Cartoons and Freedom of Expression
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
The Western press can't seem to get it thru their heads that those people aren't Western. They don't give a damn about freedom of speech when it comes to their religion. So if the press continues publishing those type pictures and people get killed they have no one to blame but themselves.
Whether it's right or wrong the fact is Muslims will kill for defaming the Prophet I don't see how its worth people dying so the Western press can have their precious freedom of speech the least they could do is recognize the cartoons are offensive to Muslims and print something else.
Greed said:
This is the problem with White supremacy that many Blacks who agree with it fail to realize...it gives you a false sense of what's "right" and what's "wrong".
The previous poster is dead on when he emphasizes that the people up in arms aren't Western so freedom of speech is about as important to them as visiting Mecca once before your lifetime is over is to many Westerners....
Westerners are trying their best to impose their will, based on Judeo-Christian values, on people who have historically been at odds with these values...and when a problem arises then it's the Muslim who is crazy.
There are times when you may have to take your shoes off before entering someone's house, while right across the street you may be able to track mud across the floor upon entering....
One may think it's stupid to have to take off your shoes all the time, another may think it stupid to let people dirty your rug....
Who's right and who's wrong in this situation?
Wouldn't it be better to just respect the particular situation?
Easy answer. The one who kills you because they don't like what you say. I find it incredible that anyone who values freedom would advocate kowtowing to any potential oppressor. I'm not saying it was a good thing to grill anyone, but if you are not keeping them from doing anything, why should they keep you from doing anything.Jim_Browski said:
This issue is not as simple as people make it out to be. Freedom of Expression is a myth. Here in America or anywhere else true freedom of expression does not exist. No matter what the expression in America you have time place and manner restrictions. I can buy dvd porn but if porn is on ABC at 8pm it is illegal. I can spout anti-muslim rhetoric all I want but if I go in a mosque with a "I hate Islam" t-shirt on I might get arrested for inciting a riot. Freedom of expression is very limited in America because we do not want to infringe on the rights of others. We also do not want to create dangerous situations that is why you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.
In this situation had the cartoons been published in a way that it was marketed to people with that agenda then it would not be a problem. For instance stormfront spouts racist ideology everyday but we would not expect to see nigga cartoons in the N.Y. times. Why? It would be reckless for the N.Y. times to do that because we know what type of reaction they would get. Just like janet jacksons titty at the superbowl the placing of those cartoons in the manner presented was inappropriate (not that janet jacksons titty could ever be inappropriate but you get the idea).
So this is not a simple case of freedom vs. fascism. This is an example when freedom of expression comes up against public policy concerns of indecency and public safety. None of our freedoms are absolute so it is sort of childish for us to look at this situation as if it is an attack on freedom.
In this situation had the cartoons been published in a way that it was marketed to people with that agenda then it would not be a problem. For instance stormfront spouts racist ideology everyday but we would not expect to see nigga cartoons in the N.Y. times. Why? It would be reckless for the N.Y. times to do that because we know what type of reaction they would get. Just like janet jacksons titty at the superbowl the placing of those cartoons in the manner presented was inappropriate (not that janet jacksons titty could ever be inappropriate but you get the idea).
So this is not a simple case of freedom vs. fascism. This is an example when freedom of expression comes up against public policy concerns of indecency and public safety. None of our freedoms are absolute so it is sort of childish for us to look at this situation as if it is an attack on freedom.
If those cartoons were about freedom of speech there wouldn't be such an outcry in the Muslim community, this is an attack on their religion no matter what the press says, if our country doesn't condemn this attack then the liberate Iraq campaign is bullshit because this war isn't about liberating them it's about converting them.
Not sure about the rest of you guys, but I personally have never seen a cartoon jump out of a page and started burning down buildings and embassies.
This was an interesting insight you gave. So lets say I agree with you and the newspaper has apologized about it. The responsible people have apologized for it. What else you think they need to do now about it.
The US and other Wester countries did not have anything to do with the cartoons so how much free voilence pass you think they should have for the indescresion of a few.
What about the hypocrasy of requesting Christian blasphemy cartoons?
Fucks the hypocratic Muslim bastards. So the beheading of people is ok. But cartoons of the prophet is the worse. Putting out reward for murdering people is ok but cartoons of prophet is the worse.
They always talking about the West imposing their values. What do they think the Muslims been doing in the West all these years they have been in the West. Everyone push their agenda. Thats how humans are.
The US and other Wester countries did not have anything to do with the cartoons so how much free voilence pass you think they should have for the indescresion of a few.
