was wrongly told that they published the offensive pictures but after reading Khadijateri's comment I found out that they were not the offensive pictures but old paintings depection the prophet, of course Islam does not allow us to show any pictures of any prophets, which seems to be the issue here. I feel it is a personal choice if you agree with Wikipedia publishing these images or not but as sister Khadija mentined, these are not the offensive pictures which some European newspapers keep publishing.


khadijateri said...

The picture that Wikipedia has on the page about the Prophet Mohamed is NOT the pictures that were in the dispute in Denmark - it is a picture showing a man with a halo or something radiating from around his head. It is a picture typical of religious paintings. The picture is not vulgar, insulting or distasteful.

Personally, I think that only a moron would look at a picture and say that is what Mohamed looked like. Everyone with more than two brain cells knows that no one knows what he really looked like. We all imagine him in our own way.

Anglo-Libyan said...

thank you sister Khadija for clarfying this.
I was wrongly told it was the offensive pictures, that is why I did not look.

ibeebarbie said...

Salam Anglo-Libyan,
Certainly ignorance breeds stupidity. Moreover, what people fear and choose not to explore in fact finding explorations causes generations after generations to continue to be ignorant. Think of the damage our tongues create on a daily basis. A TONGUE! Such a small little member within our mouths and yet it’s one of the most destructive devices we have to create such disharmony and pain. Of course, the opposite is true as well. Our tongues can be used as a positive source; however, it’s a continual conscious effort by the user.

The freedom of the press as you shared is truly a two-edged sword and one that requires careful usage. It seems no matter what someone is not going to be happy with the outcome of the “print”. However, it seems rare to find “positive” articles, publishing, or news stories that have great or happy endings. It seems at least what I’ve studied that people tend to feed of f the negative rather than the positive, so the powers to be in media know this and feed into it. They know people would tire of hearing positive stories all of them time-----I know it’s hard to believe but their studies have proven it. It seems maybe the old adage “misery loves company” is more fitting or perhaps that negative stories remind others how their situation is not so bad after all. It’s rather unfortunate but seemingly true.

Perhaps this is the reason I don't read the news, I don't watch the news, and go out of my way to disassociate myself with it. Of course, one can't truly do that, but I know for me my life seems to be a lot more smoother without all of the negativity that floats through the news.

Suliman said...


Brother Anglo: Is it safe to say you signed the petition without reading it and verifying the basis of its objection? Or did you not sign it, but were just hoping that others will? I wonder how many of the 200 thousand who signed it actually know what they signed.

I followed the link you provided and here is the opening statement of the short and poorly written petition:

"In Islam picture of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and other Humans are not allowed."

So, pictures of all humans are not allowed now? Then maybe the 200 thousand signatories ought to direct their petition to all media outlets in the Muslim world? You know, using the charity starts at home principle... Is it any wonder that Wikipedia ignores such nonsense? Would you take seriously anyone telling you that Human pictures are a nono? Apparently, the answer is yes for some 200K and rising!

Also, Brother Anglo: As I heard the news, the republication of the 12 Danish cartoons did not happen out of the blue. It was a reaction to a reported conspiracy by some Muslims in Denmark to assassinate one of the cartoonists. In the original cartoon fiasco, even some papers in Islamic countries republished the cartoons, e.g. in Yemen, Algeria, and apparently even one paper in Saudi Arabia got in hot water for it. So why pick on Wiki?

Sister Therese:

The Muhammed page cited in the petition does not display the Danish cartoons, as you said, but it does display three illustrations of Prophet Mohammed--all from Islamic sources, mind you. On other pages Wikipedia does display lots of illustrations including a composite of the 12 Danish cartoons. I understood the petition to be rallying all morons and non-morons behind the removal of all illustrations on Wikipedia. And indirectly, I suppose, the 200K people who signed would be happier if Wiki just did away with pictures of Humans altogether! Damn, what would happen to internet use in Islamic countries if the net had no "human pics" for their entertainment? Just a rhetorical question--please, no reference to animals!

