Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (3 Viewers)

[davin]

which is why its a better idea to have the majority of muslims supporting your message against terrorism, instead of you putting the normals in with the nutters to express you anger at the nutters.

its that simple

ah yes, because of course, the muslim community as a whole has always been so quick to help on that. which is why there's nothing like pesky claims with little factual accuracy making arguements like 9/11 was done by jews.

 

[davin]

eh, yeah...the quote doesn't work fully. i'm in a rush before work. i'll prob have to use an OT example to get something actually applicable.

 

[Simpson Freak]

simpson_freak, firstly, you are in no way qualified to say that as you have not EVEN SEEN all 12, yet you talk in absolutes.
second, that is in no way a use of occam's razor. for starters, you're then ENTIRELY ignoring the article that was ran in the paper along with the cartoons. i'm beginning to wonder if you're even aware of said article. you're acting like they just randomly put in some drawings of mohommad for kicks.

again, please explain why each one, individually, has that message.

ya well the first publication didnt have such violence, so i guess its irrelevant to this issue, because the republication was done in a "you cant tell me what to do" attitude, which was exaggerated by the nutters, and thus you have violence.

i have seen them all, but i really want to go eat breakfast, its bloody midday, then watch last nights NBC TODAY, then hit the gym, then clean my room, then watch tv, and then if i hav time at night, i will reply while listening to spoonman.

anyway about occam's razor, i was merely questioning if it is wise to publish something vague enough that Al-jazeera can call it "insulting the prophet". sure if it is true that the cartoonist intended to show that mohammad would be appaled at the attitude of such extremists, so i would gladly support you in that.....but the issue of responsibility should not be overlooked, the republication got the violent backlash not the original.

cya later tonight.....hmmm i wonder if someone can use one of those cartoons for Module C, Frontline, about how the media accepts no responsibility for feelings of a few, but they would gladly not air a story like the Telstra one because it was a sponsor.....o advanced english how i miss her.

Who is starting Law at Unsw this yr...these cartoons can make a nice mooting topic....lol

 

[SashatheMan]

"Haven't you ever heard of Occam's Razor? "The simplest explanation is probably the correct one."" [Lisa Simpson]

well an english teacher would have said your view is valid, however we have to look at the intentions of the cartoonist.

the message of "mohammad was like ...BLANK.....so all muslims believe its right to be like .....BLANK...."

is far more clear than "look at wat image you terrorists are giving mohammad"

thats pretty much what the message is:

"EVERY EXTREMIST AND TERRORIST ACTION IS SUPPORTED BY MOHAMMAD"

thats the undeniable message of all 12 of the cartoons.

first of all your talking about the turban bomb cartoon and not the others.

second off all , as i sais he started a religion that has so many terrorists, since the terrorists get their ideas from the quran , its only logical to link muhammad to it. it makes sence.

plus i think a few other cartoons have a good message in them. for example the cartoon where muhammad is saying "stop stop , we ran out of virgins" the message is to make suicide bombers stop killing thenselves, for the stupid and ridiculous idea that they are rewarded with virgins.

 

[Captain Gh3y]

"they are just crappy cartoons"

So bomb embassies, cut trade ties, and attack buildings belonging to a country that is on your side on this (USA):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4684652.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4687116.stm

You towelheads will take any excuse to act like morons. If the Jews responded to cartoons in the same way, they would have nuked the ever loving crap out of every city in every Muslim country from Morocco to Indonesia by now.

 

[SashatheMan]

ya well the first publication didnt have such violence, so i guess its irrelevant to this issue, because the republication was done in a "you cant tell me what to do" attitude, which was exaggerated by the nutters, and thus you have violence.

the first publication didnt have violenve because the muslims where still spreading the news of the cartoons to other countries to promote hatered and violence.

the republication was not in the attitude you stated. It was a stance for free speech and to show that religious laws dont belong in civilized countries.

you have violence because muslims who wanted to start violence found a way to do it. This is a pretty small issue and look at the violence they promote.

