Muslim boycott of Denmark/The cartoon controversy opinions please

Dave!

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054887599

Zombrex

SeanW wrote:

The whole plank of your arguments are that a group found these cartoons offensive. This logically leads to the conclusion that anything that might offend anyone should be censored.

No it doesn't, not in the slightest.

But it is nonsense to ignore that fact that these cartoons are very very offensive to some peoplem and to ignore the fact that they were printed for the only reason to offend Muslims, to prove a point ("Behead anyone who says Islam is violent")

You also cannot view these cartoons in complete isolation, tensions between the Muslim world and the west have been high for years. It seems rather idiotic that newspaper editors would go out of there way to offend Muslims at a time like this. It might have been their right to do so, but there is a difference between something being allowed and something be justified.

To the Muslims rioting these is just one more example of the west sh*tting all over the Muslim world, everything from support of Israel, the Iraq wars, western corporate influense in the region etc etc

It doesn't justify the rioting, or the violence, not in the slightest But to pretend that these are just harmless cartoons and the crazy Islamists are just nuts is a gross ignorance of the situations around these events.

It would be very dangerous dimiss with some kind of Bush-esque "Good vs Evil, Them vs Us" mentality the problems we are seeing unfold.

You can attempt to understand without having to approve. Ignorance is the greatest enemy

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

But it is nonsense to ignore that fact that these cartoons are very very offensive to some peoplem and to ignore the fact that they were printed for the only reason to offend Muslims, to prove a point ("Behead anyone who says Islam is violent")

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Wicknight, but none of the cartoons says that and as I pointed out before not all of the cartoons would be thought of as deliberately offensive by the original artists. Ignorant of the ban on images of the Prophet, certainly, but deliberately offensive?. One in particular just shows an Arab bloke in a desert. No text, no jokes, no judgements. Nothing. If the intention was to riducule Muslims all of them would have been along the lines of "bomb in turban guy". They're not. One of them is even ridiculing the author who was looking for illustrators in the first place and calling him a publicity junky, He's not attacking Mohammed or Muslims at all. Quite the opposite. In fact that one is supporting many of the Muslims viewpoint in that it was all a shallow PR stunt in the first place. While the rest have varying degrees of insult, depending on viewpoint, I think we have to get the facts straight. Saying that all of the artists intended insult is not correct IMHO, regardless of perception.

You also cannot view these cartoons in complete isolation, tensions between the Muslim world and the west have been high for years.

True enough.

It seems rather idiotic that newspaper editors would go out of there way to offend Muslims at a time like this.

Maybe I'm naive, but I honestly don't think they intended nor expected anything like this sh1tstorm.

It might have been their right to do so, but there is a difference between something being allowed and something be justified.

Depends on viewpoint, but I take your point yes.

To the Muslims rioting these is just one more example of the west sh*tting all over the Muslim world, everything from support of Israel, the Iraq wars, western corporate influense in the region etc etc

True and the Mad Mullahs and Dodgy Despots are fanning the flames. The fact that now there's anything up to 16 cartoons out there kinda proves that point.

It would be very dangerous dimiss with some kind of Bush-esque "Good vs Evil, Them vs Us" mentality the problems we are seeing unfold.

Agree again. Jeez, I must be coming down with something.

You can attempt to understand without having to approve. Ignorance is the greatest enemy

Good line and applicable to both sides in an ideal world.

Zombrex

Wibbs wrote:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding Wicknight, but none of the cartoons says that

No, that quote was from a photograph doing the rounds on the internet. I used it to try to show how this has turned into an exercise in show the contractions of the Muslim world, that the fundamentalists are getting mad at Islam being protrayed as violent

The inital point i was making was that as far as I can see the sole reason for printing (or re-printing) these cartoons across Europe was to provoke a response from Muslims. It was an act of defience against Islam, or what people in the Europe see as too much hand holding of Muslims. Kinda like trying to show the Last Temptation of Christ in the Vatican.

Now people might say that acceptable and they have a right to do that (and I believe they should have the right, in law to do exactly what they did). But lets not kid ourselves here. If you take a hammer to a bee hive you are going to piss off a lot of bees. You might have the right to do it, but thats not going to stop you getting stung

Wibbs

Wicknight wrote:

No, that quote was from a photograph doing the rounds on the internet. I used it to try to show how this has turned into an exercise in show the contractions of the Muslim world, that the fundamentalists are getting mad at Islam being protrayed as violent

Getting mad is right. Luckily I've far more faith in people than their religion and as Hobbes has pointed out it's only the fundamentalists that are getting violent.

The inital point i was making was that as far as I can see the sole reason for printing (or re-printing) these cartoons across Europe was to provoke a response from Muslims.

Agreed. They were pushing what they saw as the right to lampoon anything or anybody. Personally I think they were misguided in their methods. To be fair to the western press, the ones that did print it were in the minority. Hobbes linked to a wiki article(in another thread) that quantifies the amount of papers that did go ahead and print all or some of the cartoons and I'm surprised how few actually did, given the uproar. I was quite surprised how few US papers printed them(none all 12) and in the UK, it was down to a welsh newspaper that printed only one. That some only printed one or two also puts a slant on it, because as I've pointed out, not all of the cartoons could be seen as intentionally offensive

It was an act of defience against Islam, or what people in the Europe see as too much hand holding of Muslims.

It's been coming for a while as well. The French riots and the situation in Holland and others didn't help. This thing seems to be coming to a head.

Now people might say that acceptable and they have a right to do that (and I believe they should have the right, in law to do exactly what they did).

Agreed. It does come with responsiblity, but I don't think there should be any sacred cows. Good manners should come into it though. Beyond that I say sue.

But lets not kid ourselves here. If you take a hammer to a bee hive you are going to piss off a lot of bees. You might have the right to do it, but thats not going to stop you getting stung

Which is basically saying that certain sections of Islam are violent and reactionary and that the non Islamic world should be cautious in their dealings with "them". Which is what some of the cartoons were trying to say in the first place. I mean if the pope/jesus was portrayed protecting paedephile priests(dunno how, but you get the gist), it would have a somewhat dodgy point to make. Mohammed portrayed similarly wouldn't have any connection at all(Islam to be fair has nothing like that, that I know off). If you drew Buddha with a fuse coming out of his bald head it would equally have no impact. Beyond the religious ban on images of Allah/Mohammed a nerve was struck and a point about the perception of a violent mysoginist Islam was made, however irresponsibly. It's how we deal with the fallout from that will be the judgement of history

adonis

The whole plank of your arguments are that a group found these cartoons offensive.

They arent really just a group. I dont think u can equate feminism to islam really.
Its like comparing farmers to catholics, eh actually....

With freedom of speech there is a responsibility to be fair and respectful. Especially now, and drawing pictures of a mohammed as a suicide bomber isn't really constructive, nor for that matter, does it further any kind of debate on the collision of two cultures.
I think the line was crossed -what seems unintentionally- here. And rightfully the danish newspaper has apologised for what, in hindsight, was a mistake.

Peanut

adonis wrote:

...With freedom of speech there is a responsibility to be fair and respectful...

To quote Moz...
"Love, peace & harmony... oh very nice very nice very nice.. but maybe in the next world.."

astrofool

just as an aside (not sure if its been mentioned already), the South Park episode "Super best Friends" had an animated cartoon of Mohammed in it (referred to by name).

magick

just as an aside (not sure if its been mentioned already), the South Park episode "Super best Friends" had an animated cartoon of Mohammed on it (referred to by name).

Yup ur right ! Mohammed had the power of fire ! V apt if u ask me!

SeanW

Wicknight wrote:

If you take a hammer to a bee hive you are going to piss off a lot of bees. You might have the right to do it, but thats not going to stop you getting stung

Ah, so finally we get to the crux of the PC Police's approach to the problem.

What you are in effect saying, is that anyone who has questions about Islam and Violence/Extremeism should just shut the hell up and run away with their heads between their legs in terror, lest they be responsible for a wave of embassy burnings, or in some cases, their own murders.

After all, Theo Van Gogh took a pretty big hammer to very sore beehive. Who is responsible for his death?

Salmon Rushdie? Why does he STILL have a fatwah (basically a religious hit contract) on his head? For something he wrote? Oh dear. Religion of Peace? Is Mr. Rushdie himself to blame for the danger his life has been in? Or are the commissioners of the hit to blame?

It's this kind of piss-in-my-pants terrorised "surrender monkey" approach that makes me sick.

BTW just bought a bunch of Carlesburg cans yesterday, enjoying one right now ... Mmmm ... Danish ... Alcahol ... which (like Muhammed cartoons) is forbidden in Islamic law. Maybe I should now get a bodyguard?

Zombrex

SeanW wrote:

What you are in effect saying, is that anyone who has questions about Islam and Violence/Extremeism should just shut the hell up

*sigh*

No, not in the slightest, and I really wish you would stop telling people what you seem to think they are "effectively" saying

Wibbs

Just for reference a Fatwah is a religious edict. No more, no less. It could be about the precise start of ramadan, or if it's ok to eat a certain food, or anything at all religion based. It's similar to a papal bull for Catholics. In Rushdies case it called for his death for blasphemy. One Imam in the UK IIRC(brave soul he at the time) issued a fatwa against calling for Rushdies death. Wasn't too popular with some, but fair play to him.

Freddie59

SeanW wrote:

Ah, so finally we get to the crux of the PC Police's approach to the problem.

What you are in effect saying, is that anyone who has questions about Islam and Violence/Extremeism should just shut the hell up and run away with their heads between their legs in terror, lest they be responsible for a wave of embassy burnings, or in some cases, their own murders.

After all, Theo Van Gogh took a pretty big hammer to very sore beehive. Who is responsible for his death?

Salmon Rushdie? Why does he STILL have a fatwah (basically a religious hit contract) on his head? For something he wrote? Oh dear. Religion of Peace? Is Mr. Rushdie himself to blame for the danger his life has been in? Or are the commissioners of the hit to blame?

It's this kind of piss-in-my-pants terrorised "surrender monkey" approach that makes me sick.

BTW just bought a bunch of Carlesburg cans yesterday, enjoying one right now ... Mmmm ... Danish ... Alcahol ... which (like Muhammed cartoons) is forbidden in Islamic law. Maybe I should now get a bodyguard?

Well said. As a journalist from the Irish Ino said on last night's Late Late Show: "There is a sickness at the heart of Islam". I think that adequately covers it.

Ray777

Freddie59 wrote:

Well said. As a journalist from the Irish Ino said on last night's Late Late Show: "There is a sickness at the heart of Islam". I think that adequately covers it.

Ian O'Doherty? Does that cretin write for the Indo? Jesus, my opinion of that rag just gets lower and lower by the minute. Yeah, if you're into vapid, tabloidy soundbites, that does adequately cover it, I suppose.

Zombrex

Freddie59 wrote:

Well said. As a journalist from the Irish Ino said on last night's Late Late Show: "There is a sickness at the heart of Islam". I think that adequately covers it.

There is a sickness at the heart of all religous fundamentalism, be it catholic, protestant, jewish or islamic ... that hardly needs pointing out ...

Of course the route cause of fundamentalism isn't the religious texts it is based on, it is far more complex than that, be it poverty, lack of education, isolation, abuse etc etc

Mjollnir

Wicknight wrote:

There is a sickness at the heart of all religous fundamentalism, be it catholic, protestant, jewish or islamic ... that hardly needs pointing out ...

Of course the route cause of fundamentalism isn't the religious texts it is based on, it is far more complex than that, be it poverty, lack of education, isolation, abuse etc etc

There is also a distinct tribalism at the core of much of Islamic culture that stems directly from its early days that effectively has shut out any real progress towards modernity.

grubber

Hobbes wrote:

Posting offensive pictures of a religon after being told they were offensive sounds like intolerance to me.

