The BBC’s holiest prophet
Does the BBC call in someone from the MCB to write some of its news articles, or what?
The Danish cartoonist behind drawings satirising the Prophet Muhammad has urged a Dutch lawmaker to air an anti-Islam film despite Muslim outrage…Mr Westergaard’s cartoons in a Danish paper triggered riots by Muslims in many countries in 2006.
Where to begin? Kurt Westergaard wasn’t ‘behind’ all the Motoons; he drew one of them, that’s all. And there’s the unqualifed censoriousness of ‘anti-Islam film’ – the silent but obtrusive assumption that Islam should be immune from opposition. And then the usual, indeed obligatory, distortion in which the cartoons ‘triggered riots’ as if the cartoons were to blame, along with the repetition of the claim that the cartoons, plural, were Westergaard’s work. And then there’s the absence of any mention of the fact that Westergaard is under active death threat. Look at the article, look how far down the page you have to go before that little item is mentioned. Damn near the end, that’s how far. Long before you get to that, you get to more unsubtle blaming of Westergaard for drawing a cartoon.
Mr Westergaard was one of 12 cartoonists behind the Prophet Muhammad drawings, but he was responsible for what was considered the most controversial of the pictures. The caricature – originally published in the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in 2005 – featured the head of Islam’s holiest prophet with a turban depicting a bomb with a lit fuse.
Islam’s holiest prophet. Got that? The BBC wouldn’t want you to miss the point, now – this was Islam’s holiest prophet that this terrible Danish fella drew a cartoon about. Not just any old prophet, but Islam’s holiest prophet. Is your skin crawling? Is your hair standing on end? Are you flushing with rage?
The cartoons were later reprinted by more than 50 newspapers, triggering protests in parts of the Muslim world in 2006.
That ‘trigger’ word again – twice in one article. You do get it, right? It’s the cartoons’ fault, and the more than 50 newspapers’ fault. No mention – I repeat, no mention – of the Danish mullahs who trotted the cartoons around various Middle Eastern countries, doing their large bit to ‘trigger’ things; no mention – not a word – about the fake ‘cartoon’ with the pig snout, which probably did more to ‘trigger’ things than the 12 cartoonists and all of Denmark combined. It was the mullahs themselves who put that cartoon in – but they don’t come in for all this scolding and glowering from the BBC. Why not? Why is the BBC in such a hurry to wag its nasty inky finger at Westergaard while letting the mullahs completely off the hook?
OB, I think that was the page you wanted to link to. The link you give is for your Hansa post.
It’s the author of the anti-Islam film that insists on calling his film anti-Islam. So at least that’s not the BBC being censorious.
The implication is that Westergaard was responsible not only for drawing the cartoon but also for the ensuing “controversy”. Lovely.
And “considered the most controversial” seems like weasel words to me, since to consider something controversial is not necessarily to take any position on the matter oneself. Considered so by whom?
G.T I dont think the beeb aplies the same standard to other religions as they do to islam they seem to have no problem sticking it to the jews!I have given up on it.
Richard, If you look [not very hard] you will find plenty of people who think that the BBC is part of the global Zionist conspiracy. You will even find some people who think the same about the Guardian, GT. Do try to remember that bipolar thinking will get you, and us, nowhere at all.
But don’t worry, as part of the BBC’s series on the “white working class” they had a nice drama on the other day about how religion (Islam), not education, can save “white working class girls” from the horrors of being “white working class”.
It’s all balanced, you see.
Isn’t Mohammed Islam’s holiest prophet?
Oh come on, Bashing & Bullying Comments won’t help, unless to make you all more like Geert Wilders. Believe you me, you don’t want to go there. But once you’ve arrived you won’t be able to see how it turned you into a caricature.
1. The cartoons weren’t funny.
2. The cartoons were published with the expressed desire to provoke a reaction from Muslims.
3. Idiots who go out of there way to insult other people shouldn’t complain when they get a reaction they didn’t expect.
4. if I went up to a bloke in the pub a told him his girlfriend was ‘an ugly slag’ I’d be demonstrating my right to freedom of speech, I’d also be responsible for the consequences.
Resistor?
How many Ohms?
And what tolerance?
Okay then, resistor:
1. Totally agree with this, but then I’ve yet to see a political cartoon that IS funny. Maybe threatening to behead Steve Bell would improve matters.
2. This is correct as well, and oddly enough, one of the cartoons actually made the very same point, labelling Jyllands-Posten “reactionary provocateurs”. This generally gets forgotten.
3. Idiots who go out of “there” way to be offended shouldn’t complain when people deliberately try to offend them.
4. Jyllands-Posten to Muslims: “Your girlfriends are ugly slags!” Muslims: “You fool! If our girlfriends were ugly, then there would be no need to cover them up in order to prevent their beauty from causing sinful thoughts.”
You, see, it’s possible to answer an insult with reason and well thought out argument… er…
resistor, you Harry’s Place troll:
1. That is your opinion and only your opinion. Quality doesn’t affect freedom of speech, though. If it did then you yourself would have to remain silent.
2. Your contemptuous opinion of the psychology of billions of people is your own problem.
3. The Imams who added the pig squealing cartoon then toured the Middle East whipping up anger some time after the cartoons were originally ignored for example?
4. Your posting here has offended me. When will you be apologising?
dirigible, you are clearly not quite with the program in your response number 4. It should be something along the lines of…
4. Your posting has offended my deeply held religious sensibilities, and therefore it is right and just and good that I travel the world stirring up riots and burning effigies (and stray cars) in protest of your offense. It will probably be more effective if I print out your posting and “enhance” it with some additions of my own to show your “real” attitude towards my ideological fellow travelers. Also, we will hunt you down and kill you at our earliest convenience.
Feeding trolls is bad, but mocking them ruthlessly is FUN!
Jyllands-Posten to Muslims: “Your girlfriends are ugly slags!” Muslims: “You fool!” etc
You mean, ‘Jyllands-Posten to Muslim men.’ Several Muslims are of the other gender, I’m reliably informed.
Isn’t resistor a treat? Do come back often, resistor.
Oh, and JoB – of course Mo is Islam’s holiest prophet. But he’s not the BBC’s holiest prophet, so why does the BBC feel a need to include the description? It’s not as if anyone is in any doubt about Mo’s status in Islam, surely. I take that little reminder to be a classic bit of bullying – especially when taken together with all the glaring omissions in that article. I also, frankly, take your invocation of Geert Wilders to be a bit of (mild) bullying. A bit of ‘shut up about Islam’ type bullying.
So the BBC shouldn’t print facts that upset and bully poor Ophelia, Funny how that makes your skin crawl but not the genocide carried out in Iraq by the USA.
“…Several Muslims are of the other gender”
OB, how could you? Other *sex*…
Oh all right, Dave, maybe I’ll change it. I use ‘gender’ just to remove the ambiguity that ‘sex’ carries, not to be right on.
resistor, the genocide in Iraq is carried out by the US? Exclusively? No one else doing any genociding? Are you sure? Positive? Really really really certain?
“if I went up to a bloke in the pub a told him his girlfriend was ‘an ugly slag’
Or:
You could say, if I went up to a WOMAN in the pub a told her that her boyfriend was ‘an ugly git’
I’ve been thinking. Why would a person, in the first instance, even think of going up to a ‘bloke’ to make a comment about his ‘wife’? (Whether it be good, bad or indifferent).
Hmmm! That is, (I suppose) unless, the person in the first place, thought that the wife was just a chattel of the bloke.
Ask Ted Honderich.
Haw!
Oh come on again, as if you seriously believe I’d bully anybody on religion.
Reference to Geert is not gratuitous – it was part of your quotes. And no, it is not journalistic innuendo to call M the holiest prophet of Islam is he is, in fact, Islam’s holiest prophet. Just as it is not innuendo to call an anti-Islam movie an anti-Islam movie if the author of the anti-Islam movie himself stresses that the point of his ‘anti-Islam movie’ is that it is anti-Islam.
Just as, by the way, it isn’t innuendo to use the word ‘trigger’ without full description of the triggering chain.
I needn’t cry wolf in every post about Islam to be considered ‘correct’ in my points of view on Islam. If so, what I am being measured against is just, yet another, ‘correct’. Or isn’t it?
(the rhetorical end slipped in for the comfort of the replies ;-) °
oooh…are there trolls??
Look like I’ve turned up a bit late for the fun.
Dammit.
So, who’s playing the “Big Billy Goat Gruff” part, then?
