Jump to content

the cartoons about islam / muhammad


Richard
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It was said on the news (if you can believe american media-government sympathisers) that one of these countries (I think Iran) has a death penalty for blasphemy. I have been hearing that these comics came out months ago, so why are we in the US just now hearing about them? Why are these people now mad about them? And what was the point of publishing comics of muhammed anyhow? I dont think a media would publish work (which costs money) just for the hell of it, and I dont believe they would do it just because they can. There was a purpose to these comics which has not been stated.

 

I am also disturbed that Iran continues to come up when reports about the cartoons is given. I must say that at least the muslims are not trying to begin a new war for the apocalypse, which is something I believe the Christian fundamentalists are attempting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was said on the news (if you can believe american media-government sympathisers) that one of these countries (I think Iran) has a death penalty for blasphemy. I have been hearing that these comics came out months ago, so why are we in the US just now hearing about them? Why are these people now mad about them?

They were published quite a while ago and a Danish Muslim group tried to make a big deal but no one really cared. So finally they added three additional pictures that were far more offensive. The original pictures had muhammed with a bomb turban and one with him holding a knife. The new pictures had some pigs involved. The pig pictures the Danish Muslim group added were enough to successfully incite Muslims to riot.

 

And what was the point of publishing comics of muhammed anyhow? I dont think a media would publish work (which costs money) just for the hell of it, and I dont believe they would do it just because they can. There was a purpose to these comics which has not been stated.

Eh, I forget. It was something rather innocent. The paper didn't have some big goal of portraying Islam as violent I don't think. The details are spread about out there online.

 

I am also disturbed that Iran continues to come up when reports about the cartoons is given. I must say that at least the muslims are not trying to begin a new war for the apocalypse, which is something I believe the Christian fundamentalists are attempting.

They aren't as powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a Muslim and I will try my best to answer the questions. However let it be known that I am not Sunni or Shia, therefore I do not follow "Hadith and Sunnah" in which they do, to accomadate the Qur'an, which is where they get the anti-drawing and stuff.

 

A) Laugh at the comics

 

I personally do not find it funny because I believe that the reason they did it was to instigate or cause trouble, and was done maliciously and not out of Free Speech or just a joke.

 

B) Not find the comics funny

C) Think the comics are stupid

 

I am in both of those positions. I think they are stupid and not funny.

 

 

D) Start attacking people, blowing stuff up and threatening kidnap

 

I find that worse than the comics and anti-Islamic. I believe that they are just contributing to the comics portrayal that that is what Islam is. Reasons like this makes me mad that so many people call themselves "Muslims", and act and have these feelings. It's different from a Liberation approach such as freeing animals since you are saving those who are oppressed from the oppressors. The comics are just comics and I believe that no one is being harmed here (except perhaps the image of Islam) and that it could be dealt with peaceful protest instead of taking it far. No one is being physically harmed or oppressed, so there is no need to exact revenge like this. If they wanted to fix the image of Islam, they should have resorted to peace.

 

I personally do not care whether or not they make these cartoons, doesn't bother me in the least. As a matter of fact, what Iran proposed for "Anti Semetic" cartoons is even worse than these "Muhammed Cartoons" IMO for the fact that it was done to them, and now they want others to suffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply kolliz. I know what you mean about finding it hard to laugh at the cartoons. When a 'joke' is made in order to make other people look stupid, sometimes I can't find that funny, I just see it as an insult or whatever. But it's very childish like you say, and not causing physical harm.

 

Another thing which has confused me recently is that media has reported that its because of what is in the Qur'an that muslims are unhappy with the cartoons. However, the Qur'an is a guideline for muslims, not for anyone else right, so why are muslims unhappy with how non-muslims are not following the Qur'an... it seems obvious that they won't. Or am I missing something? People who aren't muslim don't follow the Qur'an at all really, so presumably there's lots of other things like these cartoons which are equally as upsetting. I personally think that what has already been said in this thread is the real explanation of it; the cartoons themselves are just insult to injury as it were, and aren't the real problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply kolliz. I know what you mean about finding it hard to laugh at the cartoons. When a 'joke' is made in order to make other people look stupid, sometimes I can't find that funny, I just see it as an insult or whatever. But it's very childish like you say, and not causing physical harm.

 

Another thing which has confused me recently is that media has reported that its because of what is in the Qur'an that muslims are unhappy with the cartoons. However, the Qur'an is a guideline for muslims, not for anyone else right? Or am I missing something? People who aren't muslim don't follow the Qur'an at all really, so presumably there's lots of other things like these cartoons which are equally as upsetting. I personally think that what has already been said in this thread is the real explanation of it; the cartoons themselves are just insult to injury as it were, and aren't the real problem.

 

You are welcome Richard, glad I could add some insight.

 

Do you know what the media said in terms of "What is in the Qur'an"? Therefore I could pinpoint exactly what they meant if it was in the Qur'an.

 

I'll give you my interpretation and what I get out of the Qur'an, since a lot of Muslims would probably get offended or try to shoot me down. What I am mentioning to you is from the Qur'an alone and from what I have read. The Qur'an for Muslims is a book of "guidance and healing" as it states in one of the versus. The book itself is for Muslims but the message is to the whole world according to Islamic belief. For example, the Qur'an mentions that there should be no "compulsion in religion", meaning that people should be able to practice whatever their beliefs are. However, this does not mean that they can insult others, behave badly, etc. As a matter of fact, I bet a lot of these "Muslims" should probably look at themselves first before protesting, I doubt they are far from "Submission (Islam)". It's easy to judge others before yourself sadly.

 

In the Qur'an, it mentions that God sent messengers to every nation. So I doubt that others need to follow the Qur'an, I personally use it as a tool to lead my life better and more peaceful. However, that doesn't mean that if they have not read the Qur'an that they are not Muslims. According to the Qur'an, Islam has been around before even Muhammad and been in different places of the earth. The Qur'an just sums up everything as well as some changes (such as intercourse being allowed during the nights of Ramadhan), etc. however the message is clear. Peace, submission to God, doing good to others, compassion, donating, etc. Looks like the bad gets the best of Islam though.

 

So back to the question, while the Qur'an is for the Muslims, it is to the whole world meaning everyone as well and even Non-Muslims (for those who wish to learn about it) it would also coincide with your own conscience. Things like, "worshipping other than God", etc. that all rest in Gods hands and we can't do anything about it. However with stuff like killing and stuff like that, then obviously action would need to be taken. If you know that this is going to hurt someone, why would you do it? However, being a Muslim and believing in this message, it is far worse to do the same, since knowledge has already come to you. The more knowledge you have, the more responsible you are (ie. anti-semetic cartoons).

 

Hope that helped and if not, sorry. Just reask again, I may have gone off topic, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something that I just saw on Yahoo! News:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060216/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_danish_pastries

 

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 33 minutes ago

 

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranians love Danish pastries, but when they look for the flaky dessert at the bakery they now have to ask for "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad."

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Bakeries across the capital were covering up their ads for Danish pastries Thursday after the confectioners' union ordered the name change in retaliation for caricatures of the Muslim prophet published in a Danish newspaper.

 

"Given the insults by Danish newspapers against the prophet, as of now the name of Danish pastries will give way to 'Rose of Muhammad' pastries," the union said in its order.

 

"This is a punishment for those who started misusing freedom of expression to insult the sanctities of Islam," said Ahmad Mahmoudi, a cake shop owner in northern Tehran.

 

One of Tehran's most popular bakeries, "Danish Pastries," covered up the word "Danish" on its sign with a black banner emblazoned "Oh Hussein," a reference to a martyred saint of Shiite Islam. The banner is a traditional sign of mourning.

 

The shop owner declined to comment Thursday.

 

In Zartosht Street in central Tehran, cake shop owner Mahdi Pedari didn't cover up the word "Danish pastries" on his menu, but put the new name next to it.

 

"I did so just to inform my customers that Rose of Muhammad is the new name for Danish pastries," he said.

 

Some customers took immediately to the new name. But others were less enthusiastic about the protest.

 

"I just want the sweet pastries. I have nothing to do with the name," homemaker Zohreh Masoumi told the sales clerk taking her order.

 

The drawings, which have offended many Muslims, were published in a Danish newspaper in September and then reprinted in European and American newspapers. One depicted the prophet with a turban shaped like a bomb with a burning fuse.

 

Islam widely holds that representations of Muhammad are banned for fear they could lead to idolatry. At least 19 people have been killed in protests over the past several weeks, most of them in

Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

Consumer boycotts of Danish goods, from Havarti cheese to Lego, are costing Denmark's companies millions in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Muslim countries.

 

Iranians love sweets, often bringing candies and pastries to parties. So-called "Danish pastries" are extremely popular.

 

The Danish's distinctive dough was first created in the 17th century by a French apprentice baker who forgot to add butter to the flour and tried to hide his mistake by folding lumps of it into the dough. It became known as "a thousand leaves" in France.

