[squarejawhero]

Muslim Council of Britain denounces protests -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4676524.stm

Why isn't this top page news? 500/700 protestors on a Friday. Why weren't they working? Why are they all around their 20's and look like the same kind of thugs you'd walk on the other side of the street to avoid? This guy's right... they're about as representative of British Muslims as the BNP are to us white English guys.

[saucyminx]

Urm... what did they mean by "7/7 on its way"?

[squarejawhero]

Retarded isn't it? 7/7 was the London bombings. Some are just looking for excuses to kill.

[Sage]

Originally Posted by Mira

Urm... what did they mean by "7/7 on its way"?

Supposedly, another terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11 is being planned for a major western city. Unless I'm much mistaken, it would seem that July 7th is the target date.

[SakSquash]

I see it as hypocrisy. How many Islamic papers have shown offensive caricatures of Jews? Did Muslims riot then, demanding that the Jewish religion be respected? Hell effing no.

It kind of irks me saying that other people should be able to decide what other people say, and i'm all for people expressing their views on religion, good or bad, but you're talking about countries where blasphemy is often dealt with by death or maiming. The papers who published the cartoon should have known this would be the reaction, and asked themselves, “is it worth it?” In my opinion, it’s not.

[Lucien21]

I know Muslims get a bad press but it's hard not to be judgemental when things like this...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4681294.stm


happen.

Over a cartoon

[Phantom]

I'm afraid that only a couple more of these incidents have to happen before things get out of hand and we get a REAL global terrorism problem on our hands. Not the terrorism we have today, but something much more widespread and on a much larger scale, possibly supported by fundamendalist governments. A very scary thought indeed.

Let's hope it never gets that far, but it's not going in the right direction at this moment.

[nikoniko]

Browsing through wiki coverage, I came across this cartoon.
I found it interesting in that a cartoon is being used to
answer the publishing of these other cartoons. I wish all
responses could be so civil.



This cartoon from the Jordanian newspaper
Al Ghad expresses the belief of many Muslims
that free speech is being invoked in a
discriminatory manner. Clockwise: "This one
is racist", "this one is anti-Semitic", "and this
one (bottom) falls under freedom of speech"

[jjacob]

Stupid "mistake" of the publishers, as I'm sure they knew depictions of muhammed are strictly forbidden, especially ones depicting him as a terrorist. Apart from that, I don't think the cartoon is original, creative or thought provoking in any way, on top of being badly drawn. In that respect, it's even worse than Theo van Gogh showing a naked muslima with Quran texts on her body. It reminds me of a cartoon depicting Israel (personified by Sharon) gassing Palestinians in gas chambers, saying something along the lines of "You'll need to take a shower if you want to feed your family".

Originally Posted by Phantom

I'm afraid that only a couple more of these incidents have to happen before things get out of hand and we get a REAL global terrorism problem on our hands. Not the terrorism we have today, but something much more widespread and on a much larger scale, possibly supported by fundamendalist governments. A very scary thought indeed.

Let's hope it never gets that far, but it's not going in the right direction at this moment.

Terrorism won't go away, ever. But it probably won't become much more widespread either. Many countries have been struggling with terrorism for half a century (mainly separatists) but now that there's muslim terrorism, suddenly everyone is scared shitless of escalation. We're dealing with an extremely small percentage of fundamentalists. Muslim nations around the world are turning more and more moderate (even Iran, despite what its leaders may lead you to believe) and there's a serious debate going on in the Muslim world on how to modernise the faith. I don't think there's any reason to be scared of terrorism.

[pinkgothic]

Call me rude, but I disagree with statements like "That cartoon should not have been published". Looking at it... hello? It's a cartoon, it's satire, how many people are going to take it seriously? Is it really damaging to the Islam? No. Far more damaging are factual reports depicting Muslims as violent. Which, frankly put, they're currently supporting.

