I don't think we have any discussion about the Danish Muhammad cartoons....

glad also! i'm not arguing for censorship. saying the paper was inflammatory and stupid for printing them*, and saying they should be banned are two different things

*we're only talking about some of the cartoons here anyway, i think some of them are fine

its only become considered as mistreatment over the last few hundred years. and, who is harmed by the taking of a photograph (if nothing is happening in the photograph but it is presented in a certain way?)

but the 'it's okay to mistreat a child in 1700' and the 'it's okay to publish pictures of same in 1700' things are still different -- the argument for free speech is one thing and the argument about mistreating children another, even if our attitudes to both do change over time.

if mistreatment of children is tolerated, so is the publication of photographs of their mistreatment. but it will never be the case that drawing a cartoon can harm someone; the *only* question there is of freedom to publish it.

xpost

this is turning into an episode of 'south park'

anyway, it shows its not as black and white as it seems!

I am a Muslim. I believe in and recite the Kalima. I am in a rage over the cartoons. I have managed to see them, since there are many sites now where they are available, and my rage is that they are an accurate representation. Political cartoons are wonderful. They are a mirror which cuts away the superficial and shows by exaggeration what the cartoonist sees as the heart of the issue.

There are no physical likenesses of the holy prophet, but there are certainly depictions. His life was meticulously recorded, as all Muslims are supposed to study and follow his example. So if a Danish newspaper commissions cartoonists to find an image of the Prophet Muhammad, where are they going to find the imagery to capture in their cartoons? They are going to see it in the face that the Muslim world presents. And it isn't pretty.

It is the face of the bomb ticking away above the brain, destroying reason. It is the face of the sword guarding repressed, hidden and frightened women. About a vision of paradise as a male voluptuous fantasy inspiring people to kill innocents and themselves. They could have shown other ugly scenes from state executions to anti-semitism and intolerance of other religions and viewpoints. The scariest image I saw was of the placards outside the Regent's Park mosque saying: "To Hell with free speech" and "Behead those who insult the prophet". The Qur'an and the Al-hadith are venerated and recited, but not read, studied and acted upon.
Rafiq Mahmood
Edinburgh

It seems some Muslims have failed to see the irony of the cartoons. They are, in my opinion, an accurate depiction of the view of Islam that the followers of Osama bin Laden have cultivated throughout the world. This view of the prophet as the precursor and instigator of the current actions of terrorists is the falsehood that Muslims should be most affected by.
Zahir Mirza
Gillingham, Kent

"They want to test our feelings," protester Mawli Abdul Qahar Abu Israra told the BBC.

"They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and to their newspapers," he said.

but what's the answer - are they extremists or not???

Monday February 6, 2006

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The only legitimate use of boycotts agsinst nations is when their laws and official government policy are noxious. The calls for boycotts amongst Muslims against Denmark are either politically naive or evil, which is to say that they still don't understand that the Danish government doesn't control or have the right to censure a privately owned media outlet or that they think that their feeling of offense is greater than the Danish people's right to have the right to free speech in their own country, in which case they can go fuck their hypocritical selves. A mass protest to call for an apology from the newspaper or the firing of the editorial board or whatnot I can understand but the kind of collective guilt that is being ascribed to the Danes is really scary to me and as ill founded as lumping together moderate and fanatical Muslims.

The comments about revisionism and anti-semitism being illegal in the Netherlands reminds me that I think all limits on free speech are misguided and lazy. Doesn't the very use of illiberal laws to defend a liberal institution undermine it? Also, imho, the real import and utility of free speech is not only that it provides an open market of ideas but that it also requires a society to actively and openly come to terms with its worst elements and tendencies. Outlawing hate speech doesn't make hate go away, it makes it go underground and 'right thinking' people are then tempted to think that they no longer need be vigilant against its venom. I haven't noticed that anti-hate speech laws have lessened European racism or depleted the numbers in nationalistic or neo-Nazi groups. They have merely given extremely illiberal people a sense of martyrdom and a liberal weapon to weild against their enemies.

more interestingly, cole also has a round-up of muslim reactions, showing how they vary from place to place and dissecting the ways the issue has gotten bound up with local/regional politics.

