- #1
WarrenPlatts
- 134
- 0
I think I can get the discussion restarted by pointing out something that has not been discussed yet:
What's being lost in this discussion is that the Mohamed bomber cartoon was not a gratuitous insult against Islam. A picture is worth a thousand words. The artist could have written a thousand word editorial that would take ten minutes to read on how virulent strains of Islam are seen to be a clear and present danger threatening the very survival of the Western Civilization. Instead, he drew a clever, compelling picture that encapsulated that point in an instant glance.
Let me repeat, it was a political cartoon intended to be taken seriously as a critique against certain deranged interpretations of Islam. In other words, it was not a cartoon at all--it was a visual editorial.
The violent protests only prove the artist's point.
And yes, Cyrus, a case can be made that Mohamed was nonviolent and that he did not advocate violence. Yet there are hundreds of other scholars who have spent their entire lives in madrasas who interpret the sayings of Mohamed quite differently from your own and our own U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. This was the idea that the editorial artist attemped to capture in his depiction.
To say that the cartoon a satire or lampoon intended to insult as if it were something that appeared in Mad Magazine or an episode of South Park is false. It was intended as a serious critique of a significant portion of modern Islam. And it was also a call to the silent moral majority within Islam to stand up for themselves for once, and for the sake of world peace, tell the Osamas and Ahmadenejads et al. to get lost.
To argue that this critque was intolerably insulting and that the perpetrators of such a critique from the editors up to the Danish president must be served consequences, is to argue that any serious criticism of (certain--the bomb-throwing anarchist--versions) of Islam cannot be tolerated.
If there is to be a conversation between Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization, Islam must learn to listen as well as to talk.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the prohibition on depicting Mohamed is traditional, and does not derive from any specific passage in the Koran.
What's being lost in this discussion is that the Mohamed bomber cartoon was not a gratuitous insult against Islam. A picture is worth a thousand words. The artist could have written a thousand word editorial that would take ten minutes to read on how virulent strains of Islam are seen to be a clear and present danger threatening the very survival of the Western Civilization. Instead, he drew a clever, compelling picture that encapsulated that point in an instant glance.
Let me repeat, it was a political cartoon intended to be taken seriously as a critique against certain deranged interpretations of Islam. In other words, it was not a cartoon at all--it was a visual editorial.
The violent protests only prove the artist's point.
And yes, Cyrus, a case can be made that Mohamed was nonviolent and that he did not advocate violence. Yet there are hundreds of other scholars who have spent their entire lives in madrasas who interpret the sayings of Mohamed quite differently from your own and our own U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute. This was the idea that the editorial artist attemped to capture in his depiction.
To say that the cartoon a satire or lampoon intended to insult as if it were something that appeared in Mad Magazine or an episode of South Park is false. It was intended as a serious critique of a significant portion of modern Islam. And it was also a call to the silent moral majority within Islam to stand up for themselves for once, and for the sake of world peace, tell the Osamas and Ahmadenejads et al. to get lost.
To argue that this critque was intolerably insulting and that the perpetrators of such a critique from the editors up to the Danish president must be served consequences, is to argue that any serious criticism of (certain--the bomb-throwing anarchist--versions) of Islam cannot be tolerated.
If there is to be a conversation between Western Civilization and Islamic Civilization, Islam must learn to listen as well as to talk.
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, the prohibition on depicting Mohamed is traditional, and does not derive from any specific passage in the Koran.