what on earth is going on?

[adidasss]

it's not so hot to be danish these days. i can't believe the upheaval caused by a caricature. people should learn how to chill, jesus has been the object of ridicule for many a years and you don't see christians burning down embassies or blaming an entire nation for the transgression.

[Piddzilla]

The muslim world is obviously very offended by these caricatures, which is quite understandable. Just the fact that we're comparing muslims to christians, saying "hey, we could take it - you should be able to take it too!", is taking the stand that we, the christians, are the norm, and you, the muslims, are unnormal and will have to conform into our way of thinking if you want to be treated as equals.

In fact, the newspaper I read (Sydsvenska Dagbladet), which is a very liberal and outspoken paper, decided not to publish the pictures back then when the Jyllandsposten did because, among several things, the pictures are bordering to incitement to racial hatred. Now, when several of other newspapers have decided to publish the caricatures as some kind of symbolic sympathy gesture towards the Jyllandsposten, which in wide publicist circles has transformed into some symbol for freedom of speech and freedom of the press, the Sydsvenska Dagbladet still refuses to publish the caricatures - because of the exact same reasons as the first time. That is good. THAT is showing the right spirit of freedom of speech and the freedom of the press - to not bow down to anybody, may it be muslim fundamentalists, journalist colleagues or angry readers. To publish the caricatures is not fighting for the freedom of the press - it's bad journalism which damages more, insults more and hurt more than it creates a fruitful debate about the problems of segregation and fundamentalism.

That is one thing.

The escalating protests around the world is that thing and many other things as well. The situation for the Danish muslims isn't the best. Denmark and the current Danish government has a very, very tough policy on immigrants. The major governing party, Venstre, is depended on Dansk Folkeparti which is down right xenophobic. The Danish muslims have been frustrated and feeling like 2nd grade citizens even before the publishing of the caricatures, but the publishing of the pictures lit this firestorm. Then when the news spread to the muslim world, in which many see the War on Terrorism as "The War on Islam", it was put in a larger context. In these countries there are extremist groups that are taking advantage of the situation and doing their best to stir up the people against the West in general and against Denmark in particular. In many of these dictatorships the fundamentalists are in opposition to military (but relatively secular) regimes. These regimes are now trying to score cheap points (like in Syria, for instande) by more or less openly supporting the riots and the violence towards European and christian people and property. They know that if they don't (by passively standing by, for instance) the public support for the islamic opposition will grow stronger.

The proportions this has taken is frightening and totally absurd - and of course also totally wrong. But I think the fact that they have taken these enormous proportions is evidence of this being about so much more than just the caricatures. But there is no question about that the publishing of the caricatures insulted the muslim world, not just the fundametalists, and that the Jyllandsposten should have known this in beforehand. Then to hold the Danish government responsible for what a free newspaper does, that is problematic. But now it seems like a lot of muslim leaders, when they see that this is beginning to strike back at their own people, are beginning to condemn the riots and the violence. So let's hope this blows over soon.

[Golgot]

I haven't seen the cartoons, but it does sound like some of them might slip into the 'impolite'/unnecessary end of free speech. Altho I've heard the one showing Mohammed as a bomb can be read as a an ironic take on how Islam has been turned towards terrorist ends by some (ironic coz of the response, that is ;))

It looks like there have definitely been some 'provocateurs' stirring up the more violent responses - and its good to see the Islamic preisthood very obviously trying to tackle the more extreme reactions.

In England there's been an intriguing response, with some extremists marching bearing placards saying 'Behead all those who insult the prophet' etc - which caused a wealth of more 'moderate' Muslim organisations to speak out, rejecting such sentiments etc. It's been a while since moderates like these have been so successful in adding their voices to the debate. That's gotta be a good sign :yup:

[Yoda]

The muslim world is obviously very offended by these caricatures, which is quite understandable. Just the fact that we're comparing muslims to christians, saying "hey, we could take it - you should be able to take it too!", is taking the stand that we, the christians, are the norm, and you, the muslims, are unnormal and will have to conform into our way of thinking if you want to be treated as equals.
"Conform into our way of thinking"? You mean the idea that someone making fun of you isn't reason enough to devolve into a violent rage?

[adidasss]

so you think there is a limit to freedom of speach? i don't. even racist and biggots have to have a right to say what they want. intelligent people can make up their own minds about what they choose to listen to and what they will disregard as rediculous.
i don't know what the position of danish muslims is, but i think it's quite rediculous that a religion which is supposed to be just as much about peace and acceptance as christianity breeds so much violence. so one person insulted your religion, is that reason enough to resort to violence and condem an entire nation? is that in accordance with the true teachings of islam? i don't think so. the mob rule strikes again.
i wonder how the muslims would react if there was an insulting caricature of jesus published in their newspapers. i think they wouldn't care.....i think their goverments wouldn't be pressured or even bothered to condemn it.
i don't perceive many musim social standards as normal ( for instance the inforcement of capital punishment for adultery, the general submisive position of women ) .i think they have a lot to learn from christian society about freedom and general quality of life. I think muslim societies are repressive and backward in many aspects .

westerners may be liberal and accepting, but this reaction can also be interpreted as one more evidence that muslims are not, because they cannot accept the fact that others may think differently than them esentially saying "no, you cannot criticise our society and our way of thinking".
I say yes, we can....if you don't like it, ignore it....

[Equilibrium]

Of course those cartoon are offensive. for one, the depiction of Muhammed in any way shape or form is prohibted by the quran. the reason for this because the quran places alot less attention to Muhammed than it does to god. So having pictures and scultpures of muhammed would not exactly be in line with that.

so its obvious that "funny" cartoons depicting the prophet are going to be offensive.

It has nothing to do with who did it....I remember a while back a muslim cartoonist did the same thing....and he got yelled at as well.

Its not a very hard concept to understand...don't depict the prophet..negatively OR positively.

[adidasss]

Of course those cartoon are offensive. for one, the depiction of Muhammed in any way shape or form is prohibted by the quran. the reason for this because the quran places alot less attention to Muhammed than it does to god. So having pictures and scultpures of muhammed would not exactly be in line with that.

so its obvious that "funny" cartoons depicting the prophet are going to be offensive.

It has nothing to do with who did it....I remember a while back a muslim cartoonist did the same thing....and he got yelled at as well.

Its not a very hard concept to understand...don't depict the prophet..negatively OR positively.
yes, i understand that, but i don't think the man expected this kind of reaction...

[Equilibrium]

yes, i understand that, but i don't think the man expected this kind of reaction...
Are you kidding me?

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Drawing pictures of the prophet with a bomb as a turban........

people get upset when regular arabs or muslims are depicted negatively..what did you think would happen when the holiest figure in that culture was depicted like that?

[Yoda]

Of course those cartoon are offensive. for one, the depiction of Muhammed in any way shape or form is prohibted by the quran. the reason for this because the quran places alot less attention to Muhammed than it does to god. So having pictures and scultpures of muhammed would not exactly be in line with that.
Uh, yeah, but not everyone's a Muslim. Muslims are free to practice what they like, but they should not -- with violence -- be imposing their rules about the Quran on other people.

Its not a very hard concept to understand...don't depict the prophet..negatively OR positively.
There are certain branches of Christianity (Reformed Presbyterians, I believe) who don't believe we should depict Christ, either. You know what they do when a film depicting Christ comes on, from what I've heard? They just walk out.

We tolerate other religions and beliefs as long as they do not conflict with common-sense principles about violence and morality. And violent protests because non-Muslims aren't observing Muslim laws are past that line. We have a responsibility to be tolerant of other religions, but not if it means being tolerant of intolerance.

[Golgot]

It has nothing to do with who did it....I remember a while back a muslim cartoonist did the same thing....and he got yelled at as well.

Its not a very hard concept to understand...don't depict the prophet..negatively OR positively.

There's a bit more than 'yelling' going on. An embassy's been burnt down, for a start.

This depiction taboo is a tricky issue tho, agreed.

I still see this as an issue of 'politeness' maybe having a role to play in free speech (IE avoiding causing unnecessary/unproductive offence etc)

...But, that said... there are always 'sarcastic' ways round such 'civilised' self-censorship... i bet a number of cartoons are gonna turn up concerning Mohammed, but just not depicting him. It'll be interesting to see what the response is to that.

