Carsten Juste Editor-in-Chief, Jyllands-Posten

I have read the letter sent by you to the Muslim community. Being a honorable member of Muslim world, I want you to correct your misunderstandings, before asking us to correct ours.

You wrote

The initiative was taken as part of an ongoing public debate on freedom of expression, a freedom much cherished in Denmark.

If that was your intention, I wonder why you choose such a difficult personality to test your freedom. Why have not you choose to ridicule the Jews who's history is full of cunningness, conspiracy against Jesus, etc. Why haven't you choose Hitler the enemy of Jews, Why haven't you choose Saddam Hussein, or Osama bin Laden. Why haven't you choose president Bush. Why haven't  you chose your own Queen or the little new born son that the royal family just received. These last two figure would have been very good objects to test the real freedom of expression. Why by mistake you choose the Prophet of a nation who's money constitutes most of your countries income.

 

You wrote

On 30 September last year, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten published 12 different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might have looked like.

If the 12 cartoonist's idea was to show what the Prophet might have looked like (as you claimed), then they were drunken or mad while drawing these pictures. Do not think we in the Muslim world are childish in our understanding and very low in our cognitive abilities, that you want us believe in your lies that the 12 cartoonist's were serious to portray the real figure of the Prophet.

 

You wrote

In our opinion, the 12 drawings were sober.

And in our opinion they were disgusting. So, now we have two different opinion on the same pictures. And based on our opinion we the public Muslims decided to boycott you, and then you got angry, and does want us to act based on your opinon and not based on our opinon. In other words, you want us to be your slaves, you do what you want to do right, and still want us to support you based on your opinion and not ours!

 

You wrote:

They were not intended to be offensive

If I draw your father with a bomb turban, and post it to billions of people over internet, will you be offended? For your information, Prophet Muhammad- peace be upon him- is more beloved to Muslims than their fathers, mothers, and whole mankind, and even more beloved than their own soul.

 

You wrote

nor were they at variance with Danish law,

That is OK with us. And boycotting Danish products is not at variance of Muslim law, rather boycotting the mockers of our Prophet is an obligation in our law. So why you want us to abandon our law, if you don't want to abandon your law. So, please don't send similar third letter again.

You wrote:

but they have indisputably offended many Muslims

to correct your information, not Many Muslims, All Muslims. And this is because of the maybe lack of understanding the mindset of a Muslim, which differs a lot from the mindset of a Jew or Christian. Islam prohibits the best picture depicting any Prophet. So, how would you imagine the Muslim anger of depicting the worst satirical picture of the best Prophet!

You wrote:

for which we apologize.

So you still think that it is OK to publish satirical pictures of the Prophet of Islam and the globe. Still the arrogance is clear in your statement, and what your heart conceals is far greater! We do not want your apology. If Prophet Muhammad was alive, he might have accepted your apology, because you hart his feelings. But, how could we accept the apology on behalf of our Prophet. No conscious Muslim will take the risk of accepting your apology on behalf of the Prophet. So, please don't send any more apology letters.

You wrote:

Since then a number of offensive drawings have circulated in The Middle East which have never been published in Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten and which we would never have published, had they been offered to us. We would have refused to publish them on the grounds that they violated our ethical code.

Yes, and I confirm that we Muslim also by mistake included lot's of non-Danish products in the boycott list. (in Saudi the public boycotted a local company who used to get your help before 20 years!) The mistaken act of Muslims are not even comparable to the grave mistake of your act when you published those pictures. Consider the act of such Muslims as a freedom of Expression of wrong information, very much similar –but less dangerous- of your own action of freedom to ridicule the greatest Prophet. So, if you want us to stop this little mistake, then you have to stop your greatest mistake first. 

You wrote:

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten attaches importance to upholding the highest ethical standards based upon the respect of our fundamental values. It is so much more deplorable, therefore, that these drawings were presented as if they had anything to do with Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten.

I am sorry, but allow me to tell you that your are contradicting your self. From your statement, I can deduce that one of the ethical fundamental value that you feel proud of is to slaughter the best prophet as a means to show freedom. If I understood your ethical standard well, then let me tell you the ethical standards in Muslim world is to take revenge against those to touch the Prophet with slightest harm. Boycott is the least measure. Maximum I do not know yet, but the Middle is to rage War.

