Muhammed Cartoon Controversy

[MidGe]

I hope I am posting this in the right forum. It could go in politics but at its base it is a religious/philosophical issue.

There has been an uproar about the danish, and then other countries, press publishing cartoons that were deemed, and probably were, disrecpectuful to Islam.

The same religious fervour at attempting to prevent freedom of speeches have arisen with the publication or showing of artworks (Piss Christ), movies (Godard's "Je vous salue Marie"), etc... that may have been disrespectful to christians believers.

Altough some of these events were marred by some amount of violence, the hysteria cannot be compared to the one associated with the now famous cartoons.

The worst thing is the Islamic ( a religious grouping) attempt at boycotting Danish (a soveriegn and multi cutural grouping) products. I feel that all who feel appaled at the reactions ought to follow the suggestion on this site (http://buydanish.home.comcast.net/products.htm).

The suggestion is to make an effort at buying something danish to counter the Islamist boycott.

I am not danish, have no interest in any danish companies, but it seems to be a small and individual way of voicing my protest at the hysterical Islamist reaction and attenpt at bullying a small country economically. More that that, it will show that however strong or large Islam may be, it cannot simply bully other cultures. If enough do make the effort. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[yukoncpa]

My understanding of the offensive cartoon is that the prophet Muhammed spoke to a suicide killer and said, "No, No, we're out of virgins."
I didn't see the cartoon itself, only what was said on the news.
The cartoon was merely critcizing insane behaviour of people motivated by their religion. I don't understand why Islamic people would take offense to a little poking by a cartoonist.

[MidGe]

hi yukoncpa,

The cartoons are really readily available on the net. There are twelve of them, including the one you mentioned, altough it is a line of suicide bombers lining up to enter paradise.

By the way, the origin of the cartoons was that the cultural editor (?) of the danish newspaper became aware that a writer of children books, wanting to publish a child oriented book, about Muhammed, could not find a illustrator for his book, as it is(?) contrary to islam to have any representation of the prophet.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, the origin of the cartoons was that the cultural editor (?) of the danish newspaper became aware that a writer of children books, wanting to publish a child oriented book, about Muhammed, could not find a illustrator for his book, as it is(?) contrary to islam to have any representation of the prophet

[/ QUOTE ]

This is confusing to me. Are you suggesting that the prophet Muhammed can not be pictured? Did he not exist? Was he not a real person? Why can't his likeness be illustrated?

[MidGe]

yukoncpa,

I am not a muslim, so not an authority on this subject. But, yes, I understand that the prophet cannot be pictured, that the reason for this is to avoid/minimise the chance of idolatry.

Personally I fail to see how idolatry could come about via a disrepectful cartoon. But please I do not wish to become an apologist or stand as an authority on Islam. Look up google for more expert advice.

My OP intention was quite different.

I seem to attract misunderstandings... lol

[yukoncpa]

Sorry to detract from your original post. I feel appalled that Islamic groups are boycotting Danish products over the matter of an inane cartoon.
I can personally vouche for the Danish beer - Carlsberg, please buy Danish and ignore this idiotic boycott.

[guesswest]

What I found really interesting about this story, isn't the issue of whether or not these cartoons are offensive, or how offensive they are. I assume from the reactions that occured they're highly offensive, but I haven't seen them, either.

What struck me is that when the Danish government would say 'we have free press in Denmark, this is not something we have control over' - that large parts of the Moslem world seemed not to 'get' this. It's probably understood in principle, but having spent a reasonable amount of time in the middle east - I think this idea is just so anathema to many there with what they've learned about social constructs from whats around them, that it must have seemed like a cop out.

What do you mean you can't do anything about it, you're the government??? I suspect the idea of a nation state, with certain freedoms of expression so firmly entrenched both in law and the idealogy of the people, is a hard concept for persons habituated to a certain society to fully grasp, emotionally at least. And to that end the failure of Danish government to intervene may have felt like support or encouragement for the viewpoints espoused by these cartoons, rather than the reality, which is that it was a freedom of press issue to them, however distasteful the concept was or however opposed to government policy etc.

