The State of the Ummah II

Well, in keeping with GMT (Good Muslim Time) I have finally bothered to get around to this. Over 2 months late(r). My apologies, especially to Umm Yasmin, because I did promise to help move this carnival along. I still think this carnival should be a regular feature across various Muslims blogs. Hopefully, they can do a better job than me with the time-keeping aspect.

So I would like to open The State of the Ummah II: Beyond hatred and apologia: contemporary Muslim responses to sacrilegious treatments of Islam, the second blogging carnival, first dreamt up by Umm Yasmin. I received less submissions than I was hoping, so to make this a worthwhile task I've also trawled the internet looking for suitable posts to supplement the ones I was emailed. Thank you to anyone who did email their submissions.

I don't know if these posts answer the theme of the carnival in its entirety: why does supposedly offensive art provoke such a reaction among contemporary Muslims the same way far more offensive and dangerous material passed off as a series of 'facts' does not? I shall leave that for the good reader to decide.

The State of the Ummah II
I conducted my own mini-carinival, by collating some responses to the cartoons and protests in "Some blogs on those cartoons" and question the publicity given to these sorts of controversies given by (sometimes) violent Muslim reactions in "'Who's fault is the Danish boycott?'". In the end I had to say "I'm with stupid (unfortunately)", at some of the idiotic Muslim responses.

Svend White had the best collection of posts on this topic, in my humble opinion. He asks "Who's fault is the Danish boycott?". In fact, Svend has an entire category dedicated to this affair.

Ali Eteraz questions the American Muslim reaction to the publication in some American university newspapers, first in "An Open Letter to the Muslims at Univ. of Illinois" and then in "Cartoon Controversy at NYU: Muslims Allege Racism".

Anarcho Akbar criticises Europeans who abuse freedom speech, suggesting they practice quite the opposite in "Cartoon Capers".

Mere Islam first chastises those Muslims who engaged in largely pointless violence in "An Idiot's Guide to Offensive Cartoons". Then they set about informing people "Why Muslims Are Angry". Finally, they take apart Daniel Pipes' views on the cartoons and "Islamic imperialism" in "Danish Cartoons, Double-Standards and Daniel Pipes".

Umm Yasmin reminds us that "Free Speech is All Relative Depending on Who's Doing the Speaking".

Aziz Poonawalla suggests that the whole affair should be used as "Provoked Introspection" for Muslims.

Umma Zaid tells us that Muslims need to get their priorities in order, especially in the wake of events in Iraq, in "We Hold These Things to be Sacred".

Moiz Khan reflects on where Muslims are in the aftermath of the protests in "Caricatures 2".

Indigo Jo points to a "Debate on the cartoons in Prospect", and exhorts Muslims in other countries to think about how their actions might affect European Muslims, who are under pressure from both left and right in "Do they STILL not get it?". Finally, he refutes a radio presenter's views in "Feltz gets in on the cartoon affair".

Baraka posts on Wafa Sultan, and how the media enjoy extreme voices at either end of the spectrum in "Wafa (Faithful) No Longer".

Laury Silvers, at the Progressive Islam Team blog, exposes "The Con of Moderate Islam" (i.e. Muslims' whole approach to controversies is wrong).

Jamal, at Opinionated Voice, sends a "Message to the Ummah", exhorting Muslims to be better people and rise above the low-level baiting, while they rightfully defend the Prophet's (upon whom be peace) character and lif. He also has a series of posts on that link too.

Izzy Mo talks about "Defending the Prophet (alayhi salatu wa salaam)", by questioning an academic's view of mocking concepts considered sacred to religious people. She also offers us a part of a paper she submitted as part of her course in "Excerpt from my final paper".

Sepoy, of Chapati Mystery, gives us his scholarly perspective on things in "Figure of Speech", in which he outlines Europe's fascination with depicting the Prophet (uopn whom be peace), as well noting that he has long been depicted in various forms -- by Muslims themselves in many cases.

Comments

[jamal]

I was meant to add before, this was a good article. well done.

[mohamad falastin]

We all know muslims and arabs are very angry for the extreme injustices,
neocons "jewish elite and their evangelical christian allies" want to channel this anger.
The neocons want civil war between muslims.
sunni vs. shia in iraq, hamas vs. fatah in palestine, arabs vs blacks in darfur and islamic courts vs. war lords in somalia.
This blog should concentrate on that, arabs/muslims should wake up

[thabet]

This blog should concentrate on that

Or you could get your own blog.

[thabet]

In addition, your statement "The neocons want civil war between muslims" is exactly what I'm talking about in my "Zionism and Robots" post.

Let's say the Neocons do want civil war between Muslims. Why are Muslims then giving them what they want? Or are Muslims just mindless robots who act on instruction from the Evil Outsider?