Muhammad Caricatures: Middle East Reaction & Nordic Press

[Moonbear]

Moonbear: I know, but what I've been trying to say is that the cartoonist didn't have to use Mohammad to portray his message. That's why there's this huge reaction, and that's why this cartoon is being treated differently.

Now I'm NOT saying that I agree with the way some people are reacting (which is obviously in some cases over the top), but personally I'm not amused that the prophet of my religion was mocked in such a way.

Then that's a personal problem. I'm sure plenty of Catholics were not amused when the Pope was depicted as promoting child molestation either, but it's fully within the rights of the paper to choose to publish it, and fully within the rights of their readers to write letters to the editor complaining about it. In the article in the original post, it did state that the paper had issued an apology. That should be the end of it. There's no need to boycott an entire country for it. Again, that's the point of a democracy that espouses freedom of the press...the government does NOT control what is published, what is written in a paper is not an official statement of the government's position on an issue, and as such, if you have a dispute with a newspaper, it is ONLY with the newspaper, not the country and the government.

Is the protest of the images okay, sure, that's freedom of speech. They have the right to be offended just as much as the paper has the right to publish it. It's the reaction with threats of violence, and the attempt to get the government to suppress what is published (why else would you boycott the entire country if you didn't expect them to do something about it?) that has escalated the issue and inspired the reaction of the other newspapers. Are they mocking Muslims? No, just those extremists who would attempt to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

 

[chroot]

I feel for you Warren, but you can't blame Islam for that.

I'm not blaming Islam.

They (Islam) have the right to wave there hands, scream, shout, burn flags, etc etc... And we have the same right to just ignore them...

I don't care about waving hands, screaming, shouting, or burning flags. They can do that for the next decade if they want. I just condemn the death threats and bomb threats the newspaper has since endured.

- Warren

 

[devious_]

Anyway, I'm going to go away now. :tongue2: I really don't like participating in political/religious discussions because most of the time they're pointless.

All what I was trying to say was that the cartoon can easily be considered very offensive by any Muslim, and hence they have the right to react (within reason -- and bombing and kill is clearly not within reason!) and not accept being mocked.

 

[chroot]

All what I was trying to say was that the cartoon can easily be considered very offensive by any Muslims, and hence they have the right to react (within reason -- and bombing and kill is clearly not within reason!) and not accept being mocked.

Agreed, in toto.

- Warren

 

[Anttech]

To be honest I bundle this within "Screaming and waving hands" Maybe I should take the threats more seriously. But this is almost daily service in the ME right now..

 

[Moonbear]

Anyway, I'm going to go away now. :tongue2: I really don't like participating in political/religious discussions because most of the time they're pointless.

All what I was trying to say was that the cartoon can easily be considered very offensive by any Muslim, and hence they have the right to react (within reason -- and bombing and kill is clearly not within reason!) and not accept being mocked.

Then I'm not even sure what the argument was about. I thought you were trying to defend the actions of the extremists who were threatening to bomb the newspaper offices. Since now I see you weren't, I think we actually all agree here, more or less.

 

[chroot]

Well, I personally feel that "screaming" and "threatening to kill someone" are two distinct categories of response. These people do regularly conduct bombings, so at least some of their threats are not empty.

- Warren

 

[Azael]

Anyway, I'm going to go away now. :tongue2: I really don't like participating in political/religious discussions because most of the time they're pointless.

All what I was trying to say was that the cartoon can easily be considered very offensive by any Muslim, and hence they have the right to react (within reason -- and bombing and kill is clearly not within reason!) and not accept being mocked.

I agree aswell. 3 pages of discussion when we all agree:rofl:

 

[chroot]

Well, hey, that sure beats most threads in this forum. :)

- Warren

 

[Anttech]

ohh by the way I also Aggree :)

 

[Anttech]

Some french paper has just published the pictures on its front page with "We have the right to caracturise God"

Under a headline "Yes, we have the right to caricature God," the paper ran a front page cartoon with Buddha, the Christian and Jewish Gods and the Prophet Mohammed sitting on a cloud above Earth, with the Christian God saying: "Don't complain Mohammed, we've all been caricatured here."

http://www.natashatynes.org/newswire/2006/02/french_paper_re.html

Stirring the pot? lol

 

[Bilal]

Although there was great respect to Denmark in Arab world and economical relations, this country (nation and goverment) are used to be anti Arab since decades. They always great supporters of the Zionists. Also they invaded Iraq with USA.