:-)
That comment with my name on it is from JoB, is it? Rather carelessly written and conceived, I think…
As if I seriously believe you’d bully anybody on religion? What, I’m supposed to know perfectly well you wouldn’t? How would I know? I don’t know you, I don’t know what you think. You don’t comment so often that I have a complete mental picture of your beliefs. I also, to be brutally frank, don’t pay that much attention.
I didn’t say the reference to Wilders was gratuitous. Not gratuitous is not the same thing as not bullying. I think it is bullying to invoke the spectre of Wilders in the way you did. If you weren’t saying shut up, what were you saying?
I didn’t say anything about ‘journalistic innuendo.’ And you didn’t answer my question. Why should the BBC bother saying that Mo is ‘Islam’s holiest prophet’? Journalism doesn’t say everything it could say; the goal is usually to be as selective as possible, not to point out the obvious, so why say that? It doesn’t point out that London is the UK’s largest city every time it mentions it.
Again, I didn’t say anything about ‘innuendo,’ but it decidedly is tendentious and prejudicial to say that the cartoons ‘triggered’ anything, especially in a piece that – as I said – left out so much crucial information.
What are you talking about? What’s the ‘correct’ stuff got to do with anything? Why are you talking about what you have to do? What’s your point?
Why is somebody who isn’t Ophelia signing off as “Ophelia”? Very confusing. I thought it was Ophelia at first.
Back to the issue at hand, I find the willingness of some in the West to tolerate intolerance intolerable. Also, I think the media likes to make things as exciting as possible, so re-iterating that Mo is the holiest prophet amps up the drama. Irresponsible and sensationalist (you’d think the BBC should be above this).
I thought it was somebody playing the fool at first, but I think JoB just got distracted – people do sometimes absent-mindedly type the wrong thing into the name box.
resistor so the U.S is engaged in the deliberate extermination of a race of people in Iraq are they?
Dave plenty of people think the moon landings are a hoax as well but I am not sure what that says about anti semetism on the B.B.C.
If you can’t see the congruity between two sets of criticism of an organisation, which accuse it respectively of favouring the other side, then I’m afraid I really can’t help you any more.
The notion that the BBC is in any meaningful sense ‘antisemitic’ is ridiculous – laughable, quite literally. It emerges in a context where the proponents of paranoid and perpetual conflict present those of us who desperately attempt to cling to reality with the spectre of a public sphere of rational debate so narrowed as to become marginalised – a centre unable to hold against the tide of hatred on all sides.
Dave have ever watched a B.B.C discusion program like dateline when the subject is the mid east,they pack the panel with blatant anti semites like Jasmin Brown and Bary Atwan and present them as though they are un biased commentators, when they report on military action tacken by Israel in responce to rocket atacks by hamas they will use terms like cycle of violence to describe it as though there is equal blame on both sides rather than outright provocation by hamas against Israel! to my mind this coverage often crosses the line to anti semetism.
Sorry have you ever watched! excuse the typo.
Richard – Israeli Deputy Defence Minister Matan Vilnai’s much publicised remark two weeks ago about Gaza facing a “shoah” hasn’t helped the impression that both parties contain evil (yes, evil) influences of the highest order, to my mind.
G: “dirigible, you are clearly not quite with the program in your response number 4.”
Yes your version is much better. :-)
diode: “Funny how that makes your skin crawl but not the genocide carried out in Iraq by the USA?”
You trivialise the people of Iraq’s very real suffering by carelessly and inaccurately throwing in that term for emotional effect.
There have been very real examples of sectarian and ethnic cleansing in Iraq, both in the form of Saddam Hussein’s activities against the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs, and in the form of the contemporary “resistance”.
But you support them.
Benson refuses to discuss America’s role and responsibility in the million plus deaths in Iraq. Instead she reples
‘resistor, the genocide in Iraq is carried out by the US? Exclusively? No one else doing any genociding? Are you sure? Positive? Really really really certain?’
Exclusively? Of course not. But that’s not the point is it Ophelia? You know that very well. Sanctions and war have been used by the USA against Iraq to produce a genocide for which you blame the victims – but that’s ok for you because they’re Musloms and thus inferior to the ‘secular’ west. Your position is to demonise then destry with Iran next on the agenda for ‘liberation’.
Ophelia,
One method to counter impersonation, (assuming your CMS has this facility), would be to colour the comment background, or use some other sign, to indicate genuine comments from your user account.
If your application doesn’t have this ability built-in, the code required to do it would be relatively straightforward and would need to be dropped in to your comment list template within the appropriate loop (this of course assumes that you have access to the application code).
