Muslim Leader Speaks Peace: The Cartoon Article the Peanut Gallery Here Won't Cite

mykevermin

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (97%)
German Muslim Leader Speaks Peace to Provocation
By MARK LANDLER

COLOGNE, Germany

AYYUB AXEL KÖHLER pads around his snug apartment here these days with three telephones that ring ceaselessly from sunrise until well after dark.

What, the callers from the German news media want to know, does Mr. Köhler think of the cartoons published in a Danish newspaper lampooning the Prophet Muhammad? How should Germany's more than three million Muslims respond to this attempt at satire?

"One has to understand how much we love our prophet," he said, sitting in a tidy living room furnished with Moorish antiques. "Our prophet was a very mild man. He was not a terrorist."

Yet, Mr. Köhler says Muslims should not allow their anger to mutate into violence. "I tell Muslims, 'Please don't be provoked,' " he said. "This is not a civilized way to protest blasphemy." In case there is any misunderstanding, he added: "I am in favor of press freedom. I know what it means to live in a society without it."

On that last point, certainly, there is no dispute. Mr. Köhler is not just the newly elected chairman of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany. He is also a German who grew up in Communist East Germany, before fleeing to the West in the 1950's and converting to Islam.

A plump 67-year-old who wears a paisley bow tie and a pair of Birkenstocks, Mr. Köhler is a supremely improbable choice to be a leading voice for Germany's predominantly Turkish Muslim population.

He shares a last name with the German president, Horst Köhler, while his adopted Muslim name is the Arabic form of Job, the long-suffering Old Testament figure. He was baptized a Protestant, though he says religion played at most an episodic role in his life until he went from Axel to Ayyub.

Little in Mr. Köhler's life has followed a predictable path, including his ascension to his current post, which he says he took only reluctantly following the retirement of his predecessor, a Saudi doctor. Mr. Köhler took office on Feb. 5, just as the firestorm over the cartoons ignited.

The Muslim council's first impulse, he said, was to avoid getting into the dispute, so as not to stir up its members. When European diplomatic outposts in the Middle East came under a hail of rocks, Mr. Köhler realized he could not stay above the fray. He embarked on a media tour of Berlin and Hamburg, facing television cameras to preach a message of moderation.

"I wasn't prepared for this at all," he said, shaking his head. "It wasn't my goal in life to be a public figure."

At first, his goal was simply to survive.

He was born in 1938 in Stettin, in what is now the Polish city of Szczecin, and his earliest memories are of bombing raids. In 1943, his family fled to a remote village south of Berlin, thinking it would be safer. Mr. Köhler's parents rarely went to church. His father, an architect, struggled with Christian tenets like the Holy Trinity.

Childhood innocence ended for Mr. Köhler in May 1945, when Red Army troops marched into his village on their way to Berlin. He recalls a night of paralyzing terror, when the Russian soldiers rampaged through town, raping women. He and his mother hid with 30 others in a potato cellar. As soldiers stomped on the floorboards above them, one of the women delivered a baby. The others knelt and prayed that the soldiers would not hear its cries. Their prayers were answered, but by the baby's death.

"That is the religion I grew up with," Mr. Köhler said, his voice catching.

AFTER the trauma of the war, his family had to learn to live under the spiritual emptiness of Communism. In high school, Mr. Köhler said, he was asked by party functionaries to inform on his teacher. He and other students tipped off the man, who fled to West Germany. At that moment, Mr. Köhler decided he, too, would leave.

After getting out of East Germany, Mr. Köhler bounced between refugee camps, finally landing uncomfortably in Baden-Württemberg, in the south, a parochial place with a bewilderingly thick Schwabish German accent.

Mr. Köhler's world opened up, though, after he went to study geology at the University of Freiburg. There he fell in with a circle of Muslim students from Egypt and Iran. While they were not fervent, Mr. Köhler said, they piqued his curiosity. He bought a book with the title "Religions of the World."

"It was the deep humanity of these people that attracted me," he said. "For me, it was a process of gliding into Islam. It wasn't as though a light bulb suddenly went on over my head."

Mr. Köhler also met and married an Iranian woman, even moving to Tehran to teach there (the marriage ended in divorce). He said he did not convert to Islam because of his wife, though she was a factor.

Back in Germany in 1973, Mr. Köhler joined the Institute for German Economics in Cologne, where he worked for the next 26 years. Among other things, he published a survey of Islamic economies, which he now dismisses with a grimace as a minor work. It did, however, arouse the interest of a young Turkish-German teacher, who became his second wife.

Mr. Köhler also plunged into municipal politics and Muslim causes. He joined the Free Democratic Party, as well as an association that sought to unify Germany's disparate Islamic organizations to lobby the government on issues like teaching Islamic studies in public schools.

Germany's Muslims are a fractious crowd, however, and the efforts to forge a united front failed. Today, Mr. Köhler's central council is the smaller of two Islamic umbrella groups. It is less Turkish and more Arab than its rival, the Islamic Council for Germany, which includes the largest Turkish group, the Islamic Community of Milli Gorus.

Mr. Köhler's group once claimed to represent 800,000 Muslims, though experts say the true number is much smaller. He speaks of having links to between 400 and 500 mosques in Germany.

UNLIKE his rivals, who tend to keep close political and cultural ties to Turkey or other countries, Mr. Köhler said his council seeks to foster a European brand of Islam, unfettered by nationalism or sectarianism. Mr. Köhler is a Sunni, but he said there were Shiites on his board.

The German police keep Muslim groups under surveillance, and have banned some, including one led by Metin Kaplan, a Turkish militant who calls himself the caliph of Cologne and who was jailed for four years for the murder of a rival Muslim cleric. He has since been deported to Turkey.

From his balcony in a middle-class neighborhood, Mr. Köhler can peer down at Mr. Kaplan's former house. The two men knew each other, and even now, Mr. Köhler defends him.

"He was just a nice old man," he said. "If there was no Kaplan, they would have had to invent him."

Mr. Köhler believes Germany's Muslims showed their true colors in the peaceful way they reacted to those provocative cartoons. Yet German officials, he said, are quick to brand Muslims as dangerous extremists. It is a politically popular tactic, and goes hand in hand with legal campaigns, like forbidding Muslim teachers to wear headscarves in schools.

"It is an old story in Germany," Mr. Köhler said, showing his visitor to the door. "We've always had problems with foreigners."

It's one article of a million, certainly, but one whose omission clearly shows how you fuckers start with conclusions and work your way backwards, scampering to find evidence of what you already hold to be true ("Religion of Peace" and all that).

While I think rioting over cartoons is absurd, I think it's equally absurd to link to every article under the sun that portrays muslims as wild-eyed reactionary fuckwads, and willfully ignoring those who are not.
 
These opinions should be the vast majority, his voice and the voice of similar people should be the roar we hear. Unfortunately it is not. It should be not noteworthy when a Muslim leader calls for calm, it should be expected. I applaud his opinion but what do you want me to do? Give him a cookie for not being a idiot? Being reasonable should not be the exception it should be the rule.

I show someone saying that ALL Islamic imans call for the death of anyone who insults "the prophet" and your retort is this? Look, when we deal with the prisoner abuse photos, the story wasn't that most people thought it was fucked up. The story was what the tiny minority of soldiers did, and yet I see America as a whole blamed.

In this regards, the violent Muslims have by far been the most outspoken and one could argue represent a majority in truth. Yet, I am expected to consider them some small marginalized minority and not hold any greater group responsible? That is a double standard.

But, for the record I have taken the opportunity, when presented to praise Muslim leaders who preached calm. But, it seems for every voice of reason I hear two or three preaching something entirely different. How Islam is taught is in large part responsible for this reaction. Hypothetically Christianity and Islam are both peaceful but history shows they have the capacity to be barbaric and I for one think it is entirely foolish to stand and watch violence manifest itself and keep pretending it is a religion of peace.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck...

I have before and I continue to beg Muslims as a whole and people in leadership positions within the Islamic world to teach tolerance, to praise peace and to stop calling for the destruction of nations and the like. Unfortunately, the inverse is very common and it is nothing short of denial to pretend otherwise.
 
So, let me get this straight...you're comparing muslims who engage in violent social protest to those who aren't engaging in violent social protest. Because you see far more muslims protesting in the news that, oh, let's say baking bread, or going to work, or doing non-blowing things up things, you've decided that the vast majority of muslims are willing to riot at the drop of a hat.

Just to be perfectly clear, your whole argument rests on faulty selection. You're looking to compare groups based on action or inaction, yet you continue to do little more than look at the news, who is ONLY going to present information on those who are protesting. You do understand that, right? Muslims, if they do exactly what you want them to do (go about their lives), aren't going to be in the news.

Not a sound method of coming to conclusions, if you ask me. It's like thinking that all white lower-class people are murderers and rapists because they're only featured on the news when they rape or kill. That sounds absurd, and if you bring that over to how you come to your conclusions, you must clearly understand, as well, that you're doing the same thing.
 
I never said the violent were the majority, in truth I have called them the violent minority on several occasions.

What I am saying is that the so called "majority" is being silent. You have a violent minority and a silent majority. They shouldn't be just baking bread, they should be speaking up like the man in your first post. The problem as I said is that the loudest voices are not voices of reason and voices of calm. People like him and many others HAVE to take it upon themselves to set a good example.

They are conceding to the violent voice of Islam. But not speaking up, the voice we are hearing is a voice of violence. To pretend we do not hear this is to cover our ears. You should not have to dig around to hear things like this, every Islamic site, every iman, every Islamic leader and the preachings at every mosque should reflect this opinion.