And nobody should be 'polite' about the extreme responses that have emerged from this episode. I'm glad many prominant Muslims aren't letting such things slide - but are challenging them - and trying to debate the genuine issues in a more 'peaceful' way.

i wonder how the muslims would react if there was an insulting caricature of jesus published in their newspapers. i think they wouldn't care.....i think their goverments wouldn't be pressured or even bothered to condemn it.

Sure, there's an obvious double-standard here, in the sense that Jews are frequently degraded in Arabic cartoons, i believe (Jesus is a less likely target, seeing as he's an Islamic prophet too ;)). The distinction would be the 'non-representation' norm in Islam concerning God etc.

Still, there's a bunch of intolerant people out there who probably wouldn't tolerate critical jokes in any shape or form. That's a whole other ballgame.

[Equilibrium]

Uh, yeah, but not everyone's a Muslim. Muslims are free to practice what they like, but they should not -- with violence -- be imposing their rules about the Quran on other people.


There are certain branches of Christianity (Reformed Presbyterians, I believe) who don't believe we should depict Christ, either. You know what they do when a film depicting Christ comes on, from what I've heard? They just walk out.

We tolerate other religions and beliefs as long as they do not conflict with common-sense principles about violence and morality. And violent protests because non-Muslims aren't observing Muslim laws are past that line. We have a responsibility to be tolerant of other religions, but not if it means being tolerant of intolerance.

I know that you're going to say "an eye for an eye makes the world blind" but the truth is, that is one of the most fundemental rules in arabic culture. Its simplistic, but its still something practiced.

I would say protesting is a reasonable response to violent depictions of the holiest man in that religion. Hey, if you don't like the protests, don't watch.

If a muslim country drew pictures of Jesus as an irishman strapped with bombs...how many "non-violent" protests would the christian or catholic population of the world induce. I think it'd be just as bad because IMO you can't just "turn your head away".

Its like committing a crime....if you don't like murder..then if you see one just walk away. No, a self respecting person with morals will call the cops or do something. In the same way a self respecting muslim isn't going to just walk away from something like this, its degrading.

But I agree there is a fine line between politeness,following another religion's rules, and keeping comedy non-offensive-all comedy is offensive to someone or something.

[Golgot]

I would say protesting is a reasonable response to violent depictions of the holiest man in that religion. Hey, if you don't like the protests, don't watch.

There's a distinction between protest and violent protest. Like there's a distinction between objecting to someone's actions and calling for him to be beheaded.

[Equilibrium]

There's a distinction between protest and violent protest. Like there's a distinction between objecting to someone's actions and calling for him to be beheaded.

Yea yea I know. but come on, its arabs...they are too passionate about their beliefs.

one of the most famous sayings in arabic cultures is translated as such: "the doors of freedom can only be knocked on by bloody hands" meaning you fight for what you want.

[adidasss]

Are you kidding me?

You have GOT to be kidding me.

Drawing pictures of the prophet with a bomb as a turban........

people get upset when regular arabs or muslims are depicted negatively..what did you think would happen when the holiest figure in that culture was depicted like that?
em..i dunno, something other than burning down embassies perhapse? it's just a caricature in a newspaper for gods sake...it certainly didn't merit this kind of reaction....
Sure, there's an obvious double-standard here, in the sense that Jews are frequently degraded in Arabic cartoons, i believe (Jesus is a less likely target, seeing as he's an Islamic prophet too ;)). The distinction would be the 'non-representation' norm in Islam concerning God etc.


damn...you shame me sir, i forgot that he's a prophet in islam.....:( ( good point about the jewish caricatures)
If a muslim country drew pictures of Jesus as an irishman strapped with bombs...how many "non-violent" protests would the christian or catholic population of the world induce. I think it'd be just as bad because IMO you can't just "turn your head away".


probably none, we're not that bothered, and i'm pretty sure we wouldn't go bomb some arab embassies.....pretty sure.....

[Golgot]

they are too passionate about their beliefs.


Mmm, that can certainly be the case ;)

Not really a justification in itself tho is it.

[Equilibrium]

Mmm, that can definitely be the case ;)

Not really a justification in itself tho is it.

