or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Soooo. Anyone heard some news from Denmark lately?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Soooo. Anyone heard some news from Denmark lately?

post #1 of 328
Thread Starter 
Have you?

I want to get some perspective on a certain issue heating up here. So have you heard anything and if yes, what?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #2 of 328
Yes, but I didn't want to be the one bring it up.

...from here.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #3 of 328
I didn't think of it until I saw dmz's link, but then after seeing it, I do remember reading that headline a day or two ago. Didn't read the full story though.
post #4 of 328
Folks around the World must stand up and support the Danes on this one. This is just another reminder of the danger of Islamo fanatics.

Moe

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004413.htm

http://skender.be/supportdenmark/
Moe has left the building
Reply
Moe has left the building
Reply
post #5 of 328
From the article:
Quote:
The affair, however, has also led to a diplomatic incident. On Thursday the ambassadors of eleven Muslim countries, including Indonesia, a number of Arab states, Pakistan, Iran, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, complained about the cartoons in a letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. They say the publication of the cartoons is a provocation and demand apologies from the newspaper.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #6 of 328
I'm listening to this conversation with Bernard Lewis. He seems to be resepected by both the East and the West.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #7 of 328
Some of Bernard Lewis' work can be read for free here.

and here.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #8 of 328
hmm... some norwegian christians (dumb fucks) printed the same stuff, so now Norway is in it with our fellow danes...
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #9 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by New
hmm... some norwegian christians (dumb fucks) printed the same stuff, so now Norway is in it with our fellow danes...

Yes. Unlike our american friends I really don´t think there is a lot to defend when a newspaper decides to print something that is offensive because it is offensive and they can do it. Its like teasing the small girls on the play ground because you know they are gonna cry and you know the teachers are looking the other way.

Don´t get me wrong, of course the paper can legally print (almost) everything they will. But just because you can it doesn´t mean you should do it. Its a legality vs morality.

Add to that the totally lack of sense of occasion of our prime and you have the situation we are in now. At least he came out yesterday and said that he find it bad taste personally but it was three month too late.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #10 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Don´t get me wrong, of course the paper can legally print (almost) everything they will. But just because you can it doesn´t mean you should do it. Its a legality vs morality.

I agree, and in poor taste as well.

Still, death and bomb threats are much too much in the other direction.

I get the sense that we are in a children's playground some days without any adult supervision. Taunting, mocking from one side...bully tactics from the other. Maybe we oughta just put them all in the gym, pick up sides, give them a bunch of rubber red balls and play dodgeball.
post #11 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Unlike our american friends I really don´t think there is a lot to defend when a newspaper decides to print something that is offensive because it is offensive and they can do it.

Apparently Bill Clinton agrees with you. But did they really print it just because it was offensive? Isn't Islamist terrorism an issue that lots of people are talking about? Isn't the question of whether Islam itself (i.e., Mohammed) is violent, or just a bunch of Muslim individuals with distorted religious beliefs, a good question to ask, and aren't cartoons one way that we have that debate?

Fuck 'em. Their wacko religious beliefs are important to them, but our open and liberal society is just as important to us. That's the more important fight, more important than the military and intelligence wars with terrorists, and we shouldn't shrink from it.
post #12 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Fuck 'em. Their wacko religious beliefs

Quote:
"Because people see headlines that they don't like (they will) apply that to a whole religion, a whole faith, a whole region and a whole people?" he asked.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #13 of 328
Thread Starter 
Clinton is wrong. This is not stereotyping (unless you accept that all kinds of satire is stereotyping) or comparable to anti-semitism. This is simply a disregard of some peoples feeling and total lack of sense of situation afterwards.

What we need is to sit down and understand eachothers background and what people react to. I actually think that Clintons speech was counter-productive in that perspective.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #14 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
This is not stereotyping (unless you accept that all kinds of satire is stereotyping) or comparable to anti-semitism.

I seldom see satire with a figure of Christ with bombs on top of his head. And 12 of them. Do you know of any satire that portrays an entire religious community as led by or inspired by a prophet/divine figure that carries bombs in his head?

Quote:
This is simply a disregard of some peoples feeling and total lack of sense of situation afterwards.