Here is what I think of this type of petition: It is a complete waste of time. No one in their right mind is going to take this kind of effort seriously. It achieves nothing more than exposing the mentality behind it, which in my opinion discredits Muslims and does not promote any positive cause. The Muslims who live in the West might have a chance of influencing their governments and world opinion, but only by working within the means guaranteed by the secular constitutions and systems of governance. On the other hand, Muslims who live in Islamic countries like Libya and Egypt, etc., whether they sign these petitions anonymously or with as much theatrics and fanfare as they like, I'm afraid, no one will or should ever take them seriously. If these people want to be taken seriously, they need to show similar commitment to their "causes" at home. As everyone knows, Muslims are treated like sheep by their leaders, not only in matters of wealth and governance, but in the very matter of religion. How many Libyans objected when Gaddafi discarded parts of the Quran while leading Eid prayer live on national TV? Zilch, that's how many. When the fanatics scream, "I will sacrifice my father and mother for you, O'Beloved of Allah!" the world says, "Sure, buddy, you'll sacrifice others to keep your dictators happy. You do it all the time." Does anyone doubt that these campaigns are driven by the very dictators seeking immunity from public criticism? The case of Fathi el-Jahmi illustrates this point quite clearly, I think. When the Muslims stand up for each other at home, then the world might start to take them seriously.

Al Hazeena said...

I´m in the middle of that second cartoon crisis and I am so TIRED of stupid newspaper editors trying to make a political statement against the Muslim minority (because the cartoon crisis in Denmark is NOT about religion at all).

It´s a political statement showing off the power of the majority towards the Muslim minority.
It´s plain islamophobia.

Personally, any stupid cartoons of our beloved prophet Muhammed (saas) is of absolute no concern to me; after all, a doctor working on the funny farm does not bother himself with what the patients are saying all the time about him.

Why people here in Denmark find it so important to slap other people in their faces because "we can do it" and then call it freedom of speech is a mystery to me. Why would anybody insult someone if not because they don´t like them and have a superior power?
It´s political power abuse, nothing else and it doesn´t work on me.

All their "freedom of speech" hate cartoons does not move anything in me; I still love the Prophet (saas) and if anything I probably love him even more now.

Thank you, haters!

a_akak said...

Freedom of speech? where in the west? that’s only a joke, as if there was really freedom of speech, then anyone can write about the truth of the "so called holocaust" and how much the Jew’s extravagated it

The pictures, I agree with anglo, they are showing us "look what we will do" and I think these cases will increase ... where we stand during the next couple of years will be decisive

Fe Aman Allah

Maya M said...

I think that the right to offend is the core of freedom of speech and so I completely disagree with Anglo-Libyan (and also with the gag culture of political correctness that is now engulfing the West).
It is natural for religious people to be offended by some things said about their religion by people of other religions or non-believers. We non-believers are also offended by some things said about us by some believers. This doesn't mean that somebody has to shut up. If we follow this line, at the end weather will remain the only safe subject, we'll all look at cloud photos and be happy, maybe.
Suliman is right to point that the new cartoon publications didn't come out of the blue. I want to remind that the original cartoons also didn't come out of the blue. They were created after illustrators declined an offer to illustrate a book about the Prophet. They were an attempt to reclaim the free speech of Europe lost after Theo van Gogh's murder.
Quite a few European Muslims have a mentality illustrated by Al Hazeena above. They come to (say) Denmark but don't like Denmark. They not only love their Prophet but want to force their love down the local majority's throat and are sincerely shocked when some locals (surprise, surprise) in response "slap them in the face".
If you go to another country without loving this country and accepting the values of its culture, and if you stick to the (uncompatible) values of your country of origin and try to force them on locals, how is this called? Colonization. Why are native Europeans expected to like being colonized?
Finally, I don't challenge the right of Muslims to respect and love their Prophet, but I think that other people could be excused for not doing so. Sandmonkey's 10 Mar 2006 post touches what I mean:

al-Hazeena said...

Maya you are so wrong; this is not about loving Denmark or not (and I do love Denmark, otherwise I wouldn´t be there) but Denmark is NOT Stalin´s SOvietunion; you are allowed to be a citizen in this country and still disagree with some of its "culture".
After all, every citizen has the obligation as well as the right to help change the country into the direction most fit. You call that democracy.
Culture is no static; it changes, it moves and it lives with its people.

But there is no need to slap peoples faces because "I can do it". As a Muslim I would never dishonor Christian or Jewish beliefs just because I want to "teach them" freedom of speech.

There is no need to harass peoples religious feelings to proove a point.

Who´s next to be slapped for the sake of freedom of speech? Should we mock disabled people? Old people? Jews?
What kind of society is this where everybody dizzes everybody to show force?

But of course, I don´t expect you to get my point.

UT said...

Hi Anglo !
Good topic as always.

Whatever happened to the word PEACE ??? duh?

