Jump to content

Muslim Rage Over Cartoon


sharkman

Recommended Posts

The Danish PM expressed alarm yesterday concerning the continuing and growing anger in the Muslim world about 12 cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad with such details as a bomb in his turban.

Last September these cartoons ran and then were republished last month by a Norwegian magazine. The response has been quite silly. Flag burnings, protest rallies, boycotts, threats to Scandinavian nationals living abroad, bomb threats and the like.(Oh, and they've been burning pics of Dubya too, like he had anything to do with it!)

In response, Denmark has evacuated all its nationals from the Gaza strip and recommended that those in the West Bank also leave. Some evacuations have occured due to the bomb threats, and thousands of Palestinians protested for a second day. A Danish/Swedish dairy corporation has been hit worst by the boycotts and has shut down production of its products in Saudi Arabia. Muslim law(?) forbids any illustrations of the Prophet and I guess doing it 12 times puts you in a special 'hate' category. Never mind that they are protesting some of the wrong nations for what a newspaper printed with freedom of the press.

And Bill Clinton, that liberal bleeding heart, said on the matter recently that Muslims need to show tolerance towards those who don't follow Muhammad and realize in the big picture it won't change anything to have a few illustrations floating around. Ha! Of course he didn't say that, he instead warned against anti-Islamic prejudice and compared it to anti-Semitism.(Like the genocide of 6 million is about equal with some cartoons)

When will a liberal speak against anything Muslim? Not in your life time. Don't you see? It's the newspaper's fault for causing this, not the Muslim fundamentalists' fault for hate, intolerance and threats of murder and war over some silly pictures. Of course when those of the Christian faith show concern over movies depicting Jesus as a lusting adulterer or whatever he was in the Last Temptation of Christ, then the liberals can criticize faith groups, but when it happens to Muslims, no one criticizes their much more violent response. Total hypocrisy. Anyway, here's a link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4567940.stm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 228
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Once again Muslims show us just how peaceful Islam really is. How soon before a fatwa, and how soon before the author of the cartoon goes into hiding for a decade? Or, worst of all, how soon before they kill him, like so many others? Oh well, I can't say that I'm suprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when those of the Christian faith show concern over movies depicting Jesus as a lusting adulterer or whatever he was in the Last Temptation of Christ, then the liberals can criticize faith groups, but when it happens to Muslims, no one criticizes their much more violent response

What makes you say nobody is criticising them?

Not only are people from across the political spectrum criticising the Arab states's reactions, but a number of papers running the gamut from "liberal" to "conservative" in Europe have reprinted the "offending cartoons" in solidarity with the original newspaper's right to free expression.

Again, this tweedledee-tweedledum "conservative/liberal bad, liberal/conservative good" stuff takes away from the real texture and color of the world we live in and makes everyone's view of politics a ridiculous team sports "ah ha!" game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how come Bill Clinton can't see what all these papers you refered to can see? I'd pay money to hear Westen liberals criticize Muslim actions without immediately warn of the dangers of intolerance towards Muslims. The day Svend Robinson criticizes their actions is the day I eat crow. You sound like a moderate Yank, but do you really think you'll see the day when Hillary can talk like this? After all it's liberals like her that came up with the idea of frisking old white ladies at the airport and asking leading questions about their nail clippers. Conservatives wouldn't think up strategies like that. That's why liberals bad - conservatives good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton is "everyone?"

How do you know where Clinton stands on it? Perhaps he spoke out against it and it got bumped off the pages by the latest story about Britney Spears' new line of push-up bras.

Rather than trying to establish how nasty the Tweedledees are compared to your Tweedledum, why not just do the right thing and stand up for free speech and expression? If we all worry about standing up for that, rather than worrying about where our political enemies are sending their press releases -- and if they're using a bold enough font -- then we'll make a real impact on the situation we're decrying (such as the present diplomatic row).

You sound like a moderate Yank, but do you really think you'll see the day when Hillary can talk like this?

I'm a libertarian. I believe the papers have the right to print whatever they want, and the Muslims have the right to say whatever they want about what they print. I don't believe the Muslims have a right to demand jail time for the editors.

