Soooo. Anyone heard some news from Denmark lately? - Page 2

Now I know the Government set this up.....

A pastor, priest and rabbi walk into a bar....


Were the cartoons stupid and offensive? Yes.
Racist? That question is based as much on people's opinions as facts...

I wanted to follow up on that part of your response. Here's a bit more from BBC.
This seems to be quite widespread -- especially when you consider that at least half of the muslim countries have reacted in one way or another. Wouldn't you admit that this is essentially a cultural response?

Not sure.

All I know is that there is no ban on images, no authority to make such a ban and there are thousands of images of Muhammad, Jesus and all types of living things permeating Islamic art and all aspects of Muslim society.

The extremists hate this - which is why the Taleban destroyed the Bamiyan statues for example - but as to whether all these Muslims are extremists or what their rationale is, I cannot yet say as none of them have been given any airtime to explain themselves and I guess it will stay that way.

It looks like we'll have to rely on erroneous, uninformed and mistaken western news reports for the 'facts'.

As usual.

I wanted to put an asterisk on that -- that the violent reaction wasn't 'essentially a cultural' reaction.

Well, I don't know.

One thing is for sure: the extremist Islamists will capitalize on any event of this nature and try to kick something off.

Likewise the Islamophobes will capitalize on any event of this nature and try to kick something off - in fact that is probably why this happened in the first place.

The debate has veered off into one of 'free speech' but really this is nonsensical. There are certainly areas where this would not even be conceived of - for example, if I were to create a cartoon mocking the victims of 911 or the London bombings no would support my free speech or publicize my cartoon no matter what 'point' I was making. And rightly so.

Why? Because I would cause offence. No other reason. Yet it is ok to cause offence in this context.

Because it is only Muslims being offended.

Really?


Do you mean to say that "freedom of expression" is not "OK" where either the intent or result is offensive or insulting?

Ha! That 'aint how weeum do it har in Amorica

Also, I think I remember a 'Christian Comic' thread on a certain forum that threw sensitivity to the wind. (Sterotypes can be so much 'fun'.)

I think they [obviously] have every right to boycott. But, the west has a long, long history of denigrating Christians -- maybe the Muslims can teach certain circles to show a little respect.

Enough about what?


Wrong.

No-one is calling for a block on free-speech - a free speech that very few Muslims believe you actually have in the West btw.

All they are saying (whether you agree with them or not) is if you do certain things then we will do certain things. Free speech has nothing to do with it.

Put it another way: no-one says you can't insult Joe Bloggs, but if you do he might punch your lights out. Sure, how he responds is against the law and what you did isn't - your law of course but you know what? He doesn't care.


Hmmm......


Agree.

It also means that it is either going with the wave or against it. In such times there is no fence-sitting.

Yes (apologies if I'm wrong), I understand your take is that they did this as some sort of 'stunt' or exercise in free-speech.

I don't buy it if so and can explain why but perhaps I have misunderstood you.

Well I dismiss it because I find it hard to believe that anyone could be so stupid. There is an Arabic proverb: "To test what has already been tested is ignorance".

Everyone knows what would happen. Regardless of any other factors - it just doesn't need testing in that way. The Satanic Verses affair is just one example, it was bound to happen so why do it? It was entirely predictable.

Also I dismiss it because it has not in fact started a debate, It has polarized opinions. I don;t know what is happening where you are but here in Spain it is not really news and in the UK there is no debate. Apparently papers aren't going to publish the cartoons there but we shall see.

But really my main reason is this: I am on the other side of the fence, the target audience if you will - except I am not issuing death threats and going on the rampage (yet ), No-one wants a debate on this more than me - I am constantly trying to get this very debate going in various places. But it isn't happening - I want it to but it isn't, this is actually stopping debate.

I suppose I am saying I don't believe the paper could be that stupid and see something more sinister. Could be wrong though - maybe they are that stupid. There is another Arabic proverb: "Two things have no limit - the mercy of God and the foolishness of men".

Incredible.

I guess it goes to show that after all the philosophizing and wiseacring, the simplest explanations are generally what it all boils down to....

It's like kids playing with matches on a hot summers day. They know they're doing something dangerous, but they never expect the whole forest to catch fire.

Anybody see this? Real cute.

Hate to say it, but this is pretty much how I feel about all this....