Oh I wasn't justifying....i was admitting :D

[gummo]

I'm not a religious person but I do respect other poeple's religious preferences. If I had to go into a Mosque for some reason, I would take my shoes off before walking on the carpet. Why? Because I respect their beliefs. The muslims see any depiction of a holy person (ie. Mohammed) as you saying that they are God. They worship only God and no saints other than God. I respect that. I am not surprised that they are reacting the way they are because if someone treated me with such disrespect, I would be angry as well.

[Caitlyn]

I basically try to respect everyone's right to their own religious beliefs… but as far as I am concerned, calling for blood over nothing more then a picture done on a piece of paper in ink has crossed the line…

And if pictures of Mohammed are prohibited, how do they know the cartoons are even of their Mohammed? I just Googled that name and came up with 42,300,000 sites… including one Mohammed who is on the FBI's most wanted list…

[Golgot]

Oh I wasn't justifying....i was admitting :D

Hmm, in a sweepy-under-the-carpet, "you'd like him if you met him socially" kind of way tho ;)

And if pictures of Mohammed are prohibited, how do they know the cartoons are even of their Mohammed? I just Googled that name and came up with 42,300,000 sites… including one Mohammed who is on the FBI's most wanted list…

I think the Danish newspaper specifically commisioned Mohammed-based cartoons/caricatures in this case. Still doesn't warrent the actual and proposed violence though, like you say.

[Piddzilla]

"Conform into our way of thinking"? You mean the idea that someone making fun of you isn't reason enough to devolve into a violent rage?

I'm afraid I don't understand the question, even if it was rethorical.

The point that many seem to be missing here is that it doesn't matter much what we think about these caricatures. The point is that the Jyllandsposten knew for a fact what an insult to the muslims these caricatures were (and, yes, there is not question about which Muhammad being pictured). It is also totally irrelevant that it would be ok for us to "make fun of Jesus" or some other symbol for christianity or whatever. "Making fun of Jesus" is not an equivalent to these caricatures. Simply to depict the prohet is considered by many muslims as something striclty prohibited. And to publish caricatures of Muhammad as a bloodthirsty terrorist is saying that ALL muslims are bloodthirsty terrorist. Even I, who is not a muslim, would read that meaning into the pictures. The pictures are being interpreted as us in the West dragging the Quaran and the beliefs of the muslim people in the dirt. I think the pictures are very provocative and it was bad journalism to publish them. As the chief editor of the Sydsvenska Dagbladet said; we turn dozens of pictures down every day, all kinds of pictures, because of them being too provocative, too offensive or bordering to incitement to racial hatred, as in this case, which is illegal. To publish the pictures just because we can would be immoral. That is not to protect the freedom of free press. But it is a way of defending and upholding good press ethics.

Finally, let me just clarify that I am only commenting on the publishing of the pictures itself, not on the riots or the violence going on all over the muslim world now. That is totally nuts and I can't believe that it has gone this far... And of course the responsibility of that lies on the shoulders of the leaders of the particular countries where the attacks on Danish and other nationalities' property and personell have been going on, not on Denmark or any newspaper. And I don't think the Danish government own the muslim world an apology really, even if I do believe that diplocmacy and dialogue rather than taking some tough line is best here.

[adidasss]

hahahaha ( not really funny but...)....i was just watching the news, headline story: a piece of sh*t croatian newspaper published the caricatures and now we have hightened the security arround our only embassy in the arab world , the one in Kabul....i don't know whether to laugh or cry....like the arabs care or even know we exist, good god we're such pathetic wannabies.

the editor of those newspapers should be charged for incitment to racial hatered ( there really should be a law against stupidity ). there was no social satire intended by that move, it wasn't even bad journalism, now that we've seen what's happening arround the arab world.....it's beyond stupid, it's pathetic....

[Golgot]

Amazing how low some rags will go just to increase their circulation isn't it :rolleyes:

Have you guys got any troops in Afghanistan? That seems to be where the reprisals have been at their ugliest.

[adidasss]

Amazing how low some rags will go just to increase their circulation isn't it :rolleyes:

Have you guys got any troops in Afghanistan? That seems to be where the reprisals have been at their ugliest.
actually yes we do....i haven't heard anything bad happening there though....hmmm.....

i hated these papers way before this.....i despise them now.....seriously, how low can you go? it was that " we shouldn't print it, but that's exactly why we ARE going to print it " attitude...

[Piddzilla]

Here's some interesting news.