However, it is not just caricatures , here how the problem started:
**********************
15/04/2005)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...en15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/04/15/ixworld.html


“Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has called on the country "to show our opposition to Islam", regardless of the opprobium such a stance provokes abroad.”
She said: "We are being challenged by Islam these years - globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.
"We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance."
"And when we are tolerant, we must know whether it is because of convenience or conviction."
********************
Few months ago, the ME media mentioned that one of Danish newspapers suggested establishing ‘’isolated camps” for Muslims in Europe ….

*******************

Danish PM rejected to meet the ambassadors of several Muslims (including Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia ...) countries and ignored them!

**********
Danish PM ignored the request of the Arab league and the Islamic global conference ………

***********

After such dramatic behavior of the Denmark toward the East, the people in Arab and Islamic worlds decided to express their personal freedom by boycotting their products ….

 

[Anttech]

Bilab, sorry Mate you "quoting out of context" on this one.

She was talking about intergration, she wanted people who migrate there to learn Danish so they can intergrate into Denmark better. Right now they the second biggest religion in Denmark is Islam, and it is growing. She was calling on all Citizans to become Danish... regardless of Relgion..

(And the Telegraph is a right wing "rag")

Her Speech is less edited here

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=13230

 

[Bilal]

Bilab, sorry Mate you "quoting out of context" on this one.

She was talking about intergration, she wanted people who migrate there to learn Danish so they can intergrate into Denmark better. Right now they the second biggest religion in Denmark is Islam, and it is growing. She was calling on all Citizans to become Danish... regardless of Relgion..

I agree, but this is not what indicated by the Arabic media ... they mentioned her comments as ''new crusade”... unfortunately the Danish government did not do enough to explain the situation...

The same concerning the caricatures , there are several governments who decided to make a big problem after the Danish government rejected to meet their ambassadors. They asked the media to focus on this issue . Some of these governments want to become popular among their people by making more pressure on Denmark.

 

[Bilal]

I am disappointed from this problem. I am also surprised from such unexpected reaction from many people in Islamic world. It seems they want to put all their anger on Denmark.

I wish to see good relations between Denmark and ME soon ...

 

[BobG]

Is mocking the Pope because some priest fondled children somehow not crossing the same line?

Not to single you out, since a few seem to have missed what the newspaper actually did. Yours just provides the perfect contrast.

A cartoon of the Pope fondling children would not be equivalent to a cartoon of Mohammed wearing a "bomb" turban. To be equivalent, the cartoon would have to depict Jesus fondling children. Depicting Jesus as a child molester would spark some serious outrage even in the US.

 

[russ_watters]

Ugh...

The cartoon could have easily depicted a random extremist, but instead they chose to mock Mohammad, the prophet of Islam. That is just crossing the line.

The fact that the average Joe thinks all Muslims are suicide-bombing fanatics and lunatics is precisely what is causing the outrage! The media is just helping spread this point of view.

You utterly miss the point of this caricature - and, I think, why the reaction is so violent: Since radical Islamists use their religion as the justification for terrorism, it is they who are putting that bomb on Mohammed's head. That is why they get so upset about it - it shines a bright spotlight on their hypocrisy.

Moonbear: I know, but what I've been trying to say is that the cartoonist didn't have to use Mohammad to portray his message.

He most certainly did have to use Mohammed - to just use a terrorist would not only be redundant, it wouldn't show the contradiction that the cartoon was designed to show.

Where did I say that I supported the death threats and such? In fact, like any other sane person, I'm completely opposed to them.

You are taking this awfully personally for someone who is not the target of such caricatures. If you are a peaceful Muslim, then that caricature is saying nothing at all about you and is only pointing out that those who are terrorists are not faithful followers of Islam.