 

It was copied in Italy — where it is known as "folded pastry" — and Italian bakers took it to Austria. It journeyed from there to Denmark when Danish bakers went on strike and replacements imported from Austria brought along what became known in Denmark as "Viennese Bread."

 

The pastry became the Danish to the rest of the world, probably, according to the Danish bakers' union, because Danish bakers emigrated to so many countries.

 

In

Iran, the pastries are domestically baked, not imported. Iran has cut all commercial ties with Denmark in retaliation for the prophet cartoons.

 

Iran's Danish renaming wasn't the first time a food name has become a symbol of protest. A Republican congressman from North Carolina helped lead an effort to make sure Capitol Hill cafeterias changed their menus to advertise "freedom fries" instead of french fries after France opposed the U.S.-led invasion of

Iraq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the philadelphia inquirer published one of the cartoons.

 

from their site:

On Feb. 4, 2006, The Philadelphia Inquirer published a story about the Muslim Cartoon Controversy and illustrated it in the print edition with one of the cartoons. Inquirer editors explain why they published the Danish cartoon.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/special_packages/cartoons/

 

kollision, nice to hear your thoughts on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's something that I just saw on Yahoo! News:

 

TEHRAN, Iran - Iranians love Danish pastries, but when they look for the flaky dessert at the bakery they now have to ask for "Roses of the Prophet Muhammad."

wow. reminds me of Freedom Fries - one of the dumbest things i've seen the u.s. gov't do/promote.

 

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/11/sprj.irq.fries/story.fries.jpg

Reps. Walter Jones, left, and Bob

Ney announce the name changes

on House menus at a news conference.

Edited by neil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad that I could put some of my insight into this topic Neil, thanks for appreciating it.

 

Time for them to boycott America! Probably they'll start burning the US flags all over now...

 

I find it pretty stupid to do it if you know that these people are only going to get more angry. It's killings waiting to be happened.

 

Seems to me that they have been on the end of bad emails/press if they needed to come out and explain themselves...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it pretty stupid to do it if you know that these people are only going to get more angry. It's killings waiting to be happened.

If they are successful in getting everyone to shut up, then they will learn that their violence works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, from what I have heard, it is suggested that in the Qur'an, it says something (non descript) which prevents people from drawing muhammad. I have been told that it doesn't literally say you can't draw him, but it says something about worshipping false idols or something or other.

 

My point is that no matter what it says in the Qur'an, the Qur'an is the religion of muslims. People who choose to follow the bible, or choose to follow nothing, why should they be affected by what it says in the Qur'an, which is what is being suggested in the news I have watched.

 

The news is basically saying: "Muslims are upset because non-muslims aren't doing what it says in the Qur'an". If that's the case, it doesn't make much sense, because like I said, it's no wonder they don't follow the Qur'an given that they aren't muslim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they are successful in getting everyone to shut up, then they will learn that their violence works.

 

What I mean is doing it for the purpose of causing a stir within a group of people. If anything, that is just as bad. Why instigate something?

 

 

 

Well, from what I have heard, it is suggested that in the Qur'an, it says something (non descript) which prevents people from drawing muhammad. I have been told that it doesn't literally say you can't draw him, but it says something about worshipping false idols or something or other.

 

My point is that no matter what it says in the Qur'an, the Qur'an is the religion of muslims. People who choose to follow the bible, or choose to follow nothing, why should they be affected by what it says in the Qur'an, which is what is being suggested in the news I have watched.

 

The news is basically saying: "Muslims are upset because non-muslims aren't doing what it says in the Qur'an". If that's the case, it doesn't make much sense, because like I said, it's no wonder they don't follow the Qur'an given that they aren't muslim.

 

I don't believe it says anything about "drawing Muhammed" or anything like that. It does say that you should not, "Worship False Gods" or have a partnership with God. However, a lot of sects in Islam will say that drawing humans in general is forbidden, however I have yet to see that in the Qur'an. They get this idea from Hadith, their other source besides the Qur'an. However, drawing would be wrong if the point of it is to worship the drawing itself, since that would become idolatry.