I read in a Swedish newspaper yesterday that a drawer, Christoffer Zieler, claims that a couple of caricatures of Jesus Christ and the Resurrection which he made were turned down by the Jyllandsposten in 2003. The reason was the cheif editor Jens Kaiser gave was that he was afraid that the readers wouldn't laugh at them. He believed that they would "create an outcry" if they published them. Zieler says he was surprised that anyone might be upset because of his drawings which he says are pretty innocent (I haven't seen them myself).

[Golgot]

To be fair, the editor hadn't commisioned those pics, they were submitted ad hoc, whereas the Mohammed set were all commisioned. To be even fairer tho, that paper is known to have an anti-immigrant/Muslim stance ;)

[adidasss]

wow, now bosnians ( they're muslims if you didn't know and our neighbours ) are burning croatian flags.....i feel like i've fallen into a parallel universe where nothing makes sense.....it angers me beyond belief that the lives of our citizens abroad are now ( supposedly ) in danger and the owner of those newspapers is not going to be responsible for anything....incredbile....i'm at a loss for words...

[Piddzilla]

To be fair, the editor hadn't commisioned those pics, they were submitted ad hoc, whereas the Mohammed set were all commisioned. To be even fairer tho, that paper is known to have an anti-immigrant/Muslim stance ;)

Hmmm... The pictures of Jesus weren't commissioned, you mean? And the ones about Mohammed were? Yeah, I think I knew that. That is not the point, I think the reason for not wanting to publish them was the interesting bit here.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

hahahaha ( not really funny but...)....i was just watching the news, headline story: a piece of sh*t croatian newspaper published the caricatures and now we have hightened the security arround our only embassy in the arab world , the one in Kabul....i don't know whether to laugh or cry....like the arabs care or even know we exist, good god we're such pathetic wannabies.

the editor of those newspapers should be charged for incitment to racial hatered ( there really should be a law against stupidity ). there was no social satire intended by that move, it wasn't even bad journalism, now that we've seen what's happening arround the arab world.....it's beyond stupid, it's pathetic....
Did the Croatian paper publish the cartoons as a show of solidarity, or because they were running an article on the associated events?

Reading about all this, how many of us googled the bomb-turban pic, just to see what started the whole thing?

[adidasss]

Did the Croatian paper publish the cartoons as a show of solidarity, or because they were running an article on the associated events?

Reading about all this, how many of us googled the bomb-turban pic, just to see what started the whole thing?
it wasn't a show of solidarity, they published it because they wanted to increase their circulation , they thought that people in croatia are interested and precisely because they shouldn't have, out of pure spite....

i actually haven't googled it, i'm not that bothered and i got a mental image anyway, that's enough....

the french newspapers are continuing to publish the caricatures, saying we shouldn't let religious groups dictate what should or should not be published or talked about.....

[Sedai]

so you think there is a limit to freedom of speach? i don't. even racist and biggots have to have a right to say what they want. intelligent people can make up their own minds about what they choose to listen to and what they will disregard as rediculous.

Yes, yes, yes, yes!!

My sentiments, exactly. You sure you aren't a libertarian, Adi?

If something offends a person, they should not view/read/listen to it. It's that easy.

[adidasss]

Yes, yes, yes, yes!!

My sentiments, exactly. You sure you aren't a libertarian, Adi?

If something offends a person, they should not view/read/listen to it. It's that easy.
aparently, the muslims don't feel that way. i don't even know what to make of this situation anymore....i think pidzilla was right, there's something more to this than just the caricatures....there's a hatered between our two religions and both sides are just waiting for the slightest sign of provocation to start trouble. but to tie the incident to an entire nation is rediculous. and like i said, the danish newspapers had a right to publish the caricatures because they were intended as social satire, their publication in the croatian newspaper was something completely different.....

[Sedai]

Of course those cartoon are offensive. for one, the depiction of Muhammed in any way shape or form is prohibted by the quran. the reason for this because the quran places alot less attention to Muhammed than it does to god. So having pictures and scultpures of muhammed would not exactly be in line with that.

so its obvious that "funny" cartoons depicting the prophet are going to be offensive.

It has nothing to do with who did it....I remember a while back a muslim cartoonist did the same thing....and he got yelled at as well.

Its not a very hard concept to understand...don't depict the prophet..negatively OR positively.