'Some people's feelings' ? In Islam, the figure of Muhammad, his picture, must never be shown, and that's a basic tenet, not some people's ideas about it. Not only do they show his figure, which would not be so bad in and of itself, but they make unfunny little cartoons of him knowing full well his divine status within a big chunk of people of this world? And 12 of those too?

Quote:
What we need is to sit down and understand eachothers background and what people react to.

I question the credibility of any paper that has journalists who don't know one of the most basic laws in Islam: no pictures of Muhammad. This is not a "sekrit" nor is it some vague and unknown practice within some miniscule tribes in Congo.

Quote:
I actually think that Clintons speech was counter-productive in that perspective.

In what perspective? That he called this wave of anti-islamism for what it is? I beg to differ.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #15 of 328
GC:

I am trying to get a read on where you stand here?

Are you supportive of the journalists rights to publish/write/draw what they did under some principle of "freedom of speech" and/or "freedom of the press" (whether codified into Danish law/constitution or not)?

Or...

Do you think what they did was wrong and (if so) think they should be stopped from doing it and (if so) by whom?
post #16 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I seldom see satire with a figure of Christ with bombs on top of his head.

ummm....


ummm.....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...015757&q=jesus

Let's check the wayback machine on the treatment of Gibson's The Passion of the Christ:



ummmm......




ummmm....



...ummmmmm



(I hate to rain on your parade, but Muslims aren't going to allow what all of you have been used to.)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #17 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
GC:

I am trying to get a read on where you stand here?

I'm all for their right to be free to publish anything they want - but this thing is in poor taste because, this is not a politician or some crazy religious leader in some wasteland of Pakistan; this is a guy who is considered to be divine by a very large group of people who have come under a lot of fire lately. Let's try and be a little more understanding for the position they are in.

I would understand if that was bin Laden or whatever other character they wish to identify as the leader of these radicals, but this is a guy who is considered almost a saint and untouchable by a lot of those people we are trying to win over. Those moderates. Those believers that view their religion as a personal thing - separate from politics. And if we insult those too, with our little cartoons in our daily papers, who do we have on our side that can reform some of the rogue members of their community?

I understand all that mumbo-jumbo about freedom of speech and all, but that's not the be-all and end-all of a newspaper. A newspaper should primarily be focused on news and articles that give an insight into the happening of the society, it should not try to fix the ills of the society by making fun of people whom they view as 'alien' and 'different'. It should have a broad freedom of speech, but it should also use it for the benefit of the society - not in poor taste and twelve times.

All in all, it's a complicated issue, but it's not just 'some people's feelings' here that are at stake. At stake is a general alienation of muslims from the societies of Denmark (and now apparently Norway too) and by extension their further alienation in Europe as well.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #18 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
ummm....

Nothing that comes even close to portraying Christians as murderous thugs with bombs on their turbans.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #19 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I'm all for their right to be free to publish anything they want

OK

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
but this thing is in poor taste

No doubt.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
because, this is not a politician or some crazy religious leader in some wasteland of Pakistan; this is a guy who is considered to be divine by a very large group of people who have come under a lot of fire lately.

Yes, there should be some thoughtfulness.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Let's try and be a little more understanding for the position they are in.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
but this is a guy who is considered almost a saint and untouchable

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
And if we insult those too, with our little cartoons in our daily papers, who do we have on our side that can reform some of the rogue members of their community?

Well, there isn't any "we". This was a certain group of "journalist" and "cartoonists".

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I understand all that mumbo-jumbo about freedom of speech and all, but that's not the be-all and end-all of a newspaper.

Mumbo jumbo? Ouch.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
A newspaper should primarily be focused on news and articles that give an insight into the happening of the society, it should not try to fix the ills of the society by making fun of people whom they view as 'alien' and 'different'.

I agree.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
It should have a broad freedom of speech, but it should also use it for the benefit of the society - not in poor taste and twelve times.

Well, I agree. But I guess that is the bargin we strike. We take the bad, insulting, poor taste, etc. with the good.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
All in all, it's a complicated issue,

How so?

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
but it's not just 'some people's feelings' here that are at stake. At stake is a general alienation of muslims from the societies of Denmark (and now apparently Norway too) and by extension their further alienation in Europe as well.

Hmmm. Really? Isn't really about a handful of people who exercised poor judgment?