 

As far as the Qur'an, it does say that people should be able to have their own beliefs. The problem in this situation is that they are, "Making fun of Islam and Muhammed". Muslims will say though that "Muhammed is not allowed to be drawn" or whatever other reason, but the main idea is that it is "mocking Islam and Muhammed". I'm not sure if the fervor would be as big as it is (riots, violence, etc) if it had just been a simple drawing. However, they turned it into a mockery, which is something different. Obviously it is going to offend them, and I believe the papers knew it and did it for that reason, just that they didn't know the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, exactly Richard. I find both sides very childish though regarding the issue. The cartoonists are saying that it is their "Free Speech" in order to back up their end, and the Muslims are saying that Idolatry aspect. Ive actually heard the Idolatry aspect more than the mocking and disrespect part. Pretty odd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I mean is doing it for the purpose of causing a stir within a group of people. If anything, that is just as bad. Why instigate something?

There were two negative pictures of Muhammed. One made it look like his turban had a bomb in it. The other showed him holding a knife. Now, for whatever reason, some muslims are pretty violent. They do suicide bombing unlike any other people in the world. They treat women worse than anywhere else in the world.

 

Maybe this actually has nothing at all to do with Muhammed or even Islam but if it's one person's opinion it does, should they feel they cannot express their opinion. Should they be made to know that with Islam and Islam only they do not have the freedom of speech?

 

I do not think the idea of the cartoons was to instigate something. If you've read this thread from the beginning you know that the original cartoons did not cause any reaction despite Danish Imans trying to make them do so. Only when the Danish Imans added additional pictures with pigs did the Muslims start protesting, etc.

 

Now we have a situation where if no one else prints the cartoons the Muslims will believe that their violent reaction was successful in shutting people up. And so they will continue to do such things in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were two negative pictures of Muhammed. One made it look like his turban had a bomb in it. The other showed him holding a knife. Now, for whatever reason, some muslims are pretty violent. They do suicide bombing unlike any other people in the world. They treat women worse than anywhere else in the world.

 

That's straight out stereotyping. If that is allowed, then for this reason we can stereotype any groups, beliefs, etc. So if that's the case then we should have no problems stereotyping blacks as "theifs", asians as "greedy", etc.? I am not trying to "prove you wrong", only stating that if you can make such a comment, then we can make any comments we want.

 

I am not saying that whatever you said is not prominant in the "Islamic World" and I am not saying that they are right, but the position in which you are stating it is free speech, at the same time streotyping people by race, etc. should be allowed.

 

Back on topic,

 

I do not think the idea of the cartoons was to instigate something. If you've read this thread from the beginning you know that the original cartoons did not cause any reaction despite Danish Imans trying to make them do so. Only when the Danish Imans added additional pictures with pigs did the Muslims start protesting, etc.

 

Ok, what is the point? You think that the cartoonist just did it, "Just because"? A lot of the pictures itself looks like a mockery, look at the way they draw his face, etc.

 

Now we have a situation where if no one else prints the cartoons the Muslims will believe that their violent reaction was successful in shutting people up. And so they will continue to do such things in the future.

 

Ok, lets just continue to do whatever we want even though consequences will be faced with them. Muslims being right or wrong, cartoonist being right and wrong, if Free Speech like this is really important, they now know the consequences, and if they want to pursue it, they will doom the rest of their people of their country and perhaps more.

 

If the Arab countries actually follow through with what Iran did in terms of pulling off of Danish imports, etc., this can even go on a grander scale. A lot of our economy is in their hands, and if Free Speech to make a mockery of something is really important, then by all means do it.

 

I am not for either side, but it's like saying, "Do not blame others, blame yourself". If they didn't feel the need to do this, then the whole situation would have been avoided, even if the violents were a few months after the release. Theres no point to even make such drawings, and is it worth it in regards to what is happening now? It's not something like Veganism to where it actually makes a difference to help others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were two negative pictures of Muhammed. One made it look like his turban had a bomb in it. The other showed him holding a knife. Now, for whatever reason, some muslims are pretty violent. They do suicide bombing unlike any other people in the world. They treat women worse than anywhere else in the world.

 

That's straight out stereotyping. If that is allowed, then for this reason we can stereotype any groups, beliefs, etc. So if that's the case then we should have no problems stereotyping blacks as "theifs", asians as "greedy", etc.?

 

I am not trying to "prove you wrong", only stating that if you can make such a comment, then we can make any comments we want.

 

I am not saying that whatever you said is not prominant in the "Islamic World" and I am not saying that they are right, but the position in which you are stating it is free speech, at the same time streotyping people by race, etc. should be allowed.

 

No, stereotyping blacks, or asians, or arabs would be racist. To say arabs are violent would be racist. But there is nothing at all wrong with saying you think such and such ideology or philosophy leads to whatever you think it leads to. "Muslim" does not equal "arab" or any other ethinicity. A Muslim is simply a person who prescribes to a certain ideology/philosophy/moral code. It's not different than criticizing my own philosophy/moral code, etc except I happen to be atheist.