[Tanken]

To answer why Mohammed cant be pictured, is because they dont belive Mohammed is just a "God" he is everything, both the creator what he have created. So a picture will be disrespect full cause it wont give him enough credit.
Or at least I think its something like that, old memories from reliogion class /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Tanken]

Oops I got that wrong. What i posted before is why Allah cant be pictured. Don't know why Mohammed cant be pictured.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
Oops I got that wrong. What i posted before is why Allah cant be pictured. Don't know why Mohammed cant be pictured.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a muslim, but I did have a muslim roomate. I think that a picture or sculpture of Mohammed is considered an icon that draws worship away from Allah.
Any picture of Mohammed is blasphemy - the fact that they were offensive is just icing on the cake.

[BaggyAnt]

There is nothing enshrined in Islamic Law that says Mohammed cannot be pictured - in fact there are paintings from the 15th century and earlier that depict him. For whatever reason though over time it has become to be considered blasphemous

[morphball]

The fury of the muslims, IMO, shows how weak their faith actually is. If it can't stand criticism, then its just brain-washing that prefers to avoid scrutiny. Find the thread on Viruses of the Mind, in this forum. I think Dawkins is onto something...

Also, in the long run, these cartoons are a good thing. Their zealots are rioting in the streets right now, I give you that, but there are others quietly wondering why this is such a big deal.

[Lestat]

I think this is more politics than philosophical. My philosophical bent is:

What's the big deal? Why does ANY religious group feel a need to defend their god? Can't he take care of himself? Why not be satisfied that in this case, any offenders will rot in hell and will be denied their 72 virgins? Mortal men sticking up for a god seems silly. If they really believe in God, then they should let Him take care of of the offenders. I hear he can do a pretty good job of wiping out people from the earth. He doesn't need them to fight His enemies.

[morphball]

Awesome response, Lestat! We should send it over to the Middle East pronto!

[Gobgogbog]

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=586

[Lestat]

Don't get me wrong... I very much disagree with the publishing of those cartoons. I mean, yes. There is a freedom of speech, but with that freedom comes responsibility. You don't publicly print offensive material just because you can.

So I understand the outrage, just not from the violence standpoint. Everyone (not just Mulsims), should be offended by such an offensive publishing. But it's not Allah who needs defending here. What needs defending is the insensibility that caused these cartoons to be printed in the first place. Whether it was mocking Allah, Jesus Christ, or whoever.

[Marko Schmarko]

I can't find the cartoons. They have to be up somewhere?

[madnak]

I believe http://freethinker.co.uk/ links to them. Check the bottom left menu section.

Lestat, free speech entails the ability to say offensive things. If it only applied to safe and comfortable modes of expression there would be little point.

[jman220]

[ QUOTE ]
The cartoon was merely critcizing insane behaviour of people motivated by their religion. I don't understand why Islamic people would take offense to a little poking by a cartoonist.


[/ QUOTE ]

You answered your own question.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">Lestat, free speech entails the ability to say offensive things. If it only applied to safe and comfortable modes of expression there would be little point. </font>

I agree madnak, but I'll say it again. With free speech comes responsibility. In a free press the question needs to be asked: Is it newsworthy? What is the story? Etc. etc. You don't print something just because you can. Well, maybe groups like the Klu Klux Klan could, because it's their goal to incite, but that's not what the free press or journalism if you will, is all about.

I'm sure you're not insinuating it's ok to offend for the sake of offending. Would you be ok if an American newspaper all of a sudden decided run cartoon pictures of Martin Luther King depicted as a jungle bunny without any rational news story behind it? If not? Why not? According to your logic it's a free press that can do whatever it wants to, right? I say, WRONG! I'll say a third time... With freedom of speech comes responsibility -IMO

[madnak]

I'm insinuating that it should be completely legal to offend for the sake of offending. It isn't a tactic I personally feel is very effective, but I would hardly outlaw it. That is the nature of freedom. If we forcibly prevent the existence of groups like the KKK, we have little reason to claim we are any better.

[Nut4Dawgs]

[ QUOTE ]
edit: Ideally, In a free press the question needs to be asked: Is it newsworthy? What is the story? Etc. etc. You don't print something just because you can.

[/ QUOTE ]
We can see/hear/read examples of "If it bleeds, it leads," journalism everyday, all day. The old standards, IMO, have been forgotten, for the most part. News today is about ratings, readership, viewers. That translates into advertising revenue.

I know, without revenue/profit, newspapers, television, etc., disappears. I don't think the root problem is the providers. It's the audience. They provide what's proven to be successful/profitable. And the audience has given tacit approval of just about any/everything.

