Cartoons upset Danish Muslims

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Muslim cleric today convicted in a London court for inciting murder:

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/eu...mza/index.html

Londoners have been demanding charges be brought to bear against those carrying placards inciting violence.

Good. Still, the guy (if it is the same one) should have been arrested on the spot.

What do you say now, Mick?

[azzarish]

Originally Posted by Cheese

so its the Minority of people in Iran, Iraq or countless other Muslim nations? So then given the oppotunity to change that, why dont the majority vote people in who are...oh...less hardline? Is it because the hardline wont let them vote? I call BS on your theory. Religion is first and foremost in their minds...their religion and nothing else. The fact that a simple cartoon that does nothing more than depict a religious leader, sets off violent actions around the world by Muslims is ludicrous. IF I was a peace loving Muslim I would be abhored and ashamed by these actions, so much so that I would be forced to question the validity of that sect. You certainly dont hear much of the peace loving roar do you? A few blips here and there instead of the MAJORITY standing up to the rebels in their cloaks.
IF the minority is a problem do something about it.

A SIMPLE cartoon. A SIMPLE cartoon you say. And then you say it does nothing more than depict a religious leader. Well wake up my friend. One of the main reasons why so much anger is being shown in the world is because of ignorance that you have just displayed. The fact that the image displayed the Prophet Muhammed wearing a Turban with a bomb attached to it, did that part go completely over your head? Do you have any idea how offensive that is too muslims, because if you don't then I suggest you don't call BS on my theory's.

Yes, the display of violence being seen is uncalled for and unneccessary but when you have a set of people that are so offended by something that is so sacred and so important to them, tempers are going to flare. And I'm sorry the Danish Newspaper knew exactly what they were doing so why are they surprised it is causing so much anger, I mean insulting the Prophet Muhammed by drawing a cartoon is one thing and then placing a Turban which we all know is related to the Sikh religion and then a bomb on top of the Turban doubles the insult.

And when I said minorty I wasn't referring in political terms. The majority, yes majority of people are not displaying acts of violence, and that maybe difficult to believe since the media always higlights the people in the midst of acts of violence and hence create incorrect impressions of the Muslim world as a whole. This whole saga could have been avoided if the cartoons simply wouldn't have been printed, if they assumed it would slip by without anyone noticing and without causing controversy then they made a big error in judgement.

It's fair I believe for people to demonstrate but within limits, going beyond those limits is not right as it defies the teachings of the man this is all about, who taught peace. However the cartoon itself depicts the Prophet as being violent (the bomb), 2 wrongs don't make a right, but the core of the issue was insulting to start with.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by azzarish

A SIMPLE cartoon. A SIMPLE cartoon you say. And then you say it does nothing more than depict a religious leader. Well wake up my friend. One of the main reasons why so much anger is being shown in the world is because of ignorance that you have just displayed. The fact that the image displayed the Prophet Muhammed wearing a Turban with a bomb attached to it, did that part go completely over your head? Do you have any idea how offensive that is too muslims, because if you don't then I suggest you don't call BS on my theory's.

Yes, the display of violence being seen is uncalled for and unneccessary but when you have a set of people that are so offended by something that is so sacred and so important to them, tempers are going to flare. And I'm sorry the Danish Newspaper knew exactly what they were doing so why are they surprised it is causing so much anger, I mean insulting the Prophet Muhammed by drawing a cartoon is one thing and then placing a Turban which we all know is related to the Sikh religion and then a bomb on top of the Turban doubles the insult.

And when I said minorty I wasn't referring in political terms. The majority, yes majority of people are not displaying acts of violence, and that maybe difficult to believe since the media always higlights the people in the midst of acts of violence and hence create incorrect impressions of the Muslim world as a whole. This whole saga could have been avoided if the cartoons simply wouldn't have been printed, if they assumed it would slip by without anyone noticing and without causing controversy then they made a big error in judgement.