 

I personally think any ideology/philosophy, etc (such as Islam or Christianity) that has an eternal heaven and hell is definitely going to lead to violence, although of course not with every person who follows it. I think I should absolutely be allowed to express my opinion of this the same as one can state an opinion about republican ideology or any other ideology. If we can't, then we live in a totalitarian society. Yet people try to claim that religious ideologies are special. That they are above criticism. Thus anything committed in the name of religion is OK. So look at the treatment of women in the ME. Plenty of women there don't like it, but they get away with it. Because they claim you can't dare criticize their religion.

 

Back on topic,

 

Ok, what is the point? You think that the cartoonist just did it, "Just because"? A lot of the pictures itself looks like a mockery, look at the way they draw his face, etc.

I don't understand what you mean. He's Muhammed so he must look Arabic. And the person is trying to say the ideology is potentially violent therefore they have to make the leader of the ideology look mean.

 

If you wanted to say some ideology was potentially violent through the use of a cartoon, how would you do it? It just so happens that virtually all Muslims are arabs so people jump to assuming racism when there isn't any.

 

And though I don't think it was making a mockery, that certainly should be allowed also. That was what made Monty Python famous. Do you think they should have been silenced?

 

Now we have a situation where if no one else prints the cartoons the Muslims will believe that their violent reaction was successful in shutting people up. And so they will continue to do such things in the future.

 

Ok, lets just continue to do whatever we want even though consequences will be faced with them. Muslims being right or wrong, cartoonist being right and wrong, if Free Speech like this is really important, they now know the consequences, and if they want to pursue it, they will doom the rest of their people of their country and perhaps more.

I think it is that important. Hopefully they will understand this soon. They don't have any free speech (concerning this one ideology, Islam, in their own countries and the result is the unequal treatment of millions of women.) I'd rather see thousands die and free speech saved, then millions of people treated badly in the future because free speech was lost.

 

If the Arab countries actually follow through with what Iran did in terms of pulling off of Danish imports, etc., this can even go on a grander scale. A lot of our economy is in their hands, and if Free Speech to make a mockery of something is really important, then by all means do it.

I don't think these cartoons make a mockery of Islam. I think they have a legitimate criticism. Now I think Monty Python just flat out makes a mockery of Catholicism. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. It's some of the best comedy ever done in my opinion. (Life of Brian, The Meaning of Life, etc.)

 

And yes Free Speech is That important. Whenever free speech is limited very bad things start happening.

 

I am not for either side, but it's like saying, "Do not blame others, blame yourself". If they didn't feel the need to do this, then the whole situation would have been avoided, even if the violents were a few months after the release. Theres no point to even make such drawings, and is it worth it in regards to what is happening now? It's not something like Veganism to where it actually makes a difference to help others.

Well there is a point to free speech although I doubt these drawings were really going to make anyone see the light about dangerous ideologies. But we can't decide that some free speech is just a waste of time and should be made illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, stereotyping blacks, or asians, or arabs would be racist. To say arabs are violent would be racist. But there is nothing at all wrong with saying you think such and such ideology or philosophy leads to whatever you think it leads to. "Muslim" does not equal "arab" or any other ethinicity. A Muslim is simply a person who prescribes to a certain ideology/philosophy/moral code. It's not different than criticizing my own philosophy/moral code, etc except I happen to be atheist.

 

I personally think any ideology/philosophy, etc (such as Islam or Christianity) that has an eternal heaven and hell is definitely going to lead to violence, although of course not with every person who follows it. I think I should absolutely be allowed to express my opinion of this the same as one can state an opinion about republican ideology or any other ideology. If we can't, then we live in a totalitarian society. Yet people try to claim that religious ideologies are special. That they are above criticism. Thus anything committed in the name of religion is OK. So look at the treatment of women in the ME. Plenty of women there don't like it, but they get away with it. Because they claim you can't dare criticize their religion.

 

What I meant was that if you can do such a thing with an "ideology or philosophy", then we should be able to do it with races too and no one should get mad or infuriated. Reason being is that the same can be classified with races as well, since they grow up within a type of culture. For example, a lot of Koreans are rude to non koreans, because it's their culture. I'm part korean, so I am not trying to be racist, but it is just a fact. Same could be said of blacks being thievs, chinese (needed to correc that) being greedy, hispanics being dirty, etc. Now I am not saying all these stereotypes are right, but just that a lot of them are started for a certain reason.

