Muhammed drawings and free speech

[C1ay]

And while leaders in the Islamic community may be offering alternative measures, I still do not see the violence being condemned by those leaders in a vociferous and public manner. In such a manner that would shame those who are members of the mobs in the street and clearly separate the intentions of those leaders from the actions of the mobs.

Do not assume this to mean that they condone the acts that are happening. To do as you ask in such a vociferous and public manner would make targets of these leaders. Leaders are denouncing these acts but the media chooses not to cover them as loudly as the protesters. Buried in this story from the Chicago Tribune is this lone paragraph:

Lebanon's most senior Shiite Muslim cleric, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, issued an edict banning violence, saying it "harms Islam and Prophet Muhammad the same as the others [the publishers of the cartoons] did."

The rest of the story is about the violence of supposedly monumentous mobs. In reality there are a few thousand protesters in a population of millions. The media is attempting to make it look worse than it is by potraying that a majority is protesting while one lone cleric is denouncing their violence.

[CraigD]

… bombing embassies …

I share everyone’s sense of concern and alarm at the escalating violence over the cartoons. However, let’s maintain a realistic perception – as a point of fact, so far the violence has not escalated to the point of any high explosive bombings or attacks on embassy or other western personnel in these countries, but has been limited to vandalism and arson of the buildings and their grounds. Even The worst of the violence so far has been between rioters and police. According to this article, one Afghani has been shot dead by police after shooting at them. According to this article, someone was killed in the fire in the Danish embassy in Beruit.

 

Let’s hope people come to their senses and end the violence over these silly images before any more people are hurt or killed.

[Qfwfq]

Quite right C1ay, and that's the trouble. As if things weren't bad enough, media keeps finding things to pounce on. When there isn't enough around, they create something.

 

So if I draw a cartoon showing a Christian prophet carrying an aborted fetus, I am guilty of Christianophobia?

You can easily build a house of lego blocks that will remain standing in a still, draughtless room. Can you then expect that I should be able to build a house of cards in the midst of a hurricane?

 

Come on. Has Christianity been abused as an excuse for abortion and has the general public been brainwashed that Christians are savage abortionists?

[Boerseun]

I simply can't believe this.

 

To offended fundamentalist Muslims:

 

All peoples, religions and nations wishing to achieve the Western standards of living, have to accept the fact that these standards have been built on freedom and equality. If you're not willing to ante up, by letting others enjoy the freedoms you so crave, then don't complain about living in third world poverty and dirt. Don't expect the rest of the world to come to your rescue every time you can't keep your **** together.

 

Besides: You're offended at a stupid cartoon appearing in a Danish newspaper? The subsequent controversy (that YOU created) enticing thousands of other newspapers in the world to print the same cartoons?

You're offended at this, because it's putting your prophet in a bad light?

That'll be the same prophet that told a couple of you guys that it'll be a pretty good idea to hijack airplanes (incidentally full of heathen Christians) and fly them into buildings full of similarly heathenly Christians? That'll be the same prophet who on a daily basis tells a bunch of your gullible palistinian brothers it rocks to strap explosives to yourself, and run into a crowd and blow themselves up? That'll also be the same prophet that holds it's a good idea to deny your women equality and full rights as human beings?

 

Are you surprised at all that your religion is becoming a caricature of its proud former self?

 

Normal, moderate Muslims aren't torching buildings and embassies. Normal, moderate Muslims don't blow themselves up. Normal, moderate Muslims grant others the freedoms that they claim for themselves.

 

In the light of the above, are you at all surprised that the cartoons depict Mohammed as a gun-toting terrorist?

 

Is it because the West have declared war on Islam? Or is it because your childish, selfish intolerance simply adds fuel to the fire, strenghtening the bad impression the West have of Islam? When last did you hear about a fundamentalist Christian (they exist, too) flying a plane into the Iranian capital? Blowing himself to bits?

 

Come on, every and any Muslim who are now all of a sudden willing to boycott products by manufacturers who simply happen to share a country with the offending newspaper, enforces the caricature the Muslim world has become.

 

Take pride in your identity as a Muslim, and heed the message of peace that the prophet brought.

[Tormod]

Come on. Has Christianity been abused as an excuse for abortion and has the general public been brainwashed that Christians are savage abortionists?

 

My point being, of course, that such a drawing would offend Christians because it would portray a prophet as being a supporter of abortion. But would they react by burning Norwegian embassies?

