| Author |
The Danish Mohammad cartoon row - what do you think? |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 08:00:01, 786KBR wrote:
Then who the hell is??
|
|
So-called Muslims who think killing, or threatening to kill, people is a legitimate way to protest.
[addsig] | |
|
JK
Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: S. Africa - JOZI
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 08:02:22, absinthebri wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 08:00:01, 786KBR wrote:
Then who the hell is??
|
|
So-called Muslims who think killing, or threatening to kill, people is a legitimate way to protest.
|
|
If you kick someone in the mouth, expect to get the same!!!
All protests get violent if they not controled!!! Its the governments of the respected countries that are to blame for the burning of embassies, they allowed it to go that far, not protesters! All protesters threaten in some way or the other! |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
You know, when I set fire to something, I'm responsible for my actions. I can choose to set a fire, or I can choose not to.
[addsig] |
JK
Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: S. Africa - JOZI
PM |
You know protester protest to make themselve heard!!
They didnt find the petrol bombs on the street now did they! |
SCORPIONKING1982
Joined: Mar 11, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Leeswood
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 08:10:13, 786KBR wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 08:02:22, absinthebri wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 08:00:01, 786KBR wrote:
Then who the hell is??
|
|
So-called Muslims who think killing, or threatening to kill, people is a legitimate way to protest.
|
|
If you kick someone in the mouth, expect to get the same!!!
All protests get violent if they not controled!!! Its the governments of the respected countries that are to blame for the burning of embassies, they allowed it to go that far, not protesters! All protesters threaten in some way or the other!
|
|
I guess muslims dont practice the same 'turn the other cheek' mentaliity of the christians then.
myspace.com/scorpionking1982 |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 08:17:54, 786KBR wrote:
You know protester protest to make themselve heard!!
They didnt find the petrol bombs on the street now did they!
|
|
You're confusing 'protestors' with 'criminals'.
[addsig] |
gelfen
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Melbourne, Australia
PM |
Quote:
| On 2006-02-08 08:00:01, 786KBR wrote:
Then who the hell is?? |
|
could it possibly be.........the ones whipping people into a frenzy, burning buildings, and getting innocents killed? 
just a thought.
@axxxr: that's the story i posted about earlier, although via a different source. the difference is that the iranian response is state sanctioned and made purely out of spite, rather than as an attempt to prompt debate on a particular issue. denmark did not make a mistake. one newspaper editor took it upon himself to highlight a polarising issue he thought worthy of open and forthright discussion.
i also doubt we'll see hordes of angry jews storming iranian embassies around the world, burning buildings and generally being a public menace.
i understand the argument that article and others here are trying to make, i really do, but i just don't buy it for a number of reasons:
1. the inherent assumption that a muslim's love and respect for allah and mohammed or greater than the love and respect a non-muslim has for their religious icons or principles.
2. the inherent assumption that a muslim's love and respect for allah and mohammed or greater than the love and respect a westerner has for their sacrosanct right of free speech (especially in their own country) or any other right of democratic society.
3. the inherent assumption that it is the west that must change to accommodate islam because islam is somehow a special case and it's principles more important than any others (see points 1 and 2).
for me, that article lost the argument outright with two statements:
"...due to the below-average quality of practical application of freedom of speech, Muslims have a vague understanding of the concept of respecting freedom of speech."
"The West understands very well the freedom of speech (which we appreciate) but it does not understand Islamic values, such as dignifying the Prophet (SAWS) and other Islamic sanctities."
if we understand freedom of speech so much better(a concept you assert that you "respect, appraise, and need"), why then can you not accept that it is more important in this case? i suspect it's because of points 1 and 2.
a couple of other points i have real issues with:
"This offense does not aim at the Prophet (SAWS) alone, but rather to one billion, two hundred thousand Muslims; or rather to all humanity."
in this one sentence he has shown that he is either incapable of understanding, or refuses to acknowledge, the real intention behind the publication of the cartoons.
"People around the world are demanding an international law that protects the dignity of this great Prophet."
good luck with china. i mean seriously...this is so patently absurd it defies belief. no non-islamic state would agree to such a thing.
"We will not stop our protests until our Prophet regains the dignity he duly deserves as our great leader. "
if the Prophet is such a hallowed persona, how is it even possible that even one iota of his dignity was compromised by some fairly tame (by western journalistic standards) cartoons drawn and published by people who do not believe in him? it is the activities of certain of his followers that are really costing him dignity.
"O West, I affirm that Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) is dearer to all Muslims than their own parents. O West, Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) is dearer to us, Muslims, than our children and grandchildren. O West, Allah’s Messenger (SAWS) is dearer to us than our money, dearer to us than our own selves. He is dearer to us than our own countries."