 

I do agree that we should say whatever we want though (although we should have consideration at least), I just brought it up because I remembered (forgive me if I am wrong) that you had a problem with the way the newspapers worded their stories on blacks.

 

I don't understand what you mean. He's Muhammed so he must look Arabic. And the person is trying to say the ideology is potentially violent therefore they have to make the leader of the ideology look mean.

 

If you wanted to say some ideology was potentially violent through the use of a cartoon, how would you do it? It just so happens that virtually all Muslims are arabs so people jump to assuming racism when there isn't any.

 

And though I don't think it was making a mockery, that certainly should be allowed also. That was what made Monty Python famous. Do you think they should have been silenced?

 

As far as the picture, you pointed it out, "mean". How do they know that Muhammed is the one that created "todays islam" and not "other men"? Just look at how the Muslim world operates on fatwas from scholars and such, it is not from Muhammad at all.

 

It's just like how a lot of blacks use the racist card. BTW, not all Muslims are Arab. I am not arab and I am Muslim. Actually, Indonesia has the biggest population of Muslims. The Arab world only constitutes for 15% I believe.

 

As far as Monty Python, I address it in the next response.

 

I think it is that important. Hopefully they will understand this soon. They don't have any free speech (concerning this one ideology, Islam, in their own countries and the result is the unequal treatment of millions of women.) I'd rather see thousands die and free speech saved, then millions of people treated badly in the future because free speech was lost.

 

It's like the predicament of, "Saving your kid, or letting your kid die in order to save 10 other people that may die due to saving her". Most people would have a problem making such a decision, and just "wait it out" so to speak or "act when it happens".

 

I think that the idea of free speech is good, however I think that when you can choose between either avoiding offending others and stop any possible violence compared to your own ideas coming out, I think the first would be better. I think protesting in a better manner than making cartoons would be better, since it is obviously going to be taken the wrong way. Cartoons like this reminds me of caricatures, which are mainly used to poke fun. I doubt that there will be a peaceful resolution regarding this in the end and even do any changes within the Middle East (which I believe there needs to be). I think things will get worse than good thanks to these cartoons.

 

Also as far as the women, it is not just Islam, it is all over. The only problem is that Islamic Countries get most of the blame on this issue, due to media and such. At the same time, a lot of Muslim women are treated with great respect, but you rarely see that on TV.

 

I don't think these cartoons make a mockery of Islam. I think they have a legitimate criticism. Now I think Monty Python just flat out makes a mockery of Catholicism. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. It's some of the best comedy ever done in my opinion. (Life of Brian, The Meaning of Life, etc.)

 

And yes Free Speech is That important. Whenever free speech is limited very bad things start happening.

 

Nothing at all wrong. I am Muslim and took no offense at all to it, but then again I am not Sunni or such, and they really revere Muhammed over like any other person. The problem is that Catholicism, they would not act out like these Muslims would. Theres the difference. If this was done perhaps during the Inquisition and those times, then we'd have a problem.

 

Also free speech isn't limited, it is just choosing to whether you want a violent outbreak or not, and weigh which consequence you think is better.

 

Well there is a point to free speech although I doubt these drawings were really going to make anyone see the light about dangerous ideologies. But we can't decide that some free speech is just a waste of time and should be made illegal.

 

Not illegal, just taking discreation as to what you do. It's like choosing to either talk to someone in a respectful tone or a rude tone. You can choose either way you want to respond, and each will have different outcomes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 Dead in Nigeria

 

MAIDUGURI, Nigeria - Nigerian Muslims protesting caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad attacked Christians and burned churches on Saturday, killing at least 15 people in the deadliest confrontation yet in the whirlwind of Muslim anger over the drawings.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

It was the first major protest to erupt over the issue in Africa's most populous nation. An Associated Press reporter saw mobs of Muslim protesters swarm through the city center with machetes, sticks and iron rods. One group threw a tire around a man, poured gas on him and set him ablaze.

 

In Libya, the parliament suspended the interior minister after at least 11 people died when his security forces attacked rioters who torched the Italian consulate in Benghazi.

 

Right-wing Italian Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli resigned under pressure, accused of fueling the fury in Benghazi by wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with one of the offending cartoons, first published in September in a Danish newspaper.

 

Danish church officials met with a top Muslim cleric in Cairo, meanwhile, but made no significant headway in defusing the conflict.

 

And in what has become a daily event, tens of thousands of Muslims protested — this time in Britain, Pakistan and Austria — to denounce the perceived insult.

