Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

I don't support the message of the paper, I do think it was quite rude... but the response to it has caused me to back up the paper as it appears to be an attack on what I value in our society above all else... this is the only reason I think people aren't supporting the muslims in this case (well, most people).

 

[davin]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

anyway maybe people feel that simply boycotting the paper wont get the deserved reaction. maybe people feel that the people of denmark now share such an opinion.

well atleast there are many leaders now trying to call for restraint.

but it is a governments duty to ensure that people are not offended by a piece of newsprint. i mean isnt there a code of conduct? we see those adds on tv telling us to write in if we feel something is offensive, sexist or violent?

what do you mean, the people of denmark share such an opinion?

and its NOT government's duty to ensure people aren't offened by printed material. You can print whatever you want. TV is different because there is some goveernment controls, as theres limited space for channels so gov't has some hand in it.
Here's a question for you....what if Christians decided that they were offended by the Quran because it differs from the bible, claims to correct it, and states Jesus isn't the son of God? would you then agree that, because they are offended by a piece of print, that the Quran should be illegal so as to not offend people?
Or would you just feel that Christians would have to accept that there are other points of view?

 

[davin]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Let's face it guys, everyone has the right to say anything they want because of, what is called, free speech. The Muslims are over reacting but lets not forget they have the right to do whatever they want. If they want to boycott Danish goods, then so be it. Jyllands-Posten does not represent the Danish people nor does it represent the Danish government. It is a totally independant organisation. It's only fair to say terrorists and extremists don't represent Islam nor do they represent the Muslim people. It's not fair to generalize when terrorists and extremits are now officially a threat to Muslim nations, especially places like Kuwait and Saudia Arabia where the war against terrorism is only growing stronger.

If they were ONLY complaining to the paper and boycotting it, i wouldn't criticse at all.
however, there are two issues that are why i'm so vocal
1. they feel the gov't should be responsible as well because they feel there should be censorship
2. they are advocating violence, killing, and sanctions as a responce rather than simple economic power against JUST THE PAPER AND ITS ADVERTISERS

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

If they were ONLY complaining to the paper and boycotting it, i wouldn't criticse at all.
however, there are two issues that are why i'm so vocal
1. they feel the gov't should be responsible as well because they feel there should be censorship
2. they are advocating violence, killing, and sanctions as a responce rather than simple economic power against JUST THE PAPER AND ITS ADVERTISERS

Don't forget that they're advocating an end to free speech.

 

[davin]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

i figured that'd be covered in the first one, but yeah, exactly.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

I think what these people need to understand is that 'freedom' i.e. (free speech, freedom of association, separation of church and state, freedom to vote for the people you want to run the country) just permeates through everything that is our society that there's no way we will back away from support of it. We have fought for thousands of years for our societies of today, there are many powerful enemies that have been defeated for it and there is still alot of a way to go but we will not step backwards from our commitment to it.

 

[Simpson Freak]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

what do you mean, the people of denmark share such an opinion?

and its NOT government's duty to ensure people aren't offened by printed material. You can print whatever you want. TV is different because there is some goveernment controls, as theres limited space for channels so gov't has some hand in it.
Here's a question for you....what if Christians decided that they were offended by the Quran because it differs from the bible, claims to correct it, and states Jesus isn't the son of God? would you then agree that, because they are offended by a piece of print, that the Quran should be illegal so as to not offend people?
Or would you just feel that Christians would have to accept that there are other points of view?

well i mean maybe the muslims who live shut off from the rest of the world believe that the actions of a newspaper represent the opinions of the entire country, even if that is not the case.....i am just suggesting reasons for the outrage.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

well i mean maybe the muslims who live shut off from the rest of the world believe that the actions of a newspaper represent the opinions of the entire country, even if that is not the case.....i am just suggesting reasons for the outrage.

