What's new

Muhammad Cartoonist Attacked

Status
Not open for further replies.
Assassin shot in cartoonist's home has links to al-Qaida, say police

Danish police admitted yesterday that a Somalian caught breaking into the home of a cartoonist whose work sparked riots across the Muslim world five years ago was a would-be assassin with links to al-Qaida.

The 28-year-old had an axe and a knife when he was shot and wounded by police late on Friday night after cartoonist Kurt Westergaard heard windows being broken and pressed a panic alarm at his house in Aarhus.

News of the attack on Westergaard, 74, who was with his five-year-old granddaughter at the time, shocked many in Denmark who had believed the country's brush with Islamist extremism was consigned to the past.

Westergaard told his employer, the Jyllands-Posten daily, that he had locked himself and the child in the bathroom as the assailant shouted "revenge" and "blood" and tried to smash his way into the house. "My grandchild did fine," he told the newspaper. "It was scary. It was close. Really close. But we did it."

Westergaard has lived amid tight security with a special "safe room" inside his house ever since his caricature of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb in his turban was first published by Jyllands-Posten in 2005. Islamic law prohibits any depiction of the prophet for fear it would lead to idolatry. The cartoon, one of 12, outraged many Muslims, who make up around 3% of Denmark's 5.5 million population.

It provoked a vigorous debate about free speech then, when other newspapers reprinted the caricatures in 2006 as an act of solidarity with the heavily criticised Jyllands-Posten, it triggered violence in a number of countries.

Three Danish embassies were attacked and at least 50 people died in rioting in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Several young Muslims have since been convicted in Denmark of planning bomb attacks, partly in protest at the cartoons. In 2008, Osama bin Laden said that Europe would be punished for the cartoons.

The Somalian, who has not been named under Danish privacy laws, was shot in the arm and leg after throwing an axe at an officer and is now in custody charged with the attempted murders of both the policeman and Westergaard.

He had "close ties to the Somali terror organisation al-Shabaab as well as to al-Qaida leaders in East Africa", the Danish security and intelligence service, PET, said in a statement.

Westergaard's attacker, who has a residence permit for Denmark, is also "suspected of being involved in terror-related activities in East Africa", the intelligence statement said.

"PET looks very seriously upon this case, which once again confirms the terror threat directed against Denmark and the cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in particular," said PET chief Jakob Scharf. Investigations are still continuing into whether the man acted alone. Last year, US authorities arrested two men in Chicago suspected of planning attacks on Westergaard and his newspaper.

An umbrella organisation for moderate Muslims condemned the attack. "The Danish Muslim Union strongly distances itself from the attack and any kind of extremism that leads to such acts," the group said in a statement.

Throughout the crisis, the then prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, distanced himself from the cartoons but resisted calls to apologise for them, citing freedom of speech and saying that the Danish government could not be held responsible for the actions of a free press.

Assassin shot in cartoonist's home has links to al-Qaida, say police | World news | The Observer

Well, now we know he wasn't some 'common man.' This was planned and coordinated.
 
Everybody is dancing around the real issue so let me spell it out. As expected, the usual anti-Muslim bigots from India have piled on the bandwagon...

First of all, the Western media free speech mantra is a hypocrisy. The Western media has certain targets which are considered fair game (Christianity, Islam, white males, Arabs, etc.). At the same time, other subjects are considered off-limit (Judaism, Jews, Holocaust). In the Western media, Jewish writers can make fun of Jesus/Christians/Mohammad/Muslims (Family Guy, South Park, Saturday Night Live), but non-Jewish writers dare not say a word against Jews. This leaves an opening for all-round bigots to rant against Christians and Muslims, while hiding behind the facade of free speech.

Thus, it is OK for Sacha Baron Cohen (Jewish) to make fun of Arabs (Ali G), East Europeans/Central Asians (Borat) and gays (Bruno), but if an Arab, Asian or European comedian were to mock Jews, it would be considered anti-Semitism.

Similarly, it is acceptable for Danish cartoonists to mock Mohammad (free speech) but when Danish Arabs make a cartoon mocking the Holocaust, they are prosecuted by Danish authorities for inciting racial hatred.