P.S. Do you have the same sort of righteous indignation for any "satire" and mockery of the cherished religious figures and symbols of all faiths and beliefs or just Islam?
post #20 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Nothing that comes even close to portraying Christians as murderous thugs with bombs on their turbans.

So the degree or nature of offensiveness (as perceived by you) is the issue here?
post #21 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Nothing that comes even close to portraying Christians as murderous thugs with bombs on their turbans.

Gene Clean, I'm sure what you say is true, and equally sure you would be willing to take each one of those cartoons, change the references to either Allah or Mohammed, and then publish them in certain papers in Europe along with your home address.

My suggestion would be to save the money on ad space and publish "piss Mohammed"

(but don't forget to include your home address)

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #22 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I agree, and in poor taste as well.

Still, death and bomb threats are much too much in the other direction.

I agree with both statements.
post #23 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
(I hate to rain on your parade, but Muslims aren't going to allow what all of you have been used to.)

What exactly are "Muslims" going to do? Write angry letters? Do you really think Christians didn't freak out for years over pissChrist and call for the complete dismantling of the NEA?

I like the second sentence of Moe's first post, just change "Islamo fanatics" to "fervent religious belief".
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #24 of 328
I do wonder if there is some irony in the fact that there were death and bomb threats.
post #25 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What exactly are "Muslims" going to do?

At the moment:
Quote:
The Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten is being protected by security guards and several cartoonists have gone into hiding.... Muslim fundamentalists have threatened to bomb the papers offices and kill the cartoonists.

..something of a paradigm shift from the dreadful "defunding" threats.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #26 of 328
Quote:
Hmmm. Really? Isn't really about a handful of people who exercised poor judgment?

No, you misunderstood. I was just referring to Anders's way of describing the outrage over the cartoons among Muslims as 'some people's feelings have been hurt' or some such. It has nothing to do with the people that exercised poor judgement.


Quote:
P.S. Do you have the same sort of righteous indignation for any "satire" and mockery of the cherished religious figures and symbols of all faiths and beliefs or just Islam?

Yes, Yes I do. But one thing: satire and mockery are two distinc things. And this isn't just about satire in and of itself. This is more about the fact that they made fun of Mohammad (and by extension those who see him as the Prophet) and they showed caricatures of him to which Muslims take offence (not to caricatures, but pictures of Muhammad).

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Islam, but I studied Islam for a year and have been reading some books on it (plus segovius' blog ) and I do happen to remember that in Islam, pictures of Muhammad are prohibited because they believe that worshipping of pictures (as a representation of Muhammad) or even statues would be a blasphemy. Therefore, the drawing of such caricatures, to them, is offensive, be they satire or not.

Now, I'm not saying ban all caricatures/pictures/statues of Muhammad from the recollection of humanity (as that's ridiculous) but one should be careful to not offend people that have nothing to do with today's rogue elements of certain sects and groups within Islam - i.e. the majority of Muslims.

I'm telling you, I would be equally pissed if they drew a picture of Christ with bombs on his head (and 12 times, no less) just because some nut blew up abortion clinics in Atlanta. Or Yahweh. Or whatever.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #27 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
No, you misunderstood. I was just referring to Anders's way of describing the outrage over the cartoons among Muslims as 'some people's feelings have been hurt' or some such. It has nothing to do with the people that exercised poor judgement.

Thanks for clarifying for me.

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Yes, Yes I do. But one thing: satire and mockery are two distinc things. And this isn't just about satire in and of itself. This is more about the fact that they made fun of Mohammad (and by extension those who see him as the Prophet) and they showed caricatures of him to which Muslims take offence (not to caricatures, but pictures of Muhammad).

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Islam, but I studied Islam for a year and have been reading some books on it (plus segovius' blog ) and I do happen to remember that in Islam, pictures of Muhammad are prohibited because they believe that worshipping of pictures (as a representation of Muhammad) or even statues would be a blasphemy. Therefore, the drawing of such caricatures, to them, is offensive, be they satire or not.

Now, I'm not saying ban all caricatures/pictures/statues of Muhammad from the recollection of humanity (as that's ridiculous) but one should be careful to not offend people that have nothing to do with today's rogue elements of certain sects and groups within Islam - i.e. the majority of Muslims.

