The Muhammad Cartoons

do u think newspapers were right to publish the muhammad cartoons?

it started in a danish paper, i believe if muslims had not made sucha big deal then it wouldnt have spread to the world.

Im interested in this topic, id like to hear ur POV's

Illicit Doll: Don't start...

I think Mel, asked the same question. In a thread called those cartoons where it discusses the actions both the newspapers and Muslims actions were and have taken them.

Good job the Monty Python team weren't muslims. Imagine life of Brian aimed at another religion - it would have been WW3! Boooooooooooom

Tell me Mel, what was your reaction when you distingushed religion to internal and external religions.

Not a lot of people were impressed.

Now were they.

The way I see it, anyone who does not follow the words of Mohammed should be free to interpret Him and anyone else's likeness for that matter.

Personally I don't blame The Danish paper for printing one cartoon in a series of anti-religious political cartoons for the trouble around the world, I blame those who instigated violence. I fail to see what right any man or woman has to torch a burger bar in the name of religion.

I think that most people conveniently fail to see the whole picture concerning Westergaard and his cartoons.

Mainly though, I blame the internet... (the following is from my live journal)

I HATE THE INTERNET.

A bold statement but bare with me.

Ok, so now things are getting slightly out of hand. It's no longer about a cartoon of this, that or the infamous other. It's about advantage and how it can be used to further the aims of those in power. I fail to see what McDonalds, Holiday Inn and other such commercially renowned American establishments have to do with a Danish artist's work. The latest article I have read is http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/14/pakistan.cartoons.ap/index.html?section=cnn_topstories.

I'm getting increasingly more cynical about organized religion these days. From Christianity and Islam to Scientology and Hinduism it doesn't rilly matter... it's all a bunch of crap designed to say 'we're better than you', 'my god has a bigger schlong than yours' and the all time number one 'My god says I must kill you because of a, b and c'. I have two words to describe my sentiments and I shall refrain for now.

I know it's only a small percentage of any religious follower that digs down to its fundamental (mental being the operative word) basics and uses it to take their anger out on the rest of the world because they have nothing better to do with their time. I'm not just talking about Muslim radicals like Abu Musab al-Zaqari and his flunkies, but also people in the Catholic league, Neo-Nazi cells, (extreme wings of)Opus Dei, clans and the like.

Honestly, they are worse than conspiracy theorists, I take that back... almost as bad.

Now, I'm not against religion, far from it. BUT... I it pisses me off that people in influence with the ability and drive use religion as an excuse to fuel hatred, spread it from one town to another and then sometimes the whole world. Although my opening statement declared my hate for the net I also love the little bugger, but I'm squarely blaming it for this latest spat of Islamic outrage.

Consider if Kurt Westergaard had drawn his little ditty fifteen years ago. Not more than twenty people outside of Denmark would have seen it, let alone traveled to the middle east to spread the news of the wickedness such an infidel could have within his heart. Myself I think there is less wickedness in the heart of the holder of a pen compared to that of a holder of a hostage (and knife and camera etc.) You see it all comes down to perspective people of the world; just a little perspective.

It would be slightly amusing if a Christian extremist kidnapped a muslim who was helping the community she is working in and threatened to behead said prisoner unless all the rioting, fighting and demonstrating stopped. Naturally the it would only incite more violence by our friends in the middle east. Stop me if I'm wrong.

Killing, fighting, persecution, war, *insert one of a million things here* in the name of religion is comical. Historically plentiful but comical none the less.

//end rant.

I believe that showing stereotypical pictures of Prophet Muhammed, who looks like Osama. This shows me:

What they think the vast majority of Muslims are?

Now I do not agree with the present muslims reacted, but I can understand where they are coming from. They are stupid, but you can see where they are coming from.

That neither makes it right or justifiable.

Have you seen the other cartoons in the series, Ismail?

Ofcourse it does not make it right.

What I meant is that both parties are wrong, and both of them needs to think about what they are doing. The danish newspaper apologized for their doing, if they were right in free speech they would not do so. There is such a thing as free speech, but when you mock a dead man...That is pretty sad.

Have you seen the other cartoons in the series, Ismail?

Nope, I would not like to see it. Just because they mocked many religious figures which are well known and loved, and no one was fired up. Does not justify what they do. The muslims approch was both stupid but it was a wake up call for the newspaper on what they are doing.

Well, the way I see it is this, if you want to make a informed opinion on a subject you should get the whole picture first.

Neither the editor (Flemming Rose) or artist (Kurt Westergaard) apologised for the cartoons. Also Flemming Rose tried to get the retaliatory holocaust cartoons from Iran published in his paper too.

If you feel like learning the whole story I'd suggest you go to www.jp.dk The site of the newspaper in question.

Lol...

Bret: My opinions are informed, now here is a quote:

"Jyllands-Posten published 12 cartoons in September after asking artists to depict Islam's prophet in what was described as a test of self-censorship. The depictions included incendiary images such as Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse.

A Norwegian newspaper reprinted the images this month.