You wrote:

Maybe because of culturally based misunderstandings, the initiative to publish the 12 drawings has been interpreted as a campaign against Muslims in Denmark and the rest of the world.

Well, please tell me of a culture that allows the most noble person of that culture to be a matter of fun for the public of another culture.

You published the satirical drawings and millions see them, and does not want us to complain or get angry. Is it is our misunderstanding or understanding to object the portrayal of satirical pictures of our Prophet?

You wrote:

I must categorically dismiss such an interpretation. Because of the very fact that we are strong proponents of the freedom of religion and because we respect the right of any human being to practice his or her religion, offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.

Allow me to say at this point that it is a plain clear black lie. Prophet Muhammad has no ground other than religious ground. If you detach prophet Muhammad from religion, then nobody knows him. He is not a poet, nor a player, nor a painter, nor an actor. Nobody among your readers know prophet Muhammad in a ground other than religious ground.

So, now if you agree on this axiom, then the next thing you did, is to publish satirical pictures of this religious figure. And then, you are telling the biggest lie that..

 

offending anybody on the grounds of their religious beliefs is unthinkable to us.

So,  if we are talking in the world of unthinkables, then I want you to know that passing this incidence without taking revenge is unthinkable to 1.4 billion Muslims.

You wrote:

That this happened was, consequently, unintentional.

Thank you, and I also want to tell you that the circulation of boycott products other than Danish made, and the circulation of some pictures never published by JP was unintentional. If you have freedom to say black lie, Do we have freedom to say 'white' lies?

You wrote:

As a result of the debate that has been going on about the drawings, we have met with representatives of Danish Muslims, and these meetings were held in a positive and constructive spirit. We have also sought in other ways to initiate a fruitful dialogue with Danish Muslims.

Let me guess the things happening behind the scences. Those big Danish companies –like Arla- exercised great pressure on you to write these type of letter. You never intended to write a single word pleasing any Muslims. Because you hate Islam, you hate Muslims and hate Prophet Muhammad.

Please tell me in reply private message to what extent I am correct in my guess? I will never tell anybody about your secret  (sorry this is another 'white' satirical lie)

You wrote:

It is the wish of Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten that various ethnic groups should live in peace and harmony with each other and that the debates and disagreements which will always exist in a dynamic society should do so in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

Sorry, I could not understand. Are you telling this to us Muslims or telling this to your self, or to the 12 cartoonists? I am confused.

The Muslim ethnic group in Denmark were staying peacefully. But you did not want harmony. And wanted to create an atmosphere of friction, and broke the mutual respect between your country and 1.4 billion of strong mankind all over the globe.

I do not know if this behavior from your side is among the ethical standards that you were refereing earlier.

You wrote:

For that reason, Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has published many articles describing the positive aspects of integration, for example in a special supplement entitled The Contributors. It portrayed a number of Muslims who have had success in Denmark. The supplement was rewarded by the EU Commission.

Very Excellent, so what led JP turn 180 degrees? and publish satirical drawings, and refuse to apologize on the spot and after 3 months issue a letter that has no apology for mocking the prophet but apology for offending Muslims?

You may receive awards from EU Commissions, but that award carries no value to us. We monitor your current action, and not what you have been doing in the past. Recently, EU decided to back you, and condemned the Muslims who boycott Danish products, on the ground that it is against the WTO rules. I wish EU get more angry with Muslims and more pleased with you. Then only your real ethical standards will start to appear, and apology letters will start to disappear.

You wrote:

Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten takes exception to symbolic acts suited to demonise specific nationalities, religions and ethnic groups.

And our boycott is also a symbolic act. Non-Symbolic act might be killing those 12 cartoonist, and destroying the headquarter of JP with all the staff inside. We might be happy for the time beings with the symbolic act, as we Muslims are still weak to go for non-symbolic things right now.

Your wrote at the end of your Letter

Sincerely yours

Again I think you are ending your letter with a lie. If you were sincere to us, you haven't published those pictures in the first place, and lied and showed arrogance after publishing in the second place, and thinking to write such a false letter after 3 months in the third place.

But since my Islam prohibits to lie, even 'white' ones in most of the cases, then let me be sincere in ending my letter with

Insincerely Yours

Abdul Baqi, Jeddah, Tuesday, January 31, 2006

No comments...