[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

There are three ingredients needed for fire. Oxygen, heat and fuel. Eliminate any one and fire can not take place.

When we look at the problem of Islamic violent jihad and the problems dealing with Islamic conquest, what are the ingredients?

Ok, I'll respond to my own question.

Here are some of the ingredients of the flareups involving Muslims. With an important note that not all Muslims are violent Islamists.

1. Jews.

2. Christians.

3. Any other polytheists.

4. People who are not, "of the book."

5. Muslims who are not of the same sect.

6. Muslims who are not devout.

7. Those who do not govern by Sharia.

What other ingredients am I leaving out?

[Ozmodiar]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

Are we willing to go to war to defend freedom of speech?

I would go to war over freedom of speech.

[Busemann]

The Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post has published the cartoons today.

It has also come to light that Jyllands-posten were offered caricatures of Jesus a while back, and declined to publish them because they were afraid it would cause a stir.

[Super Mario]

Originally Posted by Busemann

The Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post has published the cartoons today.

It has also come to light that Jyllands-posten were offered caricatures of Jesus a while back, and declined to publish them because they were afraid it would cause a stir.

Really.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...76632.stm#rose

Flemming Rose is the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark, which originally published the cartoons

"I did not ask the illustrators to make the Prophet a laughing stock - I asked them to draw the Prophet as they see him. In Denmark we have a tradition of satire and humour and some cartoonists made satirical cartoons. We have done the same thing with Jesus Christ and other religions."

Provide evidence next time or you incite Conspiracy Theories for Muslims Part MXVIIIXVIC

[Sky Captain]

In Egypt, they're burning the company headquarters of the ferry company.
Violence just seems to be part of the Isalmic culture.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by Super Mario

Really.......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/eur...76632.stm#rose

Flemming Rose is the culture editor of Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark, which originally published the cartoons

"I did not ask the illustrators to make the Prophet a laughing stock - I asked them to draw the Prophet as they see him. In Denmark we have a tradition of satire and humour and some cartoonists made satirical cartoons. We have done the same thing with Jesus Christ and other religions."

Provide evidence next time or you incite Conspiracy Theories for Muslims Part MXVIIIXVIC

Are you scandinavian? anyways, here's the proof. The editor said to the Jesus-cartoonist back in 2003; "I don't think our readers will be amused by these drawings. In fact, I think they will provoke an outcry".

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Busemann

It has also come to light that Jyllands-posten were offered caricatures of Jesus a while back, and declined to publish them because they were afraid it would cause a stir.

If that is true then the newspaper's editors should be fired and publicly castigated for promoting a bias against Islam with the publication of the Mohammed cartoons.

And then they should be forced to print these caricatures of Jesus you mention to prove they truly are about freedom of speech. I am more than a little bothered by this revelation.

In regards to this issue I have been defending the press on grounds of free speech and as it turns out they have been censoring themselves when it comes to the Christian religion and not to Islam. If they really are about freedom of speech/press then they need to consistently act on those convictions and be just as dis-respectful towards religious figures in Christianity and Judaism as they are towards religious figures in Islam.

[swrate]

Originally Posted by Sky Captain

Sensitivity can have brutal consequences.

yes, it can, so can ignorance,over or under estimations and so on,
thanks for the article.

Yes, interesting merci, yet I wonder, did Mark Steyn see many flags burning? Tens? Hundreds? one or maybe two in capital cities with embassies through the Media? Was he with the rioters when they bought the flags?

He writes the rioters bought the flags in stores, well I think they “captured” them in the Embassies…….



Well you never know maybe they do start producing the “most hated” flags but that might be cheating.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

If that is true then the newspaper's editors should be fired and publicly castigated for promoting a bias against Islam with the publication of the Mohammed cartoons.

And then they should be forced to print these caricatures of Jesus you mention to prove they truly are about freedom of speech. I am more than a little bothered by this revelation.

In regards to this issue I have been defending the press on grounds of free speech and as it turns out they have been censoring themselves when it comes to the Christian religion and not to Islam. If they really are about freedom of speech/press then they need to consistently act on those convictions and be just as dis-respectful towards religious figures in Christianity and Judaism as they are towards religious figures in Islam.

I agree.

Do you realize that individual citizens are now able to inch their nations closer to war without assassinating a foreign leader.

When it happened that individual Palestinians were able to prompt Israel to launch an attack on the P/A I never thought about the power one stupid person can wield.

The editors who published the Cartoons crossed the line from COVERING the news to instead, MAKING news. And that, ladies and gents, is an interesting and unique position for them to be in.

[Monique]

The extremist Muslims are getting nuttier by the day.

I mean unless you speack Danish or live in Denmark, would you have heard of those comics.

They should have shut up and it would have lasted only one day.

I just loved the reaction of the Danish government, look we have free speech here and go to hell if you do not like it.

It is only a funny representation of Muhammed so get a grip and go back into your little box.

[swrate]

Originally Posted by Y3a

A difference of making an intellectual point and burning things and rioting. Why do you excuse it, or try to rationalize the violent acts of the Muslims? This should be proof positive that something is clearly wrong with their ability to understand someone elses opinion. Should those same rioting animals EXPECT to be destroyed by the west for the same kind of insults? I know there have been little replicas of US Presidents, Uncle Sam and EU leaders burned during protests. is the problem that they really can't stand to see themselves as others do? it's just an institutional immaturity when it come to their actions.

Perhaps THAT is why they are treated the way they are throughout the world. Previous behavior.

of course there is a difference. I don't excuse it i understand it. difference.

