Reply
Sat 15 Sep, 2007 09:20 am
Al-Qaeda Offers Bounty for Killing Cartoonist and Editor
Published: September 15, 2007
E & P
CAIRO The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq offered money for the murder of a Swedish cartoonist and his editor who recently produced images deemed insulting to Islam, according to a statement carried by Islamist Web sites Saturday.
In a half hour audio file entitled "They plotted yet God too was plotting," Abu Omar al-Baghdadi also named the other insurgent groups in Iraq that al-Qaida was fighting and promised new attacks, particularly against the minority Yazidi sect.
"We are calling for the assassination of cartoonist Lars Vilks who dared insult our Prophet, peace be upon him, and we announce a reward during this generous month of Ramadan of $100,000 for the one who kills this criminal," the transcript on the Web site said.
The al-Qaida leader upped the reward for Vilks' death to $150,000 if he was "slaughtered like a lamb" and offered $50,000 for the killing of the editor of Nerikes Allehanda, the Swedish paper that printed Vilks' cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad with a dog's body on Aug. 19.
Vilks said from Sweden he believed the matter of his cartoons had been blown out of proportion.
"We have a real problem here," Vilks told The Associated Press by telephone. "We can only hope that Muslims in Europe and in the Western world choose to distance themselves from this and support the idea of freedom of expression."
Ulf Johansson, editor in chief of Nerikes Allehanda, said he took the bounty "more seriously" than other threats he had received. "This is more explicit. It's not every day somebody puts a price on your head."
Johansson said he had contacted the police and that they had already started work on the threat.
Aside from a few scattered protests and condemnations by Muslim countries, the reaction to the cartoon has been muted, in contrast to last year's fiery protests that erupted in several Muslim countries after a Danish newspaper published 12 cartoons of Muhammad that were reprinted in a range of Western media.
In an attempt to defuse the tensions caused by the cartoon in both Sweden and abroad, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt last week invited 22 Sweden-based ambassadors from Muslim countries to talk about the sketch.
Reinfeldt expressed regret at the hurt it may have caused, but said that according to Swedish law it is not up to politicians to punish the free press.
Al-Baghdadi added in his message that if the "crusader state of Sweden" didn't apologize, his organization would also attack major companies.
"We know how to force you to retreat and apologize and if you don't, wait for us to strike the economy of your giant companies including Ericsson, Scania, Volvo, Ikea, and Electrolux," he said.
No photo has ever appeared of al-Baghdadi, whom the U.S. describes as a fictitious character used to give an Iraqi face to an organization dominated by foreigners.
The U.S. has said that under interrogation, a top al-Qaida member revealed that al-Baghdadi's speeches are read by an actor.
Al-Qaida in Iraq in the past has carried out operations in Jordan and may have links to militant groups in Lebanon, but is not known to have any kind of presence in Europe.
Al Qaeda Threatens Swedish Paper Over Mohammed Caricature
Al Qaeda Threatens Swedish Paper Over Mohammed Caricature
By E&P Staff
Published: September 17, 2007 5:00 PM ET
A Swedish newspaper is under death threats from Islamic extremists after publishing a drawing of the Prophet Mohammed.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is offering a bounty for the murders of artist Lars Vilke and Ulf Johansson, editor in chief of the newspaper Nerikes Allehanda -- which published a cartoon depicting the founder of Islam as a dog. Islam forbids depictions of Mohammed, and in many Muslim areas, it is a grave insult to liken anyone to a dog.
Johansson published the drawing to accompany an Aug. 18 editorial expressing dismay that several art galleries had refused to show Vilke's drawing, and to emphasize the right to free expression, according to the World Association of Newspapers (WAN).
"Art galleries let themselves be frightened by a diffuse threat," Johansson wrote in the editorial. "This sends a signal that it is easy to silence people through scaring them."
"While appreciating that the publication of the drawing may have caused offence to many Muslims, WAN emphasizes that the Nerikes Allehanda enjoys full freedom of expression and that a choice to publish the drawing falls within that right and should be duly respected," the Paris-based WAN said.
WAN said it is heartened to see that the newspaper has strong support among the Swedish publishing industry.
The publication was also officially condemned by the governments Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Egypt, and Jordan, according to a sourced entry in Wikipedia.
The controversy recalls the furor -- and frequent death threats -- that followed publication of a series of imagined images of Mohammed in the Denmark newspaper Jyllands-Posten in Sept. 2005. At least 200 people were killed in demonstrations or sectarian violence sparked by protests over the cartoons. A Roman Catholic priest was murdered in Turkey by a Muslim who said he was influenced by the publication of the cartoons.
AAEC Officers React to al-Qaida's Call for Murders
AAEC Officers React to al-Qaida's Call for Murders of Cartoonist and Editor
By Dave Astor
Published: September 17, 2007 3:10 PM ET
Association of American Editorial Cartoonists (AAEC) President-Elect Nick Anderson responded today to an al-Qaida leader's offering of large bounties to kill a Swedish cartoonist and editor.
"It will come as a surprise to no one that al-Qaida opposes the concept of freedom of expression," said the Houston Chronicle cartoonist, when contacted by E&P. "In the Western world, the appropriate response to offensive speech is more speech. But then, we wouldn't be at war if al-Qaida embraced Western thinking."
Anderson, a 2005 Pulitzer Prize winner, added: "My colleague, AAEC Vice President Ted Rall, quipped, 'It's about time someone was willing to pay real money for a cartoonist.'"
Rall also said wryly: "Anyone who doubts political cartoons are powerful should note that al-Qaida is trying to silence political cartoonists. Fire a cartoonist -- refuse to hire a cartoonist -- and the terrorists have won."