What about the hypocrasy of requesting Christian blasphemy cartoons?
Fucks the hypocratic Muslim bastards. So the beheading of people is ok. But cartoons of the prophet is the worse. Putting out reward for murdering people is ok but cartoons of prophet is the worse.
They always talking about the West imposing their values. What do they think the Muslims been doing in the West all these years they have been in the West. Everyone push their agenda. Thats how humans are.
Temujin said:
Political cartoons are part of the Western establishment arsenal, they are used to start wars and stop social movements if cartoons are harmless why did Blacks get so upset about the ones Mexican newspapers ran dipicting us as monkeys? Why..because they were personal attacks on our dignity.
[frame]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=Y2W2DP1OQVBVVQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/02/19/ixnewstop.html[/frame]kjxxxx said:
[hide]Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK
By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite
(Filed: 19/02/2006)
Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.
The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity.
Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain.
The results of the poll, conducted for the Sunday Telegraph, came as thousands of Muslims staged a fresh protest in London yesterday against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed. In Libya, at least 10 people died in protests linked to the caricatures.
And in Pakistan, a cleric was reported to have put a $1 million (£575,000) bounty on the head of the Danish cartoonist who drew the original pictures.
Last night, Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP involved with the official task force set up after the July attacks, said the findings were "alarming". He added: "Vast numbers of Muslims feel disengaged and alienated from mainstream British society." Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: "This poll confirms the widespread opposition among British Muslims to the so-called war on terror."
The most startling finding is the high level of support for applying sharia law in "predom-inantly Muslim" areas of Britain.
Islamic law is used in large parts of the Middle East, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, and is enforced by religious police. Special courts can hand down harsh punishments which can include stoning and amputation.
Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it. Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right".
Nearly two thirds thought the video images shown last week of British troops beating Iraqi youths were symptomatic of a wider problem in Iraq. Half did not think the soldiers would be "appropriately punished".
Half of the 500 people surveyed said relations between white Britons and Muslims were getting worse. Only just over half thought the conviction of the cleric Abu Hamza for incitement to murder and race hatred was fair.
Mr Khan, the MP for Tooting, said: "We must redouble our efforts to bring Muslims on board with the mainstream community. For all the efforts made since last July, things do not have appear to have got better."
He agreed with Sir Iqbal that the poll showed Muslims still had a "big gripe" about foreign policy, particularly over the war on terror and Iraq.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said: "It shows we have a long way to go to win the battle of ideas within some parts of the Muslim community and why it is absolutely vital that we reinforce the voice of moderate Islam wherever possible."
A spokesman for Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, said: "It is critically important to ensure that Muslims, and all faiths, feel part of modern British society. Today's survey indicates we still have a long way to go… [but] we are committed to working with all faiths to ensure we achieve that end."
[/hide]
[frame]http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1713134,00.html[/frame]
[hide]Nigeria cartoon riots kill 16
Churches burned in widespread violence as Danish cartoonist defends publication
Amelia Hill and Anushka Asthana
Sunday February 19, 2006
The Observer
Rioting over the controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad claimed another 16 lives last night in Nigeria as churches were burned by protesting Muslims.
The violence erupted as the Danish cartoonist whose drawings originally sparked the furore, Kurt Westergaard, used an interview with a British newspaper to defend the right to a free press - and said the Islamic faith provided 'spiritual ammunition' for terrorism.
More than two weeks after the controversy began, after-effects are still being felt around the world. The first protests in Nigeria flared in the provinces of Borno and Katsina: witnesses said hotels and shops were torched by protesters who ran wild after police fired teargas to disperse them.
In Britain, a poll of Muslims last night found evidence of growing alienation, with four in 10 calling for religious sharia law to be imposed in parts of the UK with a mainly Muslim population. The law specifies stonings and amputations as punishments, and involves religious police bringing suspects before courts.
One in five also expressed some sympathy with the 'feelings and motives' of the July 7 bombers. However the survey for the Sunday Telegraph found 91 per cent still felt loyal to Britain and only one per cent actually backed the London bomb attacks.
The cartoonist at the heart of the row, who has gone into hiding after a bounty was put on his head and conducted his interview with the Glasgow Herald newspaper via written questions, said he had not expected such controversy but did not regret the drawings - the most controversial of which depicted the Prophet with a bomb in his turban - or their publication.
He defended it as 'a protest against the fact that we perhaps are going to have double standards [in Denmark and Western Europe] for freedom of expression and freedom of the press'. The inspiration for it was, he said, 'terrorism - which gets its spiritual ammunition from Islam.'