I'm a Christian. I'm against using Christianity as a justification for violence. Some Christians use it as a justification for bombing abortion clinics or killing doctors. So a characature similar to the one we're discussing above could show Jesus throwing a firebomb or holding a sniper rifle. The point would be the same and a peaceful Christian would not be offended by it because it is CORRECT in pointing out the hypocrisy.

 

[russ_watters]

I also agree that people should be free to do what they want (within reason). Moreover, I feel that people should have be free to feel offended and act accordingly.

Define "act accordingly" in the context of the Muslims who have threatened to start kidnapping and killing random foreigners as a result of this.

 

[russ_watters]

Then I'm not even sure what the argument was about. I thought you were trying to defend the actions of the extremists who were threatening to bomb the newspaper offices. Since now I see you weren't, I think we actually all agree here, more or less.

Actually, the start was the argument that the paper shouldn't have published the cartoon in the first place.

 

[russ_watters]

Not to single you out, since a few seem to have missed what the newspaper actually did. Yours just provides the perfect contrast.

A cartoon of the Pope fondling children would not be equivalent to a cartoon of Mohammed wearing a "bomb" turban. To be equivalent, the cartoon would have to depict Jesus fondling children. Depicting Jesus as a child molester would spark some serious outrage even in the US.

I'm not so sure it would spark such outrage. Most Americans aren't real big fans of the Catholic Church right now (not even Catholics). I think most Americans would recognize the caricature for what it really is: a shot at the corruption in the Catholic Church, not a shot at Christianity itself. See my parallel scenario above... I think it is a little closer to being an exact parallel.

 

[Moonbear]

I'm not so sure it would spark such outrage. Most Americans aren't real big fans of the Catholic Church right now (not even Catholics). I think most Americans would recognize the caricature for what it really is: a shot at the corruption in the Catholic Church, not a shot at Christianity itself. See my parallel scenario above... I think it is a little closer to being an exact parallel.

Well, there would be outrage, but it wouldn't involve boycotting the entire country, or threatening to firebomb the newspaper office, it would probably just mean some televangelist would be telling everyone that cartoonist is going to deserve it when he gets cancer, and there'd be a lot of people standing outside the newspaper office saying prayers over a loudspeaker.

 

[Zlex]

Not to single you out, since a few seem to have missed what the newspaper actually did. Yours just provides the perfect contrast.

A cartoon of the Pope fondling children would not be equivalent to a cartoon of Mohammed wearing a "bomb" turban. To be equivalent, the cartoon would have to depict Jesus fondling children. Depicting Jesus as a child molester would spark some serious outrage even in the US.

Maybe, but I doubt too many people in Georgia would advocate declaring a religious war on New York because of it.

Folks surely have the right to express their offense towards this cartoon, or any cartoon for that matter. I always though Ren&Stimpy was pretty vile. But if that expression is waxing violent, or something equally ridiculous, folks have the same right to their expression of that expression.

If I had my way, any wack-job who actually advocated boycotting/declaring war on New York over a silly cartoon would be set upon by a horde of just plain folks with knives, dragged out into the public commons, drawn and quartered, left to rot, and used for fertilzer as an apt reward for such insanity.

 

[Lisa!]

You utterly miss the point of this caricature - and, I think, why the reaction is so violent: Since radical Islamists use their religion as the justification for terrorism, it is they who are putting that bomb on Mohammed's head. That is why they get so upset about it - it shines a bright spotlight on their hypocrisy. He most certainly did have to use Mohammed - to just use a terrorist would not only be redundant, it wouldn't show the contradiction that the cartoon was designed to show. You are taking this awfully personally for someone who is not the target of such caricatures. If you are a peaceful Muslim, then that caricature is saying nothing at all about you and is only pointing out that those who are terrorists are not faithful followers of Islam.

I'm a Christian. I'm against using Christianity as a justification for violence. Some Christians use it as a justification for bombing abortion clinics or killing doctors. So a characature similar to the one we're discussing above could show Jesus throwing a firebomb or holding a sniper rifle. The point would be the same and a peaceful Christian would not be offended by it because it is CORRECT in pointing out the hypocrisy.