You seem to be taking a much more moderate tone on this issue lately i've noticed. It's good to see

 

[Simpson Freak]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

I think what these people need to understand is that 'freedom' i.e. (free speech, freedom of association, separation of church and state, freedom to vote for the people you want to run the country) just permeates through everything that is our society that there's no way we will back away from support of it. We have fought for thousands of years for our societies of today, there are many powerful enemies that have been defeated for it and there is still alot of a way to go but we will not step backwards from our commitment to it.

You are ignoring one important thing, such freedom does include the vilification and defamation of others.

"There is freedom of speech, we all respect that but there is not any obligation to insult or to be gratuitously inflammatory. I believe that the republication of these cartoons has been unnecessary. It has been insensitive. It has been disrespectful and it has been wrong."

"We ... respect freedom of the press and expression, but it must be coupled with press responsibility,"

"The only group which can profit from problems like these is the extremist group,"

i dont know what type of freedom are you talking about if people's beliefs can be ridiculed at will.

And why do you people not think of this as a type of provocation, muslims around the world have to live with the label of terrorists because of a bunch of psycho dick heads. and suddenly while we try to "integrate" into society as you always ask us, we are expected to accept a cartoon calling all of us terrorists in disguise.

but yeh i sure hope there is no blood shed, it would be an awful tragedy, one started by the cartoonists since they started fanning the flames of hatred. but carried out by the psycho's who call themselves muslim, who saw an open invitation for more violence.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

You are ignoring one important thing, such freedom does include the vilification and defamation of others.

Where have the muslim people been vilified? where have the muslim people been defamed? This is a matter of mocking a religion - not a group of people.

i dont know what type of freedom are you talking about if people's beliefs can be ridiculed at will.

Freedom of speech means that we don't have to get along, I can ridicule your beliefs if I think they're stupid.

And why do you people not think of this as a type of provocation, muslims around the world have to live with the label of terrorists because of a bunch of psycho dick heads. and suddenly while we try to "integrate" into society as you always ask us, we are expected to accept a cartoon calling all of us terrorists in disguise.

Cartoons are not like... newspaper articles, they are usually politically-incorrect, the purpose of them is to make an 'out there' statement that perhaps has inbedded in it a more serious critique. Did anyone ask the cartoonists what motivated them to create such cartoons? what their real motivations were, what message they wanted to convey? I don't think so.

 

[Simpson Freak]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

You seem to be taking a much more moderate tone on this issue lately i've noticed. It's good to see

Well why wouldnt I, an apology was given, muslims have to realise there are other beliefs out there, which is stated in the Koran anyway, people dont always understand your point of view.

I am just curious if those cartoons came out of ignorance, or deliberate provocation? south park made one about mohammad and nobody threatened to kill the writers, but the fact that the dannish newspaper ridicules and effectively labels every muslim as a terrorist is quite shocking.

i think Blissed said it perfectly,

Let's face it guys, everyone has the right to say anything they want because of, what is called, free speech. The Muslims are over reacting but lets not forget they have the right to do whatever they want. If they want to boycott Danish goods, then so be it. Jyllands-Posten does not represent the Danish people nor does it represent the Danish government. It is a totally independant organisation. It's only fair to say terrorists and extremists don't represent Islam nor do they represent the Muslim people. It's not fair to generalize when terrorists and extremits are now officially a threat to Muslim nations, especially places like Kuwait and Saudia Arabia where the war against terrorism is only growing stronger.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

I think perhaps it comes out of an mis-understanding of western newspapers, how they operate and the rights which they have. In the opinion section of a newspaper you can make out-landish claims... in cartoons you can go even further... this is how we express ourselves.

 

[Simpson Freak]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Well did you study Frontline for Module C of Advance English? Thats an entertaining text that says much about the media and the responsibilities of it.

Whether or not the newspaper had the right to publish such material, it was irresponsible:

One protester, Sara, who did not want to give her last name, said she fears extremist Muslim groups would use the controversy to gather more supporters.

