News Muhammad Caricatures: Middle East Reaction & Nordic Press

[Cyrus]

Then you should go buy a dictionary, as many implies the majority, hence it implies the societal norm for voilence.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Read the dictionary: it is not the case that 'many' means the same as 'all'.

 

[Curious3141]

Then you should go buy a dictionary, as many implies the majority, hence it implies the societal norm for voilence.

I think your education has left you seriously deficient in logic since you apparently cannot distinguish between MANY, MOST and ALL.

 

[Cyrus]

I still think you used a poor choice of words.

 

[Cyrus]

Many:

"The majority of the people; the masses: “The many fail, the one succeeds” (Tennyson)."


I can read. Like I said, you made the implication that the MAJORITY of muslims are voilent.

 

[Curious3141]

I still think you used a poor choice of words.

And now that I've clarified what I meant, either drop it or state your issue with my real meaning.

Otherwise you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Face it Cyrus: Islam has issues.

 

[Hurkyl]

It did not happen, but some people tried to do that ...

Assuming so, it's still only akin to burning flags. Not burning embassies. Or to these recent events mentioned at http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BDE659AF-5DD4-4DFB-AD2E-BD69D8ADFECB.htm :

"In Islam, God said, and the messenger Mohammad said, whoever insults a prophet, he must be punished and executed," he told BBC radio by telephone.

"Britain issued a stern warning after a small group of protesters caused a storm by marching in London with placards threatening beheadings and bloodshed."

 

[Curious3141]

Many:

"The majority of the people; the masses: “The many fail, the one succeeds” (Tennyson)."


I can read. Like I said, you made the implication that the MAJORITY of muslims are voilent.

Did Tennyson write a dictionary ? Or did he write poetry, filled with hyperbole ?

 

[AKG]

Does anybody have a link to the actual cartoons, so we can see them? Also, it seems this thread was started before the embassies were burned, and the last few pages of this thread have appeared to just degrade, so maybe there was some discussion of this in the middle pages that I skipped over, but it seems to me that whatever point the cartoonists were trying to make, it was probably proved by the violent, senseless acts of the people protesting the cartoons.

Why would people react this way? Are there a few powerful people in their societies with a lot of influence, inciting this sort of behaviour, or are they all this backwards? How were such large protests organized so quickly (I mean, when did they all decide to get together and burn buildings)? What possible way is there to deal with people who behave in this manner? What is the major cause of this behaviour, and what would have to be done to change it?

 

[Cyrus]

I know it does warren, but so does any other religion.

What I really want is for peace-loving Muslims to come out and condemn the violent demonstrations being conducted by these Muslims we see on the news. And holding placards that celebrate 9/11 and threaten violence and terrorism is not helping the cause either.

http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html

Here you go.

 

[Hurkyl]

There's a link somewhere in the middle. Wikipedia has a page on this event, with a low-quality picture of the newspaper page.

Apparently, the most contraversial is a picture of Mohammed with a bomb-shaped turban.

(Isn't that just the graphic form of what everybody, including moderate Muslims, has been saying the Islamists have been doing to the image of Islam?)

Some others included:

A picture of a middle-aged Mohammed with a cane, and a sunset in the background.

A cartoon rendition of the gag where Mohammed says that Heaven has run out of virgins.

A cartoonist nervously glancing over his shoulder as he sketches a portrait of Mohammed.

And a bunch of others whose point I don't fully understand... maybe I'm just trying to read too much into them?

 

[Curious3141]

I know it does warren, but so does any other religion.



http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html

Here you go.

I'm talking about vocal condemnations of what is going on NOW (of those placards celebrating 9/11 and the ongoing attacks). I know there are some Muslims who have done this, and I am very grateful to them for their courage and integrity (I posted references to an Egyptian lady making these points in an earlier post).

But the large majority of Muslims have remained silent on the issue. If they disagree with violence being committed, I would want them to speak up.

Most of all, I want the religious leaders in Asian countries (Indonesia, especially) and the ME to tell their followers not to inflict violence like this. Instead those imams seem to be happy to fuel the flames, in some cases, directly ordering violence to be carried out.

 

[Cyrus]

But the large majority of Muslims have remained silent on the issue. If they disagree with violence being committed, I would want them to speak up.

Do you have any idea of what happens when you speak out of the government in the ME my friend? You get killed.

Instead those imams seem to be happy to fuel the flames, in some cases, directly ordering violence to be carried out.

Well, duh. They are fanatics sponsored by the state that why. They can't speak out against the voilence, even if they wanted to. Most of them support the voilence, as you have pointed out. The problem is the system. When you have the government, and the religious leaders constantly preaching violence, your going to have conflict.

 

[Bilal]

Assuming so, it's still only akin to burning flags. Not burning embassies. Or to these recent events mentioned at http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BDE659AF-5DD4-4DFB-AD2E-BD69D8ADFECB.htm :

"In Islam, God said, and the messenger Mohammad said, whoever insults a prophet, he must be punished and executed," he told BBC radio by telephone.

"Britain issued a stern warning after a small group of protesters caused a storm by marching in London with placards threatening beheadings and bloodshed."

