This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1697
February 28, 2006
MIM: John Grogan, an Inquirer columnist, was so busy lauding Muslims who exercised their right to free speech, while opposing his paper's use of theirs, that he ignored the fact that Iqbal Baqai, the state rep of ICNA (an organisation with ties to Al Qaeda) ,who helped organise the protests went beyond the bounds of free speech when he threatened that : "Muslims are angry- the offices of the Inquirer could be attacked" He also dissembles about the "democratic tone "of the protest, whose Islamo facist intent was revealed when another protest organiser, Imam Isa Abdulmateen, an official of the Majlis Al Shura, used the opportunity provided by the Inquirer, who mistakenly thought they owe Muslims 'equal time" to proclaim that no apology was sufficient and that the editors and staff of the Inquirer should " "accept Islam as thousands of Americans and Europeans have done before you". ------------------------------------------------------------- | |||||||
John Grogan | Protesters set a democratic tone By John Grogan Hundreds of Muslims from around the region descended on the Inquirer-Daily News Building Saturday to protest The Inquirer's decision to reprint a caricature of the prophet Muhammad with a bomb protruding from his turban. I would just like to say to the protesters: I'm with you 100 percent. It's not that I agree with your point of view. I respect your right to say it. I think The Inquirer made the right call to run the controversial cartoon, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper and has sparked Muslim furor, outrage and, in some instances, violence. It was a good decision, journalistically sound and morally responsible. Intelligent, thinking people, if they are to make informed decisions, have a right to information. All information. Most Americans cannot fathom how a fairly innocuous caricature, by Western standards, could spur rioting and violence around the globe. How can we begin to understand without being able to examine the offending image as part of the coverage? That said, I cheered Saturday's protesters for the way they conducted themselves. That is, peacefully. There is a right and a wrong way to express outrage and disgust. And those protesting along North Broad Street over the weekend stood as a model for the rest of the world. Freedom to engage No one got hurt. No one lashed out physically. No one made threats. No bombs went off. No fires were set. No cars overturned. The protesters spoke their minds - loudly and forcibly - and made their disgust known. Elsewhere in the world, Danish embassies have been burned, and riots have turned bloody. And that is hugely ironic, considering the whole point of the cartoon is that Islam has been hijacked by a minority of violent extremists who act inconsistently with the religion's tenets. What better way to sustain post-9/11 stereotypes of Muslims as prone to religious violence than to protest an image by... turning violent? Fortunately, that did not happen in Philadelphia. Not even close. While there was some hostility in the crowd, everyone behaved. There were some who shouted ugly things and distributed unsavory images, but they were in the minority. And even the worst of it fell well within the bounds of a cherished democratic tradition: the right to free speech and open assembly. The right to disagree and be heard. Some protesters called for a boycott of the newspaper, and for readers to cancel their subscriptions. It's all fair game, and a rich part of that crazy, messy, not always pretty institution known as democracy. Let's hope the rest of the world was watching Saturday and taking notes. Outrage can be expressed without outrageous behavior. Dissent can be registered without descending into incivility and inhumanity. Bridging the gulf Bombs don't bridge cultural divides; dialogue does. Violence doesn't breed peace; understanding does. On a gray stretch of pavement Saturday, the talk got under way. Inquirer editor Amanda Bennett walked among the protesters Saturday, and told me that after talking with them she came away with a largely positive impression. "This was a great opportunity for some dialogue," she said. "We're planning on following through. We're having other, richer discussions" with area Muslims. "We ran the cartoon for a purpose, and it was the same purpose newspapers fulfill, or ought to fulfill, in every circumstance, which is giving people the information they need," Bennett said. Indeed, had The Inquirer not run the image, area Muslims would have stayed home. The paper's publisher and top editors would have stayed home, too. The gulf would still have been there, only quietly out of sight. In Philadelphia on Saturday, a bridge, however small and tentative, was opened across that gulf. In this complicated time, we can't have too many bridges. At the other end lies understanding.
Post a question or comment for John Grogan at http://go.philly.com/askgrogan. Or by e-mail: [email protected]. ------------------------------------------------ MIM: For their part the Inquirer editors not only displayed abject dhimmitude by coming out and talking with the protesters (an act which only fueled their imagined grievance and brought the number of protesters from 30 to several 100) they met with the terrorist tied Council on American Islamic Relations and agreed to publish a piece by CAIR and a local Imam who wrote that the way to make amends to Muslims for the publication of one cartoon was for the staff to "accept Islam". AP Photo PX101 By KATHY MATHESON Associated Press Writer PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Protesters with signs that read "Irresponsible Journalism" gathered outside the offices of The Philadelphia Inquirer Saturday to condemn the newspaper's decision to reprint a caricature of the Prophet Muhammad that had angered Muslims worldwide. Many of the 200 protesters acknowledged that the paper had the right to publish the image but said it still mocked their religion. "It was done knowing that it was against the wishes of the Muslim people," said 50-year-old Mahmood Siddique. "It was done in bad taste in the name of freedom of speech." Inquirer editor Amanda Bennett showed up at the demonstration, which she described as "peaceful and respectful." She walked through the crowd and introduced herself, thanking protesters for coming and in some cases defending the paper's decision. A week earlier, the paper had published the drawing of the Prophet Muhammad with a bomb for a turban - one of about a dozen images originally published in Denmark that sparked violent demonstrations throughout Muslim countries. Many Muslims believe any depiction of Muhammad is sacrilegious, much less a derisive one. The Inquirer was one of only a few U.S. media outlets to have shown any of the cartoons. Along with the image, the paper ran an explanation of its reason for publishing it and a story about the international controversy. Bennett and managing editor Anne Gordon released a statement in response to protests last week, saying that "this was a moment for newspaper journalists to do what they are uniquely qualified to do in this country - to lay out all sides of the issue for a well-informed public to debate and discuss." Bennett said Saturday, editors have met with a Muslim group that included members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Philadelphia. The Inquirer also plans to print opinion pieces from the Muslim community, she said. Lilly Dzemaili, 53, said the paper's efforts to meet with members of the Muslim community were a step toward making amends. "Talking with each other - (that's) always good," she said. ------------
|
This item is available on the Militant Islam Monitor website, at http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1697