Well, except that I just don't care, nor believe in, any prophets. That is the whole point. I can say anything about him if I want, because I choose to, and have the privilege of being able to believe what I want to believe, and talk about it (or draw about it) if I wish. This is the whole point of many of my political arguments. No other person can tell me what is right or wrong, or what is offensive. It is my choice, and my choice alone. If someone is offended by what I say or think. Tough ****, they don't have to associate with me or listen to me. If a paper publishes something that someone finds offensive, unsubscribe, hit them in the pocket. If some jack ass on the radio says something offensive, turn it off and listen to classical music. If some clown on TV takes a shot at your demographic, turn it off.

People who try to force society to conform to their beliefs are simply fascists.

Personal Responsibility. Live it.

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" - Leia Organa

[SamsoniteDelilah]

Well, except that I just don't care, nor believe in, any prophets. That is the whole point. I can say anything about him if I want, because I choose to, and have the privilege of being able to believe what I want to believe, and talk about it (or draw about it) if I wish. This is the whole point of many of my political arguments. No other person can tell me what is right or wrong, or what is offensive. It is my choice, and my choice alone. If someone is offended by what I say or think. Tough ****, they don't have to associate with me or listen to me. If a paper publishes something that someone finds offensive, unsubscribe, hit them in the pocket. If some jack ass on the radio says something offensive, turn it off and listen to classical music. If some clown on TV takes a shot at your demographic, turn it off.

People who try to force society to conform to their beliefs are simply fascists.

Personal Responsibility. Live it.

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers" - Leia Organa
Part of personal responsibility is not shooting off one's mouth in a way that is damaging to other people, their livlihood or their credibility (and that's a Libertarian tenet, as I understand the movement). The press has lost all track of this in the last 20 years, to their own disgrace. The question is: who incurred the damage in this scenario? Do all Muhammedans suffer lack of credibility when such things are published by an established, credible source of news? Does pervasive slander encourage hate-mongering? And can you really say there is no responsibility on the part of those who incite others to harm people?

"The pen is mightier than the sword." -- Some old guy

[Sedai]

And can you really say there is no responsibility on the part of those who incite others to harm people?

"The pen is mightier than the sword." -- Some old guy

Oh, absolutely I can, and I do. Also, who icited who to harm anyone? This cartoon didn;t tell anyone to harm anyone. Sure, people are responsible for trying to incite people, but that isn't a reason for those people to react to it, at all. The person who takes the action is ultimately 100% responsible for how they conduct themselves in any situation, no matter what the cause. We are not lemmings, not even close.

It reminds me of grade school.

Johnny hits Willy. Willy then hits Johnny, and gets caught by the teacher.

"But, Johnny made me do it, he hit me first"

Nope, I don't buy it. Willy made the choice to hit Johnny after he thought about himself being hit, realized it was not the right thing to do, and then chose to commit the same offense. I see it all the time in society. People make a few bad choices in life, then start pointing fingers at various other people or orginizations, stating they would be ok, if only so-and-so didn't muck up their life.

Bull****. Any problems I end up getting into in life can be directly attributed to me making a poor choice or being a jack ass, at some previous point.

JP Sartre wrote a great paper on this exact concept, entitled Trancendence of Ego, and I believe it's part of his larger Of Being and Nothingness works. Highly recommended.

Now, in support of your argument, some rare cases must be looked at differently, like say if some nut job runs up and pushes your child in front of a train. I have a feeling a parent would make some choices that they perhaps wouldn't think about at all.

Now, a cartoon in a newspaper just isn't an extreme case, no matter how I look at it. The whole point of this is that people with some intelligence should be able to look at a situation and take stock as to exactly what is going on, then decide whether or not they put any energy into it or not, or just simply ignore it to take power away from it.

This line is incredibly important. It separates us from animals, who just react to situations, they never act. In my mind, people who see a cartoon on a piece of paper, get incensed, and then begin to destroy property and lives are nothing more than reactionary animals. They are the people in the wrong, fully. They are not good people, at all.

A person that draws acartoon that attacks the beliefs of others is just someone with a bad sense of humor and poor taste. So I choose not to pay attention to them or their works. I support their right to draw 500 more cartoons in poor taste if they want. I will just never read them. They don't exist to me.