I agree that it is quite crass to go out of one's way to insult or offend anyone (by whatever means and of whatever faith and for whatever reason).

Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
I'm telling you, I would be equally pissed if they drew a picture of Christ with bombs on his head (and 12 times, no less) just because some nut blew up abortion clinics in Atlanta. Or Yahweh. Or whatever.

OK. Just curious. Though I would add that the specific content (bombs in this case) is less important than the intent to offend, insult, harrass, whatever.

Finally, I think the larger issue is whether or not we should allow this to bring us so low. I mean these bozos are offensive. OK. Even 12 times. OK. What do we do about it? Threaten to kill or bomb (as some apparently have done)? Ignore them (which I would prefer)? Ban them? Pray for them (is anyone doing this)? Turn the other cheek (is anyone doing this)?

Frankly, I think more disservice has been done by giving them such attention.
post #28 of 328
I am against such cartoons : they are bad taste, stupid and not respecteful.

That's said, I do not accept that an alien country force an other to change it's laws, and restrict the liberties.

If things continue this way, by boycott and by fear of economic retaliations we will be obliged to obey them : totally unacceptable.
post #29 of 328
Thread Starter 
Gene Clean, I think you misread what I wrote. I thought without saying that this is a result of the ban of picture of Mohammad. But its the result that is important (that peoples feeling get hurt), not the ban in itself. Its a social question, not a theological. It is peoples feelings we should respect, not religious texts. I mean: if there was a ban on pictures of Thor, should we respect that one as well?

What is needed is dialog, so there is a better understanding of eachother so news editors realise the impact on peoples feelings when they makes such stunts. What the paper did was a result of sheer ignorance of the impact of their actions, not part of a crusade against muslims. Their goal was to test self-imposed censur, not to mock a religion. Goals vs. means and effects. What Clinton did is NOT helping any dialog, he is mudding things up by talking about this in connection with anti-islamic tendencies. I think it is very important to keep things straight, so it is known what the problem is exactly (ignorance).

When Clinton makes a connection that isn´t there its getting even harder to explain what really happened. I mean, some people think that the paper somehow is owned by our government and it is part of a holy war against Islam that also includes making a anti-islamic movie and rewriting the Koran. Now those people have a former presidents word for it, even if the words were not that specific (note I don´t say Clinton believe the same. I am saying his words can be interpreted as such, especially in the current heated environment).
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #30 of 328
There is no ban on pictures of Muhammad - I am looking at one now btw - if you like I can give you links to many, many such pictures.

So this is not the problem.

The problem is the same as the one that Muslims often face here on these very boards and every day: the equating of Islam with terrorism and a refusal to acknowledge that moderates even exist.

Over time people get more and more pissed off.

And of course, this was deliberate provocation by 'someone'. And it serves the agenda of 'someone'.

Put it this way: if it is true that these people are nutters and that they would kick it off under such circumstances because they are nutters - does a responsible person then provoke them?

Only if they are more interested in causing trouble than they are in solving problems. Should we perhaps during the height of the IRA campaign blitzed Belfast with leaflets showing grotesque caricatures of the Pope with a bomb in his hand (and yes it is the exact same analogy) and then start debating about OUR rights to free speech - and pointing to the backlash to show the barbarians.

Well maybe so. Maybe not. I don't know. I do know that if this extremist problem is going to be solved -and it must be or the outrages so far will seem like a Girl Guide's tea party - then it must be solved by intelligent, thoughtful action.

And by people who genuinely want peace and harmony. The people who published it did not - regardless of the position of the extremists.

And while we take giant steps backwards, here's some more fascists (quell surprise) trying to kick off even more trouble: The French.

Another ultra-racist society hell-bent on proving it's stupidity. although to be fair - these incidents are clearly being 'engineered' and you will see more provocation.

Have your fun - have a few riots, bombings or worse and blame Islam but sooner or later someone is going to have to start using their brain and start thinking about ways to solve the problems rather than create more.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #31 of 328
Oops - went off on a rant and didn't make my point hehe

What I wanted to say was this: there are many ways of achieving the sniping at extremist Islam by a cartoon. This should be done and I have no problem with it.

