News Muhammad Caricatures: Middle East Reaction & Nordic Press

[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!

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.

 

[Anttech]

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.

Its also the western politicans that are ruining the reputation of the west.. so what.. Untill you see both sides to this problem, there won't be any peace..

 

[russ_watters]

If you ask me muslims should be more offended by what some people like OBL do by the name of Islam.

Good...

...it's trying to link terrorist attacks with the message of Islam!

Like I said several times before: it isn't necessary to try to link terrorists acts to Islam - terrorists cite Islam all the time and provide the link themselves.

 

[russ_watters]

Its also the western politicans that are ruining the reputation of the west.. so what.. Untill you see both sides to this problem, there won't be any peace..

I do see that side of the problem! You're the one arguing on behalf of terrorists, not me, so don't come after me with that hypocricy crap. But regardless, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not:

1. It is ok to make political cartoons.
2. It is ok to make death threats about political cartoons.

 

[Anttech]

Like I said several times before: it isn't necessary to try to link terrorists acts to Islam - terrorists cite Islam all the time and provide the link themselves.

They also cite the wests engagement in the ME, and corrupt polictics, so that also links the west to the terrorism

 

[Anttech]

I do see that side of the problem! But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not

Glad to hear it!

1. It is ok to make political cartoons.
2. It is ok to make death threats about political cartoons.

As I said before, this has esscalated to far more than about a cartoon..

 

[russ_watters]

They also cite the wests engagement in the ME, and corrupt polictics, so that also links the west to the terrorism

Yes, and...? Do you think that somehow makes it ok to pervert a religion? Do you think that makes the cartoon incorrect in it's assertion that terrorists are perverting the religion?

As I said before, this has esscalated to far more than about a cartoon..

I must have missed that...I'll go back and look.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

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.

While you're right that the point isn't to make fun of Islam I think it is pretty obvious that the point was to provoke muslims in general. Unfortunately while I think the artist may have wanted to get them angry at the extremists for the manner in which they tarnish their religion it back fired. Really the move was just quite stupid.

 

[Anttech]

Do you think that somehow makes it ok to pervert a religion?

No I dont...

Do you think that makes the cartoon incorrect in it's assertion that terrorists are perverting the religion?

No but I don't think it is a fair and balanced assesment of what is actually happening

 

[vanesch]

This is going in circles. Not agreeing with someone is not synonymous with insulting them.
"We" as in the Islamic world. And are you implying that freedom gives you the right to be a jackass?

Making fun of irrational beliefs is, IMO, something that is _almost at the basis_ of every humoristic activity. It is the confrontation of the holder of an irrational belief with his irrationality. Every religion is based upon irrational beliefs, and as such, is open to such exposure. The arch-enemy of every religion, tyrant, extremist, "true believer", guru,... has always been humor. The nazis couldn't stand humor.

From the moment that there is *something* in your life, viewpoint, or whatever, that you don't support being made fun of, it means that you're victim to an irrational belief and you should question yourself about it.

The correct attitude, if you are "victim" of some form of humor which you find offensive wrt. your beliefs, is to consider that the one making the humor is making a fool of himself, and exposing his ignorance of the "truth". Having made a fool of himself, that's good enough. If you believe that the Great Spaghetti Monster exists, and is as such, offended, then I guess you also consider he's powerful enough to give a lesson to that poor guy who just made a big fool of himself (maybe after he dies, and gets punished in Spaghetti Hell or whatever variant of it you think exists). And if you consider that The Great Spaghetti Monster is not powerful enough to do so, then you might wonder what use it is to believe in him.

It is always fun to see how religious people think they need to defend their almighty deity - as if that deity itself cannot do it for itself.

 

[Anttech]

Great Spaghetti Monster exists

I am relieved that I am not the only one who worships the Great Spaghetti monster.. May his sauce not be too garlic..

Homor can also be bad can't it :P

 

[Lisa!]

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

The point is that I'm not interpret their actions. I just said what I knew about muslims! I told you they don't want anyone to draw their prophet's caricature.No matter what it's about! But anyway of course you have the right to see the world the way you want it to be! *shrug*

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.

Read the first part!

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.

Western politicians are helping him as well!
1. by genaralizing.They're always trying to say all muslims are like OBL!
2. by trying to show a wrong pictureof wha's going on in ME countries!

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.

Ok, thanks for the information!

 

[Lisa!]

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

I don't have any problem with this kind of freedom ,although I think media are a bit different.
Since TSA said "Part of respect in this world is allowing for freedom of speech.", I just wanted to say when someone offend you dileberately he shouldn't expect the other side respect him!