The Italian reforms minister, Roberto Calderoli, resigned yesterday after being blamed for sparking clashes in Libya - which killed 11 - by wearing a T-shirt on TV bearing the most controversial cartoon. In Tripoli, the General People's Congress fired the interior minister, Nasser al-Mabrouk Adballah, and local police chiefs, saying disproportionate force had been used against protesters.
The Nigerian riots were the first protests in Africa's most populous country, which is divided equally between Christians and Muslims. The worst of the trouble, involving 15 deaths, was in the north eastern state of Borno - a predominantly Muslim state with a sizeable Christian population, which has recently seen an increase in militancy. Troops were deployed in the state capital to restore order.
In London another protest against the publication of cartoons brought more than 10,000 Muslims on to the streets yesterday.
The rally and march, organised by the Muslim Action Committee, saw scores of imams, who usually avoid such demonstrations, on the streets of the capital. The cartoons were originally published in Denmark in September, but only triggered worldwide protests when they were re-published around Europe earlier this month.
[/hide]
[hide]Nigeria cartoon riots kill 16
Churches burned in widespread violence as Danish cartoonist defends publication
Amelia Hill and Anushka Asthana
Sunday February 19, 2006
The Observer
Rioting over the controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad claimed another 16 lives last night in Nigeria as churches were burned by protesting Muslims.
The violence erupted as the Danish cartoonist whose drawings originally sparked the furore, Kurt Westergaard, used an interview with a British newspaper to defend the right to a free press - and said the Islamic faith provided 'spiritual ammunition' for terrorism.
More than two weeks after the controversy began, after-effects are still being felt around the world. The first protests in Nigeria flared in the provinces of Borno and Katsina: witnesses said hotels and shops were torched by protesters who ran wild after police fired teargas to disperse them.
In Britain, a poll of Muslims last night found evidence of growing alienation, with four in 10 calling for religious sharia law to be imposed in parts of the UK with a mainly Muslim population. The law specifies stonings and amputations as punishments, and involves religious police bringing suspects before courts.
One in five also expressed some sympathy with the 'feelings and motives' of the July 7 bombers. However the survey for the Sunday Telegraph found 91 per cent still felt loyal to Britain and only one per cent actually backed the London bomb attacks.
The cartoonist at the heart of the row, who has gone into hiding after a bounty was put on his head and conducted his interview with the Glasgow Herald newspaper via written questions, said he had not expected such controversy but did not regret the drawings - the most controversial of which depicted the Prophet with a bomb in his turban - or their publication.
He defended it as 'a protest against the fact that we perhaps are going to have double standards [in Denmark and Western Europe] for freedom of expression and freedom of the press'. The inspiration for it was, he said, 'terrorism - which gets its spiritual ammunition from Islam.'
The Italian reforms minister, Roberto Calderoli, resigned yesterday after being blamed for sparking clashes in Libya - which killed 11 - by wearing a T-shirt on TV bearing the most controversial cartoon. In Tripoli, the General People's Congress fired the interior minister, Nasser al-Mabrouk Adballah, and local police chiefs, saying disproportionate force had been used against protesters.
The Nigerian riots were the first protests in Africa's most populous country, which is divided equally between Christians and Muslims. The worst of the trouble, involving 15 deaths, was in the north eastern state of Borno - a predominantly Muslim state with a sizeable Christian population, which has recently seen an increase in militancy. Troops were deployed in the state capital to restore order.
In London another protest against the publication of cartoons brought more than 10,000 Muslims on to the streets yesterday.
The rally and march, organised by the Muslim Action Committee, saw scores of imams, who usually avoid such demonstrations, on the streets of the capital. The cartoons were originally published in Denmark in September, but only triggered worldwide protests when they were re-published around Europe earlier this month.
[/hide]
nittie said:
Being black isn't a choice though. Being a muslim is.
Hmmm if you're born in Iran is being Muslim really a choice? How about Afganistan? On the other hand the editors that printed that nonsense had a definite choice and they chose to print images that will lead to several people being killed. MalcomX said it best" There's nothing more fightening than ignorance in action."
True, Iranians and Afghanis may be Muslims weather they like it or not. All that really means though is that they have to pay lip service to a god that the government demands they worship. It definetly doesn't mean that they have to defy public order and commit criminal acts over a cartoon published in another continant no matter how offensive it is.
I mean some of these so-called Muslim countries have just as much drinking, drugs, homosexuality, prostitution etc. as the west does. The only difference is that it isn't as blatent.