Unfortunately this is not the case.
 
So do all christians who refuse to condemn Pat Robertson's calls for assassination on Hugo Chavez condone the hatred that he espouses?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So do all christians who refuse to condemn Pat Robertson's calls for assassination on Hugo Chavez condone the hatred that he espouses?[/QUOTE]

To be fair to christians, there are plenty that condemn Pat Robertson (it's a radical position and no western politician with a sizable following would take him up on it, similar outbursts from clerics in the Middle East carry a great deal more political weight).

I think it's a fair point that the majority of other peoples denounce violence in the name of their religion whereas most Muslims appear apathetic. Whether this is from silent support or fear of reprisal I cannot say.

Of course there are many christians who are no better - those who support the war because they believe the christian god told George Bush Jr. that it was the right thing to do are equally to blame.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So do all christians who refuse to condemn Pat Robertson's calls for assassination on Hugo Chavez condone the hatred that he espouses?[/QUOTE]

Nope only the brown people are held accountable for the actions of a few.

[quote name='camoor']
I think it's a fair point that the majority of other peoples denounce violence in the name of their religion whereas most Muslims appear apathetic. Whether this is from silent support or fear of reprisal I cannot say.
.[/QUOTE]

Sorry dude but no. First off, we don't get the views of a majority of Muslims here. Secondly, the average Jew or Christian doesn't say much about their religions violent minorities. And personally, I think the old "you must denounce the bad people who practice your faith" is a giant red herring anyway. It presumes a certain amount of guilt by association. Guilt not generally applied to other groups or faiths.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Sorry dude but no. First off, we don't get the views of a majority of Muslims here. Secondly, the average Jew or Christian doesn't say much about their religions violent minorities. And personally, I think the old "you must denounce the bad people who practice your faith" is a giant red herring anyway. It presumes a certain amount of guilt by association. Guilt not generally applied to other groups or faiths.[/QUOTE]

I think it's very easy to say that, I wonder if your views would change after having seen video tape of half a dozen protests that were sparked by the "outrage" of a cartoon.

Heck - they did an entire movie in which Jesus Christ was sexually tempted by a woman, and I didn't see any 8-year olds being killed or KFCs being torched as a result.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']So do all christians who refuse to condemn Pat Robertson's calls for assassination on Hugo Chavez condone the hatred that he espouses?[/QUOTE]

Well, firstly it is not fair to compare calling for the assassination of a dictator to calling for acts of terrorism against citizens of various countries. I can not defend Pat Robertson's actions but it is quite a stretch to really make the comparison fit. Pat Robertson is not even the pastor of a church. And to be frank, a lot of people would be much better off if Hugo Chavez was to die one way or the other. I doubt many people here would argue that the world would be a better place without Hugo Chavez in it. Political assassinations are not acts of terrorism, but their validity is a whole other debate I see no point in getting into. I also find it absurd that Hugo Chavez could make such insane quotes as saying Condi Rice has west dreams about him DURING A PUBLIC SPEECH and the quote I hear people blasting is Pat's quote about him. Believe me, Chavez has his share of absurdities.

But, to really contrast you have to ask if Pat Robertson does indeed represent mainstream Christian views or does he represent the loudest voice? Considering the fact that he is the only example I can think of off the top of my head he obviously doesn't. He happens to be a minority both vocally and in number. The majority of Christians (who I am not here to defend by the way) speak a very different message. For example, the Pope does in fact speak for hundreds of millions of followers and he certainly speaks louder than Pat Robertson. The same goes for Billy Graham and numerous other figures.

Consider the most notable Muslims in recent memory, the ones we know the most about. Arafat, when he was alive openly advocated both terrorism and the destruction of Israel. Qadhafi's ties with terrorism are well known as well. Also, we know of the many atrocities that Saddam took part in. Bin Laden, I need not elaborate more. And these 4 people are arguably the most famous Muslims of the past 50 years. This doesn't make Islam evil, but every single person I mention relied heavily on the religion, they all abused it and even worse people let them get away with it. For instance, when Saddam assumed power he killed his political rivals, declaring them to be Zionists. Both Islam, the world and citizens of the respective countries should call them on this bullshit but it is commonplace unfortunately.

Who are the most famous Christians? In terms of ones most immediately tied to religion Pope John Paul II, Billy Graham and Mother Theresa are the ones I come up with off the top of my head. To be charitable I'll toss Pat Robertson in the mix, you still see the massive disparity. Heck, even if I throw in George Bush, yet no reasonable person could really compare those two groups.