The al-Qaida leader, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, offered up to $150,000 for the killing of cartoonist Lars Vilk and $50,000 for the killing of the editor of Nerikes Allehanda, the Swedish paper that printed Vilks' cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad with a dog's body on Aug. 19.
Vilks told the Associated Press: "We have a real problem here. We can only hope that Muslims in Europe and in the Western world choose to distance themselves from this and support the idea of freedom of expression."
Ulf Johansson, editor in chief of Nerikes Allehanda, said he took the bounty "more seriously" than other threats he had received. "This is more explicit. It's not every day somebody puts a price on your head."
Until the bounties were offered Saturday, reaction to Vilks' cartoon had been somewhat muted compared to the protests that erupted after a Danish newspaper published Muhammad-related cartoons.
Anderson is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group, while Rall does his cartoons for Universal Press Syndicate.
Quote:Vilks told the Associated Press: "We have a real problem here. We can only hope that Muslims in Europe and in the Western world choose to distance themselves from this and support the idea of freedom of expression."
Freedom of expression, freedom of religion and tolerance is an unacceptable concept in the Islamic world.
au1929 wrote:Freedom of expression, freedom of religion and tolerance is an unacceptable concept in the Islamic world.
Al Quaeda, which issued the death threat against Vilks, does not represent the Muslim world. How do you think Jews in Israel would react if German newspapers depicted Moses or Theodor Herzl as pigs? I think the state of Israel would issue a formal protest, and some of the fundamentalist, nutty, illegal Jewish settlers in Palestine might well issue death threats.
Thomas wrote:au1929 wrote:Freedom of expression, freedom of religion and tolerance is an unacceptable concept in the Islamic world.
Al Quaeda, which issued the death threat against Vilks, does not represent the Muslim world. How do you think Jews in Israel would react if German newspapers depicted Moses or Theodor Herzl as pigs? I think the state of Israel would issue a formal protest, and some of the fundamentalist, nutty, illegal Jewish settlers in Palestine might well issue death threats.
While Thomas' response above is certainly true, it is also a fact that, both historically and in terms of contemporary politics, Islam is and has been far less tolerant of religious freedom than has been the (remnants of the)Christian tradition in non-moslem countries.
Both expanded in part by conquest and both episodically engaged in violent oppression and extermination, however it is simply a fact that the initial expansion of Islam from Arabia across the then Christian Mid East and North Africa was done almost exclusively by conquest. Moreover it was followed by almost continuous wars of expansion that continued for centuries before an organized Christian response developed.
There is a widespread debate in the Western world about the conflict of its traditional values and practices with those of the growing Moslem immigrant population. A good deal of spontaneous introspection and accommodation is going on to adapt long-held customary practices to the sensitivities of their growing Moslem populations and to the Western values of individual freedom. However, no such spontaneous introspection and accommodation is happening in the Moslem world. On the contrary the contemporary movement, from Turkey to Morocco and Indonesia, is for increased cultural and political intolerance of non-Moslems. Oddly there is little public debate about this significant aspect of the cultural conflict which increasingly grips the contemporary world.
Why should Western nations continue to permit Saudi Arabia to generously subsidize Moslem schools and cultural centers in their midst while it continues to prohibit any expression of Christianity or even indifference to Moslem practices within its own borders - even by Western visitors???
georgeob wrote:Why should Western nations continue to permit Saudi Arabia to generously subsidize Moslem schools and cultural centers in their midst while it continues to prohibit any expression of Christianity or even indifference to Moslem practices within its own borders - even by Western visitors???
Now George you've gone and done it now. As my grandmother would way "you're ripped your drawers with me." I am pretty sure you know better than to make the above statement because I am pretty sure you know better.
To refer to the House of Saud as the "government" is inane. The Brits (with help from the US) created the so-called Saud government as a totally bifurcated government with the house of Saud able to generate oil contracts with the west and over-see various other international issues leaving the domestic issues (local legal/education/cultural) to be within the realm of the local muslim leadership. Even when a Saud princess was accused of, and convicted of, adultery and sentenced to beheading, the house of Saud had no say to overturn (she lost her head).
Sharia at it's finest.
Joe(can't wait for the Iraqis to get their legal system going)Nation
Dys,
While I recognize the historical truth of some of your anecdotes, I don't follow your point. Saudi Arabia is indeed a country: it has a real government that functions both domestically and internationally, much as do other governments. In its domestic activities the Saudi government is a custodian (and enforcer) of the Moslem religion of virtually all of its citizens (but not that of many of the guest workers who together comprise over 20% of the population there). It does not permit the expression of any other religious views or practices within its borders, even by visitors to the country.
I don't understand your point about its supposed "bifurcation". There is the House of Saud and the government, to be sure. However they have exactly the same rule and management, and there is no independent accountability for either.
The conflict of Abdul Azziz with the Hashemites who previously ruled Mecca & Medina in the 1930s was certainly watched with interest by both Britain and The US to see who would control the vast petroleum assets of the region. While Britain had historical ties to the Hashemites dating back to the Arab uprising they financed to overthrow the Ottomans, both nations were mostly interested in close relations with whichever party won the struggle in Arabia. Both conflicting Arabian parties were dedicated to preserving the Islamic "purity" of the holy sites, but the Saudis, backed as they were by a fairly fanatic Yemeni Wahhabbi cult which provided its fiercest warriors, represented much greater systematic intolerance of anything outside their own narrow interpretations of Islam. That systematic intolerance remains today hardly diminished from its original form.
Most of the mosques are funded by the Wahhabbis and churning out fanatics. Al Queda and the Taliban might very well be creatures of the Wahhabbis. Osama even cautioned its members against attacking the Saudi oilfields. If threats are made by Muslim fanatics someone should hint at attacking Saudi oilfields for it is the petro funds that is providing the Muslim fanatics.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace