Muslim anger at Mohammed Cartoon & Freedom of speech

[toms]

I felt this issue was interesting enough to get its own thread.

When you think about it its a pretty complex issue.. on the one hand freedom of speech is something we hold very dear.. and especially in a largely secular europe we don't get that worked up about people questioning or even mocking christian religious figures.

 

On the other hand its obviously something that is very dear to the heart of a lot of muslims (and not just the extremists... and not all are extremists). So where does freedom of speech end, and causing needless insult begin?

 

As i understand it this all started because in denmark they published a PRO arab book for kids with a cartoon of mohammed on it. However pictures of mohammed are forbidden in the quran to prevent idolatary.. so the book's illustrator stayed annonymous for fear of hatred.

To prove they WEREN'T scared of hated a danish paper printed a fairly insulting image of mohammed as a mad bomber... and then got in loads of grief and had to appologise. There it ended... almost.

 

Then, as a lot of people in europe take freedom of speech very seriously, a french paper reprinted the cartoon... along with insulting cartoons of jesus, budha, and several other religious figures. This stirred up all the current fuss and that editor got sacked. Though his staff support his right to do what he did.

 

Muslim leaders want appologies from western governments.. but western governments point out that they have no control over the press.

 

Some european leaders have come out in support of the papers right to do what they did, others (like britain's foreign secretary) have condemned the press for needlessly creating insult where none was needed.

 

Muslim in europe march in protest, with banners calling for attacks on denmark. But aren't they exercisig the same freedom of speach they are so upset about the paper using?

 

By letting the millitants use this issue to incite them, aren't they projecting the exact same image of mad millitants that the cartoon did?

 

A paper in jordan reprinted the cartoons because it felt the people should see what they were getting so upset about... and called for restraint.. and has now been threatened with legal action by the jordainan government.

 

Do they just need to "toughen up" and become immune to such things in the same way christians have... or would that be a sign of islam becoming marginalised in their lives like christianity has in a lot of our lives?

 

On the other hand, i remember major protests and threats from christians in the UK outside the theatre showing Jerry springer the Opera... because it featured an insulting portrayal of jesus - so maybe we aren't so differnent after all.

 

I think a lot of british muslims wish the extremists would shut up and stop making them all look bad.

 

On a side note... on the same day this all broke out two British National Party leaders were aquitted of "incitement to racial hatred" charges in the british courts over speaches they made about immigrants and asylum seekers.. they hailed this as a great day for free speech.

 

I need to go to bed...

[Samuel Dravis]

Danish Paper was not smart printing it. They apologized; great.

The French editor looks like he was just trying to make trouble and not really 'inform' anyone. He gets sacked; good. The end. Those responsible were punished.

 

I think that the muslims need to get a harder skin for this kind of thing as well. "I believe" != "Everyone believes," nor are infidels required to respect the laws of whatever religion.

[El Sitherino]

No, but you shouldn't purposefully do something like that knowing full well that it will be viewed as offensive. It's like deciding it'd be a good idea to urinate on a crucifix and then masturbate on a bible.

 

Do they just need to "toughen up" and become immune to such things in the same way christians have

Maybe it's just American Christians, but I can't say the word "jeeze" without getting **** from someone. "It is a short version of Jesus, and saying that is taking the lords name in vain."

 

Christians as a whole haven't really toughened up, this can be shown by the **** going on in government.

[Hermie]

A christian fundamentalist paper printed them here right after the danes did it, and now we're getting bombarded with pictures of muslims burning the Norwegian flag (actually, it's just one picture over and over again).

 

 

 

Personally I think that the whole thing has been blown outta proportion, but they shouldn't have printed it in the first place. Respect for other people ranks way higher for me than to have the right to say something.

What I think is good about this is that we, the western world, can now feel what it's like to get condemned for the action of a selected few.

[TK-8252]

Christians as a whole haven't really toughened up, this can be shown by the **** going on in government.

 

Christians haven't toughened at all.

 

Hear about about that television show The Book of Daniel that was going to appear on NBC?

 

It got pulled because so many christian fundamentalist groups cried blasphemy.

[Darth Andrew]

Of course, it was yet another typical show about a dysfunctional family, so either way I'm not suprised it got canned.

 

I can see why the Muslims are royally pissed over the comic, but they should understand that nothing is sacred when in the media, unfortunately.

[lord ignarn]

I believe that even if the danish paper didn´t do the right thing publishing the cartoons, the muslims (or any other external influence) can´t say what we can publish or not. That´s something that lies upon the justice or the auto-censure. Now, they have published it because in Denmark there is freedom of speech, the previous censure (witch could have banned the publishment of the cartoons) isn´t related with the democracy. And it´s something that is with us, we live and believe in a democracy, where anyone can make a satira on the others, and if the other gets offended, goes to the justice.

 

I mean, in many newspapers of Europe, like in Spain (my case) they have been published lots of cartoons showing Mohamed, Jesus, Buda... And never has happened nothing. In this case, I believe that there has been a lot of interested publicity, maybe to push to those confrontations. And not only with that, also with the politics, and it doesn´t happen nothing, it´s something assumed.

 

If the freedom of speech lets Arabian newspapers publish offensive cartoons for the christians, the same freedom of speech lets the danish publish those cartoons. Another thing is that either we don´t know or we don´t care of those "agressions" against "us". Maybe this is because we have left aside the era of the fanatism. And Why? I must say that I don´t know. Although lot of the trouble was formed by the colonialism and the ottoman empire, witch didn´t let the previous well educated arabian culture progress in the time.

 

Because that´s a great point, the culture. If the people doesn´t have culture is more easy to be manipulated, and so looks like is happening right now. For example, many of the popular movements are supported by the mass manipulated, like in Bolivia, lots of the demostrations that have raised the president Evo Morales were filled with peasants that where sent to protest without knowning what they were shouting.

 

We must allways have personality, and we must know what happens (as long as we can) in order to not became brainless dummies, that do what they say to them and don´t know the pleasure of the satira.

[Lady Jedi]

Plain and simple it was just darn rude of the Danes to publish that. It was disrespectful to Muslims, and abusing their 'freedom'.

 

Freedom of Speech means that we have a right to speak freely, but that doesn't negate the use of respect for others. It was pointless for a picture of Mohammed to be published; the only purpose it served was to cause trouble, and, of course, prove that they have Freedom of Speech so they can publish anything they damn well want to. Hooray, congrats, you have Freedom of Speech, how about not being asses with it? A little respect will go a long way.

 

No one ever has any right to treat the beliefs of other's as if they aren't true and therefore those belifs don't matter. Everyone has their beliefs and almost everyone thinks that they are right. Sure there are those that will question what they've been taught, but the truth is that folks believe what they know is right. So while you may not aggree with what someone else knows to be true, or what someone totally adheres to as part of their religion, that doesn't make it okay to publish something that obviously goes against another religion, ie. Muslim.

 

My point here is this: No matter what you believe so deeply to be true, others should be respected in their beliefs, even if you don't agree.

Freedom of Speech is just that 'Freedom', but the freedom to say or publish anything, doesn't mean that respect should be tossed out the window.

 

So fine, Muslims need to 'toughen up'. If that's the case then every religion needs to as well. But I think that this should be double sided: Meaning that folks of different beliefs shouldn't say/do/publish things that are obviously going to be hurtful to others.

 

Well, there's my lollipop view of how the world should go about things...I'm done now....

[toms]

One thought: If making pictures of mohammed is forbidden to prevent idol worship.. and obviously this cartoon was never intended and would never be taken as an idol to worship... then technically it wouldn't be against Islamic law... but the original pro-islam kids book would be. But it is rude.