"Even if people were against Osama bin Laden, they may support him now," she said, just as a man on a megaphone next to her shouted, "Long live bin Laden."

"See? That's what they are doing now."

if muslims truly love muhammad they would be wise to remember his teachings before thinking about violence.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Whether or not the newspaper had the right to publish such material, it was irresponsible

Yea but even if I disagree with what they said, I'll fight for them to have the right to say it. Just as I have engaged in heated discussions with my parents to try to convince them that it's more important to stand up for freedom of speech than to hold grudges..

They often give me a scenario of a terrorist killing my brother, then asking me if someone else came out in support of the murderers actions whether or not I would support it.. I say I would absolutely hate the person, disagree with them, probably want to fight them - but I would still support their right to have whatever opinion they want.

 

[banco55]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Well why wouldnt I, an apology was given, muslims have to realise there are other beliefs out there, which is stated in the Koran anyway, people dont always understand your point of view.

I am just curious if those cartoons came out of ignorance, or deliberate provocation? south park made one about mohammad and nobody threatened to kill the writers, but the fact that the dannish newspaper ridicules and effectively labels every muslim as a terrorist is quite shocking.

i think Blissed said it perfectly,

The danish thing wasn't a huge issue until some danish imams went around the middle east stirring up shit. This included claiming that the danish paper had published certain cartoons that they never published (ie muhummad with a pig's head).

 

[SashatheMan]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

The danish thing wasn't a huge issue until some danish imams went around the middle east stirring up shit. This included claiming that the danish paper had published certain cartoons that they never published (ie muhummad with a pig's head).

yes. those cartoons were published in september, and it took like 4 month until everyone else knew about them.

 

[SashatheMan]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

i like this article

Free, even if that means being offensive.

In recent years, some Christians have been deeply offended by modern "art" that pictures Jesus's face on the lid of a "toilet altar." That has a Crucifix immersed in urine or offers a picture of the Virgin Mary smeared with elephant dung. Some see such images as a blasphemous affront to faith and an attack on believers.

But the American and British artists who produced these images were free to put them on display, and they have been widely reproduced.
Freedom of expression in America and other democracies is a cherished, fundamental right. And being free, means being free to challenge, provoke and yes: even offend.

That is the context in which Americans must consider the fury that has erupted across the Muslim world after the publication of a collection of "blasphemous" caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper, and reprinted elsewhere. The Qu'ran bans depictions of the Prophet.
These cartoons not only show him, but crudely mock him. One has Muhammad wearing a turban bomb. Another has him wearing the crescent of Islam as devil's horns.

The images have sparked one of the ugliest and, possibly, most hypocritical cultural clashes in decades.

Yesterday Muslims in many countries staged l;arge-scale protests after Friday prayers, demanding the Danish government punish the newspaper for its "Islamophobic" and "racist" cartoons. Ambassadors have been recalled. There have been bomb threats. Attacks on diplomats. An economic boycott.
While many Americans (well, we can hope) will sympathize with Muslim dismay at this shabby treatment of the Prophet, this reaction is out of proportion to the offense. Those living in Western, secular, democratic societies have long since moved away from the days when blasphemy invited stoning.
That said, the cartoons are problematic for another reason.

They bait Muslims and risk inciting hatred by equating Islam with terror. They would likely withstand a legal challenge here, because the courts wisely give wide latitude to political commentary. Papers are free to air a wide variety of opinion.

And sadly, there is hypocrisy all around in this melodrama.

Many Muslims who are angry come from Arab states where the press routinely prints cartoons linking the Jewish faith to violence. Recent ones have made a Star of David into a terrorist's face, and have shown an orthodox Jew blowing flame from a ram's horn to scorch an Islamic shrine. Where is the outrage at these images by people who are upset by the caricatures of Mohammed?

By the same token, liberal democrats in Europe, America and elsewhere who fault the Arab press for invoking religion as a means to make a political point, are poorly placed trying to justify the Danish cartoons, which do the same thing.