I am no hippie lol....but do believe in letting each individual express as she/he desires without being affected. And why not I ask ???

True power of speech and democracy does exist in the US so long as certain topics are left untouched... Still one can and does speak out. In the Arab world this is unheard of, and something we miss.

MusicLover said...

Free Speech and Radical Islam

No access just google it, interesting article

Maya M said...

Musiclover, thank you for the direction to Rose's article.
Um Hazeena, I just cannot get how you claim that people "can" do something after those who do it then have to be put under police protection because "disagreeing" "citizens" otherwise would assassinate them.

Benghazi Citizen said... usual u made a good arguement..
It's strange the number of crimes in the name of the freedom of speech..
I am a peacful muslim my self..I believe in sharing the world with all other people..I definitly hate to be referred at as (These people) and i definitly don't support blowing up innocent people..
When IRA was blowing things up in Great Britain,no body accuses the Irish people of supporting terrorism or being terrorists.. Only IRA was blamed..
I here have to say that i wander :There are laws in some western countries that forbid discussing the Holocaust.. And before any body makes any unnecessary remarks ,i'm not doubting this horrible events..I only wander why does freedom of the speech has limits here that enforced by law???
Benghazi Citizen

Maya M said...

I have the impression that while IRA was active, many English people accused large groups of Irish people of supporting terrorism, and the rest of the world just didn't care because IRA didn't export much of its terror.
However, I am not well informed in these affairs, so I may be wrong here. Also, I do not know how many of Northern Ireland Catholics, and of citizens of Ireland, actually supported the IRA.
I am also against the laws criminalizing Holocaust denial in some countries.

Maya M said...

It just occurred to me that I, mentioning that I am for the "right" to deny the Holocaust, didn't bother to disclaim that I, personally, do not deny (or approve) the Holocaust.
At the same time, Benghazi Citizen found it necessary to include such a disclaimer. Because he, unlike me, is Arab and Muslim.
I find this quite sad.

سقير السلام said...

إلا رسول الله
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
قل أبالله وءاياته ورسله كنتم تستهزءون
صدق الله العظيم

حنان شلبي said...

السلام عليكم
صراحة هذه قد تكون المرة العاشرة التي اقتح بها هذا الموضوع ولا اقوم بالتعليق او نشر اي راي لي فيه
ربما لاني لا اشعر ان للموضوع اساءة لرسولنا بكل بساطة لانه ترفع عن مثل هذه التفاهات والادعاءات التي قد قام برسمها المدعو كورتفيسترغوورد
من هو هذا الكائن كان من يكون ليشوه او حتى ليسيء ولو بالقول لرسولنا الكريم

يا اخواني هذا رجل مدعي كافر لا يستحق حتى الرد عليه

تعودت الرد قائلة على اي استفسار لا يعجبني بمقولة: سؤال الاحمق السكوت جوابه

ولست ادعوكم للصمت لا بالعكس فكل ما قد نقوم به من مقاطعة وشجب واعتراض هو بحد ذاته نوع من انواع الحصار على اعداء الاسلام وكذلك هو تحفيز لدولنا العربية المسلمة للانتاج ودعوة للصحوة والنهوض من السبات الذي حل بنا من عهود.

فليس من شيء ولا من شخص ولا من اي قوة على وجه الارض وخارجها بقادرة على تشويه او ايذاء من حمى الله و وان كانت نملة في باطن الارض فكيف برسولنا الكريم صلى الله عليه وسلم؟؟؟؟

مع تحياتي
حنان شلبي

LoveLyH said...

أتفق مع اختي حنان شلبي

كل مره يطلع موضوع يقولوا ان في رسوم مسيئة للرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام وللأسف الناس يتحركوا بكل قوتهم والي يصيح والي يطلع مظاهرة والي والي ...وياريتهم شافوا الصورة أو شافوا الصحيفة ..المشكلة تدفعهم عواطفهم بقوة وياريته في كل المواضيع الساخنه الي تصير في العالم ضد المسلمين في حاجات دون حاجات بس يالله الله غالب

أني نبي نقول حاجة للناس الي تطلع في مظاهرات وتندد وتصيح ..إنتم بهالطريقة تعطوا لصاحب الرسوم وللصحيفة أهمية وشهرة كبيرة فوق الي تستحقه يعني لو كنتم سكتوا وطنشتوا كانوا مش حايلقوا منو يشري جريدتهم او يتصفحها حتي ..!؟

بس الي اديروا فيه يعطي في نتائج سعيده للناس الي تحارب في الإسلام...