Bottom line, when you control the media you set the rules for what is considered free speech, and what is considered criminally prosecutable hate speech. Holocaust denial/questioning and anti-Semitic speech are illegal in Western Europe; similar laws do not exist about insulting Christianity or Islam.

The solution, then, is not to kill anyone who offends, like our more excitable brothers are wont to do, but to learn from our Jewish brothers and work smarter to enact laws outlawing things which may offend us. Works for the Jews...
 
Everybody is dancing around the real issue so let me spell it out. As expected, the usual anti-Muslim bigots from India have piled on the bandwagon...

First of all, the Western media free speech mantra is a hypocrisy. The Western media has certain targets which are considered fair game (Christianity, Islam, white males, Arabs, etc.). At the same time, other subjects are considered off-limit (Judaism, Jews, Holocaust). In the Western media, Jewish writers can make fun of Jesus/Christians/Mohammad/Muslims (Family Guy, South Park, Saturday Night Live), but non-Jewish writers dare not say a word against Jews. This leaves an opening for all-round bigots to rant against Christians and Muslims, while hiding behind the facade of free speech.

Thus, it is OK for Sacha Baron Cohen (Jewish) to make fun of Arabs (Ali G), East Europeans/Central Asians (Borat) and gays (Bruno), but if an Arab, Asian or European comedian were to mock Jews, it would be considered anti-Semitism.

Similarly, it is acceptable for Danish cartoonists to mock Mohammad (free speech) but when Danish Arabs make a cartoon mocking the Holocaust, they are prosecuted by Danish authorities for inciting racial hatred.

Bottom line, when you control the media you set the rules for what is considered free speech, and what is considered criminally prosecutable hate speech. Holocaust denial/questioning and anti-Semitic speech are illegal in Western Europe; similar laws do not exist about insulting Christianity or Islam.

The solution, then, is not to kill anyone who offends, like our more excitable brothers are wont to do, but to learn from our Jewish brothers and work smarter to enact laws outlawing things which may offend us. Works for the Jews...

agreed , couldn't have said it better
 
Everybody is dancing around the real issue so let me spell it out. As expected, the usual anti-Muslim bigots from India have piled on the bandwagon...

Cant see beyond India, can you? And anti Muslim bigots? Are you joking? What makes you think that the Indians who have posted here are not Muslims themselves?

Thus, it is OK for Sacha Baron Cohen (Jewish) to make fun of Arabs (Ali G), East Europeans/Central Asians (Borat) and gays (Bruno), but if an Arab, Asian or European comedian were to mock Jews, it would be considered anti-Semitism.

For the last time, Ali G isnt supposed to be Arab. Alistair Graham - Ali G? Get it? Bruno pokes fun at the American fashion industry and Borat is mocking the ignorance of average everyday Americans.

In the Western media, Jewish writers can make fun of Jesus/Christians/Mohammad/Muslims (Family Guy, South Park, Saturday Night Live), but non-Jewish writers dare not say a word against Jews. This leaves an opening for all-round bigots to rant against Christians and Muslims, while hiding behind the facade of free speech.

Are you sure Jews have never been a target of satire? Have you ever seen south park at all? The truth is, you suffer from a persecution complex. You think everything in the world is designed to poke fun at/discriminate against muslims.

Similarly, it is acceptable for Danish cartoonists to mock Mohammad (free speech) but when Danish Arabs make a cartoon mocking the Holocaust, they are prosecuted by Danish authorities for inciting racial hatred.

Both should be equally acceptable.

The solution, then, is not to kill anyone who offends, like our more excitable brothers are wont to do, but to learn from our Jewish brothers and work smarter to enact laws outlawing things which may offend us. Works for the Jews...

The solution is to stop being offended. If you don't like what someone has to say, stop listening to him.
 
is unacceptable even if it were condoned by the Qu'ran?

The glorious Qur'an is clear:

“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.”

But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.”


[Al-Qur’an 2:190-193]

If read in context - the Qur'an ONLY mandates war as an act of self defense in case of oppression; There is clear prohibition on fighting if the oppressors cease their aggression.
 
Cant see beyond India, can you?