It's fair I believe for people to demonstrate but within limits, going beyond those limits is not right as it defies the teachings of the man this is all about, who taught peace. However the cartoon itself depicts the Prophet as being violent (the bomb), 2 wrongs don't make a right, but the core of the issue was insulting to start with.

I know exactly what the cartoon depicted....but the fact is it is a "simple cartoon"!
In the west we have seen depictions of the Virgin Mary...made out of Cow dung I believe...and numerous others. Poor taste...maybe.
Dont you see the hypocritical nature of this event? A cartoon depicting a leader with a bomb...and then its followers getting bent out of shape because of this depiction, murdering people, destroying property, burning flags in effigy etc etc etc?
Is it impossible for a Muslim to have a sense of humour?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by azzarish

And when I said minorty I wasn't referring in political terms. The majority, yes majority of people are not displaying acts of violence, and that maybe difficult to believe since the media always higlights the people in the midst of acts of violence and hence create incorrect impressions of the Muslim world as a whole.

I pointed out earlier in this thread that media have correctly used the terms "dozens," "hundreds" and "thousands" in the appropriate places where those numbers have occurred.

In other words, if we're embellishing things and making this gigantic, then it's in our own heads.

Where this is serious is where governments have supported or even incited the violence . . . . .

From a sense of outrage? Probably not. More likely a purpose. Ditto certain elements, radical religious authorities, within those populations. It diverts attention from the serious issues within their borders and that has been a time-honoured formula for success in that region ever since Israel came into being.

In other words, "outrage" over these cartoons is probably an overbaked word for this situation. An advantage is seen and some have exploited it . . . . . and it took them four months to get the wind up because the outrage was actually almost invisible when these cartoons were first published.

Cowperson

[Hakan]

so its the Minority of people in Iran, Iraq or countless other Muslim nations? So then given the oppotunity to change that, why dont the majority vote people in who are...oh...less hardline? Is it because the hardline wont let them vote? I call BS on your theory.

Faulty analysis.

Fundamentalist groups in many democracies hold a disproportionate amount of power based on electoral systems and constitutional powers. You seem to indicate that it would be relatively easy for the majority to assert their will over the minority but this is laughably simplistic.

Take Israel for example. It has been under the rule of the hard lined fundamentalist Likud party because it has the ardent support of only about 20% of the fundamentalist Jews whereas the majority of Israelis are moderate. Are these moderates stupid? No, it's a very complicated problem that you pejoratively dissolve to something simple and assinine to support your argument.

[Cowperson]

Global cartoonists take on the issue . . . . . keep hitting the "next cartoon" arrow at the bottom of the page:

http://cagle.com/news/Muhammad/

The Abrams blog on the topic:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9665241/#060207a

EDIT: The Washington bureau chief of German newspaper Die Welt writing some interesting things in the Washington Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...020601258.html

Cowperson

[Coelah]

Originally Posted by azzarish

Yes, it is crazy what is happening, and I don't agree with it for one second, but what you have to understand Islam is currently an emotionally charged religion especially as many Muslims feel the West is unfairly treating them with the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, there is a lot of anger, bad blood and emotion over this. Add to that the Israeli/Palestine conflict. It's just all created a lot of hatred, but not amongst everyone, just a minority, and unfortunately it is always the minority that comes to the forefront and tarnishes the religion as a whole. So all I'm saying is why give motivation to spur more violence to this minority when you know the smallest thing can spark off full blown riots, demonstrations and flag burnings. It's like adding fuel to the fire, and giving even the average muslim who an excuse to go out and run riot.

I'm at the opposite end of this argument.

I think that the extremists have gotten such a foothold in the muslim religion because the mass majority have made excuses, placated and tolerated them. They've sided with them simply because they're muslim. This has been going on far longer than Iraq/Afghanistan and alot of actions by these extremists have not been faced down by the majority. This has emboldened them. I think that the majority of good muslims need to take responsibility for what they've supported and if something like this opens their eyes just a little bit, then it's good.