The original cartoon story isn't current. Somehow it got put back on page 1 and picked up around the world. I think one or more of the radical Imams saw it and knew it would be a source of much agitation. He/they exploited it.

If "responsible" news editors/managers aren't free to decide "the news that's fit to print," who does? How do you define "responsible?" It's subjective, not objective, in an open society.

At one time the descriptive "tabloid" was used in reference to a newspaper designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator(s) in society. You could always differentiate between a tabloid and a "real" newspaper. I don't think the differences are all that great today.

I can understand a Muslim's anger at ridicule of his faith and his Prophet. I don't like verbal, written or "artsy" ridicule of Christianity. I ignore the ridicule. A lot of Muslim's can't or won't.

Knowing this, is the media responsible for offending me or Muslims? I don't think so. Being offended or not, is my responsibility. What I do or do not do about it is my responsibility. But I don't think like a radical Muslim.

If someone in the media knows he/she is about to do something that will, in all probability, offend radical Muslims, should that knowledge guide their decision? In a free society, no. In today's world it's beginning to look like "good taste" should be given more consideration. Or brought back to the front burner.

[Bremen]

[ QUOTE ]
So I understand the outrage, just not from the violence standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]
The violence comes about for the same reason we have race riots in the US. People in the middle east are still affected by the lingering resentment of colonization by western powers. We still tell them what to do, whether it is respecting human rights or wanting them to pump more oil.

Also one must remember that governments in this area tend to be police states. Stirring up this kind of behavior allows them to rally the population against an outside enemy. Also many radical clerics use this to further indoctrinate followers.

[LadyWrestler]

I agreed with and respected your first post. I disagree with your second, more "politicly correct" one.

[Leaky Eye]

I am outraged at people and governments that apologize for the behavior of muslims regarding this issue. Their outrage is not only unjustified, it is fascist.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I agreed with and respected your first post. I disagree with your second, more "politicly correct" one.

[/ QUOTE ]

But why? Do you really disagree that it's right for a free public press to offend a particular group just because there's such a thing as freedom of speech? I'm not saying it should be illegal, just that it's irresponsible. What if your daily Tribune ran a cartoon of two fags in tut-tu's with bells on their toes? Or showed a polack with a dunce cap and calculator trying to figure out 2+2. Yeah, these are funny. But they have no place in responsible journalism without a legitimate story behind it. The 5th time I'm saying this, so sorry for sounding like a broken record: Editors shouldn't just print stuff because they can. I'm amazed that people (especially madnak) can even argue this point.

[Lestat]

I am not apologizing for their behavior. Quite the contrary.. I think it's about time for the Western world to take a stand once and for all and wipe these radicals off the planet.

My point is only about freedom of speech and the free press. It is irresponsible to make fun of ANY religion, ethnic group, etc. just because it's not illegal.

[Leaky Eye]

The cartoons were not racist caricatures. They made a point about the perversion of supposedly peaceful and enlightened religion. All of the comparisons you have made in the last two posts are wildly inappropriate.

[Leaky Eye]

I think it is both responsible and appropriate to discuss the tenets and behavior of religious groups in public. Particularly politically active groups.

Your saying they are right to be offended is sort of apologizing for them, but I was also referring to the US government's stance, and other government reactions. These draw my ire far more than some well-meaning fellow on a message board.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's about time for the Western world to take a stand once and for all and wipe these radicals off the planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure that wouldn't offend them.

Personally, I am happy to say things that are offensive to scientologists. It really isn't an issue for me. And I'm sure many people say things that would offend me. I don't read their newspapers.

[Lestat]

On a side note:

Interesting that the American press is shying away from printing these cartoons, wouldn't ya say? Even France published them. Is the American media scared?

[miketurner]

[ QUOTE ]
On a side note:

Interesting that the American press is shying away from printing these cartoons, wouldn't ya say? Even France published them. Is the American media scared?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is even more interesting is that I’ve seen (albeit in small numbers) people protesting America at some of these riots. What does that say about the true motives of these rioters? Are they really defending Mohamad, or are they just looking for a reason to burn a building?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get me wrong... I very much disagree with the publishing of those cartoons. I mean, yes. There is a freedom of speech, but with that freedom comes responsibility. You don't publicly print offensive material just because you can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I 'spose it's irresponsible to publicly ridicule a very responsible recuitment campaign that includes promising young men islamic virgins in the afterlife for simply responsibly murdering innocent people. How irresponsible for a cartoonist to dare challenge that right. A decent society should accept such beliefs or at least only criticize such acts in some respectful way.

Lestat, 'respect' should stop after, say, 17 murders. 21? 42?

The concept that religious positions ( good, bad, neutral) deserve respect or should be immune from ridicule is ludicrous in any case. We have the right to our opinions and religious beliefs, we should have no right that those be respected... that is something that is earned. It's the 'right to be wrong' that we must respect, not the wrongness itself.

luckyme.

[Leaky Eye]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting that the American press is shying away from printing these cartoons, wouldn't ya say? Even France published them. Is the American media scared?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it is interesting. I am not sure I understand exactly why this is occuring, but something is seriously wrong.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
On a side note:

Interesting that the American press is shying away from printing these cartoons, wouldn't ya say? Even France published them. Is the American media scared?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is even more interesting is that I’ve seen (albeit in small numbers) people protesting America at some of these riots. What does that say about the true motives of these rioters? Are they really defending Mohamad, or are they just looking for a reason to burn a building?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lestat and miketurner,

I have been following this since shortly after it started gaining impetus. I tend to read quite a number of newspapers every days fron a number of countries. I feel that the USA press has been rather quiet and subdued in it's coverage. This was headlines in EUR, AUS, well before the burning of embassies and demand for killing and killings started to happen. And is still is.

The US press has been extremely moderate in comparison.

Lestat,

I agree totally with your statement that the cartoons are offensive, disrepectful and even divisive. I feel that we should be careful not to shift our gaze from the completely out of proportion response, however. I think concentrating on the ojectionabilty of the cartoons may be playing in the hands of fundamentalist Islamists.

I personally feel that this issue is one of the most important global issue we have faced since the start of the war in Iraq. I don't think it is going to go away so easily, and I think it is close to reaching the flashpoint for a cultural/civilsation war.

I would like the opportunity to mention again the reason for the OP. As individual, we can make a comparatively very peaceful protest by underminng the economic boycott that has been imposed on denmark. Just go and buy one danish product a week, so that the worid will show that it is not subject to Islamist economic blackmail.

I also think that burning Islamist embassies or be violent towards people of Islamist predilection would be counter productive and very wrong. Note that I differentiate between Islamism and Islam.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
Lestat, 'respect' should stop after, say, 17 murders. 21? 42?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you'd felt the same way about a cartoon with Jesus sending American soldiers to kill Iraqi children.

Or how many murders in this case, 1000, 5000, 10000 ?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lestat, 'respect' should stop after, say, 17 murders. 21? 42?


[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you'd felt the same way about a cartoon with Jesus sending American soldiers to kill Iraqi children.

Or how many murders in this case, 1000, 5000, 10000 ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sirio,

that's a very good example. I have seen in the US and its allies press, especially those newspapers espousing an anti Iraq war position, some cartoons that were portraying the US, it's allies, their soldiers, heads of state etc... in as an objectionable way. The same about identifying christianity or it's founder as somehow prime mover in the war of Iraq. I mean Bush is very easy to lampoon with his sense of being god annointed . /images/graemlins/smile.gif Still the press can publish, no one is threatened with beheading, newspaper offices or embassies are not burning because of it. I think this is a crucial way at looking at this issue. The alternative is cultural/religious submission in the guise of political correctness.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The 5th time I'm saying this, so sorry for sounding like a broken record: Editors shouldn't just print stuff because they can.

[/ QUOTE ]

If an editor wants people to trust his newspaper and rely on it for fair and valid reporting then he takes his best shot at it. How does that translate into "Editors shouldn't .." in a country with a free press?

If the cartoons were of jesus offering 18 virgins in this lifetime for xtrians to blow up muslims then the 'incitement' aspect would need examination. Writing in an editorial or drawing in a cartoon the concept "if this keeps up aren't they going to run out of virgins" isn't suggesting an action, it's a comment on a public claim by a large number of people that promote murder.

Seems like somebody should question it's validity and worth. So a cartoon may be the wrong way to do it ( if one thinks it is) why do we think the editor is responsible for the illegal and murderous reaction.