There are many factors, but the reality is that the most influential and the most powerful Muslims have all too often preached a message of hate and violence. Look at the president of Iran if you want a example. Look at the religious leaders that encourage the likes of Bin Laden. There is a problem, Islam, because it exerts a great deal of political pressure, is tied to the Islamic countries that represent it. And they have become horrid ambassadors of the religion. To ignore this, and to pretend this is not the case is to be ignorant of the reality.

I was looking at some old poll numbers and for instance in Pakistan here was the result:
Only 46% said terrorist acts are never justified
51% had a favorable view of Bin Laden
In Lebanon, 73% of people supported suicide bombing in defend of Islam.
I could go on, but the reality is that support for terrorist acts and violence is more prevalent within Islamic circles. I hope to see trends continue in which they increasingly denounce terrorism, but to pretend the problem doesn't exist just insures it is never addressed.

Before September 11th I frequented several Islamic sites. I was worked up at the time over the Taliban and some of the things they were doing. Ethnic cleansing, they sentences several Americans to death for owning Bibles, they were harboring Bin Laden, etc... and it really worked me up. So I visited Islamic sites including Taliban sites and Al Qaeda sites. The unfortunate thing I saw, that even amongst the more mainstream sites there was support in general for the Taliban. A lot of people in the Islamic world have a Islam vs. the West mentality, and if we keep buying into this crock of it being nothing but a religion of peace and tolerance, we are going to get fucked up. I welcome the tolerant and peaceful amongst them but I know there are far too many Islamic people in positions of power that are anything but peaceful and tolerant and they wish to do people like me harm.

Does that make all Muslims bad? No, of course not. I have Muslim friends. They can be just as decent as any other person, but the religion has not only a image problem but a problem with letting the violent amongst them use it as a weapon. We have to confront this element and in doing so we have to put increasing pressure on the moderate Muslims to stop letting terrorists and dictators hijack their religion.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think it's very easy to say that, I wonder if your views would change after having seen video tape of half a dozen protests that were sparked by the "outrage" of a cartoon. [/QUOTE]

Being able to argue a point doesn't mean much when pursuing facts. Violence having occured does not negate the many more nonviolent protests that have occured. For example, last week there were 5,000 protesters in trafalgar square yet it barely even made news. It never even appeared on the main bbc page, only after doing a search. Why? Because it was peaceful.

You could create a video to argue many, many different and diverse points, and do it quite convincingly. But all that means is that you are able to manipulate perceptions and convince others, it does not really say whether the argument you are presenting is true or not.

But, to really contrast you have to ask if Pat Robertson does indeed represent mainstream Christian views or does he represent the loudest voice? Considering the fact that he is the only example I can think of off the top of my head he obviously doesn't.

Why should he have to do that? You don't ask that with muslims like the imam you posted.

edit: here's a protest of 10,000 that resulted in no arrests and, therefore, almost no media coverage:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4726472.stm
 
[quote name='camoor']I think it's very easy to say that, I wonder if your views would change after having seen video tape of half a dozen protests that were sparked by the "outrage" of a cartoon.

.[/QUOTE]

Now why would seeing a tape of some crazies make be assume that all muslims are crazy?I find your lack of logic disturbing. But, you're right. Stereotypes are always easy to say.

I think you could maybe say the percentage of radicals is certainly higher but not a majority as you claim.

and as alonzomourning23 stated, they don't show "video tape" of peaceful protest or the large percentage of muslims who aren't doing anything.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Now why would seeing a tape of some crazies make be assume that all muslims are crazy?I find your lack of logic disturbing. But, you're right. Stereotypes are always easy to say.

I think you could maybe say the percentage of radicals is certainly higher but not a majority as you claim.

and as alonzomourning23 stated, they don't show "video tape" of peaceful protest or the large percentage of muslims who aren't doing anything.[/QUOTE]

Sure they do - you just don't watch enough diverse news feeds. As zo pointed out, even the BBC covered a non-violent protest.

That's why I said to watch half a dozen - to get a fair perspective. In any case, I think Krazy3 has the best analysis of the situation here.
 
[quote name='camoor']Sure they do - you just don't watch enough diverse news feeds. As zo pointed out, even the BBC covered a non-violent protest. [/QUOTE]

You read my post like bush reading an intelligence report. I stated it had almost no media coverage. In fact this is the third week in a row they've had one. Last week it was 5,000 people in trafalgar square and you had to do a search on bbc to even find it. The one I posted was on the front page of the bbc world section last night, before it occured. When it actually occurred and they realized it was peaceful they stuck the new article only on the u.k. page, in small text, in the right corner.

The runup to this was mentioned on some u.s. news sites, I've found no mention outside of the bbc on any international news sites after it occurred and it turned out to be peaceful.