"People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

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

You Do know what I think of freedom of speech!

Like I said several times before: it isn't necessary to try to link terrorists acts to Islam - terrorists cite Islam all the time and provide the link themselves.

All righty then! So you also don't mind if someone links the church opposition with science, Spanish inquistion, and lots of violence against humans durin the past centuries to christianity!

 

[Entropy]

If someone makes fun of my religion I'm not offended to the point of trying to take away their right to express their opinion. In fact, ignoring them usually works better than making a big deal out of it. Did more people see this caricature before or after they got upset about it?

Sometimes I really hate freedom of speech. Didn't the artist realize this would cause such an upstir? They're just making the Middle East hate us even more. It's like they're asking for more fundamentalist to come over here and bomb us. People need to learn that just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea.

 

[Anttech]

You're the one arguing on behalf of terrorists, not me, so don't come after me with that hypocricy crap. But regardless, that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not:

I am not on your side or the "terrorists" side. I am trying to see the world from every angle, something you don't seem to be able to...


You sow what you Reap, right?

 

[Lisa!]

Wow if you're on behalf of terrorists I must be a terrorist bcause of the nature of my replies, Anttech!

 

[Anttech]

Wow if you're on behalf of terrorists I must be a terrorist bcause of the nature of my replies, Anttech!

Well

Your either with us or against us

 

[Curious3141]

One thing that *really* gets to me is the appalling double standard that many Muslims seem to practise.

In India, during the reign of the supposedly "right wing" Nationalistic Hindu party, the BJP, there was a Muslim satirist by the name of M.F. Husain who published a portrait of "The Naked Saraswati". Saraswati, BTW, is the Goddess of Learning, very revered, and always depicted modestly clothed in white. Painting her naked is the height of blasphemy to a devout Hindu. Husain compounded the insult by releasing other portraits of various Hindu deities engaged in lewd acts, etc.

Yes, there were protests within India. Some Hindus in other countries voiced their outrage over the portraits. They were non-violent and died down quickly. At no time was there any harm or destruction to physical property. At no time were threats to inflict the same issued by rabid Hindu militants. No "fatwas" were ever issued. Husain is still alive, still whole, still satirising merrily, in predominantly Hindu India.

Compare this with what has happened here : Muslims worldwide protesting and boycotting anyone who has the temerity to show these images. Threats of violence and arson made by Muslim fanatics.

Are we so quick to forget the whole Rushdie saga ? That poor man got mercilessly hounded by a bearded bastard till he died of his own venom. Bomb threats galore, threats of arson that actually got carried out in some cases. The fatwa can't even be revoked because only the person who issued it has the authority to rescind it apparently. Such sticklers for the niceties of protocol, these fanatics.

Here's what I think Muslims around the world need to realize, and realize quickly : the world does not owe you any favors. There is no damned reason to treat Muslims alone with kid gloves, when other religions and systems of belief are caricatured, parodied and satirised with impunity by the civilised world. There is only one circumstance under which I would agree with your outrage : that is if someone comes right up to you and insults your faith to your face. Then it's perfectly OK to get angry (but it STILL isn't OK to threaten or commit violence unless the other party initiates it).

Barring that, if you see something published somewhere mocking your religion in general terms, please, do the world a favor and stop shoving your outrage everywhere it is not welcome. Especially violent outrage : to be miffed is OK, to be militant never is. Suck it up, deal with it, for we live in a secular age. Either move with the times, or isolate yourself from the rest of the world where we cannot offend you and you cannot terrorise us. Don't try to have your cake and eat it.

 

[Lisa!]

Are we so quick to forget the whole Rushdie saga ?

Sounds like this carcaturist had forgotten it!

 

[Curious3141]

Sounds like this carcaturist had forgotten it!

Yes indeed. So I guess we should all live in fear of someday, somehow, possibly inadvertently, stepping on Muslim toes by something we do, say, write or draw and provoking the undying wrath of a crazy bearded Iranian anachronism ?

 

[BobG]

If someone makes fun of my religion I'm not offended to the point of trying to take away their right to express their opinion. In fact, ignoring them usually works better than making a big deal out of it. Did more people see this caricature before or after they got upset about it?

Sometimes I really hate freedom of speech. Didn't the artist realize this would cause such an upstir? They're just making the Middle East hate us even more. It's like they're asking for more fundamentalist to come over here and bomb us. People need to learn that just because you have the right to do something, doesn't make it a good idea.