I mean some of these so-called Muslim countries have just as much drinking, drugs, homosexuality, prostitution etc. as the west does. The only difference is that it isn't as blatent.
Dannyblueyes said:
I'm sure you're right but whats also true is when those bombs go off and people start dying the truth will be the 1st casualty of war. Who wants their child, wife, mother or some other loved one to die because some newspaper editors in whats suppose to be a neutral country decided to put their 2 cents in on a matter that don't concern them?
It was wrong for that Danish cartoonist to disrespect their religion. But westerners (particularly Americans) have a social/cultural environment that tends toward bigotry and xenophobia when it comes to those who are outside the majority. You can look at BGOL for examples of that xenophobia in action. How many times have you seen threads containing people who lump all Muslims in with whatever negativity a few commit?
How many times in non-internet life have you seen that? How many refer to someone as "Oriental" without bothering to take the time out to find how to distinguish a Chinese person from a Korean from a Japanese? How many times have you seen people lump all southeast Asian people into a category - Chinese. Japanese, etc - without knowing what ethnicity they actually are? How many people refer to southeast Asian people as being "Asian" as a racial designation - but don't do so with Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Iraqis etc?
What is my point? I'm saying that the West has long seen and redefined foreign cultures, values and mores through its own arrogant glasses. This redefinition has often taken the form of labelling those within occupied territories as "savages", thievery, enslavement, colonization and genocide.
It seems somehow ironic that Americans residing in the most powerful country on the planet can sit and point a finger at and wag their heads at comparatively powerless rioting muslims, while we have long had governments that have supported and/or taken part in some of the worst atrocities of the modern age - from the "Peculiar Institution" of chattel slavery to Zionism, the Indonesian massacre of East Timor, South African Apartheid, The Vietnam War to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq....I could go on and on.
Many muslims around the world are doubtless enraged at the U.S. for the continual support (against their muslim brethren) of the state of Israel and invasion of Iraq and the subsequent massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians that followed.
This latest blow by the cartoonist is just the latest affront.
I believe the "nigger cartoons" comparison is apt. So for that matter, would be imagining the NY Times publishing cartoons that depicted Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary in a similar manner as Mohammed has being depicted in these cartoons.
The application of "freedom of speech" applied to this convo by citizens of an oppressor country (U.S.A.) in this case, is hardly the issue. Respect of one's faith should be the issue. Mohammed and the followers of Islam as a whole are no more representative of suicide bombers and the like -than Jesus and Christians as a whole are representative of the Bush Admin. and its murderous Imperialist agenda. I do not condone the violence committed in anger over these cartoons by muslim extremists - but I can see how such anger and hatred might have festered over the years to get to this point with this latest affront.
How many times in non-internet life have you seen that? How many refer to someone as "Oriental" without bothering to take the time out to find how to distinguish a Chinese person from a Korean from a Japanese? How many times have you seen people lump all southeast Asian people into a category - Chinese. Japanese, etc - without knowing what ethnicity they actually are? How many people refer to southeast Asian people as being "Asian" as a racial designation - but don't do so with Indians, Pakistanis, Iranians, Iraqis etc?
What is my point? I'm saying that the West has long seen and redefined foreign cultures, values and mores through its own arrogant glasses. This redefinition has often taken the form of labelling those within occupied territories as "savages", thievery, enslavement, colonization and genocide.
It seems somehow ironic that Americans residing in the most powerful country on the planet can sit and point a finger at and wag their heads at comparatively powerless rioting muslims, while we have long had governments that have supported and/or taken part in some of the worst atrocities of the modern age - from the "Peculiar Institution" of chattel slavery to Zionism, the Indonesian massacre of East Timor, South African Apartheid, The Vietnam War to the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq....I could go on and on.
Many muslims around the world are doubtless enraged at the U.S. for the continual support (against their muslim brethren) of the state of Israel and invasion of Iraq and the subsequent massacres of hundreds of thousands of civilians that followed.
This latest blow by the cartoonist is just the latest affront.
I believe the "nigger cartoons" comparison is apt. So for that matter, would be imagining the NY Times publishing cartoons that depicted Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary in a similar manner as Mohammed has being depicted in these cartoons.
The application of "freedom of speech" applied to this convo by citizens of an oppressor country (U.S.A.) in this case, is hardly the issue. Respect of one's faith should be the issue. Mohammed and the followers of Islam as a whole are no more representative of suicide bombers and the like -than Jesus and Christians as a whole are representative of the Bush Admin. and its murderous Imperialist agenda. I do not condone the violence committed in anger over these cartoons by muslim extremists - but I can see how such anger and hatred might have festered over the years to get to this point with this latest affront.
Negative Perception Of Islam Increasing
Poll Numbers in U.S. Higher Than in 2001
By Claudia Deane and Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 9, 2006; A01
As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The poll found that nearly half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Muslims were often targeted for violence.
The survey comes at a time of increasing tension; the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq show little sign of ending, and members of Congress are seeking to block the Bush administration's attempt to hire an Arab company to manage operations at six of the nation's ports. Also, Americans are reading news of deadly protests by Muslims over Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.
Conservative and liberal experts said Americans' attitudes about Islam are fueled in part by political statements and media reports that focus almost solely on the actions of Muslim extremists.
According to the poll, the proportion of Americans who believe that Islam helps to stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled since the attacks, from 14 percent in January 2002 to 33 percent today.
The survey also found that one in three Americans have heard prejudiced comments about Muslims lately. In a separate question, slightly more (43 percent) reported having heard negative remarks about Arabs. One in four Americans admitted to harboring prejudice toward Muslims, the same proportion that expressed some personal bias against Arabs.
Though the two groups are often linked in popular discourse, most of the world's Muslims are not of Arab descent. For example, the country with the largest Muslim population is Indonesia.
As a school bus driver in Chicago, Gary McCord, 65, dealt with many children of Arab descent. "Some of the best families I've ever had were some of my Muslim families," he said in a follow-up interview. "They were so nice to me." He now works for a Palestinian Christian family, whose members he says are "really marvelous."
But his good feelings do not extend to Islam. "I don't mean to sound harsh or anything, but I don't like what the Muslim people believe in, according to the Koran. Because I think they preach hate," he said.
As for the controversial cartoons of Muhammad, he said Arabs seem hypersensitive about religion. "I think it's been blown out of proportion," he said.
Frederick Cole, a welder in Roosevelt, Utah, acknowledged: "As far as being prejudiced against them, I'd have to say maybe a little bit. If I were to go through an airport and I saw one out of the corner of my eye, I'd say, 'I wonder what he's thinking.' " Still, Cole, 30, said, "I don't think the religion is based on just wanting to terrorize people."
A total of 1,000 randomly selected Americans were interviewed March 2-5 for this Post-ABC News poll. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.
Americans who said they understood Islam were more likely to see the religion overall as peaceful and respectful. But they were no less likely to say it harbors harmful extremists, and they were also no less likely to have prejudiced feelings against Muslims.
In Gadsden, Ala., Ron Hardy, an auto parts supplier, said Arabs own a lot of stores in his area and "they're okay." But, Hardy, 41, said "I do think" Islam has been "hijacked by some militant-like guys."
Edward Rios, 31, an engineer in McHenry, Ill., said he feels that Islam "is as good a religion as any other" yet vengeance seems to be "built into their own set of beliefs: If someone attacks our people, it is your duty to defend them. . . . I don't think Christianity has anything like that."
James J. Zogby, president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute, said he is not surprised by the poll's results. Politicians, authors and media commentators have demonized the Arab world since 2001, he said.
"The intensity has not abated and remains a vein that's very near the surface, ready to be tapped at any moment," Zogby said. "Members of Congress have been exploiting this over the ports issue. Radio commentators have been talking about it nonstop."
Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan, agreed, saying Americans "have been given the message to respond this way by the American political elite, mass media and by select special interests."
Cole said he was shocked when a radio talk show host asked him if Islamic extremists would set off a nuclear bomb in the United States in the next six months. "It was ridiculous. I think anti-Arab racism and profiling has become respectable," he said.
Ronald Stockton, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan at Dearborn who helped conduct a study of Arabs in the Detroit area and on views of them held by non-Arabs, said an exceptionally high percentage of non-Muslims feels the media depicts Arabs unfairly, yet still holds negative opinions.
"You're getting a constant drumbeat of negative information about Islam," he said.
Michael Franc, vice president of government relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that the survey responses "seems to me to be a real backlash against Islam" and that congressional leaders do not help the problem by sometimes using language that links all Muslims with extremists.
Link
-VG
Poll Numbers in U.S. Higher Than in 2001
By Claudia Deane and Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, March 9, 2006; A01
As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The poll found that nearly half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Muslims were often targeted for violence.
The survey comes at a time of increasing tension; the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq show little sign of ending, and members of Congress are seeking to block the Bush administration's attempt to hire an Arab company to manage operations at six of the nation's ports. Also, Americans are reading news of deadly protests by Muslims over Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad.