All the political theatre around condemnations I couldn't care less about, since 2/3 of those condemnations are driven by polls, whether it's Hillary or Tom DeLay.

liberals like her that came up with the idea of frisking old white ladies at the airport and asking leading questions about their nail clippers

Nope, that airport "security" stuff is all bipartisan. To whom it's applied might vary, but the idea that by getting on a plane, I'm submitting to an anal probe if they decide that's what they want, is very much an idea supported by "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is garbage. Denmark is a free country with free-press, therefore they have a right to publish whatever they want. Just because some Muslims are not used to free press because their country restricts it doesn't give them the right to threaten the people of Denmark because of the cartoons. Even the fact that Denmark mulims complaining blows my mind. WE ARE NOT ALL MUSLIM.

This just goes to show you how intolerant Islam is to criticism and other non-Muslims. When you are taking Danish products off the shelf because of what a privately owned news paper does, is ludicrous. I don't see Christians out in the street every time someone publishes a cartoon about Jesus, or the Jews getting all up in a frenzy because of some ink on paper.

This is a disgrace and another notch in the anti-Muslim peoples bed post. I'm paypaling Lockheed-Martin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton is "everyone?"

How do you know where Clinton stands on it? Perhaps he spoke out against it and it got bumped off the pages by the latest story about Britney Spears' new line of push-up bras.

I know where Clinton stands on it because he waxed politically correct on it in the last couple of days. He came out warning against prejudice instead of condemning the threats and violence of the Muslims.

Rather than trying to establish how nasty the Tweedledees are compared to your Tweedledum, why not just do the right thing and stand up for free speech and expression? If we all worry about standing up for that, rather than worrying about where our political enemies are sending their press releases -- and if they're using a bold enough font -- then we'll make a real impact on the situation we're decrying (such as the present diplomatic row).

I'm a libertarian. I believe the papers have the right to print whatever they want, and the Muslims have the right to say whatever they want about what they print. I don't believe the Muslims have a right to demand jail time for the editors.

My point is there is much more free speech allowed to Muslims in this case even when they are threatening violence and bombings, both illegal.

All the political theatre around condemnations I couldn't care less about, since 2/3 of those condemnations are driven by polls, whether it's Hillary or Tom DeLay.

Nope, that airport "security" stuff is all bipartisan. To whom it's applied might vary, but the idea that by getting on a plane, I'm submitting to an anal probe if they decide that's what they want, is very much an idea supported by "liberals" and "conservatives" alike.

Prove it and I will admit my fault, but it's not bipartisan, it's horse trading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fear this dispute will just divide along simple cultural lines. "We're right and they're wrong." The West is right, and Muslims are wrong. Or, Muslims are right and the West is wrong. Choose your side. What is the faddish term for this? Wedge issue?

Canada has had its share of such disputes that force people to line up in tribal fashion. It's hardly edifying.

I am in favour of free speech (and would like to see the CRTC disbanded) but I wouldn't invite a friend into my home and then ridicule her father, claiming my right to free speech.

FWIW, I remember a few years ago a controversy about a supposed gay porn film titled The Sex Life of Jesus. Petitions were circulated to have the film banned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sharkman

There is already the same topic posted here under ' The Rest of the world' - Jan.30/2006, "Iraqi's cant take the heat."

This thread title is more accurate.

Does anyone have a link to all the cartoons?

I've only seen one of the cartoons and it seems completely innocuous by Western standards. What would happen if someone portrayed Mohammed as a transvestite in a play?

I think Margaret Thatcher argued that a Western desire to understand the other point of view should not extend to denigrating Western values. IMV, the principle of free speech is supreme in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

I think Margaret Thatcher argued that a Western desire to understand the other point of view should not extend to denigrating Western values. IMV, the principle of free speech is supreme in this case.
I do not think that avoiding portraits of Mohammed (out of respect) hurts western values. However, I agree that free speech should be supreme.

The being said, the Muslims also have every right to boycott products, if they wish. The power of the consumer is becomming the second-most influential force on the planet anyway. If anyone recalls, there were merchandise-burning orgies of intolerance, and boycotts, when John Lennon said that 'the Beatles were bigger than Jesus', albeit in an allegorical way. No protests, though, should be allowed to take the form of violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Margaret Thatcher argued that a Western desire to understand the other point of view should not extend to denigrating Western values. IMV, the principle of free speech is supreme in this case.