Expecting the Danish government to do something about the cartoons is "over the top".

But, yes, having the right to do something doesn't make it a good idea - especially since the cartoons were published solely to prove at least one newspaper was not afraid to publish offensive cartoons about Muhammed (Cartoon controversy)

This wasn't an editorial cartoon published to make a point. It was cartoonists responding to a challenge to dare to use Muhammed in a political cartoon.

The firings that have happened in some newspapers over the cartoons is appropriate, since the cartoons go beyond the limits of good taste and could negatively affect the number of subscribers. Calling for the Danish government to punish the newspaper and/or cartoonists is unrealistic. As for boycotts, everyone is free to use whatever criteria they desire in the purchases they make.

 

[Lisa!]

I finally find the full story!

The drawings first appeared in a Danish paper in September but were reprinted this week in papers in Norway, France, Germany and even Jordan after Muslims decried the images as insulting.

I was wnondering if anyone could answer my questions:
1) what was the muslims' reacion the first time?(I mean in Sep.)

2) why these European newspapers decided to republish the caricatures this week?

P.S. I'm sorry if you've already discussed thenm in this thread. If yes, just let me now and I'll take the time to read all replies! You know Iwas too busy to read all replies before replying to this thread!

 

[BobG]

I finally find the full story!


I was wnondering if anyone could answer my questions:
1) what was the muslims' reacion the first time?(I mean in Sep.)

2) why these European newspapers decided to republish the caricatures this week?

P.S. I'm sorry if you've already discussed thenm in this thread. If yes, just let me now and I'll take the time to read all replies! You know Iwas too busy to read all replies before replying to this thread!

1) They were outraged ... at least the Muslims who knew about the story (it was just one newspaper, after all). The bigger the story got, the more outraged Muslims world-wide have become about the stories, so a significant wave of outrage has taken a little time to build.

2) Reporters are a strange breed. If one reporter is kidnapped, two or three reporters might find it worthwhile to interview the kidnappers. If those reporters are kidnapped as well, then you have a bigger story and a dozen or so reporters will want to interview the kidnappers. Reporters just have a way of making stories bigger and bigger ... for as long as the wave lasts, anyway. They're a little lemming-like, actually.

 

[Lisa!]

1) They were outraged ... at least the Muslims who knew about the story (it was just one newspaper, after all). The bigger the story got, the more outraged Muslims world-wide have become about the stories, so a significant wave of outrage has taken a little time to build.

2) Reporters are a strange breed. If one reporter is kidnapped, two or three reporters might find it worthwhile to interview the kidnappers. If those reporters are kidnapped as well, then you have a bigger story and a dozen or so reporters will want to interview the kidnappers. Reporters just have a way of making stories bigger and bigger ... for as long as the wave lasts, anyway. They're a little lemming-like, actually.

Thanks, Bob!

 

[Moonbear]

I finally find the full story!


I was wnondering if anyone could answer my questions:
1) what was the muslims' reacion the first time?(I mean in Sep.)

2) why these European newspapers decided to republish the caricatures this week?

P.S. I'm sorry if you've already discussed thenm in this thread. If yes, just let me now and I'll take the time to read all replies! You know Iwas too busy to read all replies before replying to this thread!

That was all in the original article posted, wasn't it? That's what it was about, that the other newspapers were supporting the Danish newspaper's freedom of press by reacting to the Muslim protests, boycotting and threats of violence with their own publications of the same caricatures. The reprinting of the caricatures was to show solidarity among members of the press for the rights of the papers to publish what they want, regardless of the bullying tactics others will use to attempt to censor the publications. It reminds me a bit of children on a playground...one kid says something that makes another mad, the one who is made mad punches the first kid, then all the first kid's friends see this and stand in a circle around the one who punched their friend and start taunting, "neener neener, we're going to say it too," and then the kid who did the punching runs off crying, not knowing why everyone picks on him. When the grown-ups of the world stop acting like children on a playground, we might make some progress toward peace.

 

[Art]

I have zero sympathy with the Danish muslims over this issue.

Muslim countries have what the west would consider draconion religious based laws against such things as alcohol, tobacco and sex which although deeply disliked by most westerners, visitors to their countries are expected to adhere to.

Denmark has it's own laws which include freedom of speech which it seems some muslims dislike deeply.

Well tough!

