I'm suprised that I haven't seen a topic about this yet.
Does anyone think that it was justifiable to fire the editor of the France Soir newspaper for running the cartoons? Should the Danish have apologized after running the cartoons?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think the Danish should've said, "We don't approve of this message, but it is in our laws that private individuals have a large amount of freedom of speech and press."
But since they're apparently running a "be rude to Muslims" government right now, starring such things as banning burkas period, I doubt that's forthcoming.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I hadn't heard the "banning burkas" story. What prompted that?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I think France banned burkas in schools?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
France banned headscarves (and other religious clothing) in schools; Denmark considered banning the burka and may still be considering it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What prompted it was the death of a Dutch film-maker, more than anything.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Darnit, that's an old story...I heard an update on it on NPR last night that said it was still being considered...let me find something more recent.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's the most recent thing from a little over two weeks ago. I guess I could've imagined it, but I could've sworn I heard about it again on NPR last night-but when I searched npr.org, I turned up nothing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does anyone think that it was justifiable to fire the editor of the France Soir newspaper for running the cartoons? Should the Danish have apologized after running the cartoons?
He should absolutely have been fired, since his stated reason for running the cartoons was to offend an audience.
But the Danish should not have apologized.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the Danish newspaper should apologize.
Not the Danish as a people.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Don't they have freedom of the press? If so, the newspaper shouldn't have to apologize or fire the editor. The newspaper can apologize if they want, and can certainly fire who they want to, but editorial cartoons usually offend somebody.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The Danish newspaper apologized for causing offence.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't recall anyone saying the newspaper should be forced to apologize.
People get their "freedom of the press-speech" danders up in a hurry, man. It's pretty irritating. Freedom of the press and speech does not mean you get to say anything you want anytime and eveyrone else has to shut up about it.
Yes, editorial cartoons usually offend someone. But when the cartoon is saying, "Muslims are terrorists, Mohammed was a terrorist, and we're going to publish this image knowing it'll piss off Muslims and accomplish nothing else," well, that's asserting a right that was never truly under threat.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I find it a little interesting how Hatrack has divided in unusual ways over this. In discussions on various hate-speech laws in Europe, the Americans are usually all over the free speech issue, while Europeans tend to defend the laws as being against persecution. On this issue it's almost the opposite : The Americans are saying 'Free speech doesn't mean consequence-free speech', while the Europeans are saying 'The Muslims cannot dictate what we are allowed to say.'
(I oversimplify, sure. But I think the difference is marked enough to be worth commenting on.)
Anyway. Never mind freedom of speech; even if Denmark did have a state that intervenes in the press, sovereignty means that other nations do not get to dictate or censor the contents of Danish (or French) newspapers. That's what Denmark (and France) has an army for. If the Moslems don't like it, let them declare war again. Europe thrashed them quite soundly last time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the Europeans are saying 'The Muslims cannot dictate what we are allowed to say.'
That's because -- and I realize that I'm generalizing here, but YMMV -- Europeans in general think "free" means "free of consequences." They don't seem to get the idea of natural consequences resulting from actions which they're still legally entitled to do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think you're misstating what the "usual Hatrack position" is on hate-speech laws in Europe.
Yes, obviously Arabic government do not get to dictate the contents of another nation's newspapers. Expressing outrage and demanding they retract it is permissible, of course.
People "demand" this sort of thing all the time. It's not an imposition on free speech unless the demanding party has a gun to the head of the publisher, or some other form of direct coercion.
You'll have to refresh my memory: when was the last time Europe went to war against the Arabic world, and who thrashed who, exactly? The only continent or region Europe as a whole (as if there could be such a thing) has successfully "thrashed" lately has been itself and the New World.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I am referring to the various partitions of the Ottoman Empire, the Crusades before that, and the Reconquista before that again.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The Reconquista is a curious example of Europe 'thrashing' the Arabic world...since the Arabic world managed to get a foothold in the Iberian peninsula in the first place, it rather seems like it's a balance.
The Crusades were by no means a European "thrashing" of the Arabic world. After three or up to ten or so, depending on which ones you count, Europe was still Europe, and the Middle East was seperate.
The fall of the Ottoman Empire is your best example but even that isn't very compelling, for a variety of reasons. It stagnated from within as all empires eventually do. Definitely not a European thrashing there. When it was finally dissolved, Arabs actually helped fight against it.
Really, all you've got to support your "thrashing" claim-an amusing bit of chest-thumping nationalism, coming from you, really-is the time period in which Europe was taking bits and pieces of the Ottoman Empire-helped by Arabs.
And if that equals a thrashing, well then, the USA sure kicked the collective ass of Europe when it was just thirteen wee little colonies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Danish newspaper apologized for causing offence.
That was the right thing to do.
Just in case it's not clear, I am absolutely against the idea they should be forced to apologize.
quote:I find it a little interesting how Hatrack has divided in unusual ways over this. In discussions on various hate-speech laws in Europe, the Americans are usually all over the free speech issue, while Europeans tend to defend the laws as being against persecution. On this issue it's almost the opposite : The Americans are saying 'Free speech doesn't mean consequence-free speech', while the Europeans are saying 'The Muslims cannot dictate what we are allowed to say.'
Rakeesh pretty much covered this, but the "usual" Hatrack position - something that really doesn't exist - is usually strongly [edit: against] government restrictions on speech. There's a difference of opinion on how certain non-government entities can penalize speech, with employers getting the least leeway to penalize speech and individuals getting the most. And almost no one seems to think that such penalties can exceed the bounds of legal conduct.
Thinking the paper should apologize while also thinking the governments involved should not penalize the papers is absolutely consistent with whatever could be termed "the usual Hatrack position."
[ February 02, 2006, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Having looked at the cartoons, a couple of them are in incredibly poor taste. It's worth noting, however, that at least one of them is also funny. There may or may not be overlap between the two categories, depending on your sense of humour.
That doesn't mean that the papers can't print them, of course, but this is certainly emblematic of the backlash against Muslim immigrantion in parts of Europe. I think that's what this is really about.
Also, while I understand why many Muslims are offended, I think the responses from the Saudi Arabian, Lybian, and Syrian governments in particular are very hypocritical considering how Jews (for example) are frequently and egregiously misrepresented and mischaracterized in those countries by domestic media outlets.
Added: Dagonee, I don't agree with your summary of the "usual" Hatrack position on freedom of speech, insofar as there is one, but I do agree with your last paragraph.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:That doesn't mean that the papers can't print them, of course, but this is certainly emblematic of the backlash against Muslim immigrantion in parts of Europe. I think that's what this is really about.
Also, while I understand why many Muslims are offended, I think the responses from the Saudi Arabian, Lybian, and Syrian governments in particular are very hypocritical considering how Jews (for example) are frequently and egregiously misrepresented and mischaracterized in those countries by domestic media outlets.
Very well put.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, while I understand why many Muslims are offended, I think the responses from the Saudi Arabian, Lybian, and Syrian governments in particular are very hypocritical considering how Jews (for example) are frequently and egregiously misrepresented and mischaracterized in those countries by domestic media outlets.
I agree.
quote: Dagonee, I don't agree with your summary of the "usual" Hatrack position on freedom of speech, insofar as there is one, but I do agree with your last paragraph.
Which is why I don't think there really is one. I certainly wouldn't agree that it's anything much different from what I stated. And I can't say you're wrong for thinking it's something else.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:In Beirut, the leader of Lebanon’s Shiite Hizbollah said the dispute would never had occurred if a 17-year-old death edict against British writer Salman Rushdie been carried out.
“Had a Muslim carried out Imam Khomeini’s fatwa against the apostate Salman Rushdie, then those low-lifers would not have dared discredit the Prophet, not in Denmark, Norway or France,” Hizbollah head Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Wednesday night.
Nice.
Suddenly, a lot of my sympathy is vanishing.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Ouch. But, one person's opinion, who managed to get himself quoted. Imagine if someone interviewed KoM and published his opinions as representative of Hatrackers. (No offense, KoM, but you've got to agree that you're not exactly an "average" member of this forum. )
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And I can't say you're wrong for thinking it's something else.
That's exactly why I left my own opinion out -- I didn't want to start a discussion on what the "usual" opinion when we both agree that there isn't one. I wanted to comment on your post, but I didn't want an endorsement of one part to be taken as an endorsement of the whole thing.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
There's nothing wrong with speech that sets out to offend. Indeed, it's almost impossible to find speech that doesn't do that. Just by taking a particular stance on a topic, for many people, this is setting out to offend them (i.e., Jesus is not divine/stupid. Christianity is idiotic. Fat people are ugly, etc.) If you don't like someone's offensive speech, ignore them or respond to them with your own speech. Speech should be met with speech.
Forcing the firing of someone because of what they have said, boycotting a company for employing someone for their speech, while certainly legal, isn't appropriate in most instances, I think.
Saying that speech means consequenses ignores the question of whether firing this editor is appropriate in this instance. The article given in the link in the beginning post isn't clear as to why the editor was fired. Was he fired because the newspaper feared for the safety of its people? Was he fired because the newspaper feared for its bottom line? Was he fired because the newspaper higher-ups had an attack of conscience or taste? We don't know, so it's hard to say.
But let's look at the idea that speech, behavior, has consequences. If I do or say something, a consequence of that is that others can speak out in support or denial of what I've done. Sometimes people act on what I have said. However, if I take away their ability to respond, then I have at least taken away their ability to speak with the same power that I have. If I threaten them with harm if they say certain things, then I am trying to keep the ability to speak all to myself. I don't think that it would be right for me to do this because part of speaking is being able to not only speak, but for everyone to have the opportunity to speak on the same venues.
Let's look at it in this way: if no one can respond to what I've just written on Hatrack with their own posts, or are so afraid to do so that they might as well not be able to, then is free speech being honored in its most useful sense? I don't think so. Sure, we can say that people can respond in their homes, to their friends, whatever, but they can't respond where they really need to respond, on Hatrack. They do not have the same opportunity for free speech that I do. This is what I mean by opportunity for speech, not, as some have said in the past, some kind of government subsidy program.
All that I have said just now, I've said before. I regard people who engage in boycotts and threats to shut down just speech as little more than mafia thugs, certainly little better than those who threatened to kill Rushdie for what he had written.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
Since it's not clear if the distinction is appreciated by everyone in this thread: the Danish paper that first printed the cartoons apologised for causing offence; one French paper that were among the many European publications that reprinted the cartoons, fired its editor.
As for my opinion, while the publication of the cartoons was in poor taste and the apology well deserved, the over-the-top reaction from certain elements in the muslim society has done far more to discredit muslims and the muslim faith than the cartoons could ever have done if they had been allowed to remain uncommented.
Also, the offense I consider legitimate is that which stems from equating Islam with terrorism etc.; the idea that Islam may impose its restriction to depict religious figures on a secular society is not acceptable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Forcing the firing of someone because of what they have said, boycotting a company for employing someone for their speech, while certainly legal, isn't appropriate in most instances, I think.
Whereas I disagree. Boycotting companies and firing people for their speech are precisely how standards are maintained in a free society.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It's worth noting that the French newspaper was not forced to fire anyone. The owner, apparently, is a Muslim. I do have to say, that's not suppressing freedom of speech, that is a just and reasonable punishment for stupidity.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
*blink* Yeah. As much as you might want to say about editorial autonamy, that doesn't seem real bright.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: It's worth noting that the French newspaper was not forced to fire anyone.
May I ask how you know this? It doesn't seem to be clear in the article posted.
........
By the way, I think this debate is something of a dead horse. I'm just re-inserting my two cents because the 'other side' did. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Wait a second. KoM, are you saying that the editor of the French newspaper should've known better than to print the cartoons in a newspaper owned by a Muslim?
Posted by St. Yogi (Member # 5974) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Wait a second. KoM, are you saying that the editor of the French newspaper should've known better than to print the cartoons in a newspaper owned by a Muslim?
Just like I know better than to go up to the owner of the company where I work and give him the finger, then go home to his family and give them the finger, then go around to all the people who are members of the same religion as him and flip them off, and then finally go back to the owner and tell him that it's just free speech.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think he's saying the editor should've known better than to print a "Muslims are terrorists" cartoon in a newspaper owned by a Muslim.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I regard people who engage in boycotts and threats to shut down just speech as little more than mafia thugs, certainly little better than those who threatened to kill Rushdie for what he had written.
Whereas I regard people who equate exercise of consumer choice based on the views of those doing the selling to the mafia to be either willfully blind or unaware of what it is the mafia does.
A boycott is speech. It's convincing people not to buy something, for whatever reason.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: It's worth noting that the French newspaper was not forced to fire anyone.
May I ask how you know this? It doesn't seem to be clear in the article posted.
Um, I read it on teh Intarwebs. One moment and I'll see if I can find a link.
OK, here we go. Good old Beeb. However, I may have spoken hastily : It doesn't say that the owner is a Moslem, it says he is a 'French Egyptian'. It seems a reasonable inference, though.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Regarding it being stupid of the editor for publishing the cartoons because the owner is, purportedly, Muslim. I understand what everyone is saying. It's a basic tenet of human nature to want to protect what we hold sacred from criticism or slander or insult. On top of this, it's important to acknowledge that private enterprises are private and that he who has the gold makes the rules.
On the other hand, I think that the owner was not in the right for firing the editor for (I would assume) allowing the cartoons. A better response on his part would've been to set up some kind of dialogue in the newspaper where the other side got a chance at its point of view.
Further, I think a newspaper serves a social function in giving ideas a place to be discussed and aired. Just like it would be possible, as a support of property rights, to say that someone who owned a fire department could only put out the fires of Christians/Black People/Communists, whatever, I think it is possible to also recognize that it would be better, socially, if the owner just put out fires for everyone, regardless of who they were, regardless of his personal prejudices.
quote: A boycott is speech. It's convincing people not to buy something, for whatever reason.
For reasons that I've outlined in the past, and in this thread, I disagree that this is the best course of action in many instances. I certainly don't think it is the best course of action in this instance.
For what it's worth, I recognize that my statement you quoted is inflammatory, and that I should've phrased it better.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Just like it would be possible, as a support of property rights, to say that someone who owned a fire department could only put out the fires of Christians/Black People/Communists, whatever, I think it is possible to also recognize that it would be better, socially, if the owner just put out fires for everyone, regardless of who they were, regardless of his personal prejudices.
This is why we no longer have many private fire departments.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:In Beirut, the leader of Lebanon’s Shiite Hizbollah said the dispute would never had occurred if a 17-year-old death edict against British writer Salman Rushdie been carried out.
“Had a Muslim carried out Imam Khomeini’s fatwa against the apostate Salman Rushdie, then those low-lifers would not have dared discredit the Prophet, not in Denmark, Norway or France,” Hizbollah head Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said on Wednesday night.
Nice.
Suddenly, a lot of my sympathy is vanishing.
Heh. I'd add that if Jews did things the Muslim way, Woody Allen would have been killed a long time ago. Sheesh. If someone writes something offensive, just don't read it. Implying that the offender should be killed? That's just creepy.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Further, I think a newspaper serves a social function in giving ideas a place to be discussed and aired. Just like it would be possible, as a support of property rights, to say that someone who owned a fire department could only put out the fires of Christians/Black People/Communists, whatever, I think it is possible to also recognize that it would be better, socially, if the owner just put out fires for everyone, regardless of who they were, regardless of his personal prejudices.
And for precisely such reasons, fire departments are generally speaking not privately owned. A newspaper, on the other hand, however useful they may be, does not serve a life-saving function. Hence private ownership, and therewith private censorship, if the owner so desires.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
There's nothing that says that fire departments have to be socially owned, just as there are plenty of countries where papers aren't privately owned, edit: or can't write certain things because of government censorship.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Also, if you read what I wrote, I never said that the owner can't censor whatever he wants. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For reasons that I've outlined in the past, and in this thread, I disagree that this is the best course of action in many instances.
I do, too.
The difference between our positions is that I think particular speech is not the best course of action in many instances. And publishing these cartoons is one of these instances.
quote:For what it's worth, I recognize that my statement you quoted is inflammatory, and that I should've phrased it better.
I appreciate this.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I understand, Dagonee.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
By the way, KoM, if you edit, it's generally polite to note when you edit. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Eh? I didn't edit nuffink!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh. Pardon. Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
quote:Whereas I disagree. Boycotting companies and firing people for their speech are precisely how standards are maintained in a free society.
Ah, but is it right to boycott a company because it is the same nationality as the newspaper that you are trying to preassure for an apology? I agree that boycotts are a legitimate means of expressing displeasure, but the objects of their displeasure are the press organs that published the cartoons, not a food company from the same country that has no known connections to those press organs. The only way that I can interpret that is as pressure on the Danes to censure the paper(s) in question. Also, don't forget that Syria and Saudi Arabia have recalled their ambassadors from Denmark. This action also speaks to an attempt to coerce the Danish government into censoring the paper.
I have no problem with the owner of a private newspaper firing its editor over this decision, unless he was aware of the decision before the paper was printed and either did nothing to stop it or changed his mind later.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ah, but is it right to boycott a company because it is the same nationality as the newspaper that you are trying to preassure for an apology?
I think it's a right in the same sense all speech is a right. But I don't think it's right to do so.
(Note: It might be right to boycott advertisers in the newspaper. The purpose of newspaper advertisement is to encourage people to buy the product based at least in part on the affinity of the readers for the newspaper's speech, so a company doing so might be said to be assuming the risk of discouraging people by advertising based on disaffinity.)
Posted by DavidR (Member # 7473) on :
Yes, but coupled with the pulling of ambassadors and other diplomatic preassures being applied, it suggests that the objective of the exercise is to strike a blow against freedom of expression by coercing the Danish government into censoring the newspaper. I hope that I am wrong, but that is the way it looks to me.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I made note of it earlier in the thread, David, and I agree with you.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:es, but coupled with the pulling of ambassadors and other diplomatic preassures being applied,
Yes, that is a different situation, but not one that changes the rightness of the boycott.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't recall anyone saying the newspaper should be forced to apologize.
People get their "freedom of the press-speech" danders up in a hurry, man. It's pretty irritating. Freedom of the press and speech does not mean you get to say anything you want anytime and eveyrone else has to shut up about it.
Yes, editorial cartoons usually offend someone. But when the cartoon is saying, "Muslims are terrorists, Mohammed was a terrorist, and we're going to publish this image knowing it'll piss off Muslims and accomplish nothing else," well, that's asserting a right that was never truly under threat.
No, freedom of the press and speech means you get to say anything you want anytime and everyone else can say something back.
"The cartoons include an image of Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse, and another portraying him holding a sword, his eyes covered by a black rectangle." Gee, that would almost seem to be commenting that Muslims...are...committing...terrorism.
Yes, it's racist. Yes, it's stupid beyond belief to portray an entire religion based on a few extremists. But it's relevant (if wrong, imho) to world affairs -- and looking at the wide-ranging calls for death, damn, I'm finding it harder and harder to disagree with the cartoonist. Gunmen? Over a cartoon?
Not to play the usual I-have-a-black-friend card, but one of my closest friends is a Sunni Muslim from Mozambique, and a cultured gentleman like no other. He'd probably be offended by the cartoon, and almost certainly label the cartoonist and publishing editor morons, but I know he'd find more shame in the Muslim reaction. The magazine has every right to publish material, even if some find it offensive to their religion. Muslim extremists have no right to threaten lives.
This is a sickening backlash. Lisa has it right -- lord knows there are enough Jewish jokes running around in the world, and if Israel called for the murder of critics of Judaism, can you imagine the international backlash? I'm not quite racist enough to think poor backward Muslims deserve more slack.
Just. Damn.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:No, freedom of the press and speech means you get to say anything you want anytime and everyone else can say something back.
No it doesn't. There are laws against inciting a riot, inciting a hate crime, inciting a murder.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Muslim extremists have no right to threaten lives.
Of course they don't have that right. But, the bad behavior of aligned interests cannot make an otherwise moral exercise of free speech immoral.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:No, freedom of the press and speech means you get to say anything you want anytime and everyone else can say something back.
No it doesn't. There are laws against inciting a riot, inciting a hate crime, inciting a murder.
It's oversimplified, obviously, but it's meant as a direct response to Jeff's "Freedom of the press and speech does not mean you get to say anything you want anytime and eveyrone else has to shut up about it."
Also, if you want to get semantical, freedom of speech does mean you can say whatever you want. Restrictions on inciting violence is censorship on free speech, however reasonable one finds it. This isn't an argument I particularly want to pursue, but let's at least get our definitions right.
quote:
quote:quote:Muslim extremists have no right to threaten lives.
Of course they don't have that right. But, the bad behavior of aligned interests cannot make an otherwise moral exercise of free speech immoral.
I'm not nearly advanced enough a creature to understand that sentence, but if I'm interpreting it correctly... yes. Isn't that what I just said?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It means that the fact that some extremist puts out a death threat against the cartoonist doesn't suddenly make the publication of the cartoon moral or right.
The fact that there are muslims that overreact to a cartoon doesn't change my view of the world or generate any concerns that didn't already exist. I've known this since at least '89, and the reaction didn't surprise me at all.
It doesn't mean I excuse it. It means I don't spend energy condemning it. Mainly because there's no intellectual debate here about whether the death threats are acceptable. There not. Everyone agrees.
The fact that some people are trying to use this overreaction to further marginalize religious speech does raise concerns that I need to pay more attention to.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
That depends on whether or not you believe death threats qualify as religious speech.
The cartoon's stupid and racist, but also fairly relevant to global affairs -- the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim, and a cartoon that points the fact out is hardly committing a punishable offense, if a tactless and broad insult. Yes, it's stupid, nobody's debating that. In fact, we're reading different articles if you think the controversy's over the cartoon rather than the Muslim backlash.
My problem lies with intolerant fundamentalists decrying death to any who criticize their religion. This doesn't describe you, nor my Muslim friend, nor the vast majority of people in the world. I'd be (and often am) just as repulsed by Pat Robertson calling for God's vengeance on towns that don't bend to creationism -- this doesn't mean I'm trying to "further marginalize religious speech," it means I think Pat Robertson and these extremist Muslims are particularly vile examples of the dangers of religious fundamentalism which preys on critics and dissidents.