I agree (I just agreed with Thatcher! *shudder*). But from a practical standpoint, this kind of thing seems like an uneccesary provication. Really though, I think this says it best:

Jordanian independent tabloid al-Shihan reprinted three of the cartoons on Thursday, saying people should know what they were protesting about, AFP news agency reports.

"Muslims of the world be reasonable," wrote editor Jihad Momani.

"What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amman, 2 Feb. (AKI) - In an apparent U-turn, the publishers of the Amman-based al-Shihan weekly - which on Thursday published three of the 12 controversial Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Mohammed - has withdrawn all copies of the newspaper. In a note, the owner says it is "suprised" by the paper's publication of the Danish cartoons, condemns these, and says it is investigating the matter, and will "severely" punish those responsible.
Some web site

Anybody who knows anything about the Middle East will understand how these cartoons will be perceived, and the emotional reaction they'll invoke. It's inevitable that something even more provocative will surface in the future. (The Satanic Verses was published 20 years ago.)

In the West, we are used to many images and ideas that are often profoundly insulting yet we usually just ignore them and move on. I would like to believe we are more tolerant but I suspect it's because we know that we can't do anything about it.

----

This is an intriguing situation, not the least because the cartoons were first published several months ago and the controversy has flared up again. It raises moral questions, and the differing reactions of people are curious. Here's a comment of the original Danish publisher:

"If I had known that the lives of Danish soldiers and civilians would be threatened, if I had known that, as my finger hovered one centimeter above the send button for publishing the drawings, would I have hit it? No," he said. "No responsible editor in chief would have done."
IHT

That's frightening, and shows how censorship really works. Most people self-censor to avoid even the risk of trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it all comes down to who tolerates it better. Christians will petition a certain news paper and make it public that a cartoon smearing Jesus is unacceptable and demand an apology. Where as this situation has been a little blown out of proportion. The threats and world-wide anger towards the Danish people and the news paper seems to be a little over the top.

When you print something, you have to take responsibility for it. But making death threats against the illustrators is something that should not be tolerated, and I hope they do not back down because of fear.

As August said, you have to self censor and take into account other peoples feelings when writing or drawing something. With this cartoon depicting Muhammad with a bomb under his turban does lead us to make stereotypical assumptions about Muslims and Arabs.

The respective groups should be mad, but making threats and coming close to violence will only re-enforce those stereotypes that were originally conceived when the cartoon was drawn and published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The respective groups should be mad, but making threats and coming close to violence will only re-enforce those stereotypes that were originally conceived when the cartoon was drawn and published.
This is where I part company from any sympathy for a victim of an insult. "Sticks and stones... "

Here is a link to the twelve cartoons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know, its all about simple respect. We know it is a great insult to Muslims so why should we print something that will deliberately offend?

Have you had a look at the kinds of things the Muslims print in their papers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know, its all about simple respect. We know it is a great insult to Muslims so why should we print something that will deliberately offend?

Have you had a look at the kinds of things the Muslims print in their papers?

Argus, I think you and I agree on this but you are missing the point here. This is not a competition to see who is guilty of the greater calumny.

It is irrelevant whether Islamic newspapers have published derogatory remarks or how serious those remarks were. In this case, just because "they" did it doesn't give "us" the right to do it too. The right to print an insulting cartoon is an old western value that stands alone.

Judging by the extremely mild-mannered twelve cartoons linked above, then we've seen nothing yet. Someone is bound to come up with something more inflammatory.

----

In the West, the debate seems to have morphed into a discussion of bigotry. The cartoon of Mohammed with the bomb as headress is criticised because it implies that all Muslims are terrorists. Western political correctness marries Islamofascism.

The silence of the Left on this issue is deafening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hard to get upset by a cartoon, but I somehow find this disturbing:

But the issue goes well beyond the old debate over whether freedom of expression has limits. It does in countries like Canada, which have anti-hate laws. But regardless of the presence or absence of legislated limits, every society has its own notions of what is acceptable and what is not.
Haroon Siddiqui - Toronto Star

By what stretch of the imagniation can these cartoons be construed as "hate literature". This is the problem with so-called "incitement to hate" limits on freedom of speech. With a few steps of fancy, it is possible to describe many activities as incitement to hate - and then justify censorship.