You can usually find any sizeable or odd protest covered somewhere by some local or national media, but if it is shoved into the background, not picked up by other services etc. it will be ignored. If you take a topic and start searching through google news you can find so much more than you will ever see simply searching the front page news (which is what most do) on major news sites.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You read my post like bush reading an intelligence report. I stated it had almost no media coverage. In fact this is the third week in a row they've had one. Last week it was 5,000 people in trafalgar square and you had to do a search on bbc to even find it. The one I posted was on the front page of the bbc world section last night, before it occured. When it actually occurred and they realized it was peaceful they stuck the new article only on the u.k. page, in small text, in the right corner.

The runup to this was mentioned on some u.s. news sites, I've found no mention outside of the bbc on any international news sites after it occurred and it turned out to be peaceful.

You can usually find any sizeable or odd protest covered somewhere by some local or national media, but if it is shoved into the background, not picked up by other services etc. it will be ignored. If you take a topic and start searching through google news you can find so much more than you will ever see simply searching the front page news (which is what most do) on major news sites.[/QUOTE]

Read my comment again - I said "even the BBC" as in "even a news organization that heavily edits the news down to a 5 minute blurb so as to capture the attention of a mainstream ADD audience"
 
[quote name='camoor']Read my comment again - I said "even the BBC" as in "even a news organization that heavily edits the news down to a 5 minute blurb so as to capture the attention of a mainstream ADD audience"[/QUOTE]

The BBC is the only major one (at least that people from outside the u.k. normally read) that covered it though, and they stuck it into the corners of their site. If I hadn't been looking for it I wouldn't have noticed it. No casual news reader, and probably not anyone who doesn't specifically look at local news for foreign countries (or looking specifically for the vent) is going to find info on such protests. The comment "even the bbc" implies that these events are in fact covered, when they clearly aren't given any significant attention in the time they are covered. I've read a lot of articles lately that were essentially 5 paragraphs of reports about 1 protests (wherever it is) that got hijacked by extremists and then, at the botton, they'd say something like "their were also protests in the surrounding areas, no violence was reported", that's if they bother to include the second part.

Even if you had muslims equally on both sides, one advocating violence and one advocating peace, the casual news reader would find many, many more incidents of violence since those would get the most coverage and be displayed prominently.
 
[quote name='camoor']Sure they do - you just don't watch enough diverse news feeds. As zo pointed out, even the BBC covered a non-violent protest.

That's why I said to watch half a dozen - to get a fair perspective. In any case, I think Krazy3 has the best analysis of the situation here.[/QUOTE]

dude don't presume to know what news I am watching. But the fact that you to go to the BBC to find ONE mention of a non-violent protest is rather telling.

"even the BBC" is patently dishonest. Should be "only the BBC". In fact, I challenge you to find another article on the subject NOT from the BBC, then we can talk and it's gotta be about the cartoons.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's one article of a million, certainly, but one whose omission clearly shows how you fuckers start with conclusions and work your way backwards, scampering to find evidence of what you already hold to be true ("Religion of Peace" and all that).
[/QUOTE]

Well, myke, there's always that one flaming liberal in the group who's NOT a communist too. But we conservatives don't breathe easier at night because that .01 % doesn't want to slit our throats becuase we enjoy making a profit.

And I don't think anyone had to scamper to find evidence of a major worldwide violent protests of muslims claiming to be victimized. All you had to do was turn on the TV, or open up a paper. Or don't you trust your media priests to bring you the truth anymore? Certainly you believe everything they say about Bush and his cronies, right ? But now they're liars when they print things you've already concluded against. Nice dichotomy you've created for yourself, there.

You've fallen victim to your own cardinal rule of affirming the consequence to disprove the rule.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']

And I don't think anyone had to scamper to find evidence of a major worldwide violent protests of muslims claiming to be victimized.
.[/QUOTE]

are you that stupid? No one is claiming that. You're the king of arguing points no one is making. Reading is FUNdamental!
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Well, myke, there's always that one flaming liberal in the group who's NOT a communist too. But we conservatives don't breathe easier at night because that .01 % doesn't want to slit our throats becuase we enjoy making a profit.

And I don't think anyone had to scamper to find evidence of a major worldwide violent protests of muslims claiming to be victimized. All you had to do was turn on the TV, or open up a paper. Or don't you trust your media priests to bring you the truth anymore? Certainly you believe everything they say about Bush and his cronies, right ? But now they're liars when they print things you've already concluded against. Nice dichotomy you've created for yourself, there.

You've fallen victim to your own cardinal rule of affirming the consequence to disprove the rule.[/QUOTE]

No, but what I am arguing is relative to the old media adage about what makes a story: "dog bites man" is not a story, but "man bites dog" is. The news doesn't always emphasize anomalous stories, but Muslims protesting or rioting is more newsworthy than "Muslims kneel on prayer rug, make soup, enjoy evening at home." The daily routine life of people isn't newsworthy, so I think it's false to draw generalizations on an entire population of people based on news reports of sensationalized activities.

