A must read article from BBC, some explanation we are looking for.
Quote:
15 September 2012 Last updated at 13:07 GMT Film protests: What explains the anger?
By Shashank Joshi Research fellow, Royal United Services Institute The Arab Spring is not an adequate explanation for this upswell of anger Continue reading the main storyAnti-Islam film protests
More than three years ago, President Barack Obama famously told a Cairo audience that "we meet at a time of great tension between the United States and Muslims around the world".
His speech, titled A New Beginning, sought to transcend the acrimony of the Bush era.
This week, as violent protests rage across the Middle East and beyond, the president might ask himself: What went wrong?
The truth is that there is no single explanation.
One answer is that last year's wave of political uprisings, the so-called Arab Spring, is responsible.
After all, protests began in Egypt, which last year became the most populous Arab democracy, and spread to Libya, which became the largest by area.
The Arab Spring did indeed invigorate a range of Islamist movements and weakened the law enforcement capabilities of the affected states. Continue reading the main story
Quote:
The crowds ransacking embassies this week are negligibly small when compared to the popular mobilisations that swept away dictators. They are a shrill minority”
In that febrile political environment, protests might have been easier to start, simpler for violent extremists to exploit, and harder for confused security forces to manage.
Film 'trigger'
However, this cannot explain why some of this week's most serious violence took place in Sudan, and other protests in places normally calm, as Qatar.
Additionally, such violence long pre-dates the Arab Spring and frequently took place under dictators, the most prominent examples occurring in the Middle East in 2006 after a Danish newspaper's publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
The second argument is that we are witnessing profound anti-Americanism, dormant for much of last year, fused with religious extremism - with the controversial Innocence of Muslims film merely a trigger.
Polls indicate that anti-Americanism stems from a variety of grievances, including US policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, American wars in the Middle East, and US backing for friendly dictators.
The irony is that, whereas Barack Obama is sometimes pilloried by critics in the West for naively supporting the revolutions, most Arabs see his actions as too late and too little. In Tunisia, for instance, only a third believe that the US response to their revolution had a positive impact.
We should, however, distinguish anti-Americanism from religious extremism.
Although Arab ideas about freedom of expression are fundamentally divergent from Western ones - 84% of Egyptians want the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim religion - there are big generational gaps.
Those under 35 - the generation widely held up as the engine of the Arab Spring - are far less likely to pray several times a day, attend the mosque regularly, or read the Koran daily. They are being catalysed less by religion, and more by politics.
[The Benghazi attack] represents broader Libyan opinion no more than Anders Breivik did that of Norway”
Perhaps the most important fact is that the crowds ransacking embassies this week are negligibly small when compared to the popular mobilisations that swept away dictators. They are a shrill minority.
Even where it is widespread, anti-Americanism is simply not a sufficient explanation for outbreaks of violence.
In many cases, protests might have had little energy had local religious and political entrepreneurs, eager to bolster their following and create disorder, not exploited them.
In Khartoum, for instance, local buses were laid on to transport prayer-goers to protest sites.
In Libya, to speak of a protest is misleading. The assault in which US Ambassador Chris Stevens died was probably a co-ordinated, complex undertaking by an organised militant group, perhaps in concert with al-Qaeda's North African affiliate. It represents broader Libyan opinion no more than Anders Breivik did that of Norway.
This wave of violence will have longer-term repercussions.
The US has no legal mechanism to censor the provocative film and, with eight weeks to go before a national election, President Obama will be careful not to appear unduly willing to appease mob violence.
US hampered
American freedom of expression cannot be a subject of compromise for any administration. This means that such triggers for protest will recur, as there is no shortage of provocateurs.
Some will argue that Mr Obama's efforts to temper anti-Americanism were exercises in naivety; others that he went nowhere near far enough”
There is very little that the United States can realistically do. Broader US foreign policy is not going to radically change in a way that addresses regional grievances.
Mr Obama's own experience with intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ended in humiliation years ago, after he was rebuffed by the Israeli government, and Iran's nuclear programme has now crowded out the peace process.
Above all, however, many Americans will rightly or wrongly see this week's protests as indicative of the failure of engagement, not a sign that more is needed.