Don't try to interpret people's actions the way you want!
I'm sure most of the muslims in ME haven't seen this caricature or know the subject! They just don't expect a European country who's always talking about human's rights and blame ME countries on violations of humans' right, let itself to disrespect the prophet of the second largest religion in the world! Just the fact that they've let themselves to draw a caricature of Muhammad is enough for them to get annoyed. I mean you're missing the poit here. They just don't want anyone draw a caricature of their prophet and they're afarid if they stay quiet this time, they draw something worse the next time!
I'm not judging the accuracy of their action, but I'm just saying that it's 21 century and we should learn to respect each other's beliefs and the lowest respect you can show is NOT to direspect one's belief or make fun of it.

Anyway religious people don't consider Christians as their model. Since they don't want to protest, that doesn't mean others MUST do the same.
And 1 more point: muslims get the feeling that western politicians are trying to ruin the reputation of Isalm in the world.(I agree that OBL is doing a greater job than western politicians !) So they think it's not only a self motivated action by a danish newspaper. AND when some other European published this caricature after they saw the muslims' reaction against Denmark, I do't know what to say here!

P.S. Perhpa the newspaper get annoyed by Hamas's success in election, so they decide to annoy all muslims in the world!(Note that even peaceful muslims who live in western countries are annoyed as well. although base on what you're saying it has nothing against them!)

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

They just don't want anyone draw a caricature of their prophet and they're afarid if they stay quiet this time, they draw something worse the next time!
I'm not judging the accurancy of their action, but I'm just saying that it's 21 century and we should learn to respect each other's beliefs and the lowest respect you can show is NOT to direspect one's belief or make fun of it.

Part of respect in this world is allowing for freedom of speech. I give anyone enough respect at least to say what ever they want to. If I find it offensive then I don't pay attention to it. The only reason I ever do say anything to anyone who is being offensive is because I think they may provoke others who don't have the selfcontrol to just ignore what the person is saying and walk away. If they are someone I know then I will explain to them what I think of what they are saying because then I think that they will actually listen to me.
Being combative only perpetuates the offense being taken. The cartoon was republished because someone obviously took offense to the reaction from the offended. Group A offends group B who offends group A who offends group B. Respecting someone's "offensiveness" should ultimately avoid offense being taken at all.

 

[Lisa!]

Part of respect in this world is allowing for freedom of speech.

That's right! But you don't have the right to offend people dileberately by what you're saying. Anyway I think we need to have more discussion on freedom of speech. It's not as simple as it seems at the first sight!

I give anyone enough respect at least to say what ever they want to. If I find it offensive then I don't pay attention to it. The only reason I ever do say anything to anyone who is being offensive is because I think they may provoke others who don't have the selfcontrol to just ignore what the person is saying and walk away. If they are someone I know then I will explain to them what I think of what they are saying because then I think that they will actually listen to me.
Being combative only perpetuates the offense being taken. The cartoon was republished because someone obviously took offense to the reaction from the offended. Group A offends group B who offends group A who offends group B. Respecting someone's "offensiveness" should ultimately avoid offense being taken at all.

This is a bit complicated!
First this is not a personal matter at all! So you can compare your action towards something offensive with the actionof a group of religious people towards something that's not personal for them. perhaps if you say something offensive to a muslim, he would act the same as you. he might not get annoyed by you even if you say something offensive about Islam and Muhammad in private or even through internet. but in a newspaper especially when they have a very bad impression of western countries, it could be quite differnt as you see.

and they're afarid if they stay quiet this time, they draw something worse the next time!

you've missed some points in my previous post:
And 1 more point: muslims get the feeling that western politicians are trying to ruin the reputation of Isalm in the world.(I agree that OBL is doing a greater job than western politicians !) So they think it's not only a self motivated action by a danish newspaper. AND when some other European published this caricature after they saw the muslims' reaction against Denmark, I do't know what to say here!

You know if muslims didn't pay attentin to this caricature, perhaps most of people wouldn't know about this caricature at all. AND I guess muslims just fine knew this fact but they've decided to react against it anyway in order to prevent the same/ or worse action in the future!
If you ask me muslims should be more offended by what some people like OBL do by the name of Islam. who knows? perhaps some of mulims want to protest against this caricature since they think not only it let itself to draw a caricature of their prophet but also it's trying to link terrorist attacks with the message of Islam!