I fail to see the disrespect apparently inherit to the cartoon - call me blind, but I really, really don't see it. I find this whole outrage to be vastly past justifying. I think it's fair to say, okay, people can be offended by it if they absolutely want to; and some seem to desperately want to; but there is a far, far stretch between "being offended" and boycott/attack.

Nothing said in this topic has so far made me think otherwise, either - and I'm sorry if my views offend anyone here, but that's how they are, and I'm rather going to be honest about my opinion than not.

[After a brisk nap]

I've tried hard to see this issue from both sides. I've really been wracking my mind to try to comprehend the opposing view point.

I can't.

Ultimately, I believe that the outraged protesters are insane. Mass psychosis. There should be no concessions made to their objections, no compromises. The craven doublespeak offered by the US and UK governments (probably their idea of "diplomacy") is a disgrace. Let them march. Let them boycott. Let them burn our embassies. There can be no yielding to such bullying. We can not let our freedom be held hostage to barbarians.

A culture is never more ludicrous than when it's offended. Take the American "moral majority" when Janet Jackson's nipple brought down the Superbowl. Take the feminist political correctness enforcers when Lawrence Summers spoke about possible gender differences in intellectual variation. But at least those groups didn't turn violent when their taboos were challenged.

They say the cartoons might incite prejudice against Muslims. You think a few newspaper caricatures reinforces negative stereotypes Europeans might have of the muslim world? What do you think news footage of demonstrators burning flags, firing in the air, calling for fatwahs and jihad, and burning down embassies does?

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Snarky

What do you think news footage of demonstrators burning flags, firing in the air, calling for fatwahs and jihad, and burning down embassies does?

This is the fundamental irony of it all from where I'm sitting.

[After a brisk nap]

The cartoons were originally published in response to the difficulty of finding an illustrator willing to draw Muhammed for a children's book. The paper wanted to express that a free society can't let a religion (or fear of violent reactions from the followers of that religion) restrict what kind of expression is allowed.

In most of the twelve cartoons that were published, it's obvious that Muhammed is used as a personification of Islam, the same way Jesus is often used in cartoons to represent Christianity. The cartoons explore different faces of Islam (the story was titled "The Face of Muhammed"). Some are critical of the religion, and show ugly aspects of it (terrorism, the oppression of women).

The right of a newspaper to criticize a religion and its followers is fundamental to a free society. If it portrays Muhammed (i.e. muslims) with a bomb in his turban, it merely reflects that terrorism perpetrated by muslims in the name of Islam is a serious problem that worries a lot of people.

Is ethnic or religious stereotyping a concern? Sure. It's important to maintain a multi-faceted depiction of muslims and arabs. But not in every single newspaper cartoon. Their aim is to simplify, to depict something dramatically. Stereotypes are their stock-in-trade. How often do you see fat Americans, or brutish Russians, or effete Brits, to illustrate some political point? There was no racist imagery in these cartoons that bear comparison with anti-semitic of White Supremacist caricatures. That whole debate is a red herring.

Depicting the Prophet is forbidden in Islam. Apparently the reason for this is to avoid idolatry, which is hardly a concern in this case. Under any circumstances, the cartoonists who drew these pictures were not (I assume) muslim. They cannot be held to Islamic law, just as jews can't demand that they keep kosher, or hindus that they don't eat beef.

Are they blasphemous? Perhaps. But blasphemy, while not polite, is legal. Indeed, it is a right. If Palestinians don't like the blasphemy in Jyllands-posten, they don't have to read that newspaper.

No, the problem here isn't that the cartoons are offensive. It's that an entire culture has failed to understand the principles of freedom, and holds attitudes that are incompatible with liberty. This is deeply disappointing for those of us who hold out hope for the muslim world.

[Melanie68]

I really like reading Mona Eltahaway. I haven't read the article thoroughly or the comments to it.

[Stoofa]

While I wholeheartedly believe in and support free speech, I don't think publishing cartoons mocking Mohammed and Muslims was the greatest of ideas. It's like dancing around with a match in front of a massive pile of TNT.