At best, you could possibly get away with saying that Muslims who hold strong religious identities react with violence more than, say, christians who hold strong religious identities. But to generalize this to encompass a majority of, or all, Muslims is not only false, but dangerous in the sense of working to reify what could become the next great religious war (coupled with Western/Eastern civilization to a great degree).

As I said earlier, people don't make assumptions that all lower-class white people are murderers and rapists, since they usually only appear in the paper after arrest; there's no urgency to couple these stories with "adult white male stocks Froot Loops at Wal-Mart, Drinks Beer" because it goes without saying. The story in the paper is recognized as the anomaly (and that's probably related to social closeness hypotheses), but we consider Muslim protests and riots to be the rule rather than the exception. Why is that?

EDIT to point out how the "Brown persons are Muslims, and Muslims are brown persons" overgeneralization takes place, I believe that Krazy, in a post above, refers to Saddam Hussein as a muslim. Jesus, you couldn't be more wrong about that.
 
[quote name='usickenme']dude don't presume to know what news I am watching. But the fact that you to go to the BBC to find ONE mention of a non-violent protest is rather telling.

"even the BBC" is patently dishonest. Should be "only the BBC". In fact, I challenge you to find another article on the subject NOT from the BBC, then we can talk and it's gotta be about the cartoons.[/QUOTE]

I think this is a silly challenge, because any rational and unbiased person can see that as a group Muslims have reacted more violently to a bunch of cartoons then most mainstream religions react to the worst types of sacrilege.

However because you seem to think that there is a media blackout conspiracy on the peaceful Muslim protests, here you go (I assume the Washington Post is mainstream enough to be considered for your perusal?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021700238.html
 
[quote name='mykevermin']No, but what I am arguing is relative to the old media adage about what makes a story: "dog bites man" is not a story, but "man bites dog" is. The news doesn't always emphasize anomalous stories, but Muslims protesting or rioting is more newsworthy than "Muslims kneel on prayer rug, make soup, enjoy evening at home." The daily routine life of people isn't newsworthy, so I think it's false to draw generalizations on an entire population of people based on news reports of sensationalized activities.

At best, you could possibly get away with saying that Muslims who hold strong religious identities react with violence more than, say, christians who hold strong religious identities. But to generalize this to encompass a majority of, or all, Muslims is not only false, but dangerous in the sense of working to reify what could become the next great religious war (coupled with Western/Eastern civilization to a great degree).

As I said earlier, people don't make assumptions that all lower-class white people are murderers and rapists, since they usually only appear in the paper after arrest; there's no urgency to couple these stories with "adult white male stocks Froot Loops at Wal-Mart, Drinks Beer" because it goes without saying. The story in the paper is recognized as the anomaly (and that's probably related to social closeness hypotheses), but we consider Muslim protests and riots to be the rule rather than the exception. Why is that?

EDIT to point out how the "Brown persons are Muslims, and Muslims are brown persons" overgeneralization takes place, I believe that Krazy, in a post above, refers to Saddam Hussein as a muslim. Jesus, you couldn't be more wrong about that.[/QUOTE]
The overgeneralization that all muslims are doing whatever is wrong. However, you certainly can't deny the sheer amount of people that have been pouring out to protest the cartoons. Thousands of people keep coming out day after day to protest and riot. Not only are they protesting and rioting, but these protests keep leading to deaths (I'm sure the riot deathtoll is over 50 people, right now), they keep burning shit left and right, hurling rocks at everything, etc.

On top of which, you have to think about the catalyst: Danish cartoons. Usually, when I think of mass protest and riots, it's not for something as trivial as a cartoon, but usually for something a little more substances (oppression typically comes to mind). If anything, these riots are taking place to make the world MORE oppressive. Regardless of how peaceful it may be, that's still a stupid cause. There has to be something to be said for that.
 
[quote name='kakomu']The overgeneralization that all muslims are doing whatever is wrong. However, you certainly can't deny the sheer amount of people that have been pouring out to protest the cartoons. Thousands of people keep coming out day after day to protest and riot.[/QUOTE]

*ahem*

[quote name='mykevermin']At best, you could possibly get away with saying that Muslims who hold strong religious identities react with violence more than, say, christians who hold strong religious identities.[/quote]

I don't know what to tell you if you truly believe that people are taking the risks that they do merely over cartoons. Now, if you could consider that cartoons became, circumstantially, the catalyst of and the symbol that people cite when expressing their disgust in the aggregate of the media, or the West, or whatever it may be that they find fault with, then we'll talk.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']*ahem*



I don't know what to tell you if you truly believe that people are taking the risks that they do merely over cartoons. Now, if you could consider that cartoons became, circumstantially, the catalyst of and the symbol that people cite when expressing their disgust in the aggregate of the media, or the West, or whatever it may be that they find fault with, then we'll talk.[/QUOTE]
I know, I read that. However, I don't think that's the only thing you can infer from these happenings. I already merely called it a catalyst in my post.