 

[ihavenothing]

This article also angers me in how people are wanting to take the moral "high ground" increasingly these days.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...r-crew-redfaced/2006/02/06/1139074171403.html

 

[Olsen]

Hmm amongst all the outrage and whatever.... i wonder where the 3 extra cartoons came from (the ones that had Muhammed with a pig's face, dog sodomising a Muslim and something else) as they were heaps different in the message conveyed by the original 12 cartoons. It kinda makes me wonder whether somebody wanted to increase the flames of tension by commissioning them. I don't believe that the editors of the newspapers would have even asked for drawings of THAT nature.

Anyway, like many have said before Jesus and the Virgin Mary have for so long had the piss taken out of them yet u don't see fundamentalist Christians threatening violence or harm against the authors. Sure they might be angry but they at least control themselves by displaying it through words.

What i find disturbing is the use of violence and harm being perpetrated behind the veil of 'Islam' as if the whole point of the Koran is to teach people a lesson through violence etc. I thought Islam like Christianity was about spreading peace and love - similar to Christianity but it looks otherwise and i am beginning to be disheartened by the way the fundamentalist interpret Islam as i have tried to be as receptive as i can to it... to try and uinderstand it from an outsider's view.

 

[Olsen]

In islam its forbidden to portray mohammad in any form of media.

Um but even if its fobidden in Islam to portray Mohammad in any form does that also apply to non-Muslims? Because as a Christian i have learnt that although we would like more people to become 'right' with God it doesn't mean that we can force our values upon non-Christians. For example, although i prefer to not have to live in a homosexual cukture it doesn't mean that if my friend were one that i would abandon him/her. I would still love and support them as a friend even though i wouldn't be comfortable living in their lifestyle.

 

[sly fly]

Another interesting article:

Danish ministers say the government can’t condemn the cartoons a daily published mocking the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and that freedom of speech is guaranteed for all and that freedom of the press is also guaranteed by the Danish constitution. This argument would have been accepted if the constitution does not state otherwise and if the Danish government can say the same thing when it comes to making anti-Semitic remarks. The Danish constitution says:

“The law prohibits publicly disseminated statements, which threaten, insult, or degrade persons based on their religion.”

And this law was used by the Danish government to condemn “anti-Semitic” activities and investigate them, as mentioned in the human rights report made by the US Department of State regarding Denmark in 2004:

“From January through June, there were five incidents of anti-Semitic vandalism, primarily graffiti, and one incident of an anti-Semitic mailing, which the government condemned and investigated.”

Why a different stand when it comes to Islam? Of course there is nothing new in this. In April last year the queen of Denmark was quoted by the Telegraph newspaper as saying that we (Denmark) “should show our opposition to Islam”.

She said: “We are being challenged by Islam these years — globally as well as locally. It is a challenge we have to take seriously. We have let this issue float about for too long because we are tolerant and lazy.

“We have to show our opposition to Islam and we have to, at times, run the risk of having unflattering labels placed on us because there are some things for which we should display no tolerance.”

The problem is not confined to Demark; some newspapers in some European countries used the same cartoons to say that they support the Danish newspaper’s “freedom of speech”.

These countries that boast about freedom of speech and freedom of press are the same countries that make it illegal and punishable by prison for anyone to question the holocaust or brandish Nazi symbols in public.

In France a university professor was sacked because he made a research questioning the magnitude of the Holocaust. In Germany one risks going to jail if one denies the Holocaust or brandishes Nazi symbols in public.

In fact the Italian interior minister confirmed on Thursday that legal action is being taken against 11 football fans for brandishing Nazi symbols during a Serie A game. The 11 face prison sentences of between three months and one year.

There are many examples to show that freedom of press in Europe stops when it comes to some historical facts that two can differ upon, but when it is about insulting Islam then it is freedom of speech.

No freedom is absolute; a person’s freedom ends when it encroaches into another person’s freedom.