Originally Posted by Snarky

Ultimately, I believe that the outraged protesters are insane. Mass psychosis.

Absolutely. Aren't most of those religious fundie types insane? Religion is such an easy excuse to be violent. Plus you get to tightly control your community in the name of God AND feel perpetually victimised! There aren't many violent Christian groups around anymore (that I can think of, anyway) but there are lots of controlling victimized crazies. Fred Phelps is a good example.

Ick.

[jjacob]

I did not say the cartoon should not have been published, I merely stated that the publishers were foolish to do so, knowing full well what'd happen (boycotts and burning embassies included).

Originally Posted by pinkgothic

I fail to see the disrespect apparently inherit to the cartoon - call me blind, but I really, really don't see it. I find this whole outrage to be vastly past justifying.

It's forbidden to depict the prophet muhammed in any drawing, icon etc.

Originally Posted by Snarky

Ultimately, I believe that the outraged protesters are insane. Mass psychosis. There should be no concessions made to their objections, no compromises. The craven doublespeak offered by the US and UK governments (probably their idea of "diplomacy") is a disgrace. Let them march. Let them boycott. Let them burn our embassies. There can be no yielding to such bullying. We can not let our freedom be held hostage to barbarians.

Ofcourse this is all mass hysteria, but they're not barbarians, they're simply deeply offended by a depiction of muhammed (as a terrorist no less), and the(ir) media is only making it worse, fueling the 'dormant' anti-western sentiment.

Originally Posted by Stoofa

There aren't many violent Christian groups around (that I can think of, anyway) but there are lots of controlling victimized crazies. Fred Phelps is a good example.

Think again, there are a few christian fundamentalist groups in the US, UK and Europe that have a hitlist of doctors performing abortions. So far, atleast 50 have been murdered

[Erwin_Br]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Ofcourse this is all mass hysteria, but they're not barbarians, they're simply deeply offended by a depiction of muhammed (as a terrorist no less), and the(ir) media is only making it worse, fueling the 'dormant' anti-western sentiment.

Well, I think burning down a Danish embassy goes way too far. And so does calling to blow up Denmark and decapitating Danish people. These are things I'd never do, even if someone managed to offend me in the deepest possible way.

--Erwin

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Erwin_Br

Well, I think burning down a Danish embassy goes way too far. And so does calling to blow up Denmark and decapitating Danish people. These are things I'd never do, even if someone managed to offend me in the deepest possible way.

--Erwin

Agreed. And what worries me is that someone may decide to act upon the calls .

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by jjacob

Ofcourse this is all mass hysteria, but they're not barbarians, they're simply deeply offended by a depiction of muhammed (as a terrorist no less), and the(ir) media is only making it worse, fueling the 'dormant' anti-western sentiment.

It's not barbaric to be offended, but it's barbaric to call for the death of the cartoonists and publishers, to burn down the Danish (and incidentally Swedish and Chilean) and Norwegian embassies, to ask Bin Laden to bomb Denmark.

[pinkgothic]

Originally Posted by jjacob

I did not say the cartoon should not have been published, I merely stated that the publishers were foolish to do so, knowing full well what'd happen (boycotts and burning embassies included).

You're saying this was predictable? Especially including the burning embassies event in that statement seems like a very far stretch to me. This was not predictable. It's as predictable as someone making a joke about blondes whilst guest of a blonde and getting shot (literally) for it. That is not predictable. Whining about it is predictable. At most, boycott. But burning embassies? Excuse me for my tone, but, give me a break. Overreaction (which this is, IMO) is just that - overreaction. It's called that because it's not a typical reaction, hence, does not at all qualify as "having to be expected".

Originally Posted by jjacob

It's forbidden to depict the prophet muhammed in any drawing, icon etc.

It's theoretically forbidden to depict Yahweh, too. Yet you don't see people burning embassies over that. Or, in fact, feeling particularily offended.