Recently, a 20-year-old Bangladeshi Muslim cartoonist sketched a cartoon that appeared in a Bangla newspaper. It was intended to caricature the local culture where everyone tends to add “Muhammad” before their name. In the cartoon, when an elderly Muslim priest asks a little boy carrying a cat, what was its name; the boy answers, ‘Muhammad Cat.’ This created outrage among Bangladeshi Muslims. The leader of Khelafot Andolon (Caliphate Movement) Maulana Ashraf stated that: “the cartoon indicates disgrace of the Muslim prophet by naming a cat ‘Muhammad'. Similar to the Danish Cartoon incident prophet Muhammad has been defamed in Muslim majority Bangladesh.” The head cleric of Bangladesh’s National Mosque, said: "This is a grievous offense, this is dangerous."
It led to violent protests in Bangladeshi capital, despite a ban on public demonstrations, under the current military rule. The newspaper offered immediate apology; so did the cartoonist. Not enough, the country’s entire press community later sought forgiveness of the people. Still unsatisfied, the protesters demanded closure of the popular daily, and death of the cartoonist. Obviously, to save the young cartoonist’s life from mob justice, authorities arrested him and put him in jail on groundless charge of “hurting people’s religious sentiments” One should be little surprised by this outrage of Bangladeshi Muslims, as well as those surrounding Muhammad’s caricatures in Danish and Swedish papers, since Prophet Muhammad himself was ruthless with his critics, especially the poets and singers, who ridiculed his creed.
Repercussions in Nigeria
Can this Bangladesh cartoon have anything to do with Nigerian Christians, thousands of miles away in a different continent? According to a Nigerian news report, it led to slaughter of nine Christians by Muslim mobs in Nigeria. There was also widespread vandalism of Christian businesses, homes and properties, and raging down of churches. The General Secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria, Mr Samuel Salifu, said:“…they (Muslims) saw a cartoon on the internet and they discovered that this cartoon was drawn by a 20-year-old Muslim boy from Bangladesh and they decided to visit their anger on innocent Christians and their churches.” Salifu Continued: "They cannot control their anger, they take knives and slaughter. When you tell them what they are doing is wrong, they will turn round and start to kill.”
The question is: how could a cartoon, allegedly offensive to Muslims, drawn in a far-off land―that too, by a Muslim―anger Muslims of Nigeria to such an extent that they go on killing any non-Muslim come within their reach? A similar savagery by Muslims took place in India in 1921 CE. When the Ottoman caliphate was facing the prospect of collapse, the Muslims of India, then under British rule, started the Khilafat Andolon (Caliphate Movement). Its aim was not only to protect the integrity of the Ottoman caliphate, but also to integrate India into that caliphate, after ousting the British rulers. And unsurprisingly, our Mahatma Gandhi happily joined this movement.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - tarikur
The whole thing is pure lies and propaganda. Anybody who is in 3rd grade can figure it out.
The verse that you mention about Quran is useless because Quran is very different from other books and works very different ways. The Quran is not organized at all. Therefore, you have to translate the Quranic in cyclic translation. The beauty of the Quran is that it explains itself or adds on that could be 2 chapter away or in other side of the Quran. The best example is stories of Prophets are not told in piece like in the bible; they are told all over the Quran, when one connect all the verses that person gets the complete stories. Same thing, when one connect all the verses about fighting and killing non-muslims; they can conclude that fighting is only for defensive and peaceful purposes. Quran says killing a man is like killing the whole mankind. That's how bad it is.
The killing of Jews was done because they broke the peace treaty with the Muslims and sided with Meccan on the war. The judge that decided the punishment for breaking the agreement was a formal Jewish leader and thought he was going to go light on the punishment. He said the punishment of killing adult males only is from the Jews law and many of the jews wanted that punishment.
Muhammed only fought the Meccans for survival and defence since Meccan was far greater in strengh than the Muslims. Meccan continuously attacked the Muslims to wipe them out. Muhammed never attacked or conquered Mecca that is false; he went to Mecca by the peace agreement. He never forced anyone to convert, they converted from their own will and through agreement with the leaders. The evidence is that after converting many of them joined Muslims in spreading Islam.
2 - CDog
Quote
Same thing, when one connect all the verses about fighting and killing non-Muslims; they can conclude that fighting is only for defensive and peaceful purposes.
/Quote
They can also conclude that fighting is the will of Allah and they must convert or kill everyone not of their religion. That's the thing with most philosophies, they can be interpreted as needed.
As for calling it "Pure Lies", I seriously doubt that. Are you saying that Muslims did not call for the death of people because they created a Comic that offended them? That would be a Pure Lie. That's seems to be how Islam works, offend us, and we call for your death. And if we can't kill you, then we will just kill Random non-Muslims instead.
Religion of Peace...
LOL
3 - Franco
#1 " tarikur
All you are addressing is debatable history, history that is even debatable among the Muslims. You’re making no headway here.
How about addressing the present killings by Muslims as outlined in the article. Can you handle that?
4 - RJ
Can this Bangladesh cartoon have anything to do with Nigerian Christians, thousands of miles away in a different continent? According to a Nigerian news report, it led to slaughter of nine Christians by Muslim mobs in Nigeria. There was also widespread vandalism of Christian businesses, homes and properties, and raging down of churches. The General Secretary of the Christian Association of Nigeria, Mr Samuel Salifu, said:“…they (Muslims) saw a cartoon on the internet and they discovered that this cartoon was drawn by a 20-year-old Muslim boy from Bangladesh and they decided to visit their anger on innocent Christians and their churches.” Salifu Continued: "They cannot control their anger, they take knives and slaughter. When you tell them what they are doing is wrong, they will turn round and start to kill.”
Ah, the "bloody borders" of Islam. The "religion of peace" goes rioting over cartoons again. Fun stuff.
I wonder why no Presidential candidate has promised to end all Muslim immigration into this country. It would seem to be a winning issue. S/he'd certainly have my vote.
5 - Irene Wagner
The prospect of fundamentalist Muslim cell groups forming all over the US is a frightening prospect. They're already here though. It's too late to prevent immigration. It seems more wise to eliminate their motivation to do anything drastic.
Oct 03, 2007 at 7:49 pm
And besides, would you've denied asylum to the Muslim cartoonist (who inadvertently started the brouhaha) if he had sought it in the US?
What about other Muslims who are creative and peaceloving, like those living in the tradition of the Muslim mystic Rumi , happy to live harmoniously with non-Muslims? What about Muslims who are only "cultural" Muslims, like Roman Catholics who haven't been to Mass in years, or Jews who don't believe in God?
Denying entrance to all Muslims makes as much sense as denying entrance to Mexican immigrants merely because they are Catholics and Catholics made up the violent Irish Republican Army.
The US must (as an EMERGENT matter of national security, to say nothing of commitment to taking the moral high road) take an honest look at what America might be doing to become the target of radical Islam, then back off.
6 - Alamgir Hussain
What Treaty, Tarikur?
What treaty are you talking about which the Jews broke? The famous treaty, known as the Constitution of Medina, was never signed by any of the Jewish tribes. Only pagan tribes of Medina were the cosignatory. Look at the terms set in the treaty given that Muhammad was a refugee there. I have discussed about this treaty in another essay.
Moreover, the accusation of Quraiza Jews siding with the Meccan party is only allegations. No proof. No Jews raised weapons against Muslims in that battle of the Ditch. Muhammad's biographers only suggest that Meccans urged the Quraiza Jews to be on their side. But the latter never took arms and fight. Yet, everything is accusation by Muslims that we know from history books today.
Even then, it does not warrant slaughering all males, having grown pubic hair, of the tribe and enslaving the women and children -- especially when they had surrendered and wanted to go exile. That's barbarity; so more when committed by the most peaceful prophet of God.
7 - Irene Wagner
As far as the threat of radical Islam to the rest of the world goes, if the superpowers backed off, and brought their Kalishnikovs and CIA training grounds with them, the Middle East would become a more peaceful place, prosperity would return, and there'd be fewer breeding grounds for the desperados who become suicide bombers.
The US needs to get out of the Empire building business. Electing Ron Paul for president is a good first step. Yes, it sounds like a dream, but that's how change starts--with a dream. Does the civilized world REALLY want to be at war with radical Islam for generations to come?
8 - Alamgir Hussain
Irene,
That sounds pretty simple solution. But reading of Islam 14 century's of history does not support such a theory. Islam started attack on Europe in 712 CE and never gave up. We saw them arriving at the gates of Vienna in 1683 for the second time.
U.S. is bulding empire everywhere if you want to say so. More imposingly in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, stationing tens of thousands of troops. It did not breed suicide bombers there.
9 - tarikur
To #4
what you have said is pure non-sense because all of the sources regarding the killings of the Jews males adult comes from Muslim's Sources only and all sources say that the Jews broke the treaty and sided with the Meccans to fight the Muslims. There is no other source at all other than the Muslim one. There is no record that such Jews tribe even existed. The hadiths were 200-300 years later from the actual event. Therefore, lot of historians question it's historical validity.
10 - Franco
#4 " Irene Wagner
"The prospect of fundamentalist Muslim cell groups forming all over the US is a frightening prospect. They're already here though. It's too late to prevent immigration. It seems more wise to eliminate their motivation to do anything drastic."
I am sorry you are fearful Irene, I know it is no joking matter. Yet what I am surprised at is your not understanding what radical Islam has already told you.
They want you to surrender to Islam (take up the faith) or die. So when you say, "it seems more wise to eliminate their motivation to do anything drastic" you have a choice to make. Will you surrender or will you fight.
Hey, your free to choose Islam as a faith if you want. But shouldn't that be by your own free will and not by force? Shouldn’t that be your right? I think so.
The US Bill of Rights fully gives you those rights, and the Bill of Rights also states that it is the government’s job is to protect your rights. The US Bill of Rights makes the radical Islamic groups hate us. They see our individual rights as satanic. Hence we are called the Great Satin. Surly you must have heard that before.
So when you say....."The US must take an honest look at what America might be doing to become the target of radical Islam, then back off."...your are in essence saying lets give up some of our rights.
I say we should never give up any of our rights!
#6 "Irene Wagner
"Does the civilized world REALLY want to be at war with radical Islam for generations to come?"
This statement is formed from a position of weakness.
Here again is your voice of dread and fear. And as I said before I am sorry it is effecting you so much. But IMO, the better question is:
Does the radical Islamic world REALLY want to be a war with the civilized world for years to come?
11 - Franco
#8 " tarikur
All you are addressing is debatable history, history that is even debatable among the Muslims. You're making no headway here.
How about addressing the present killings by Muslims as outlined in the article. Can you handle that?
12 - Doug Hunter
"Does the radical Islamic world REALLY want to be a war with the civilized world for years to come?"
Only if the civilized world won't convert. Freedom, democracy, multiculturalism, are all relatively new concepts to 'civilized' society. Perhaps Islam is a threat that cannot be adequately addressed within the context of these news ideas, perhaps not. I'm not scared of the US being overtaken or threaten in mine or my children's lifetime but I feel for some countries that are growing dangerously close to Muslim majorities.
13 - alessandro
To suggest that the United States leave with its bat and ball would lead to a peaceful Middle-East completely ignores the reality and history of the region.
It was already spiraling downwards well before the arrival of the United States. The region seems to be fixated on the past to the point of absurdity.
No. There's something more profound at work.
14 - Irene Wagner
Franco and Alagmir: Yes, I know the history of violent conquest by Muslims, and I know it's naive to believe it can't or won't happen again. Hopefully one or two things about diplomacy have been learned in the ensuing centuries, however.
You say I am acting out of fear, an unwillingness to fight? To consign millions of peace-loving Muslims (not to mention the Jews and Christians in their neighborhoods) to their deaths because others of their radical countrymen frighten us--THAT'S acting out of fear, maybe even cowardice.
I would contend that extending the olive branch to a threatening country (instead of wiping the floor with its president when he comes to speak at a US university, which happened recently), admitting that there has been injustice and cruelty committed on all sides, that people of all faiths are suffering in the Middle East--trying to work out solutions peacefully---THAT approach takes humility and courage.
I realize it's not simple. There are powerful forces at work, not just in the US, but throughout the world, which BENEFIT from nations being at war (e.g. the military-industrial complex), but I WON'T be cowed into hating generically people who mean me no harm. I don't know what other honorable thing there is to do but to encourage leadership that will make a start toward making real peace--minus the chest-beating and Empirical manipulations, greedy conniving for oil, the use of the Middle East as a playing field by Superpowers in opposition and their allies.
.
But allesandro, what do you think that more profound thing is?
15 - Franco
#14 " Irene Wagner
Woo girl, hold up a minute. I never suggested we should "consign millions of peace-loving Muslims to their deaths because others of their radical countrymen frighten us"
I do not know anyone on this blog or within the US or EU government who is suggesting that. I do not know where you come up with that idea but it is faults.
The very fact that western civilization is willing to put its own non-Muslim citizens lives at risk (including your life) to protect "peace-loving Muslims" from Radical Islam is being proved both at home and abroad everyday. The very fact that we are willing to do it puts all our lives at risk.
Irene, I respect your contention that we should extend the olive branch first. You are 110% correct and it should always be or first course of action. The one who came to tell us to do that also said to not cast pearls before swine, as they will turn and attract you.
Now apparently you are talking about Iran in post #14.
Help me understand how we do that with radical Islamists, of which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has proven himself to be.
Please keep in mind the following in your response.
1. Radical Islam is a do or die mission from God.
2. Radical Islam is killing more Muslims (including peace-loving Muslims) in the world today then all western powers combined.
3. Radical Islam by its very nature at its very core forbids making any peace with you, an infidel. You either surrender to Islam or die.
4. Radical Islam believes that pilling up the body counts of back sliding Muslims, and Infidels, is glorifying God, who will reward them gloriously for it.
5. Radical Islam is desperately seeking WMD to use them for the glory of their God.
The Olive Branch - can it be extended, or is it casing pearls before those that would turn and attack us?
16 - Irene Wagner
Franco, I know you haven’t proposed what to do about Islamic terrorism. #14 was a reaction to demands to “nuke their desert countries until the turn to glass.”
The world is a body shot through with the cancer of radical Islam. You can get rid of the cancer by cutting off every limb and removing every organ where this cancer is growing, or you can target the cancer cells specifically, leaving the rest of the affected organ or limb whole and healthy. Of course terrorists should expect to be handled with the same violence they've doled out to their victims. They should be rooted out and tried in the courts of whatever countr(ies) their offenses occurred. NO extraditions.
You've asked me to "help you understand" how we are to respond to radical Islam. Let's face it Franco. Though I can try to elect leaders who are honest, thoughtful, humane, and realistic about national security and self-defense needs, and I can get people thinking about why the world’s principle sources of energy (oil and nuclear) are ones whose access requires war, or which can themselves be used as weapons, and why alternatives are not being pursued more aggressively, I don't really have that much control over how my country responds to radical Islam. I have even less control over how those who benefit monetarily from the sale of weapons and conflicts over access to oil may actually be stirring up violence in Muslim countries, while at the same time encouraging other nations to fight terrorism. But I, who was a bit of a swine myself before someone cast a pearl before me, DO have complete control over how I respond to radical Islam spiritually. So do you.
Do you have knees?
17 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Almagir,
Another home-run belted out of the park by someone who knows his faith, even if he doesn't like its beliefs.
I could see attacking the center of the Wahhabi monarchy with nukes - the Wahhabi pay for the madrassas world wide that teach a philosophy of hate. Destroying that branch of the tree should eliminate the poison, IMHO. If this murderousness is endemic to all of Islam, I guess what this infidel needs to know is what you suggest doing about it?
While you are considering that question, do bear in mind that non-Moslems in India, for example, might not recognize you as the person who bears strong protest against Moslem violence. Your name, Hussein, marks you as a Moslem to non-Moslems, no matter what you happen to believe, just like Goldberg marks the owners name as Jewish, no matter what he happens to believe....
This is experience talking.
18 - Franco
#16 " Irene Wagner
Thank you Irene, excellent response.
This perspective of the issue on “radical Islam” opens up startling connections to scriptures and the promise of hope.
But here is one word of comfort, that for the elect's sake these days shall be made shorter than their enemies designed, who would have cut all off, if God, who used these foes to serve his own purpose, had not set bounds to their wrath.
Depending upon which of Abraham’s two sons you believe is the promise of the sacrifice determines entirely how you view that preceding paragraph.
Muslims see this in complete reverse. They see us (people of the book) as their enemies in this exact same context.
The entirety of the conflict between the Islamic world & Western civilization rests with Abraham’s two sons. This is purly a religios war, I has nothing to do with oil.
Oil is all the world can see when dismissing Ishmael and Isaac
The Muslims confirm it here Isaac and Ishmael in Islam and Christianity
19 - Irene Wagner
Franco--Discussions about God among Christians, Jews, atheists, Muslims, or indeed anyone can get pretty heated, and I don't deny there are spiritual forces at work when those dialogues end in martyrdom for participants of ANY faith.
In order for those discussions to escalate into full-on religious wars, however, powerful leaders (manipulating or even conscripting the faithful to do their bidding) usually need to stand to gain some kind of EARTHLY booty, like oil, gold, land or power. Biblical prophecy is continually being fulfilled by people who don't even believe in God, no matter how much they may use His Name to rally the troops and political support. An example is how Bush and the Neoconservatives
rode the wave of Christian Zionism to get into power. (The author is not a relative.)
20 - alessandro
Irene, Franco: good discussion.
Irene is right. The U.S. in theory should take the spiritual higher road and extend an olive branch. For the most part, America does try to maintain a relationship with the Arab world. The problem is that the radical elements there prevent it. Terrorists act as spoilers. They do not adhere or accept our notions of diplomacy and other conventions of politics we use.
That's a problem. And here we enter the world of realpolitik. It's like trying to fit a triangle into a circle. Or like Franco explains it, they see things in reverse to us. They do write their poetic prose from right to left after all! Which would be great for me since I am left handed.
A middle road has to be found. Unfortunately, the evolution of terrorist organizations are probably past that point and force may be the only option.
But how that force is employed is the crucial question. One concern I have about Irene's suggestion that we focus on cells is that while it is correct you still have to convince the country who gives them life to cooperate. In Europe and other countries who face these problems this is an easy sell. But what to do with the more extreme countries like Syria and Iran? As you can see, the problem easily slides in and out between nation-states and para-military organizations with politco-religious agendas. Very messy.
Irene, by profound I mean a thousand years of Arab history that holds many answers to the problems we see now.
On that note...the Vaudeville cane comes out.
21 - Alamgir Hussain
Tarikur,
Could you show us, which authentic sources in Islam say, the Banu Quraiza Jews picked up weapons against the Muslims in the battle of the ditch?
Instead, Islamic historians tell us that Banu Quraiza Jews gave Muhammad their shovels and spades for digging the ditch, which saved the Muslims from Meccan attack.
This must be taken in the context that Muhammad had earlier attacked and exiled two other Jewish tribes of Medina, Banu Qainuqa and Nadir on flimsy accusations.
22 - Irene Wagner
I thank you, too, Franco and Allesandro, et al. for the good discussion. It is VERY messy, a complicated brew of spiritual and physical war. No WONDER it defies being solved with easy answers.
* vaudeville cane comes out, prayer shawl goes on *
23 - Gabriel
"A middle road has to be found. Unfortunately, the evolution of terrorist organizations are probably past that point and force may be the only option"
I like that idea, but shedding innocent blood (even of non-violent muslims) is the most ungodly thing that could ever cross the mind of any normal human being. Unfortunately, why these killings would continue for generations (definitely not forever!) is that it is fundamental to a religion which is the second largest in the world. In the Christian religion, there were also killings. Even the God of the Christians sometimes approved of killing of the infidels before Christ came and ended it all. Definitely, what differentiate Jehovah from other Gods is His willingness to save only those who are willing, always remembering that while making humans, He has given them the willingness to choose what to believe. Jehovah, seems to also be in touch with the changing world than the other Gods. That's why science and technology are not really in conflict with Christianity.
Religion is a terrible thing! Once it gets into people's head, they can do anything in defence of it. What I see happening in any (hopefully not distant) generation, is the muslims trying to embrace a form of religion that's compatible with the present age. I also hope that, somewhere in the heart of the radical ones, they would find a place for fellow human beings. Any religion devoid of love and respect for human life is not from the Supreme God
24 - alessandro
Gabriel, and you're touching on another issue. The West is secularized; Islam isn't. Islam incorporates culture, religion, history, politics etc. into one whereas we've separated it. Of course, some may dispute this with the power of the evangelicals and fundamentalists but secular we are nonetheless.
25 - Franco
#19 " Irene Wagner
spiritual forces at work --powerful leaders (manipulating or even conscripting the faithful to do their bidding) stand to gain EARTHLY booty in, oil, gold, power - Biblical prophecy being fulfilled by people who don't even believe in God
...earmarks of a best seller.
I liked your post and the link that was in it and I agree. You might like some of the in depth studies on this exact Israel Issues by Steve Wohlberg
I have been commenting to you from the perspective as alessandro has more clearly put it,
"A middle road has to be found. Unfortunately, the evolution of terrorist organizations are probably past that point and force may be the only option.
But how that force is employed is the crucial question. One concern I have about Irene's suggestion that we focus on cells is that while it is correct you still have to convince the country who gives them life to cooperate. In Europe and other countries who face these problems this is an easy sell. But what to do with the more extreme countries like Syria and Iran? As you can see, the problem easily slides in and out between nation-states and para-military organizations with politco-religious agendas. Very messy.
It was from with in this context that I was asking you how we extend the olive branch to this radical mess when their very faith forbids them from excepting it from us.
The answer you gave me in the form of a question at the end of post #16 was the very best of all.
As for the world leaders who are operating from strictly a worldly perspective, and or from the Christian Zionist perceptive, your right, booty is in their planning in one form or other.
Western booty in oil and the hope of a Middle East transformation out of the Middle Ages and towards democracy, and or the protection of Israel for the misguided Christian Zionists biblical prophecy proponents.
Eastern booty, surprisingly the more I studied it, the words “pride and respect” for being the worlds only true religion comes to mind as there most important booty.
How and when western force is used, if it is used, to deal with the eastern forces of Iran and Syria and the terrorests networks thy both train, supply and finance in quest of their booty, while Iraq swinging in the balance, would apear to be by far the biggest question of our time, and the decisions made today, will surly mark the remaining course for radical Islam in this century for better or worse.
As you have pointed out, God uses people with and without faith as He chooses, and we have been told that His ways are not our ways.
You’re sharp Irene, Thank you for you’re insights, and for providing tho only true answer of all.