You can't change the extremists by placating them and giving into their threats of violence. All that tells them is that their tactics work.

[HOZ]

Irans leading daily is now having holocaust cartoon contest to 'get back' at the West. Looking for link...

My reaction...As oppose to their regular anti-semitic/Isreali/Great Satan Xenophobic editions???

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by azzarish

A SIMPLE cartoon. A SIMPLE cartoon you say. And then you say it does nothing more than depict a religious leader. Well wake up my friend. One of the main reasons why so much anger is being shown in the world is because of ignorance that you have just displayed. The fact that the image displayed the Prophet Muhammed wearing a Turban with a bomb attached to it, did that part go completely over your head? Do you have any idea how offensive that is too muslims, because if you don't then I suggest you don't call BS on my theory's.

I can understand why Muslims would be offended, given that making images of the prohpet is against Muslim indoctrination.

However, when you look at the reaction from within parts of the Muslim community, I would suggest that the people themselves are what led the cartoonists who drew the "terrorist" cartoons to depict Mohammed as such.

Perhaps the leaders of the Muslim faith should clean up their own society before they start attacking ours over some simple cartoons.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that any sympathy that the Muslim faith was receiving is evaporating quickly and the rioters are certainly making a statement that Islam is a reactionary and violent religion run by closed minded self righteous violent men.

We know that all Muslims are not this way, but this episode is giving an even darker black eye to a religion that has already taken too many blows already.

Personally if I was uneducated these riots would scare the hell out of me and afirm the negative stereotypes of that religion.

[Jayems]

You know... for people so upset about cartoons, and what they stand for... When the newspaper "Arab News" (almost 100% guaranteed to serve some of those who oppose to the dane cartoons) publishes this ****. ... there are no riots.

The cartoon above, from Arab News (April 10, 2002), shows Ariel Sharon wielding a swastika-shaped axe to chop up Palestinian children. Arab News is a Saudi-based English language daily which is supposedly one of the Arab world’s more moderate papers.

[MickMcGeough]

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

Honestly, I dont care if that would go over very well with an angry mob. To incite murder is against the law in pretty much every civilized place on Earth. It is against the British law to incite murder, correct me if I am wrong.

It's most definitely against the law, in fact the maximum sentence in Britain is life in prison. But you are still completely missing the point. The police were very likely the difference between a protest and a riot. Turn on the TV and take a look at what's been going on in Syria, Lebanon, and Afghanistan. That's what happens when law enforcement loses control of a protest. In London they maintained control, and if you think that arresting protesters during the demonstration wouldn't have hurt their chances of doing so, you need to stop kidding yourself. People here aren't that scared of the metro police.

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The guy holding that sign should of been arrested, no matter what would other rioters think.

Again, this isn't about what the other rioters think. It's about embassies not burning and people not dying. And it wasn't one guy, it was hundreds chanting "murderous slogans" as the BBC puts it. Who do you arrest? Certainly just arresting a few wouldn't satisfy all the people watching the news at home and calling for justice. Maybe the police should have just charged into the crowd with billy clubs and riot shields to show them what happens when you break the law in London?

Originally Posted by Flame Of Liberty

The fact that he was not arrested tells me one thing - the police fears so much that they would get accussed of being "intolerant" and what not that they protect those protesters - they protect them against the law.

I know you want to use this situation as part of a crusade against the PC brigade or something, but I seriously doubt that's why they didn't step in. Proof of this is the fact that the police have already begun making arrests based on footage taken from the demonstration.

[Cheese]

FOUR more people die over the cartoons...

KABUL, Afghanistan - Police shot four protesters to death Wednesday to stop hundreds from marching on a southern U.S. military base, as Islamic organizations called for an end to deadly rioting across the Muslim world over drawings of the Prophet Muhammad.