Contrary to what the article wrote it is most likely that the Conservatives, in an alliance with the Center Party, The Liberal Party and Christian Democrats will win the next election. I don't know where the author got that info from. However, the only reason they have a bigger chance of winning is because they moved drasticly to the left and the only party that could be described as socially conservative is the Christian Democrats.

Also, something that rarely is mentioned when immigration to Western Europe is discussed is that a lot of these countries have only had large scale immigration in the last 15-20 years! Geez! Give it some time to work.

"he's not a suicide bomber, he's a very silly boy"

Gives a chilling new meaning to the phrase "noose of light"

Are you worried he might right poetry?

Living in a small country where religion (christianity) has almost vanished during the past hundreds of years up until recently when it's becomimg a bigger issue again due to immigrants (christians, muslims, whatever -they are more religious than the average ethnic swede anyway), I see the publishing of the drawings from a different angle than most people in this thread.

It's ok to be religious but please keep it to yourself and don't let it show in everyday life is more or less what the big majority in Sweden feels. I realise that I live in a small corner of the world but as an example, here it would be impossible for the prime minister to mention God in his speech like George Bush does. If you like me, can't see anything coming from religion that couldn't be replaced ( and in a better way) with humanity, it is important being able to question the religions and their holy gods, prophets, scripts etc. If something is forbidden for a jew, it can't be applied on me. It's their right to live according to their belief as long as it doesn't inflict on the law but it doesn't mean that I, out of respect or whatever, shall do the same.

I don't hold many things holy and I think we have a right to bring subjects in religion up to create a debate, otherwise there's a risk that we leave to priests, imams, rabbies and others to TELL people what's right and wrong instead of thinking for themselves. This is what happened in a lot of countries in the west during hundreds of years when they (priests) were looked upon as halfgods by common people.

I think it's a very good thing when the swedish church or what the bible says is being questioned. I also think it's good when it's done in a way that the church and their followers find offensive. This way of bringing shit in christianity up has helped to throughout the years make the swedish church accept female priests and the right for homosexuals to have their partnership sanctioned in a church. I believe that in the long run changes like this will make christianity less religious. (I hope you understand what I mean, my vocabulary and phrasing in english could be better I suppose). This artwork (http://www.katedral.vaxjo.se/KLASSRUM/re/Ecce.htm) that was shown in alot of places in Sweden some years ago is a good example. It made some christians furious or sad but it also made them discuss homosexuality and the different ways people might look upon Jesus.

Jyllans-Posten published 12 different cartoons with different meanings (as you already know, one of them was very critical to the newspaper itself) and they published them in a context: are muslim taboos something a non-muslim has to follow in fear of bodily harm? Of course they could have just ran a text about it but would there be a debate then? Because beside all the demonstrations, flagburning, embassyburning and all, there is a big debate going on in the world.

Europeans would do well to take a page from the way immigrants are assimilated and incorporated into American culture. This would hardly even be an issue here with American Muslims.

Also because Americans, with the notable exception of the Native Americans are all immigrants who had to make some assimilationist changes and where national identity is at least partly predicated on allegience to an ideal. What does one say to a native Italian, in whose country the last major wave of pre-modern immigration dates to the 6th century, when he wishes to be a fascist or a monarchist? Un-Italian is not really readily available in the way it would be here.

hate answers hate, jews screwed per usual, europe up to same old tricks shockah

Ah, Iran in extreme disingenuousness non-schocker, since they were ALREADY saying offensive things about the holocaust.

So, Iran is trying to make a point about "freedom of expression" by ... er, demonstrating their govt's stranglehold on the total content of all Iranian media. The mind boggles.

I don't think it falls under hate speech and even if it did I think "hate speech" should be legal. Anything excepts direct threats are "okay" with me.

Frankly, I hope any preacher in Western countries spouting this sort of shit (by which I mean incitement to violence) is thrown in jail. And I'd gladly support the same treatment for any Christian preacher telling people to bomb abortion clinics (though I don't know of specific overt examples.)

xpost

That's for sure.