In Egypt, American faith in President Mohammed Mursi has been badly shaken. Despite Egypt's continued military and financial dependence on Washington, Mr Mursi hesitated in condemning the protests.
President Obama's admission that "I don't think that we would consider [Egypt] an ally, but we don't consider them an enemy" highlights how the political sands are shifting.
There will be new pressures for the US to disengage from the Middle East, revert to fortress-style embassies, and accelerate the refocusing of American attention to Asia.
Some will argue that Mr Obama's efforts to temper anti-Americanism were exercises in naivety; others that he went nowhere near far enough.
Either way, the irony is that just as fragile post-revolutionary governments are most in need of assistance to build institutions, small sections of their populations are making that task much harder.
Shashank Joshi is a Research Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a defence think-tank, and a doctoral student of international relations at Harvard University.
Originally Posted by Rabz
I watched the infamous video while the Govt was supposedly blocking YouTube.
(Now it is blocked indeed).
All I can say is that it was one of the most repulsive and distasteful thing I have ever seen.
It was purpose made directed preciously to insult our Prophet (PBUH) and the Muslims all over the world.
The video had called the Prophet (PBUH) " Mohammad the bastard" "Father of the Unknown" and shown him as a child molesting, blood thirsty pervert amongst other despicable things.
I'm glad that the Muslim world has risen up to this nonsense and making their voice heard.
Yes, some of the methodology of the protest could/should have been avoided, but the bottom line is, we Muslims should let the beholders of "free speech" know that we won't tolerate this direct insult to our Prophet (PBUH) and to our religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifat
++++1 I Approve this message!
Why? Even in a "right" methodology, why protest?
I've heard all these great stories about how Prophet was insulted, attacked, and yet the man himself never fought back. He turned his biggest enemies into believers. I'm not saying we should make friends with the director, but why should we get into a whole thing over this? Why do we (muslims) even bother to watch the video? Since many of you already have, why can't you just watch it and say meh? Why can't we let it go and move on? Like I said, the man himself didn't bother about this stuff, why should his followers?
People can do w/e they want. Muslims know what kind of a man he was. To quote ATMR, it doesn't change who he was just because some guy made some video in his basement.
I'm glad that the Muslim world has risen up to this nonsense and making their voice heard.
Yes, some of the methodology of the protest could/should have been avoided, but the bottom line is, we Muslims should let the beholders of "free speech" know that we won't tolerate this direct insult to our Prophet (PBUH) and to our religion.
"Should/could have been avoided" - That's more a condonation than a condenmation.
How should we protest? Go out and kill some innocent bystanders? Blow up a bus full of innocent African workers? Kill a diplomat? Burn a school down?
------ I definitely do not approve this message.
Quote:
"Whether we agree or disagree with something, we are to do it with honor. ... The question is: What would Mohammed do?"
The copying of the quoted statement by Rifat here in this thread about the murder of the American ambassador might have made more sense in the other thread - but in this thread? Isn't there a tacit approval since Rifat approves the message of
Quote:
but the bottom line is, we Muslims should let the beholders of "free speech" know that we won't tolerate this direct insult to our Prophet (PBUH) and to our religion.
I approved being offended by the message not the killing of the Ambassador. No One here approves the killing of the Ambassador, (anyone that did might have gotten banned or probably did)
An unknown, poorly made youtube video which nobody cares about now has become the central point of rage for us muslims for no apparent reason. We know what the prophet stood for and what he was like. The world has 7 billion people and it is the viewpoint of the majority that matters not a select few that made that video. A basement quality video orchestrated by a priest who was widely condemned in the U.S itself does not tarnish or ruin the image of our Prophet overnight.
What really ruins the image of the Prophet is when muslims kill innocent people or threaten to behead someone because he made a freakin video! This shows how intolerant and violent we are to the world and harms the entire message of Islam, the Prophet worked so hard to convey.
First, start with the easy win
You can and should make it your business to bust ignorance. Whether it be your senior bhai saying "bhujla shob ihudi-der kaaj", or the co-worker forwarding a "stand up to 9/11 mosque", make it your business to gently inform the perpetrators of their fallacies. Will it be uncomfortable? You bet. Could it paint you in a "kill-joy" or "overly-PC" right? Highly likely. So? Still do it. BUST IGNORANCE
Second: Be an ambassador. For your family. For your ethnic group. For your country. For your religion. For humanity. When bad stuff happens - and regardless of provocation (and I don't consider a hateful peace of trash made by a convicted felon worthy of attention, but hey, some have thinner epidermis) - regardless of provocation - CONDEMN THE BAD STUFF. Kinda tied to the first one but say it LOUD and state the OBVIOUS: You/I/We are agains the taking of innocent lives.