 

But it was in Nigeria, where mutual suspicions between Christians and Muslims have led to thousands of deaths in recent years, that tensions boiled over into sectarian violence.

 

Thousands of rioters burned 15 churches in Maiduguri in a three-hour rampage before troops and police reinforcements restored order, Nigerian police spokesman Haz Iwendi said. Iwendi said security forces arrested dozens of people in the city about 1,000 miles northeast of the capital, Lagos.

 

Chima Ezeoke, a Christian Maiduguri resident, said protesters attacked and looted shops owned by minority Christians, most of them with origins in the country's south.

 

"Most of the dead were Christians beaten to death on the streets by the rioters," Ezeoke said. Witnesses said three children and a priest were among those killed.

 

The Danish cartoons, including one showing Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with an ignited fuse, have set off sometimes violent protests around the world.

 

After the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten printed the caricatures in September, other Western newspapers, mostly in Europe, followed suit, asserting their news value and the right to freedom of expression.

 

But Nigeria has been spared much of the violence seen elsewhere in the world, though lawmakers in the heavily Muslim state of Kano burned Danish and Norwegian flags and barred Danish companies from bidding on a major construction project. Kano lawmakers also called on the state's 5 million people to boycott Danish goods.

 

Nigeria, with a population of more than 130 million, is roughly divided between a predominantly Muslim north and a mainly Christian south.

 

With Saturday's deaths, at least 45 people have been killed in protests across the Muslim world, according to a count by The Associated Press.

 

In the violence in Libya, Seif el-Islam Gadhafi, the son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, said four of the 11 dead were believed to have been Egyptians or Palestinians.

 

"Setting the consulate on fire was a mistake, but using excessive force was the most tragic response," the younger Gadhafi said, explaining the suspension of Interior Minister Nasr al-Mabrouk.

 

Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi blamed the riots in Libya, Italy's former colony, on "thoughtless action by our minister," the Italian news agency ANSA quoted him as saying.

 

Calderoli said he wore the shirt to show "solidarity to all those who were hit by the blind violence of religious fanaticism." He said he did not intend "to offend the Muslim religion nor to be the pretext for yesterday's violence."

 

At the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, U.S. Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes said U.S. newspapers generally did not reprint the caricatures "because they recognize they are deeply offensive, even blasphemous to the precious convictions of our Muslim friends and neighbors."

 

In Cairo, Bishop Karsten Nissen, of Denmark's Evangelical Lutheran Church, met with Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi of al-Azhar University, the world's highest Sunni Muslim seat of learning.

 

Tantawi said the Danish prime minister must apologize for the drawings and further demanded that the world's religious leaders meet to write a law that "condemns insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets." He said the

United Nations should impose the law on all countries.

 

In response, Nissen did not address the issue of a global law but said it was impossible for Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen to apologize.

 

"I have brought to his excellency (Tantawi) the apology of the newspaper, but our prime minister did not draw these cartoons. Our prime minister is not the editor of this newspaper. He cannot apologize for something he did not do," Nissen said.

 

In Pakistan on Sunday, police raided offices and homes of dozens of radical Islamic leaders, putting several under house arrest and detaining hundreds of their associates to foil a rally in the capital, officials said.

 

So far the West and Islamic nations remain at loggerheads over fundamental, but conflicting cultural imperatives — the Western democratic assertion of a right to free speech and press freedom, versus the Islamic dictum against any representation of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslims say such depictions could encourage idolatry.

 

___

 

Associated Press writer Dulue Mbachu in Lagos and Khaled al-Deeb in Tripoli, Libya, contributed to this report.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060219/ap_on_re_af/nigeria_prophet_drawings

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I meant was that if you can do such a thing with an "ideology or philosophy", then we should be able to do it with races too and no one should get mad or infuriated. Reason being is that the same can be classified with races as well, since they grow up within a type of culture. For example, a lot of Koreans are rude to non koreans, because it's their culture. I'm part korean, so I am not trying to be racist, but it is just a fact. Same could be said of blacks being thievs, chinese (needed to correc that) being greedy, hispanics being dirty, etc. Now I am not saying all these stereotypes are right, but just that a lot of them are started for a certain reason.

Well, I don't agree with that. No one can choose what race/ethinicity they are. You can choose what ideology/philosophy you follow. Racism is wrong. But criticizing ideologies is not. I don't think the two are the same. I can say that catholicism is a potentially violent religion and give plenty of reasons and as a result a person can choose to not be a catholic. A person can't choose to not be an arab, etc. So I don't think the two are the same at all.