I mentioned Indians only because almost all the sycophantic flies buzzing around the anti-Muslim posters here are Indians with a track record of supporting anti-Muslim posts.

For the last time, Ali G isnt supposed to be Arab. Alistair Graham - Ali G? Get it? Bruno pokes fun at the American fashion industry and Borat is mocking the ignorance of average everyday Americans.

Ali G promotes Middle Eastern stereotypes. Borat promotes stereotypes about certain ethnic groups and Bruno promotes stereotypes about gays. That is the intent behind those characters; your feeble apologist excuses notwithstanding.

When was the last time you saw a minstrel show with whites coloring their faces black? In fact when an Australian TV show did it a couple months back, there was an international uproar.

Do get back to us when Cohen (or any major media character) stereotypes Africans, Chinese or Indians.

Are you sure Jews have never been a target of satire?

Quite sure. The issue is not a group mocking itself -- that happens all the time with everybody. The issue is one group mocking another group. Jews may mock non-Jews. The reverse is not permitted.

Have you ever seen south park at all?

Often. When South Park's Jewish writers make fun of Jews, it is always a light-hearted, innocuous attack. I recommend you watch the episode involving Jesus, Mohammad and Moses. The first two were portrayed most negatively, while Moses was portrayed as a wise character who brings peace and resolution to the crisis.

The truth is, you suffer from a persecution complex.
The truth is, many anti-Muslim bigots on this forum and elsewhere seem to relish attacks on Muslims and Islam.

You think everything in the world is designed to poke fun at/discriminate against muslims.

Spare me the hyperboles....

I have already dismissed this accustion. The Zionist dominated Western media has a demonstrated agenda against Muslims (and anyone else who dares to oppose Israel).

The solution is to stop being offended. If you don't like what someone has to say, stop listening to him.

It is not as simplistic as that. Media images matter. Tremendously.

To ignore the Western media's agenda and assault on Muslims is like sticking one's head in the sand hoping the problem will go away.

Do you think it is a random coincidence that Western countries have laws against Holocaust denial/questioning? There are laws criminalizing anti-Semitism, but no similar laws about other groups. Do you honestly believe consistent media portrayal of various ethnicities in good guy/bad guy roles is random?
 
Last edited:
So one should have the right to stand in the middle of Karachi or Peshawar and use a loudspeaker to demean Muhammed and Muslims without having to worry that he or she will be killed for it, or rather with the assurance that if harm does fall, the law will pursue the attackers? Where do you draw the line, exactly?
Not on public property for obvious reasons such as preaching (or defaming) religion should not be enforced upon people. One should be able to safely do so on their private property.

Religion should not be the business of the state.

Anybody else has the full right to defame the person in question and ridicule him like crazy for stating something like that. Make Yo-mama jokes. As long as its words it does not matter.

I draw the line on a guy who would scream and shout, "I planted a bomb on Sharaih Faisal (main street in Karachi)" and then later go like "Just kidding". You can't do that.
 
I mentioned Indians only because almost all the sycophantic flies buzzing around the anti-Muslim posters here are Indians with a track record of supporting anti-Muslim posts.

Tell me this, since hindus (majority of India) consider the cow sacred and slaughter of cows is forbidden in most of India, do u expect hindu Indians to protest cow slaughter and attack slaughter houses anywhere across the world ? Its obviously a personal belief which non-hindus need not follow.

Same story with the cartoons, what is a very important part of your life need not matter to others. Why is it anti-Islamic then for Indians if they were to expect a non-violent response ..

There were cases like the following where a hindu goddess was portrayed in a burger king sandwich ad:

Burger King uses Hindu god in meat sandwich ad - Posted

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...Burger-King-apology-to-Hindus-for-advert.html

There were verbal protests and thats how it should be. The fact of the matter is one did not see any violence or destruction and thats how it should be.
 
Last edited:
Tell me this, since hindus (majority of India) consider the cow sacred and slaughter of cows is forbidden in most of India, do u expect hindu Indians to protest cow slaughter and attack slaughter houses anywhere across the world ? Its obviously a personal belief which non-hindus need not follow.