 

[ihavenothing]

The difference here is that Anti-Semitism is racism, while the cartoons did not particularly show any racism, only it broke the Islamic rule on aniconism. But it depends on the cartoon's interpretation which can lead to many interpretations.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

“The law prohibits publicly disseminated statements, which threaten, insult, or degrade persons based on their religion.”

I would need to see the complete law... however I would imagine the question would be about what the purpose of the cartoons was... It mocked the religion of islam, however its purpose was not to threaten/insult/ or degrade persons.

These countries that boast about freedom of speech and freedom of press are the same countries that make it illegal and punishable by prison for anyone to question the holocaust or brandish Nazi symbols in public.

Nazi-ism is a particularily violent thing, so we've had to give up some free speech in order to prevent nazism.

 

[withoutaface]

I'd point out to sly fly that the blasphemy laws in most countries' constitutions are essentially relics that aren't used anymore.

 

[Salima]

I'd like to know why there's another thread on this? One already existed why make another...so rediculous...you're just circling hte hatred....this thing is so old news man! As someone else said: Are you still

flogging this dead horse?

 

[sly fly]

The difference here is that Anti-Semitism is racism, while the cartoons did not particularly show any racism, only it broke the Islamic rule on aniconism. But it depends on the cartoon's interpretation which can lead to many interpretations.

I think religiousism (or whatever the word) is worse than racism. Furthermore, it's not so much that they drew a picture of him....but the pictures were in very bad taste and they associated him with bombs/terrorism etc.

I'd point out to sly fly that the blasphemy laws in most countries' constitutions are essentially relics that aren't used anymore.

If you read about the number of incidents in recent times eg:''In France a university professor was sacked because he made a research questioning the magnitude of the Holocaust.'', then clearly they are in use. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether they are in use anymore, they are in the constitution thus they have the potential to be used.

 

[Enlightened_One]

I'd like to know why there's another thread on this? One already existed why make another...so rediculous...you're just circling hte hatred....this thing is so old news man! As someone else said: Are you still

What new thread? As someone pointed out pages ago, this is the original thread that started off titled "Jihad against Danish newspaper" and the title was changed. It's still the same thread. And the issues are still relevant. This morning protestors in Afghanistan killed four people over these cartoons.

 

[withoutaface]

I think religiousism (or whatever the word) is worse than racism. Furthermore, it's not so much that they drew a picture of him....but the pictures were in very bad taste and they associated him with bombs/terrorism etc.

For the last time, they intended to pose a question, not make a statement.

If you read about the number of incidents in recent times eg:''In France a university professor was sacked because he made a research questioning the magnitude of the Holocaust.'', then clearly they are in use. Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether they are in use anymore, they are in the constitution thus they have the potential to be used.

That's the university deciding they don't want students to boycott their uni, it has nothing to do with the government. I agree that they shouldn't be in there, but essentially the bottom line is that any case brought up using these laws will be thrown out of court before it can even start because the courts realise that they're relics.

 

[sly fly]

I would need to see the complete law... however I would imagine the question would be about what the purpose of the cartoons was... It mocked the religion of islam, however its purpose was not to threaten/insult/ or degrade persons.



Nazi-ism is a particularily violent thing, so we've had to give up some free speech in order to prevent nazism.

It's purpose was obviously to insult a person - the prophet (p). Plus, I thought that the newspaper admitted that they were intentionally trying to provoke muslims to test their reactions and so forth. I may be wrong, but I've read that in a few different articles.

The laws aren't just about supporting naziism, but even questioning the holocaust can have severe ramifications.

Anyway, honestly...I don't know why you people are so worked up about this. I don't see anything wrong with Muslims protesting about the cartoons. Though ofcourse, any violence, burning embassies, boycotting etc is just foolish.

 

[sly fly]

For the last time, they intended to pose a question, not make a statement.

What question was that?

 

[withoutaface]

I read somewhere that in the qua'ran it actually forbids the artistic depiction of any human or animal, for fear of idolatry, true or false?