Rioters are flag chasing, looking for symbols to tear down, and in their search for the flag in their rage, are ready to set the place on fire.

Relativise? no.
The cartoons are a tool for retaliation.
The situation would have blown up had it been any other event. See Egypt how easily people become angry. Economy in many countries is bad,(read posts above- ty) people rioting are activists, frustrated against their own government (job education life conditions = zero, sifr)

The cartoons ignites future terrorists.
The government (in M-E) probably prefers angry masses to concentrate their negative energy on the infidel enemy, it keeps them from turning against their own administration. People in the Middle East work more hours (the working crowd) then Westerners, Occidentals do. There is lots of unemployment, salaries are lousy, economy is bad, the hierarchy is heavy, the administration is loaded, procedures have no logic and foreign currency is so high, what a nightmare.

and, imo, replicas of politicians are not comparable to the pic of a Prophet.

last,
Ask the King Fahd, or any sheik how "they" are treated throughout the world, i.e. with W kindly fondling hands.
So it all depends really.

[Sky Captain]

On another note.
Y'all do know that the US military is currently conducting training exercises within US cities now, right?

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Are you scandinavian? anyways, here's the proof. The editor said to the Jesus-cartoonist back in 2003; "I don't think our readers will be amused by these drawings. In fact, I think they will provoke an outcry".

(a not so good) Translation for non-Scandinavians:

In april 2003 the artist Christoffer Zieler sent many satirical drawings of Jesus to the paper [J-P]

But the paper said no and answered that the drawings could cause negative reactions.

"I don't believe, that the readers of J-P want to see these drawings. In fact I believe, that it will cause fury. That is why I will not publish it" the editor Jens Kaiser answered in an email Dagbladet.no has been shown.

Zieler says to Dagbladet.no that he was surprised that anyone would be "angry" over his drawings.

"I believe they were of the innocent type that my own Christian grandfather would laugh at" he says.

Zieler means that this shows that J-P has in this instance put their Christian readers "concerns" over that of the Danish Muslims.

J-P's culture editor Flemming Rose denies this.

J-P has of course shown satirical drawings of other religious figures than Muhammed he says.

I'm not sure that J-P, that have a relatively negative editor policy on immigration, had the most noble intentions with the drawings of Muhammed, says the artist.

He also means that it must be possible to treat all subjects with humour.

Also Islam. But it probably wise to stick to making fun of your own religion if you want to prevent "uproar", he says.

Likewise Zieler is critical of the reactions of the Islamic Imam following the publication.

J-P's dubious motives [for posting the images] is one thing. It is something completely different that the drawings have caused violent reactions. You can criticise J-P editors but to..... [not so sure about this part, Norwegian is not my language]




Any Norwegians that can clean it up to make sure I got the translation as good as possible? Thanks.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Monique

The extremist Muslims are getting nuttier by the day.

You say it. According to a SPIEGEL article (in German) Pakistani physicians are boycotting European medicaments. They are using "alternative treatment" until there is an official apology.



Wo do they think they are hurting with this?

[moodymonster]

basically 'a lot' of muslims are dumb. They are being manipulated and either don't realise or are loving it.

Someone made cartoons saying they were violent, reactionary and terrorists. Muslims respond by providing live examples of what the people taking the mick out of them were saying. One day they will wake up, but that day is a long way off.

[moodymonster]

And that guy (president of Iran), he's got his own agenda going on as to why he's winding people up with regard to nukes.

[Monique]

Exactly to Moody and tetanal, I agree with both of you. If you want the world to see you as peaceful you do not go crazy about drawings that most of the people in the world would not be able to read (since they are in Danish). I guess they have nothing to do, but to cause troubles.

[Rolling Bones]

4 dead in Afghanistan.

To Allah in Heaven, "I died for a cartoon of Mohammed. Do I get Virgins?"

Allah: "Moe doesn't live here. He's living in a warmer climate, and no virgins for cartoons."

Allah: "You think there are virgins here? Not with me here pardner."

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

basically muslims are dumb. They are being manipulated and either don't realise or are loving it.

Someone made cartoons saying they were violent, reactionary and terrorists. Muslims respond by providing live examples of what the people taking the mick out of them were saying. One day they will wake up, but that day is a long way off.

Surely you meant that some Muslims are dumb? If that is what you meant could you edit your post to include that very important word in your post?

If not, please say so.

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by aberdeenwriter

When we look at the problem of Islamic violent jihad and the problems dealing with Islamic conquest, what are the ingredients?

Limited resources, religious fanaticism and the will to survive (procriate).

You choose.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

Limited resources, religious fanaticism and the will to survive (procriate).

You choose.

It seems to me as if they're on a path towards extinction, judging by their actions and beliefs. That doesn't sound like any will to survive.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

Surely you meant that some Muslims are dumb? If that is what you meant could you edit your post to include that very important word in your post?

If not, please say so.

I intended the original post to get people, that's why I did it. I don't think every person belonging to a particular grouping thinks the same way. As is borne out by your questioning of my statement, rather than jumping down my throat.

I've edited the post btw

[Kr0nos]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

But this thread is about a problem in Europe.

There is no problem in Europe. Religious fundies just need to shut the fu<k up, and get on the train. There is nothing "special" about their superstitions or so called "ethics".

I'm sick and tired of hearing about religion. If anything that should be a private matter. If you wanna wear a rag on your head, do it at home, if you want to pray to black zombie jesus, do so at your church...spare us the drama and sh1tty nationalist asshattry.

Here is to Denmark, liberalism and freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

BTW the Turkish government is now asking the EU to change our laws so that noone can insult religion anymore.