In pseudo code it would look something like:
If submitterName is “OB” and submitterName is loggedIn,
Then makeCommentBackgroundPaleYellow
for example. Then it would be clear that any OBs without a coloured background would (probably) be devious impostors :)
The downside is that you’d have to be logged-in and couldn’t comment as a ‘member of the public’. Well, you could, but your readers would just suspect that you were an impostor…
Perhaps others here have alternative suggestions?
Ophelia,
Indeed it was I. My apologies as well as my thanks for catching it.
I guess conception is not my strongest point, but how you get from Wilders to shut up is beyond my carelessness.
Why should the BBC be faulted for not expanding on triggering & for expanding on Mohammed? I just fail to see in the excerpts quoted that the BBC condones anything on any side or, crucially, how you can see the excerpts as suggesting that the right to free speech has been questioned by the BBC (by leading the viewer via tendentious wording as you explicitely assert).
It’s quite something to say that media are tendentious. It’s saying that they are not ‘correct’. To be brutally frank: you’re welcome to that opinion but shouldn’t then get so very upset at another opinion.
Yeah, I know you were not very upset & that I am conceptually careless & also, frankly, too unimportant, to get upset at but none of that – I assure you – is going to make my visits here less of an treat ;-)
ressitor [sic]
At least OB can spell your name.
Why don’t you identify yourself? When people stop being anonymous cowards it tends to make their accusations less hysterical and their writing more reasonable.
I sincerely doubt that anyone here is blaming the victims in Iraq.
I also sincerely doubt that many, if anyone here, supports an attack on Iran. This article, I believe, gives a reasonable indication of what the US (and its allies) stand to lose should such an unprovoked attack take place.
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=5479
@Richard: “to my mind this coverage often crosses the line to anti semetism.”
And there you have it – you choose to see antisemitism there. Others would choose to see any mention of the I/P conflict that does not unequivocally denounce Israel as an imperialist apartheid state as objective pro-Zionism and anti-Arab racism. You would say that is ridiculous. But they would not.
I’d say both sides are ridiculous, and that the world would be better off if the Flying Spaghetti Monster caused the entire region from Suez to Baghdad to vanish into an alternate dimension tonight. Now who am I ‘Anti-“?? Because according to a remarkable number of people, it just isn’t possible not to be on one side or the other…
Dave, 100% with you there.
OB:
“Your position is to demonise then destry (sic) with Iran next on the agenda for ‘liberation’.”
Damn, I’ve been coming here five years and never realised about your evil warmongering neocon agenda !
No neocon agenda?
From
http://www.jeremystangroom.com/blog/index.php
‘Other blogs I recommend are:
Butterflies and Wheels
Harry’s Place
Oliver Kamm’
Notice anything here? What about the praise heaped on the neo-con warmonger Chistopher Hitchens?
So after five years you fail to see the unremitting anti-muslim hatred on this site? (Merely the BBC stating an uncontestable fact about Islam makes Ophelia’s skin crawl) And this at a time when the West is occupying two Muslim countries (or three if you count Palestine) and has caused the deaths of over a million people?
Does this make Ophelia’s skin crawl?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7292882.stm
Air strike kills Afghan civilians
British troops are based in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan
Four Afghan civilians have been killed in an airstrike by British forces, the Ministry of Defence said.
@ resistor
And another thing…
On the subject of “US genocide”, what do you think would have happened if the UN had gone into Iraq and dismantled the regime? Or another scenario (however unlikely), what do you think would have happened if Saddam Hussein and his regime had been overthrown by Iraqis themselves? Do you think the same civil strife we are seeing now would have taken place? Do you think that Iraq would have become a calm, peaceful place? Or do you think that some other scenario would have prevailed, if so, what kind?
“So after five years you fail to see the unremitting anti-muslim hatred on this site?”
Er, no. Do you have any specific examples of this ? Just listing webistes cited on other blogs doesn’t really cut it as actual evidence I’m afraid. Point to some specific text please. Or maybe, don’t. I don’t think this ‘debate’ is going anywhere anyway…
(Not spamming, honest!)
@ resistor
I would characterise this site as robustly defending women’s rights and robustly defending the role of reason (rather than ‘faith’ or superstition) as the guiding and bedrock principle upon which to base politics and ethics.