God, I'm disgusted.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If I ask myself which would be better, whether it would be better for those against, what, Muslims? to boycott products produced by Muslims/Syria/whatever, or would the best reaction in all of this be for both parties to have dialogue, isn't the answer clear?
Further, if it's o.k. to boycott products and people because you find the idea offensive, then is it o.k. to not hire people who do not agree with you as another kind of 'speech'? edit: In this instance, say, employers in Europe ask Muslims how they feel about the cartoons, and if they don't like the cartoons, then they don't hire them.
While boycotting is certainly legal, I don't understand how it really does much useful in this instance, since it replaces constructive dialogue with what seems to me to be the equivalent of throwing rocks at the opposite party.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That depends on whether or not you believe death threats qualify as religious speech.
No, I don't. Which is why I don't want the death threats to be used as a reason to restrict religious speech.
quote:this doesn't mean I'm trying to "further marginalize religious speech,"
I get that. Others are, though, and that's what I consider the part that needs discussion.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:That depends on whether or not you believe death threats qualify as religious speech.
No, I don't. Which is why I don't want the death threats to be used as a reason to restrict religious speech.
quote:this doesn't mean I'm trying to "further marginalize religious speech,"
I get that. Others are, though, and that's what I consider the part that needs discussion.
Perhaps you should elaborate on what religious speech is being marginalized, and who the "others" are who are trying to restrict it. I don't see that censorship has been a response to the fury over a cartoon -- if anything, Europe's re-affirming its (sadly tenuous history of) commitment to free speech.
Or am I missing something?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Perhaps you should elaborate on what religious speech is being marginalized, and who the "others" are who are trying to restrict it. I don't see that censorship has been a response to the fury over a cartoon -- if anything, Europe's re-affirming its (sadly tenuous history of) commitment to free speech.
Or am I missing something?
Probably. In one of these threads on the subject, there was a quote about how religious dogma has no place in a secular society.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Ouch.
So you feel that since somewhere, someone criticized religious dogma, outrage at the vicious counterattack launched by Muslim fundamentalists is an attempt to restrict religious speech? I don't follow.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Denmark is trying to ban burkas.
France has already restricted headscarves and religious clothing in schools.
Norway has jailed a preacher.
The statement by the French newspaper about religious dogma is part of a trend.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
quote:Norway has jailed a preacher.
Actually, that was Sweden. And he got free in the Appeals Court (and in the Supreme Court).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Ah yes, Sweden. Thanks.
[ February 03, 2006, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The French newspaper may have broken French law in printing the cartoons. I can certainly think of one of them in particular that might run afoul of those regulations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd be totally against criminal liability for those cartoons.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Are you saying that you don't think they broke the law, that you think the law is wrong, or both?
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I just can't believe how stupid any newspaper can be to print that. You just don't take one of the most important people in a major faith and degrade them like that. The fact that there are Muslim extremists is not a good enough reason. How would Catholics like it if the paper ran a cartoon of Jesus with little boys?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How would Catholics like it if the paper ran a cartoon of Jesus with little boys?
I bet they'd roll their eyes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you saying that you don't think they broke the law, that you think the law is wrong, or both?
The latter.
I didn't bother to evaluate whether they broke the law (would have required a lot more research).
Edit: To clarify, I don't oppose all those laws in that link. Just ones that could punish publishing a cartoon.
quote:How would Catholics like it if the paper ran a cartoon of Jesus with little boys?
Assuming it alluded to pedophilia, we'd hate it. Some would probably call for firing or boycotting.
Others might call for government punishment. They would be wrong to do so.
If it didn't make such an allusion, there wouldn't be a problem.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Stephan, the whole point of the exercise was to make a stand against the Islamic culure's fatwahs, death threats, and murders against those who offend them. A point lost on the Islamic extremists now ransacking hotels for Europeans to kidnap in protest.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Ah yes, Sweden. Thanks.
Look, Dag, it's very simple. Sweden is the big slow country on the right, full of people who 'talk... like... this'. Norway is the clever rich one on the left. Mix them up again and I'll start confusing Catholicism and Satanism in retaliation.
Besides, even the Swedes got there eventually and freed comrade Green.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Are you saying that you don't think they broke the law, that you think the law is wrong, or both?
The latter.
I didn't bother to evaluate whether they broke the law (would have required a lot more research).
Yeah, that's what I figured, but I wanted to make sure I was interpreting your post correctly.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Edit: To clarify, I don't oppose all those laws in that link. Just ones that could punish publishing a cartoon.
Okay.
I'm not sure if any suits have been filed or charges laid, I was just curious about the law in France and how free their press actually is in comparison to the Canadian press (we do have hate speech laws here) and the American press.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: Stephan, the whole point of the exercise was to make a stand against the Islamic culure's fatwahs, death threats, and murders against those who offend them. A point lost on the Islamic extremists now ransacking hotels for Europeans to kidnap in protest.
I'm not so sure that's the case, actually. As I said before, I think this is part of the European backlash against increasing Muslim (predominantly but not exclusively Arab) immigration.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
This issue certainly highlights the faults of the certain extremist parts of Islam and its contrast to the more tolerant believers. Consider this response:
quote:"Those who have published these caricatures must have their heads cut," exhorted the preacher at Gaza's main mosque.
Do you think that might be a bit of an overreaction? Then consider these views...
quote:In Teheran veteran revolutionary cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani condemned the European press, but urged the faithful to respond calmly.
"We need to put forward our calm and compassionate side, our gentleness. It is enough to look at the Koran," he said.
And in Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai said: "We are people who by the instructions of religion are bound to take the course of forgiveness ... we must have as Muslims the courage to forgive and not make it an issue of dispute between religions or cultures."
Influential Muslim intellectual Tariq Ramadan, who has a large following among young European Muslims, said the reaction in the Islamic world was "excessive" and that Muslims should take a more detached view.
"Muslims must absolutely learn to keep a critical distance. They have to get used to living in a global world. Their consciousness must be sufficiently robust to master their hurt feelings," he told AFP.
Truthfully, it would be nice if the more extreme could learn a lesson from this, but given how extreme religious conservatives and extreme liberals even in America tend to react to offense with a similar zeal, I think we may just have to come to expect that when people get offended, some will overreact.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: 'm not so sure that's the case, actually. As I said before, I think this is part of the European backlash against increasing Muslim (predominantly but not exclusively Arab) immigration.
I think that might influence it, but I largely agree with Morbo in this case. It seems to me that the cycle was that the Danes published it,there were threats, then other papers stood up for the Danish paper, so to speak.
I'm pretty sure there have been political cartoons with Jesus. Certainly in America and Britain, there have been comedy skits with Jesus. So, this isn't just the Muslims being picked on.
Thanks for the links, Tres. It's important to remember that there are reasonable Muslims out there.
[ February 03, 2006, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This is not an excuse for the reaction.
It is inaccurate to compare derogatory cartoons of Jesus etc. with cartoons of Mohammed. For Muslims, any picture of Mohammed, even a nice one, is considered blasphemy. The reaction is possibly as much about the fact that he was pictured at all as about how he was pictured. Just something to keep in mind.
This is not an excuse for the reaction.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm aware, Kate. I just don't necessarily see that the distinction between 'is offensive because of the way something is depicted' and 'is offensive just because it's offensive' is really that important in this case. In both instances, it's because the something being depicted is sacred to a certain group in society with the end result being that that group finds that depiction offensive.
On a different note, check out this article. I think it nicely sums up the positions in the debate. Makes you appreciate real journalism.
Posted by Dazgul (Member # 1070) on :
I agree that a picture of Christ and little boys isn't comparable. The context is very different. The problem is not the depiction of Allah in a cartoon in itself, but the fact that it is a symptom of what has become increasingly common, accepted anti-Muslim racism. These cartoons were published in major newspapers, not fringe extremist papers.
Can you imagine picking up the biggest papers in the US and seeing a cartoon of a caricatured black man with huge lips and mongoloid features breaking into a white man's house and upstairs a white man says to his wife, 'what do you think that is', 'just them niggers at it again.'
What would be the reaction be to that? Wouldn't people protest like crazy and wouldn't people get fired?
That's not even an equivalent because one has to consider the powderkeg context. A closer example would be if in the US, after the beating of Rodney King, the New York Times published a cartoon which celebrated a return to niggers being treated as they deserved.
An action like that might have provoked the riots even before the policemen involved were acquitted.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
It wasn't a cartoon of Allah, it was the prophet Mohammad, peace be upon him.
To revise your example, suppose blacks had a belief that pictures of their leaders should not be photographed or portrayed, and backed it up with death threats. Then after the Rodney King incident, a caricature of Dr. King appeared.
Would anyone be surprised at the turmoil that followed? No.
But that wouldn't mean the paper had neccesarily overstepped the bounds of discourse in a civilized society nor is it automatically racism. All of us do not have to accept the arbitrary rules of offense that some do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Can we dispense with the idea that anyone here is excusing any Muslim reaction beyond outrage and things like boycotting or angry messages from governments?
Obviously things like death threats, physical threats, physical intimidation, to say nothing of kidnappings, beatings, murders, and attacks on property are totally unacceptable reactions and I cannot imagine anyone on Hatrack seriously saying that such a response is acceptable in this situation-or almost any other, really.
But if Morbo is right-if this is a response by Danish newspapers against the murder of Theo van Gogh-then the reasoning would have to be something akin to throwing rocks at a wasp's nest after a wasp stings you.
You killed one of ours for insulting you, so in retaliation we'll...insult you more? (And attack Islamic sites throughout the area) I am again baffled at the criticisms and outrage flowing from Europe about how we treat Muslims in America.
We're not the ones debating whether or not they get to wear burkas outside their homes, ever. We're not the ones who say, "No religious symbols in schools for your kids." And so on and so forth.
Maybe this incident will serve some purpose, though. Maybe Europe will finally grow to realize something that's been said in America for quite awhile now. You're next, when it comes to fanatical fundamentalist Muslims.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have little sympathy for the Muslim people. When was the last time we saw worldwide outrage and protest over Muslims declaring fatwas when they aren't supposed to be allowed to, such as Osama, who according to the Koran is not a religious figure and cannot issue religious fatwas or jihads. Where is the outrage over Muslims committing vile acts of terrorism that are against the teachings of the Koran?
They call for the death of Denmark over a freaking political cartoon whose subject matter is about Muslims being violent, and they answer by GOING ON A STREAK OF VIOLENCE! I don't understand these people, and I don't have any sympathy or understanding for them.
A this point, I don't even think this hullabaloo is about religion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
This sort of reaction out of the Muslim world is certainly nothing new. It seems that when they're calling for "Death to America!", the outrage is muted somewhat.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't understand these people, and I don't have any sympathy or understanding for them.
Ooo! Racism. This thread needed more of that.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I see it as frustration of intolerance, not racism. But it's subjective.
Lyrhawn, one problem is that moderate voices in Islamic society are afraid to speak out against extremists, because of all the things we've discussed in this thread:fatawahs, assassinations (the very word comes from a ancient cult of Islamic assassins!), threats, intimidation etc. Look at how all the moderate Palestinians were marginalized over the past decades. Who's left? Corrupt Fatah and extremist Hamas.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Actually, Tres and I provided links to Muslims who are speaking out, at least in the West, but I think you're correct that moderate Muslims who aren't protected by the law are afraid to speak out in other parts of the world.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Yes, I remember one of those links, and it was heartening to see. I wish it happened more often in the Middle and Far East.
Well, I'm off to see the flag-burnings on PBS... Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't understand these people, and I don't have any sympathy or understanding for them.
Ooo! Racism. This thread needed more of that.
Well there isn't a race of Muslim people, but I suppose that's a matter of semantics.
But more to the point, don't be an idiot. My point is completely valid. I don't hate Muslims, but I suppose anything critical of them as a religion counts as automatic out and out racism? I suppose I was one step away from advocating the eradication of the entire religion wasn't I?
I feel no sympathy for their complaint, and why should I? It's purely arbitrary. They apparently get to pick and choose which affronts to Islam they really get angry over. Muslim leaders mess up, or any Muslim at all messes up and oh well, they overlook or, it hell, they EMBRACE it. But one newspaper in Denmark puts a picture of Muhammad up and all of a second it's time to burn a trail of hellfire across Europe. It's crap.
These:
quote: Al-Sistani, who wields enormous influence over Iraq's majority Shiites, suggested militant Muslims were partly to blame. He referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community and said their actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."
are the people that should be standing up more often. Militant Islamic fundamentalists pervert the faith and threaten the real faithful into silence. Maybe it's time one of those real Muslims stood up and starting retaking the faith and take it away from the REAL infidels.
Otherwise, the more I hear of this:
quote: In the Indonesian capital Jakarta, more than 150 hardline Muslims stormed a high-rise building housing the Danish Embassy and tore down and burned the country's white and red flag. The government ordered police to upgrade security at embassies across the capital.
Pakistan's parliament unanimously voted to condemn the drawings as a "vicious, outrageous and provocative campaign" that has "hurt the faith and feelings of Muslims all over the world." About 800 people protested in Islamabad, chanting "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France." Another rally in the southern city of Karachi drew 1,200.
Fundamentalist Muslims protested outside the Danish Embassy in Malaysia, chanting "Long live Islam, destroy our enemies."
the less I'm going to pay any attention to them throwing hissy fits. It's not racism. Calling it racism is the product of a mind lacking in intelligence. Or a desperate mind who again reads more into words than is there to try and appear witty.
It's either that or you're just an idiot.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Heh, the last thing anyone would call Tom is an idiot. He's wrong, I believe -- I agree with you on this issue -- but there's no reason to resort to insults, particularly ones as painfully erroneous as that one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hey, I gave multiple options. "It's either that or you're an idiot." So I guess he fits one of the other options, either he's lacking in intelligence, or he is purposely stating something in a misleading fashion to attempt to look witty at the expense of myself. He's done it before, I imagine he'll keep doing it in the future.
Calling me a racist however, is much more offensive than me floating the idea of him being an idiot.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Just ignore him. He does it to provoke people. You just spent however many minutes composing your reply because you somehow think it matters to him, but it doesn't, trust me. He's only going to take five seconds to type out one sentence to further goad you on and rattle your cage, but he's not going to respond because he actually cares about your response, so just save your time and energy for those that do care.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:While boycotting is certainly legal, I don't understand how it really does much useful in this instance, since it replaces constructive dialogue with what seems to me to be the equivalent of throwing rocks at the opposite party.
If you're going to apply the standard of constructive dialog, you have to apply it to all speech, including the cartoons. Constructive dialog was thrown out the window when the newspaper published the cartoon. This:
quote:Just ignore him. He does it to provoke people.
post could easily be applied to the cartoonist who drew the cartoons.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't hate Muslims, but I suppose anything critical of them as a religion counts as automatic out and out racism?
It depends. How many more comments are you going to make about Muslims as a "people," as if they were one coherent blob that could be addressed -- or vilified -- as a group?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Back to the issue of the French editor, a right-wing Italian newspaper has apparently offered to hire him as their Paris correspondant. The article mentions that a Jordanian editor who printed the cartoons in a tabloid weekly has also been fired.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I just read in the BBC that "Syrians have set fire to the Norwegian and Danish embassies in Damascus to protest at the publication of newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad."
One good thing that might result from this incident is that Muslims are getting to view Muslims responses to offenses to the Muslim religion.
Already there are Muslim leaders who are condemning the violent protests more then the cartoons. Hopefully this affair will open more dialogue within the Muslim community about what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior--and the extremists will loose more power.
One of the beautiful things about the freedom of the press is that you get to practice restraining or productively addressing your responses to offense.
We may be looking at a good thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Or the more reasonable Muslims will be scared to death and the militant Muslims will take even more power and influence for themselves.
But I hope you're right lem.
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
So, just because we don't riot in the streets when people burn the American flag, it's ok?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I don't hate Muslims, but I suppose anything critical of them as a religion counts as automatic out and out racism?
It depends. How many more comments are you going to make about Muslims as a "people," as if they were one coherent blob that could be addressed -- or vilified -- as a group?
Why are you more bothered by treating Muslims as a group than you are by the fact that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims?
There is a death cult in the world that calls itself Islam. And they have much to base themselves on in Islam.
There are Muslims who aren't entirely onboard with the whole "murder death kill" thing. There are even some who condemn it publically. But there's no excommunication-type reaction going on. And please, don't tell me about how they're afraid to because the death-cultists might kill them. That just makes it worse. There are what, a billion Muslims in the world? Don't tell me they can't stomp out the death-cultists if they want to.
This "Kill for the love of Allah" insanity is monstrous. And trying to change the subject by complaining about treating Muslims as a group is just as monstrous. Muslim countries run cartoons that make Der Sturmer look tame by comparison. They run documentaries supporting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and blood libels about Jews killing children for their blood. They are the last people in the world who have a right to complain about cartoons that offend them.
What do they have to do in order to convince you that the Islamic cult of death isn't some sort of minor bubble in the Islamic world, but is a major wing of Islam itself?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Why are you more bothered by treating Muslims as a group than you are by the fact that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims?
I assure you that if there were Muslims on this board advocating terrorism, I'd be eager to debate this with them. Heck, in general, I find myself eager to debate any suggested application of violence when it's suggested on this board, by Muslims or others.
But I think, too, that it's rather disingenuous of you to go with the whole "kill for the love of Allah" thing, since you've previously stated that the only reason you don't think Jews are entitled to "kill for the love of God" is that the temple hasn't been rebuilt yet. That many Muslims think they have the divine authority that you believe Orthodox Jews currently lack is unfortunate, I agree.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why are you more bothered by treating Muslims as a group than you are by the fact that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims?
Edit to remove faulty analysis.
The fact there is much criticism that can be levied at Muslims for either supporting or not condemning terror does not mean that criticism against those who do wrong to Muslims isn't allowed.
Not one person has defended the violent actions in response to the cartoons. If there's been more discussion about the propriety of the cartoons, it's only because people disagree about the propriety of the cartoons. No one disagrees about the burning of the embassies or the death threats.
quote:Muslim countries run cartoons that make Der Sturmer look tame by comparison. They run documentaries supporting the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and blood libels about Jews killing children for their blood. They are the last people in the world who have a right to complain about cartoons that offend them.
"They"?
Why do I get the feeling that such a "they" targeted at some other groups would get a less than pleasant reaction?
[ February 05, 2006, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: she said vast majority of terrorists are muslims, not the inverse (edit: I realized you might know this and have been making a point about faulty statistical inferences, such as is commonly done with certain chromosomal combinations and skin colors).
Which is also highly definitional and I would suspect false. The headliner terrorists who operate against the two countries she has an interest in are Muslim, but there are substantial Catholic (luckily they've died down of recent years), Maoist, and nationalist (of various stripes) terrorist movements. In fact, by far most terrorism is nationally or ethnically motivated rather than religiously motivated, though sometimes with a religious component. There isn't so much a meaningful correlation between terrorists and muslims as there is between terrorists and marginalized peoples with guns, and marginalized peoples with guns and muslims.
Interestingly, even the worst, evillest terrorists out there typically spring from cultures with what could well be called legitimate grievances against governments. In fact, those governments in many cases killed far more than the terrorist movements before the organized terror movements against them even existed. Israel is a notable exception to this, however, the government itself, while arguably often in the wrong, is not and has not been out to exterminate anyone.
[ February 05, 2006, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I shouldn't post without caffeine. Corrected.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: What do they have to do in order to convince you that the Islamic cult of death isn't some sort of minor bubble in the Islamic world, but is a major wing of Islam itself?
I wonder then what your solution is.
It seems by characterising the "Islamic cult of death" in the way you do, the only real/final solution is a war against Islam.
Which would be, if it ever eventuated (and I hope to everything that it doesn't) WWIII.
And would in no way solve or help anything or anyone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know, imogen...WWII certainly helped a lot of people and solved a lot of problems.
Note: I'm not suggesting that WWIII is something to be looked forward to or worked towards. I'm talking here strictly about the implied idea in your post, "Wars don't solve anything."
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I see that Rakeesh.
I didn't think about that implication - and I don't disagree.
I think, in a way, WWII was an exception.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Since I doubt many will, I'll back Lisa up publically. I don't feel it's racism to assert there is a major fundamentalist faction within Islam that breeds hate and exercises violence against Western civilization. The Shiites are largely responsible for this -- Sunnis are far more moderate, and have FAR greater numbers -- but I've seen very little evidence that other Muslims oppose terrorism and murder in the name of their collective god.
If it's a better analogy, replace the word Muslim with the word Catholic. How insanely quickly would a rogue element within Catholicism declaring holy war and exercising violent means to that end be excommunicated and disavowed by the Vatican? To say nothing of what actions they would take (and encourage to be taken) to speak against this group? Is it any less fair to expect the same of Islam?
Granted, it's not exactly an equal comparison -- Islam lacks the central organization of Catholicism, and maybe it's not fair to expect the same cohesive decisiveness. Nor is this analogy exactly unhypocritical -- how many so-called American Christians don't speak out against the likes of Pat Robertson, even when he condemns entire towns to hell for the crime of scientific literacy? But abortion clinics and homosexuals aside, Christians perform relatively far fewer acts of terrorism, and even poverty and ignorance are no excuse for Muslim violence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sunnis are far more moderate, and have FAR greater numbers
Al-queda is Sunni.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But I think, too, that it's rather disingenuous of you to go with the whole "kill for the love of Allah" thing, since you've previously stated that the only reason you don't think Jews are entitled to "kill for the love of God" is that the temple hasn't been rebuilt yet. That many Muslims think they have the divine authority that you believe Orthodox Jews currently lack is unfortunate, I agree.
That's crap. We don't see killing as something to look forward to. Any executions that would happen under Jewish law would be no different than executions under American law, other than the fact that they'd be even less common.
It takes a particular poisonous outlook to compare that to the mass murder and targeting of innocents that are almost all carried out by Muslims, doing so as Muslims.