There is a lot of bad shit going down with these protests. The first thing that struck me as odd is that the protests only started happening recently, despite the comics being published back in September. It's a bandwagon effect, it seems. Someone noticed the comics, made a big deal about it and it spread like wildfire.

If anything, it shows that many muslims (a few ten thousand across many countries) are able to be easily led into inciting riots, violence and general mayhem at the (veritable) drop of a hat. It also goes to show that (albeit not all) many muslims can be rallied and provoked to go ape shit over very little. Anyways, think about it. Even if the comics were mere catalysts, and aren't the whole deal, they're still being provoked over something infinitesimally small. It's like masses of christians or jews claiming that they're rioting over someone's bumpersticker that read "my dogma ate my karma", or "I worship idols". It's just plain ludicrous, no matter how you slice it. It would be one thing if this were limited to a single city or region, or sparked by a single leader in a state (Iran), but this is being waged in many Islamic majority states. Something is going on here to not only demonstrate this violent nature (that many hold), but perpetuate it, since it keeps spreading.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Even if you had muslims equally on both sides, one advocating violence and one advocating peace, the casual news reader would find many, many more incidents of violence since those would get the most coverage and be displayed prominently.[/QUOTE]

True, but can you at least agree that if there had been multiple violent christian riots wherein an 8 year-old was killed and several business establishments were torched after "The Last Temptation of Christ", then the media would have reported on it.

All I'm saying is - add up the amount of violent protests about a bunch of dopey Muslim cartoons and compare it to the number of violent protests about any other sacrilegous propaganda - I think you'll find that as a group the Muslims are the most violently reactionary group when they are confronted by free speech.
 
[quote name='camoor']True, but can you at least agree that if there had been multiple violent christian riots wherein an 8 year-old was killed and several business establishments were torched after "The Last Temptation of Christ", then the media would have reported on it.

All I'm saying is - add up the amount of violent protests about a bunch of dopey Muslim cartoons and compare it to the number of violent protests about any other sacrilegous propaganda - I think you'll find that as a group the Muslims are the most violently reactionary group when they are confronted by free speech.[/QUOTE]
Worldwide, probably. However, most religions in the south asian continent get really inflamed when their religion is dissed. The other notable religion would be hinduism.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't know what to tell you if you truly believe that people are taking the risks that they do merely over cartoons. Now, if you could consider that cartoons became, circumstantially, the catalyst of and the symbol that people cite when expressing their disgust in the aggregate of the media, or the West, or whatever it may be that they find fault with, then we'll talk.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I'm sure the thought process of a violent rioter goes something like this:

"I'm going to throw this rock through Sbarro's window to demonstrate my disgust in the aggregate of the media, the West, and everything I find fault about in Western culture. Because everyone knows that throwing rocks through windows is the best way to come to a diplomatic compromise that will benefit all. It really is not a visceral, emotional, and supremely ignorant reaction to some small-time cartoonist who has the audacity to think that he can exercise his right to free speech and parody my religion's founder."
 
[quote name='camoor']True, but can you at least agree that if there had been multiple violent christian riots wherein an 8 year-old was killed and several business establishments were torched after "The Last Temptation of Christ", then the media would have reported on it.[/quote]

Umm.... that's not helping your point. You are simply saying the media will report violent protests, which is my argument.

But if there were many protests, the one in new york city killed 2 and had a police confrontation, one in L.A. burned down city hall and killed 4, and 80 others took place the same day and no violence or arrests were reported, which would get the attention? In fact you can see this generalization practiced against pro-life protesters. A few shootings, bombings, etc. creates significant misconceptions, at least among pro choice groups, about the general nature of groups that do things such as picket clinics. In comparison with this example, the pro choice groups would be christians and the pro life would be muslims (or vice versa).

All I'm saying is - add up the amount of violent protests about a bunch of dopey Muslim cartoons and compare it to the number of violent protests about any other sacrilegous propaganda - I think you'll find that as a group the Muslims are the most violently reactionary group when they are confronted by free speech.

Find me an equivalent (in personal importance to protesters) example that primarily affected the developing world.

Also, I posted an article (about pakistan) suggesting that there are many reasons other than the cartoons, and that many protesters weren't even interested in this issue, and some (particularly kids) possibly not even aware as to what the protest was about.

However because you seem to think that there is a media blackout conspiracy on the peaceful Muslim protests, here you go (I assume the Washington Post is mainstream enough to be considered for your perusal?)

And I assume that got widespread media coverage, correct? In fact I'm sure that was front page news on fox, cnn, bbc, etc., would that also be correct?