 

Another, talking now about activities in western countries, not in islamic ones: If muslims that come to western countries make use of freedom of speech to call for the death of those making such cartoons.. or attacks on the countries that the papers were in.. do they then lose the right to complain about the cartoon. Because if they want the freedom to make their comments surely they can't deny it to others.

 

I gotta say, considering the amount of "mobs burning flags" media coverage, i'm a little surprised that most of you fel the paper was at fault. Not that i disagree...

[El Sitherino]

There's a difference between calling for action and making slighted drawings of a religious figure.

 

Also slander and libel aren't exactly protected by freedom of speech, therefore this isn't exactly covered by that. You can't just spout off any and everything you think and believe it's part of your freedom of speech, you actually have to have support to your claims.

 

While none of you can really do much about it, I could call you all thick-headed fag-hags, this doesn't make it true nor is it covered by free speech. It falls under slander(spoken)/libel(written) and harassment.

 

The issue of free speech and free press is a tricky one, and in truth, freedom of speech and press is meant to protect the few and innocent. What this newspaper has done is effectively done the exact opposite of what the rights are there for.

[Lady Jedi]

toms

I gotta say, considering the amount of "mobs burning flags" media coverage, i'm a little surprised that most of you fel the paper was at fault. Not that i disagree...

I was not just discussing the Danish or the French in my post; I think that everyone in the situation should behave in a more respectable manner. Like I said, I have a lollipop view.

 

InsaneSith

The issue of free speech and free press is a tricky one, and in truth, freedom of speech and press is meant to protect the few and innocent. What this newspaper has done is effectively done the exact opposite of what the rights are there for.

Thank you. That is exactly what I couldn't get into words.

[lord ignarn]

Anyway, there is a page of moderated muslims where portraits of Mohamed are depicted and also cartoons. And no one has said nothing.

 

And even if you are very offended by a "blasphemy" you can´t burn the Danish embassy at Beirut. Acts like this can turn in a very serious diplomatic crisis, and takes off from the muslims all their rights to complain. So, I agree completly with toms

 

Whats the matter? they don´t understand that in Europe the gobernments aren´t responsible of the newspaper publications? they don´t know that the people from the country isn´t guilty?

 

I don´t want to sound it like a menace, but maybe the countries will start helping less the arabs in Palestina and other places. If they are democratic "in their way" we are democratics in our way.

 

In my opinion, this smells to be a plan to increase the tension in the world, plan prepared by the fanatics. And isn´t a plan from Europe or the USA as they have said.

[toms]

Also slander and libel aren't exactly protected by freedom of speech, therefore this isn't exactly covered by that. You can't just spout off any and everything you think and believe it's part of your freedom of speech, you actually have to have support to your claims.

 

Good point.

[SkinWalker]

I think the reaction of the Muslim world has been greatly over-played. The cartoons weren't that bad (see for yourself) and were certainly far less attacking in nature than many other political cartoons I've seen.

 

The idea that we must all accept the beliefs of others as valid and tip-toe around their beliefs with political correctness only goes so far. Why shouldn't we be free to criticize -even ridicule- a major religion? The major religions of modernity are the main problems with society: people are killing and dying in the name of these religions. My opinion is that the very nature of Islam that the cartoons were criticizing has been demonstrated by the actions of the religious nutters who react with violence about them.

 

We are free to criticize, lampoon, parody, and satarize people for their political beliefs but *not* their religious beliefs? I would have no problem with that distinction except the religious beliefs of others affect me in the way poltics does. If were were talking about some quaint, barely-surviving, religion from some backwater of the planet, it would be different. But we're not. We're talking about an evangalistic cult that is bent on world domination and death to those that don't believe it. They deserve ridicule. There are those for whom it is one's duty to offend.

[Darth Andrew]

...We're talking about an evangalistic cult that is bent on world domination and death to those that don't believe it.