Same story with the cartoons, what is a very important part of your life need not matter to others. Why is it anti-Islamic then for Indians if they were to expect a non-violent response ..

There were cases like the following where a hindu goddess was portrayed in a burger king sandwich ad:

Burger King uses Hindu god in meat sandwich ad - Posted

Burger King apology to Hindus for advert - Telegraph

There were verbal protests and thats how it should be. The fact of the matter is one did not see any violence or destruction and thats how it should be.

this what you call peaceful protest??

Cow killing triggers new round of anti-Christian violence in India

Orissa, India, Jul 11, 2008 / 01:25 am (CNA).- The slaughter and sale of a cow reportedly triggered a new series of attacks against Christians in the Indian state of Orissa in which Hindu militants from the group Vishwa Hindu Parishad destroyed a Jesuit residence, a church and a Protestant orphanage. While no one was reported killed in the recent attacks, violence has killed four Catholics and has destroyed 730 houses and 95 churches in 2008 alone.

Local church sources told Fides news agency that intimidation and discrimination continues as local authorities and police are unable to end the anti-Christian violence.

According to UCA News, some Hindus in Malikpada slaughtered a cow and sold the beef to some Christians and other villagers. When the Christians were returning to their house they were stopped by a Hindu religious leader, Bula Chaudri, and his supporters. Chaudri, who is also known as Madhaba Baba, berated the Christians for killing a cow. He threatened to send them to jail, as he had a photo on his cell phone of the Christians carrying beef.

The villagers begged that Chaudri delete the photo, but then grabbed the phone when he refused.

This argument then escalated to the attack on the Jesuit residence, the church and the Protestant orphanage. Four hundred houses were also set on fire by the Hindu extremists.

According to Fides, Archbishop Raphael Cheenath SVD, of the Orissan capital Cuttack-Bhubaneswar, expressed deep concern in response to the attacks. He contacted local authorities, asking for immediate intervention to prevent further violence and to reestablish order.

In December and January the Indian bishops established an ad hoc committee to investigate anti-Christian violence. However, they find that Christians are still targeted by radical groups and suffer threats, intimidation, discrimination and abuse.

Many Christians have left their homes out of fear, preferring to live in refugee camps despite the poor living conditions there.

Cardinal Oswald Gracias, the Archbishop of Mumbai, has decried the “organized attacks to destabilize the Church’s presence in India.” Many bishops and other religious leaders have said Christians are considered “second class citizens” and are deprived of the basic rights and liberties guaranteed to them in India’s Constitution.
 
A peaceful demonstration in support of Freedom of Speech and in codemnation of this and similar attacks (and honor killings, genital mutilation, forced marriages and all the other stone-age relicts that some Muslims have imported to Europe) by at least a couple of hundred of the roughly 50 Million Muslims living in Europe would be a powerful signal now as it would have been when this sh'tstorm first broke out (in contrast to the actual reaction which proved the caricatures were actually spot on).. Furthermore it would ease the rising tension and resignation, wouldn't you agree?
But thats not gonna happen, is it? (apparently because many actually secretly appreciate this sick, twisted deed, as nicely displayed on this forum)

And just in case someone plays the "why weren't you demonstrating there and then.." card. When old cowboy Bush announced he was to invade Iraq MILLIONS demonstrated in the USA and Europe. After the xenophobic murder of a black guy commited in Germany approx. 5 years ago thousands demonstrated and so on and so forth..



We had that here once.. you know what that period is called? Dark Ages. Yeah that time in ancient history when the 'Islamic' world actually was more advanced then 'the West'. Which had nothing to do with Islam fyi

Freedom of speech means that my right to offend is much more important then your right not to be offended. Or "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." and not agree includes stronger feelings of dislike.

This whole nonsense of 'hurt feelings' is so incredibly childish and pathetic..

And although few european countries have a single limitation of sorts to freedom of speech those were put in place to prevent a gross distortion of a very traumatic chapter in our history. It is a different matter to "blasphemy" laws (which throw us back before the enlightment). Further I think they should be abolished since they have done the deed after 60 years and make us in fact somewhat hypocritical. Nothing should be "unspeakable", that is idiotic and childish. Although Freedom of Speech is actually in many European Constitutions (and not an American concept but one from European philosophy) the USA is the only country were it is truly in its rightful place in terms of the law.