(I'm sure the riot deathtoll is over 50 people, right now),

After doing some searches on the bbc, it seems about 16 in nigeria, which has a history of religious conflict between christians and muslims (often used for political purposes), and both sides have a history of initiating it. About 10 in Libya after being fired on by security officials, and 12 killed in afghanistan when security officials intervened. At least 3 of those in pakistan were killed after being fired on by officials, 1 after a powerline fell, there were a 2-3 more I believe in pakistan that were undeteremined.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']and some (particularly kids) possibly not even aware as to what the protest was about. [/QUOTE]
Just goes to show that many muslims are able to get riled up and into a riotin' mood from almost NO provocation or reason, beyond "everyone else is doin it".
 
[quote name='kakomu']Just goes to show that many muslims are able to get riled up and into a riotin' mood from almost NO provocation or reason, beyond "everyone else is doin it".[/QUOTE]

No, it relates to social tensions, economic realities etc. and not religion. And some aspects, such as what you quoted, is essentially children having fun (that sounds trivial, but that seems to be the reason some kids are doing it for).

Most people make the distinction when christian engage in violence in the developing world, but they don't make such distinctions when its muslims.

Also, if you want to see americans behaving this way, look into the rodney king riots. It's not the only example by any means, but one everyone is familiar with.
 
[quote name='camoor']I think this is a silly challenge, because any rational and unbiased person can see that as a group Muslims have reacted more violently to a bunch of cartoons then most mainstream religions react to the worst types of sacrilege.

However because you seem to think that there is a media blackout conspiracy on the peaceful Muslim protests, here you go (I assume the Washington Post is mainstream enough to be considered for your perusal?)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021700238.html[/QUOTE]

I don't seem to think anything except you are stereotyping muslims. The media "blackout" if you will is the result of violent protest being more sensational then peaceful ones. However, is disheartening when **ahem** ignorant people take that to mean that most muslims are violent. A point you have curiously abandoned. I mean, we can talk about how a greater percentage of muslims might be prone to violent protest but we can't start it with "TEh Muslim peoples are aLL voilent!!".
 
I'm not saying that most Muslims are actively violent, I'm saying that either the Islamic religion or Islamic practioners are much more prone to condoning violence done in the name of their religion. Yes, christians, jews, hindus etc do it too however Muslim people are the undisputed #1 champions when it comes to justifying/inciting/condoning rioting and jihading around the globe.
 
[quote name='usickenme']I don't seem to think anything except you are stereotyping muslims. The media "blackout" if you will is the result of violent protest being more sensational then peaceful ones. However, is disheartening when **ahem** ignorant people take that to mean that most muslims are violent. A point you have curiously abandoned. I mean, we can talk about how a greater percentage of muslims might be prone to violent protest but we can't start it with "TEh Muslim peoples are aLL voilent!!".[/QUOTE]

Noone said that. You setup a challenge which I roundly rebuffed. The fact is that you are the one who is oversimplifing my position - it is not a black-and-white issue, and I totally believe that there are even some Muslim people who are actively speaking out against the violence being done against innocents in the name of their religion, however these people are few and far between.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Also, if you want to see americans behaving this way, look into the rodney king riots. It's not the only example by any means, but one everyone is familiar with.[/QUOTE]
I regard the rodney king riots in the exact same way that I mentioned above.
 
[quote name='camoor']I'm not saying that most Muslims are actively violent, I'm saying that either the Islamic religion or Islamic practioners are much more prone to condoning violence done in the name of their religion. Yes, christians, jews, hindus etc do it too however Muslim people are the undisputed #1 champions when it comes to justifying/inciting/condoning rioting and jihading around the globe.[/QUOTE]

Well african christians and muslims seem to engage in violence about equally, it's just we usually have little familiarity with the issues and they don't register. For example, there was rioting in Gabon a while ago over cutbacks to student bus services that resulted in death. A westerner seeing riots over funding cutbacks, imprisonment of a political candidate, fraud allegations etc. is going to react differently. But westerners identify with the issues here.

The protests are more widespread because, unlike with national issues (ie. nigerians aren't going to protest the national issues of togo), muslims as a whole identify with it. But the reactions are not unique to the religion, as similar events occur throughout the developing world.
 
[quote name='kakomu']I regard the rodney king riots in the exact same way that I mentioned above.[/QUOTE]

Just goes to show that many blacks are able to get riled up and into a riotin' mood from almost NO provocation or reason, beyond "everyone else is doin it".

?

I totally believe that there are even some Muslim people who are actively speaking out against the violence being done against innocents in the name of their religion, however these people are few and far between.

Is there a term for someone who's opinion is a victim of the media?

But, if you read some of these reports carefully, it often mentions that many of the organizers of the protests often are the very ones who try to quell the situation if a problem arises. And article I posted even discusses the dual role many religious leaders are playing in pakistan, denouncing the cartoons and the violence as anti-religious.
 
bread's done
Back
Top