LOL. AFAIC they can basically STFU as well. They're not even in the EU (and if they are serious about this demand, I will do my part in it to see that they never will).

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

There is no problem in Europe.

Ok, if you say so.

[Weyland-Yutani]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

(a not so good) Translation for non-Scandinavians:

Any Norwegians that can clean it up to make sure I got the translation as good as possible? Thanks.

I'm no Norwegian, but luckily I speak both their languages fluently.

What can I say, your translation manages to convey the right bottom line, that is that the J-P editor Mr. Jens Kaiser was offered caricatures of Jesus and he did indeed turn them down - according to this article. However you choose to use words like you're writing for the Expressen when translating the actual thing.

I will not try to discern your reasons for it, but your translation ended up sounding like one with an agenda rather than an honest translation to accurately convey the English words and meaning of that Norwegian article because of choice and/or omitting of words.

Examples:

Original:

I april 2003 sendte tegneren Christoffer Zieler inn flere satiriske tegninger av Jesu oppstandelse til avisen.

Yours:

"In april 2003 the artist Christoffer Zieler sent many satirical drawings of Jesus to the paper [J-P]"

Correct:

In april 2003 the cartoonist Christoffer Zieler sent a number of satirical drawings of Jesus' Resurrection to the paper.

Original:

«Jeg tror ikke, at Jyllands-Postens lesre vil more seg over tegningen. Faktisk tror jeg, at den ville utløse et ramaskrik. Derfor vil jeg ikke bruke den,»

Yours:

"I don't believe, that the readers of J-P want to see these drawings. In fact I believe, that it will cause fury. That is why I will not publish it"

Correct:

"I don't think the readers of the J-P will be amused over the drawing. I think in fact it would result in bitter complaints. I will not use it for that reason."

Original:

Tegneren Zieler sier til Dagbladet.no at han var overrasket over at noen kunne bli støtt av hans tegninger.

Yours:

Zieler says to Dagbladet.no that he was surprised that anyone would be "angry" over his drawings.

Correct:

The artist Zieler tells Dagbladet.no he was surprised anybody could become offended by his drawings. (this is about the Jesus drawings for the kids with 5 second attention span)

Original:

Zieler mener at dette viser at Jyllands-Posten i dette tilfellet har satt sine antatt kristne leseres religiøse følelser høyere enn følelsene til danske muslimer.

Yours:

Zieler means that this shows that J-P has in this instance put their Christian readers "concerns" over that of the Danish Muslims.

Correct:

In Zieler's opinion this demonstrates the J-P has in this instance put the assumed religious sensitivity of its Christian readers above the feelings of Danish muslims.

Original:

- Også islam. Men det er nok mest fornuftig å holde seg til å gjøre narr av den religion man selv har, om man vil unngå ballade, sier han.

Yours:

Also Islam. But it probably wise to stick to making fun of your own religion if you want to prevent "uproar", he says.

Correct:

- Islam as well. However it is probably most sensible to stick to making fun of one's own faith if one wants to avoid a drama, he claims.

...

and now for my favorite..

Original:

- En ting er Jyllands-Postens kanskje tvilsomme motiver. Noe helt annet er de voldsomme, og i noen tilfeller voldelige, reaksjoner som tegningene har skapt. Man kan kritisere Jyllands-Postens redaktører, men å true dem og deres ansatte er grotesk.

Yours:

J-P's dubious motives [for posting the images] is one thing. It is something completely different that the drawings have caused violent reactions. You can criticise J-P editors but to..... [not so sure about this part, Norwegian is not my language]

Correct:

The perhaps questionable motives of the J-P are one thing. The immense and in some cases violent reactions that the drawings have caused, are another matter entirely. One can criticize the J-P's editors, but to threaten them and their employees is grotesque.

Looks like your Norwegian skills broke up just at the right moment eh?

cheers

W-Y

[yakkiebah]

Nice interview with Alan Dershowitz from the Danish television, in English.

[yakkiebah]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

There is no problem in Europe.

Denmark has a problem, right now, and it's growing. They are a part of Europe.

Apart from Denmark there are more countries in Europe who have problems regarding islamic radicalism: UK, France, Spain and the Netherlands. Caused by a tiny monority? Big minority? To be honest i don't have the exact numbers but there is a problem nontheless. There is a general sense of fear when publishing something in a newspaper, making a movie, writing a book, etc.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Denmark has a problem, right now, and it's growing. They are a part of Europe.

Apart from Denmark there are more countries in Europe who have problems regarding islamic radicalism: UK, France, Spain and the Netherlands. Caused by a tiny monority? Big minority? To be honest i don't have the exact numbers but there is a problem nontheless. There is a general sense of fear when publishing something in a newspaper, making a movie, writing a book, etc.

There are dozens of millions of muslims in Europe, but you just need dozens of thousands of well organized and funded radical islamists to cause problems.

I would wish that the muslims in Europe would be able to be aware of that problem and to stand up against it and so self-heal their communities from wahabism and other forms of radical islamism.

And while there are at it, they could also free themselves from orthodox islamic traditions that contradict the quranic message.

I don't know which of these objectives they should follow first, but when both are done, they should bring the revolution also to the islamic homecountries.

I have thought quite a while about the best way to achieve it and I think the best way is to break the interpretation-monopoly of Saudi-Arabia's wahabits by translating the Quran into every european language.

Sure there are some european traslations of the Quran, but all of these are rather lacking in exactness and done by fringe and single people with an agenda one way or the other.