When in Rome do as the Romans do. A country's laws are not an 'a la carte' menu. If muslim immigrants don't like Denmark's freedom of speech then nobody is compelling them to stay there so they should vote with their feet and leave. If however they elect to remain then it can only be because on balance they prefer Denmark to their native country so perhaps they should bear this in mind before expressing their outrage or inciting violence or reprisals against their host country.

And whilst on the subject of people being upset by cartoons there's this

Editorial illustration angers U.S. military
Feb. 3, 2006. 01:00 AM
ROBERT BURNS
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON—Military leaders angrily denounced as "beyond tasteless" a Washington Post editorial cartoon featuring a likeness of a severely wounded soldier and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as an attending doctor who says, "I'm listing your condition as `battle hardened.'"

The cartoon by Post artist Tom Toles appeared in Sunday's newspaper. It reflected the view of some that Bush administration officials do not recognize that U.S. forces are being worn out by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In response to a Pentagon-commissioned report that said the Army was stretched so thin it had become a "thin green line," Rumsfeld said the war-fighting experience had made U.S. troops "battle hardened."

 

[Bilal]

As I know, there is no violence until now. People decided to boycott the Danish products, and this is their personal freedom. I do not deny that such environment will encourage the ‘’terrorists’’ to start their dirty job. Especially they want to increase their popularity after their shameful attacks in Jordan.

The Danish government rejected to meet several ambassadors in last Sep. from Islamic countries, therefore those ambassadors decided to transfer the problem to the rest of the Islamic world. They consider these cartoons as a new Fascist era, which is similar to the anti Semite propaganda in the 30s.

 

[Curious3141]

As I know, there is no violence until now. People decided to boycott the Danish products, and this is their personal freedom. I do not deny that such environment will encourage the ‘’terrorists’’ to start their dirty job. Especially they want to increase their popularity after their shameful attacks in Jordan.

The Danish government rejected to meet several ambassadors in last Sep. from Islamic countries, therefore those ambassadors decided to transfer the problem to the rest of the Islamic world. They consider these cartoons as a new Fascist era, which is similar to the anti Semite propaganda in the 30s.

You should read this : http://www.muslimwakeup.com/main/archives/2006/01/a_mountain_out.php

That's one lady who has her head screwed on right. I wish all Muslims thought like her.

Quoting,

... Muslims have blown out of all proportion their outrage...

The initial printing of the cartoons in Denmark led to death threats being issued against the artists, demonstrations in Kashmir, and condemnation from 11 countries.

Death threats, diplomatic condemnation...I think it's gone a little beyond "personal choice" issues.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen was right not to intervene, insisting the government has no say over media - the argument used by Arab leaders when they are asked about anti-Semitism in their media, by the way.

Ho, ho, ho, hurts when the shoe is on the other foot, eh ?

Must we really boycott Danish products, as one e-mail I received exhorted? ...If we really want to pick a fight with the West, have we forgotten that 500 Muslim men continue to be detained without charge at ...Guantanamo Bay, Cuba...

However offensive any of the 12 cartoons were, they did not incite violence against Muslims. For an example of incitement, though, one must go back a few weeks before the cartoons were published. In August, the Danish authorities withdrew for three months the broadcasting license of a Copenhagen radio station after it called for the extermination of Muslims. Those were real threats and the government protected Muslims - the same government later condemned for not punishing the newspaper that published the cartoons.

The best quotes by far :

The fracas over the cartoons is a sad testament to the impotence of the Muslim world. That clerics and leaders of Muslim countries gain any sense of power over this issue is a reminder of how powerless they really are and also a reminder, as if we needed one, of the moral bankruptcy of our self-appointed moral guides.

Muslims must honestly examine why there is such a huge gap between the way we imagine Islam and our prophet, and the way both are seen by others. Our offended sensibilities must not be limited to the Danish newspaper or the cartoonist, but to those like Fadi Abdullatif whose actions should be regarded as just as offensive to Islam and to our reverence for the prophet. Otherwise, we are all responsible for those Danish cartoons.

 

[Mk]

I haven't read the thread fully but, has everybody seen the caricatures? I have 12 of them saved on my computer. They were VERY hard to find, I can put them up if we want to see them.

 

[Manchot]

I would like to see them.

 

[BobG]

I haven't read the thread fully but, has everybody seen the caricatures? I have 12 of them saved on my computer. They were VERY hard to find, I can put them up if we want to see them.

They're copyrighted, so it's probably best to link to a site that can provide them legally. Michelle Malkin's site has them: THE FORBIDDEN CARTOONS MATTER
[/url]
(By the way, I wouldn't take my linking to her page as an endorsement of Malkin's views.)