And then, this:

It is this double standard that's at the heart of the repeated conflicts between the West and the world of Islam over how far anti-Islamic provocateurs can go in baiting Muslims, repeatedly, knowing full well the depth of Muslim feelings about their most cherished beliefs.

Several hundred years ago, individual Europeans contested the cherished beliefs of the Catholic Church. Because of their efforts, we can now, to pick two spurious examples, make movies such as The Last Temptation of Christ and have high school discussions about atheism.

Since when did a cherished belief place a topic beyond discussion? And since when did a mere cartoon justify invading embassies and threatening physical harm to people?

This is not 'baiting". It is the western scientific method that leads us to always question cherished beliefs. Why? Because experience has shown us that cherished beliefs are frequently wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear August1991,

Because of their efforts, we can now, to pick two spurious examples, make movies such as The Last Temptation of Christ and have high school discussions about atheism.
I recall the outrage when "Jesus Christ, Superstar" hit the screens. Some parents were livid.
Since when did a cherished belief place a topic beyond discussion? And since when did a mere cartoon justify invading embassies and threatening physical harm to people?
I also recall the Muslim outrage over "The Satanic Verses", and heard an interview on CBC with a Muslim leader over why the death penalty for Salman Rushdie was invoked. The response was, "In Islam there is nothing more important than Allah (God). Even the murder of a fellow human being cannot compare to insulting God (and, in this case, 'His prophet Muhammed'), to Muslims".

Is this line of thinking right? I don't believe so, but over a billion people do. How to we tell them to take god less seriously?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when did a cherished belief place a topic beyond discussion? And since when did a mere cartoon justify invading embassies and threatening physical harm to people?
It doesn't. However, anyone with half a brain should have understood how Muslims would react to such things. I think it is pretty pathetic to hide behind the 'free speach' banner on this one. My late grandmother was a wonderful woman in many ways but she had the attitudes of her generation when it came to issues like homosexuality. Out of respect for her I would never bring up the issue because I knew it would provoke an unreasonable reaction from her. I think the same rational applies when dealing with a different culture.

You cannot even argue that those cartoons promote dialog - they are so provocative that they make reasonable dialog between cultures impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, anyone with half a brain should have understood how Muslims would react to such things. I think it is pretty pathetic to hide behind the 'free speach' banner on this one. My late grandmother was a wonderful woman in many ways but she had the attitudes of her generation when it came to issues like homosexuality. Out of respect for her I would never bring up the issue because I knew it would provoke an unreasonable reaction from her. I think the same rational applies when dealing with a different culture.
Being polite to an old woman - your grandmother no less - strikes me as civilized. But did your grandmother threaten to kill you if you used the word "gay" around her?

Look, Sparhawk, we are witnessing the kind of ignorant behaviour common in medieval Europe. Why should we be dragged back to those debates of several hundred years ago? Heck, Canada's Social Liberals consider it bigotry if gays can't marry. As Steyn said, these people make Stockwell Day look like Hillary Clinton.

You cannot even argue that those cartoons promote dialog - they are so provocative that they make reasonable dialog between cultures impossible.
Provocative? Did you see the same 12 cartoons I did? (They're linked above.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, Sparhawk, we are witnessing the kind of ignorant behaviour common in medieval Europe. Why should we be dragged back to those debates of several hundred years ago?
Not at all. But how did those cartoons help promote western ideals in Islamic circles? If anything, they simply re-enforced their fear of western values and made it less likely that they will join the 21th century. This was an avoidable incident and should have been avoided.

I would take a different position if the offense was accidental on the part of the cartoonist. In this case, the cartoonist was intending to offend and that is why I feel the cartoonist should have not published the cartoons.

Provocative? Did you see the same 12 cartoons I did? (They're linked above.)
I could have shown my Grandmother a picture of two men kissing and it would have provoked some pretty unreasonable reactions. What is provocative is in the eye of the beholder. We live in a world composed of many cultures - we all have an obligation to be sensitive to what provokes others if we hope to get along.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...