To use Muhammad makes the statement that Islam itself is extremist - and many have this view. Fair enough, the debate can be held but in that case it should be a debate not an unanswerable cartoon.

People say this is free speech but it is a free speech I don't want: I don't want to draw an offensive and untrue cartoon of Jesus, the Pope, Bush or whoever so I couldn't give a toss about whether I have the right to do so.

So where actually is my right of reply if I don't want to reply in kind? Nowhere, it has been taken by extremist Muslims and brain-dead westerners.

It's not that I care about the depiction of Muhammad as such. Sure it is the act of morons but like the poor, they will always be with us and this is the sort of thing morons do. Fair enough.

My objection is to:

a) Idiots on all sides making a dangerous period of time even worse
b) General stupidity. Have a debate ffs - don't draw stupid pictures, this isn't kindergarten.

But then again, it actually is. Things have sunk that low.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #32 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
There is no ban on pictures of Muhammad - I am looking at one now btw - if you like I can give you links to many, many such pictures.

seg, I think you're wrong on this one, and let me make my case why I think you're wrong before you grill me with all that knowledge.

There definitely is a ban on any statue or other earthly creation of man (not including people) that would, in one way or another, be some kind of representation of Muhammad. That's because Muslims as such only worship God, not some statue that is supposed to 'be' God. It's for the same reason Muhammad and his early followers broke the statues depicting Gods in the Kabbalah.

It's an interesting area this one, and is somewhat present in all major films/documentaries about Islam or Muhammad. I don't know if you've seen 'The Message' with Anthony Quinn as Ali but even in that movie we don't *see* Muhammad. We see someone's back and that someone is Muhammad, but never actually his face. Though I do agree with you that the offence is not only about the ban on pictures of Muhammad - that was only one serious way in which they went out of line and 12 times no less.

Now, apparently, a French newspaper joined them. They think they're defending freedom of speech, while they fail to understand (or don't want to, or know ignore) the fact that they are pissing a lot of people off - people who might otherwise be their friends, wives, husbands, bankers, taxi-drivers, doctors, etc. Even the French Foreign Ministry told them it's in bad taste.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #33 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean There definitely is a ban on any statue or other earthly creation of man (not including people) that would, in one way or another, be some kind of representation of Muhammad.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one - don't worry I won;t bore you with the details But if you Google Image search Prophet Muhammad then you will find plenty of images - it is a mainstay of Islamic Art.

But who could ban it anyway? There is no Authority, Church or Pope - it all comes down to individual sects and you are right, one such (the Wahabis, Saudis and Taleban) do ban representations of any living thing (especially Muhammad) but they have no Qur'anic or orthodox basis for this.

Quote:
That's because Muslims as such only worship God, not some statue that is supposed to 'be' God. It's for the same reason Muhammad and his early followers broke the statues depicting Gods in the Kabbalah.

Well, idols are banned for sure. Interestingly, when Muhammad and the companions destroyed the idols in the Ka'aba Muhammad ordered that one thing should not be destroyed: a painting (as opposed to a statue) which was of the Virgin Mary and infant Jesus. It remained in the Ka'aba until it was destroyed by rebels in the 8th century.

Quote:
It's an interesting area this one, and is somewhat present in all major films/documentaries about Islam or Muhammad. I don't know if you've seen 'The Message' with Anthony Quinn as Ali but even in that movie we don't *see* Muhammad. We see someone's back and that someone is Muhammad, but never actually his face. Though I do agree with you that the offence is not only about the ban on pictures of Muhammad - that was only one serious way in which they went out of line and 12 times no less.

Haven't seen that movie (is it any good?) but I would guess it was not to offend the Saudis. Most sensitivities in this area are.

Quote:
Now, apparently, a French newspaper joined them. They think they're defending freedom of speech, while they fail to understand (or don't want to, or know ignore) the fact that they are pissing a lot of people off - people who might otherwise be their friends, wives, husbands, bankers, taxi-drivers, doctors, etc. Even the French Foreign Ministry told them it's in bad taste. [/B]

I saw this. You really can't escape the feeling that someone is looking to cause some trouble really can you?

I predict a riot.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #34 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one -

segovious, if this is only "extremism", why would so many muslim countries officially protest?