Um, no. It's only the 'religious nutters' within Islam that want that, just like an extremist in any other organization, whether religious or not. By the way, the link to the cartoon isn't working.

[Kurgan]

I've seen the cartoons, and while I can see why the offend Muslims, frankly, it could be a lot worse. To many Muslims, depicting the face of Muhammad is considered blasphemous (even though he's been depicted in art historically, at a certain point in time it was thought that showing his face would encourage people to worship him instead of God, which would be idolatry). I don't recall if Muhammad's appearance is described in the Qu'Ran or not, but in the Hadith I believe it is, so technically you could say descriptions of him exist in Islamic literature. Depicting Muhammad as a terrorist would definately offend Muslims, regardless of their iconoclastic ideas.

 

I guess as a Catholic Christian and just a Christian I am "used to it." In the culture I live, not everyone is what I am, and some people hate us, don't understand us, or like to poke fun. I guess I've grown thick enough skin so I can say "oh well they just don't get it" or "whatever."

 

Now mob violence isn't a problem for people of my faith (I'm currently living in the buckle of the Bible belt, and Catholics here seem just as "odd" as practicing Jews for the most part), but in some places it is.

 

I wish we could get past the violence part.

 

I think Muslims have a right to feel insulted by cartoons that mock their faith or criticize their prophet. However, I don't think that's a reason for it to get physical. Much as it shocks and offends, one has to realize that not everyoen in the world agrees with you, and some people may just simply hate you. The solution is to inform others, that yes, you are upset, and this is what you really believe or feel. Those that react with violence only help to support the stereotypes of those who call Islam a "violent religion" and Muslims as terrorists.

 

If I were a Muslim, I'd like to think I would be "modern" enough to simply shrug off criticisms of my faith and even caricatures. I would continue to live my life as an example to show that those who criticized me were wrong. I might complain, yes. But beyond that, it wouldn't faze me.

 

Simply being offended and expressing it peacefully or protesting, even boycotting is no big deal. People have a right to do that. As an American that's something I have been brought up to believe is a right people should have. Hopefully incidents like this can lead to dialouge, rather than more hatred. I guess the person(s) who put out the cartoons, got the reaction they were hoping for?

[SkinWalker]

I fixed the link

[Kurgan]

Now that I think about it, I saw a series of cartoons, specifically I'm referring to the one of the bearded arab man's face with a bomb in his turban and the inscription "Muhammad."

 

Where Free Speech is concerned, in some countries (like the US) what is considered "hate speech" is protected, though many groups have been able to successfully argue that that kind of thing can't be promoted with public money (since that would violate the 1st Amendment). Other countries (like Canada, Germany and a few others I can't recall) have "hate speech" codes that prohibit certain kinds of displays or speech with the idea that such things have the potential to inflame predjudices that may lead to violence (and often have in the past).

[edlib]

This is a case where I find both sides to be equally right, and both sides equally wrong.

 

The papers had every right to publish those cartoons, but really should have stopped and considered the reactions they might receive before publishing them. It seems like a bit of a deliberate provocation if you ask me.

 

The Muslim community has every right to feel incensed at the cartoons and to complain loudly about them, but that gives them no right to resort to threats of violence.

 

It's kind of a wash... I find it impossible to defend either sides actions in this particular case.

[SkinWalker]

Like I said, the reactions prove the very point the cartoons were illustrating: religion is a problem for society more than an answer.

[Loopster]

I haven't even looked at the cartoon or similar ones, but if I'm not mistaken freedom of speech is a right in the Netherlands and the newspaper in question exercised it. We don't always like what other people say, but too bad.

 

And all this flag burning must be making a lot of money for the flag making business. I wonder how much money spent on Danish flags is making it back to the Danish people. It's funny if you think about it.

[Samuel Dravis]

The papers had every right to publish those cartoons, but really should have stopped and considered the reactions they might receive before publishing them. It seems like a bit of a deliberate provocation if you ask me.