Migrating, a large, culturally homogenous community to a prosperous and peace loving western country with guaranteed freedoms, and then telling that country what cartoons they will allow in their newspapers, sounds like intolerance to me.

Gangsta

grubber wrote:

Migrating, a large, culturally homogenous community to a prosperous and peace loving western country with guaranteed freedoms, and then telling that country what cartoons they will allow in their newspapers, sounds like intolerance to me.

would you prefer Muslims only in their own countries to say they're offended then?

Sand

would you prefer Muslims only in their own countries to say they're offended then?

This argument goes round and round and round.

At the end of the day, Islam gets the more respect any other relgion in the west gets. Primarily because people are terrified theyll be suicide bombed, whereas the fear of being suicide bombed by Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Agnostic or whoever is not so great - rightly or wrongly. Yes, everyone know about Christian abortion shootings/bombings. They are rare and motivated by a feeling that abortion is murder of the most innocent, Islamic suicide bombings are daily events and can be apparently sparked by something like a fricking cartoon. Hence the greater fear.

Now, ideally Islam should get the same as say Christianity does - i.e. have the complete and utter piss taken out of it, have its institutions and representives demeaned and its adherents pitied. If peoples faith is strong and their beliefs well founded, then it will bother them of course, but it cannot be viewed as a threat to their faith itself. The right to free expression is not limited by offence - on any issue, people can be offended by criticism of their views on religious, political, social, economical or cultural matters... People are expected to develop either skin thick enough to put up with even offensive opinions, or a sense of humour. If they cant, then thats really their own problem. The Israelis complain about the anti-semetic cartoons and articles in the Arab press, but again the Arabs have the right to publish those images so long as they are not incitement to hate or violence. The fact that the Iranians are trying to run this cartoon competition about the Holocaust shows that they really dont get the point. No one could give a damn about that. Theyll be offended sure, but it wont be the end of the world. Islam needs to learn the same, because they are not going to get through life in the West without criticism or some tenet of the faith being offended. If people are unwilling, or unable to deal with criticism - then theres a serious problem.

Incitement to hate, or violence *are* limiting factors. These cartoons were not incitement to hate or violence, they were a decision to facedown the fear I mentioned above. Publish and be dammed as it were. They are entitled to do that, muslims are entitled to be offended and criticise. If anyone is to blame for the widespread deaths and violence it is the Danish muslim group who incited it using a grossly expanded dossier of images that were nothing to do with JP. And people are being tricky on the violent protests issues. On the one hand they hold them up as avatars of the 1.2 billion muslims, whilst on the other hand the dissasociate the violence from those muslims claiming Islam is equivalent to Christianity when it comes to violence.

Weve just managed to prise the hands of the Catholic Church from around our throats, telling us what is and isnt acceptable. We neednt rush to doff our caps to some other group issuing religous dictates. Whether JP was offensive, or inoffensive to some group is beside the point. The issue is that they have the right to be offensive if they so wish to be.

Of course the route cause of fundamentalism isn't the religious texts it is based on, it is far more complex than that, be it poverty, lack of education, isolation, abuse etc etc

So you cant be rich, educated, living in a modern democracy with strong civil rights and fundamentalist? A large wing of the US Republican Party would disagree. So would an unknown proportion of European muslims who are radicalised.

samb

Sand wrote:

Now, ideally Islam should get the same as say Christianity does - i.e. have the complete and utter piss taken out of it, have its institutions and representives demeaned and its adherents pitied. If peoples faith is strong and their beliefs well founded, then it will bother them of course, but it cannot be viewed as a threat to their faith itself. The right to free expression is not limited by offence - on any issue, people can be offended by criticism of their views on religious, political, social, economical or cultural matters... People are expected to develop either skin thick enough to put up with even offensive opinions, or a sense of humour. If they cant, then thats really their own problem. The Israelis complain about the anti-semetic cartoons and articles in the Arab press, but again the Arabs have the right to publish those images so long as they are not incitement to hate or violence. The fact that the Iranians are trying to run this cartoon competition about the Holocaust shows that they really dont get the point. No one could give a damn about that. Theyll be offended sure, but it wont be the end of the world. Islam needs to learn the same, because they are not going to get through life in the West without criticism or some tenet of the faith being offended. If people are unwilling, or unable to deal with criticism - then theres a serious problem.
.

I agree with you on all of this, Islam in general does need to learn and accept that everyone will not respect their faith (or any belief) just as everyone must in an open democracy. We are too often told that we must repect everyones beliefs when we clearly cant. Most religions believe that I am doomed, so why should I respect that belief. All religions must learn that everything is debatable.

My problem with how many on this thread are reacting is that it is not productive in terms of teaching muslims this valuable lesson discussed above. They must learn it, but ramming it down their throats and waving danish flags is not going to work. We must explain and convince them about the benefits of an open society. Benefits that they can enjoy as muslims. Saying things like ''sickness at heart of Islam, or whatever'' means nothing. It seems like many are driving more muslims towards fundamentalism.

democrates

TBH I think Islamophobes fearing the entry of Muslim Turkey to the EU and knowing referenda to that effect are pending in the next few years, have deliberately provoked this conflict in order to swing the election and keep Turkey out. Who is going to vote for Turkey's accession after this? Sick dogs.

dathi1

Even though he loves the Zionist occupation in Palestine and thinks killing people from the air with F1-11s is more justified than being delivered by suicide bombers ....that’s the first post by Sand I've ever read and totally agree with.

democrates

We are all victims of extremists. How can we defeat the cancer of global capitalism which has us all over the barrel when we're so easily divided and conquered by religion or nationalism? Monkeys.

Freddie59

Mjollnir wrote:

There is also a distinct tribalism at the core of much of Islamic culture that stems directly from its early days that effectively has shut out any real progress towards modernity.

Well said.

Wibbs

Mjollnir wrote:

There is also a distinct tribalism at the core of much of Islamic culture that stems directly from its early days that effectively has shut out any real progress towards modernity.

Tribalism and aggression. It's by far the most imperialist faith. While others have been guilty of that, none have had that expansionist doctrine from the start to anything like the same extent as Islam. No other founder of a religion personally started an empire on the back of a military campaign. While many in Islam have drifted away from that notion, many have not. The wish for the return of a worldwide caliphate is a strong wish for many.

Gangsta

Wibbs wrote:

It's by far the most imperialist faith.

Well Christianity did most of its expanding by imperialism?

Wibbs wrote:

While others have been guilty of that, none have had that expansionist doctrine from the start to anything like the same extent as Islam. No other founder of a religion personally started an empire on the back of a military campaign. While many in Islam have drifted away from that notion, many have not. The wish for the return of a worldwide caliphate is a strong wish for many.

Neither did Muhammed (pbuh) and it's mostly Non-Muslims who want another worldwide caliphate as they consistently complain that Islam needs a universal voice to speak on belhalf of the faith much like the Pope for Catholicism.

grubber

Gangsta wrote:

would you prefer Muslims only in their own countries to say they're offended then?

Dream away!

Gangsta

grubber wrote:

Dream away!

what do you mean?

Freddie59

Wibbs wrote:

Tribalism and aggression. It's by far the most imperialist faith. While others have been guilty of that, none have had that expansionist doctrine from the start to anything like the same extent as Islam. No other founder of a religion personally started an empire on the back of a military campaign. While many in Islam have drifted away from that notion, many have not. The wish for the return of a worldwide caliphate is a strong wish for many.

Is caliphate a word which = world domination?

shuushh

Well said. As a journalist from the Irish Ino said on last night's Late Late Show: "There is a sickness at the heart of Islam". I think that adequately covers it.

theres a bit of sickness at the heart of every religion, personally i applaud their decision to publish the cartoons in the first place and i hope the editor will publish these Iranian holocaust cartoons next in his paper. I do find it disturbing aswell to see all these people crying out for religious tolerance when Islamic states forbid it.

Freedom of speech is one of the best things in our society and we should be celebrating it honestly I dont think the cartoons were very offensive in the first place