Quote:
The affair, however, has also led to a diplomatic incident. On Thursday the ambassadors of eleven Muslim countries, including Indonesia, a number of Arab states, Pakistan, Iran, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, complained about the cartoons in a letter to Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen. They say the publication of the cartoons is a provocation and demand apologies from the newspaper.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #35 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
segovious, if this is only "extremism", why would so many muslim countries officially protest?

The point we were discussing was what they were protesting about and it's root cause: ie whether it was the pictorial representation of Muhammad that caused offence or the equating the Prophet with terrorism.

I suggested that it was only the extremists who had such a ban on depiction of living things.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #36 of 328
Thread Starter 
It is pictures of Muhammad, not whats in the pictures. Its been clear from the beginning (four month ago) from the muslim groups here.

Out of the 12 drawings only one that equates Mohammad with terrorism.

The matter is extremely more complex that I think any on this board, including myself, have expressed so far. I´ll probably do the longer, more complex version later. But for me its a classic sociological problem of how issues can be interpreted different in different settings and how the dominant part fails to recognize that:
  • The newspaper(Freedom of speech)<->Muslim groups here(religion and recognition)
  • Muslims(feelings) <-> Government(Legal)
  • Denmark (internal relationship between muslims and the rest)<-> Middle East (internal issues like Hamas vs. Fatah in Palestine and the relationship between state and population in other ME countries).

Now that it has been internationalized it has been imbedded in a new conflict, that between the west and ME. The meaning of the conflict shift from how you look at it. But I am as sure as you can be that the original intent with the drawings was to make a point about freedom of speech, showing complete ignorance, not hostility, towards Muslim feelings on this issue.

I do read this paper almost every day and even if its point of view is as far from my own that you can get with a danish newspaper I do know what it stands for.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #37 of 328
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
It is pictures of Muhammad, not whats in the pictures. Its been clear from the beginning (four month ago) from the muslim groups here.

If that is the case (and I don't know whether it is - but say for arguments sake) then the Muslim groups are wrong and the general public perception of Islam is wrong (though we know that already).

The reason that this is important is that it contains the solution to the whole problem.....IF it what you say is true (which I have so far doubted but will be very happy to be proved wrong because we will gain something immense).

The solution is simple then: it can be easily proved that pictures of Muhammad are legitimate. And from that it can easily be proved that these Muslims are wrong.

But that is just an illustration (pardon the pun) of wider views. These views, in fact all extreme Islamist views, are the doctrines of the Wahabis, Salafists and other such sects. They are not original Islam - although many Muslims think they are.

Perhaps the Muslim community in Denmark is mainly of this type. Perhaps they have been 'converted' to that view. no matter. What we need is a theological war on these doctrines and terrorism will be divorced from Islam. Once that happens it will have no popular support and will be mopped up by the West.

This is where the battle will be won - not on some real battlefield on the ME or anywhere else. And everyone can do their bit - if they are serious about defeating terrorism and not just an opportunist Islamophobe or other species of winger.

It has nothing to do with belief or acceptance of doctrine - all people have to do is promote the facts and counter any falsehoods. When this gets through to ordinary Muslims as well as ordinary westerners then we will have a platform for change. right now there is confusion.

Take free speech - who knows that this was originally an Islamic concept? Any such discussion of the legitimacy of Muhammad (perhaps not juvenile contributions like the cartoons though) would have been actively encouraged in 7 - 8th century Islam and beyond.

Ongoing dialogue between religions was commonplace and academic research was actively engaged in in co-operation with Jews and Christians.

That is the real Islam, no-one recognizes this now but it will come back. The option is to put up with the extremist variety and personally I'm not prepared to do that.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #38 of 328
Thread Starter 
A pretty on-the-money sum up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jylland...ammad_cartoons

Note that the paper actually printed more anti-stunt drawings than muslim-bashing drawings.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #39 of 328
In a surprising turn of events, now the artist behind the drawings claims he was never paid for his artwork. Guess what? Now he wants his pay.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #40 of 328
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by New
In a surprising turn of events, now the artist behind the drawings claims he was never paid for his artwork. Guess what? Now he wants his pay.

First make a offensive drawing, get it into a newspaper, stir global outrage, get it published everywhere, cash in.

It is artistS btw.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Soooo. Anyone heard some news from Denmark lately?