O Islam, I affirm that Free Speech is dearer to all Westerners than their own parents. O Islam, Free Speech is dearer to us, Westerners, than our children and grandchildren. O Islam, Free Speech is dearer to us than our money, dearer to us than our own selves. It is dearer to us than our own countries.
do not belittle the sincerity of western beliefs and principles. the real question now is why is the muslim world, and iran in particular, so intent on keeping this issue at boiling point so long after it should have been over months ago?
join the dots - Denmark is now a member of the UN Security Council, about to decide what to do about Iran's nuclear program.
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
Gelfen's special place where nobody talks to him anymore 
[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2006-02-08 07:43 ]
[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2006-02-08 07:44 ] |
gelfen
Joined: Nov 22, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Melbourne, Australia
PM |
a few reactions:
Denmark: Love it or Leave it - Danish Muslims protest against Imams
Moscow Museum to exhibit Mohammed Cartoons
The People of Norway and Denmark: We Are Sorry
from this provocative blog entry:
"If Chinese radicals were ransacking Western embassies because of a cartoon, and were backed by the Chinese government, we would be outraged, demanding apologies, severing relations, and so on. But when Muslims do it, backed by Islamist governments, we are supposed to take it on the chin, to "respect" their religious traditions, issue mealy-mouthed statements, etc. In many ways, this is the real offense: treating Muslims as if their violation of global norms, and thralldom to medieval conceptions of politics and religion, were somehow acceptable. They are not acceptable."
among other things this BBC article explains how the escalation of this issue can be directly traced to danish imams who lied to other islamic nations.
_________________
Whomsoever you see in distress, recognize in him a fellow man
Gelfen's special place where nobody talks to him anymore
[ This Message was edited by: gelfen on 2006-02-08 07:48 ] |
JK
Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: S. Africa - JOZI
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 08:19:43, absinthebri wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 08:17:54, 786KBR wrote:
You know protester protest to make themselve heard!!
They didnt find the petrol bombs on the street now did they!
|
|
You're confusing 'protestors' with 'criminals'.
|
|
No you are!! |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 07:33:14, axxxr wrote:
Sammy_boy i would'nt call it a childish matter to incite hatred towards someone else's religion,
|
|
Neither would I, but as has been stated several times before the cartoons wer enot published in a deliberate attempt to attack Islam. Continually saying that they were doesn't make it any truer.
Quote:
|
Iran is basically doing the right thing by checking the worlds reaction to freedom of speech under the banner of which these Islamphobic cartoons were published.
|
|
Are they doing it because they actually believe in freedom of speech or are they doing it out of revenge? Does the Iranian government support this idea? If so I presume that their new found commitment to freedom of speech will extend to allowing Iranians who do not agree with their government to voice their opinions and protest freely without fear of reprisal.
Quote:
|
Only if it was so easy to put all of this behind us,Denmark has made the biggest mistake in its history i think,and i think you may be right many more lives may be lost still...things are not calming down by the looks of things..Appologies are coming thick and fast from the Danes but its to little to late.
|
|
The Danes have made no mistake, as gelfen said the mistake wa son the part of one Danish newspaper.
I think where the mistake has been made is by Islamic extremists who are trying to make this situation worse. All they will do is help to polarise world opinion against Islam and play into the hands of those who seek to turn people against Islam.
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC |
JK
Joined: Feb 24, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: S. Africa - JOZI
PM |
@ Scots
Those cartoons were intentional!!! They were posted by some arsehole with the intent on bringing disrepute toward Islam!
He rejected the christian pictures...
He knew it would create a rebellion, like my earlier post showed no one wanted to draw the pics coz they knew the reaction would not be sweet!!
9/12 cartoons were blantanly attacking Islam!!!!
He then defended himself and said it was freedom of speech!!!
The protesters freedom of speech was to burn the embassies!!!
I too dont like the danes anymore! |
fatreg
Joined: Jul 26, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
i think
"shit happens"
this world will not live in harmony, so what is the point in getting all beat up over it?
@ Muslims. you feel that the cartoons are making a mockery of your religion?
you could say the same about the book "the Da vinvi code" that rips apart Christianity, but you dont see Christians having a full scale argument about it do you?
People can and will say/do what they want when then want, it is not within anyones power to stop that.
So can we please just drop the whole religious divide?
after all "one mans terrorist is an other mans freedom fighter"
fatreg
|
SCORPIONKING1982
Joined: Mar 11, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Leeswood
PM, WWW
|
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/758
“The imams should stop critizising the cartoons and instead critizise the terrorists that cut the throats of innocent hostages in the name of Allah and therefore abuse Islam. But on such occasions we never hear a word from them. Hence, they are hypocrites.”