P.S. Sorry if my reply is a bit difficult to understand.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

but in a newspaper especially when they have a very bad impression of western countries, it could be quite differnt as you see.

I'm not on either side in this issue really. I'm equally willing to tell a stupid person that he should not be provoking people with his drawings as I am to tell a stupid person not to make bomb threats over drawings.

You know if muslims didn't pay attentin to this caricature, perhaps most of people wouldn't know about this caricature at all. AND I guess muslims just fine knew this fact but they've decided to react against it anyway in order to prevent the same/ or worse action in the future!

The problem is that I do not think they are preventing anything. The man's drawing was meant to provoke people. He got exactly what he wanted (though he may not have liked the death threats much). As long as people like him exist and people exist who like to have such strong reactions they will continue to feed each other with reasons to do what they do.
Aside from giving the man what he was looking for it could also be said that this outrage has only confirmed the biased view that people have of muslim society in general.
People (some any way) think that the muslim community does not respect the same values and sense of freedom that they do, which in this case would be freedom of speech. People (again some) think that the muslim community naturally overracts, such as boycotting an entire country over a drawing printed by one newspaper. People (same as before) think that the muslim community responds to any slight with threats of violence. So what has the Muslim community done here in their protest against this bias to assuage themselves of the biased view upon them?

I don't think any less of these people for their reaction since it's a natural one for many people and a hard thing to overcome. I just think they could have handled this better. Sorry if I seem biased but the misguided actions of several people is more serious to me than the misguided actions of an individual.

P.S. Sorry if my reply is a bit difficult to understand.

No reason to be sorry. Talking to you is always more than worth a bit of difficult reading.

 

[Anttech]

You utterly miss the point of this caricature - and, I think, why the reaction is so violent: Since radical Islamists use their religion as the justification for terrorism, it is they who are putting that bomb on Mohammed's head. That is why they get so upset about it - it shines a bright spotlight on their hypocrisy.

I think you are also missing a point, radical Islamists do not use their religion as the justification for terrorism. The Actions especially of the American government are what justifies it in there eyes. The Qu'an says in this context they are allowed to fight back, "eye for an eye." Maybe Symantics, but it gives more of a complete picture, rather than a biased view. Terrorism isn't excusable, but neither is the actions of the West in the ME. Once everyone stops pointing fingers and starts talking in a political context then maybe there will be peace.

Thats my interpretation

Anyway its gone beyond a cartoon, its now about something totally different...

 

[Lisa!]

I'm not on either side in this issue really. I'm equally willing to tell a stupid person that he should not be provoking people with his drawings as I am to tell a stupid person not to make bomb threats over drawings.


The problem is that I do not think they are preventing anything. The man's drawing was meant to provoke people. He got exactly what he wanted (though he may not have liked the death threats much). As long as people like him exist and people exist who like to have such strong reactions they will continue to feed each other with reasons to do what they do.
Aside from giving the man what he was looking for it could also be said that this outrage has only confirmed the biased view that people have of muslim society in general.
People (some any way) think that the muslim community does not respect the same values and sense of freedom that they do, which in this case would be freedom of speech. People (again some) think that the muslim community naturally overracts, such as boycotting an entire country over a drawing printed by one newspaper. People (same as before) think that the muslim community responds to any slight with threats of violence. So what has the Muslim community done here in their protest against this bias to assuage themselves of the biased view upon them?

I don't think any less of these people for their reaction since it's a natural one for many people and a hard thing to overcome. I just think they could have handled this better. Sorry if I seem biased but the misguided actions of several people is more serious to me than the misguided actions of an individual.


No reason to be sorry. Talking to you is always more than worth a bit of difficult reading.

You know as I said before I'm not talking about the accuracy of what mulims are doing in return. In fact I just wanted to say that the russ_watter's interpretation of muslims' actions couldn't be right and fair.
Now I guess I have to be out of here since I also find this discussions somehow boring and useless!:yuck:

P.S. Thank yo very much for being patient with me!