It would be best to collect a lot of money from all islamic communities in Europe for huge translation-projects in every european country, where the best translators, scholars, imams, poets, linguists and academics gather together and develop a reference-translation of the Quran in every respective european language.

Those reference-translations should then be published over well ressourced and well publicised internet-presences with feedback-functions, where the community can offer better translations for key-words, and if convincing enough used to improve the reference-translation. That process should be open and last for a year, and then these fixinated reference-translations of the Quran in the various european languages should be printed and distributed among the islamic communities of Europe and be mandatorily used for the purpose of every religious activity, be it preaching, praying or whatever, as if they were the original arabic version.

Every thirty years that translation-process should be repeated to ensure maximum-precision.

Many orthodox muslim would probably object and say that the Quran is untranslateable, and that it would lose its holyness and the prayers done in non-arabic would not be accepted by God..., but it's nonesense, that is refuted by the Quran itself, where it says that the Quran is revealed in arabic only so that the arabs would understand it easily and take its message to heart.

So, one can conclude from that, in order to make european muslims really understand the message of the Quran and take it to their heart, it's mandatory to translate it into the languages they know best, and which they use daily.

Taliesin

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Kr0nos

There is no problem in Europe. Religious fundies just need to shut the fu<k up, and get on the train. There is nothing "special" about their superstitions or so called "ethics".

I'm sick and tired of hearing about religion. If anything that should be a private matter. If you wanna wear a rag on your head, do it at home, if you want to pray to black zombie jesus, do so at your church...spare us the drama and sh1tty nationalist asshattry.

Just like most religious are sick of hearing the non-religious bash religion.

Let me give you a hint Warung. Stop the bashing, and you'll hear less of us.

But for some reason I don't think you can make yourself do that.

Originally Posted by PacHead

Ok, if you say so.

I knew this would happen. The terrorism would really start spreading in other places, and people would blame it on the terrorists. But when they attack America, It's our fault.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

So, one can conclude from that, in order to make european muslims really understand the message of the Quran and take it to their heart, it's mandatory to translate it into the languages they know best, and which they use daily.

I believe the message of the koran is clear enough without the need for further translation:

Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. (2.216)

Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They [i.e. non-Muslims] will not fail to corrupt you. They long for your ruin. Hatred has already shown itself out of their mouths, but more grievous is what their breasts conceal. (3.118)

Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: "I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!" That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah. (8.12-13)

Lo, the worst of beasts in Allah's sight are the ungrateful who will not believe. (8.55)

Muster against them [i.e. non-Muslims] all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides them who are unknown to you but known to Allah. All that you give in the cause of Allah shall be repaid to you. You shall not be wronged. (8.60)

Believers, know that the idolaters are unclean. (9.28)

Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. (48.29)

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I believe the message of the koran is clear enough without the need for further translation.

Well, you and the radical islamists are proof enough to the contrary.
Your selection of translation proves that there is still a lot to do in the department of precision. Just a small selection:"Warfare" is wrong, right is "Fighting", "Friends" is wrong, right is "allies", "ruthless" is wrong, right is "hard"...

But more dangerous than translations that deliberately or unknowingly use wrong translations for keywords are the ignorance regarding two concepts, that you, Doofy, and the radical islamists simply don't grasp and will probably never, because of the hatred you and the radical islamists have made to a part of your and their identity, and these are: textual and historic context!

Taliesin

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Well, you and the radical islamists are proof enough to the contrary.
Your selection of translation proves that there is still a lot to do in the department of precision. Just a small selection:"Warfare" is wrong, right is "Fighting", "Friends" is wrong, right is "allies", "ruthless" is wrong, right is "hard"...

So when's the "koran, Taliesin translated edition" coming out then?

[Kevin]

Some however, translate the way that makes their belief look better, regardless of what it really means.


This seems to go on with the radicals and those that aren't so.

[vmarks]

As Ibn Warraq has noted, the "out of context" defense is the last refuge of dishonest politicians everywhere. Taliesin has to hope that his Western audience now will be ignorant of Qur'an 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166, all of which call Jews apes and pigs.

Ibn Warraq's own words on the matter:

Let us now turn to another argument or defensive tactic used by Muslims: the “you have quoted out of context” defense. What do they mean by “You have quoted out of context”? This could mean two things: first, the historical context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available in fact to Muslims, since the Koran is the eternal word of God and true and valid for always. Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many contradictions in the Koran. What is more, it certainly backfires for those liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Koran since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have been abrogated by the verses of the sword.

Out of Context Argument Used Against Muslims Themselves:

Now for the textual context. First, of course, this argument could be turned against Muslims themselves. When they produce a verse preaching tolerance, we could also say that they have quoted out of context, or more pertinently (1) that such a verse has been cancelled by a more belligerent and intolerant one, (2) that in the overall context of the Koran and the whole theological construct that we call Islam (i.e. in the widest possible context), the tolerant verses are anomalous, or have no meaning, since Muslim theologians ignored them completely in developing Islamic Law, or that (3) the verses do not say what they seem to say.

For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of Islam glibly came out with the following Koranic quote to show that Islam and the Koran disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32: “Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind ”.

Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32: “That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind. Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land. Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”

The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated and banished!

Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion that by quoting only a short passage from the Koran I have somehow distorted its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its true sense. What does “context” mean here? Do I have to quote the sentence before the offending passage, and the sentence after? Perhaps two sentences before and after? The whole chapter? Ultimately, of course, the entire Koran is the context.

The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we have seen from Sura V.32 just quoted. Let us take some other examples. Does the Koran say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not? I say yes, and quote the following verses to prove my point:

Sura IV.34:”As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them ”

This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context:

Sura IV.34: “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme.”