You seem to be ignoring the fact that there are plenty of articles and postings on this site that take Christian individuals and organizations to task in an equally non-compromising way.
I’ve no doubt that the reason that Islamic topics feature more frequently is that the authoritarian power of Christianity has been broken in most Western nations, and Christianity, after decades of criticism and lampooning by secular critics, the liberal media and other cultural forces has been reduced to a mere shadow of its former, overbearing self.
In case you haven’t noticed, many Western women in particular find hardline interpretations of Islamic philosophy to be particularly threatening, for reasons which should be pretty damn obvious. I certainly know women who feel threatened by a cultural force that has as a fundamental tenet their position as second class citizens. (Apologies if this sounds patronizing Ophelia, I don’t know how else to express the general fact.)
Ach. Of course it’s not only *Western* women who can feel threatened by patriarchal and chauvinist philosophy…
Well Roger, Iraq was almost entirely calm and at peace (apart from the US/UK bombing campaign) before the invasion. Which is why the scenes of normal life in Fahrenheit 911 – kite-flying etc – so enraged the warmongers.
There are now a million dead and four million refugees and internally displaced. I’m not sure how this could be much worse in any other ‘scenario’. Only the lunatic Christopher Hitchens pretends that this would have happened with or without an American invasion. So what’s your point?
I could steal your wallet, then suggest it would have been much worse if someone else had used a knife on you to get it.
Nick, can’t you read? Stangroom is co-editor of this site, links only to the biggest neo-cons in the UK and that isn’t evidence. Did he do it at random?
resistor, no I wouldn’t accept that as evidence of ‘unremitting anti-muslim hatred on this site’. Sorry.
And let’s be clear about something, the invasion, whether sanctioned by the UN or not, would have been US-led. Who else would have done it? A coalition of British, Dutch, Danish, South Korean, German, French, Japanese, Spanish, Italian, etc armed forces?
No chaos would have ensued there would it?
I opposed Saddam and any regime change from outside because the present stste of Iraq was not only foreseeable but predicted by the opponents of the war.
Why do you put quotation marks around genocide? Isn’t a million enough?
One reason would be because ‘genocide’ is a well-defined technical term which requires, like ‘murder’, a quality of intention to be proven. Unless you have evidence that the US Govt planned to kill, and did in fact kill, Iraqis because they were Iraqi, as opposed to being quite indifferent to who they killed if they got in the way of their anti-Saddam rampage, then you can’t throw around ‘genocide’ as if it was just another boo-word.
Anyway, aren’t there about a million other blogs on which this same pointless argument has been had?
“So after five years you fail to see the unremitting anti-muslim hatred on this site?”
Butterflies & Wheels critiques religious obscurantism wherever it comes from. Read the posts and comments and you’ll see that any idiots promoting hatred of anyone are given very short shrift.
What you are claiming to see is therefore entirely the product of your own prejudices.
Furthermore, it’s an elementary mistake (or ploy) to confuse criticism of Islam with ‘anti-muslim hatred.’
Resistor
OB and I don’t agree about the Iraq War.
Love Jerry, xxx
Resistor, I generally disagree with most of what is said in this site and argue with everyone, but this site isn’t anti-Islam. It’s anti-religious. OB attacks Catholicism with the same brio as she attacks the excesses of Islam. She appears to spare Orthodox Judaism: I don’t know why. While I’m an atheist, I don’t share OB’s rejection of religion. As long as religions don’t advocate the violation of human rights or other ethical principles, I respect people’s option to believe in a deity or deities. I even think that religions may contain some positive elements, but that is a subject for another day. I also have never seen OB preach hatred, scorn perhaps, but never hatred. She has too much of a sense of humor about herself to hate anyone for longer than 15 minutes.
resistor jeez how much white guilt can one man carry?Dave to my mind there is no other side that a good liberal could take on the mid east conflict on the one hand you have a tiny liberal democratic nation born out of pain and suffering,on the other side you have a ruthless racist,despotic foe that will not be happy untill the gas chambers are full again, to say there is equal blame is ludicrous!
Yes Richard, we know that’s your opinion. I was trying to help you see that mistaking it for reality is a bad idea.
iijqyM rifjruxamhfs, [url=http://xwdadnalazwc.com/]xwdadnalazwc[/url], [link=http://rvsvtzornuvv.com/]rvsvtzornuvv[/link], http://izyzbjckcpqp.com/