Jyllands-Posten had a right to print them. Whether it was wise to exercise that right, is an entirely different matter.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

Its true that satirical cartoons are widespread, but its stupid to think "free speech" is a blank cheque where we can offend and label whoever we want.

1. You are allowed to offend people.

2. Defamation requires the person defamed to be alive. Muhammad is dead.

people would be outraged about a cartoon that depicted all african americans as criminals just because a lot of them are in US prisons.

1. That is unreasonable, logically. Drawing a picture of someone is reasonable.

2. That is not analogous with the present case. This is a religion, not a race.

the pentagon called a cartoon satirising donald rumsfeld "beyond tasteless" because it had a mamed US marine. Now howcome we cant say the same thing about this cartoon.

You are entitled to say the same thing (and many would disagree with you). But you don't have the right to ban it.

even if it is satire, the fact that you can like muhammad to modern terrorists simply labels every single muslim as a terrorist.

It depends on what kind of political statement they are trying to make. It may be incorrect, but then it is just a silly cartoon. Doesn't mean it should be restricted.

its easy for many of you to say "go fuck yourselves....blah blah blah....freedom of speech!" but you are only saying that because it is the muslims being insulted here.

Not true. If Christian groups were outraged at a picture I drew of Jesus then personally I'd give them the free-speech finger as well.

if it was some other issue the civil liberalists would be jumping up and down, i mean after all that priests abusing young altar boys, what if i made a cartoon depicting mathew, mark, luke and john abusing little children while writing the bible. i would offend a billion christians and my cartoon would be called tasteless and rude, and no matter how much i said "free speech", they understandably say i cant villify christians.

You wouldn't be villifying Christians. You'd be satirising or criticising the practices of a religion. There's a difference.

heck jews were angry about the passion of the christ, they said it was anti-semetic, we didnt see the same level of involvment as now, no one said "fuck you jews....free speech"

1. Their comments were more understandable. Here we have a religion that gets offended merely by the depiction of a person.

2. Yes they did. But there was not that great a level of outrage, hence the response was not as loud.

John Laws was in trouble for vilifying that carson dude from queer eye. i mean the guy acts like a pansy and is for some reason offended by being called a pansy?
where was free speech in that?

He was criticised for discriminating against a gay person. This is not the same at all. It is criticism of a religion - a belief, not the natural state of a human being.

just because a bunch of violent ass holes in the 20/21st century commits terrorism, why must we liken him to someone from the 7th, particularly when the majority of muslims denounce the actions of the terrorists,

relations between the middle east and the west is shaky enough without tomorows Al-jazeera broadcast saying " West calls mohammad, and thus all his followers, a TERRORIST".
You people are forgetting that the point of view of these middle easterners who already are suspicious of the west, will basically think that they are seen with utter contempt.

You are right, it is important to consider the practical issues of global relationships here. (This is also why I have such disdain for religion - it is the cause of so much stupidity.)

What type of freedom do we have, if i will get labelled as terrorist simply because of some newspaper cartoon.

People aren't going to do that. If they are then they are just foolish or ignorant.

The way the cartoonists are hiding behind "freedom" is the same way george bush wants to call "THE DOMESTIC SPYING PROGRAM" a better name of "TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM"

That is not even a remotely coherent analogy.

"It would be wiser if more Muslims reacted to this situation with calm, rather than mass protests, death threats and the general inciting of more hatred."

well like i said above, its easier for I as muslim living in a western society to stay calm and not put much thought to it, like my friends, who just think its stupid, but not as stupid as the cartoonists trying to hide behind the word "freedom!" to make what they did right.

Just because people say that you're allowed to do it doesn't mean that they support the content. As NTB said, he may disagree with what you say but he would still want you to have the freedom to be able to say it.

 

[sly fly]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

An interesting thread:

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=75549&st=0

 

[Generator]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

then please explain your position on the thread on the christian carols - the one where you had to vote based on your faith.