If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the misogyny of the Koran. The oppression of women has divine sanction, women must obey God and their men, who have divine authorization to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf Ali, clearly disturbed by this verse adds the word “lightly “in brackets after “beat “even though there is no “lightly “in the original Arabic. An objective reading of the entire Koran (that is the total context) makes grim reading as far as the position of women is concerned. There are at least forty passages in the Koran that are misogynistic in character.

Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to sura VIII.67, VIII.39, and Sura II.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre.
Let us take another example: Sura IX. Here I have tried to use where possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic, particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura IX verse 73. Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as: “O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.” In a footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning “fighting” for jahada. However, the Iraqi non-Muslim scholar Dawood in his Penguin translation renders this passage as: “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”

How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura IX indeed makes it clear that “make war “in the literal and not some metaphorical sense is meant. Let us take another verse from this Sura, Sura IX.5: “Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you find them …” These words are usually cited to show what fate awaits idolaters. Well, what of the context? The words immediately after these just quoted say, “and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the words that come after those. Let us quote them then, “If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful.” Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead. Hardly: they are saying that if they become Muslims then they will be left in peace. In fact, the whole sura, which has 129 verses (approximately 14 pages in the Penguin translation by Dawood), in other words, the whole context, is totally intolerant; and is indeed the source of many totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and dhimmis, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty, and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is being advocated.

First the idolaters, how can you trust them? Most of them are evildoers (IX. 8); fight them (IX. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (IX. 18); they are unclean (IX. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred months (IX. 36). “It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear they are people of hell-fire.” (IX.113) So much for forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace Islam: IX. 23 “O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers.” In other words if you are friendly with your parents who are not Muslims, you are being immoral.

The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but also from the following verses:

IX. 38 - 39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ‘March in the cause of God ’, you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come. If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men.
IX. 41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons.
IX. 73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal harshly with them.

The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, where it is defined as: To strive, contend with, fight –especially against the enemies of Islam. While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as “endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels.”

As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior status as dhimmis, we have IX verses 29 –35:

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.
“The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!
“They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only. There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides Him!….
“It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters may dislike it
“O you who believe ! Lo! Many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom …”

The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only true religion, Jews and Christians are devious and money-grubbing, who are not to be trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not think I need quote any more from Sura IX, although it goes on in this vein verse after verse.

[Hawkeye_a]

And they claim those words are the words of "God" ? Sounds more like the words of Satan to me.

Im glad i grew up with the 10 commandments as a guide. "You shall not kill".... cant be any simpler. Am i'm greatful to the God (if any), and his followers who made it that simple.

Cheers

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

And they claim those words are the words of "God" ? Sounds more like the words of Satan to me.

Bingo!

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by vmarks

As Ibn Warraq has noted, the "out of context" defense is the last refuge of dishonest politicians everywhere. Taliesin has to hope that his Western audience now will be ignorant of Qur'an 2:62-65, 5:59-60, and 7:166, all of which call Jews apes and pigs.

... (much smoke but no substance)

Sura 2-62-65:

002.060
YUSUFALI: And remember Moses prayed for water for his people; We said: "Strike the rock with thy staff." Then gushed forth therefrom twelve springs. Each group knew its own place for water. So eat and drink of the sustenance provided by God, and do no evil nor mischief on the (face of the) earth.
PICKTHAL: And when Moses asked for water for his people, We said: Smite with thy staff the rock. And there gushed out therefrom twelve springs (so that) each tribe knew their drinking-place. Eat and drink of that which God hath provided, and do not act corruptly, making mischief in the earth.
SHAKIR: And when Musa prayed for drink for his people, We said: Strike the rock with your staff So there gushed from it twelve springs; each tribe knew its drinking place: Eat and drink of the provisions of God and do not act corruptly in the land, making mischief.

002.061
YUSUFALI: And remember ye said: "O Moses! we cannot endure one kind of food (always); so beseech thy Lord for us to produce for us of what the earth groweth, -its pot-herbs, and cucumbers, Its garlic, lentils, and onions." He said: "Will ye exchange the better for the worse? Go ye down to any town, and ye shall find what ye want!" They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of God. This because they went on rejecting the Signs of God and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.
PICKTHAL: And when ye said: O Moses! We are weary of one kind of food; so call upon thy Lord for us that He bring forth for us of that which the earth groweth - of its herbs and its cucumbers and its corn and its lentils and its onions. He said: Would ye exchange that which is higher for that which is lower? Go down to settled country, thus ye shall get that which ye demand. And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from God. That was because they disbelieved in God's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully. That was for their disobedience and transgression.
SHAKIR: And when you said: O Musa! we cannot bear with one food, therefore pray Lord on our behalf to bring forth for us out of what the earth grows, of its herbs and its cucumbers and its garlic and its lentils and its onions. He said: Will you exchange that which is better for that which is worse? Enter a city, so you will have what you ask for. And abasement and humiliation were brought down upon them, and they became deserving of God's wrath; this was so because they disbelieved in the communications of God and killed the prophets unjustly; this was so because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits.

002.062
YUSUFALI: Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Strange, a story about some people that got were punished by God because they transgressed the Sabbath. That surely means that all jews must be apes and pigs!

Sura 5:59-60:

005.059
YUSUFALI: Say: "O people of the Book! Do ye disapprove of us for no other reason than that we believe in God, and the revelation that hath come to us and that which came before (us), and (perhaps) that most of you are rebellious and disobedient?"
PICKTHAL: Say: O People of the Scripture! Do ye blame us for aught else than that we believe in God and that which is revealed unto us and that which was revealed aforetime, and because most of you are evil-livers?
SHAKIR: Say: O followers of the Book! do you find fault with us (for aught) except that we believe in God and in what has been revealed to us and what was revealed before, and that most of you are transgressors?