Hmmmm

First: There was a lady called Hind. She lost her brothers in the first battle (Badr) between her pagan tribe and Muslims under the leadership of Prophet Mohammed. She promised to eat a part of flesh of Muhammad after she gets him. In the second battle (Uhud), she gave a lot of money to Ethiopian soldier to kill Muhammad and his relatives ... this solider succeeded to kill the uncle of the prophet (Hamza). After that, this woman cut a piece of his lever and chewed it! She could not wait to see the lever of Muhammad next! She paid money for everybody who insulted the prophet and his cousins.

After the paganism was completely defeated, this women with her soldiers were prisoners ... do you know what Mohammed did with her?

He told them: go you are free people now! Even he did not ask them to be Muslims or to pay for what they did to his uncle.

So if Mohammed did not care about the crimes of this women against him and his uncle, do you think what was mentioned on BBC is true?

Second: According to classical Islam: Muslims rules are applied only in Islamic countries who suppose to follow the religious rules as (Saudi Arabia and Iran), so if anybody commits crimes (whatever) outside of these regions, he /she will not be punished (only by the laws of the country where he/she lives).

This means if we want to follow the orders of Islam, this Danish newspaper should not be punished (they should respect the Danish laws in this case)... but what happen is a response to the rise of anti Muslims in the West.

 

[Hurkyl]

So if Mohammed did not care about what this women, do you think what was mentioned on BBC is true?

I am inclined to believe that Omar Bakri Mohammad did make that phone call, and is calling for the execution of the cartoonists.

 

[Bilal]

I am inclined to believe that Omar Bakri Mohammad did make that phone call, and is calling for the execution of the cartoonists.

According to this man 99% of Muslims are infidels!

In all religions you find such ill people.

 

[Moonbear]

Folks, I'm not going to keep coming in here and cleaning up this thread. As much as I've been enjoying the informative and reasonable parts of the discussion, I've had to clean up off-topic bickering three times already. Stay on topic and leave the insults out of it or I'm going to have to lock this.

 

[Triss]

Does anybody have a link to the actual cartoons, so we can see them? Also, it seems this thread was started before the embassies were burned, and the last few pages of this thread have appeared to just degrade, so maybe there was some discussion of this in the middle pages that I skipped over, but it seems to me that whatever point the cartoonists were trying to make, it was probably proved by the violent, senseless acts of the people protesting the cartoons.

You can see the actual drawings somewhere down on this website
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

 

[Cyrus]

HAHAHAH that's great thanks!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Actually, you can look at it right here on PF.

Isn't freedom of the press a great thing?

 

[Cyrus]

Warren put tags so we can see it, if you got it online.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't think it would be legal to do so, would it?

 

[Moonbear]

I agree, it's copyrighted material, so we can't reproduce it here. Sorry Warren, they'll just have to follow the links provided.

 

[Curious3141]

This bit is dynamite, and puts the whole thing in perspective.

Yet when a delegation of Danish imams went to the Middle East to "discuss" the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars, the imams openly distributed a booklet that showed 15 images -- not only the original 12 cartoons, but three fraudulent anti-Mohammed depictions that were much more offensive than the ones published in Denmark. It is now thought that these three bonus images are what ignited the outrage in the Muslim world. The newspaper Ekstra Bladet obtained a copy of the booklet and presented the three offensive images on its Web site (though not in an easy-to-find place). All look like low-quality photocopies. Here they are:
(Hat tip: Gerry, Martin H., and rfs.)

So that's it : the major cause of this whole furore are 3 images cooked up by MUSLIMS ! Not just any old Muslims, HOLY MEN ! Just to inflame the situation further.

[edited out call for violence]

 

[Cyrus]

So that's it : the major cause of this whole furore are 3 images cooked up by MUSLIMS ! Not just any old Muslims, HOLY MEN ! Just to inflame the situation further.

[mentor edited out the call for violence]

No, they should be exposed for their lies. That would be far worse to them, and more productive to Islams image.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

[edited call for violence]

HAHA! Death threats against mullahs are OK, but PF will not allow the evil cartoon to be published here. The copyright objection is just lame--no one here believes you. State your real reason for not publishing the cartoon--or else lock this thread if this is a topic that should not be discussed.

edit from mentor: you are right, we don't do calls for violence here either.

 

[vanesch]

What you are saying is, muslims should not streotype all Danes. Or all Westerners.

They can stereotype. They cannot call for hate or violence (that's NOT part of freedom of speech anymore - at least in most European countries ; I don't know in the US). Calling for violence is considered as an attempt to make people commit crimes.
Also, freedom of speech DOES engage the speaker's responsability: if you say in public, things that bring prejudice to others, that's not unlawful in itself, but you can be sued by the persons who suffered the prejudice by your words (at least if you cannot prove that what you say, is the truth). So, according to this view, Immams who call for boycotting Danish products because (untrue statement:) the Danish police burns Corans in public, could in principle be sued for the consequences of their calling, and financially compensate the estimated losses to Danish companies.

 

[Curious3141]

No, they should be exposed for their lies. That would be far worse to them, and more productive to Islams image.

Do you think their fanatical, hysterical believers are going to believe "infidels" when they try to tell them their leaders are lying to them ?

We're talking massive brainwashing here. These mullahs, imams whatever are strengthening their grip on their followers by legitimising the bloodshed of innocent people.

[edit: calls for violence are not to be written here]

 

[vanesch]

The call for violent action against Imams is going to be edited out...