Third: Inform yourself. Don't just read a blog or two. Don't just wikify. Go out and mingle. Seek out people who think differently from you. Learn what makes 'em tick. LEAVE YOUR COCOON
I was so dismayed with this Libyan tragedy that I went on an FB rant where I even generalized people of Benghazi. I have a personal connection to the country and the Ambassador was a fellow Berkeley alum. Now I'm back to points 1, 2 and 3 above.
And this is why you don't react to provocations...it simply elicits more.
Quote:
A FRENCH satirical magazine has published nude cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, a move that could further inflame tensions after violent protests in the Muslim world over an anti-Islam film.
The cover of Charlie Hebdo today shows a Muslim in a wheelchair being pushed by an Orthodox Jew under the title Intouchables 2, referring to an award-winning French film about a poor black man who helps an aristocratic quadriplegic.
Another cartoon on the back page of the weekly magazine shows a naked turbaned Mohammed exposing his posterior to a film director, a scene inspired by a 1963 film starring French film star Brigitte Bardot.
Charlie Hebdo's website crashed today after being bombarded with comments that ranged from hate mail to approbation.
The magazine is no stranger to controversy over issues relating to Islam.
Last year it published an edition ''guest-edited'' by Prophet Mohammed that it called Sharia Hebdo.
The magazine's offices in Paris were subsequently fire-bombed.
French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault said anyone offended by cartoons could take the matter to the courts after expressing his 'disapproval of all excesses''.
But he emphasised France's tradition of free speech.
''We are in a country where freedom of expression is guaranteed, including the freedom to caricature,'' he said on RTL radio.
''If people really feel offended in their beliefs and think there has been an infringement of the law - and we are in a state where laws must be totally respected - they can go to court,'' Ayrault said.
He also said a request to hold a demonstration in Paris against the controversial US-made anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims, which has sparked furious protests across the Muslim world, would be refused.
Charlie Hebdo's latest move was greeted with immediate calls from political and religious leaders for the media to act responsibly and avoid inflaming the current situation.
The magazine's editor, originally a cartoonist who uses the name Charb, denied he was being deliberately provocative at a delicate time.
''The freedom of the press, is that a provocation?'' he said.
''I'm not asking strict Muslims to read Charlie Hebdo, just like I wouldn't go to a mosque to listen to speeches that go against everything I believe.''
Dalil Boubakeur, the senior cleric at Paris's biggest mosque, appealed for France's four million Muslims to remain calm.
''It is with astonishment, sadness and concern that I have learned that this publication is risking increasing the current outrage across the Muslim world,'' he said.
''I would appeal to them not to pour oil on the fire.''
France's Muslim Council, the community's main representative body, also appealed for calm in the face of ''this new act of Islamaphobia''.
Protester dies after inhaling fumes from burning American flag
Quote:
Burning an American flag proved fatal for a Pakistani protester, who reportedly died from inhaling fumes from the ignited icon of independence.
Some 10,000 people rallied this week in Lahore, the capital of the Punjab province, to protest the movie trailer that Muslims say insults Islam, according to the International Herald-Tribune. One participant, identified as Abdullah Ismail, died after being taken to an area hospital. Witnesses said he had complained of feeling sick from the smoke from American flags burnt at the rally.
Originally Posted by Zunaid
And that's why I put no link.
I suppose that's the onion for you...always pushing things. And of course that it elicited next to no reaction whatsoever proved their point perfectly.
BanglaCricket Staff BC - Bangladesh Representative
Join Date: February 28, 2005
Location: Here
Favorite Player: Father of BD Cricket
Posts: 20,540
Scenario One:
Someone photo edits a pornographic image to replace the picture with your father and mother.
Would that bother you ? What would you do? You know its not really a picture of your parents and the whole world ‘probably’ knows it too. So would you just try to brush it off as a work of a sorry lame soul who probably has nothing better to do and let it go viral all around the world for people to see and comment on it ??