Conservative and liberal experts said Americans' attitudes about Islam are fueled in part by political statements and media reports that focus almost solely on the actions of Muslim extremists.
According to the poll, the proportion of Americans who believe that Islam helps to stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled since the attacks, from 14 percent in January 2002 to 33 percent today.
The survey also found that one in three Americans have heard prejudiced comments about Muslims lately. In a separate question, slightly more (43 percent) reported having heard negative remarks about Arabs. One in four Americans admitted to harboring prejudice toward Muslims, the same proportion that expressed some personal bias against Arabs.
Though the two groups are often linked in popular discourse, most of the world's Muslims are not of Arab descent. For example, the country with the largest Muslim population is Indonesia.
As a school bus driver in Chicago, Gary McCord, 65, dealt with many children of Arab descent. "Some of the best families I've ever had were some of my Muslim families," he said in a follow-up interview. "They were so nice to me." He now works for a Palestinian Christian family, whose members he says are "really marvelous."
But his good feelings do not extend to Islam. "I don't mean to sound harsh or anything, but I don't like what the Muslim people believe in, according to the Koran. Because I think they preach hate," he said.
As for the controversial cartoons of Muhammad, he said Arabs seem hypersensitive about religion. "I think it's been blown out of proportion," he said.
Frederick Cole, a welder in Roosevelt, Utah, acknowledged: "As far as being prejudiced against them, I'd have to say maybe a little bit. If I were to go through an airport and I saw one out of the corner of my eye, I'd say, 'I wonder what he's thinking.' " Still, Cole, 30, said, "I don't think the religion is based on just wanting to terrorize people."
A total of 1,000 randomly selected Americans were interviewed March 2-5 for this Post-ABC News poll. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus three percentage points.
Americans who said they understood Islam were more likely to see the religion overall as peaceful and respectful. But they were no less likely to say it harbors harmful extremists, and they were also no less likely to have prejudiced feelings against Muslims.
In Gadsden, Ala., Ron Hardy, an auto parts supplier, said Arabs own a lot of stores in his area and "they're okay." But, Hardy, 41, said "I do think" Islam has been "hijacked by some militant-like guys."
Edward Rios, 31, an engineer in McHenry, Ill., said he feels that Islam "is as good a religion as any other" yet vengeance seems to be "built into their own set of beliefs: If someone attacks our people, it is your duty to defend them. . . . I don't think Christianity has anything like that."
James J. Zogby, president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute, said he is not surprised by the poll's results. Politicians, authors and media commentators have demonized the Arab world since 2001, he said.
"The intensity has not abated and remains a vein that's very near the surface, ready to be tapped at any moment," Zogby said. "Members of Congress have been exploiting this over the ports issue. Radio commentators have been talking about it nonstop."
Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan, agreed, saying Americans "have been given the message to respond this way by the American political elite, mass media and by select special interests."
Cole said he was shocked when a radio talk show host asked him if Islamic extremists would set off a nuclear bomb in the United States in the next six months. "It was ridiculous. I think anti-Arab racism and profiling has become respectable," he said.
Ronald Stockton, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan at Dearborn who helped conduct a study of Arabs in the Detroit area and on views of them held by non-Arabs, said an exceptionally high percentage of non-Muslims feels the media depicts Arabs unfairly, yet still holds negative opinions.
"You're getting a constant drumbeat of negative information about Islam," he said.
Michael Franc, vice president of government relations for the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that the survey responses "seems to me to be a real backlash against Islam" and that congressional leaders do not help the problem by sometimes using language that links all Muslims with extremists.
Link
-VG
[hide][frame]http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/middleeast/2006/March/middleeast_March246.xml§ion=middleeast&col=[/frame][/hide]
Khaleej Times Online >> News >> MIDDLE EAST
<font size="6"><center>Two prominent TV clerics feud </font size>
<font size="5">over Islam’s approach to West</font size></center>
Khaleej Times
10 March 2006
CAIRO — It’s not just East and West that are divided over controversial cartoons. Two of the most popular Muslim preachers on Arab television are feuding bitterly over whether dialogue or protest is the best approach in the clash of civilisations.
In the pro-dialogue corner is Amr Khaled, who has become wildly popular among young Muslims and women for his youthful style and his sermons applying Islam to the day-to-day cares of modern life.
The 38-year-old Khaled is heading to Denmark — the heart of the controversy — for a conference today between Christian and Muslim religious leaders aimed at discussing the fallout of the cartoons.
But for Sheikh Youssef El Qaradawi — a 79-year-old cleric who hosts a weekly show on the Arab satellite station Al Jazeera — the trip to Copenhagen looks like a surrender.
“Dialogue about what?” El Qaradawi said on Al Jazeera. “You have to have a common ground to have a dialogue with your enemy. But after insulting what is sacred to me, they should apologise,” he added.
“The dialogue that Amr Khaled and his group, the so called new preachers, is breaking with the consensus,” he said.
The split between the two prominent tele-clerics has touched a wider debate over how to deal with the West and promote the Islamic world’s interests.
The cartoons — first published in a Danish paper last September then reprinted in European papers in January and February — sparked a wave of protests around the Arab and Islamic world. Some turned violent, with protesters killed in Libya and Afghanistan and several European embassies attacked.
The protests have largely subsided amid calls by Islamic and Western leaders for a stop to violence. But the bitterness remains on both sides: Some Muslim feel the West intentionally sought to insult Islam, while some in the West see Muslims as violently seeking to stifle free speech.
Last month, Khaled and a conference of some 40 Islamic scholars said the time for protests had passed and now it was time to “move on to the stage of discussion.”
“The deep-rooted solution of this problem is through dialogue to reach an understanding and coexistence between the nations,” Khaled said.
For Khaled — a 38-year-old Egyptian — the cartoons controversy is an opportunity to engage with the West rather than continue longtime clashes over the grievances many Muslims feel toward Europe and the US.
“We have to lay a future base to build our own renaissance,” Khaled told AP in a telephone interview from London on Wednesday.
“There are two schools of thought. One is that all of our actions should be reaction to what happened to us in the past 20 years, which is a lot. The other school wants the Islamic community to take the initiative to plan for the coming 20 years,” he said.
“God be with you Amr Khaled,” the independent Egyptian weekly Al Dustour said in a front-page headline in support of his trip to Denmark.
Khaled has emerged as the most prominent of a new generation of Islamic leaders — distinct with his designer suits and trim moustache, rather than the beard and robes worn by traditional clerics, such as El Qaradawi.
Khaled started preaching almost 10 years ago in social clubs and gatherings in private homes in Egypt. He drew enthusiastic, young followers from the middle and upper middle class with his moderate advice and modern style.
He has a weekly programme on the Saudi religious channel Iqraa, in which he avoids political issues, telling stories about the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and God’s mercy instead of punishment.
His lack of formal religious training has brought him criticism from traditional clerics. He studied accounting, though he is currently pursuing Islamic studies in London.
El Qaradawi — also Egyptian — is known as a hardliner who often weighs in on politics. He has sparked controversy by condoning attacks on American civilians in Iraq and issuing a fatwa religious edict allowing kidnappings in Iraq, though forbidding the killing of hostages.
His supporters in the feud accuse Khaled of giving up before the West makes concessions over the cartoons issue.
“The Muslims’ uprising hasn’t born fruit yet, and the West wants us to get out of it without any gains,” Egyptian columnist Selim Azouz wrote on Wednesday in the Qatari daily Al Raya.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...ddleeast_March246.xml§ion=middleeast&col=
Khaleej Times Online >> News >> MIDDLE EAST
<font size="6"><center>Two prominent TV clerics feud </font size>
<font size="5">over Islam’s approach to West</font size></center>
Khaleej Times
10 March 2006
CAIRO — It’s not just East and West that are divided over controversial cartoons. Two of the most popular Muslim preachers on Arab television are feuding bitterly over whether dialogue or protest is the best approach in the clash of civilisations.
In the pro-dialogue corner is Amr Khaled, who has become wildly popular among young Muslims and women for his youthful style and his sermons applying Islam to the day-to-day cares of modern life.
The 38-year-old Khaled is heading to Denmark — the heart of the controversy — for a conference today between Christian and Muslim religious leaders aimed at discussing the fallout of the cartoons.
But for Sheikh Youssef El Qaradawi — a 79-year-old cleric who hosts a weekly show on the Arab satellite station Al Jazeera — the trip to Copenhagen looks like a surrender.
“Dialogue about what?” El Qaradawi said on Al Jazeera. “You have to have a common ground to have a dialogue with your enemy. But after insulting what is sacred to me, they should apologise,” he added.
“The dialogue that Amr Khaled and his group, the so called new preachers, is breaking with the consensus,” he said.
The split between the two prominent tele-clerics has touched a wider debate over how to deal with the West and promote the Islamic world’s interests.