For the record, and as a matter of full disclosure, if Muslims want to butcher one another because of their religion, that's just fine and dandy with me. It's when their blood-lust is directed at everyone else that we have a serious problem.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Sunnis are far more moderate, and have FAR greater numbers
Al-queda is Sunni.
Al-Queda is only one group, and doesn't betray the truth that Shiites tend to be far more radical than their Sunni counterparts. I don't doubt there are fundamentalist Sunnis, too, but nowhere near the per capita rate of the Shiite population.
That said, I'm not saying Shiite=bad, Sunni=good. Only that the Sunni population by far outnumbers the Iran/Iraq-central population of Shiites, and by and large is nowhere near as fundamentalist and violent. It would be a terrible mistake to assume Shiites are representative of the global Muslim community.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen:
quote: What do they have to do in order to convince you that the Islamic cult of death isn't some sort of minor bubble in the Islamic world, but is a major wing of Islam itself?
I wonder then what your solution is.
It seems by characterising the "Islamic cult of death" in the way you do, the only real/final solution is a war against Islam.
What do they have to do in order to convince you that such a war already exists? The death-cult Muslims believe themselves to be at war with us. When one side declares war and acts as though it's at war and the other side tries to pretend that the war isn't happening, it can pride itself in being peaceful and tolerant while it buries its own people. I don't think that's a good idea.
But frankly, I think the solution is to tell Muslims -- all Muslims -- that they'd better get off their asses and do something about their death-cultists if they don't want to be held responsible for their atrocities. Whether that consists of a major, world-wide conference of Muslims that declares the death-cult mentality to be irrevocably and totally out of bounds for Muslims, or whether it consists of Western Muslims cutting all funds to Muslim states and Muslim groups who support such atrocities, or whether it is (more properly) both, they need to do so.
And people need to stop criticizing the cartoonists. Now. It's a thinly veiled attempt to avoid utter condemnation of the animalistic violence coming from the death-cultists. People do offensive cartoons about Judaism, Christianity, Democrats, Republicans, etc, and it's only the Muslims who call for blowing up a country as a response. That, in and of itself, is a good sign that the cartoons were right on target.
quote:Originally posted by imogen: Which would be, if it ever eventuated (and I hope to everything that it doesn't) WWIII.
And would in no way solve or help anything or anyone.
Right. Whatever. Let's not fight killers, because someone could get killed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sorry starLisa, I'm not going to stop criticizing the cartoonists. Your saying that doing so is an attempt to avoid utter condemnation of the animalistic (which is silly, really, animals don't fight over religion) doens't make it so.
Furthermore up until the death of the filmmaker, the Dutch had very, very little experience with your so-called "death-cult Muslims". The cartoon wasn't thumbing its nose at that, the cartoon was an expression of Dutch will along the lines of, "Screw those filthy Muslims."
As evidenced by things like banning the burka even in voluntary cases out in public, for "safety" reasons.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
I think Lisa's point was that it's ridiculous to complain about a speck of dust on the bookshelf while a gorilla rampages in the living room.
The cartoonists are morons, offensive and racist. Nobody's denying that, nobody's defending them. But if you're going to criticize them, for god's sake, turn your attention to the fundamentalists burning embassies and threatening murder. This is inexcusable -- even by whining that someone drew a picture the militants don't like.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The cartoonists are morons, offensive and racist. Nobody's denying that, nobody's defending them. But if you're going to criticize them, for god's sake, turn your attention to the fundamentalists burning embassies and threatening murder.
Actually, a number of people on this thread have defended the cartoonists. And no one on this thread has defended the murderers.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:The cartoonists are morons, offensive and racist. Nobody's denying that, nobody's defending them. But if you're going to criticize them, for god's sake, turn your attention to the fundamentalists burning embassies and threatening murder.
Actually, a number of people on this thread have defended the cartoonists. And no one on this thread has defended the murderers.
Where? Looking back, I see people defending the right of the cartoonists to say what they want -- what's the nearest to your analysis, Twinky saying at least one is funny, though "a couple of them are in incredibly poor taste"?
To quote the cliche, I don't like what they say, but I'd die for their right to say it. I think that's the principle people here are arguing for, that religious fanaticism has no right to shut down free speech -- especially violently.
And no, nobody's defending the murderers -- but there's a sad lack of attention paid them relative to the amount spent criticizing the cartoonists. These are not equal crimes, and shouldn't be treated as such. Your focus, in particular, on the criticism of the global Muslim community for their failure to decry such fanaticism as "racist," is startling -- who do you think is at fault here, the cartoonists or the fundamentalists? I can insult the Bahai faith all I want, and you're still not going to have the right to murder me or set my home on fire.
I realize there's a considerable amount of antagonism toward starLisa on this board (though why, I don't particularly understand) but, lord, disagreeing with her shouldn't be a reflex. The considerable fundamentalist faction of Islam is committing the atrocities here in response to minimal insult. They are at fault -- and as such, deserve both your attention and your criticism long before you turn to the diabolical minds behind a cartoon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And people need to stop criticizing the cartoonists. Now. It's a thinly veiled attempt to avoid utter condemnation of the animalistic violence coming from the death-cultists. People do offensive cartoons about Judaism, Christianity, Democrats, Republicans, etc, and it's only the Muslims who call for blowing up a country as a response.
And I condemn such offenseive cartoons fairly often. Nor would I lose my right to condemn them if someone else who happens to belong to some group I do reacted badly and made death threats.
This is an important concept: The reaction to a particular act does not make the original act any more or less offensive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think Lisa's point was that it's ridiculous to complain about a speck of dust on the bookshelf while a gorilla rampages in the living room.
quote:And no, nobody's defending the murderers -- but there's a sad lack of attention paid them relative to the amount spent criticizing the cartoonists. These are not equal crimes, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Both of these statements are based on the same mistaken assumption: that the amount of time someone spends discussing something on Hatrack is related to how great a wrong it is.
That's just not true. First, no one has defended the violent actions. If we all join hands and chant together, "2-4-6-8 Islamic violence we all hate!" can we then get back to discussing the issue that people actually have different opinions on: the cartoons.
quote:They are at fault -- and as such, deserve both your attention and your criticism long before you turn to the diabolical minds behind a cartoon.
Yes, they are at fault. There's a lot of very bad crap that occurs in this world, and that doesn't mean no one can complain about lesser crap.
Otherwise, there could be only (edit: one) complaint in the entire world at the time.
[ February 05, 2006, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
I think that the Muslims simply overreacted. Sure the stereotypes created by this cartoon and other recent events have made Muslims scapegoats but lighting a flag on fire and dancing around it like a bunch of wildmen isn't gonna make those stereotypes disappear. It's like how some ignorant white people stereotype us blacks. Sure to some degree they may have some basis but unless the group, whatever it is, can succesfully unite against what is going on there is little that can be done. I've seen stuff like this happen all the time. I live by DC and whenever some 4 year old gets shot everyone holds a candle vigil pledging to end all violence. Of course, the next day some other dude gets shot. My feeling toward this issue is that starLisa is right. Unless Muslims can PROVE that they aren't gonna light a flag on fire next time some chump talks trash about them, they will still be the target of racism and stereotypes.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Allow me to reiterate: violence agaisnts persons or property in response to what someone else says is completely unacceptable, and I consider it so wrong and immoral that I take that as a given. I do not spend my time saying, "Embezzling is wrong," or, "Rape is wrong," because it's obvious.
Allow me to reiterate: violence agaisnts persons or property in response to what someone else says is completely unacceptable, and I consider it so wrong and immoral that I take that as a given. I do not spend my time saying, "Embezzling is wrong," or, "Rape is wrong," because it's obvious.
Allow me to reiterate: violence agaisnts persons or property in response to what someone else says is completely unacceptable, and I consider it so wrong and immoral that I take that as a given. I do not spend my time saying, "Embezzling is wrong," or, "Rape is wrong," because it's obvious.
Allow me to reiterate: violence agaisnts persons or property in response to what someone else says is completely unacceptable, and I consider it so wrong and immoral that I take that as a given. I do not spend my time saying, "Embezzling is wrong," or, "Rape is wrong," because it's obvious.
Allow me to reiterate: violence agaisnts persons or property in response to what someone else says is completely unacceptable, and I consider it so wrong and immoral that I take that as a given. I do not spend my time saying, "Embezzling is wrong," or, "Rape is wrong," because it's obvious.
Allow me to reiterate: violence agaisnts persons or property in response to what someone else says is completely unacceptable, and I consider it so wrong and immoral that I take that as a given. I do not spend my time saying, "Embezzling is wrong," or, "Rape is wrong," because it's obvious.
Allow me to reiterate: violence agaisnts persons or property in response to what someone else says is completely unacceptable, and I consider it so wrong and immoral that I take that as a given. I do not spend my time saying, "Embezzling is wrong," or, "Rape is wrong," because it's obvious.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Otherwise, there could be only complaint in the entire world at the time.
Um, I think you missed out a 'one' in that sentence. Because, of course, there is only complaint in the entire world. And in starLisa's case, only one complaint, at that.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think that the Muslims simply overreacted.
I think they grossly and abhorrently overreacted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Is that clear enough? I hope specifics and repetition sufficiently articulate my position.
-----
quote:My feeling toward this issue is that starLisa is right. Unless Muslims can PROVE that they aren't gonna light a flag on fire next time some chump talks trash about them, they will still be the target of racism and stereotypes.
This line of thought opens some very unsavory possibilities. I'm surprised an African-American would think this way-because a cursory look at American crime statistics would by your train of thought lead someone to say, "Until blacks can PROVE they're not going to rob from and kill each other, they're going to be the targets of racism and stereotype."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thanks, KoM. I fixed it.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Is that clear enough? I hope specifics and repetition sufficiently articulate my position.
-----
quote:My feeling toward this issue is that starLisa is right. Unless Muslims can PROVE that they aren't gonna light a flag on fire next time some chump talks trash about them, they will still be the target of racism and stereotypes.
This line of thought opens some very unsavory possibilities. I'm surprised an African-American would think this way-because a cursory look at American crime statistics would by your train of thought lead someone to say, "Until blacks can PROVE they're not going to rob from and kill each other, they're going to be the targets of racism and stereotype."
Blacks proved their stereotype wrong long ago w. the Million Man March.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You are welcome. I shall let my quote stand as a monument to your mistake, to comfort me when I grow old and can no longer breathe flames at the drop of a post.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Treasure it. Rare things are worth more. Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Dude you guys are great.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Blacks proved their stereotype wrong long ago w. the Million Man March.
Ummm...I fail to see how that follows. Muslims in America march without violence frequently. Such as, y'know, Louis Farrakhan-that Muslim dude who convened the Million Man March.
Furthermore given Farrakhan's racist, sexist, and anti-Semitic beliefs...I wonder what, exactly, the Million Man March proved? It did some undeniable good, of course...but African-Americans still rob from and do violence to each other in unfavorably large statistical amounts.
Your point that the Million Man March "proved stereotypes wrong" is invalid.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...yeah. Soap, I'm gonna doubt you're not a troll. For numerous reasons, but the one that clinched it is this last statement. No black man I know would pretend stereotypes about them ever wavered, much less were proven wrong.
How many fake black posters does this make on Hatrack, now? Three?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: I realize there's a considerable amount of antagonism toward starLisa on this board (though why, I don't particularly understand) but, lord, disagreeing with her shouldn't be a reflex.
"Well, if I'm the one to do it They'll run their quill pens through it I'm obnoxious and disliked, you know that, sir." --1776
But this is one topic where it doesn't matter how I phrase things. I'm still going to get called a racist for stupid reasons. So will anyone who dares point out that there is no dealing with Islam as though it's some sort of civilized culture. It's not a racial thing, since many people raised Muslim have left it, and many others have joined it. It's a matter of choice.
The reason racism is evil isn't because it looks at a group, rather than at individuals. It's evil because it condemns individuals for something they cannot change. Something that is not a matter of choice. That doesn't apply here.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: If we all join hands and chant together, "2-4-6-8 Islamic violence we all hate!" can we then get back to discussing the issue that people actually have different opinions on: the cartoons.
See, now you're going to get slammed for using the term "Islamic violence".
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
Dude lol i seriously am black.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The reason racism is evil isn't because it looks at a group, rather than at individuals. It's evil because it condemns individuals for something they cannot change. Something that is not a matter of choice. That doesn't apply here.
So it's ok for me to condemn you for being Orthodox, then? After all, you could certainly change your beliefs, and indeed you would if you actually looked at the evidence.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:. So will anyone who dares point out that there is no dealing with Islam as though it's some sort of civilized culture.
Actually, I think you're right. I don't think Islam is a single coherent culture at all, so dealing with all Islamic cultures as if they were a single culture -- civilized or not -- is doomed to failure.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The reason racism is evil isn't because it looks at a group, rather than at individuals. It's evil because it condemns individuals for something they cannot change. Something that is not a matter of choice. That doesn't apply here.
So it's ok for me to condemn you for being Orthodox, then? After all, you could certainly change your beliefs, and indeed you would if you actually looked at the evidence.
Well, that last bit is insipid. You don't know enough about it to make such a claim. But ignoring that, then sure. If Orthodox Jews supported acts of mass murder by other Orthodox Jews against all and sundry, and I continued to identify as one? By all means, you'd be right to condemn me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I find it horribly troubling that starLisa just tried to identify herself with John Adams...
It's leaving a horrible, HORRIBLE taste in my mouth.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Interesting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If Orthodox Jews supported acts of mass murder by other Orthodox Jews against all and sundry, and I continued to identify as one?
How many Orthodox Jews would have to support mass murder -- against, say, people who are descended matrilinearly from Jews but do not consider themselves to be Jewish -- before you'd say that "Orthodox Jews" support acts of mass murder?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I said "If Orthodox Jews supported acts of mass murder by other Orthodox Jews". That means that other Orthodox Jews are carrying out acts of mass murder (like the Muslim death-cultists), and Orthodox Jews were supporting it.
Let's even take it out of murder. Jack Abramoff. The man is an Orthodox Jew. He's also a crook, apparently.
Now, if almost every time you heard about a political scandal that involved fraud and abuse of funds, it turned out to be an Orthodox Jew doing it, and if most Orthodox Jewish communities didn't really have much to say about it, I'd say you'd be absolutely correct to slam Orthodox Jews, as a group, for that kind of behavior.
But instead, when someone like Ami Popper flips out and shoots 7 unarmed, non-combatant Arab construction workers dead, you hear universal condemnation from Jews the world over, and Popper gets slammed in jail for the rest of his misbegotten life. That's how we deal with such people. But Muslim suicide bombers? They get parades. They get schools and streets and towns named after them.
You're arguing out your ass, Tom. It's really offensive that you'd even make the comparison you're trying to make. Do you get that we're talking about communal acceptance of these atrocities?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Now, if almost every time you heard about a political scandal that involved fraud and abuse of funds, it turned out to be an Orthodox Jew doing it, and if most Orthodox Jewish communities didn't really have much to say about it, I'd say you'd be absolutely correct to slam Orthodox Jews, as a group, for that kind of behavior.
"Almost every time" I see gang violence on the news, it seems as if it's always a young black man who is the suspect. What would you say I should conclude from this?
quote:But instead, when someone like Ami Popper flips out and shoots 7 unarmed, non-combatant Arab construction workers dead, you hear universal condemnation from Jews the world over, and Popper gets slammed in jail for the rest of his misbegotten life. That's how we deal with such people. But Muslim suicide bombers? They get parades. They get schools and streets and towns named after them.
But that's because the suicide bombers are viewed by those celebrating them as brave revolutionaries committing a noble sacrifice, whereas a guy who flips out and shoots people seems to us to be just crazy. But we generally celebrate our own violent (and sometimes immoral) heroes too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
On the contrary, with the exception of Ami Popper being alive at the end of his murders, he did exactly what the "brave revolutionaries" do: murdered unarmed non-combatants from the other side.
We have no heroes who do things like that. The closest you can get is civilians killed in time of war incidentally in pursuit of some military objective, never targeting civilians for murder specifically.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:"Almost every time" I see gang violence on the news, it seems as if it's always a young black man who is the suspect. What would you say I should conclude from this?
Your comparison is actually inaccurate, since starLisa is talking about who has actually committed the crime and you are talking about who is suspected of that crime.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Now, if almost every time you heard about a political scandal that involved fraud and abuse of funds, it turned out to be an Orthodox Jew doing it, and if most Orthodox Jewish communities didn't really have much to say about it, I'd say you'd be absolutely correct to slam Orthodox Jews, as a group, for that kind of behavior.
"Almost every time" I see gang violence on the news, it seems as if it's always a young black man who is the suspect. What would you say I should conclude from this?
I haven't noticed black leaders applauding such crime. Have you? They've made it abundantly clear how much that kind of thing appalls them, and black police officers are, if anything, more likely to come down hard on black perpetrators.
Try again. No one treats hoodlums as heroes.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:But instead, when someone like Ami Popper flips out and shoots 7 unarmed, non-combatant Arab construction workers dead, you hear universal condemnation from Jews the world over, and Popper gets slammed in jail for the rest of his misbegotten life. That's how we deal with such people. But Muslim suicide bombers? They get parades. They get schools and streets and towns named after them.
But that's because the suicide bombers are viewed by those celebrating them as brave revolutionaries committing a noble sacrifice, whereas a guy who flips out and shoots people seems to us to be just crazy. But we generally celebrate our own violent (and sometimes immoral) heroes too.
Anyone who views a guy who straps on an explosive belt and blows up kids riding on a bus is an animal. And anyone who considers such an animal to be a brave revolutionary deserves to be treated as though he carried out the atrocity himself.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: On the contrary, with the exception of Ami Popper being alive at the end of his murders, he did exactly what the "brave revolutionaries" do: murdered unarmed non-combatants from the other side.
Exactly. It was a vile crime, and he's lucky Israel doesn't have the death penalty, or he'd be dead right now. Compare that to the lionizing of suicide bombers as "martyrs".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And anyone who considers such an animal to be a brave revolutionary deserves to be treated as though he carried out the atrocity himself.
Hm. I see a slippery slope here. Where would that stop? Somewhere before "people who disagree with me are animals," I'm sure, but where?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And anyone who considers such an animal to be a brave revolutionary deserves to be treated as though he carried out the atrocity himself.
The dangerous step is when you attempt to generalize that all persons of group X consider such a person to be a brave revolutionary.
Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
There are days when I really dislike being the sole Muslim voice on Hatrack, and this is one of them.
I wish you guys could hear the debate within the Muslim community on this right now. In my community as on this bulletin board, NO-ONE is trying to defend the people who are bombing embassies or writing violent slogans on placards. One thing I feel fairly certain about in my mind is that the Prophet (pbuh) would neither have done nor sanctioned these things. There is a debate about the cartoons: whether they should have been printed or not. My personal view is that yes, we have to expect everything to be the target of satire in the West, and no I haven't seen the cartoons, but from what I have heard the intent of those cartoons went beyond satire to deliberate insult. And for many Muslims, an insult to the Prophet is harder to take than an insult to them personally. I sympathise with that. The Prophet is held up as an example of all that is good about Islam, all that Muslims aspire to be. It's hard to have that trashed. Does that sanction violent protest? Not in a million years. And nothing in my interpretation of Islam comes close to sanctioning that.
A lot of this is symptomatic of wider issues in Islam, about how we interpret the Qur'an and who we blame for the current problems of the Middle East. I think some Muslims have been guilty of blaming others for problems that have really been caused by Muslims themselves. We DO need to take a long hard look at ourselves and ask ourselves if the way we live our lives is really consistent with Allah's call to live ethically and to promote social justice. And we do need help from the West (Muslims and non-Muslims) to facilitate that debate. Sadly, the publication of those cartoons has done nothing to help move that debate on - if anything, it adds to the "victim mentality" that many Muslims have got caught up in.
I always feel horribly wrenched when I see my fellow Muslims behaving like this. I want to disown them and say "I have no part in that." And yet I am also a Muslim, and I remain so partly because I believe that Islam can be a force for good in the world. I guess the only thing I can sensibly do is to live my life as proof of my beliefs, and hope that people who know me get the message.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by amira tharani: Sadly, the publication of those cartoons has done nothing to help move that debate on - if anything, it adds to the "victim mentality" that many Muslims have got caught up in.
Maybe bringing things to a head is what is needed.
quote:Originally posted by amira tharani: I always feel horribly wrenched when I see my fellow Muslims behaving like this. I want to disown them and say "I have no part in that."
So why not do that?
quote:Originally posted by amira tharani: And yet I am also a Muslim, and I remain so partly because I believe that Islam can be a force for good in the world.
If what you call Islam is Islam, then you may be right about that. But why not disown them and say that they are not Muslims and that it's not just that you disagree with their interpretation, but that they are completely "other".
It's that kind of condemnation that I think is missing here. Not from you in particular, but from the loud voices. I'd love to hear Muslim leaders get up and say, "Anyone who commits a suicide bombing is not a shahid, but a rather a vile sinner against Allah and the Quran. Anyone who does such a thing or gives aid and support to a person who does, knowing what kind of person they are, is not a Muslim, but rather an enemy of Islam."
That's pretty presumptuous of me, I know. But as I said, that's what's missing.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
amira, thanks for posting. I know it would be a lot easier not to, and I appreciate what you've said.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Now, if almost every time you heard about a political scandal that involved fraud and abuse of funds, it turned out to be an Orthodox Jew doing it, and if most Orthodox Jewish communities didn't really have much to say about it, I'd say you'd be absolutely correct to slam Orthodox Jews, as a group, for that kind of behavior.
"Almost every time" I see gang violence on the news, it seems as if it's always a young black man who is the suspect. What would you say I should conclude from this?
quote:But instead, when someone like Ami Popper flips out and shoots 7 unarmed, non-combatant Arab construction workers dead, you hear universal condemnation from Jews the world over, and Popper gets slammed in jail for the rest of his misbegotten life. That's how we deal with such people. But Muslim suicide bombers? They get parades. They get schools and streets and towns named after them.
But that's because the suicide bombers are viewed by those celebrating them as brave revolutionaries committing a noble sacrifice, whereas a guy who flips out and shoots people seems to us to be just crazy. But we generally celebrate our own violent (and sometimes immoral) heroes too.
I seriously think that just as many Muslims are embarrassed by what suicide bombers do as there are those who appluad it, if not more. Being Muslim nowadays seems like a tough cross to bear.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
<blink> That's a mutilated metaphor, if ever I saw one.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
amira tharani,
First I want to thank you for your post, candor, thoughtfulness, and desire for good. I can see that you want the same global things that I value.
My intent is not to be snarky. As I think about my thoughts before I write them, I wonder what lines I am about to cross. I will be blunt and honest--I hope that is a quality in discussion.
My opinions of Muslims -- in general, not just the extremists, have gone down. The religion feels icky. Protests are a good thing, but when people die and property value goes down....*shiver.*
quote: I wish you guys could hear the debate within the Muslim community on this right now. In my community as on this bulletin board, NO-ONE is trying to defend the people who are bombing embassies or writing violent slogans on placards. One thing I feel fairly certain about in my mind is that the Prophet (pbuh) would neither have done nor sanctioned these things. There is a debate about the cartoons: whether they should have been printed or not.
What I find interesting about your statement is the recognition that writing violent slogans and bombing embassies is wrong, yet the focus is the debate on whether the cartoons should have been printed. I would have been impressed if you were debating how to keep your Muslim brothers protesting peacefully. Maybe you are, but it certainly wasn’t at the forefront of your remarks.
quote: I always feel horribly wrenched when I see my fellow Muslims behaving like this. I want to disown them and say "I have no part in that." And yet I am also a Muslim, and I remain so partly because I believe that Islam can be a force for good in the world.
You want to disown them and say you "have no part in that," but you admit you are Muslim. That makes it sound like to me that being Muslim means condoning on some core level these violent protests--otherwise you would "disown" them.
I "disown" any Christian who thinks they are doing Gods will by blowing up government buildings or kill abortion doctors. Actually I am agnostic now (I was once Christian), but the point remains.
Your empathy for Muslims has two facets. You are empathetic because you want Islam to be a force of peace--more power to you! You are empathetic because you understand why the protestors are reacting the way they are--less power to Islam. It sounds like there is an aspect of Islam that condones violence to keep the infidels in check over freedom of the press--no matter how repugnant that freedom can be at times.
As an "infidel," the thought of a theocratic government/force/culture that seeks to take away fundamental rights I believe in is very scary.
Islam in general seems much more threatening to me then it did a week ago. Last month I would have glossed over StarLisa's comments. Now I understand where she is coming from.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It sounds like there is an aspect of Islam that condones violence to keep the infidels in check over freedom of the press--no matter how repugnant that freedom can be at times.
I'd argue that there's an aspect of pretty much any organized religion that condones this. The prevalence of that opinion is the important bit.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: The prevalence of that opinion is the important bit.
Good point. It seems to be very prevalent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
By what standard, though? If it were VERY prevalent, in a population of nearly a billion people, don't you think they'd be a bit more dangerous than they already are?
I know at least a hundred Muslims. Absolutely none of them have attempted to kill me, and only one of them suggested that it should be done. (I'll let that one slide because it was after I beat him at five consecutive games of pinball.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
amira -
I'm not sure the cartoon was meant to specifically insult the Prophet, if anything, it strikes me more as an insult directly to those among the Muslim people who are themselves insulting the Prophet by not following the true teachings of Allah. It's saying, "this is what you have made the Prophet into."
starLisa -
I think disowning them doesn't solve the problem. Deciding across the board to expel all of them from Islam would certainly purify the faith, but it would do nothing to solve the problem. Their goal is probably more alike to bringing them into the fold, rather than insulating themselves. I'd imagine they want a unified Muslim people, all following the real words of Allah. Cutting off the others is a step away from that goal.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: I wish you guys could hear the debate within the Muslim community on this right now. In my community as on this bulletin board, NO-ONE is trying to defend the people who are bombing embassies or writing violent slogans on placards. One thing I feel fairly certain about in my mind is that the Prophet (pbuh) would neither have done nor sanctioned these things. There is a debate about the cartoons: whether they should have been printed or not.
What I find interesting about your statement is the recognition that writing violent slogans and bombing embassies is wrong, yet the focus is the debate on whether the cartoons should have been printed. I would have been impressed if you were debating how to keep your Muslim brothers protesting peacefully. Maybe you are, but it certainly wasn’t at the forefront of your remarks.
I completely disagree. I think Amira was extremely clear about this. She said that there's debate with regards to whether the cartoons should have been printed, but that she's fairly certain that the violence is wrong.
"Fairly certain" beats "there's debate". I'm sure it was hard enough for her to post what she did without you taking it the way you did.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: I completely disagree. I think Amira was extremely clear about this. She said that there's debate with regards to whether the cartoons should have been printed, but that she's fairly certain that the violence is wrong.
I know. What bothered me was that I did not see evidence that the group she belongs to was/is debating how to protest peacefully. The comic was in poor taste, but there will be more comics. I have seen no evidence of a movement on educating faithful Muslims how they should respond to these offensive situations. I hope they are. I also hope individuals are more respectful to their faith--but I think freedom of press trumps hurt feelings.
quote:"Fairly certain" beats "there's debate". I'm sure it was hard enough for her to post what she did without you taking it the way you did.
I hope she responds if I hurt her, or if she felt my post attacked or debased her. I respected her post enough to be honest. I am glad you are being honest with me.
amira tharani , if you feel my post was out of line, demeaning, hurtful, or so negative you do not want to open more, I completely apologize. I am grateful for you and your commitment to your faith. Every faith benefits from members like you.
Since you are talking with Muslims (woot! that makes me feel good), I wanted you to understand me. I don't think I am a racist person. If the media covered more instances of Muslims instructing Muslims on how to deal with extreme offenses, then my opinion of your faith would not be suffering.
What I See instead is "5 dead," "embassies burning," "violence escalating," and calls for "beheadings" and "bombings." When I hear you are talking about the situation within your faith, I am relieved.
What I saw from your post was an acknowledgment violence was wrong but no discussion on how to stop/prevent extreme reactions.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Iran has cut off ALL trade with Denmark. They will allow machinery and medicines in for another three months then that too will end.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm not sure the cartoon was meant to specifically insult the Prophet, if anything, it strikes me more as an insult directly to those among the Muslim people who are themselves insulting the Prophet by not following the true teachings of Allah.
Having seen the cartoons in question, I don't think they're really that subtle.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Amiri, I sympathize with your position. On the one hand, I want to comment on how I understand things are, but on the other hand, there's so much backlash for even posting. I've asked Fahim before about why he doesn't get involved in conversations like these, and his comments are along the lines of "it doesn't do any good" to "it gets tiring." Or something along those lines. That, and it's repetition and more repetition.
I know hundreds of Muslims. Heck, I'm married to one, and all my in-laws are Muslims. None of them want me dead, none of them think I should die, and none of them think that that's what Islam is about anyway.
Any whom I've had conversations with express anger at the violence that the fundamentalist extremists perpetrate.
Anyway, I'm not getting involved in the debate. I don't have the time for it, nor do I have the patience for it. Have fun.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Amiri,
I apologize and withdraw from this discussion. I don't know any muslims. I don't live by any muslims. I do not interact with any muslims. I agree with Tom that if muslims are bad, there are more then enough to cause real damage.
Muslims must be good. I hear negative news all the time. I am perplxed by the riots. I don't know the issue. I am bowing out.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Anyone who views a guy who straps on an explosive belt and blows up kids riding on a bus is an animal. And anyone who considers such an animal to be a brave revolutionary deserves to be treated as though he carried out the atrocity himself.
I'm curious... if I told you there was a Jewish insurgent in World War II Nazi Germany, and that he blew up a Nazi school (with children and teachers inside) in order to fight back, would you consider that person to be animal? And if some Jewish individuals told you they consider him heroic for doing so, would you consider them worthy of as severe of a punishment as you'd give these Muslim terrorists?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
starLisa hates hypotheticals. Actually, I'm not sure if she even understands the concept.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Gwladys Fouché and agencies Monday February 6, 2006
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.
Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."
...
Hmmm
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Is that really a surprise to anyone?
That's about as much of a surprise as the fact that nations of primarily the Islamic faith regularly have cartoons that insult Christians and Jews but never of Muhammad.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: starLisa hates hypotheticals. Actually, I'm not sure if she even understands the concept.
Again, stupidity's not as charming as you seem to think it is.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yeah, I'm failing to see why it's a big issue.
Also, we haven't seen the cartoons that were rejected, the newspaper didn't just say they refused to publish so as not to offend anyone, they also say the cartoons weren't funny. Now whether the cartoons depicting Mohammed were funny or not is certainly debatable (I don't know, as I have not seen them) but apparently the editor thought they were.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: starLisa hates hypotheticals. Actually, I'm not sure if she even understands the concept.
Again, stupidity's not as charming as you seem to think it is.
Assuming you're attempting to chastise me here, what do you mean by "again"?
In keeping with that assumption, from what I've seen of starLisa's responses to others, as well as myself, she has little respect for hypotheticals that don't serve her own purposes. Thus it's not stupidity, it's observation.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Gwladys Fouché and agencies Monday February 6, 2006
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.
...
Hmmm
I saw a blurb about that on another news site...it was a couple days ago, so I don't remember where. But the editor said that it was an unsolicited cartoon, and that they don't accept unsolicited work, typically because most of the unsolicited stuff that is sent in is of very low quality.
Posted by amira tharani (Member # 182) on :
Lem, I can see where and why you took what you did from what I said. I put it badly, I think.
I'm slightly staggered by the assumption that we need to teach other Muslims how to protest peacefully, but I guess someone does. It just never occurred to me, living in Britain, that that sort of thing needs to be taught as such. It's just been assumed (by me and others that I've talked to) that peaceful protest would have been the right thing to do if people wanted to have their say about this. I think you are probably right that there hasn't been enough discussion on how to prevent these extreme reactions - I will certainly be discussing that with my Muslim colleagues and friends next time. When I looked at your post, though, I thought "I haven't been talking about how to stop this because I feel powerless to do anything." On reflection, that feels like a cop-out. We do need to find ways of making sure that this sort of exreme violence does not happen. I'm just not sure what they are yet. Any suggestions?
Edited to add: I'm unlikely to post again before late this evening British time. Please don't think I'm offended if I don't post.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Sadly, the publication of those cartoons has done nothing to help move that debate on - if anything, it adds to the "victim mentality" that many Muslims have got caught up in.
I think that if you look beyond the mob, you would see that the cartoons have generated a tremendous amount of debate and opportunity for dialogue in terms of what it means to be a Muslim, why some parts of Islamic society are different from one another, and what the Occident and the Levant need to do to get along. This thread and many others are proof of this.
You are peacefully protesting the cartoons, but I must admit that I am confused as to what you hope to accomplish by doing so. It seems like a bad way to respond to the cartoons, both because it doesn't get your response out very effectively, and because it makes you look like you're trying to shut down free speech. Let's face it, who is going to carry the speeches of those at the end of the march? All that's going to be reported is that a bunch of Muslims gathered to protest the cartoons, with the implication that Muslims don't have anything to say in response.
You might say that this is the problem of reporting media rather than your fault, however I think it's important to note that very few protests are reported on except in the most cursory fashion. In the states, the 'million man march' got maybe one or two lines wherein there was a synopsis of what was said, and the rest of the column was devoted to people's opinions about the march.
A far better response to the cartoons would seem to me to be a full page ad in the London Times or the like where Muslims respond to the cartoons in a fashion that guarantees all their points are heard by many in a straightforward fashion.
I think everyone, but particularly Muslims, should be thankful for the cartoons, thankful for the opportunity to address the misconceptions about Islam that exist in the west. I hope good use will be made of this opportunity.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
For those who haven't seen the cartoons -- what I didn't realize before I went and looked for them is they're not a series of 12 cartoons by the same artist, they are 12 different representations of the Prophet by 12 different cartoonists. The site I saw them on said that the paper had put out a call for artists willing to draw Muhammad after an author had been unable to find anyone willing to illustrate a book to include depictions of Muhammad.
So some of them aren't funny, and aren't meant to be -- they're just straightforward depictions of a Middle-Eastern looking man who I wouldn't have known was supposed to be the Prophet if I'd just come across them somewhere. Those cartoons are not offensive in any way other than being a depiction of something that Muslims believe your're not supposed to depict.
Another subset of the cartoons makes fun of the fact that the artists and newspaper are probably going to get in trouble for this. Two actually show the cartoonists drawing the pictures, with one labeling it as a PR stunt. A third shows two men with swords getting upset and a third telling them to relax, it's just a sketch. Again, out of context, I wouldn't have known it was supposed to be Muhammad, although it's perfectly possible that that's out of my own ignorance.
The last subset, four of the cartoons, is deliberately offensive. This includes the one that's been mentioned by all the news reports, with the turban bomb. There's also one with Muhammad in a police line-up. Not being able to read Danish, I don't know if that one is funny or not. This subset does, however, contain the one cartoon that I think is actually funny, but it's one of only a few that try to be.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think everyone, but particularly Muslims, should be thankful for the cartoons
There's a huge difference between being thankful for an opportunity that has arisen from something wrong being done to you and being thankful for the wrong. Without the violence, there wouldn't have been nearly as much discussion. Should we all be thankful for the violence?
quote:I think that if you look beyond the mob, you would see that the cartoons have generated a tremendous amount of debate and opportunity for dialogue in terms of what it means to be a Muslim, why some parts of Islamic society are different from one another, and what the Occident and the Levant need to do to get along. This thread and many others are proof of this.
You are peacefully protesting the cartoons, but I must admit that I am confused as to what you hope to accomplish by doing so.
This is a little mixed up. What was accomplished by the cartoons? At most, using your take on it, they generated useful discussion. They weren't part of that discussion.
The Danish newspaper wouldn't even have had to take a full-page ad out in the Times. They could have written an article about this topic without actually depicting Muhammad. You seem to be holding the peaceful protestors of useful discussion to a standard to which you are unwilling to allow others to hold the Danish paper to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...and because it makes you look like you're trying to shut down free speech.
No it doesn't.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote: We do need to find ways of making sure that this sort of exreme violence does not happen. I'm just not sure what they are yet. Any suggestions?
It was wrong of me to think it was your or your groups responsibility to moderate other Muslims. I admit I have fallen into being affected by a steady stream of negative news.
I married a Japanese woman. Several years ago the US media portrayed the Japanese as torturing, evil people. The government even relocated Japanese American citizens. That was very wrong.
I am trying to think how I would respond if I were Muslim. The closest thing I could come up with is if a paper made a series of cartoons about Joseph Smith that depicted him with sexual relations with multiple wives mixed in with printed temple ceremony rites. On my mission that would have been...beyond the pale.
The LDS church and the Catholic church have a strong authoritative leadership. I imagine the church would condemn the cartoons, pursue legal means to remove the cartoons (from possible websites over some type of copyright laws about the temple ceremony), and urge the membership to respond peacefully and Christ-like.
Does Islam have a strong hierarchy of power? Or is it like protestantism---many flavors depending on who the preacher/bishop/mosque religious figure is?
Is there a prophet or head of Islam today? I guess I don't understand the structure of the religion. I know about 3 factions in Iraq, the Ayatollah, and what seems to be spontaneous but structurally unrelated protests between citizens of different countries.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
There is no head of Islam. There are Imams which are essentially local leaders, but no one is obligated to listen to them, and their opinions vary wildly.
There are no such things as congregations the way that Christians look at it. No one is baptized or registered.
Men come together for Friday mosque - the noon prayer - and there is a type of sermon given at that time (at least, there is here), but from what Fahim has told me, the person who's sermonizing here frequently gets details wrong or misinterprets things (according to Fahim's interpretation.) There is no central authority that says "This is the interpretation to believe." It's all individual.
That is one of the problems with Islam inasmuch as dissent and extremism comes in, in my view.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Anyone who views a guy who straps on an explosive belt and blows up kids riding on a bus is an animal. And anyone who considers such an animal to be a brave revolutionary deserves to be treated as though he carried out the atrocity himself.
I'm curious... if I told you there was a Jewish insurgent in World War II Nazi Germany, and that he blew up a Nazi school (with children and teachers inside) in order to fight back, would you consider that person to be animal?
Yes. Blowing up a school full of children would have been an act of insanity, and would have been zero help. But the utter immorality of such an act would be far more an issue than its futility.
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: And if some Jewish individuals told you they consider him heroic for doing so, would you consider them worthy of as severe of a punishment as you'd give these Muslim terrorists?
Absolutely not. It would be much, much worse were they to do so. Pardon my chauvinism, but I expect more from my own people.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
For the record, though there's no such thing as a killfile for an online forum, I've chosen to disregard anything Lyrhawn posts. Please don't take my lack of response as indicating agreement or acquiescence.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem:
quote: We do need to find ways of making sure that this sort of exreme violence does not happen. I'm just not sure what they are yet. Any suggestions?
It was wrong of me to think it was your or your groups responsibility to moderate other Muslims.
No, it wasn't.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by lem:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We do need to find ways of making sure that this sort of exreme violence does not happen. I'm just not sure what they are yet. Any suggestions? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was wrong of me to think it was your or your groups responsibility to moderate other Muslims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it wasn't.
Let me rephrase. It was wrong of me to think it is her special or particular responsibility to moderate muslims. She is not in a position of power or authority.
Well all need to work to help stop exteme groups. As a muslim, she can certainly influence her peers to address this issue--but she has no special repsonsibilities the rest of us don't have--just different speheres of influence.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: There's a huge difference between being thankful for an opportunity that has arisen from something wrong being done to you and being thankful for the wrong. Without the violence, there wouldn't have been nearly as much discussion. Should we all be thankful for the violence?
I don't know that I agree with you about the violence. I imagine large peaceful protests would have served to make the point just as well as the violent ones.
I recognize that Muslims would have preferred to have had more dialogue without the cartoons, but the issue of free speech and how it pertains to religion is one of the things that is closely wrapped up with the publication of the cartoons and the subsequent furor.
I'm not saying that Muslims should want more cartoons of Mohammed published. I'm just pointing out the very real fact that a lot of discussion has resulted from the publication of the cartoons.
Rakeesh, obviously we disagree.
El Jay, it's being reported that apparently some additional cartoons were inserted by some Muslims when they took the show to the Middle East to make them even more offensive.
To reiterate the information in my link from yesterday, officials in Lebanon are accusing Syrian agents of fomenting some of the riots.
quote: This is a little mixed up. What was accomplished by the cartoons? At most, using your take on it, they generated useful discussion. They weren't part of that discussion.
I dont see how they weren't. Dagonee, it's not just the cartoons, it's the very prevalent idea encapsulated behind some of the cartoons that Islam is a force for destruction and evil in the world.
quote: The Danish newspaper wouldn't even have had to take a full-page ad out in the Times. They could have written an article about this topic without actually depicting Muhammad. You seem to be holding the peaceful protestors of useful discussion to a standard to which you are unwilling to allow others to hold the Danish paper to.
I don't believe that the discussion would've been the same in quality or quantity. My opinion is subjective, of course, and can't be proved.
I believe the satire of the cartoons says more, and is more effective in getting a message out, than just a protest.
I don't see how I'm holding the protestors and the Danish newspaper to a different standard. I am pointing out that some forms of communication are more effective than others.
I'm also confused as to why the Danish newspaper would take out an ad? I'm not saying it should....
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't know that I agree with you about the violence. I imagine large peaceful protests would have served to make the point just as well as the violent ones.
And yet you stated that peaceful protest wouldn't be helpful.
quote:I dont see how they weren't. Dagonee, it's not just the cartoons, it's the very prevalent idea encapsulated behind some of the cartoons that Islam is a force for destruction and evil in the world.
And the boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger all serve to make it clear how serious this issue is to Muslims.
quote:I'm also confused as to why the Danish newspaper would take out an ad? I'm not saying it should....
You proposed that Muslims would have done better to take out an ad than protest. The Danish newspaper could have printed a full page article without taking out an ad - the preferred mode you suggest is even more readily available to the paper.
quote:I don't believe that the discussion would've been the same in quality or quantity.
An article in lieu of the cartoons wouldn't have generated the anger or protests. It is the anger and protests that led to the discussion. Yet, you want the anger and protests not to happen.
quote:I believe the satire of the cartoons says more, and is more effective in getting a message out, than just a protest.
The cartoons spread their message mostly because of the protests. The protests have made it very clear that many Muslims find this to be offensive. I guarantee you more people know that Muslims consider it blasphemous to visually portray the prophet than if the protests hadn't happened. As a means of getting a message out, it was quite effective.
Unfortunately, it was diluted by violence and other, intimidating messages.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And the boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger all serve to make it clear how serious this issue is to Muslims.
That's ridiculous. The violence and vandalism and murder is there. It just waits for any excuse. And that's all these cartoons were: an excuse. The death-cultists jumped at it.
This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion.
No one makes the death-cultists act the way they do. They have sole responsibility for their evil. People who try and lighten that load of responsibility do so only because they're afraid of the implications of true evil.
Posted by Traveler (Member # 3615) on :
Here a link to a site that has documented many instances of Mohammed being portrayed throughout history. Gallery
The cartoons that have caused this controversy are also located on the linked page.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That's ridiculous. The violence and vandalism and murder is there. It just waits for any excuse. And that's all these cartoons were: an excuse. The death-cultists jumped at it.
This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion.
No one makes the death-cultists act the way they do. They have sole responsibility for their evil. People who try and lighten that load of responsibility do so only because they're afraid of the implications of true evil.
What's ridiculous is your inability to realize that not everyone who protested against the cartoons is a "death cultist." What's ridiculous is you equating boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger with rape.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I do think it's not entirely unreasonable to equate the killings and burnings with rape, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Iran daily holds contest for Holocaust cartoons
Boycotts, protests, and anger are all an appropriate response to any cartoons which result.
Of course, boycotting oil is a lot more difficult than boycotting dairy products.
[ February 07, 2006, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do think it's not entirely unreasonable to equate the killings and burnings with rape, though.
That's absolutely appropriate. starLisa may have even thought she was doing so. But since the accusation was aimed at a particular quote dealing with "boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger," she wasn't actually doing so.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I find it unfortunate that the Iranian newspaper is choosing to have its contest focus on the Holocaust when none of the countries that ran the cartoons are predominently Jewish. Not that targetting any other group would be great, but it would more understandable. I realize it's both a question of traditional hatreds and that this has the potential to be much more offensive than a contest for cartoons making fun of Danes, but still. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: quote:I don't know that I agree with you about the violence. I imagine large peaceful protests would have served to make the point just as well as the violent ones.
And yet you stated that peaceful protest wouldn't be helpful.
No, I said "You are peacefully protesting the cartoons, but I must admit that I am confused as to what you hope to accomplish by doing so. It seems like a bad way to respond to the cartoons, both because it doesn't get your response out very effectively, and because it makes you look like you're trying to shut down free speech."
I imagine the point is made equally ineffectively by both violent and peaceful protests.
quote: quote:I dont see how they weren't. Dagonee, it's not just the cartoons, it's the very prevalent idea encapsulated behind some of the cartoons that Islam is a force for destruction and evil in the world.
And the boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger all serve to make it clear how serious this issue is to Muslims.
K. You recognize that you are arguing past my point about the effectiveness of the cartoons? Cartoons, boycotts, etc., are all different forms of communication generally and specifically, quantitatively and qualitatively. Further, I recognize that our perceptions of such are subjective. I'm not saying that there is some kind of absolute value assigned to each form of communication.
quote: quote:I'm also confused as to why the Danish newspaper would take out an ad? I'm not saying it should....
You proposed that Muslims would have done better to take out an ad than protest. The Danish newspaper could have printed a full page article without taking out an ad - the preferred mode you suggest is even more readily available to the paper.
The Danish paper printed the satirical cartoons. It prints everything in its own paper. Why would it need to take out an ad? It's the paper. I said Muslims could take out an ad because that is the usual way groups get their point out in papers.
In my opinion, the cartoons are a much more effective way of communication than protests. Should they be the only thing said? No. No way. I absolutely agree that it would be good for the paper to have an article discussing both sides of the issue.
quote: quote:I don't believe that the discussion would've been the same in quality or quantity.
An article in lieu of the cartoons wouldn't have generated the anger or protests.
Or the volume of disussion.
quote: It is the anger and protests that led to the discussion. Yet, you want the anger and protests not to happen.
No, what led to the discussion were the cartoons. Further, I don't care if people protest. Walk your little feet off, Muslims! It's just a crappy way to get out your rebuttal. To reiterate, protests only communicate edit: effectively to those present. Papers, the internet, these things reach millions.
quote: quote:I believe the satire of the cartoons says more, and is more effective in getting a message out, than just a protest.
The cartoons spread their message mostly because of the protests. The protests have made it very clear that many Muslims find this to be offensive. I guarantee you more people know that Muslims consider it blasphemous to visually portray the prophet than if the protests hadn't happened. As a means of getting a message out, it was quite effective.
Unfortunately, it was diluted by violence and other, intimidating messages.
The message that a protest march sends is confused and muddled and basically just demonstrates anger. While I grant you that one message is that Muslims don't like depictions of Mohammed, the more forceful message for many people is just that Muslims are angry people. Further, a lot of people see it as much less of an issue of Muslims being offended at the depiction of Mohammed, than that they don't like what's being said about Islam, that they want to put themselves above the kind of satire that other groups have to deal with in a free society.
I agree that the protests help the cartoons 'spread their message', but that doesn't take away from what the cartoons are saying, the fact that the cartoons are much better at making a statement than the protests. As I said before, right or wrong, the belief that Islam is a violent religion is already very prevalent in the West. The protests, even the peaceful protests, do help make the point of some of the cartoons and further foster the perception that Muslims don't really want to be part of a free society. Lots of other groups get lampooned and don't feel the need to protest.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The Danish paper printed the satirical cartoons. It prints everything in its own paper. Why would it need to take out an ad? It's the paper. I said Muslims could take out an ad because that is the usual way groups get their point out in papers.
It doesn't need to take out an ad. That's my point. I said the Danish paper could follow your advice (a full page explanation) more easily than the Muslims because it doesn't have to take out an ad. Good grief.
quote:K. You recognize that you are arguing past my point about the effectiveness of the cartoons?
No, I'm not. You said the cartoons generated a greater volume of discussion than an article would. My contention is that the cartoons only lead to discussion through the protests. Without the protest, the cartoons would have generated little discussion.
quote:No, what led to the discussion were the cartoons.
No, it's not. It was the protests that led to the discussion. The cartoons led to the protests.
quote:I agree that the protests help the cartoons 'spread their message', but that doesn't take away from what the cartoons are saying, the fact that the cartoons are much better at making a statement than the protests.
I think you drastically understate how much the sheer numbers involved in protests matter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My root disagreement with you Storm, however, is the idea that the protests are somehow an attempt at censorship or shutting down free speech, or that they appear that way. You praise the cartoons because they provoke a reaction and then condemn the reaction (and, once again starLisa, I'm not talking about the violence).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Storm, I have to ask: have you actually looked at the cartoons? You're very confident that they had a single collective purpose and that that purpose was to make the statement you ascribe to them.
Having seen them, I do agree with you that they had a single collective purpose, but as I've already mentioned in this thread, I think you're wrong about what that purpose was.
Added: Also, I don't buy your assertion that the cartoons have fostered meaningful discussion. They're like a Michael Moore film; they polarize debate rather than fostering discussion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I do not see a single collective purpose to the cartoons, although I admit that could be out of ignorance. What do you think it is, twinky?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I have to go for the day, and am probably going to be too tired to trust myself to reply intelligently (or at least what passes as such for me) later today or tomorrow. I'm pretty tired. I just want to say that I see everyone's replies. I read what you have to say, and will continue to read this thread.
Real quick, then:
Dagonee, I can't do a point by point reply to your next to last post as of this writing. Let me reply to this
quote: My root disagreement with you Storm, however, is the idea that the protests are somehow an attempt at censorship or shutting down free speech, or that they appear that way. You praise the cartoons because they provoke a reaction and then condemn the reaction (and, once again starLisa, I'm not talking about the violence).
Because the reaction, protests, aren't about further dialogue, it seems to me. The reaction (protests) is about shutting down a particular point of view.
quote:
Twinky,
[quote] Storm, I have to ask: have you actually looked at the cartoons? You're very confident that they had a single collective purpose and that that purpose was to make the statement you ascribe to them.
Having seen them, I do agree with you that they had a single collective purpose, but as I've already mentioned in this thread, I disagree with you about what that purpose was.
I didn't see your previous reply in this thread. Sorry.
I don't, actually, think the cartoons all say the same thing. I don't even know that I've addressed the issue of what the general purpose of all the cartoons was, so I'm not sure what I've said that gave the impression that 'I'm very confident that they had a single collective purpose'. Since the question is basically being put to me now, I believe the original general point of the Danish paper was how Islam is percieved in the west? That religious icons aren't above 'discussion' in the west? I know that's why some other papers published the cartoons--or at least said they did.
I have to go. Thanks all for the discussion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Iran daily holds contest for Holocaust cartoons
I have to give the Iran daily credit for being clever.
Really though... sticks and stones may break my bones, but cartoons published halfway around the world by some paper don't really do anything to anybody. With all the horrible things that go on the world, it's absolutely ridiculous to ever get worked up over a bunch of cartoons from a different country by a few people with poor taste, no matter who you are and what you believe. Then again, it's no worse than getting worked up over students having to say "under God" in schools, or having a statue of the 10 Commandments in a courthouse, or the burning of a flag, or the wording of a science textbook, or countless other symbolic controversies that generally waste political time and energy - and in this case, some lives too.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I do think it's not entirely unreasonable to equate the killings and burnings with rape, though.
That's absolutely appropriate. starLisa may have even thought she was doing so. But since the accusation was aimed at a particular quote dealing with "boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger," she wasn't actually doing so.
The hell you say. The demonstrations were mostly either violent or inciteful of violence. Calls to burn down Denmark may not be violent themselves, but they're characteristic of the death cultists.
Note that their obscene Holocaust cartoon contest isn't anything new. They've been doing that for decades. And I must have missed all of the violent Jewish demonstrations.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I find it unfortunate that the Iranian newspaper is choosing to have its contest focus on the Holocaust when none of the countries that ran the cartoons are predominently Jewish.
Yes, but ElJay, they're merely sticking with what they're good at. It's simple laziness.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The hell you say. The demonstrations were mostly either violent or inciteful of violence. Calls to burn down Denmark may not be violent themselves, but they're characteristic of the death cultists.
Wow. Way to miss the point.
I was talking about boycotts, anger, and demonstrations. Not violence or threats of violence.
You can talk all you want about the demonstrations being mostly about violence. Even if true, it's irrelvant to the accusation you levied against me. Because you've acknowledged that some demonstrations were not violent or inciteful of violence, you have also acknowledged that the things I was talking about (i.e., non-violent demonstrations) actually exist.
And to anologize what I said about nonviolent demonstrations (plus boycotts and anger) - which you have admitted exist - to accusing the rape victim of being provactive is just flat out wrong.
I was talking about the nonviolent aspects of the reaction. My major concern about your reaction to this is your inability to separate the violent from the non-violent.
All your passsion could be a powerful force for good if you would just learn how to apply it precisely. Instead, you wield it like a shotgun to attack everything near your target and, what's worse, accuse the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim.
quote:Because the reaction, protests, aren't about further dialogue, it seems to me. The reaction (protests) is about shutting down a particular point of view.
OK. I think they are about communicating a very important message: that this matters to a great many people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's amazing the difference you see when you read Arabic news and European news versus getting everything from CNN.
I was reading Al-Jazeera last night. They seemed to mostly abhor the violence, but did point out several instances of peaceful protest amongst the violence. Some European Muslims peacefully protested, and there was a sit-in in Kuwait.
Many of the Danish and other European website news outlets I read made a big deal of "Europe speaking with one voice." I'm not sure how much this sentiment is shared by the people, but as far as the governments of Europe are concerned, a boycott on Denmark is the same thing as a boycott on the entire EU to them. Denmark is already starting to see a results from the boycotts in the ME, as they closed down a dairy factory of some kind in Riyadh, and laid off 4,000 workers, who I'm guessing were probably Saudi, not from Denmark.
Further, it appears the protesting Muslims are starting to see Europe as one too. Austrian embassies are being attacked as well as Norweigan and Danish. Austria being the current president of the EU.
It should be noted that Al-Sistani, the most powerful Shiite Imam in Iraq has called for an end to the violence. That's rather the opposite of what I'm hearing out of public officials in Afghanistan, where the violent protests are rampant, and Pakistan. In Afghanistan, protesters are throwing rocks at allied bases there with peacekeeping forces. And it appeared to be rather indiscrimmantely aimed at Westerners, not specifically Danish, or even European forces.
I think some of the analogies I've read on Al-Jazeera struck home with me the most. You wouldn't see the N word, or other racial slurs that go along with other races, or religions in European newspapers, out of respect for those people. Because those words serve no other purpose but to be insulting and demeaning, and their use is more or less off limits by the media, and the media doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Depictions of the Prophet fall under that same umbrella, and publishing them can thus serve no other purpose but to inflame anger and be insulting.
That's probably already been said here, but I don't remember it specifically. Either way, that struck home with me. I recommend anyone following the story tries to read it from either a Danish or Euro news source, or from Al-Jazeera. It's a slightly different rendering than the neutral-leaning US press is giving it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Of course the US press seems to be too chicken so far to even print a copy of the cartoons with the articles about them.
[ February 07, 2006, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Or they have too much respect.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Or they have too much respect.
I think the pictures belong in an article about them. If I were reading an article about anti-Semitic cartoons, I would like to see what I am reading about. Just because a newspaper prints a picture, does not mean they are condoning it. It all comes down to the context in which it is printed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Or they have too much respect.
I think the pictures belong in an article about them. If I were reading an article about anti-Semitic cartoons, I would like to see what I am reading about. Just because a newspaper prints a picture, does not mean they are condoning it. It all comes down to the context in which it is printed.
I'm not sure if the people being offended by this see the difference Stephen. Printing it is as good as condoning it as far as they are concerned. It might be that they have respect enough to not print them, which I prefer to think. Or it might be as Stephen Colbert says, in that they are 'bound by ethics and the fact that we're scared to death to show it.' Either way, if anyone knows anything about offensive language and the boundaries of where free speech starts to intrude on morality and ethics when it comes to race and religion, it should be America, we've had enough practice at it.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Storm, if I misinterpreted your posts then I apologize. I read from them that you took the cartoons to be collectively making a statement about the perceived nature of Islam. Based on your last post it looks like I misread you. Sorry.
ElJay, my view is that the cartoons are, as a collective, solely and deliberately intended to offend Muslims. I don't think it's about commentary at all, and I think calling them "satire" does a disservice to the term. As I said earlier, I think it's emblematic of the current European backlash against increasing Muslim immigration.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Sigh... and now the Muslims in Norway are getting threats and grafitti on their walls. (I'd link, but the newspaper is only in Norwegian.) No actual beatings or killings yet, fortunately. And it's difficult to get a howling mob together in a country which is about 90% middle class. Let's hope it goes no further than nasty emails.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: The headliner terrorists who operate against the two countries she has an interest in are Muslim, but there are substantial Catholic (luckily they've died down of recent years), Maoist, and nationalist (of various stripes) terrorist movements. In fact, by far most terrorism is nationally or ethnically motivated rather than religiously motivated, though sometimes with a religious component. There isn't so much a meaningful correlation between terrorists and muslims as there is between terrorists and marginalized peoples with guns, and marginalized peoples with guns and muslims.
I think this bears repeating. Especially since the "Catholic terrorists" didn't just "die down". I'm assuming that we're talking about N. Ireland - and if not it is still a good example. The Republican leaders were able to move their constituents away from violence precisely because they became less marginalized.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: And it's difficult to get a howling mob together in a country which is about 90% middle class.
Yes. It is.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Bunglawala said: 'The purpose (of the rally) is to put across the mainstream Islamic viewpoint. We think the extremists, with their disgraceful placards, have turned attention away from the original issue.'
'We want to refocus attention to what this is about: the senseless publication of images of the Prophet Mohammed.'
Twinky's post has caused me to realize that the origins and context of the cartoons are a little murky to me, so here are a few links I dug up to clarify matters.
quote: Danish Union of Journalists can not oppose editorial use of Mohammed cortoons
The Danish Union of Journalists and the twelve cartoonists have decided not to take legal action against the many media which have reproduced the cartoons without permission, and to state clearly that the cartoons in dispute may also be reproduced in the future for editorial purposes in news and current affairs media in Denmark and abroad. But the Danish Union emphasize that the Union do not recommend further editorial use.
“In a discussion with the cartoonists, we have decided to allow all serious media which apply for relevant editorial use of the disputed Mohammed cartoons to do so,” says Mogens Blicher Bjerregård, chairman of the Danish Union of Journalists.
“After various international news media have published the twelve cartoons, it is important for us to clearly state the context in which the cartoons can be used. And this must be in a respectful and serious editorial context,” says Mogens Bjerregård. “The cartoonists’ attitude is that if other media publish the cartoons, it is important that the original concept and context of the cartoons is communicated correctly.”
quote: The cartoonists will not oppose reproduction of the Mohammed cartoons that were originally published in Jyllands-Posten if this is done in connection with editorial coverage in newsmedia or similar media in a manner which complies with the rules of internationally accepted press ethics - www.ifj.org.
The remuneration has been set at €250 per cartoon per reproduction. The fee has been set at an average to make it applicable for the various types of media and countries.
The cartoonists do not, however, wish to receive the fees themselves. They have instead decided that the fees shall finance an international prize for cartoonists, to be awarded to a recognised and committed cartoonist who in the form of satirical cartoons has focused on important societal matters – such as for example freedom of speech
The problem with a lot of the people taking the hardline pro-cartoon position is the inability to properly acknowledge or appreciate the larger cultural context within which this event is playing out. And also the exact history of the specific Danish cartoon controversy more specifically.
quote: I think a similar dynamic is playing out in some of the commentary I have seen on this website (and of course, elsewhere). Firstly, let us take note of the original context of the cartoon's publication. A populist right wing Danish tabloid Jyllands-Posten commissioned a series of cartoonists to draw depictions of Mohammed after a Danish children's book about Mohammed could not find an illustrator because prospective illustrators did not want to depict Mohammed, fearing a personal backlash, as any depiction of Mohammed is regarded as sacreligious by many Muslims. That is the immediate background.
quote: Following the discussion in Denmark, Jyllands-Posten published a series of interviews with Muslims and articles about Islam to show the other side of the story. This did not calm tensions though.
quote: The drawings, including a depiction of Muhammad with a bomb inside or under his turban, accompanied an article on self-censorship and freedom of speech. Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad. Cartoonists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.
Although Jyllands-Posten maintains that the drawings were an exercise in free speech, some contend that regardless of faith, the depiction of Muhammad as a terrorist is culturally offensive and blasphemous. However, many others view the cartoons as a form of non-violent protest in response to the violent threats and intimidation experienced by those who publicly criticise Islam.
I hope these links further our understanding of the issues under discussion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: ElJay, my view is that the cartoons are, as a collective, solely and deliberately intended to offend Muslims.
Do you believe that this was the intent of all 12 of the cartoonists, of the editorial staff of the paper, or both?
Added: Or, of course, of some of the 12 cartoonists and/or the editorial staff.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
At least they're going to spend the money on something worthwhile, but I still think you're not looking at it broadly enough. Here is another example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. The company in question argued, among other things, that their customers might be put off by employees in headscarves.
Things like this, as well as the French headscarf ban, are related to the deeper question of how European countries are going to deal with their growing Muslim immigrant populations.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Yes, I think your link illustrates an employer boycott. Sad they can't tolerate, isn't it?
Anyways, several of the links that I just posted go into the whole culture war issue.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The hell you say. The demonstrations were mostly either violent or inciteful of violence. Calls to burn down Denmark may not be violent themselves, but they're characteristic of the death cultists.
Wow. Way to miss the point.
I was talking about boycotts, anger, and demonstrations. Not violence or threats of violence.
You can talk all you want about the demonstrations being mostly about violence. Even if true, it's irrelvant to the accusation you levied against me. Because you've acknowledged that some demonstrations were not violent or inciteful of violence, you have also acknowledged that the things I was talking about (i.e., non-violent demonstrations) actually exist.
And to anologize what I said about nonviolent demonstrations (plus boycotts and anger) - which you have admitted exist - to accusing the rape victim of being provactive is just flat out wrong.
I was talking about the nonviolent aspects of the reaction. My major concern about your reaction to this is your inability to separate the violent from the non-violent.
All your passsion could be a powerful force for good if you would just learn how to apply it precisely. Instead, you wield it like a shotgun to attack everything near your target and, what's worse, accuse the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim.
quote:Because the reaction, protests, aren't about further dialogue, it seems to me. The reaction (protests) is about shutting down a particular point of view.
OK. I think they are about communicating a very important message: that this matters to a great many people.
Uh. Dag, I don't think she's associating the peaceful protests with the fundamentalist faction of Islam. I think she's associating the violent, arsoning, armed protests with the fundamentalist faction of Islam.
Peaceful protests aren't the issue here. I don't care if Egypt boycotts Danish goods, though I think their blame is misplaced -- I care if Syrian gunmen set fire to the Danish embassy.
And she hasn't "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim." She equated people holding Denmark responsible for Muslim riots because they "provoked" them as accusations of the rape victim responsible for her attack because she "provoked" him. Rape is a strong issue with me, and I'm damn sensitive about callous analogies -- and this wasn't, simply a potrayal of what these accusations would look like in another light.
I'm getting really tired of this. I don't know what happened before I returned here, but since I've started seeing her posts, starLisa's been an intelligent, well-informed member of the community. I know we disagree on several issues, but I'm not nearly insecure enough to take that personally. Why is this board so outrageously antagonistic towards her?
Props to Lisa for having the sheer spine and patience to not only withstand it all, but counter it. I'm really impressed.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: starLisa hates hypotheticals. Actually, I'm not sure if she even understands the concept.
Again, stupidity's not as charming as you seem to think it is.
Assuming you're attempting to chastise me here, what do you mean by "again"?
In keeping with that assumption, from what I've seen of starLisa's responses to others, as well as myself, she has little respect for hypotheticals that don't serve her own purposes. Thus it's not stupidity, it's observation.
By "again," I mean just in this same thread you've also referred to Tom as an idiot for not agreeing with you. What's with you, guy?
Look, I agree with you on this subject, for the most part. I've read your posts, and I've nodded my support, and I've enjoyed reading what you've brought to the table. You're smart enough that you don't have to resort to name-calling and trolling. So why are you?
Lisa and Tom are very smart people. Tom can disagree with you without being an idiot, and I'm guessing Lisa understands the concept of a hypothetical. And I know you're smart enough to know that. So cut it out, because I'd enjoy liking you when I agree with you.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:Originally posted by twinky: ElJay, my view is that the cartoons are, as a collective, solely and deliberately intended to offend Muslims.
Do you believe that this was the intent of all 12 of the cartoonists, of the editorial staff of the paper, or both?
Added: Or, of course, of some of the 12 cartoonists and/or the editorial staff.
The editorial staff. I'm not going to go so far as to guess at artistic intent on the part of the cartoonists.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Yes, I think your link illustrates an employer boycott. Sad they can't tolerate, isn't it?
Anyways, several of the links that I just posted go into the whole culture war issue.
Yes, you just quoted somewhat selectively.
In any case, I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just telling you what I think, and I'm sorry to have tugged you back into the thread. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: The editorial staff. I'm not going to go so far as to guess at artistic intent on the part of the cartoonists.
Okay, thanks. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And she hasn't "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim." She equated people holding Denmark responsible for Muslim riots because they "provoked" them as accusations of the rape victim responsible for her attack because she "provoked" him.
Lalo, maybe you want to bother gathering the facts before jumping on me like that. She absolutely did make that accusation, as a modicum of investigation by you would have discovered. Here's the original post that started this subthread:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And the boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger all serve to make it clear how serious this issue is to Muslims.
That's ridiculous. The violence and vandalism and murder is there. It just waits for any excuse. And that's all these cartoons were: an excuse. The death-cultists jumped at it.
This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion.
No one makes the death-cultists act the way they do. They have sole responsibility for their evil. People who try and lighten that load of responsibility do so only because they're afraid of the implications of true evil.
Read what I wrote again: She "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim."
I was the person defending the bystanders - specifically, the nonviolent protestors - caught up in her broadside. She accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim. If you need to, look at what I said one more time: she accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim.
She was replying to a sentence about boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger, and she made the rape accusation in direct response. The fact that she utterly revised what I said doesn't change that - it makes it worse. She lied about what I said in order to make that accusation. But the accusation was directly leveled at me.
quote:Rape is a strong issue with me, and I'm damn sensitive about callous analogies -- and this wasn't, simply a potrayal of what these accusations would look like in another light.
And she was wrong, because my post was not an accusation and is NOTHING like blaming a rape victim.
quote:I'm getting really tired of this. I don't know what happened before I returned here, but since I've started seeing her posts, starLisa's been an intelligent, well-informed member of the community. I know we disagree on several issues, but I'm not nearly insecure enough to take that personally. Why is this board so outrageously antagonistic towards her?
I'm more than a little tired of you jumping on my case when you don't know the facts - especially when the facts are right there in the thread for you to see. Either get it right or butt out.
quote:Why is this board so outrageously antagonistic towards her?
Perhaps this is your problem understanding the situation. Rather than projecting your perceived baggage onto this conversation, try looking at just this thread. Maybe that will help you deal with what's actually said rather than your own little version of it.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
No, I agree with you, Twinky!
Also, my quotes weren't trying to hide anything in the links, for goodness sakes. My natural tendency is to quote everything because I know no one on this !@#$$#%! forum ever reads links, so I was trying to quote things that I thought touched on some of the things that had been discussed in this thread. I wasn't trying to disguise the issues at hand.
Certainly, I agree with you that the speech issue is wrapped up in the whole culture war in Europe specifically regarding how, and whether, Muslims can fit into a liberal Western democracy, and generaly the place of religion as a whole in society.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: In any case, I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm just telling you what I think, and I'm sorry to have tugged you back into the thread
I know I shouldn't post anything now when I'm tired and I won't want to respond to any long posts, so I"m trying to keep them short. I enjoy this thread too much to not say anything, it seems. Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Storm! The " " was intended to denote a friendly jab, an attempt at humour! In no way was I accusing you of misrepresenting anything!
Also, I should be clear (since it's been a few pages since I mentioned it) that I find the reactions of the Syrian, Iranian, and Saudi Arabian governments incredibly hypocritical given that it isn't all that hard to come by depictions of Muhammad in at least one of those countries, if not all of them. I'm also horrified by the violent reactions I've seen. Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:And she hasn't "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim." She equated people holding Denmark responsible for Muslim riots because they "provoked" them as accusations of the rape victim responsible for her attack because she "provoked" him.
Lalo, maybe you want to bother gathering the facts before jumping on me like that. She absolutely did make that accusation, as a modicum of investigation by you would have discovered. Here's the original post that started this subthread:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: And the boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger all serve to make it clear how serious this issue is to Muslims.
That's ridiculous. The violence and vandalism and murder is there. It just waits for any excuse. And that's all these cartoons were: an excuse. The death-cultists jumped at it.
This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion.
No one makes the death-cultists act the way they do. They have sole responsibility for their evil. People who try and lighten that load of responsibility do so only because they're afraid of the implications of true evil.
Read what I wrote again: She "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim."
I was the person defending the bystanders - specifically, the nonviolent protestors - caught up in her broadside. She accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim. If you need to, look at what I said one more time: she accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim.
She was replying to a sentence about boycotts, mass demonstrations, and anger, and she made the rape accusation in direct response. The fact that she utterly revised what I said doesn't change that - it makes it worse. She lied about what I said in order to make that accusation. But the accusation was directly leveled at me.
If you want me off your case, quit giving me a reason to be annoyed with you. In this case, Lisa read your defense of Muslim "anger," and not unreasonably (especially given the focus of the entire thread is on the violent Muslim protests), disagreed that the responsibility for Muslim violence lies with the Danish.
Now, Dag, this is what Lisa wrote:
This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion.
And this is what I wrote:
And she hasn't "accuse[d] the people defending the bystanders of something akin to blaming a rape victim." She equated people holding Denmark responsible for Muslim riots because they "provoked" them as accusations of the rape victim responsible for her attack because she "provoked" him.
So what facts do you think I'm missing, but that you're upset Lisa doesn't hold the Danish newspaper responsible for the strong Muslim backlash (for not understanding or caring "how serious this issue is to Muslims") and misread your post in a thread about Muslim arson, Muslim threats, and Muslim rioting as defensive of Muslim "anger"?
Get a grip, guy. Lisa's done nothing wrong, and if you believe she's misunderstood your purpose in defending Muslim anger and not particularly vehemently condemning Muslim violence, it's easier just to point that out than to complain she "wield[s her passion] like a shotgun to attack everything near your target." It's not unreasonable to understand your post in a broader scope, particularly since Lisa was condemning what she terms the "death cultist" faction of Islam as using the cartoons as an excuse for violence -- rather than these particular Muslims, as you suggested, simply taking criticism of Islam very seriously. She's in no way condemned peaceful Muslim protests, only fundamentalist violence.
Nobody's a bad guy in this thread. Lisa's angry, as am I, about the violent backlash to a cartoon critical of Islam. I'm sure it's a very blasphemous cartoon, but that gives Muslims the right to be offended, and even draw another cartoon in response -- not to arson, murder, and riot. I know you agree with this, and I believe everyone in this thread does. But I do have to wonder at the incessant focus on the cartoonists, and I don't particularly hold Lisa responsible for the same apparent illusion I succumbed to, that some people in this thread are more concerned with the newspaper's blame than the Muslim community's responsibility.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Lalo, the "This" in "This is like a rapist blaming the victim for wearing provocative clothing. So what if it was provocative? That's not only not an excuse for the violence, but shouldn't even be mentioned in the same discussion" referred to my post - a post where, one sentence above, I made it clear the context was peaceful proteset.
She accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim. Read that again and let it soak in: she accused me of something akin to blaming a rape victim.
She responded to my reiteration that I was speaking only of boycotts, demonstration, and anger with "The hell you say. The demonstrations were mostly either violent or inciteful of violence."
In this very quote, she acknowledges that there are non-violent, non-inciteful demonstrations. These were the demonstrations I was speaking of. And her response is "The hell you say."
quote:So what facts do you think I'm missing, but that you're upset Lisa doesn't hold the Danish newspaper responsible for the strong Muslim backlash
I'm not upset that she doesn't hold them responsible for the backlash. I don't hold them responsible for the backlash. What I'm annoyed about is that Lisa is attempting to say that no one has a right to be upset about the cartoons because some Muslims reacted violently to them. And in the course of making this argument, she accused me of something akin to balming a rape victim.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
You misunderstand her point. She's holding these fundamentalist Muslims (and those who defend them) responsible for their actions, and believes those who excuse them by virtue of being provoked as akin to blaming the rape victim.
As you're obviously neither fundamentalist Muslim nor excusing their actions, her words obviously don't apply to you. However, since you did excuse Muslim "anger," I can see why she might've misunderstood you. When you explained yourself to say you were referring to "mass demonstrations," Lisa again reasonably understood you to mean the violent demonstrations. Finish her quote:
quote:The hell you say. The demonstrations were mostly either violent or inciteful of violence. Calls to burn down Denmark may not be violent themselves, but they're characteristic of the death cultists."
She was referring to apologists for fundamentalist violence as akin to blaming the rape victim, not you. I'm pretty sure she wasn't telling you that you're blaming the rape victim -- though if I'm wrong, I leave it to her to correct me. If I'm not wrong, though, can we leave this issue be? I hate getting caught up in semantics and offensive bullshit when something this interesting's going on in the world.
To that end, I ask -- is the offense even that great? One of the funniest skits in Family Guy history was Stewie going back in time and discovering Jesus wasn't all he's cracked up to be (I'll leave the skit unspoiled for those who haven't seen it). I didn't see mass violence or hysteria at that. I know there was some Catholic furor over the release of Kevin Smith's Dogma (though I'm not sure why), and I didn't see any heretics burned at the stake. I don't believe Muslims deserve a greater right to offense than anyone else -- so why the anger? Why are there even peaceful protests -- I recognize their right to exist, and I'm fine with them so long as they don't harm anyone, but why the outrage in the first place? Or is this simply an excuse to vent pent-up rage -- similar to the black riots over Rodney King?
Or what?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:To that end, I ask -- is the offense even that great?
Yes. This is a profoundly ignorant question, Eddie. An insulting cartoon of Mohammed is just about as offensive as it's possible to get in Islam; the only way I could imagine it being worse would be if they put words in his mouth -- any words -- and depicted him eating pork.
Now, you can argue that more Muslims should learn to overlook some of these offenses, and I'll wholeheartedly agree; by storming into the traps laid by cynical newspaper editors, they don't do themselves -- or rational discussion -- any favors. (I've made similar arguments about how important I believe it is for members of the LDS church to develop a sense of humor about things they consider "sacred," for much the same reason.)
Posted by Dazgul (Member # 1070) on :
I came across this article on beliefnet which gives a really interesting alternative perspective on the whole raucous/tragedy/absurdity. I didn't agree with all of it, neither will you, but it did make me stop and think for a while.
Sorry if someone's already left this link. I have only read the last three pages of this forum topic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You misunderstand her point. She's holding these fundamentalist Muslims (and those who defend them) responsible for their actions, and believes those who excuse them by virtue of being provoked as akin to blaming the rape victim.
As you're obviously neither fundamentalist Muslim nor excusing their actions, her words obviously don't apply to you
Lalo, what you're ignoring is that many people have made the distinction between Muslims who protest violently and those who protest in acceptable manners and that Lisa has insisted there is no difference between those two groups.
quote:I hate getting caught up in semantics and offensive bullshit when something this interesting's going on in the world.
Then don't get caught up in it next time. If you let it go, I will.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: starLisa hates hypotheticals. Actually, I'm not sure if she even understands the concept.
Again, stupidity's not as charming as you seem to think it is.
Assuming you're attempting to chastise me here, what do you mean by "again"?
In keeping with that assumption, from what I've seen of starLisa's responses to others, as well as myself, she has little respect for hypotheticals that don't serve her own purposes. Thus it's not stupidity, it's observation.
By "again," I mean just in this same thread you've also referred to Tom as an idiot for not agreeing with you. What's with you, guy?
Look, I agree with you on this subject, for the most part. I've read your posts, and I've nodded my support, and I've enjoyed reading what you've brought to the table. You're smart enough that you don't have to resort to name-calling and trolling. So why are you?
Lisa and Tom are very smart people. Tom can disagree with you without being an idiot, and I'm guessing Lisa understands the concept of a hypothetical. And I know you're smart enough to know that. So cut it out, because I'd enjoy liking you when I agree with you.
My argument with Tom was not a matter of a simple disagreement. He flat out called me a racist, and I'm sorry, but I find that offensive, and to be honest, stupid. If he isn't stupid, which I believe, then he's just being inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory, which makes him ten times the troll I've ever been, or probably ever will be.
As for starLisa, I wouldn't even know where to start, but she's shown the uncanny ability to throw invective and sarcasm in the fact of reason more times than I can count. And on several occasions when I and others have lobbed hypotheticals in her direction to try and prove a point, she has responded disrespectfully, sarcastically, and in a manner that could be likened to the word "idiot."
It's very much NOT trolling, and not idle name calling. And I'd hope that most people here would agree that I usually don't resort to something so petty. But I'm also sick of direct provocation.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Ahhh...derailed again.
Anyways...now the Afghans (no wigs involved) are trying to storm a U.S. base...
I think the thing that bothers me most about the violence that's happening in Middle Eastern countries on account of this is that it was deliberately stirred up by the group of Danish Muslim clerics who put together that embellished 43-page "dossier" and then took it on tour in the Middle East. If that wasn't an obvious attempt to stir the pot, I don't know what is. It has worked very well. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Why would they do that? I just don't get it. Added: I mean I don't see what possible benefit Danish Muslims get from stirring the pot like this.
In THT's link, it says that the original Danish paper is trying to contact the Iranian paper, because they want to publish the winners of it's Holocaust cartoon contest on the same day. :/
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
ElJay--a violent Muslim conquest of Denmark.
Ok, maybe support for their feelings of betrayal and degradation by the Danish press.
But probably the chance to be big fish in the Organized Violent Islamic Fringe that is making so much trouble around the world.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why would a group of Danish Islamic clerics want to stir the pot? Lots of reasons. Some of them even stem from honest outrage over the cartoons originally printed. But unless they're pretty stupid and unaware of how the Muslim world reacts to this sort of thing, most of the possible reasons stem from callous manipulation of their brethren to further desires for religious war and conflict sort of thing, I think.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To that end, I ask -- is the offense even that great?
Yes. This is a profoundly ignorant question, Eddie. An insulting cartoon of Mohammed is just about as offensive as it's possible to get in Islam; the only way I could imagine it being worse would be if they put words in his mouth -- any words -- and depicted him eating pork.
I doubt it's half as offensive to them as their Nazi-like cartoons of Jews are to us. But sane people don't kill because they're offended.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Why would they do that? I just don't get it. Added: I mean I don't see what possible benefit Danish Muslims get from stirring the pot like this.
Like I said about the Holocaust cartoons, ElJay. It's just what they do.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Why would they do that? I just don't get it. Added: I mean I don't see what possible benefit Danish Muslims get from stirring the pot like this.
I think the intent of the clerics was to teach Danes -- and Europeans in general -- a "lesson." Something along the lines of "mess with us and there will be boycotts and violence." Also, I think they wanted other Muslims to be as mad about the cartoons as they were, and were willing to make false insinuations in order to acheive that.
Danish (and really, European) Muslims won't benefit at all -- if anything, I think this is going to make things worse for them.
quote:In THT's link, it says that the original Danish paper is trying to contact the Iranian paper, because they want to publish the winners of it's Holocaust cartoon contest on the same day. :/
That would certainly be in keeping with the paper's comparatively juvenile modus operandi. "What? People don't want to draw Muhammad? We'll pay people to draw Muhammad! Neener-neener, you Muslims, we can print whatever we like!" What's also amusing, in a sad way, is that a few years back the same paper declined to print irreverent cartoon depictions of Jesus, citing the potential public outcry. It's okay for them to pick on the Muslims and Jews, apparently, provided they leave the Christians alone.
Having said that, I think the apology that they issued a while ago was entirely appropriate and should have been the end of the matter. They said "we're allowed to print this stuff, but we're sorry it offended you." I'm not sure what I'd do now, if I were in the paper's position.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: Why would they do that? I just don't get it. Added: I mean I don't see what possible benefit Danish Muslims get from stirring the pot like this.
Like I said about the Holocaust cartoons, ElJay. It's just what they do.
I'm not willing to accept that as an answer, Lisa. Everyone has motivation beyond "it's just what they do," and trying to reduce it to that is not only ignorant and demeaning, it's also not useful.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Okay, ElJay. The thing is, there are people who want to create chaos and violence. There are Muslims who really believe that they have a God given obligation to conquer the rest of the world. And they're pissed that there isn't a universal jihad happening right now. These people will do whatever they can to encourage such a thing, because they believe that (a) it's what God wants, and (b) it will lead to a paradise where they're on top and everyone else is on the bottom.
They hate. You're not willing to accept that as an answer, so fine. Understand that by refusing to accept it, you're intentionally blinding yourself to the possibility that it's actually the case.
Why does Fred Phelps run his "God Hates Fags" thing? Why does Pat Robertson say the idiotic things he says? Why do the parents of Prussian Blue thing it's a good thing to turn two little girls into Nazi scum? Maybe it's because they're little people who need to make themselves feel big. Maybe it's because they have a mental illness that makes them believe delusional bulls**t. Maybe it's because there is such a thing as evil, and some people embrace it.
Wouldn't it be lovely if there was a nice little reason for such things? Something you could just fix with a little tweak here or there? If it's because of poverty, we could give them money. If it's because they're offended, we could stop offending them. But that's not the case. They want to be offended, because it gives them an excuse to rampage. I simply do not get how people don't see that.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I'm perfectly willing to accept that people hate. You'll notice that's not what you said. I do, however, believe that there's usually a reason for hate. Just saying "because they hate" is also not useful. While we can't fix every problem, that doesn't mean we should just write them all off and not try. Not. Useful.
---------
There's an interesting op-ed in The International Herald Tribune today. It doesn't address the motives of the Danish clerics, but it does talk about the response of Muslims in general. quid or Amira, if you get a chance, I'd love to know what you think of it.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Or they have too much respect.
Nope. The NY Times won't run the cartoons, but in an article about the cartoons, they will run a 7-year-old AP photo of a 'Virgin Mary' image smeared with elephant dung:
Clearly, the reason is not 'respect' or 'sensitivity.'
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oddly enough, that piece was not intended as disrespectful, just edgy and avant-garde. This is in opposition to the depictions of Muhammed, which nobody even vaguely familiar with Islam would consider inoffensive. Also, she isn't smeared with dung, dung is the medium used to create one of her breasts, as a symbol of fertility and life.
There's nothing inherently offensive to christians about that piece, though there are arguable offensive things about it upon consideration. Publishing depictions of Muhammed is an inherently offensive thing to do. Its perfectly possible for a paper to be acting out of respect or sensitivity and publish the mary piece without publishing the Muhammed cartoons.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: I'm perfectly willing to accept that people hate. You'll notice that's not what you said. I do, however, believe that there's usually a reason for hate. Just saying "because they hate" is also not useful. While we can't fix every problem, that doesn't mean we should just write them all off and not try. Not. Useful.
I hear what you're saying, really. But I disagree. What do you think the "God Hates Fags" folks have as their reason for hating? Or the parents of the Prussian Blue girls? Do you really think there's no point at which you have to just say, "I don't care why you're behaving like a pig; you're behaving like a pig, so go to hell"?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do. This is the lie that keeps getting repeated. There is a long history, even among Muslims, of depicting Muhammed. You've seen links in this very thread to many, many examples. That is not what this is about.
Fugu, the difference isn't what you think it is. The difference is the knowledge that Christians aren't going to start rioting in the streets and killing people just because someone runs an offensive picture. Neither are Jews. Just Muslims.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Oddly enough, that piece was not intended as disrespectful, just edgy and avant-garde. This is in opposition to the depictions of Muhammed, which nobody even vaguely familiar with Islam would consider inoffensive. Also, she isn't smeared with dung, dung is the medium used to create one of her breasts, as a symbol of fertility and life.
There's nothing inherently offensive to christians about that piece, though there are arguable offensive things about it upon consideration. Publishing depictions of Muhammed is an inherently offensive thing to do. Its perfectly possible for a paper to be acting out of respect or sensitivity and publish the mary piece without publishing the Muhammed cartoons.
I wish your empathy of Islam extended to Christianity fugu, I really do. Instead of disrespect it's just edgy and avant-garde. I seriously thought you were being a bit ironic the first time I read your post. Sadly, I was mistaken.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The cartoons were run in September of last year; the rioting didn't start until the Danish clerics stirred the pot with their embellished report, meeting directly with political officials and influential religious figures in the Middle East.
Added: Just in case anyone thinks that the cartoons first ran a week or two ago and then there was a spontaneous uproar.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Why, for that matter, do people believe in (picking an example completely at random) Orthodox Judaism? Could it be because
quote:they have a mental illness that makes them believe delusional bulls**t
?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do.
Nothing is inherently offensive. Things only become offensive in the mind of an observer, and the context in which they view those things.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
BQT: The edgy and avant-garde was in relation to the intent. Read the rest of what I said, including where I pointed out the piece could well be offensive, it just wasn't inherently offensive. The artist has made it clear his piece isn't intended as disrespectful of Christianity, but celebratory.
Tres: try looking up a definition of inherent. Now go read up on Islam. Publishing such depictions is inherently offensive to Islam as practiced by much of the world. That you are using an inadequate definition of inherent is the problem you have with understanding my statement.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do. This is the lie that keeps getting repeated. There is a long history, even among Muslims, of depicting Muhammed. You've seen links in this very thread to many, many examples.
Here's the thing, Lisa--you make stuff up and assert it as fact often enough that I have no confidence that what you're saying here is true. You certainly sound like you know what you're talking about, but I find that you often sound your most convincing when you're pulling things directly out of your nether regions. Given that, and given that what you're saying flies in the face of what little I do know about Islam, I'm suspicious.
I've looked at many, but not all of the links in this thread, and haven't seen anything to support your claim. Could you point me to a few of the links that you feel make this point, and perhaps some other impartial sites that discuss the role of graphic representations of Muhammad in Islamic cultures?
[ February 08, 2006, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: Noemon ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do. This is the lie that keeps getting repeated. There is a long history, even among Muslims, of depicting Muhammed.
No, sL, there really isn't. There are exceptions, and some people have gotten away with them. I would not refer to this as a "history."
There was a brief period in the Dark Ages where -- largely influenced by the artistic traditions of the Roman Empire -- it was "okay" to iconize Muhammed; he was depicted in that period as generally having a flame rising from his head in much the same way that portraits of Christ from the same period show a golden halo. But it didn't last more than three generations, and most of the examples of that style have been destroyed.
I understand why it suits your purposes to pretend that it's not a big deal, but you're just not particularly well-informed on this issue.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: BQT: The edgy and avant-garde was in relation to the intent. Read the rest of what I said, including where I pointed out the piece could well be offensive, it just wasn't inherently offensive. The artist has made it clear his piece isn't intended as disrespectful of Christianity, but celebratory.