In a statement published late Monday, Jyllands-Posten apologized and said it regretted offending Muslims. It stood by the decision to print the cartoons, saying it was within Danish law.

The drawings "were not intended to be offensive, nor were they at variance with Danish law, but they have indisputably offended many Muslims for which we apologize," the daily said Monday.

Danish Muslims said Tuesday that they welcomed the apology. However, 27 Muslim groups met later in the day to discuss the statement and declared it "ambiguous."

"We lack a clear statement where the newspaper apologizes for the offense and stand by it," said Ahmed Akkari, a spokesman for the groups.

The Danish Muslims thanked Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen for saying Monday evening that his government could not apologize on behalf of a newspaper, but that he personally "never would have depicted Muhammad, Jesus or any other religious character in a way that could offend other people."

Wanna find out more: Check this website

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=1562615&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

Now bret, please learn the whole story...

Like I said, neither Rose (cultural editor who comissioned the contest) or Westergaard (the highlighted Muhammad bomb artist) apologised for the cartoons. The closest Rose comes to apologizing is here:

http://www.loper.org/~george/trends/2006/Feb/980.html

------

Here in Copenhagen, Rose, a tall and soft-spoken man, said he hasn't slept much in the past week. Interviewed in a quiet coffee shop just before midnight, he said his newspaper has received two bomb threats, and he got an anonymous e-mail telling him there was a contract on his life. He is guarded by police whenever he appears in public.

Rose bristled when asked if he had any regrets about publishing the cartoons. "Asking me that is like asking a rape victim if she regrets wearing a short skirt at the discotheque on Friday night," he said.

But the newspaper is offering a gesture to its critics: On Sunday, Rose said, it will publish a full page of cartoons satirizing Jesus and the Israel-Palestinian conflict. He said all of the 12 or so cartoons have appeared in the paper previously.

One, he said, is by Kurt Westergaard, who drew the picture of Muhammad with the bomb in his turban. The cartoon that will be reprinted shows a Star of David attached to the same kind of bomb. "Some people are accusing us of being one-sided," Rose said. "We are trying to show that we are not giving anybody a free ride."

Rose said he believes the cartoon controversy is a symbol of how a nation and its new immigrants learn to cope with each other. He said he respects Islam and is sensitive to different cultures -- he is married to a Russian woman. But he said he unconditionally supports Denmark's tradition of free speech.

"I apologize for having offended them," he said. "But as an editor, as a newspaperman, as long as I'm operating within the law, as long as I am not breaking any code of conduct in the Danish context, I cannot apologize for that."

-------

It's one of those 'I'm sorry if you don't like it, but...' situations which is not an apology.

Also you quote yourself: "We lack a clear statement where the newspaper apologizes for the offense and stand by it,"

Not to be picky, but if you can find a statement where the paper apologises for printing the cartoons think again. Although they would not do it again you can bet your bottom dollar that if a newspaper was to admit error concerning the right to free speech then they would consequently lose the rights that they currently have not just for themselves, but for the entire spectrum of media nthat reports news and opinion.

Also, I commend Rose for standing by his ethics (as much I wouldn't have asked artists to portray Muhammad) in the face of the outrageous deeds by muslims who threaten his life and even put a contract out on him.

"Also, I commend Rose for standing by his ethics (as much I wouldn't have asked artists to portray Muhammad) in the face of the outrageous deeds by muslims who threaten his life and even put a contract out on him."

Yes, the muslims have done outrageous deeds, which I said many times was stupid and heinous. But tell me why commend a man who blatantly mocks someone who is dead and honoured like that. Did Mohammed done something to offend him, I do not think so.

Hiding behind the act of free will is both stupid and ludacris. Instead of mocking a select mentally challenged few, who use thier hatred in the name of God. He mocked the whole muslim community, and showed himself that he hates muslims.

So next time when he shows Martin Luter King, drinking coolade and racking the fields for his master. I would assume that you commend the that person too.There is a line where one should not cross.

Is a Christian denied the eating of pork or wine?

No, she isn't.

Is it wrong of her to do so in front of a Jew or Muslim?

No, it isn't.

It is not in my belief structure that I should deny myself things just because they are forbidden in a belief system. I understand your view point, Ismail, believe me I do, but I would not say you could not do something because it was insulting to my way of life.

Using the Marting Luther King Jr cartoon idea is useless when you already see Iranian papers are currently running a Holocaust cartoon competition.

thats not a fair example:
the cartoons are to be read as the pork is to be eaten, now if you say
Is a Christian denied the eating of pork or wine?

No, she isn't.

Is it wrong of her to feed a Jew or Muslim pork or wine ?

then yes it is.

take for example if your mother was turned into a cartoon and was riddiculed and mocked, everyone else might think it was hillarious but how would you feel?
i think you should have the right to be upset about that don't you?

Did the Jyllands-Posten force muslims to view the cartoon?

No, they didn't.

Did Kurt Westergaard intend for Muslims to be offended by the Cartoon?

No, he didn't.