 

On the same note, a portrait of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban does of course mean that he was a violent person who promoted war.

 

Or...maybe...Man, maybe the cartoon can be interpreted as political satire!!! :cup:

[Qfwfq]

Many people have promoted war.

 

Unlike Christ, Mohamed wasn't a pacifist, but that doesn't make him a terrorist.

[sanctus]

My point being, of course, that such a drawing would offend Christians because it would portray a prophet as being a supporter of abortion. But would they react by burning Norwegian embassies?

 

Yes, they would and have already cf afghanistan and my earlier post.... but well I guess not everyone does agree on that interpretation.

 

Anyway, yes they would as well IF they also felt not accepted in the world, having to stay poor while there would be enough for making a living for everyone (it's not only the west's fault, I agree with some of the points by Borseun).

[TheFaithfulStone]

When last did you hear about a fundamentalist Christian (they exist, too) flying a plane into the Iranian capital?

 

Well, there was no plane, no flying and no suicide, but we do have violent fundamentalist Christian whackjobs too. Mostly they just kill obgyns and government employees.

 

Fundamentalism is bad, hmmkay?

 

TFS

[ughaibu]

Had the newspaper published material contravening the official secrets act (or equivalent), the Danish government would have sent round it's "terrorists" to kidnap people and hold them to ransom. Anyone publishing material that upsets people has consequences to deal with, see Tormod's second Voltaire quote, the location or religion of the people upset doesn't change things.

[Tormod]

Unlike Christ, Mohamed wasn't a pacifist, but that doesn't make him a terrorist.

 

I don't think anyone has claimed that he was.

[InfiniteNow]

And a butterfly flapping it's wings in Norway created a tidal wave across the planet. Surf's up folks... have you waxed your board?

 

How is a mass of 6 billion people across the planet being held hostage by a group as small as maybe a million? It's always confused me how a group of a 6000 people would let themselves be held captive by one person... (that's the percentage here...)

[Tormod]

An interesting read from BBC News - a well balanced commentary IMHO:

 

Cartoon anger is a misrepresentation

By John Simpson

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4685886.stm

[Qfwfq]

Many Muslims have expressed concern over how the incident is being hijacked by terrorists. Italian foreign minister Fini said more or less the same and added that we're sitting on a powder keg. The prime ministers of Turkey and Spain, Tayyip Erdogan and Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, in the International Herald Tribune jointly said "With growing concern, we are witnessing the escalation in disturbing tensions, we shall all be the losers if we fail to immediately defuse this situation, which can only leave a trail of mistrust and misunderstanding between both sides in its wake."

 

I don't think anyone has claimed that he was.

Perhaps not, but when I said: "What is a much greater wrong is the depiction of the Prophet being a terrorist, this is false. The whole trouble is Islamophobia." you replied quite wittily and later added that he promoted war.

 

Why did Agamemnon go burn Troy? Why was Alexander so great? Why were the Pharaohs and middle eastern peoples battling each other? Why did the Hebrews conquer those lands? Why did Caesar come, see and win? Why did the Saracenes conquer much of the Mediterranean shores? Why did a few Popes order the crusades? Why did the Ottomans expand there? Let's leave out the more recent things.

 

How is a mass of 6 billion people across the planet being held hostage by a group as small as maybe a million? It's always confused me how a group of a 6000 people would let themselves be held captive by one person... (that's the percentage here...)

Read history and be more informed.

[Tormod]

Perhaps not, but when I said: "What is a much greater wrong is the depiction of the Prophet being a terrorist, this is false. The whole trouble is Islamophobia." you replied quite wittily and later added that he promoted war.

 

Q, please read that post again. I was being sarcastic.

 

I think you and I basically agree on most things but have a different perspective. That's fine but I think I'll rest my case with you because I do believe we are on the same side of the table. Neither of us wants to slam Muslims in general nor insult their faith.

 

Some people in this thread have taken me to court for voicing a very real concern over an issue that has blown way out of proportion and is becoming a real problem for us here in Norway.

 

Whether we choose to look at it as a freedom of speech issue, a fundamentalist threat issue, a political powerplay issue, or any other issue really, it does boil down to what each and every one of us feels is important.

 

I would defend freedom of speech to my death because I think it is one of the most important freedoms we enjoy in the West. I do however also believe that with freedom comes responsibility. On the other hand I do not believe that it is possible to foresee the result of every action, and like the BBC commentary said (and which most of us have said now at least once), the cartoon issue must simply be the drop that made something blow up.

 

I happen to think that at heart there is a fundamentalist movement behind the upsurge of violence and that they are using the cartoons as a scapegoat. One of these people is the very same person who was responsible for the London bombings last year. He was in the papers yesterday, calling for the murder of the people who drew the cartoons. It is people like him who do Islam a huge disfavor.

 

I do NOT believe that Muslims in general are bad people, nor are they terrorists. I have never said such a thing.

 

I agree with Sanctus in that a lot of the people who end up choosing violent action do so out of despair and poverty, and perhaps a strong conviction that they are being stepped on.

 

It just never ceases to amaze me that intelligent, normal people can claim to be offended by a cartoon, to the extent that they are willing to torch an embassy, and in their hands they carry a cartoon showing the Danish Queen Margrethe as a pig! Where is their logic.

[billg]

My country, New Zealand, has had several Newspapers and TV station show the cartoons recently. Most of the people I've talked to seem to think it was unwise - that we can enjoy freedom of speech, but that the cartoons had nothing to do with that, were not newsworthy, and were merely to cause controversy. While it may be true that the cartoons were initially printed because the newspaper editor wanted to cause a controversy, and it mightn't have been a wise decision, I support the cartoons being shown in my country, on a matter of principle. I don't like the idea of countries that support freedom of speech being bullied, not only by various extremist groups within the country, but even outside it. To say the least, the utter condemnation of the cartoons and the threats issued have done nothing to help non-muslims perception of Islam.

[Qfwfq]

I was being sarcastic.

I believe that's what I meant by "witty", this whole thread is full of misunderstanding.

 

Some people in this thread have taken me to court for voicing a very real concern over an issue that has blown way out of proportion and is becoming a real problem for us here in Norway.

Uhm, I've been suing you for saying the Jyllands-Posten had done nothing wrong.

 

I would defend freedom of speech to my death because I think it is one of the most important freedoms we enjoy in the West. I do however also believe that with freedom comes responsibility. On the other hand I do not believe that it is possible to foresee the result of every action, and like the BBC commentary said (and which most of us have said now at least once), the cartoon issue must simply be the drop that made something blow up.

Do you seriously claim that the response couldn't be predicted? Do you believe Jyllands' intent wasn't deliberate provocation? Apart from that, what you say here is exactly the point: if you go looking for trouble you will find it easily enough.

 

I wouldn't say that the fundamentalist movement behind the upsurge of violence is using the cartoons as a "scapegoat", I'd say as an excuse or pretext or whatever word you prefer (To avoid misunderstanding, before the English Language was deteriorated 'pretext' was defined as "Ostensible reason or motive assigned or assumed as a color or cover for the real reason or motive; pretense; disguise."). A scapegoat is something innocent onto which blame is dumped on, the cartoons weren't innocent and neither is deliberate provocation.

 

I'm sure that intelligent, normal people can't claim to be offended by a cartoon, to the extent that they are willing to torch an embassy, we both know that intelligent, normal Muslim people were and had the right to feel offended, while terrorists and militants did what the normal people haven't. Yes, they certainly do Islam a huge disfavor, so do all these journalists that seminate Islamophobia.

[Tormod]

Uhm, I've been suing you for saying the Jyllands-Posten had done nothing wrong.

 

Okay, sorry for trying to find some peace here. Exactly where did I say this?

 

Do you seriously claim that the response couldn't be predicted? Do you believe Jyllands' intent wasn't deliberate provocation?

 

I have not said this. I think I have said that I don't know what the intention was. I do seriously believe that not every response can be predicted, yes.

 

Apart from that, what you say here is exactly the point: if you go looking for trouble you will find it easily enough.

 

This also works the other way round: If someone is waiting for a chance to cause problems, they will find it.

 

Yes, they certainly do Islam a huge disfavor, so do all these journalists that seminate Islamophobia.

 

Perhaps. I don't see it as Islamophobia. I disagree with those who says the drawings should never have been printed.

 

I maintain that this began as a freedom of speech issue. It is now being held up against the furious Muslims as a red flag. That is not wise. But I support any media which wants to publish the cartoons. The more widespread they are, the more harmless they will become.