Bull. The Danish cartoonists could say with equal legitimacy (i.e., none) that their work is a celebration of Islam. To say that something is not intended to offend does not make it true.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, no, they couldn't. There's nothing inherently disrespectful about dung, particularly when it comes to art. You'd be surprised the things various dyes and some interesting pots are made out of. Think of all the weird art stuff that appears -- most of that isn't intended to offend, even though it involves all sorts of bizarre things. Why do you assume something made by an artist known for making weird things is intended to offend merely because the subject is religious, particularly when the artist says it isn't intended to offend?
I'm not even saying don't be offended by it. The art isn't particularly effective, IMO, and its certainly possible to be justifiably offended by many things, even if done with good intentions. But its exceedingly easy to imagine it not being intended to offend when created by an artist who experiments with stuff and is likely quite out of touch with what offends religious people.
However, I fail to see publishing an image of the prophet Muhammed with his turban shaped like a bomb when you know any depiction of him is considered offensive by vast numbers of Muslims could be called a celebration. Would you care to explain that to me?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
To clarify a point:
Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban. Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found.
Here is an interesting link to another web board that gives some more information about this topic:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why, for that matter, do people believe in (picking an example completely at random) Orthodox Judaism? Could it be because
quote:they have a mental illness that makes them believe delusional bulls**t
?
Your theophobic nastiness aside, O King, try not to compare apples and oranges. We don't go on murderous rampages even when self-styled monarchs of nothing mouth off about our religion.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do.
Nothing is inherently offensive. Things only become offensive in the mind of an observer, and the context in which they view those things.
But the claim keeps being made that Islam absolutely forbids any depiction of Muhammed, and that merely doing that is an attack on Islam. It's not true, though. It's a lie that keeps getting repeated over and over, as though it somehow justifies the lunacy of the death-cultists. When (a) it wouldn't justify it even if it was true, and (b) it isn't true.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Why, for that matter, do people believe in (picking an example completely at random) Orthodox Judaism? Could it be because
quote:they have a mental illness that makes them believe delusional bulls**t
?
Your theophobic nastiness aside, O King, try not to compare apples and oranges. We don't go on murderous rampages even when self-styled monarchs of nothing mouth off about our religion.
Yes; Phelps and the Prussia Blue people are certainly much nastier than you are. But I would suggest that their beliefs are precisely as solidly grounded as yours. Presumably, they too would point to some 'personal experience' or 'inner conviction' as the reason for their faith, just as you have done on these very boards, many times. Why, then, is it not reasonable to suggest that you are delusional, if it is reasonable with respect to them?
Please note, I am saying nothing about nastiness. If I had one bullet and two targets, I would certainly shoot Phelps before you. I am talking about truth-value, and why people believe as they do.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think this one sums the whole hypocritical mess up the best.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But the claim keeps being made that Islam absolutely forbids any depiction of Muhammed, and that merely doing that is an attack on Islam.
Islam does forbid any depiction of Mohammed, at least as the religion is currently interpreted. While any and all depictions of Mohammed are still not therefore inherently attacks on Islam, you can make the argument that cartoons solicited specifically to provoke and offend Muslims by doing something that the solictor knows is considered offensive are intended to be attacks on Islam.
The editor of that Danish paper admits as much.
Whether attacks on any religion should be met with violence is a different issue.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes; Phelps and the Prussia Blue people are certainly much nastier than you are. But I would suggest that their beliefs are precisely as solidly grounded as yours.
Yes, O KoMical one, we all know your theophobic bias. Save it for a thread where it's on topic. I can ignore you (or mock you) there just as easily, and your incessant derailment attempts are juvenile.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: It's not true, though. It's a lie that keeps getting repeated over and over, as though it somehow justifies the lunacy of the death-cultists.
Leaving aside whether it's a lie or no, no one here has said that the prohibition on depicting Muhammed justifies the lunacy of the death-cultists.
Edit: nor is anyone citing the prohibition for that purpose.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:
quote: I'm perfectly willing to accept that people hate. You'll notice that's not what you said. I do, however, believe that there's usually a reason for hate. Just saying "because they hate" is also not useful. While we can't fix every problem, that doesn't mean we should just write them all off and not try. Not. Useful.
I hear what you're saying, really. But I disagree. What do you think the "God Hates Fags" folks have as their reason for hating? Or the parents of the Prussian Blue girls?
After reading the in-depth article about Fred Phelps posted awhile back, with him my best guess would be a combination of childhood abuse and mental illness, with his family (who make up most of his church) a combination of abuse by him and the result of being raised in his household. At this point, there's probably nothing that anyone outside of the family can do, and my best hope is that after he dies the church falls apart and the rest of them get some serious counseling.
The Prussian Blue girls I don't know enough about to make a serious guess.
For this:
quote:Do you really think there's no point at which you have to just say, "I don't care why you're behaving like a pig; you're behaving like a pig, so go to hell"?
I think it depends both on your goals and the magnitude of the people you're talking about. Fred Phelp's church is maybe 20 - 30 people. They're not actively killing people. I have no problem writing them off. I think they are emotionally hurtful to a lot of people, and a sad example of humanity, but nothing they do is going to bring about WWIII.
There are millions of Muslims across the world. Most of them are not extremists or terrorist bombers. That’s an awful lot of people to tell to go to hell. And the consequences of doing so are a lot more serious.
Somehow, the “Muslim World” and the “Western World” are going to have to get along. Or, you know, kill each other. I’d prefer get along. I don’t think it’s going to be easy. Particularly because you can’t really point to an overarching culture for either group, obviously. They’re both conglomerates of different groups, large and small. The fact that in this case it seems like a small group of Muslims was attempting to manipulate the larger group for some sort of personal advantage is distressing. I wonder if they realized that Muslims would die in the rioting they caused? I wonder if they had any idea what they were getting themselves into, and just didn’t care, or if they were idiots who didn’t think it through?
I also wonder what good you think you’re doing by urging people just to dismiss the whole problem with phrases like “that’s what they do” and “people hate.” I understand that you believe that, and that’s fine. But what advantage does it give you to get me to believe it as well? Are you just trying to make an idealistic child face reality? What good does it do for you to convince me that the majority of Muslims are hopeless cases? Does it advance your political advantage in some way? Make me less likely to care about the fact that there’s maltreatment and unfairness on both sides of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict? Or are you just so set in your prejudices that you think any rational person should share them? I tend to lean towards the “idealistic child” explanation, myself. Your attitude usually comes across as someone who thinks they’re imparting what should be obvious wisdom on the unwashed masses. But again, that’s just a poorly informed guess born of idle curiosity. I’m not too concerned about if I’m right or not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Yes, O KoMical one, we all know your theophobic bias. Save it for a thread where it's on topic. I can ignore you (or mock you) there just as easily, and your incessant derailment attempts are juvenile.
It is just as on-topic as your complete dismissal of any reasons for Moslems acting as they do.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres: try looking up a definition of inherent. Now go read up on Islam. Publishing such depictions is inherently offensive to Islam as practiced by much of the world. That you are using an inadequate definition of inherent is the problem you have with understanding my statement.
Do you mean by "inherently offensive" that the depiction itself causes offense just by its nature of being a depiction of Muhammed, rather than something implied by the depiction (such as intentions or beliefs of the author)?
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Well, no, they couldn't. There's nothing inherently disrespectful about dung, particularly when it comes to art. You'd be surprised the things various dyes and some interesting pots are made out of.
The piece of 'art' is made, in part, of feces and a collage of images cut-out of pornographic magazines. What different media would you choose if you WERE trying to offend? Immersing it in the artist's urine? Oh wait, that's been done, and I'm sure you'll tell me that it, too, was an affectionate and respectful tribute to the richness of Christian culture...
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do. This is the lie that keeps getting repeated. There is a long history, even among Muslims, of depicting Muhammed. You've seen links in this very thread to many, many examples.
Here's the thing, Lisa--you make stuff up and assert it as fact often enough that I have no confidence that what you're saying here is true.
Read it yourself. Of course, you can take the easy way out, and say that the Muslims who created the art pictured on that page (I'm not talking about the ones done by non-Muslims, though it's significant that there's been no outcry, say, against the graven image of Muhammed at the US Supreme Court) aren't "real" Muslims.
You could say that. But that'd be wrong.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Publishing depictions of Muhammed is not an inherently offensive thing to do. This is the lie that keeps getting repeated. There is a long history, even among Muslims, of depicting Muhammed.
No, sL, there really isn't. There are exceptions, and some people have gotten away with them. I would not refer to this as a "history."
There was a brief period in the Dark Ages where -- largely influenced by the artistic traditions of the Roman Empire -- it was "okay" to iconize Muhammed; he was depicted in that period as generally having a flame rising from his head in much the same way that portraits of Christ from the same period show a golden halo. But it didn't last more than three generations, and most of the examples of that style have been destroyed.
I understand why it suits your purposes to pretend that it's not a big deal, but you're just not particularly well-informed on this issue.
Apparently, I'm better informed than you are. The depictions on the link I just reposted are from the 14th-18th centuries. That's a "brief period" to you, apparently.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And maybe the artists were just not "observant" muslims. After all, lots of religions have differences of opinion about the sinfulness or importance of particular actions.
Do I need to add the "doesn't justify the violence" disclaimer here or are we finally assuming that?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hatrack rule #7: When in doubt, always add the obligatory disclaimers Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That's a "brief period" to you, apparently.
I'm perfectly willing to say that, yes, scattered pictures produced over four hundred years do not represent a norm.
How many paintings of Christ and his saints were done in the seventeenth century, by comparison?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The link doesn't work for me.
How many depictions are on the page though? Couple hundred?
Paintings or drawings that were made in a period that ENDED 300 years ago doesn't, to me anyway, have much to do with the way Muslims treat their law and rules regarding depictions of muhammed today. Are you saying that Jewish or Christian laws haven't changed at all? Ever? In the last 300 years? Interpretations? Nothing?
I'd also like to see a link to a site where you, starLisa, show evidence that Islam doesn't forbid or even frown upon Muhammad being depicted or rendered. I've always been under the impression that it's a pretty big deal that he not be iconized or worshipped in any way.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yeah, the link isn't working for me either.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
WARNING: Some of the images on the link are potentially offensive, to anyone. I hadn't looked at the whole thing when I posted it, when you get down to the bottom there are some "response to the controversy" images that you may not want to look at. You'll know because they warn you, too. The first 3/4 of the page is fine, though.
It appears to be offline for upgrades. Here's a mirror.
[ February 08, 2006, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
Tom, there's a book out there about the whole history of depicting Muhammed. I'll ask my professor for the title.
ElJay, the link is down again - too much traffic.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Here's another mirror that is up right now. I haven't scrolled all the way through it yet, but I'm sure the same warnings apply.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Thanks ElJay!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, there's a book out there about the whole history of depicting Muhammed.
I'm aware. It's a fairly complicated issue, confused not only by the caliphate but changing opinions (back and forth, even) of what constitutes "idolatry."
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Meanwhile in Utah...
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
I am wondering -- if the back-ground to the prohibition to depict Mohammed is that it may be considered, or lead to, idolatry; why does the prohibition apparently extend to non-muslims? It's not as if the Danish cartoonists are in danger of worshipping their creations; neither is, to judge from their reaction, any muslims...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm aware. It's a fairly complicated issue, confused not only by the caliphate but changing opinions (back and forth, even) of what constitutes "idolatry."
This would seem to lend credibility to starLisa's position that there is a substantial history of depicting Mohammed (pbuh) without widespread rioting and violence and destruction. Although it seems clear she has exaggerrated quite a bit.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tristan: I am wondering -- if the back-ground to the prohibition to depict Mohammed is that it may be considered, or lead to, idolatry; why does the prohibition apparently extend to non-muslims? It's not as if the Danish cartoonists are in danger of worshipping their creations; neither is, to judge from their reaction, any muslims...
Two reasons. (1) Muslims believe they should force the entire world to follow Islamic law. (2) The cartoons are just an excuse. In today's environment, any excuse for violent eruptions will do.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: (1) Muslims believe they should force the entire world to follow Islamic law. (2) The cartoons are just an excuse. In today's environment, any excuse for violent eruptions will do. [/QB]
Gee, there you go, pretending to do that mind-reading trick again.
Try again.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I have personal issues with Mark Steyn. But I can't argue with his latest column about this issue. Have a look. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Muslims do not all believe they should force the entire world to follow Islamic law. But there are a lot.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
What I really have a problem with is the idea that all the world has to follow an Islamic command. I'm not Moslem. The prohibition of drawing Mohammed does not apply to me.
I'm a Reformed Christian who tries to live my life according to my own set of beliefs. I don't expect the rest of the world to recognize every one of those beliefs and be forced to live according to them too. In fact, I should have compassion for those that don't agree with me, if I'm following the teachings of my faith.
If Islam wants to be perceived as a faith of peace and love it needs to look at something like this and say "Well, the people who drew that cartoon haven't seen the light, so we must have patience and compassion for them." They should not expect the entire world to bend down and follow Islamic law, yet it seems they do. They want tolerance and respect for their own faith but won't show any for anyone else's.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oddly enough, going down the top ten list of countries with high muslim populations, we see that none of the top five (in order: Indonesia, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Turkey) are particularly known for Muslims who want to force the entire world to follow Islamic law. Quite the opposite for some of them, in fact.
Of the top ten Muslim population countries in the world, those make up about 75% of the Muslim population. That's about a third to two fifths of the entire Muslim population of the world in countries not known for efforts in their Muslim population to force everyone in the world to follow Islamic law, in some cases known for their support of secular law (India, for instance).
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
99.99% of all Christians would never dream of bombing an abortion clinic, but the .01% that do give my faith a bad name and I denounce them.
You'll also find many Christians standing up and denying that those who do so are true representatives of our faith. While I do see some encouraging signs of Muslim's calling for peaceful protest, not violence, I do not see people who are standing up and saying "These people are not true representatives of the Islamic faith. We denounce them and want no part of them." Now if I've missed that, point me to where it's being said.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Some links have already been provided to that effect in this thread, actually. Here's one that Storm Saxon posted back on page two, from my home and native land. There are plenty of other examples if you look, but the condemnations and peaceful protests aren't getting as much press time as the violence.
On a broader note, I think people are still ignoring the fact that this is all symptomatic of a deeper issue.
If Muslims around the world constantly stage violent protests at the drop of a hat, then why were there no violent protests last October? J-P originally ran the cartoons on September 30th, 2005. There was a peaceful demonstration in Denmark in October, but violent demonstrations didn't begin until January 2006. Why would anyone who felt that insulted wait until January or February to get mad? It isn't because Arabs hadn't seen them -- an Egyptian newspaper reprinted some of them in November 2005 and there were no protests. A lot of the discussion in this thread seems to be oversimplifying by drawing a straight causal link: cartoons->violence. The time delay alone is enough to invalidate that, but if you take a closer look at it there is obviously much more going on here. Violent protests in the Middle East didn't begin in earnest until two things happened:
(1) A group of radical Danish Muslim clerics put together a "dossier" that grouped the 12 published cartoons together with at least three vastly more offensive fakes, and then met with various political and religious leaders throughout the Middle East;
(2) European newspapers began reprinting some or all of the cartoons in a show of solidarity with the original Danish paper.
Storm Saxon's links on page 5 are a good starting point. If you look through them you'll find a good timeline of events from September 30th of last year up to now, but you have to go back five or six years before you begin to get a good feel for how the relationship between Denmark and its immigrant and first-generation Muslim population has been developing.
To reiterate some of my previous posts to this thread, this is primarily about the larger question of how Denmark (and Europe in general) deals with its Muslim population. There is blame to be laid at the feet of both groups.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Muslims do not all believe they should force the entire world to follow Islamic law. But there are a lot.
True. But all the death-cultists (and their supporters) do, and a disturbingly large number of the rest do as well.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Some links have already been provided to that effect in this thread, actually. Here's one that Storm Saxon posted back on page two, from my home and native land. There are plenty of other examples if you look, but the condemnations and peaceful protests aren't getting as much press time as the violence.
No offense, Twinky, but that article does not even come close to doing what Belle is talking about. She wrote:
quote: do not see people who are standing up and saying "These people are not true representatives of the Islamic faith. We denounce them and want no part of them." Now if I've missed that, point me to where it's being said.
That article does nothing of the sort. Beyond that, the first Muslim quoted in the article compares those cartoons to Der Sturmer type cartoons of Jews, and that's beyond despicable. These cartoons are a reaction to incessant atrocities that are claimed by the perpetrators to be Allah's will. If you want to object to tarring a group with the misdeeds of some of that group's members, that's one thing. But the Nazi cartoons depicted Jews as vermin to be exterminated. To draw the comparison demonstrates an utter lack of any moral sense on the part of this Tarek Fatah character.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: But the Nazi cartoons depicted Jews as vermin to be exterminated.
Ironic thing for you to be angry about, given how often you refer to Muslims as mindless murdering barbarians.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: But the Nazi cartoons depicted Jews as vermin to be exterminated.
Ironic thing for you to be angry about, given how often you refer to Muslims as mindless murdering barbarians.
Er. No. Lisa's condemned what she calls the "death cultist" faction of Islam, not Muslims in general. And that's not exactly undeserved, given this fundamentalist faction has committed and supported murder many thousands of times against Westerners of European, Israeli, and American nationalities.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Lalo, don't bother. He's going to keep going with the nastiness regardless. I think he's hoping for a reaction.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Have you heard how she's talked about Muslims over, and over, and over again in other threads? She rarely makes a distinction between various groups of Muslims, and rarely elevates them above the level of beasts in her eyes.
I don't know how you could even try and defend her if you'd have read everything she's written about them over the past few months.
Edit to add:
starLisa-
Of course I'm hoping for a reaction, but God willing, a positive one from you. I'm hoping one day you'll realize that your intractable, hate filled point of view is never going to solve the problem, and that often you sound dangerously like the very thing you oppose. I'm not trolling for some vicious outburst from you, I don't have to! You do it all by yourself. I'm just continually surprised that you don't see the irony in a lot of what you say. But then, I think a lot of what you say is intentional trolling anyway.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
An article from the LA Times that focuses on Danish people's reactions the what's going on. A couple of quotes:
quote: "A lot of Danes have problems understanding what is going on and why people in those countries reacted this way," said Morton Rixen, a philosophy student, looking out his window at a city awhirl in angst and snow. "We're used to seeing American flags and pictures of George Bush being burned, but we've always seen ourselves as a more tolerant nation. We're in shock to now be in the center of this."
quote: Danes suspect that the furor over the cartoons has been co-opted by the wider anti-Western agenda of Middle East extremism. Yet they believe the media images of fury over the drawings have cracked the veneer of their nation and exacerbated a debate about immigration, freedom of expression, religious tolerance and a vaunted perception of racial harmony often disputed by immigrants.
quote: Some worry that anti-immigrant political parties are exploiting the burning of Danish embassies in Lebanon, Syria and Iran to promote a xenophobic agenda. "Racism is suddenly popping up in this country," said Merete Ronnow, a nurse who worked in Danish relief efforts in Lebanon and Afghanistan. "I'm stunned by this. It's like now Danes can express exactly what they feel. My colleagues are saying, 'Look, this is how a Muslim acts. This is what a Muslim does.' "
And they interviewed one of the Danish Muslims who took the cartoons to the Middle East.
quote: Akkari said he traveled to the Middle East because Denmark's institutions and right-of-center government had ignored the concerns of the Islamic community. "Nobody listened to us," said Akkari, a spokesman for 27 Muslim organizations. "We are not saying censorship of the press…. But there must be limits on the freedom of speech when dealing with some things."
The son of a political refugee who fled Lebanon in the 1970s, Akkari was raised and educated in Denmark. He said the Danes think of themselves as tolerant but that minorities here encounter subtle discrimination and a "national pride" that often feels threatened by immigrants.
When asked about the Jyllands-Posten's right to publish the cartoons, Akkari said the paper should practice equality and publish derogatory caricatures of the Pope and a rabbi. "Then we will be satisfied," he said.
But these days Akkari is more worried that Middle East violence will create a backlash in Europe over integration. "It's hurting our case," he said. "It's turning the picture completely."
That answers some of my questions. . . this guy, at least, seems to have gotten more than he expected out of the decision to push those cartoons.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
I respect the rights to free speach as much as any man or woman here, but I also believe that people show now go out of their way to do something known to be highly offensive to a great portion of the world.
By publishing these pictures in papers throughout Europe, they are doing far more than supporting the rights of a Danish newspaper, they are telling the muslim community that they view one of their most important guidelines to life as unimportant in comparison to their wanting to make a social statement, it is fine to speak out in support of the Danish newspaper, I see no reason why that should be offensive, but to republish the articles, is simply impassive, rude, and boorish.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Er. No. Lisa's condemned what she calls the "death cultist" faction of Islam, not Muslims in general. And that's not exactly undeserved, given this fundamentalist faction has committed and supported murder many thousands of times against Westerners of European, Israeli, and American nationalities.
Incidently, "death cultist" is not a very fair term. Can't we just call them Muslim extremists? Or, if it has to be something ultra-biased against them, how about "The Legion of Doom"?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: how about "The Legion of Doom"?
I like the "Brotherhood of Evil" better...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*shrug* For a suicide bomber, frankly, 'death cultist' does not seem unfair. Showy and deliberately chosen to be inflammatory, yes-but not unfair.
-----------
Thanks for the links, ElJay . It would appear that Akkari, at least, is guilty of stupidity and frankly not understanding his own people-or at least, other Muslims, if that term is more appropriate.
Frankly rioting and destruction is not so surprising, in my opinion. The duration and intensity is surprising, I think, but not that it happened at all.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You're welcome, Rakeesh.
There's some good stuff out today. . .
Where do they get the flags? Slate addresses the question of where all the Danish flags that are being burned are coming from. Some people have said the governments must have stockpiled them and staged the protests. The article links to close up pictures that show that many of them are obviously homemade, and interviews a flag shop owner who ordered large amounts of cheap copies from China as soon as he noticed people beginning to get upset.
quote: At first, the agitation was limited to Denmark. Ahmed Akkari, 28, a Lebanese-born Dane, acts as the spokesman for the European Committee for Honoring the Prophet, an umbrella group formed by 27 Danish Muslim organizations to press the Danish government into action over the cartoons.