Personally I wouldn't be offended by a cartoon of my mum. Mainly because I see the cartoon for what it is, a cartoon. It's a joke, humour. If you cannot take a joke then you're being far too sensitive on the matter.

The questions you should be asking are these:

Did Kurt Westergaard know he would offend the Jewish, Christian and Islamic communities in Denmark when he made the cartoons. (for thiose who don't know he made cartoons poking a little fun at all three religions, not just Islam.)

Probably. (I haven't asked him)

Did Jyllands-Posten know they would be offending some readers with these cartoons?

Yes.

Is it reasonable to expect a news paper or and area of the media, from a community newsletter to a major Hollywood film, to censor everything written so that not one person that might possibly see the piece would be offended by it?

What you have to remember is that the cartoons were made in September of '05. A good two to three months before it became an internatinoal crisis. It was made a crisis by those who would not stop until it was a major international incident. These people are commonly known as fanatics, but you can call them dedicated if the word fanatic offends you. (yes, that would be sarcasm)

whether they were ment to see them or not is not relevant the fact is it was a horrible mistake (you could argue that it wasn't a mistake but anywho) which should have n3ever happened. The upmost respect should be regarded when people's religions are involved. It is extreemly unwise to riddicule religion for a cheep laugh.

And as previously stated The same artist who made the Muhammad cartoon also made one of Jesus on a burning cross and and a bomb with the Star of David on it.

Bob, God has the biggest sense of humour. He looks in on us taking a shower from time to time and has a REAL laugh.

.....and even ismail was created by some superior intelligence (ahahahahahahahahahah):he was having a bad day, and as you suggest, is blessed with a wicked sense of humour.

Or maybe he just evolved from the sea and slime like the rest of us, but rather badly.

Come on on ismail, 'google - up' a few words and construct some tenuous arguments in reply

People need to understand that pictorials of either the Prophet Muhammed and Allah are forbidden and considered major sins in Islam.
Do draw pictures of them is disrespectful enough but to mock them may feel like a person attack towards Islam faith and belief.

I personally was disgusted.

What disgusted me even more was the Islamic uproar of violent protests and vandelism. The Prophet taught against violence, there protest was immediately hypocritical and unIslamic, loosing all validity.

Non violent protest I completely support.

Peace to you all
Lets all learn to love and respect each other
And our differences...

Eirisa

The world is in such an mess as it is...

Discussing the past won't lead anywhere...

I see no reason why Islam should receive special treatment...News-papers have questioned and made fun of every religion.

"He mocked the whole muslim community, and showed himself that he hates muslims."

Wrong! He does not hate muslims, I can tell you that, and besides, as Bret said, he has drawn similar pictures where he made fun of Christianity too.

To all those who claim that Westergaard drew them to make mock muslims..well...he didn`t.

Westergaard himself said that (translated as well as I can) the inspiration behind the drawings was the fact that the spiritual ammunition/fuel of terrorism comes from islam.

I`ve also heard that he drew them because he wanted to show people how Muhammed and Islam in general is used as an excuse of terrorism...

Im quite obviously going to get bashed MAJORLY over this but - suck it up. These things happen. Get over it.

Annelyse, it may help you further to know that the rejection of previous Christian, Judean and Islamic comics was under the previous cultural editor, who I believe (remembering the interview I watched) was keen to keep the satirical viewpoints of religion out of his paper.

The one thing that still annoys me is the time gap between publication and the 'uproar' that followed. I fail to see where a two month time gap can possibly make the publishers responsible. This is a transparently clear case of incitement to riot by the instigators.

Eirisa, I love the viewpoint you give and I agree with you completely.

Your right Ismail but discussing the past may prevent us from making the same foolish mistakes in the future.

Bob - care to send me a link to the Balinese newspaper you are talking about? Being of Islamic faith I know for a fact pictorials of Allah and Muhammad are forbidden and considered a major sin so rather that comment on something Im not educated on please send me a link to discuss...i find it hard to belief but nothing these days would suprise me.

Bret - thanking you kindly :o)

Peace everyone
One Love :o)

Oh ok I havent heard of it down in Oz :o) Thanks for clarifying...
Your right the cultural difference are varied for Muslims in each country they live in I agree 100%.
I might do some research and get educated on this paper.
Thanks :O)

Well If Muslims Were Offended I'm Sorry About That, But Was There Really Content Inside The Cartoon That Was Offensive Or Disrespectful To Their Religion And/Or Beliefs?? xoxo-Nikki-xoxo

Nikki in response to your question

A picture in itself is forbidden. Islam does not approve of pictures of Allah or Muhammad out of respect, there for the picture regardless of its content was offensive to Islamic faith.

However darling please do NOT apologise for someone elses stupidity.

Basically Islam makes rules like a parent. Like alchol. We are forbidden to it because, it would lead to an addiction which will lead to our eventual death.

Pictures of prophets are forbidden, because no one knows what they look like. And drawing them in a generalized way, shows what people think of the religion.

Tsk Tsk.

Thanks for elaborating further Ismail :o)

Your Welcome Eirisa.