Most sensible thing said on this debate!
myspace.com/scorpionking1982 |
absinthebri
Joined: Feb 11, 2004
Posts: 476
From: London, UK
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 09:38:39, SCORPIONKING1982 wrote:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/758
“The imams should stop critizising the cartoons and instead critizise the terrorists that cut the throats of innocent hostages in the name of Allah and therefore abuse Islam. But on such occasions we never hear a word from them. Hence, they are hypocrites.”
Most sensible thing said on this debate!
|
|
Remind me of the last ime you heard a Rabbi condemning the Israeli murder of innocent civilians in one of their so-called "targeted assassinations".
[addsig] |
scotsboyuk
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: UK
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2006-02-08 09:19:41, 786KBR wrote:
@ Scots
Those cartoons were intentional!!!
|
|
So you keep saying and yet you still have not provided any proof to show that the Danish newspaper was deliberately trying to attack Islam.
Quote:
|
They were posted by some arsehole with the intent on bringing disrepute toward Islam!
|
|
Language please! The cartoons were printed as part of a debate on censorship in Denmark resulting from the case of an author who could not find an illustrator for a book he was writing because people were too scared of the reaction from the Muslim community if illustration of the Prophet were used in the book.
That sort of debate is perfectly legitimate and the cartoons were published within the context of that debate. They were not published as a deliberate (let alone a sustained) attempt to attack Islam. Were the cartoons offensive to Muslims? Yes. Was the paper wrong to ask questions of and debate religion? No.
The cartoons may have been offensive and the debate could perhaps have been handled in a better way, but there is no evidence to support a claim that the newspaper is anti-Islamic or was trying to attack Muslims.
Quote:
|
He rejected the christian pictures...
He knew it would create a rebellion, like my earlier post showed no one wanted to draw the pics coz they knew the reaction would not be sweet!!
|
|
From what I have read of this the Jesus cartoons were unsolicited, they were not asked for and were not being put forward as part of a feature the newspaper was running. The cartoons of the Prophet were commissioned by the newspaper as part of a debate, hence their publiction.
If the newspaper didn't feel that the cartoons of Jesus were appropriate then that is up to them; they are exercising their right to publish what they like. Do we know anything about the Jesus cartoons? Were they in fact funny? Were they of a good enough quality to include in the newspaper? Was there a good reason to publish them? Did they make a legitimate point that would have justified their allegedly offensive content?
Just because a newspaper publishes a satarisation of one religion does not mean that it has to publish a satarisation of all religions. Satarisation for the sake of it tends to loose it's power to convey a message; there needs to be a reason for the satire. In this context the reason was that the newspaper was holding a debate on Islam and censorship.
It is also worth noting that Denmark is a very open society and that Jesus and other respect figures, including the Danish Queen, have been portrayed in ways that some might find insulting by Danes over the years. The editor of the Danish newspaper has also said that he is sure that his newspaper had printed carictures of Jesus previously although he didn't recall any specific examples.
Quote:
|
9/12 cartoons were blantanly attacking Islam!!!!
|
|
How? Were the cartoons part of a feature denouncing Islam or part of a feature debating Islam? Were the cartoons presented as propoganda or as part of a discussion on a legitimate topic? You might find the cartoons offensive, but that does not mean to say that they were an attack on Islam. The intent is important here. If were to bump into you and knock you over causing you to hurt your leg, that is different to me deliberately knocking you over and you hurting your leg. Both scenarios have the same outcome, but are completely different in intent.
Quote:
|
He then defended himself and said it was freedom of speech!!!
The protesters freedom of speech was to burn the embassies!!!
|
|
So you are saying that the violence if acceptable? Would it be ok if Westerners burned down embassies from Islamic countries when Islamic extremists killed a Westerner? What if Westerners boycotted Islamic countries' goods and services over such killings? What if Westerners stood in the streets and burned the flags of Islamic countries or called for Islamic leaders to be killed?
What you see instead is Westerners not blaming all Muslims for the actions of individuals. Western countries continue to send aid to Islamic countries and Westerners continue to risk their lives in various Islamic countries to help the people there. There are no boycotts, no burning embassies and no flag burning.
The West is certainly not perfect, but the reaction of many in the Islamic world is deplorable. The current violence is unjustifiable except by those who wish to spread hatred and fear.
Quote:
|
I too dont like the danes anymore!
|
|
I doubt many Danes will crying themselves to sleep over that.
_________________
"I may be drunk my dear woman, but in the morning I will be sober, and you will still be ugly." WSC
[ This Message was edited by: scotsboyuk on 2006-02-08 09:15 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2006-02-08 08:02