005.060
YUSUFALI: Say: "Shall I point out to you something much worse than this, (as judged) by the treatment it received from God? those who incurred the curse of God and His wrath, those of whom some He transformed into apes and swine, those who worshipped evil;- these are (many times) worse in rank, and far more astray from the even path!"
PICKTHAL: Shall I tell thee of a worse (case) than theirs for retribution with God? (Worse is the case of him) whom God hath cursed, him on whom His wrath hath fallen and of whose sort God hath turned some to apes and swine, and who serveth idols. Such are in worse plight and further astray from the plain road.
SHAKIR: Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from God? (Worse is he) whom God has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.

Hmm, so God warning the people of the book that those who incurred the wrath and curse of God, because they worshipped evil like the ones he transformed to apes and pigs, means off course that all people of the book are apes and pigs. Fascinating logic indeed.

And surah 7:163-7:166:

007.163
YUSUFALI: Ask them concerning the town standing close by the sea. Behold! they transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath. For on the day of their Sabbath their fish did come to them, openly holding up their heads, but on the day they had no Sabbath, they came not: thus did We make a trial of them, for they were given to transgression.
PICKTHAL: Ask them (O Muhammad) of the township that was by the sea, how they did break the Sabbath, how their big fish came unto them visibly upon their Sabbath day and on a day when they did not keep Sabbath came they not unto them. Thus did We try them for that they were evil-livers.
SHAKIR: And ask them about the town which stood by the sea; when they exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, when their fish came to them on the day of their Sabbath, appearing on the surface of the water, and on the day on which they did not keep the Sabbath they did not come to them; thus did We try them because they transgressed.

007.164
YUSUFALI: When some of them said: "Why do ye preach to a people whom God will destroy or visit with a terrible punishment?"- said the preachers:" To discharge our duty to your Lord, and perchance they may fear Him."
PICKTHAL: And when a community among them said: Why preach ye to a folk whom God is about to destroy or punish with an awful doom, they said: In order to be free from guilt before your Lord, and that haply they may ward off (evil).
SHAKIR: And when a party of them said: Why do you admonish a with a severe chastisement? They said: To be free from blame before your Lord, and that haply they may guard (against evil).

007.165
YUSUFALI: When they disregarded the warnings that had been given them, We rescued those who forbade Evil; but We visited the wrong-doers with a grievous punishment because they were given to transgression.
PICKTHAL: And when they forgot that whereof they had been reminded, We rescued those who forbade wrong, and visited those who did wrong with dreadful punishment because they were evil-livers.
SHAKIR: So when they neglected what they had been reminded of, We delivered those who forbade evil and We overtook those who were unjust with an evil chastisement because they transgressed.

007.166
YUSUFALI: When in their insolence they transgressed (all) prohibitions, We said to them: "Be ye apes, despised and rejected."
PICKTHAL: So when they took pride in that which they had been forbidden, We said unto them: Be ye apes despised and loathed!
SHAKIR: Therefore when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.

Again a story about some people in a town near the sea transgressing against the Sabbath and invoking divine punishment, while the righteous ones of that town got rescued, means off course jews are apes and pigs. What inescapable argument!

I'm always surprised that westerners side with the out-of-context and over-generalisation and deliberate misinterpretations of radical islamists.

Regarding the idea that nothing of the Quran has a historic context: It's a wrong idea that is often used by radical islamists and sometimes also by orthodox Islam, but it's easily refuteable: Let's imagine that there is no historic context, then that would mean "to not kill any innocent human" and to respect, tolerate and regard the people of the book as brothers in faith is an eternal rule, right? Oh, wait there are those verses that say "Fight those from the people of the book that don't believe in God and the last day until they are subdued and pay the tax".

They can't be both eternal rulings. Considering the fact that sura 9 begins without the "In the name of God, the forgiver, the forgiving"-title, and considering the very historic description of the jews and christians, from their help for prophet Muhammad and his followers in Medina up to the bertrayal and alliance with polytheistic Mecca (including the obligatory naming and deliverement of specific idols for worship among the numerous other idols in Mecca), this makes pretty easily the case for a partly historic Quran.

When reading the Quran it is pretty obvious what parts are historic chronologies of a war between polytheistic Mecca and monotheistic Medina, and what are divine commandments to secure salvation in the hereafter.

But that isn't all, the verses talking about fighting in the war started by polytheistic Mecca are even more and this time uncompromisingly and decisively marked as historic, by the verses calling the followers of prophet Muhammad to help and obey him, as well as the retelling of Moses' history and the fighting and obeying of his followers or the lack of it in some parts.

It's clear from that that the religious fighting of the defensive war was only holy under prophet Muhammad because he followed God's specific and timebound commandments, and it ended when Mecca was defeated and the Kaabah restored in its monotheistic purpose for which Abraham and Ismaeel built it.

Every fighting done after prohet Muhammad's death is purely secular since it isn't led and sanctified by a prophet from God.

Oh, I nearly forgot, the word "jihad" or "jahada" is not softened down by translating it as "striving hard", it's the only right one. Someone who claims that "jahada" means warfare either doesn't know the arabic language very well or tries to propagate a special agenda (done both by radical islamists and islamophobes alike).

There are other words for war and fighting, namely "harb" and "qitala".