Cartoon Killings

Seems even their own clerics cant stop the silliness. The question is...why would they be marching towards the US Base? What do they have to do with it? Maybe it is an east vs west religious conflict after all?

[Cowperson]

Anyone catch the head of the Calgary Muslim Society on the local news last night? He seemed pretty pragmatic on this, denouncing violence and saying the violence we're seeing and those councilling it didn't reflect Islam . . . . . . then he said something along the lines of, paraphrased, "If you don't mock Mohammed, we won't mock the Holocaust."

It apparently didn't occur to him how idiotic that kind of tradeoff sounded.

I know you want to use this situation as part of a crusade against the PC brigade or something, but I seriously doubt that's why they didn't step in. Proof of this is the fact that the police have already begun making arrests based on footage taken from the demonstration.

The belated arrests are occurring because the British public is going ballistic that none had happened to this point.

A legal analyst looks at what the protesters could be charged with:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4686164.stm

Jacques Chirac condemns the media for reprinting the cartoons but a French publication won the backing of French courts:


The latest magazine to publish the cartoons, Charlie Hebdo, won the backing of a French court on Tuesday, after several Islamic organisations had complained that publication would amount to an insult to their religion.

The magazine features all 12 cartoons of Muhammad that originally appeared in a Danish paper last year - including one that shows Muhammad with a bomb-shaped turban.

Religions other than Islam are caricatured as well.
The magazine says copies have been selling so fast it is considering another print run.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4693628.stm

And the current cover of Rolling Stone, featuring first class ass clown and self-proclaimed criminal Kanye West as Jesus Christ . . . .



EDIT: Also, this quote last night on CNN from Nihad Awad, the national executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

"Religions that enforce rules against blasphemy are defensive, cramped faiths, closed to the possibility of error, which is to say closed to the possibility of a great truth."

EDIT: A Time Magazine columnist says Islam owes the west an apology and offers these other comments:

"Muslim leaders say the cartoons are not just offensive. They're blasphemy -- the mother of all offenses. That's because Islam forbids any visual depiction of the Prophet, even benign ones. Should non-Muslims respect this taboo? I see no reason why. You can respect a religion without honoring its taboos. I eat pork, and I'm not an anti-Semite. As a Catholic, I don't expect atheists to genuflect before an altar. If violating a taboo is necessary to illustrate a political point, then the call is an easy one. Freedom means learning to deal with being offended.

"Blasphemy, after all, is commonplace in the West. In America, Christians have become accustomed to artists' offending their religious symbols. They can protest, and cut off public funding -- but the right of the individual to say or depict offensive messages or symbols is not really in dispute. Blasphemy, moreover, is common in the Muslim world, and sanctioned by Arab governments. The Arab media run cartoons depicting Jews and the symbols of the Jewish faith with imagery indistinguishable from that used in the Third Reich. But I have yet to see Jews or Israelis threaten the lives of Muslims because of it."

Cowperson

[Frank the Tank]

I will never understand religion and the extremists it produces. Just live your own life.

[Jayems]

Anyone see that picture in the sun today?

Had a muslim with a sign that says:

"We hate denmark and canada"

ahahah... they really don't want people to like them do they? They sure make the other 70% look bad.

[Flames_Gimp]

All this violence is just ######ed. it's a ****ing cartoon. These religious extremists are ****in hypocrits.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by Flames_Gimp

All this violence is just ######ed. it's a ****ing cartoon. These religious extremists are ****in hypocrits.

I would relate them to Jarrko Ruutu.

Because you can't actually hate anyone more, but thats exactly what they want.

[Shawnski]

Ever wonder why cartoons in a Danish paper published in a September'ish timeframe are just now becoming such a hot commodity? A story that was as close to "old news" as you can get?

Look no further than Danish Islamic scholar, Ahmed Akkari.

Judging from what I have read, Akkari was frustrated with the Danish government and decided to take up his concerns over the cartoons to "esteemed figures in the Muslim world."