Freedom of Speech is the very core concept of a free, pluralistic and democratic society and is therefore non-negotiable.

I don't know how it works out in Germany, but the reason for freedom of speech in the danish constitution wasn't meant as a tool for offending and dehumanizing people, that is a typical misconception. It was merely a tool to protect the individual and minority from persecution by the state or the majority IF this/these individual(S) choose to open their mouth. The constitution states in §77 regarding freedom of speech: "Anyone has the right in print and or in speech to share their opinion though with responsibility to the courts(law)". Meaning if you start abusing your right to speech, you will face the law. Now this is where the Racism, defamation and slander sections in the law should go into action. The freedom of speech is therefore not unlimited as many believe. And although the essential right of freedom of speech is "non-negotiable" as you put it (let me remind you it can always be changed , and therefore negotiable if there is enough political support for such action) but people who are strong proponents of this right tend to forget the rather important second part of this deal. Muslims in general don't want to deny you freedom of speech, heck all humans want to speak freely, but merely reminds you that this right is not unlimited. A thing clearly stated in at least the danish constitution.
So to (ab)use the freedom of speech in order to demonize and dehumanize a minority is clearly not the intention of this right. Then the Nazis' oral persecution of jews was merely them practicing their right to speak freely!
 
Tell me this, since hindus (majority of India) consider the cow sacred and slaughter of cows is forbidden in most of India, do u expect hindu Indians to protest cow slaughter and attack slaughter houses anywhere across the world ? Its obviously a personal belief which non-hindus need not follow.

My point in mentioning Indians was not to compare degrees of offence, but to point out how, despite protestations to the contrary, Indians are often the first to defend anti-Muslim posts.

Same story with the cartoons, what is a very important part of your life need not matter to others. Why is it anti-Islamic then for Indians if they were to expect a non-violent response ..

The debate is not about the type of response -- most reasonable people agree violence is not the answer -- but about the right to denigrate others' spiritual beliefs.

There were cases like the following where a hindu goddess was portrayed in a burger king sandwich ad:

Burger King uses Hindu god in meat sandwich ad - Posted

Burger King apology to Hindus for advert - Telegraph

There were verbal protests and thats how it should be.

Clearly, some Hindus were offended (as with Heidi Klum's Kali costume and the movie Love Guru). And yet many Indians tell Muslims to cool it and not be offended.

The fact of the matter is one did not see any violence or destruction and thats how it should be.

My previous post makes it clear that violence is not the answer.

We are trying to form a post-racial world where attacks on people's ethnicity are considered unacceptable (unless attacking white males or Arabs, but that's another story).

I believe the same mutual courtesy should be extended to people's religious beliefs. The immunity from criticism that is enjoyed by Judaism and its adherents should be extended to all religions.

Case in point is your professed hero, Richard Dawkins. In his TV program, the God Delusion, he is mercilessly hostile towards Christianity and Islam, but treats Judaism (and Hinduism) with kid gloves. In his "expose" of the Israel/Palestine conflict, he barely mentioned the central role Judaism plays in the conflict, focussing instead on Muslim extremism. When discussing India, he let allegations by Hindu extremists against Islam go unchallenged and presented a one-sided picture of belligerent Islam v/s peaceful Hinduism. And, needless to say, he did not even mention the brutal repression and forced conversions of Muslims in Thailand and Burma by Buddhist extremists.

For a man who drones on endlessly about "the scientific method", such deliberate omission of "uncomfortable" data which doesn't fit in his main narrative is pathetic.
 
Last edited:
My point in mentioning Indians was not to compare degrees of offence, but to point out how, despite protestations to the contrary, Indians are often the first to defend anti-Muslim posts.



The debate is not about the type of response -- most reasonable people agree violence is not the answer -- but about the right to denigrate others' spiritual beliefs.



Clearly, some Hindus were offended (as with Heidi Klum's Kali costume and the movie Love Guru). And yet many Indians tell Muslims to cool it and not be offended.



