Criticism amidst Danish newspaper apology for Prophet cartoons

After the republishing of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2008, the Politiken newspaper has issued an apology to those who were offended by the cartoons.
The apology was issued after a lengthy request by several Muslim groups, headed by a Saudi lawyer, which left in its wake an outcry by those who are supposed freedom of speech ‘Jihadis’, in the mainstream-media sense of the word. That is, those that would sacrifice anything for freedom of speech, including that freedom itself.
The newspaper that originally printed the cartoons, Politiken has said “we apologize to anyone who was offended by our decision to reprint the cartoon drawing.”
From an early age, we are taught to play nicely, and punished if we do not. As we grow older we tend to cast of the shackles of tolerance and jump at the chance to elevate ourselves at the expense of someone else. When I realized this at sixteen, the moment when a war was waged against that enigmatic force that is “terror” and therefore one of my homelands, Iraq, I woke up feeling very disillusioned.
Journalist and author Douglas Murray asks “Why should a Danish newspaper apologize for republishing a drawing of a dead tradesman?”
His ‘article’ (and I use that term loosely), published on the Telegraph’s website is scattered with “probability”; making loose statements about the alleged descendants of the Prophet Muhammad:
“The groups that the Saudi lawyer claimed to be acting on behalf of “94,923 of Mohammed’s descendants”. Now I know he got around, but 94,923? Really? Are they sure? Mind you, in my experience it is hard to find people who don’t claim to be descendants of Mohammed once the cartoons start flying. The last such claimant (against the author Mark Steyn) was Canadian.”
What? A Canadian descended from an Arab who lived hundreds of years ago? Impossible. Maybe I am Old School, but I believe journalists in national and mainstream papers have the responsibility (and ought to have the diligence) to actually counter arguments with facts as opposed to “probably's.”
Someone who clearly has little insight into conflict, and an even smaller interest in making peace, all Murray has achieved, apart from making himself feel like a real man, is the confirmation of an widespread belief that most journalists today are far more concerned with creating controversy to sell stories than actually reporting the news. And we wonder why newspapers are dying?
Perhaps I am taking it too personally, but Douglas Murray never seems to let the opportunity to write another ‘article’ about those barbaric Moozlems pass him by. The Telegraph’s website is littered with updates on his personal quest to educate the world, particularly the Muslims. Only recently an ‘article’ of his was published that served no other purpose than to give himself a cyber pat on the back. The ‘article’ was entitled “Instead of facing reality, many young British Muslims take refuge in delusion and self-pity” and consisted of nothing more than four hundred words of “Muslims-are-in-denial” without any quotes, facts or information to back it up, apparently under the delusion that it is an ‘article’ publicizing his television conquest (the piece is about an upcoming television performance of his).
With primary school arguments like “It wasn’t Sikhs or Buddhists who flew the planes into the twin towers,” his program is actually something I might tune in for, if I’m feeling like a particularly bloodthirsty little Muslim.
I digress. Muslims are not “especially sensitive because their feelings are very, very deep”, but we just choose to voice our opinions. If you like freedom of speech then it is hypocritical to deny Muslims it. It is also hypocritical to try to dictate to a Danish newspaper what to do, particularly when we criticize the role of the Saudi lawyer in the matter.
Sorry to shatter the illusion but most of us do not full of “self-pity, willful blindness and outright delusion.”What is more patriarchal or oppressive than a non-Muslim man, telling Muslim women they are in denial because they find feminism in the Qur'an and Islam? I would really like to know how many British Muslims Douglas Murray knows, not including the ‘extremist’ ones who he interviews. I’m free on Saturday.
BM
Criticism of Danish newspaper apology over Muhammad cartoons
Ruqaya Izzidien
After the republishing of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad in 2008, the Politiken newspaper has issued an apology to those who were offended by the cartoons.
The apology was issued after a lengthy request by several Muslim groups, headed by a Saudi lawyer, which left in its wake an outcry by those who are supposed freedom of speech ‘jihadis’, in the mainstream-media sense of the word. That is, those that would sacrifice anything for freedom of speech, including that freedom itself.
The newspaper that originally printed the cartoons, Politiken has said “We apologise to anyone who was offended by our decision to reprint the cartoon drawing.”
From an early age, we are taught to play nicely, and punished if we do not. As we grow older we tend to cast of the shackles of tolerance and jump at the chance to elevate ourselves at the expense of someone else. When I realised this at sixteen, the moment when a war was waged against that enigmatic force that is “terror” and therefore one of my homelands, Iraq, I woke up feeling very disillusioned.
Journalist and author Douglas Murray asks “Why should a Danish newspaper apologise for republishing a drawing of a dead tradesman?”
His ‘article’ (and I use that term loosely), published on the Telegraph’s website is scattered with “probability”; making loose statements about the alleged descendents of the Prophet Muhammad:
“The groups that the Saudi lawyer claimed to be acting on behalf of “94,923 of Mohammed’s descendants”. Now I know he got around, but 94,923? Really? Are they sure? Mind you, in my experience it is hard to find people who don’t claim to be descendants of Mohammed once the cartoons start flying. The last such claimant (against the author Mark Steyn) was Canadian.”
What? A Canadian descended from an Arab who lived hundreds of years ago? Impossible. Maybe I am Old School, but I believe journalists in national and mainstream papers have the responsibility (and ought to have the diligence) to actually counter arguments with facts as opposed to “probably”s.
Someone who clearly has little insight into conflict, and an even smaller interest in making peace, all Murray has achieved, apart from making himself feel like a real man, is the confirmation of an widespread belief that most journalists today are far more concerned with creating controversy to sell stories than actually reporting the news. And we wonder why newspapers are dying?
Perhaps I am taking it too personally, but Douglas Murray never seems to let the opportunity to write another ‘article’ about those barbaric Moozlems pass him by. The Telegraph’s website is littered with updates on his personal quest to educate the world, particularly the Muslims. Only recently an ‘article’ of his was published that served no other purpose than to give himself a cyber pat on the back. The ‘article’ was entitled “Instead of facing reality, many young British Muslims take refuge in delusion and self-pity” and consisted of nothing more than four hundred words of “Muslims-are-in-denial” without any quotes, facts or information to back it up, apparently under the delusion that it is an ‘article’ publicising his television conquest (the piece is about an upcoming television performance of his).
With primary school arguments like “It wasn’t Sikhs or Buddhists who flew the planes into the twin towers,” his program is actually something I might tune in for, if I’m feeling like a particularly bloodthirsty little Muslim.
I digress. Muslims are not “especially sensitive because their feelings are very, very deep”, but we just choose to voice our opinions. If you like freedom of speech then it is hypocritical to deny Muslims it. It is also hypocritical to try to dictate to a Danish newspaper what to do, particularly when we criticise the role of the Saudi lawyer in the matter.
Sorry to shatter the illusion but most of us do not full of “self-pity, wilful blindness and outright delusion.”What is more patriarchal or oppressive than a non-Muslim man, telling Muslim women they are in denial because they find feminism in the Quran and Islam? I would really like to know how many British Muslims Douglas Murray knows, not including the ‘extremist’ ones who he interviews. I’m free on Saturday.
BM