Scenario Two:
Someone opens a fake facebook account of your wife or daughter, put up a very disturbing but obviously edited profile picture with some provoking messages. Would that bother you ?? Or would you simply try to ignore it knowing it is ,once again, work of some low life scumbag who got nothing better to do with his/her life.
What would you do ?
Would you report it to the authority to take it down ??
Or would you just sit around comfortable knowing someone out there making a mockery out of your loved one. Its just not right.
You see, the whole thing comes down to how important the issue is to you or how close the matter is to your heart. If you are certainly bothered enough you are more likely to take action against it.
Why should we even care about this amateur video and protest ??
Because it is always better to speak up while you can than waiting for it till its too late.
Today, they will make a poorly made amateurish video from the basement and if we continue to ignore and not raise our voice against it, 10 years from now on, they will have a multi million dollar summer blockbuster "Mohammad the Bastard". But by then, we would all have grown a thick skin of it and they will continue to make mockery of our Prophet and our religion.
There is a saying in Bangla, "Moutonai shommotir lokhkhon". Your silence will be taken as a token of your acceptance. We muslims keep quiet and try to ignore it in hence giving our approval on this issue.
The message has to be simple and clear. You just CAN NOT do this. We will NOT tolerate insults to our Prophet or to our religion. Every time they make a movie or draw a cartoon about our Prophet, every time we should protest and make a big deal out of it. It should come down to a point where they should know that this is not acceptable to us and will not be tolerated. This should come down to a point where even the thought of making a mockery of Allah and our Prophets will send a chill down to their spine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BanglaCricket Forum Rules
We have zero tolerance for all kinds of prejudice and bigotry. Avoid posting about your personal hatred toward any country, nationality, race, ethnicity, religion and gender.
If we have a zero tolerance here in BC just to moderate some 100 odd people, how come you support the bigotry towards Muslims out there in the real world where you have over a billion followers ?
Why should it be ignored because it was work of a mad man ?
When was the last time such bigotry was ignored here in BC ??
Cuz, last time I checked, such bigotry brings harsh action and often results in temporary or permanent ban.
__________________
Verily, in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest [Al-Qur'an,13:28]
BanglaCricket Staff BC - Bangladesh Representative
Join Date: February 28, 2005
Location: Here
Favorite Player: Father of BD Cricket
Posts: 20,540
^^ Permanent ban means you kill the membership and hence the person from BC.
Plus, I was never talking about killing someone.
I was merely stating that we should protest and raise our voice.
And as I stated earlier, some of the methodology of the protest could/should have been avoided.
__________________
Verily, in the remembrance of Allah do hearts find rest [Al-Qur'an,13:28]
Originally Posted by Rabz
^^ Permanent ban means you kill the membership and hence the person from BC.
Plus, I was never talking about killing someone.
I was merely stating that we should protest and raise our voice. And as I stated earlier, some of the methodology of the protest could/should have been avoided.
what are these methodologies?
If millions of muslims had simply protested...the west would have said, jeez these muslims are an oversensitive lot, but that would have been it.
We would have said, just as you have a right to express yourself, we also have a right to express ours.
But that's not what happened, as soon as it turned to violence...and this happened not just in Lybia, but in a number of muslim countries(where the victims were actually muslims) - it changed the game.
The issue was no longer about any perceived slights or blatant provocation, but about the mad muslim mobs.
You're a smart guy...how can you not see that this line of thinking is self-defeating?
Originally Posted by Rabz
. Every time they make a movie or draw a cartoon about our Prophet, every time we should protest and make a big deal out of it. It should come down to a point where they should know that this is not acceptable to us and will not be tolerated. This should come down to a point where even the thought of making a mockery of Allah and our Prophets will send a chill down to their spine.
.
Lets be realistic, just worldwide peaceful protests will not send chills down spines of any future producer.
Its only if you have violent protests in which lots of people are killed that maybe future people will be terrified of mocking the Prophet.
Of course, if western countries implement laws against mocking religions that is another way in which they will be deterred.
So violent protests wont do much, and even more so when the protests are in Muslim countries, often killing other Muslims
September 15, 2012, 11:57 AM
Linear Mode