 

[Hurkyl]

Here's a terribly cynical thought that struck me as I was about to leave for work:

What if this isn't about the cartoon at all? What if Muslims are just testing to see how much power and influence they can squeeze out of terrorism? And what if they're just testing to see how much we will let them get away with?


I attended a lecture a year or two ago on the Islamist movement, and why the Islamic community appears not to do much about it. It was suggested that defending one's homeland was a holy duty, and so the moderate Islams are very leery of condemning anything that might possibly have a tenuous connection with said duty.

It seems (to me) that it wasn't just the Islams that are leery, and there are many people outside the Islamic world who are willing to let the terrorists get away with murder, because their feelings are "understandable".

So after reflecting on all of this, it seems a distinct possibility (I did not say "likely") that the extremists are just testing how far the outside world will let them go, on the basis of having an "understandable" reaction.

 

[Azael]

well the editor of a french paper that published the cartoons has gotten fired and the Eu embassy in gaza has been raided.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4672642.stm

Seems like now when the original paper has apologised long ago this has just turned into a situation where a lot of people just want to run around pissed for no reason. Maby a nice way to ignore everything wrong in there own countries.

 

[russ_watters]

I think you are also missing a point, radical Islamists do not use their religion as the justification for terrorism. The Actions especially of the American government are what justifies it in there eyes. The Qu'an says in this context they are allowed to fight back, "eye for an eye." Maybe Symantics...

Yes, it is semantics - either way, they cite the Koran before killing unconnected civilians.

 

[Anttech]

Here's a terribly cynical thought that struck me as I was about to leave for work:

What if this isn't about the cartoon at all? What if Muslims are just testing to see how much power and influence they can squeeze out of terrorism? And what if they're just testing to see how much we will let them get away with?I attended a lecture a year or two ago on the Islamist movement, and why the Islamic community appears not to do much about it. It was suggested that defending one's homeland was a holy duty, and so the moderate Islams are very leery of condemning anything that might possibly have a tenuous connection with said duty.

It seems (to me) that it wasn't just the Islams that are leery, and there are many people outside the Islamic world who are willing to let the terrorists get away with murder, because their feelings are "understandable".

So after reflecting on all of this, it seems a distinct possibility (I did not say "likely") that the extremists are just testing how far the outside world will let them go, on the basis of having an "understandable" reaction.

Yeh its cynical... Actually its more a consipercy theory.

Its very simple:

The terrorists are terrorising because they feel they have cause too.. Not as an "experiement"

 

[Anttech]

Yes, it is semantics - either way, they cite the Koran before killing unconnected civilians.

... In an effort to make the american government listen to them...

Its wrong.. Its terrible...

 

[russ_watters]

Don't try to interpret people's actions the way you want!

What gives you that right and not me?!??

I'm not judging the accuracy of their action, but I'm just saying that it's 21 century and we should learn to respect each other's beliefs and the lowest respect you can show is NOT to direspect one's belief or make fun of it.

Setting aside the actions of those who oppose it, you are still missing the message that the caricature was intended to convey. It is not making fun of Islam.

And 1 more point: muslims get the feeling that western politicians are trying to ruin the reputation of Isalm in the world.(I agree that OBL is doing a greater job than western politicians !)

I think you just argued against your own point: it is OBL, not western politicians, who is ruining the reputation of Islam. And that is the point of the cartoon.

P.S. Perhpa the newspaper get annoyed by Hamas's success in election, so they decide to annoy all muslims in the world!(Note that even peaceful muslims who live in western countries are annoyed as well. although base on what you're saying it has nothing against them!)

No, this cartoon originated before the election. I'm actually not sure why the radical islamic community is choosing to get upset about it now.

 

[russ_watters]

That's right! But you don't have the right to offend people dileberately by what you're saying.

In the western world, yeah, you do. In fact, that's the reason the freedom exists!

Anyway I think we need to have more discussion on freedom of speech. It's not as simple as it seems at the first sight!

I'd be very interested to hear what you think freedom of speech should look like given the above.