Over the next few weeks, he would hand copies of his green booklet to the grand mufti of Egypt, the chief cleric of the Sunni faith, leaders of the Arab League, the top official of the Lebanese Christian church and others. (1)

The green booklet referred to is allegedly a "43-page dossier on what they said was rampant racism and Islamophobia in Denmark" (2).

The Danish media have tried to question the Muslim delegates on how they came to include three extra, obscene cartoons in the dossier, in addition to the 12 images that started the row when they were published by a Danish newspaper in September.

The extra cartoons, whose origins remain obscure, show Mohammed with a pig's snout, a dog raping a praying Muslim and Mohammed as a "paedophile demon".(2)

Not sure about the source of these three "cartoon" references, but one story relates to the inclusion of an AP photo taken out of context.

The Associated Press protested Wednesday the misleading inclusion of an AP photograph in a pamphlet purporting to show images offensive to Islam.

The picture shows a bearded man wearing fake pig ears, a pig nose, and a pink embroidered cap on his head. He was wearing the costume while participating in a pig-squealing contest at an annual festival in a farm village in southern France last summer.

A blurry, black-and-white copy of the picture was included in a brochure that a delegation of Danish Muslim leaders carried on a Mideast tour to Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey, in December and January.(3)

Now allegedly, he (Akkari) is claiming this particular picture came to someone in the Islamic community within hate mail, and did not verify the origin of it.

Funny though, that when questioned about these extra pictures by the CBC...

Those drawings show the Prophet as "a pig, a dog, a woman and a child-sodomizing madman," says the Globe.

He said the images were not meant to be mistaken for cartoons published in newspapers, but protesters have cited the drawings during their rallies.
When asked by CBC News why he included these images when they had nothing to do with the published newspaper cartoons, Akkari defended his actions.

"It was taken out of context and somebody is trying ... to give us the guilt for what is happening." (4)

So at least one picture taken out of context by HIM was subsequently taken out of context by others.

Friends, strangers and close family members are now blaming him for exactly the thing he says he was trying to prevent: the caricaturing of Muslims as violent fanatics. (1)

So instead of viewing the published cartoons as satirical, and part of free speech in the democratic country in which he lived, he decides to stir the pot.... big time. And does so with the inclusion of unpublished, or out of context products.

"Yeah, it has been more violent than I expected," he said. "I had no interest in any violence. . . . It is bad for our case because it's turning the picture completely from what this should be about, to something else -- and this is a dangerous change now." (1)

This Akkari character is a first class idiot.

Lots of interesting points not included above in the following links...

(1) Globe story

(2) Telegraph story

(3) Newsday story

(4) CBC story

[Shawnski]

The latest poster on that "sunniforum" link Cheese provided has this for a signature....

Following are the eight forms of open rebellion against Allah: 1.Shave or trim beard beyond the limits of shariah, 2.Not taking shariah compliant hijab(also hijab against those near relatives who are not mehram, like cousins, brothers of husband, nephews of husband etc.), 3.Wearing of clothes reaching below ankles by men, 4.Unnecessarily photography of animals, and going to places with photographs, and having such photographs and looking at them, 5.Listening to music, 6.Watching T.V, 7.Eating haram like earnings from bank, insurance, 8.Backbitting and listening to it.
May Allah save us from these open rebellions.
(Abridged version of fatwa by Mufti Rasheed Ahmad rehmatullah alaih, Darul afta wal irshad, Karachi, Pakistan on 26, Rajab, 1415 A.H)

#3 pretty much includes every person that wears pants... if they are tailored correctly
#4,5 and 6 pretty much exclude most forms of electronic entertainment.... I wonder why then that these folks post on the INTERNET... with COMPUTERS.... on a MONITOR.

At some point, the Mid-East will run out of oil. I truly wonder WTF they think will support their society then. Talk about having all their eggs in one basket.