My previous post makes it clear that violence is not the answer.

We are trying to form a post-racial world where attacks on people's ethnicity are considered unacceptable (unless attacking white males or Arabs, but that's another story).

I believe the same mutual courtesy should be extended to people's religious beliefs. The immunity from criticism that is enjoyed by Judaism and its adherents should be extended to all religions.

Case in point is your professed hero, Richard Dawkins. In his TV program, the God Delusion, he is mercilessly hostile towards Christianity and Islam, but treats Judaism (and Hinduism) with kid gloves. In his "expose" of the Israel/Palestine conflict, he barely mentioned the central role Judaism plays in the conflict, focussing instead on Muslim extremism. When discussing India, he let allegations by Hindu extremists against Islam go unchallenged and presented a one-sided picture of belligerent Islam v/s peaceful Hinduism. And, needless to say, he did not even mention the brutal repression and forced conversions of Muslims in Thailand and Burma by Buddhist extremists.

For a man who drones on endlessly about "the scientific method", such deliberate omission of "uncomfortable" data which doesn't fit in his main narrative is pathetic.

sir
Did you just condone attacks on arabs?
 
My point in mentioning Indians was not to compare degrees of offence, but to point out how, despite protestations to the contrary, Indians are often the first to defend anti-Muslim posts.

The debate is not about the type of response -- most reasonable people agree violence is not the answer -- but about the right to denigrate others' spiritual beliefs.

Clearly, some Hindus were offended (as with Heidi Klum's Kali costume and the movie Love Guru). And yet many Indians tell Muslims to cool it and not be offended.

You cant really generalize Indians as one homogeneous group that is pro-hindu & anti-islam. The ones who suggested ignoring the cartoons probably (i hope) understand the personal belief aspect of religion as per the cow slaughter example , i.e. if they are religious. As they say, there is plenty of variation in nature. If they're atheists, you know its another story.


My previous post makes it clear that violence is not the answer.

We are trying to form a post-racial world where attacks on people's ethnicity are considered unacceptable (unless attacking white males or Arabs, but that's another story).

I believe the same mutual courtesy should be extended to people's religious beliefs. The immunity from criticism that is enjoyed by Judaism and its adherents should be extended to all religions.

Judaism may enjoy immunity in Europe (i am not sure) but it certainly does not in the United States. Anyone who watches South Park can testify to that. If you are referring to the holocaust, that is an event not just tied to jews but also included the ethnic Poles, the Romani, Soviet civilians, Soviet prisoners of war, people with disabilities, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other political and religious opponents.

Lets just hope there is no violence, whatever laws/standards are established.

Case in point is your professed hero, Richard Dawkins. In his TV program, the God Delusion, he is mercilessly hostile towards Christianity and Islam, but treats Judaism (and Hinduism) with kid gloves. In his "expose" of the Israel/Palestine conflict, he barely mentioned the central role Judaism plays in the conflict, focussing instead on Muslim extremism. When discussing India, he let allegations by Hindu extremists against Islam go unchallenged and presented a one-sided picture of belligerent Islam v/s peaceful Hinduism. And, needless to say, he did not even mention the brutal repression and forced conversions of Muslims in Thailand and Burma by Buddhist extremists.

For a man who drones on endlessly about "the scientific method", such deliberate omission of "uncomfortable" data which doesn't fit in his main narrative is pathetic.

He's not my hero :lol: he just presents some aspects better than anyone else which make sense to a lot of people including me. I have read his views on the jewish lobby & USA for instance and the god of the old testament, very much similar to the Tanakh. Either way, I am not to defend each and every statement of his, he's no 'god' after all ;)
That was a weird example though, a person who does not believe in religion discriminates among followers of religions ..
 
Last edited:
Ok so like after reading a few post people who make fun of your "prophests" aren't christains >_> well most of em aren't 0-0.

and another thing you guys are not aloud to make anime of your prophet we can if we want.
i mean sure making fun of him might piss of a few ppl but anime wouldn't hurt anyone =P.

Mabey they made the anime to teach the kids or stuff like that.

and also Christains don't get pissed when south park makes fun of jesus >__>.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom