Al Fagr and the usual out-of-context dilemma!
I have heard many many rumors before, that eventually proved to be true, that an Egyptian newspaper published the Jyllands-Posten cartoons before the situation gets so escalated. Well, it is now true that the Al Fagr newspaper (that I am sure if you ask an ordinary Egyptian guy about it will say he knows nothing about it) published the Jyllands-Posten's cartoons that caused the current global crisis. It was the Sandmonkey who could prove these rumors to be correct. But sounds like Sandmonkey and his supporters missed one greatly important point which is what the newspaper wrote about the cartoons.
Al Fagr newspaper wrote in the article's headline, which is cut in Sandmonkey's scanning of the paper, what is translated into English as "The Rudeness continue... Mockery of....". Of course it is clear that the rest of the sentence says "Mockery of Prophet Muhammad"... And who knows what the rest of the article says. I will try to find a copy of this paper myself.
The part underlined with blue is the article headline that I have translated!
My point is the pictures in this newspaper are printed to show the readers samples of what the Jyllands-Posten have published in order to put the reader in the picture. It is totally different from the context in which they were published in the Jordanian newspaper Shihane. As from the headlines it makes it clear that Al Fagr is taking the same standpoint Muslims have now.
Ironically, I remember now when the Danish Ambassador in Cairo appeared in El Beit Beitak he complained that the news about the cartoons spread by the "word" in the Middle East and that made the situation worse... So now what do you want?
I say, put these cartoons in their context and you will find out that the unknown newspaper took the same standpoint the Muslims take nowadays. Don't rush into conclusions that just aid your point of view without looking at the picture from all angels.
Some would say that the problem is publishing photos of Prophet Muhammad is haram (religiously illegal) and that's what the whole crisis now is about. Well, again you missed the point, as the crisis now is mainly about offending religions under the cover of IRRESPONSIBLE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, which is something criticized by Muslims, the Vatican, Russian President Vladimer Putin and even the US President George W Bush.
Whisper to my readers: Al Fagr is one of many Egyptian papers that are almost unknown. One proof till I update this post with exact number? If this newspaper is a known one, why no one noticed anything about the cartoons till the last few weeks? I believe if one of Egypt's well known newspapers like Al Akhbar, Al Gomhuria or Al Ahram the reaction could have been different since October 2005.
Whisper to Sandmonkey: I still agree with you that Arab governments made the best use of the people's pre-occupation by the crisis. But I would like to add that the Syrian government is working on spurring the spirit of nationalism once more to form public resistance against the Western pressures on Al Baath, and the cartoons' crisis is like a heavenly present for Bashar Al Assad. I think this answers questions about the lack of security guarding the Danish Embassy in Damascus before the attacks.
Al Fagr newspaper wrote in the article's headline, which is cut in Sandmonkey's scanning of the paper, what is translated into English as "The Rudeness continue... Mockery of....". Of course it is clear that the rest of the sentence says "Mockery of Prophet Muhammad"... And who knows what the rest of the article says. I will try to find a copy of this paper myself.
The part underlined with blue is the article headline that I have translated!Ironically, I remember now when the Danish Ambassador in Cairo appeared in El Beit Beitak he complained that the news about the cartoons spread by the "word" in the Middle East and that made the situation worse... So now what do you want?
I say, put these cartoons in their context and you will find out that the unknown newspaper took the same standpoint the Muslims take nowadays. Don't rush into conclusions that just aid your point of view without looking at the picture from all angels.
Some would say that the problem is publishing photos of Prophet Muhammad is haram (religiously illegal) and that's what the whole crisis now is about. Well, again you missed the point, as the crisis now is mainly about offending religions under the cover of IRRESPONSIBLE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, which is something criticized by Muslims, the Vatican, Russian President Vladimer Putin and even the US President George W Bush.
