|
Grex > Agora56 > #84: Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed | |
|
| Author |
Message |
richard
|
|
Newspaper in Denmark prints cartoon pics of Mohammed
| 
Feb 3 16:04 UTC 2006 |
Big controversy in Europe this week over cartoons. A newspaper in Denmark
published editorial cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed, along with
other religious figures. This has enraged islamic fundamentalists around
the world because Mohammed's likeness, according to their beliefs, is
never supposed to be seen ever. The reason is islam forbids idolatry, and
do not want their beliefs connected with images. To actually depict a
picture of Mohammed is considered the height of blasphemy. This is in
stark contrast to the Christian world, where the image of Jesus on the
cross is a key of the faith. Imagine if you were a Christian, and images
of Jesus were never ever shown, and you had no idea what he is supposed to
have looked like, and if anyone ever showed you a picture of him, it was a
highly blasphemous act.
So now there is rioting going on, the newspaper has had bomb threats, and
the egyptian publisher of this newspaper fired the editor. In response
newspapers all over europe reprinted the cartoons in a show of free speech
solidarity.
So the question is, how do you balance free speech with not demeaning and
insulting a peoples faith. Very interesting issues here.
|
| 432 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 1 of 432:
|
Feb 3 16:21 UTC 2006 |
I haven't been able to find the cartoons on-line anywhere. I find that
pretty surprising, but maybe I just haven't tried very hard.
The Islamic prohibition against blasphemy is directly contrary to the
American principle of free speech. I don't see any way to have a
middle ground on this one. To free speech Americans such as myself,
this seems like a silly thing to get upset about, but to some Islamic
people it seems to be a life and death type issue.
|
scholar
|
|
response 2 of 432:
|
Feb 3 16:21 UTC 2006 |
There are two omissions in this item, one MAJOR and one MINOR.
|
scholar
|
|
response 3 of 432:
|
Feb 3 16:22 UTC 2006 |
One of the omissions is very pertinent to jep's post.
|
richard
|
|
response 4 of 432:
|
Feb 3 16:24 UTC 2006 |
The thing is that no muslim is EVER supposed to see an image of Mohammed. To
see an image of the Prophet is as blasphemous as to publish one. Readers of
that newspaper, and now the others, who were islamic, and saw those cartoons,
are now themselves considered blasphemers. That is why the issue is so
senstive.
|
jep
|
|
response 5 of 432:
|
Feb 3 16:25 UTC 2006 |
Aha, they're easily available now. Wikipedia has them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_drawings.jpg
|
jep
|
|
response 6 of 432:
|
Feb 3 16:26 UTC 2006 |
(They're so blurry, though, that I can't see enough details to read
them.)
|
keesan
|
|
response 7 of 432:
|
Feb 3 16:43 UTC 2006 |
Is this like desecrating the American flag?
|
khamsun
|
|
response 8 of 432:
|
Feb 3 16:52 UTC 2006 |
old news...
cartoons available everywhere...
have been published in every major yuropean paper...
many places on the net...
for instance:
http://atheisme.org/mahomet.html
(see agora item #82)
|
richard
|
|
response 9 of 432:
|
Feb 3 16:53 UTC 2006 |
there is concern this could actually cause a holy war in europe. seriously.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 10 of 432:
|
Feb 3 17:02 UTC 2006 |
Well yeah, when one of the pictures of Mohammed (I've seen a larger one-
but it's the second on the top right) has a bomb for a turban? Yeah... I
can see how the image might be offensive.
|
khamsun
|
|
response 11 of 432:
|
Feb 3 17:17 UTC 2006 |
yes, the explosive turban can be interpreted as offensive but well
that's just in the air these last years.Critic of extremist islamism,
not of muslim believers as a whole.
Many imams over the world complain picturing the Profet is forbidden,
but hey, that's valid for muslism believers only.Yurop has a looong
standing tradition for secular and anti-clerical humor.
I recommend one of the few blogs with english text by an enlightened
dane: http://bibelen.blogspot.com/
(in fact the whole affair is a disinformation plot orchestrated by a
bunch of right-wing imams who are delivering and spreading a false
demagogical speech to the naives muslim masses)
|
khamsun
|
|
response 12 of 432:
|
Feb 3 17:22 UTC 2006 |
I think the Steve Bell cartoon summarizes it all quite well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/0,,1701293,00.html
relax guys (Jesus, Odin, Allah, Zeus, Buddha, Yahweh):
http://www.mysterier.org/politikk/gotlib.jpg
(sorry for console only and lynx/links users)
|
klg
|
|
response 13 of 432:
|
Feb 3 17:31 UTC 2006 |
If those pictures are portraying Mo, then he was a pretty silly looking
guy, and he must have had a good makeup man because they all look
different.
Actually, Moslems do believe in free speech, so long as they're
publishing anti-semitic screeds.
(Finally, isn't it against Islamic law to depict any animal? If so,
then how do they get around publishing characteritures of Jews?)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 14 of 432:
|
Feb 3 17:44 UTC 2006 |
Nobody knows what either Jesus or Mohammed looked like, so how can anyone
make a picture of either? All those now offended (by either) have to do is
declare that those aren't accurate pictures, and the problem is solved.
(I suspect, though, that those offended don't *want* the problem to be
solved.)
|
tod
|
|
response 15 of 432:
|
Feb 3 17:46 UTC 2006 |
I created some ASCII art of Mohammed in various situations and posted them
on M-Net but then removed them because the bigotry outweighed the humor.
I'm curious why Mohammed is such a big deal since its Allah that they're
supposed to be worshipping?
|
fitz
|
|
response 16 of 432:
|
Feb 3 18:01 UTC 2006 |
On the other hand, the US had a recent period of checking to see if free
speech was such a good thing after when Serrano's _Piss Christ_ was displayed.
A boycott would have been arranged if they could have only figured out who
to boycott. I think that rescinding all federal contributions to the arts
was the tactic of the day.
And I just saw on Yahoo News that a Colorado grade school teacher irked the
local Christians because she showed a video about Gonoud's Faust, which all
believers know glorifies the devil. [sarcasm]
I don't know if the cartoon-hating Islamic clerics can beat our home-grown
idiots.
Yeah! America rules! We're still goofier than anyone. Take that, Mohammed.
|
scholar
|
|
response 17 of 432:
|
Feb 3 18:23 UTC 2006 |
Re. 15: He's their Jesus.
|
tod
|
|
response 18 of 432:
|
Feb 3 18:30 UTC 2006 |
The latest religious flap at NBC flared after the network announced Tuesday
that pop star Britney Spears will make an April 13 guest appearance on "Will
& Grace," playing a Christian conservative talk-show sidekick to Jack, the
gay character portrayed by series regular Sean Hayes.
According to NBC's initial synopsis of the episode, Jack's fictional TV
network, Out TV, is taken over by a Christian broadcaster, leading Spears'
character to do a cooking segment on his show called "Cruci-fixin's."
Jesus, that sounds yummy.
|
richard
|
|
response 19 of 432:
|
Feb 3 18:36 UTC 2006 |
re #17 The muslims would say Jesus is the Christians' Mohammed. Each is
considered The Prophet
|
cross
|
|
response 20 of 432:
|
Feb 3 18:43 UTC 2006 |
This response has been erased.
|
tod
|
|
response 21 of 432:
|
Feb 3 19:07 UTC 2006 |
You know how Jews deal with the whole use of the Almighty's name being tossed
around? (Cuz I sure don't. I should be so lucky!) ;)
|
gull
|
|
response 22 of 432:
|
Feb 3 19:48 UTC 2006 |
My opinion: There's something seriously wrong with any religion that
doesn't have a sense of humor about itself.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 23 of 432:
|
Feb 3 19:55 UTC 2006 |
re #4:
> The thing is that no muslim is EVER supposed to see an image of Mohammed.
> To see an image of the Prophet is as blasphemous as to publish one.
> Readers of that newspaper, and now the others, who were islamic, and saw
> those cartoons, are now themselves considered blasphemers.
Where does Richard come up with this stuff?
In very general terms, Islam has a strict prohibition against idolatry,
and consequently depictions of humans, animals, and especially any kind
of religious figures (especially the Prophet) are really limited in
traditional Muslim art. However, it's substantially more complicated
than just a blanket prohibition that's universally accepted by all Muslims
and I've never heard anyone but Richard suggest that a Muslim can commit
blasphemy by accidentally seeing a cartoon in a newspaper.
I am certainly not an expert in the subject but I have an interest in
Islamic art and I have several times seen depictions of Mohammad, done
by classical Islamic artists, on display in museums. They stand out
because of the comparative rarity of their subject matter but I can tell
you that there were no Muslims picketing the museum, nor were there
gunmen surrounding the home nation's embassies in other areas.
--
I finally find something on which I can agree with klg: I think it's the
height of hypocrisy for middle-eastern countries whose governments fund the
production of and encourage the showing of "documentary" films based on the
libellous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to cry about European religious
intolerance towards Islam.
|
klg
|
|
response 24 of 432:
|
Feb 3 20:28 UTC 2006 |
Does that mean I can stop by when I am in Ketchikan again?
|