 

The Muslim community has every right to feel incensed at the cartoons and to complain loudly about them, but that gives them no right to resort to threats of violence.

Exactly what I meant. The muslims have every right to anger and peaceful protest, but it's ridiculous for them to resort to or call for violence, especially after the responsible parties were punished. Doing so only validates the cartoon's message in the first place, and I doubt that's what they want. Not much thinking being done by either side, eh?

[CapNColostomy]

What this all boils down to is that radical Muslims will blow your ass up, or behead you over things like this. That's the only reason there was any controversy at all. Nobody worries about making jokes about Christian religious figures because, usually, there's not a suicide bomber envolved. If modern Christians pulled half the crap Muslims get away with under the veil of "having every right to be offended", half the threads and post counts in the Senate Chambers would suddenly disapear. Fact.

 

If someone made a cartoon about Jesus (it happens everyday), people wouldn't bat an eye.

 

I know it's not a popular thing to say, but I think it would be hillarious to see Muslims treated with the same 'haha, you ****ers are rediculous' scrutiny that Christians come up against anymore. Especially here. Everyone is SOOO scared to offend the poor, oppressed Muslim. ****ing lame. ONOES!PLEAESTONOTBEBLOWINGMYASSUPTHNXBYE! **** a Muslim. And a Christian. And an atheist. And anybody who looks like one of those.

[edlib]

So sayeth the man with the possibly blasphemous avatar!

 

In theory, the 2nd commandment (the one about graven images) still applies to Jews and Christians today as well,.. so any image purporting to be of Jesus or God could (and probably should) be reacted to in similar same way by those groups. Not just those decided to be deemed offensive. People have been stoned to death for less...

By that measure even a movie such as "The Passion of the Christ" could be seen as a breaking of the commandment. Even a crucifix could apply.

 

Except that Christians often fight to keep their graven images... especially in the form of Nativity scenes on town squares every Christmas.

 

But even though most Christians and Jews have decided to forgo this particular battle, should that mean that every group should be expected to follow suit, and not react when something they hold Holy is thrust in their face?

 

And again,.. my big problem with what the papers did is that it seemed somewhat like a deliberate provocation: "Let's go out of our way to come up with something that Muslims will surely find offensive!"

Kinda like flushing the Koran...

A little effort towards cultural sensitivity can go a long way. Especially if we are really trying to convince the Muslims of the world that "War on Terror" isn't really shorthand for "New Western Christian Crusade to rid Islam from the Planet."

 

We can work on thickening skin later...

[Samuel Dravis]

In theory, the 2nd commandment (the one about graven images) still applies to Jews and Christians today as well,.. so any image purporting to be of Jesus or God could (and probably should) be reacted to in similar same way by those groups. Not just those decided to be deemed offensive. People have been stoned to death for less...

By that measure even a movie such as "The Passion of the Christ" could be seen as a breaking of the commandment. Even a crucifix could apply.

 

Except that Christians often fight to keep their graven images... especially in the form of Nativity scenes on town squares every Christmas.

Catholics don't believe crucifixes, nativity scenes, etc violate the 2nd commandment because those things are not being worshipped. What is being represented by them (God) is, and he's the only god that's ever been worshipped by any brand of christianity. Additionally, praying to anyone else like saints is not a violation either, because we aren't worshipping them, just asking for their help to worship God. Most problems people have with that are only because no one has actually explained it to them...

 

If the people who believe in Islam don't trust themselves to distinguish between the two, that's their prerogative. Some christians don't either, so it's not like they're alone (cue someone asking, "Why do you worship mary/the saints/your grandmother you evil 2nd commandment violater!" ).

 

But even though most Christians and Jews have decided to forgo this particular battle, should that mean that every group should be expected to follow suit, and not react when something they hold Holy is thrust in their face?

They can react however they want as long as they don't start telling people it's a good thing to go postal on the Danes or anyone else.