Ah, maybe you could name (and link) the thread? However, I cannot see any reason to carry this particular point any further - I have already responded to this.

If you happen to be referring to this thread, I suggest that you take note of the second post. Edit: Post #14, too.

i have only been at odds with those on this forum who public announce their opposition to religion and to the existence of God and thereafter criticize muslims based on the actions of other muslims.

lets face it- some atheists on this forum are intolerant of people with a belief in God for the only reason that they dont believe in God themselves.

Some are intolerant of other points of view, yes, but I think that if you bothered to read what was on the screen at such times you would realise that a number of these members only disregard poor and illogical justifications - they don't necessarily disregard notions of faith.

Also, though I am sure that you will not agree, the way in which a religion is represented is entirely dependent upon both the teachings and the way in which self-identifying adherents of the faith interpret these teachings. Of course, it's a shame that far too many seem to take the acts of an extreme minority as being representative of the whole, but that's a sad part of life that those in the mainstream must deal with.

islam does hold out against the arguments of atheists, agnostics and people of other beliefs - and muslims have been challenging such people for over a thousand years.

my problem is with the people who identify themselves as diests and atheists who target non practicing or uneducated members of religions and try to get them to jump ship for no apparent reason other than the fact that they cant tolerate such people in the first place!

Ive been to their websites- they try and get diests and athiests to fund their projects of undermining religious establishments in the USA - mainly the church. so they call u up- do a survey and ask questions like: how strong are you in your beliefs that christ is the son of god? stuff like that. its not about attacking the logic of such people- its about the idea that if your not religious- your better off being an atheist...

It's one big conspiracy, I take it? No doubt you think that the Jews are operating behind the scenes, too?

If a person isn't entirely sure as to what their faith actually means, then they are the ones best targeted by those who would prefer that people know about what it is they believe to be true. What's to be gained by leaving such people alone? Do we really need yet another ignorant person trying in vain to justify and publicise their beliefs? Surely they could possibly benefit from a firey exchange of ideas as much as anyone else?

I do realise that not everyone has the time (or the ability or the inclination) to explore such issues to a great extent, but if someone wishes to jump into the pool without knowing how to swim, it's only fair (well, maybe not fair, but it's to be expected) that others churn the water to see whether they sink or swim. Of course, at the same time it's to be expected that others will do all that they can to help the one floundering, be it by offering a hand or by trying to divert those who would churn the water.

Basically, there's nothing to be gained by decrying those who actively seek to have one examine their own point of view, because as i said before, what use is a particular religion that one doesn't consider to be as correct as many would expect? Surely they would be better to discount the religion (the structures of the religion, not necessarily their faith in a god - there is a difference) if they come to realisation that it isn't right for them.

tru

Most of the above may have been pointless given that you agreed with this particular point, but I can see no reason to speak out against those who would actively criticise a religion.

what is a religion?

What is atheism? Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. That should be the end of this particular part of the discussion

no i was talking about how he responds when i attack atheist personality

What are you talking about?

To answer that question- the Quran doesnt just say it was God. I dont even agree with intelligent design because it puts a limit to science. The Quran might ask us to ponder about natual phenomena so that we can come up with the answers or it might state facts.

But one of the things i think people forget is that science is not all about facts. its more about perceptions and conjectures of facts. We use models that explain phenomena of science but it doesnt capture every single property of the phenomena. Take the periodic table for example... its useful in explaining the known properties of atoms but when your delve inside the nuclei and the way in which atoms spins, anti spin, etc, which was all documented last century- we are going into things that scientists are not 100% sure of- but the text books that you study in HS or uni might present them as facts- which is technically untrue. A scottish scientist has successfully challenged the notion of absolute knowledge- just keep that in mind. (im talking about metaphysical science)

This part was generic, but I should state that I am well aware of the fact that science is and will always be a work in progress - that's it's nature, after all.