أيام حياة الرسول عليه الصلاة والسلام ياما حاول الكفار يشوهوا سمعت سيدنا محمد وكان يقابل فيهم بالصبر والصمت وعارف إن الله حاياخدله حقه علي قد صمته وصبره....ليش إحني مانتعلموش نكونوا صبوريين زي سيدنا محمد ليش مانتعلموش نكتم غضبنا زي كان عليه الصلاة والسلام يدير للكفار الي يحدفوا فيه بالحجر والي يستهزوؤا عليه والي يحاربوا فيه...........!؟

حرية الصحافة تسمح للأي كافر إن يتعدي علي ديانة المسلمين وحقوق الصحافة تمنع المسلمين إنهم يتكلموا علي إسرائيل و يتعدوا عليها...
أني ليا صديق أمريكي مسلم عايش في أمريكا قالي مجرد فتح صحيفة إسلاميه في أمريكا أطلب منه سنة ومعاها لأن أول جردية كانت مجانية تتكلم علي اليهود ووقتلهم للمسلمين في فلسطين و لبنان قالي تعرضنا للمحاربة و من فترة سنة تقريبا قدروا يفتتحوا مكتب للجريدة وقدروا يتكلموا عن المسلمين .....

يخيلي أن اكثر دولة تحترم تعدد الديانات هي بريطانيا وتحترم ديانة الجاليات المقيمه فيها ...ولو إنهم مايعرفوش يردوا الخير بالخير ...بس الله غالب هذا حال المسلمين

علي فكرة المسلميين المتشديين هما الي عطوا لهؤلاء الصحفيين الجرأة إنهم يتمادوا ويتعدوا علي رموزنا الدينية ...بطرقهم في التوجيه للجهاد وللحرب وللتقتيل وطريقتهم في عدم إحترام زوجاتهم وسوء معاملتهم...

يعني هما يرسموا في صورة مسيئة عن المسلمين بإختلاق شكل او تصور لسينا محمد صلي الله عليه وسلم ...ومهما حاولوا فالله أقوي و أكبر من أن يحاولوا المساس به وبأنبيائه الشرفاء


Anglo-Libyan said...

thank you all

BuJ said...

hello AL.. difficult topic but excellent post!

i personally think these things should be banned coz it's purely offensive by all muslims.. bring me 10 muslims who agree that publishing pics DEPICTING the prophet (PBUH) and i'll publish it.

surely if you're not allowed to be racist, sexist, etc in today's world.. then you shouldn't be allowed to offend people's religions.

Maya M said...

But it isn't accepted by everybody that people shouldn't be allowed to be racist, sexist etc. This is what I call the gag culture of political correctness. I agree that, if we ban anything and everything that could possibly offend anybody, then pictures of the Prophet (even if not offensive) should be banned, too. However, all these things are STILL open for discussion. I have lived without freedom of speech and didn't enjoy it at all.
I don't know how I would feel if I were a Muslim, but I think Westerners are idiots for allowing freedom of speech to be killed, and for not realizing that freedom of speech is essentially the freedom to offend.
(BTW I know a blogger with a mentally retarded child who accuses in bigotry everybody who uses the word "idiot", though he admits he also used to use it. See where we are heading?)

Anonymous said...

I like what you guys are usually up too. Such
clever work and reporting! Keep up the good works guys I've added you guys to my blogroll.

My blog post :: florida vacation packages

Anonymous said...

I think that is one of the such a lot significant info for me.
And i'm satisfied studying your article. However want to commentary on some general issues, The website style is perfect, the articles is actually great : D. Excellent process, cheers

Feel free to visit my blog ...

Anonymous said...

As the admin of this web site is working,
no question very shortly it will be famous, due to its feature contents.

Also visit my blog;

Anonymous said...

It's going to be end of mine day, except before finish I am reading this fantastic post to improve my know-how.

Have a look at my website: exercises to improve vertical leap

方松腾 said...

soccer jerseys,cheap soccer jerseys,cheap soccer jerseys for sale,soccer jersey,usa soccer jersey,football jerseys
lebron 12
tiffany and co
ralph lauren polo
oakley outlet online
coach outlet online
basketball shoes
snow boots outlet
air jordan 13 free shipping
tory burch outlet
ugg boots
chanel handbags
uggs outlet
michael kors usa
canada goose sale
replica watches
michael kors uk outlet
canada goose outlet
futbol baratas
michael kors uk outlet