Jihad according to the Quran was what prophet Muhammad did before polytheistic Mecca started the war, namely to preach against polytheism and to call injustices by their name, to help the poor and to do good in general, regardless of the accusations and offendings of the rich polytheists in Mecca, and not to fear them but only God instead.

The reason why radical islamists try to link the word jahada and jihad with war and fighting, is because these words are much more widespread in the Quran, than the historic call for fight (qitala) in sura 9, 8 and a few others.


Taliesin

[vmarks]

I'll just wait for Taliesin's arguments to convince the rioters. Oh, and his lovely explanation for Sura 9 that talks about striking at the necks...

Meanwhile, just to show that nothing ever seems to change...

Here is a passage from Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais' 1784 stage comedy Marriage of Figaro (adapted by Mozart for the great opera), from the famous Freedom of Speech monologue in Act V, Scene 3:

"I cobble together a verse comedy about the customs of the harem, assuming that, as a Spanish writer, I can say what I like about Mohammed without drawing hostile fire. Next thing, some envoy from God knows where turns up and complains that in my play I have offended the Ottoman empire, Persia, a large slice of the Indian peninsula, the whole of Egypt, and the kingdoms of Barca {Ethiopia}, Tripoli, Tunisi, Algeria, and Morocco. And so my play sinks without trace, all to placate a bunch of Muslim princes, not one of whom, as far as I know, can read but who beat the living daylights out of us and say we are 'Christian dogs.' Since they can't stop a man thinking, they take it out on his hide instead..."

[moodymonster]

I think what is distinct about these drawings is not the reaction from the East, which is a given. But the reaction from the West, instead of rolling over and taking it, is saying this is us, if you don't like it, tough (by and large).

[goMac]

It seems to me Muslims just don't understand the situation. In Muslim countries, usually the newspaper is run by the state. They seem to be assuming that the Danish government created these cartoons and then published them, which would be extremely insulting if that was true. But it's not. Islam is going to have to learn to separate individual actions from the larger group that individual is part of.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

And they claim those words are the words of "God" ? Sounds more like the words of Satan to me.

Im glad i grew up with the 10 commandments as a guide. "You shall not kill".... cant be any simpler. Am i'm greatful to the God (if any), and his followers who made it that simple.

Cheers

It's "You shall not murder".

Which complicated things a bit.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally Posted by yakkiebah

Denmark has a problem, right now, and it's growing. They are a part of Europe.

Apart from Denmark there are more countries in Europe who have problems regarding islamic radicalism: UK, France, Spain and the Netherlands. Caused by a tiny monority? Big minority? To be honest i don't have the exact numbers but there is a problem nontheless. There is a general sense of fear when publishing something in a newspaper, making a movie, writing a book, etc.

Yup! And where Spain bowed to Islamic intimidation by pulling out of Iraq after their train bombings, Denmark has recently chosen, after lengthy debate, to send a 1,000 man military detachment to join the Coalition forces in Afghanistan.

They understand who'll have their backs when push comes to shove.

As has already been stated elsewhere in many different posts by several different posters, the intimidation factor is part of Islam's success, how it spreads and achieves conquest. Intimidation and when that doesn't work, actual violence.

What you'll see used to defend Islam is a shift to it's legalistic image. It's true that Islam is both a religion and a system of laws based upon the religion.

If we consider Islam as a RELIGION, it seems hostile compared to, say, Christianity, which has been called, Wuss-like.

But, looking at Islam as simply a system of government compared to, let's say, Communism, then it doesn't seem as odious.

Governments and systems of government are viewed differently than religions.

A government that promotes expansionism is ho-hum. A religion that does the same is !!!

A government that foments strife barely warrants a headline. A religion that does the same threatens global war!

Let's see how many here buy into this PR shift, if that's what evolves.

[von Wrangell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

I'll just wait for Taliesin's arguments to convince the rioters. Oh, and his lovely explanation for Sura 9 that talks about striking at the necks...

Meanwhile, just to show that nothing ever seems to change...

Here is a passage from Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais' 1784 stage comedy Marriage of Figaro (adapted by Mozart for the great opera), from the famous Freedom of Speech monologue in Act V, Scene 3:

"I cobble together a verse comedy about the customs of the harem, assuming that, as a Spanish writer, I can say what I like about Mohammed without drawing hostile fire. Next thing, some envoy from God knows where turns up and complains that in my play I have offended the Ottoman empire, Persia, a large slice of the Indian peninsula, the whole of Egypt, and the kingdoms of Barca {Ethiopia}, Tripoli, Tunisi, Algeria, and Morocco. And so my play sinks without trace, all to placate a bunch of Muslim princes, not one of whom, as far as I know, can read but who beat the living daylights out of us and say we are 'Christian dogs.' Since they can't stop a man thinking, they take it out on his hide instead..."

Why won't you try to answer Taliesin? Haven't got the education or intellect to do it? Prefer the hit-and-run tactic?

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

I think what is distinct about these drawings is not the reaction from the East, which is a given. But the reaction from the West, instead of rolling over and taking it, is saying this is us, if you don't like it, tough (by and large).

Indeed!
Moscow museum to exhibit Mohammed cartoons

[Y3a]

Other than a temper tantrum, what good has the Muslim outburst caused? a few deaths, and some buildings burned.

All the western news outlets are gonna display the cartoons,
and those who come out to 'protest' (riot) can be photographed by the authorities
so their backgrounds can be checked.

[Monique]

All it does really it portrays these Muslims like a bunch of animals without any selft restraint. Those comics again are in Danish, not many people speak Danish and if those crazy Muslims would have let it go; it would have died in no time at all.

[moodymonster]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Indeed!
Moscow museum to exhibit Mohammed cartoons

I wasn't really referring to Russia - more other Muslim countries - but literally Russia is East

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by goMac

It seems to me Muslims just don't understand the situation. In Muslim countries, usually the newspaper is run by the state.

If a whole country is responsible for a newspaper (Denmark), then ok, ALL muslims are terrorists. They can't have it both ways.

[von Wrangell]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...alComment/home

Reason and religion can learn to co-exist
TARIQ RAMADAN
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

I was in Copenhagen in October when the cartoons affair started to provoke demonstrations in Denmark. Interviewed by a journalist of the newspaper that first published the caricatures of the Prophet, the man told me how intense the debates among his fellow journalists were. He told me about the discomfort many of them were feeling about this issue and how they had been surprised by the strong reaction of Muslims and of Arab embassies in the country.

At that time, it seemed the tension was not likely to cross the Danish borders. And, to the Danish Muslims who were denouncing the publication as racist -- a provocation that would be used by the country's growing right wing -- my advice was to avoid reacting emotionally, to try to explain quietly why these cartoons were hurting them, and neither to demonstrate nor to take the risk of activating mass movements that would be impossible to master.

Everything seemed to be solved; so, three months later, why has the controversy burst into flames? A few Danish Muslims, it seems, visited some Middle Eastern countries and stirred up resentment. In turn, some Arab governments, happy to find a kind of Islamic legitimacy in the sight of their own people, presented themselves as the champions of the great cause. This was enough for some politicians, intellectuals, and journalists in the West, to present themselves as the champions of freedom of expression and the resistance fighters to religious obscurantism.

In short, it became a simplistic polarization: an alleged clash of two civilizations -- the religious and the liberal. Muslims want apologies, some are attacking European interests and others threaten to attack people. Western governments, intellectuals and journalists refuse to bend under the threats, and certain media added to the controversy by publishing the cartoons again. Most of the world simply wants the zaniness to end.

What matters, now, is to find a way to get out of the infernal circle and to ask everyone to stop putting fuel on the fire, in order eventually to open a serious, and serene debate.

This affair does not symbolize the confrontation between the principles of Enlightenment and those of religion, nor a fracture between the West and Islam. Rather, it is between those who, in both universes, are able to assert what they stand for, whether in the name of a faith or of reason, and balance it with appreciation of the other, and, on the other hand, those who are driven by exclusive certainties, blind passions, reductive perceptions of the other and hasty conclusions. These character traits are shared by some intellectuals, religious scholars, journalists and ordinary people on both sides.

It is strictly forbidden in Islam to represent the Prophet in any way. If, moreover, one adds clumsy confusions and insults, as it was perceived by Muslims in the Prophet's caricature (drawn with a turban in a form of a bomb), one can understand the nature of the shock and the rejection that was expressed by large segments of the Muslim communities around the world. However, it necessary for Muslims not to forget that Western societies, for the past three centuries, have become used to derision, irony and criticism toward religious symbols -- the Pope, Jesus Christ, and even God. Even though Muslims do not share this attitude, it is imperative that they learn to keep an intellectual critical distance while facing such provocations, and that they do not let themselves be driven by passionate zeal and fervour, which are never advisable.

Facing such cartoons, it would have been, and it remains, preferable for Muslims to expose their grievances and their values to the large public without uproar and then to wait until a better conjuncture makes it possible to open a serene debate. What is welling up today from within the Muslim communities is as excessive as it is insane: To be obsessed with apologies; to call for a boycott of European products, even the threats of physical or armed reprisals are totally excessive, and these excesses must be rejected and condemned.

On the other hand, to invoke the right for free expression, to give oneself the right to say anything in any way against anybody is irresponsible as well: first, because it is not true that everything is permitted in the name of freedom of expression. Each country has its laws that set a framework that allows, for instance, condemnation of statements of hate. Racial or religious insults are not treated the same way in every Western society. Within a similar legal framework, each country has its own memory and its own sensitivity, and wisdom requires people to acknowledge and respect that reality.

Western societies have changed and the Muslim presence has naturally changed this collective sensitivity. Instead of being obsessed with laws and rights, would it be not better to call the citizens to a more responsible use of the freedom of expression that takes into account the different sensitivities that compose our contemporary societies? It is not a matter to add laws and to restrain the scope of free speech. It is simply to call every conscience to use one's rights in a more respectful way. It is more a matter of nurturing a sense of civic responsibility than to impose legislation. Muslim citizens are not asking for more censorship but for more respect.

We are at the crossroad. It is time that the women and men who reject the wrong-headed divisions between two worlds start building bridges between the two universes, sharing common values. They must assert the right to freedom of expression and, at the same time, recommend the sense of measure as to its use. We need them to promote an open and self-critical approach, refusing the exclusive truths and the narrow-minded binary visions of the world.

We are in dire need of mutual trust. The crises provoked by these cartoons show us how the worst can be possible, out of apparently nothing, between the two universes when they become deaf to each other and are tempted to define themselves against the other.

Tariq Ramadan is a visiting professor at St. Antony's College, Oxford. He is chairman of the European Muslim Network think-tank and author of Western Muslims and the Future of Islam.

[PacHead]

Originally Posted by von Wrangell

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...alComment/home

The author is a muslim ? How surprising is that ? He does not believe in free speech.

Sorry, the right of people in civilized nations to draw cartoons is not forbidden no matter what anybody says. There will be no compromise and no backing down.

Yes to Free Speech and no to fascist Muslims who wish to quell such speech.