Akkari said the group had worked for more than two months in Denmark without eliciting any response.
"We collected 17,000 signatures and delivered them to the office of the prime minister, we saw the minister of culture, we talked to the editor of the Jyllands-Posten, we took many steps within Denmark, but could get no action," Akkari said, referring to the newspaper that published the cartoons.
He added that the prime minister's office did not even respond to the petition.
Frustrated, he said the group had turned to the ambassadors of Muslim countries in Denmark and asked them to speak to the prime minister on their behalf. He dismissed them too, Akkari said. "Then the case moved to a new stage," he recalled. "We decided then that to be heard, it must come from influential people in the Muslim world."
The group put together a 43-page dossier on the case, including the offending cartoons and three more images, considered to be shocking, that had been sent to Danish Muslims who had spoken out against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
Akkari denied that the three additional offending images had contributed to the violent reaction, saying that the images, received in the mail by Muslims who complained about the cartoons, were included to show the response that Muslims got when they spoke out in Denmark.
quote: Akkari concedes that there were misunderstandings along the way.
In Cairo, for example, the group spoke at a news conference about a proposal from Denmark's far-right Danish People's Party to ban the Koran in Denmark because of some 200 verses that allegedly encourage violence.
Several newspapers then ran articles claiming that Denmark planned to issue a censored version of the Koran. The delegation returned to Denmark, but the dossier continued to make waves in the Middle East.
quote: On Jan. 10, as anti-Danish pressure built, a Norwegian newspaper published the caricatures in an act of solidarity with the Danes, leading many Muslims to believe that a real campaign against them had begun.
On Jan. 26, in a key move, Saudi Arabia recalled its ambassador to Denmark and Libya followed suit. Saudi clerics began sounding the call for a boycott, and within a day, most Danish products were pulled off supermarket shelves.
"The Saudis did this because they have to score against Islamic fundamentalists," explained Said, the Cairo political scientist. The issue of the cartoons came at a critical time in the Muslim world because of its anger over the occupation of Iraq and a sense that Muslims were under siege.
quote: The wave swept up many in the region. Sheik Muhammed Abu Zaid, an imam from the Lebanese town of Saida, said he began hearing of the caricatures from several Palestinian friends visiting from Denmark in December but made little of it.
"For me, honestly, this didn't seem so important," Abu Zaid said, comparing the drawings to those made of Jesus in Christian countries.
"I thought, I know that this is something typical in such countries," he recalled.
Then he started to hear that ambassadors of Arab countries had tried to meet with the prime minister of Denmark and had been snubbed and he began to feel differently.
"It started to seem that this way of thinking was an insult to us," he said.
"It is fine to say, 'This is our freedom, this is our way of thinking.' But we began to believe that their freedom was something that hurts us."
quote: It was just two days after a similar attack occurred on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus.
"In the demonstration, I believe 99 percent of the people were good and peaceful, but I could hear people saying, 'We don't want to demonstrate peacefully; we want to burn,"' the sheik said.
I'm certainly not posting any of this to excuse anyone's actions. But this is the kind of information I was looking for yesterday -- why would they do it? How does something like this happen? With this article I can see how someone could be feeling ignored and marginalized, and think that stirring up dissent in the wider Muslim world is the next logical step. Like a kid who's getting picked on running to get his big brother who's on the high school football team. To say "Look, you don't realize who you're messing with, you're treating us like nothing but we've got some power you don't know about and you're gonna regret ignoring us!"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Er. No. Lisa's condemned what she calls the "death cultist" faction of Islam, not Muslims in general. And that's not exactly undeserved, given this fundamentalist faction has committed and supported murder many thousands of times against Westerners of European, Israeli, and American nationalities.
Incidently, "death cultist" is not a very fair term. Can't we just call them Muslim extremists? Or, if it has to be something ultra-biased against them, how about "The Legion of Doom"?
"Fair"? You're actually concerned about what would be a "fair term" to use for animals who deliberately murder innocents?
Some people were kvetching about me lumping all Muslims into one category. Lyrhawn, with his difficulties in reading comprehension, still thinks I'm doing that. So I decided to make a distinction. I've divided Muslims up into these categories (in no particular order):
Death-cultists who plan and/or perpetrate the atrocities that have made Islam a household word around the world
Those who aid and support the death cultists
Those who don't get involved personally, but are glad that the death cultists are working for such a noble end
Those who think it's a bad idea, because it makes people hate Muslims, but realize that if they speak up and the death cultists actually win, they're going to be catfood, so they stay silent
Those who speak out against the violence of the death cultists, but add the caveat that the Jews are just as bad if not worse
Those who bemoan the violence of the death cultists, say that it's not the way they see Islam, but won't actually write the death cultists out
Those who speak out loudly and clearly against the death cultists, and say that the death cultists are no part of Islam
Of course, I have yet to hear of anyone in that last category, but I include it as a theoretical category.
As far as being fair goes, I've had several close calls. A bus from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv was driven off a cliff when a death cultists jumped up and grabbed the wheel. I was on the same bus, the same time, the day before. The number 14 bus to Talpiot in Jerusalem was blown up, and a good friend of mine murdered in the process, when a death cultist became a "holy martyr". I used to ride that bus with my partner and our daughter every day. Fair would be to take all of the death cultists, and all who support them, and to execute them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
See, the thing is...they don't have the degree of power they think they do. That's what they've got to realize. If the little ignored Muslim kid goes to get his brothers on the high school football team, well...we can always (and frequently do) get our big brothers on the pro football team. And they're bigger and meaner and better at violence.
The Muslim world seems incapable of making the leap of long-term thinking that is required to truly overcome their problems with Israel and the United States: nonviolent resistance. It worked in the USA, it worked in India, and it could work in much of the Muslim world.
I'm not sure if it's because the culture is different, or the religion. African-Americans in the USA certainly had a religious recourse to overcoming injustice in Christianity, and the leap from Christianity to nonviolent resistance is certainly much shorter than from Islam to nonviolent resistance.
I just wish they'd figure it out. I'm not particularly fond of the ceaseless cycle of violence and oppression they've locked themselves into now, mostly on their own, but with our help as well.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Lisa, perhaps the people you so loudly criticize for not "writing them out" don't believe they have the authority to declare who is and isn’t a part of Islam, any more than you have the authority to decide that someone who isn’t a properly practicing Jew isn’t Jewish.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
But Rakeesh, in this case, they're not protesting against us. And an economic boycott against Danish goods by the entire Muslim world is at least powerful enough to be getting noticed. I think that's the power the Danish clerics were looking for. So far the people dying are protesters getting caught up in the riots.
Now, if there is a suicide bombing in Denmark, then European and possibly our militaries will get involved. But the boycott of Danish goods could be the first step towards the leap you're looking for.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:"Fair"? You're actually concerned about what would be a "fair term" to use for animals who deliberately murder innocents?
No, I'm concerned about what would be a fair term to use for PEOPLE who believe the killing of innocents is an acceptable means to the end they consider so important. After all, would you want to use the term "The Occupiers" instead of Israel from now on? It would be fairly accurate, technically speaking, but it would probably be a quite unfairly biased way of looking at Israel.
quote:Fair would be to take all of the death cultists, and all who support them, and to execute them.
Do you too believe in killing innocents? Or is it that you, like the Muslim extremists, believe that people lose their innocence and right to life merely be supporting such wrongful actions?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I won't say they lose their right to life, but they certainly lose their innocence by supporting (and I'm talking just speaking out in support of) suicide bombers.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
quote:I have yet to hear of anyone in that last category, but I include it as a theoretical category.
Just for the record, I heard people in the last category, including some rsponsible of the muslim cult in France.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Belle, I don't think you're going to see any Muslims speaking out in exactly the way you say you're looking for. I think moderate Muslims would prefer to bring radical Muslims back into the proverbial fold rather than attempting to ostracize them and create another schism. What has been happening in Europe in recent years has exascerbated the feeling that many Arabs and Muslims have that the West suffers from what basically amounts to Islamophobia or Arabophobia (justifiably so or otherwise). I think there's a sense among Muslims and Arabs that they (and we, though I was baptized Anglican in the River Jordan [added 3: and am now an atheist]) need to try to unite, not remain fractured into dozens or hundreds of different groups and subgroups.
In some ways, I think it's a religious resurgence of Arab nationalism. It's also partly cultural, I think, but I need to mull that aspect of it over a bit more.
Added:
ElJay, a note about one of your links:
quote:The group put together a 43-page dossier on the case, including the offending cartoons and three more images, considered to be shocking, that had been sent to Danish Muslims who had spoken out against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.
This is what they claimed, but the truth of the statement is in question. It is equally likely, in my opinion, that they fabricated the three additional images.
Added 2:
It's also worth noting that in 2004 a European human rights organization (the European Network Against Racism) released a report concluding that the Danish press devotes a "disproportionate" amount of editorial space to negative reporting on ethnic minorities.
[ February 10, 2006, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
I know that it has been debated that what Islam needs is to go through a Reformation of its own. The reason, if I can remember correctly, is that when Christendom went through it's reformation is was a bloody and painful process. But enough people suffered and/or died (cf, 30 years war) that at one point all sides finally learned to leave each other alone. Yes, I know that statement is a huge oversimplification. It wasn't instantaneous nor unanimous. But for the most part, a 'live and let live' philosophy was adopted. That doesn't mean they learned to like each other or agree or that some don't think the others are wrong and may be going to hell. But the endless killing for Catholocism over Protestantism (and vice-versa) largly ended (with some left-over for the Britain-Ireland conflict, which was not simply about religion). Again, this is speaking a large scale. Obviously, LDS history also includes such acts perpetrated against them, as do many other religous groups.
So the reasoning is that Islam has never had such internal strife like the reformation, at least not to the point to make most parties just kind of realize that killing someone for believing something so similar and yet so different from you is stupid (which is the first step. The next is, you don't kill anyone who simply doesn't believe what you do, similar or not). You don't FORCE someone to worship your God. He can take care of his own 'vengeance' and punishment for 'insults' against him.
I sort of buy it. But there might be somethings I'm not considering.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: ElJay, a note about one of your links:
...
This is what they claimed, but the truth of the statement is in question. It is equally likely, in my opinion, that they fabricated the three additional images.
I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility. But I also don't discount the possibility that they're telling the truth, based on some of the other "reaction" cartoons I've seen. There seem to be plenty of people out there who have said the equivilent of "You think that's offensive? I'll show you offensive!" and gone gleefully off drawing ever worse depravities.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The Muslim world seems incapable of making the leap of long-term thinking that is required to truly overcome their problems with Israel and the United States: nonviolent resistance. It worked in the USA, it worked in India, and it could work in much of the Muslim world.
I'm not sure if it's because the culture is different, or the religion. African-Americans in the USA certainly had a religious recourse to overcoming injustice in Christianity, and the leap from Christianity to nonviolent resistance is certainly much shorter than from Islam to nonviolent resistance.
I just wish they'd figure it out. I'm not particularly fond of the ceaseless cycle of violence and oppression they've locked themselves into now, mostly on their own, but with our help as well.
It's not a matter of them not being able to figure it out. I know you didn't mean it in a condescending way, but consider that this isn't something you know and they don't, but something where they disagree on the basic premises.
In a culture where justice and peace require one side to win and the other to lose, compromise can never be anything but a temporary means to an end.
The Danish clerics who went around waving the cartoons and stirring all of this up did so because it was effective. That's what you do when the important thing is winning. They said it themselves. Non-violent protest didn't achieve their goals. Now, non-violent protest against, say, abortion, doesn't result in the closing down of abortion clinics. That makes some people furious. And there's a tiny fringe that gets violent about it. And they get roundly condemned for it. The rest... well, they find other ways to try and achieve their goals, but without blowing people up.
The same people in a Muslim framework see no reason whatsoever not to blow people up. If it'll work, why not? That's the important thing, right?
Is this an issue of maturity? Maybe. From a Western point of view, maybe it is. But from their point of view, if they don't get what they want, they lose. If they don't want to lose, they have to do whatever is necessary to get what they want. Settling for something inbetween just isn't even on the radar.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Lisa, perhaps the people you so loudly criticize for not "writing them out" don't believe they have the authority to declare who is and isn’t a part of Islam, any more than you have the authority to decide that someone who isn’t a properly practicing Jew isn’t Jewish.
If a Jew eats a pork chop, I may not be able to say that he isn't Jewish, but I can certainly say that what he is doing is absolutely out of bounds for Judaism, and that he is acting against Judaism by doing it.
But be that as it may. Where are the imams who are saying this? Forget the rank and file. Let them hide behind a lack of authority.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:"Fair"? You're actually concerned about what would be a "fair term" to use for animals who deliberately murder innocents?
No, I'm concerned about what would be a fair term to use for PEOPLE who believe the killing of innocents is an acceptable means to the end they consider so important. After all, would you want to use the term "The Occupiers" instead of Israel from now on? It would be fairly accurate, technically speaking, but it would probably be a quite unfairly biased way of looking at Israel.
It would not be accurate. But it could be argued. Murder is murder.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Herearesome interesting links.
Not just interesting, but laudable. Thanks for posting them. Would that there were more like this.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thanks for proving a couple of my points starLisa, you make arguing against you so much easier when you debase your own position with your rhetoric.
quote: In Malaysia's biggest protest against the caricatures, some 3,000 demonstrators called for the destruction of Denmark, Israel and the United States as they marched in a steady rain from a mosque to the Danish Embassy in Kuala Lumpur, AP reported.
"Long live Islam. Destroy Denmark. Destroy Israel. Destroy George Bush. Destroy America," some of the protesters shouted.
This I just find amusing. It's like they're so used to calling for the destruction of Bush and America, and Israel, that they just toss us on the end of their argument automatically. What's even more amusing is that Bush/America seems to be the only Western country even against the cartoons. Talk about burning bridges.
quote: At a nearby conference, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi spoke of a "huge chasm that has emerged between the West and Islam" and said many Westerners see a Muslim as "a congenital terrorist."
He said Muslims were particularly frustrated at Western policies toward Iraq, Afghanistan and the Palestinians. He did not mention the Mohammed cartoons.
"They think Osama bin Laden speaks for the religion and its followers," AP quoted Abdullah as saying. "The demonization of Islam and the vilification of Muslims, there is no denying, is widespread within mainstream Western society."
Well at least they realize the problem. Now friggin do something about it. Why is it our responsibility to figure out the differences between the extremists and the REAL Muslims? It strikes me as ridiculous that they put the burden on the West, when the Islamic world is the one in confusion and disarray.
quote: In Rome, Italy, a funeral was being held for an Italian priest shot to death in Turkey, allegedly by a Muslim teenager angered by the cartoons. The Rev. Andrea Santoro, 60, was killed Sunday while praying in his Black Sea coast church. Turkish media, citing unnamed police officials, said the 16-year-old suspect told interrogators he killed Santoro to avenge the publication of the drawings.
And what exactly did he think he was accomplishing here? Their main argument is against Denmark, how does killing an Italian priest serve any purpose except to confirm Western anger against thoughtless Islamic brutality?
They need to get their house in order.
Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
quote:My argument with Tom was not a matter of a simple disagreement. He flat out called me a racist, and I'm sorry, but I find that offensive, and to be honest, stupid. If he isn't stupid, which I believe, then he's just being inflammatory for the sake of being inflammatory, which makes him ten times the troll I've ever been, or probably ever will be.
As for starLisa, I wouldn't even know where to start, but she's shown the uncanny ability to throw invective and sarcasm in the fact of reason more times than I can count. And on several occasions when I and others have lobbed hypotheticals in her direction to try and prove a point, she has responded disrespectfully, sarcastically, and in a manner that could be likened to the word "idiot."
It's very much NOT trolling, and not idle name calling. And I'd hope that most people here would agree that I usually don't resort to something so petty. But I'm also sick of direct provocation. [/qb]
Seemed kind of silly to me in the first place since there isn't a monoculture in Islam. Islam exists in Asia, Africa, South America, North America and Europe and people from all ethnic and cultural backgrounds have subscribed to it. Seemed a bizarre concept to me in the first place, maybe "religiously bigoted" would have been a better word and even that is a stretch since it serves no purpose considering pulling out the race or bigot card simply retards any chance at honest dialogue. Odd considering in all my readings of Tom's posts he's normally come across as a voice of reason rather than passion, even when I disagree with him. Anyway, interesting thread, hope it keeps going.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Seemed kind of silly to me in the first place since there isn't a monoculture in Islam.
Which was kind of my point. Posted by graywolfe (Member # 3852) on :
Do you have any on the work of Bat Ye'or, or Andrew Bostom's "Legacy of Jihad"? Both writers kind of predicted directly, or indirectly in each case what's been happening.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
This is something I posted in another forum (I've added links where needed and cleared up a bit of dialog) in reply to a plea to 'avoid demonizing all Muslims.' I include it because StarLisa was complaining (with some justification) that there is a silence from those who oppose the evil things that are done in Islam's name. In this post I mention several who may be of interest.
Here it is: Oh, please. Where have I demonized all Muslims? Where has TED? Where has anyone demonized all Muslims in these forums? We've been bending over backwards to make clear that our concerns are not with people like Big Pharaoh, Sandmonkey, Sam the Mesopatamian, the ITM brothers, the Free Muslim Council, (I'll add Freedom for Egyptians here, too) or the rest. Our concerns are with the jack-ass who added a bunch of inflammatory 'filler' to a package so he would ignite a firestorm where there had been no firestorm....EVEN AFTER THE ORIGINAL 12 PICTURES HAD BEEN PUBLISHED IN EGYPT!!! Our concerns are with the hundreds of thousands who blindly follow this guy and his cohorts into acts of violence and threats of brutality.
I've said this before: we get it. Not all Muslims are extremists. How many freaking times do you need us to say it? WE GET IT. What you continue to try to do is completely understate the role that the perversion of Islam has to play in the larger conflict. And that role is CENTRAL. It isn't an interesting bit of useless trivia. It isn't something that is optional to know. IT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF AND THE ENTIRE REASON FOR THE CONFLICT.
Refusing to face the cause for the conflict squarely and honestly will result in the confrontation being drawn out longer. Stop refusing to face it. Look it in the eye, instead, and then help the rest of us defeat it.
And that's the end of it. Not a great work, in any case, but I'll stand by it.
I also would like to point out that I agree with the above comment, they do need to get their house in order.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Seemed kind of silly to me in the first place since there isn't a monoculture in Islam.
Which was kind of my point.
Right. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
ElJay,
On the contrary, I recall hearing about American targets being attacked or burned or protested against recently, and for these drawings, in fact...but it was only a brief mention on NPR. I'll have to look awhile to find it, I think.
----
starLisa,
quote:It's not a matter of them not being able to figure it out. I know you didn't mean it in a condescending way, but consider that this isn't something you know and they don't, but something where they disagree on the basic premises.
On the contrary, I did mean it in a condescending way. While I can understand and empathize with the Arabic and Muslim world's frustration and anger against the West and Israel, I think they're incredibly stupid not to realize that if they actually want to do something about it, then direct violence such as suicide bombers is doomed to failure, due to the moral and political situations involved.
quote:The same people in a Muslim framework see no reason whatsoever not to blow people up. If it'll work, why not? That's the important thing, right?
There are other reasons. One of those reasons is tied to the belief by Muslims that if you're doing just about anything in the name of Allah when you die, you ascend straight to Paradise. That's an oversimplification, I know, but it's the core of the belief as I understand it. In fact this belief has a lot in common with the attitude among Christians during much of the Crusades-go on Crusade and you can do whatever you want to those heathens and you're forgiven.
The other reason is that unlike Christianity or Hinduism and Buddhism (the two other religions that helped motivate two of the most famous and successful uprisings in the past century, within India and the USA), Islam doesn't have an idea that you should either turn the other cheek when an abuser attacks you, or that all violence is to be condemned period.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by WntrMute: EVEN AFTER THE ORIGINAL 12 PICTURES HAD BEEN PUBLISHED IN EGYPT!!!
Actually, the Egyptian paper only printed [edit: six] of them.
Added: I originally said two, off the top of my head, but I just checked my facts and it was apparently six. I only saw photos of two of the reprints.
Posted by WntrMute (Member # 7556) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Originally posted by WntrMute: EVEN AFTER THE ORIGINAL 12 PICTURES HAD BEEN PUBLISHED IN EGYPT!!!
Actually, the Egyptian paper only printed [edit: six] of them.
Added: I originally said two, off the top of my head, but I just checked my facts and it was apparently six. I only saw photos of two of the reprints.
Hmmm, you corrected as I was going to post. HERE is a link that shows all six. This includes the most offensive of the twelve original cartoons, by the way, with the possible exception of the one where a cartoonist is fearfully drawing a bearded man. Which is probably the most appropriate of the lot. Given how things went.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Thanks for the link. I mentioned the Egyptian printing on page six, but didn't specify a number.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Just to add my two cents...
[rant on] I think the reaction of the Muslim world to the Danish cartoon is utterly ridiculous. Can we say blown out of proportion?? Now we have boycotts and the Ambassadors called home? Stupid! The most unbalanced response to anything I’ve ever seen. [rant off]
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
An imam in Broward county, FL speaks out against the violence:
Where is there Islamic doctrine that forbids the depiction of Mohammed? Does it specify how grievous a sin it is to depict him? Is it written down or just repeated verbally?
Posted by JoeH (Member # 5958) on :
Any takers?
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Joe, IIRC, the prohibition against depicting Allah is in the Koran. But the prohibition against depicting Mohammad is Islamic tradition and not in the Koran.
But I could be wrong.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
There have been many Imams in Sri Lanka who've spoken out against the violence as well, but that was in the print papers. I may not be able to find a link. I also saw reports of Imams from other countries in south & south east Asia speaking out against the violence as well. They instead supported peaceful demonstrations (if anything at all) and tolerance and understanding for other people's beliefs.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
One moment and I'll see if I can find a link. ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)