The editor was acting responsibly. Somebody has to raise the issue since society seems to be wallowing in some uber pc 'it's somebody religious belief so we shouldn't laugh' while it's actually a contract killing we're protecting with our silence. Make them defend their position in the light of day like the rest of us.

Oh, it's the drawing of some guy that's the problem, ahhhh. Somebody doesn't want to do something, therefore I'm not allowed to do it because it's their religious belief.. good grief.

luckyme. editors should ...

[guesswest]

The point with these cartoons isn't that they are offensive to islamic extremists lucky, I don't think anyone's losing sleep over that. It's that they're offensive to the millions of regular moslems all over the world because of their depiction of the prophet. You have to understand that ANY depiction of Mohammed would be offensive, which perhaps gives some clue as to just how objectionable these cartoons are to so many depicting him in the way they do. And I suspect you have to be a moslem to truly appreciate the scale of that (I'm not).

And I agree with whoever said that the American press has been very lacking in balls over not just this story , but a whole host of stories over the last 5 years or so (WMDs?), and it makes me pretty sad.

[guesswest]

And on the issue of whether these cartoons should have been published or not. I can think of few more important liberties I would want enshrined in law than the right to free speech, so I certainly don't think they should be censored.

But free speech also applies to the reaction. If someone uses their right to free speech to say something stupid, incendiary, insensitive etc - then those parties offended have that same right and access to free speech to object, call them a moron, protest etc. And 99% of the protests resulting from these cartoons have been just that, an exercise in free speech. The remaining 1%, the torching of embassies etc, is not part of exercising that freedom of expression, but I don't think anybody is really trying to say it is or to excuse that behaviour. We can't defend the right to free speech with any intellectual honesty if we aren't willing to also defend the right to react in speech.

[Sifmole]

Not neccssarily in response to just you....

Since when did it become the responsibility of journalism to avoid offending anyone? since when was it freedom of speech unless you offend someone or group?

They were political/editorial cartoons! They are meant to strike a nerve -- that is their sole purpose; and it is perfectly honorable purpose. To make people think about something in a different way, and sometimes that requires moving them out of their comfort zone and possibly offending them.

Just because a group of lunatics ( not all muslims/moslems, but the ones who are reacting so violently ) are willing to kill and burn because they are offended, the rest of the world should bend low and beg forgiveness? Not a chance! Do you apologists realize that you are basically SUPPORTING that each group of people should be willing to threaten and assault any other group that offends them?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's that they're offensive to the millions of regular moslems all over the world because of their depiction of the prophet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, let's just refer to that aspect of it. 'the depiction of the propet'. I own a pencil, I own paper... hamid does also. He doesn't believe certain drawings should arise from that condition. And that dictates what shows up on my paper how?

His religious freedom forces me to adhere to his whacko beliefs? Do I have to not eat pork or skip steaks on friday or ... If somebody is offended because I draw a face on paper ( tastefully even) then it's time they moved into a democratic 21th century, or at least allow me to.

Self-respectin muslims should be the guys poking fun at the 17 virgin contract killing arrangements, they shouldn't be leaving it up to non-muslims to defend their faith ( who are free to draw mohamed to make their point).

luckyme

[Case Closed]

All,

One thing that confuses me is, why are they pissed about this one? I have no concrete examples but there has to have been many many many cartoons like this in other newspapers before. Why all the uproar over this danish one?

[Lestat]

I so much agree with what you wrote (about editorial cartoons), that I might change my position. I wasn't looking at it that way, but only from the point that the main intention was simply to offend. If the intention was to "open eyes" to a situation, then I also can find nothing wrong with that. You're correct that the best editorial cartoons are designed to move one out of his comfort zone so to speak.

The reason my examples of MLK, Gays, or Polish people wasn't a good example is because there are no related issues. If gays were bombing buildings all over the place then I agree that an offensive cartoon depicting gays in a manner to wake people up would be fine even if it offend gays. Good post!

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't defend the right to free speech with any intellectual honesty if we aren't willing to also defend the right to react in speech.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem to miss the issue entirely. Of course, short of criminal activity, you have the right to react to a speech. But it's not that muslims are denying that contract killings are being offered in the name of the prophet. They are not protesting the content of the 'speech', they are violenting protesting that somebody is able to give that speech. ( 'speech' being the drawing of mohamed).

Certainly, object to what the cartoons are saying/claiming, but if your main ojection is that it is being said ( the drawing of mohamed) then it is a simple free speech/press issue and the content is just a distraction.

Either I can draw/publish a historical figure or an imaginary one if I so desire, knowing it may offend somebody ( pictures of gay pride parades offend lots of people too) or I can't.

Protest my insensitivity, protest my lack of respect for your religious beliefs, but if the protest is 'you can't DO that' .. fergitabutit. ( Yes, they can protest that, too. And it's THAT protest that needs to be vigorously rebuffed, just as pat robertsons attempts in that area also).

A cartoonist/editor in denmark being snarky doesn't make them responsible for murder of a danish baker in beirut .. it's the 'blaming the victim' aspect of this incident that irks me. Cartoonists don't kill people, muslim whackos do.
[ QUOTE ]
defend the right to react in speech

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the reaction by threat of physical violence and actual physical violence that I refuse to defend by laying any blame for that on a cartoon. Parade against my right to free speech all they want.

luckyme

[guesswest]

lucky, it's not apologism.

There are basically two ways in which an idea becomes non grata in any society.

1. You're prohibited by law from expressing it
2. Nobody wants to hear it, or the negative reaction is such that you see no merit in putting it forth.

In the first instance you have a legal restriction of free speech, which as a liberal I find abhorrent.

The second reason in my mind speaks to an equitable society, ie people are exercising their freedom of speech as they see fit and the upshot is that a public opinion is formed. I'm not suggesting for one moment that those cartoonists should be legally prohibited from producing those cartoons or that the newsapers shoudl be prohibited from publishing them. What I'm suggesting is, that if they do so, and the reaction is so strongly negative that they decide not to in future, then that is a liberal democracy forming public opinion in a just and equitable way. I'm also not suggesting btw that physical violence, destruction of property etc is a legitimate form of protest. It's not and I don't apologise for that, but the persons protesting those cartoons in that way represent a miniscule proportion of those protesting the cartoons overall.

And for the record, 'self-respecting muslims' do considerably more than poke fun at moslem extremists, the general opinion of the vast majority of muslims is that they are destroying their faith. They just don't do so by producing cartoon depictions of mohammed, since that is considered blasphemy within islam.

[luckyme]

For the most part we're on the same page. It's aspects of this -

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm suggesting is, that if they do so, and the reaction is so strongly negative that they decide not to in future, then that is a liberal democracy forming public opinion in a just and equitable way.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Nobody wants to hear it, or the negative reaction is such that you see no merit in putting it forth

[/ QUOTE ]

Or, as has happened with the north american press,
3. people are afraid to express it, merit or not, for fear of direct or indirect reprisals or being blamed for the irrational responses ( the 'responsibility' claim).

Too many are confusing this case of #3 and passing it off as a version of #2, your "liberal democracy forming public opinion in a just and equitable way."

Would there be any change of mind that would occur from, say, 1000 letters to the editor or 100,000 placard carrying muslims in Mecca protesting the depiction of mohamed? Obviously that's not an issue, since freedom of speech/press would hold up to that easily.

The issue arises when there is implication that the press has 'responsibility' for a criminal overreaction and bows to threatened violence, like the philosophy professor in canada who was going to discuss/show it in class but has been threatened by a group of muslims.

[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, 'self-respecting muslims' do considerably more than poke fun at moslem extremists, the general opinion of the vast majority of muslims is that they are destroying their faith. They just don't do so by producing cartoon depictions of mohammed, since that is considered blasphemy within islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may have happened, but of all the moderate muslims I've heard and read on this issue, not one of them is taking the 'freedom of the speech/press' line. At the least they put out the 'press needs to be responsible' spin and bring out the 'need to respect..yadda yadda'.

luckyme

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
And for the record, 'self-respecting muslims' do considerably more than poke fun at moslem extremists, the general opinion of the vast majority of muslims is that they are destroying their faith. They just don't do so by producing cartoon depictions of mohammed, since that is considered blasphemy within islam.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever they're doing, they need to do a better job. If I belonged to any group with a few bad apples who were doing things against the tenets of the group, I'd want to get rid of those bad apples more so, than people outside the group!

[guesswest]

I certainly agree that #3 where it occurs is a perversion of liberty and should be socially resisted. I'd agree also that there is an element of that to this - I'll state directly that in my opinion those cartoonists/editors are in no way responsible for the subsequent violence, torchings etc

I think in this particular case tho, if you disregarded the very public minority who are committing crimes in protest of these cartoons, that you'd be left with a huge and influential protest that exclusively took the form of free speech being exercised. Which is to say that there is a big difference between saying 'you shouldn't do this' and saying 'you should be prohibited by law from doing this'. Most muslims I've seen speak to this issue are doing the former.

It's that distinction that means we're never going to open (say) the NY times and see a blatant racial slur as a headline. It's not that it's prohibited by law (assuming it isn't libelous), it's that if it did appear, sufficient people would exercise their own freedom of speech in saying they don't want it to appear, that the editor would not want it there. Basically IMO what's important is that the choice to publish such things ultimately remains, but if that choice is heavily informed by the anticipation of widespread backlash and condemnation (assuming it's speech - not criminal activity, violence etc), I have no problem with that and don't view it as a restriction of liberty.

[howdydudey]

Sorry post in a older thread, but if you want to watch a funny flash video about the cartoons check this out: http://www.zipperfish.net/free/yaafm12.php

Warning- might be offensive to some.

[Alex-db]

So, the people that are offended. Has anyone questioned why they are offended? How did they know that they were offended? When did this feeling of offendedness begin? What aspect of the issue was it that created this emotional response?

IMO, the word 'offended' is used far to often. I imagine that the protesting extremists say they are offended because influential figures or mob hysteria has led them to believe they are offended, without them stopping to consider whether or not that really is the case.

Is it the case that there are zero instances of muslim media depicting western figures in cartoons? If these guys genuinely find cartoons this offensive, then if there is even one caricature of Bush or Blair in their media, I'd like to sign up to the "napalm tha b$%^&amp;$ds" camp tomorrow.

Religion cannot be used as a logical justification of any action, because there are no indications that it is anything more than a naive hobby.

If people are going to say they are offended, then I think they should have to provide a good reason. I'm sure if they provided a (genuine, logically sound) reason why that cartoon was far more offensive than justified for a little humour, the Danish editor would apologise.

[nicky g]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not a muslim, but I did have a muslim roomate. I think that a picture or sculpture of Mohammed is considered an icon that draws worship away from Allah.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is more or less right. It comes, as I understand it, from the originally Jewish tradition opposing "graven idols" and is part of a wider ban on depicting any prophet or indeed any living thing etc. It is far from having been universally respected or taken up by all Muslims.

I think the outrage has far more to do with the "insulting" aspect of the cartoons, which itself should be taken in context; there wasn't a particularly strong Muslim reaction when Jerry Falwell called Muhammad a "terrorist" for example, and the reaction to the original publication by the Danish parper remained fairly small. It became newsworthy with the Norwegian republication months later, I think the reprinting throughout Europe of cartoons that Muslims saw as gratuitously offensive attacks, combined with the current climate (Iraq war etc), sparked the real anger off.

That said, many of the riots though were clearly more related to other, local issues; Afghans attacking Western troop bases, Nigerian Muslims attacking Christian Muslims as part of intra-communcal violence that has been going on, and seen far more deadly clashes, for several years, teh Syrian government whipping up anti-Western feeling and so on.

Also, the idea that the entire Muslim world is up in arms about it is a bit overdone; in the UK for example, 100-200 people went on the first march that saw extremist slogans bandied arond; 4,000 people went on the "mainstream" march, which is a pretty tiny portion of the UK Muslim community, far smaller for instance than the proportion of people who marched against the Iraq war.

Whoever said that the boycott of Danish goods is the worst aspect is smoking crack; why can't people boycott whatever they want? That's not a denial of freedom of expression. Surely the fact that people actually died is the worst aspect of the related incidents?

My own view is that papers should be free to publish them, although I also don't think they should have published them; ie you should have the (legal) right to offend, but that doesn't mean it isn't a morally wrong thing to do. Equally, people should be free to protest about their publication, as long as they stick to peaceful means (and that volunary boycotts are perfectly legitimate tactics). I thought the whole "rush to reprint them in the name of freeedom of expression" thing was a bit ludicrous and hypocritical; I don;t remember European papers rushing out to reprint David Irving's essays or speeches when he was actually imprisoned for his (absurd) views. Nor to my knowledge has any major Eurpean newspaper republished or recomissioned the cartoons of Jesus that the same Danish paper had reportedly refused to publish several months previously.