The cartoons — first published in a Danish paper last September then reprinted in European papers in January and February — sparked a wave of protests around the Arab and Islamic world. Some turned violent, with protesters killed in Libya and Afghanistan and several European embassies attacked.
The protests have largely subsided amid calls by Islamic and Western leaders for a stop to violence. But the bitterness remains on both sides: Some Muslim feel the West intentionally sought to insult Islam, while some in the West see Muslims as violently seeking to stifle free speech.
Last month, Khaled and a conference of some 40 Islamic scholars said the time for protests had passed and now it was time to “move on to the stage of discussion.”
“The deep-rooted solution of this problem is through dialogue to reach an understanding and coexistence between the nations,” Khaled said.
For Khaled — a 38-year-old Egyptian — the cartoons controversy is an opportunity to engage with the West rather than continue longtime clashes over the grievances many Muslims feel toward Europe and the US.
“We have to lay a future base to build our own renaissance,” Khaled told AP in a telephone interview from London on Wednesday.
“There are two schools of thought. One is that all of our actions should be reaction to what happened to us in the past 20 years, which is a lot. The other school wants the Islamic community to take the initiative to plan for the coming 20 years,” he said.
“God be with you Amr Khaled,” the independent Egyptian weekly Al Dustour said in a front-page headline in support of his trip to Denmark.
Khaled has emerged as the most prominent of a new generation of Islamic leaders — distinct with his designer suits and trim moustache, rather than the beard and robes worn by traditional clerics, such as El Qaradawi.
Khaled started preaching almost 10 years ago in social clubs and gatherings in private homes in Egypt. He drew enthusiastic, young followers from the middle and upper middle class with his moderate advice and modern style.
He has a weekly programme on the Saudi religious channel Iqraa, in which he avoids political issues, telling stories about the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and God’s mercy instead of punishment.
His lack of formal religious training has brought him criticism from traditional clerics. He studied accounting, though he is currently pursuing Islamic studies in London.
El Qaradawi — also Egyptian — is known as a hardliner who often weighs in on politics. He has sparked controversy by condoning attacks on American civilians in Iraq and issuing a fatwa religious edict allowing kidnappings in Iraq, though forbidding the killing of hostages.
His supporters in the feud accuse Khaled of giving up before the West makes concessions over the cartoons issue.
“The Muslims’ uprising hasn’t born fruit yet, and the West wants us to get out of it without any gains,” Egyptian columnist Selim Azouz wrote on Wednesday in the Qatari daily Al Raya.
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...ddleeast_March246.xml§ion=middleeast&col=
Last edited:
nittie said:
Your wrong, Iran has a small Christian population and believe it or not a Jewish population as well, the country maybe 98% Muslim but not everyone there is one, and that goes for all Middle eastern countries as well, all of them have a small Christian minority there.
family guy wants to show a caricuture of mohammed.
and america is scared shitless, what stand will the country take?
http://www.thepoliticalpitbull.com/videos/SouthParkMohammad.wmv
and america is scared shitless, what stand will the country take?
http://www.thepoliticalpitbull.com/videos/SouthParkMohammad.wmv
No. It's Muslims who don't understand that the Military might of the west is being held in check by the people of Europe and America. If those backward camel-loving motherfuckers try to attenuate our freedom of expression, which means a whole lot more than some made-up religion, then we will take the shackles off the military and do them like we did their fellow fascists in Germany. I say that we should have bombed Saudi Arabia, the hotbed of this bullshit, instead of Iraq to begin with. There wasn't a singly Iraqi on those planes that flew into the WTC.
Fuck you. Practice your religion in your house. Freedom of the press is infinitely more sacred than some individual's religious beliefs. Muslims cannot expect westerners, in modern western societies, to censor themselves in accordance with medieval Islamo-fascist sensibilities. If a muslim wants to live under Sharia law, then he should stay his ass in the hot barren desert from which he came. Europe and America are not going to bow to their beliefs. And, if they persist in trying to force the issue, mass deportations couldn't be far off.
So, are you saying that if me and a couple of the homies saw those cartoons, and went down to the NY Times, burned it to the ground, and killed some of the employees, or the editor, we would not be wrong ?
How about a woman who wanted me to take her to dinner, flirted with me, but said no for some pussy ? should I have the right to force it?
I think it is simple. Especially considering that many muslims come to the west with the specific expectation of religious freedom, with many of them running from rival religious groups.
In short, those cartoons were not the equivelent of yelling "fire !!" in a crowded movie theater.
Similar threads