 

I do agree that we should say whatever we want though (although we should have consideration at least), I just brought it up because I remembered (forgive me if I am wrong) that you had a problem with the way the newspapers worded their stories on blacks.

Yeah I'm against racism. Of course!

 

As far as the picture, you pointed it out, "mean". How do they know that Muhammed is the one that created "todays islam" and not "other men"? Just look at how the Muslim world operates on fatwas from scholars and such, it is not from Muhammad at all.

OK, then you disagree that the violence has anything to do with Muhammed. You have a right to have such an opinion just like the cartoonist had a right to an opinion. My opinion is it's a little of both.

 

It's just like how a lot of blacks use the racist card. BTW, not all Muslims are Arab. I am not arab and I am Muslim. Actually, Indonesia has the biggest population of Muslims. The Arab world only constitutes for 15% I believe.

I didn't realize it was that low. But I think most people have an assumptiong of Muslim = Arab (even though it's not true). And a lot of people right now are trying to say criticism of Islam is racism who would never say criticism of christianity is racism.

 

BTW, I was an arabic linguist in the Air Force for 6 years. Not that that means I'm really all that knowledgeable about arabic culture. I was subject to a lot of propaganda to dehumanize "the enemy."

 

It's like the predicament of, "Saving your kid, or letting your kid die in order to save 10 other people that may die due to saving her". Most people would have a problem making such a decision, and just "wait it out" so to speak or "act when it happens".

OK, yes.

 

I think that the idea of free speech is good, however I think that when you can choose between either avoiding offending others and stop any possible violence compared to your own ideas coming out, I think the first would be better. I think protesting in a better manner than making cartoons would be better, since it is obviously going to be taken the wrong way. Cartoons like this reminds me of caricatures, which are mainly used to poke fun.

Yeah, I don't think the cartoons will really accomplish much good. I just think it starts a slippery slope where other far more reasoned criticisms will next get targeted. Like anyone in the west protesting the treatment of women in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. Like this organization here does: http://www.now.org/ They do a lot of protesting unequal treatment of women in the ME. Maybe some/more Muslims will start sending them death threats and worse if they get more affirmation that violence works.

 

I doubt that there will be a peaceful resolution regarding this in the end and even do any changes within the Middle East (which I believe there needs to be). I think things will get worse than good thanks to these cartoons.

Well things are definitely going to get worse but in the long run I don't think the cartoons will really have a lot to do with it. The ME is run by dictators. A lot of the people don't live in very good conditions. The West helped put these dictators into place and are helping maintain them. Now the US attacks Iraq and has killed tens of thousands of civilians. Plus the whole Israel thing. Things aren't going very well at all.

 

Also as far as the women, it is not just Islam, it is all over. The only problem is that Islamic Countries get most of the blame on this issue, due to media and such. At the same time, a lot of Muslim women are treated with great respect, but you rarely see that on TV.

Well, maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about but I'm under the impression that the treatment of women in some Islamic nations is the worst in the world. I'm not aware of any primarily non-islamic nation as bad.

 

Nothing at all wrong. I am Muslim and took no offense at all to it, but then again I am not Sunni or such, and they really revere Muhammed over like any other person. The problem is that Catholicism, they would not act out like these Muslims would. Theres the difference. If this was done perhaps during the Inquisition and those times, then we'd have a problem.

I think part of the reason that things aren't the same today with christianity as it was hundreds of years ago, is that some people dared to speak out against it. One of my favorite writers is Voltaire. He wrote a lot of stuff ridiculing christianity. I think he influenced a lot of people to turn away from it. He also was attacked. Spent time in jail. Almost killed, etc. Spent time fleeing from persecution, etc. I can't say for certain but if there weren't people like him back then, I wonder if we'd still be having inquisitions today.

 

Also free speech isn't limited, it is just choosing to whether you want a violent outbreak or not, and weigh which consequence you think is better.

Well, I think the consequences of limiting this "speech" are worse than allowing it. I say that knowing that people are dying right now as a result.

 

Not illegal, just taking discreation as to what you do. It's like choosing to either talk to someone in a respectful tone or a rude tone. You can choose either way you want to respond, and each will have different outcomes.

Well, this is something different. Like I've said I doubt the cartoons did any good. It's just the basic idea behind free speech that I'm arguing for. Maybe the Danish newspaper originally made a mistake in printing them. It can be argued their decision wasn't a good one. But I don't think their should be legislation making their actions illegal or anything like that. And I think now it's not good if violence results in the these fundamentalist succeeding in further censorship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share




×
×
  • Create New...