Caricatures of Muhammad

[Stu]

. Thus, atheists should shut up to avoid offending Christians and Jews?

Limiting expression always limits thinking. That's always bad for a society. It's regressive and, indeed, evil.

These are powerfully accurate observations. I am constantly editing myself around religious folks for fear of insulting what I believe are their insane views of the world. Watching footage of Muslims celebrating the massacres of Sept 11 is very disturbing. But I do not question their right to do it, only their morality.

. you have to taper your thoughts with regard to the other party's culture, customs and accepted level of etiquette, otherwise your words will likely be dismissed -going against your objective of bringing the issue to light.

I doubt the cartoons were meant as any kind of constructive criticisms for Muslims. In fact, though the cartoonist claims he did not think it through, it was probably meant to arouse a negative response in Muslim world to further emphasis his point.

 

[Krumplenump]

That an Egyptian cleric added two more images - one of which displayed Muhammad as a pig - in hope to stoke the fire of 'revenge' clearly shows how much many Muslim authorities are itching for an excuse for fight.

The sheer inanity in the support many bodies from the west (the Pope for one) gave to the 'image of Islam' is shocking, since IN THE NAME of Islam the response to the caricatures killed tens, caused property damage, resulted in fatwas and threats and boycotting of Danish goods.

The only consolation I take is that those who chose to jump on the fervour-ridden band wagon and assault Danish embassies and burn flags ended up damaging entire blocks of their own country's capitals, the short-sighted violent twats.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

No, the elephant in the room is secular law vs religious law

There is also a line to be drawn beween secular laws promulgated out of a respect for religious liberty and secular laws promulgated as a concession to religious extreme-ism.
The former prevent injustices, the latter prevent riots.

 

[Barnabas]

this makes me think about poking bears, and what happens when poeplepoke bears and whether or not it's the bears fault that the person was mauled by the bear.

I see this issue as stupid on either side of the fence, why make public something so obviously provocative that adds no for of constuction. Also why blow up over something so obviously meant to make you blow up.(no pun intended)

 

[Flavus Aquila]

this makes me think about poking bears, and what happens when poeplepoke bears and whether or not it's the bears fault that the person was mauled by the bear.

I see this issue as stupid on either side of the fence, why make public something so obviously provocative that adds no for of constuction. Also why blow up over something so obviously meant to make you blow up.(no pun intended)

When humans poke bears real danger is provoked, but when bears poke bears, it is usually taken as a display or an invitation to play, both of which help bears hone their territories and hunting skills.

The point is, when challenges are presented between members of the same species it is usually beneficial to the species. The same applies to us humans - debates, arguements, questions, jokes all provide opportunity for thougth and growth.

Any idiology opposed to this kind of interaction causes its members to act as though they were members of a different species, which regard beneficial challenges as dangerous threats.

 

[ThirdIE]

I see there is some hate towards Muslims around... I'm Muslim, just saying.
Now as far as the caricatures are concerned, my opinion of the matter is that "Your freedom stops where other people's freedom starts".

The caricaturists' freedom of expression has clashed with the Muslims' freedom of belief. Plus, the Prophet, Muhammad (SAW) is looked up to and those depictions just seemed to "show the world how blah Muslims are" on top of attacking the persona... I let you do the math.

In short, there's a cultural bridge that the caricaturists awkwardly bum-rushed by unknowingly disrespecting a whole faith. I don't, however, condone the death threats and fatwas on the caricaturists (overboard). It'd have been a better way to actually show them what is offensive in their deed; that's all.

Summing it up: The caricaturists lacked understanding of faith, the Muslim reaction lacked understanding of the occidental world and values.
Hatred settles in logically, with far overboard reactions to be expected from either side - not to be condoned. Instead, some understanding would have solved (or even prevented) that.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Almost every english language newspaper in the world regularly features satire cartoons caracaturing political, historical, religious, etc. figures.

Very few people actually get offended by them, including the politicians, religious leaders, etc depicted in such media/art.

It seems odd when someone actually gets seriously offended. And it seems highly manipulative when such media is condemned, as though humour and satire should have no place in society.

 

[Krumplenump]

this makes me think about poking bears, and what happens when poeplepoke bears and whether or not it's the bears fault that the person was mauled by the bear.

I see this issue as stupid on either side of the fence, why make public something so obviously provocative that adds no for of constuction. Also why blow up over something so obviously meant to make you blow up.(no pun intended)

I don't think the intention behind the caricatures was to be provocative, regardless of what the expected reaction was. To have to keep silent in order to keep at bay violent overreactions by big spoilt kids is not how this world should have to function.

 

[Shai Gar]

In the UK there have been new 'terror' laws created which obviously are open to abuse by the authorities

Many muslims are under surveilance and there have been many arrests

Many muslims feel that they are being targeted

The problem is that many muslim males (mostly males) are feeling alienated within british society and perhaps some of the ideas of islam are at odds with a consumerist western life. Also many muslims believe in the uma; that all muslims are one community regardless of what country they are living in, so that acts carried out against muslims in Israel or Iraq are acts against all muslims

This anger is finding an outlet in extremism. In extremism they find something to believe in, hope for, work for and fight for....it must seem an attractive option sometimes

The reality is that many people feel alienated within british society

If we are to stop muslim men from waging physical jihad then perhaps we need to do a number of things.

One is obviously withdraw western influence from muslim lands (can this happen whilst there is conflict over oil?)

Another is to try to find the common ground for everyone and to build a society which everyone feels they have a stake in. The current capitalist society is leaving many people divided, embittered, paranoid and angry

So immigants to Britan find British Culture to be at odds with their migrated way of life and religion...
Well i see a solution there...

 

[Morgain]

So immigants to Britan find British Culture to be at odds with their migrated way of life and religion...
Well i see a solution there...

can it really happen that I agree with you??? :crazy:

the solution is that British women start wearing headscarf

 

[Krumplenump]

I'm sorry but if you are a member of community from which - these days - the majority of security threats emanate, you should not find it surprising or 'despicable' that you may be under surveillance.

I feel that members of the Muslim community that openly whine about their collectivized treatment as being 'individually targeted and discriminated against' do so for one of 2 reasons:

1. They take their religion so seriously they expect other cultures and societies to revolve around theirs or
2: They have a chip on their shoulder and thus jump at the chance to cry 'insult' at measures that ultimately have security in mind, not persecution.

They have every right to whine about it, but it will be a sad day indeed if the security system for the whole country is tailored to their sensitivities.

 

[Morgain]

was this the cartoon?
I think cartoons like this have one and only one perpose: to say exactly what everyone is thinking. To represent the general impression of the people. Not to offent but to get the conflict out of the shadows

Comm'on this one is spot on!

it doesn't day that muslims are violant, it says that people see them as violant

 

[Shai Gar]

and getting murdered in the streets by rocks for having sex... Even though they are a secular people.

Why cant those secular modern feminist women act like decent god fearing male worshpping circa 1300's women?

... Theres a thought...

 

[testing]

5:38 As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power.

5:39 But if the thief repents after his crime, and amends his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

Merciful? How is he going to reattach peoples' hands after they've repented? Not a whole lot of room left for mercy, if you ask me.

 

[Shai Gar]

if their hands arent reattached, then they obviously werent really repentant. Or allah would have helped them. Remind anyone of anything?

If shs a witch, god wont let them be touched by the flames.

 

[testing]

Yeah, I was just reading about trial by ordeal, I think it's called. The legal system where they make the two defendants fight it out, and whoever wins is determined to be the innocent party?

That sort of thing was quite popular several centuries ago. Seems a bit outdated now.

 

[Krumplenump]

Same thing with the dunking stool, if the woman sunk and drowned she was innocent. If she survived she was guilty, and then killed.

lol, it's almost funny.

 

[Shai Gar]

Yeah, I was just reading about trial by ordeal, I think it's called. The legal system where they make the two defendants fight it out, and whoever wins is determined to be the innocent party?

That sort of thing was quite popular several centuries ago. Seems a bit outdated now.

The muslims count the year as 1400 and something, yes?

What was europe like in the year 1400?

I also wonder what their civilisation would have been like had the cash strapped christian leaders did not invade the middle east to destroy their civilisation and take their gold...

 

[Krumplenump]

The muslims count the year as 1400 and something, yes?

What was europe like in the year 1400?

I also wonder what their civilisation would have been like had the cash strapped christian leaders did not invade the middle east to destroy their civilisation and take their gold...

More corrupt than it is now. Wealth is nothing without constraint on tyrannical power.

 

[NeverAmI]

Merciful? How is he going to reattach peoples' hands after they've repented? Not a whole lot of room left for mercy, if you ask me.

The idea is to amend your prior actions before your hand gets chopped off.