Actually, plenty of people lept to Ward Churchill's defense after he called the victims of 9/11 "little Eichmanns" in a published essay. Likewise, plenty of people lept to Andres Serrano's defense after he made the art piece "Piss Christ" with taxpayer dollars. I don't remember either going into hiding because of death threats. So it's certainly not just Muslims who sometimes get the short end of the stick.

Churchill's rant was rude and disrespectful, as was Serrano's art piece, as were these cartoons. But at least from some perspective, all had "value"--in the sense that iconoclasm has some value because it challenges what society holds most dear. At the end of the day, in a society that values free speech, we must accept the chaff with the wheat.

But that is just the point isn't it - there is a philosophical dilemma here. Are not those who are attacking the sacred cow of free speech also iconoclasts?

I do not agree with sacred cows personally (religious or secular) but what happens if free speech itself becomes one?

It's a postmodern dilemma that many people fail to appreciate - which is dangerous because it lies right at the heart of everything we are currently experiencing n relation to extremism, responses to it and the WOT.

There is no question that the Muslims are over-reacting. If they are going to properly integrate with the rest of the world, then they are going to have to learn deal with things like this - they are way to damn sensitive. But that is going to happen when you have ultra religious people living under oppressive rule.

I was merely pointing out that the assertion "this only happens to Muslims" is absolutely false. And saying that these cartoons should not be published is no different than saying that Ward Churchill's and Andres Serrano's works should not be published.

Muslims are NOT being singled out here. Everybody takes some from time to time.

Utterly SHOCKED at this.

How the HELL is cartooning about 9-11 blasphemy? It is not. The issue at hand with Mohhammed is blasphemy. How can a non-believer commit blaphemy? By virtue of being a non-believer, there is no blasphemy.


Free speech is limited only by human physical harm. If speech threatens the life of a person it can and should be restricted. If speech is false it can and should be corrected.

Having said that? Is it posssible that Mohhammed encouraged violence?

Yes he did. When his offer of conversion was rejected he went to war against those who rejected the offer. Therefore it is historically accurate to depict Mohammed as someone who advocated violence. That the cartoon had a bomb rather than a sword is immaterial, it's assertion about Islam, Mohammed and violence is accurate. Therefore there is no satire, there is no defamation. There is a cartoon hinting at historical fact. That some in Islam are either ignorant of these facts is not the fault of Denmark it is the fault of the Ayatollah's, Imams and the press of Muslim countries.

Where is the public discussion of this? Why is every fucking body so flippin' shook?

Where was the outrage when Van Gough was executed? HUh? Where da fuck were these defenders of Islam? Did they hunt these men down? Did they offer their apologies to the people of Denmark? Did they crack down on the organizations who sponsors the thought that lead to his killing? Did they remove thier embassies from the country where the man came from?

When the Buddah's were destroyed Where was the outrage? When did the Islamic countries remove thier embasies. Where were the Jifadist to defend the faith from these people who violated the supposed respect for other faiths? No where.

As an African that is not a Muslim or Christain I am insulted DAILY by both parties who could care less about my religion. I am repeatedly called heathen, pagan KAfir and all other BULLSHIT from both these camps. Yet and still I support 100% their right to opin on my beliefs because the same rules and laws that protects their speech protects my right to opin on thiers. So by protecting the rights of those who offend me, I protect my own. When I fail to protect the rights of those I oppose, then I fail to protect my own.

It is not about blasphemy. No Muslim who ever lived would say it is.

Blasphemy applies only to Allah. To claim blasphemy in relation to Muhammad would be blasphemous itself.


No-pne is calling for any sort of ban. this is not about free speech. It is about people abusing their own free speech to abuse other's.

This could also lead to physical harm. Of Muslims and non Muslims.


No. Muhammad did not encourage violence. Muhammad engaged in war.

For your argument to be valid you must also condemn every other human who ever engaged in war also - every religious figure, every leader, every State, every President, every King, every General that ever lived.


So what? Are you a pacifist?


Wrong. If you think that war = terrorism then you are in a minority. The cartoon specifically referenced terrorism. if it was about war then why single out Muslims? Why not have Bush and Blair there also?

In your argument they also "encourage violence".

Maybe you want to use special pleading - anyone can do that though and we are back at square one: ie your argument does not hold water.


Good question. Let's discuss why the cartoons were published - in order to provoke or not?


Why would they? Van Gogh spent his working life engaging in the sort of vilification of Islam that would make these cartoons look like Holy Scripture.

Not saying that justifies it - it doesn't - but you asked where the condemnation was and I'm telling you why it wasn't there.


I remember that well. I was personally part of mass protests and debates against the Taleban at that time.


True - but you should not have to put up with that BS - if it is the result of Free Speech then there is a problem. Free Speech is a great ideal but maybe some people are not mature enough not to abuse it. Your abusers would be one and the cartoonists (imo) another.

Neither - it's political commentary. Perhaps it is stinging because there is an element of truth to it.

<I>It is not about blasphemy. No Muslim who ever lived would say it is.

Blasphemy applies only to Allah. To claim blasphemy in relation to Muhammad would be blasphemous itself.</I>


Well then there are a whole mess of blasphemous Muslims out there since some have said just that.

<i> \t New Post posted 02-03-2006 10:53 PM Click Here to See the Profile for segovius Click here to Send segovius a Private Message Visit segovius's homepage! Find more posts by segovius Add segovius to your buddy list \t Edit/Delete Message Reply w/Quote

quote:Originally posted by Sondjata How the HELL is cartooning about 9-11 blasphemy? It is not. The issue at hand with Mohhammed is blasphemy. How can a non-believer commit blaphemy? By virtue of being a non-believer, there is no blasphemy.



It is not about blasphemy. No Muslim who ever lived would say it is.

Blasphemy applies only to Allah. To claim blasphemy in relation to Muhammad would be blasphemous itself.

quote:Free speech is limited only by human physical harm. If speech threatens the life of a person it can and should be restricted. If speech is false it can and should be corrected.



No-pne is calling for any sort of ban. this is not about free speech. It is about people abusing their own free speech to abuse other's.

This could also lead to physical harm. Of Muslims and non Muslims.</i>

Yes, People are calling for a ban on Danish products etc.
Yes this is about free speech since critique of a religion or religious figures or even the very existance of God is free speech and the abridgement of speech about religion and religious figures is an abridgment of free speech.

<i>No. Muhammad did not encourage violence. Muhammad engaged in war.

For your argument to be valid you must also condemn every other human who ever engaged in war also - every religious figure, every leader, every State, every President, every King, every General that ever lived.</I>

It is poor logic to say Mohammed didn't encourage violence. By definition, if one exhorts war then one encourages violence. You semantics do not preclude that.

I can condemn any religious figure who has waged war on behalf of thier race, ethnic group or religion. There is no conflict here. I say cartoon and critique each and every one of them!

<I>
So what? Are you a pacifist?</i>

What da hell does it matter. Either Mohammed engaged in killing or he did not. If he did, then it is not insulting to draw a cartoon depicting such. THAT is the point, not my person position on violence. can we say irrelevant RED herring?

<i>Wrong. If you think that war = terrorism then you are in a minority. The cartoon specifically referenced terrorism. if it was about war then why single out Muslims? Why not have Bush and Blair there also?

In your argument they also "encourage violence".

Maybe you want to use special pleading - anyone can do that though and we are back at square one: ie your argument does not hold water.
</i>

Sheeeet what planet have you been on? There have been many many many cartoons satyrising and characaturing Bush and Blair. In fact I support all of it. I want more of it!
This isn't about singling out Muslims as some special group. this was about a country where a man was executed for questioning women's roles in Arab/Muslim countries and the chilling effect it had on people in his country. Secondly 1 cartoon specified terrorism ( there are no more virgins) one. Indeed the people who do kill in the name of Islam do so with the promise of paradise with virgins. Mohammed himself and his immediate followers made the same promise. Therefore it is proper to make such a cartoon if it is to throw light on this issue.

<I>
Good question. Let's discuss why the cartoons were published - in order to provoke or not?</I>

Yes sir they are there to provoke...thought and discussion. Instead many ignorant people aren't thinking and discussing they are threatening and kidnapping!

<i>
Why would they? Van Gogh spent his working life engaging in the sort of vilification of Islam that would make these cartoons look like Holy Scripture.

Not saying that justifies it - it doesn't - but you asked where the condemnation was and I'm telling you why it wasn't there.</i>

See! that's exactly the problem. YOU think that he villified Islam. That's your opinion. The Women he involved in the project certainly did not think so. There are millions of Muslim Women who do not think so. What makes your opinion of the matter fact? That is EXACTLY why freedom of speech, even uncomfortable speech should be protected.

<I> quote:When the Buddah's were destroyed Where was the outrage? When did the Islamic countries remove thier embasies. Where were the Jifadist to defend the faith from these people who violated the supposed respect for other faiths? No where.



I remember that well. I was personally part of mass protests and debates against the Taleban at that time.
</i>

Are you claiming that the Countries of Arabia, Libya and Egypt actually closed their embassies? They defended the Buddahs with thier militaries? Who the hell you think you are fooling?

<i>rue - but you should not have to put up with that BS - if it is the result of Free Speech then there is a problem. Free Speech is a great ideal but maybe some people are not mature enough not to abuse it. Your abusers would be one and the cartoonists (imo) another.</i>

No the speech is a result of ignorance and in some cases fully informed religious bigotry. I oppose the bigotry and support the speech. A part of the maturity involved with having free speech is that sometimes, you have to be mature enough to tolerate speech you don't like.

Let me be perfectly clear. I support the right of the KKK to publish newspapers with whatever bullshit they want to write about black people. Heck they can draw black people as monkeys for all I care.

I am 100% opposed to campus speech codes.

I support and oppose these things because they stiffles the ability to expose and logically confront the ideas. When we are able to do so, we can destroy those ideas just as we destroyed the idea that the world was flat.

Political commentary on an entire religion (as represented by its Prophet) ? That's rich.


Or perhaps because it is offensive. Ever thought of that possibility?

Gene Clean--

Did you support the creation and display of the artwork "Piss Christ," when the religious right was outraged about it? If so, how do you distinguish the two situations?

Never heard of it.

It was an artwork, by a National Endowment for the Arts-sponsored artist, which consisted of a photograph of a crucifix dunked into a vat of the artist's urine. It was publicly displayed in 1989, and Senators Al D'Amato and Jesse Helms went nuts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

It is not commentary. A commentary is a structured argument - cartoons reduce things to caricature and stereotype by definition.

Hence their use in all demonizing situations: Nazi Germany for example.

Also there is no element of truth to it. If the cartoon had shown OBL there would have been an element of truth.

Here, let me make it simpler for you: we are back in the days of the IRA bombing campaigns and a terrorist attack has just occurred by the Catholic para-militaries.

A cartoon is published showing Jesus holding a bomb and instructing Republican bombers on how to use it to kill civilians.

Is there an element of truth?

I have heard none say it. I have heard the media say they say it but they say a lot of wrong things - like the ban on images which doesn't exist yet they keep repeating.

If you have a quote of a Muslim actually saying it then I'd be interested. It's not impossible. Muslims are human and some are as ill-informed/un-educated as anyone else.

Blasphemy is not the reason.


The two are not the same. People boycotting Danish products. And that is their right under 'free speech' surely.

If it is wrong then will you condemn the boycott of French goods in the US at the time of the Iraq build-up?


Ok. Let's accept that for argument's sake.

Muhammad is therefore on the same level as Bush, Blair and every historical leader ever (unless you know of a pacifist one).

If you condemn him you condemn them equally. If you exonerate them you exonerate him.

Not semantics. It's called a level playing field. Some even call it objectivity.


You can condemn who you like. You don't even have to be rational - you have those rights and no-one can take them away.

Just don't start trying to persuade people you are correct or know 'the truth' or you will become what you despise.


Because if you are not then your argument is hypocritical and quite possibly biased.


I can say it and I certainly will when it applies.

If to you all killing is equal then you need some lessons in elementary thought.

Your argument is, as far as it is understandable, that Muhammad killed people so the cartoon depicting him as a terrorist is true.

Therefore All killers are terrorists.

We could extrapolate to people who kill abusive husbands, people who kill while defending their property, people who kill in war, people who kill as part of a judicial process.

Let's make cartoons with all their faces superimposed and then you have a coherent argument. At the moment you do not because you would not apply it to those people although they also kill.

So your statement "either x killed or he did not' does not apply to them. In fact it only applies to Muhammad. I'm starting to see the big picture here.


Muhammad made no such promise. Quote or Qur'anic verse please.

Educate yourself.


Then they have failed - we are discussing but then that's what we do here regardless.

The people who are extremists are busy being extremists and they don't do discussion.


I know he did. I was familiar with his work for a long time before the incident. Btw - there is very much more to it than you have been told. It's not just Islam - he was messing about on a lot of things people didn't want messed with.

What makes my opinion fact? Because it is. Here's the reason. The women were right - they were abused. By an Islamic sect that is one of the foremost human-rights abusers in the world today if not the worst. it is very powerful and supported by the US but that's another story.

This sect has spread throughout the Islamic world but it is not Islam. it is a sect and it is contradictory to Islam. Granted, people think it IS Islam and they are justified in this because that is the sect's propaganda.

However, when someone points this out then they are no longer justified. They should amend their view.

You see, I would agree with all you say - and all Van Gogh said - if you said 'Wahabis' instead of 'Islam'. But you don't. You claim - as this cartoon claimed - that ISlam is the problem.

Now I - and millions of moderate Muslims - say (truthfully) that Wahabism is the problem. So we will continue to fight (figuratively) the Wahabis. And we will continue to fight (figuratively) you and the Van Gogh's because what you say is not true.

Why you say I don't know. Perhaps you are just ill-informed. Van Gogh said what he did because he was a racist and an Islamophobe. Did you know he was working on an anti-semitic film about Jews when he died?

So the Wahabis and the Salafis are the problem. If you want to argue against this it is very simple: find an example of an Islamic terror attack not carried out by people of this sect.


No. What are you talking about?


Nice idea. Glad you support my right to say I don't agree.


And when those people start getting more support through their publications and they start killing people when they reach critical mass because they've worked each other up enough - I won't forget to thank you.


Good for you. Don't know what they are or what you''re talking about but I'm sure you are a pretty decent guy so it's probably ok.


Again good for you - look, this isn't about free speech from a Muslim perspective. Now you can say it is from yours - fine. But at some point you have to understand your enemy or you will lose..

I'm not pushing any point or calling for any action - I'm just trying to tell you how it is on the other side of the fence from you. You keep saying how it is on your side and I know that. you may even be right. You don;t have to move over to the other side of the fence but you should at least know for sure what's there. You have some misconceptions, that's all I'm saying.

If course you are free to keep them. It's no problem.

I don't want to get pedantic but this is a serious issue in Islam. Do you have a quote by a religious scholar or Jurist that states this?

Or is it merely the 'stated reason' of the media? This I do not doubt.

I don't know who those Imams are - maybe they are literalists, maybe not. In a sense it is irrelevant.

It is true in a sense that religion is fluid and as I say, Islam is more fluid than most. Unfortunately there is a reaction within against this 'fluidity' - these are the extremists who want to make it 'rigid'.

And this is the basis of the only point I am ever making on this issue: do we contribute towards 'rigidity' or 'fluidity'?

In a sense it is the WOT played out on the theological and metaphysical level. You are not a Muslim so it is probably of little concern to you - but you must realize it is of utmost importance to non-extremist Muslims. It is their way of combatting those hijacking the religion.

So I say that these cartoons - and more importantly, the rigid interpretations of them such as 'blasphemy' and 'bans on 'images' - lend support to the rigidity.

The history of Islam is a history of tolerance. A history of artistic and scientific endeavour. And we should tell the truth of that.

Put it another way. When it comes to a comparison of 1500 years of paintings of Muhammad - who do you believe: the thousands of paintings you can see with your own eyes or the Imam who says they are banned?

Who do you believe - the Muslims who respected the Bamiyan Buddhas for 1500 years or the Taleban who blew them up 1500 years later?

Who do you believe - Muhammad who formed the doctrines of what is blasphemy and what is not or some 21st century Imam living in an age of extremism and deterioration?

Maybe so. The offended Muslims see it as an issue about Islam though.

If these things are not addressed they will increase. They are increasing actually - and that means more problems, riots and deaths.

I am merely outlining a possible way of dealing with the problem. Educate non-Muslims and ill-informed Muslims about what Islam really is. Then you will have a united front to challenge the extremists who will be seen to be what they are: non-Islamic.

The alternative is to keep creating division and accept the consequences.