Whisper to my readers: Al Fagr is one of many Egyptian papers that are almost unknown. One proof till I update this post with exact number? If this newspaper is a known one, why no one noticed anything about the cartoons till the last few weeks? I believe if one of Egypt's well known newspapers like Al Akhbar, Al Gomhuria or Al Ahram the reaction could have been different since October 2005.
Whisper to Sandmonkey: I still agree with you that Arab governments made the best use of the people's pre-occupation by the crisis. But I would like to add that the Syrian government is working on spurring the spirit of nationalism once more to form public resistance against the Western pressures on Al Baath, and the cartoons' crisis is like a heavenly present for Bashar Al Assad. I think this answers questions about the lack of security guarding the Danish Embassy in Damascus before the attacks.
Jimmy,
I will respond to your entire argument with a simple question: Is the point of the muslim outrage that it is haram to print funny cartoons of the Prophet, or is it that it is Haram to create any kind of illustration that is suppsoed to be the prophet, whether one you created yourself or one you copied off of others?
Now, if you guessed the right answer, do you see why it would be wrong- in the light of that answer- for them to have published the cartoons under any context and especially so in Ramadan?
Get it?
Posted by
The Sandmonkey |
February 09, 2006 5:39 PM
Hey Sandmonkey, first welcome to my page!
Now let me just answer ur questions and argument in very very few lines (both the one u propose here and the other on ur site).
Well the answer to ur question (in which the word funny should be replaced with the word offensive... but let go for ur context) is: Muslims as you and I know are angery because of the offensive pictorial depictions (false) of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). This this assures my point that JP published the photos and Al Fagr printed them to show the muslims the offensive cartoons to AROUSE ANGER. And dont u beliece that most of the newspapers just gave a literal description of the cartoons.... if the printing means offense the the description means the same. So do not miss the point... Al fagr showed this cartoons ssooo early when everybody was asleep to show them the offenses done to their religion.
And it is different in the purpose and timing of publishing other newspapers republished the cartoons. For example, they are not like Frnce-Soir trying to stress on solidarity over freesom of expression.
I bet Al Fagr can never republish the same article with the photos these days because they will be taken out of their context (like what u did) and be understood as more offense by the angry public.
Got me?
Posted by
Jimmy |
February 09, 2006 9:33 PM
u didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it again:
Is the point of the muslim outrage that it is haram to print funny cartoons of the Prophet, or is it that it is Haram to create any kind of illustration that is suppsoed to be the prophet, whether one you created yourself or one you copied off of others?
In other terms, a) Are those cartoons wrong cause they are offensive pics of the prophet, or b)are they wrong because they are illustrations of the prophet and as a bonus they just happen to be offensive cartoons?
If you answer A than you really don't know the argument of the people behind this whole thing. Printing any illustartion, drawing, even a stick figure of MNohaed is wrong, let alone one that shows him with a bomb for a turban. So yeah,the intentions of the newspaper doesn;t matter. They printed the cartoons, they violated the rules, they did it during Ramadan, so it's extra offensive.
And now, describing them and showing them is not the same. Hadith is filled with descriptions of the prophet, while a cartoon is very specifc and visual. And while I get your point, you don't seem to get the islamic point of the people who are "outraged" over this whole thing. You will though, very soon, when they start calling for Hamoudah's head on a stick.
Posted by
The Sandmonkey |
February 10, 2006 1:36 AM
It seems to me that you are either:
- Refusing to answer sandmonkeys very clear question
- Don´t understand sandmonkeys question
- Deliberately attempting to avoid sandmonkeys question
Either way you are not doing a very good job !
http://pol.scantiger.net/kopier/2006_01/thompsoncartoon.jpg
Posted by
Anonymous |
February 10, 2006 3:14 AM
I am offended beyond imagination.
We must hold our own accountable. We cannont tolerate an imam insulting Mohammad.
Whoever went so far as to depict Mohammed as a pig, shall have their head severed during prime time on al-Jazeera.
It is this imam's fault we are hated all over the world and made to look like fools.
Posted by
Anonymous |
February 10, 2006 4:12 AM