Everyone here is, one way or the other, going crazy over the drawings of the prophet Mohammad. If the original intention was to start a debate about freedom of expression, they’ve been hugely successful.
Since the story has been on CNN I guess the controversy has been noticed globally now. I was wondering how it all looks from the outside, if it is even something anyone talks about.
I haven’t seen the cartoons in questions.
Had a bit of a chat to a couple of colleagues yesterday.
One mentioned the fact that no renditions of the prophet are allowed, not even favourable ones. Which is all well and good for people who follow said prophet, but surely you can’t go as far as to impose that on people who haven’t chosen to follow that particular faith/doctrine/prophet?
That can’t be squared with the very concept of freedom of expression.
Having said that, my main question at the moment is ‘What’s the use of having freedom of expression if you have no respect?’
Here’s the cartoons:
The worst crime in all this is that the cartoons ain’t even that funny. Perhaps it’s just the Danish sense of humour.
It seems bizarre to me that it seems to be the governments that are getting it in the neck and not the publications. Though I think the editor of Die Welt has been sacked.
It’s a weird one this, I’m instinctively drawn to siding with the free speech-ers
yet is it worth defending cartoons which the creator knew would cause offense and aren’t all that funny. It does seem to me that the main intention of these cartoons was not to make people laugh but to cause offense.
All this on the day that Nick Griffin gets off too.
The one with the ‘Virgins’ is funny in a ‘what-if’ kinda way.
Yeah actually…That one is pretty chuckleworthy.
I’m reduced to cliches by this:
Imagine there’s no heaven,
It’s easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
living for today…
Imagine there’s no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
living life in peace…
Imagine no possesions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world…
You may say Im a dreamer,
but Im not the only one,
I hope some day you’ll join us,
And the world will live as one.
I respect people’s right to have religious beliefs, or other spiritual, political or cultural beliefs that are different from mine, or even directly opposed to mine.
That does not mean I have to respect their beliefs per se. If someone else’s belief appears to me to be irrational and misguided, then I don’t have to respect it. But I do respect their right to hold it, and I continue to respect them as an individual unless their behaviour is such as to lose that respect.
But we have come to a situation where insulting someone is becoming the worst thing you can do. (An insult being as perceived by the alleged insultee, rather than intended by the alleged insultor*.) In the UK, a play was pulled from the stage because a scene in which a young woman was raped in a Sikh temple was insulting. No one was offended by the depiction of the rape of a young girl, but the fact that it took place in a temple, and that was insulting!
My view is that no one had to go to see the play, just as no one has to buy the newspapers or magazines featuring this silly cartoon.
I find some details of religious services offensive (my direct experience being limited to many Anglican and one RC service) so I choose not to attend and be offended. It’s that simple.
With thousands dying in wars, legal and otherwise, every year, it surprises me that a substantial part of the Islamic world is so worried about a cartoon. I’ve been to the Maldives a couple of times - that is an Islamic country with an oppressive regime, but surprisingly the natives are allowed to sell alcohol, making a profit from something their religion tells them is wicked.
Weird.
*Or, to avoid insulting lady readers, insultrix.
I’m going to resort to quotes/cliches here but I think they sum up what I want to say far better than I ever could.
I can’t remember which one, but it was a judge in a House of Lord’s case who said that “freedom to speak only inoffensively is not worth having at all”
It’s unworkable and arrogant to attempt to censor each other every time someone gets offended. People’s views clash. One person’s holy book can be another’s Mein Kampf so how do we decide who’s view prevails? If we decide on censorship it seems that it’s whoever can kick up the most fuss and get the legislature to cave in and protect their particular worldview through speech laws that (in the case of the UK) undo hundreds of years of freedom. It’s completely arrogant of any group (religious or otherwise) to assume that their particular worldview should be protected at the expense of all others, and reveals a weakness in somebody’s belief if they have to resort to state violence to cow people into accepting their view instead of through reasoned discussion. Copernicus said that “I do not believe that the same God that endowed us with sense, intellect and reason intended us to forego their use.”
Yet when people resort to violence in response to words or drawing this is exactly what they’re doing. Whether it’s Muslims beseiging the EU compund in Gaza, or Christians spreading lies about and intimidating people outside Jerry Springer the Opera the end result is the same. They denigrate their religions, which they seem to forget are all about peace, and drown out the reasoned voices that better reflect the views of their religion (violent protests make better headlines.) It’s also pretty ironic but at the same time predictible that the fuss they have kicked up has led to those crappy cartoons being publicised the world over, to the extent that they appear on a unicycling forum!
Another beef I have with religions (let’s face it the Secular Society doesn’t advocate speech laws) that seek to protect themselves from other’s speech is the fact that they tend to rely on the fact that they’re particularly badly offended by such speech, it being akin to an assault. Firstly, religious people don’t have a monopoly on being offended. If someone insulted your mother particularly badly it can hurt as much as an offensive comment about a religion, so that one kind of falls at the first hurdle. Secondly, why should people be protected from speech just because they are particularly easily offended compared to other sections of society? It’s no excuse to smack someone in the face eye just because you have a bad temper so why should religions seek to rely on this kind of thing?
Oh and why don’t those idiots firing guns outside the EU in Gaza go postal every christmas. Depictions of any prophet (i.e. Jesus) are prohibited by Islam.
I guess what needs to be said but that shouldn’t is that the people who are grabbing the healines now are not representative of Islam. It’s not a violent religion, but people will always twist langauge to suit their selfish needs or desires.
Rant over.
Sorry to take up so much space 
I have to agree with Mikefule. I respect the “rule” of not depicting the prophet Mohammad. For Muslims. Not using technology on the Sabbath. For Jews. Not eating meat during Lent. For Catholics. If somebody else chooses to eat meat, or drive their car, or draw a cartoon, it is up to you to not eat, drive, or look at it.
I value the concept of free press at least as much as Muslims value the non-depiction of their prophet. Knowing that, I would avoid doing the pictures. However I would not fire an editor who allowed one to be published, in a predominantly non-Muslim country, who didn’t know otherwise.
Quotes from the original article:
“Depicting the picture of the prophet is prohibited under Sharia law.”
“It is illegal in Jordan for a publication to defile religion and disturb civil order.”
"In his editorial, Momeni asked, “Who offends Islam more? A foreigner who endeavors to draw the prophet as described by his followers in the world, or a Muslim with an explosive belt who commits suicide in a wedding party in Amman or elsewhere?”
I’d sure like to hear an answer to that question from some Muslim leadership. Or even a rating on a scale of 1-10 of which is worse. My guess is that they’d both get a 10, which I would call avoiding the issue. I do believe the issue is being avoided by many influential Muslim leaders.
As long as some people cannot accept others believing in different stuff than they do, there will be grave problems in the world. If those people insist on making their point by killing people, especially non-military people, they must be stopped. Period. The question is whether their larger, law-abiding religious group will denounce them or not.
Cartoons weren’t funny:
Those were political cartoons. Shown out of context, as well as out of their intended culture, it’s impossible to judge if they’re funny or not. Many political cartoons are not intended to be funny at all, rather they are intended to be ironic, or to make you think.
I think it’s not polite to publish pictures of the prophet Mohammad, but you have to know this ahead of time. And the complainants who should be listened to should be the Muslim populations of Denmark, or other places where the publications are distributed.
For all other good Muslims, don’t look at the pictures.
Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one. Blowing up clinics is not an acceptable response.
I don’t think they’re really all that funny…a few of them I find rather offensive, actually, because recently I’ve been very interested in Islam. what I find more offensive is the comments below:
…Well roll on more cartoons against the death loving suicidal barbaric cult of Islam.
Islam, if you actually look into what it is all about, is one of the most peaceful religions on Earth. the Qur’an says, literally, that the only thing you need to be rewarded after death is do good deeds in your life, and don’t do evil. I find it interesting that so many people relate the entire religion of Islam to Osama bin Laden, who is pretty much the worst muslim ever.
Really? How would the Amesh, Anglicans, Baptists, Buddhists, Hari Krishna, Hindus, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Methodists, neopagans, Plymouth Brethren, Scientologists, Sikhs, Voudoun and Zoroastrans regard that statement?
How many holy wars have been conducted in the name of David Icke?
Like every other religion, each of the various sects of Islam (Shi’ite, Sunni, and all the other minor variants) is a collection of beliefs. Beliefs are held by people. They do not exist in isolation. If there were no people, there would be no beliefs.
People are good and bad. Show me what you find in your Bible, or Koran and you will tell me more about yourself than about your religion.
Muslim people are like Christian people and atheist people. Some are good, some are bad. Some find peace and harmony in their religion; others find justification for hatred and killing. War has been a major driving force in Islam over centuries, just as it has in Christianity. That is because fighting is more fun than farming, as long as it is done by choice, and with a deep sense of self righteousness.
John, Your question is flatly absurd, and would be blatently offensive if asked about Christians or Jews. It’s as if Muslims are not human, and share a dramatically different sensibility than others. It’s a pity Americans are so ignorant about Islam, but we cannot be blamed. We only know what we read in the news. Violence and violent people get the news attention.
I saw Imam Feisel Abdul Rauf of the American Sufi Muslim Association recently on a PBS Special “3 religions, 1 GOD”. He said that according to the Qu’ran killing one innocent person is equal to killing all of humanity [and it’s wrong]. He travels the world debating with Muslims and others, and my sense is he’s like most Muslims, who would say killing is a much more serious offense than drawing.
Peace,
Billy
Keep in mind this is a minority of muslims, mostly just the militant groups. They were just looking for an excuse to be angry. It doesn’t have to be logical.
damn extremists
damn straight.
I’m all for freedom of speach, but there should also be a limit. The drawing I think is going too far, and the one that seems to have been the most offensive one to moslems as well, is the one where he is wearing a bomb on his head. It seems to say that the prophet is a terrorist, and thereby also that terrorists are good moslems. Appearently some moslems where so offended by that that they threadened to bomb the headquarters of the paper that published the drawing 
.
At least the people who are burning the Danish flag express their feelings in a civilized manner. Since the flag is a national and a christian symbol, burning it seems like an appropriate response in a symbolic eye for an eye kind of way.
He found peace, that has to be good 
you’re right in saying that many Muslims themselves can be evil people, and do evil things. they can also be good people and do good things. so far, I don’t like organized religion, because its all about how people interpret the Bible, the Qur’an, anything like that. sure, it does say in the Qur’an its okay for Muslims to kill nonbelievers, but if you read into it, you’ll know that it says ONLY if they attack you first. that means, if someone declares war on you, then its okay to fight back. it says later that Allah does not like fighting, and does not want you to fight, but he wants you to defend your religion if its attacked.
All of the biggest religions have been very violent in their history. Namely, Christians and Muslims. However, it is how the individuals choose to interpret their religious texts. I’ve been reading the Bible and the Qur’an lately, and it says nowhere that it is a good thing to kill.
“As soon as we lose the moral basis, we cease to be religious. There is no such thing as religion over-riding morality. Man, for instance, cannot be untruthful, cruel or incontinent and claim to have God on his side.”
Gandhi
Sorry, not sure what question you referred to. The one I quoted? I do not find it offensive. Why would it be offensive if asked to members of other religions? It’s not a loaded question like the old “When did you stop beating your wife?” thing. The question is whether the protesters think killing is worse than depicting Mohammad in a foreign newspaper. Assuming they aren’t the ones doing either. If the answer is that they’re both equally bad, I think we have a problem. To extremists, the world is way too black and white. But these people protesting. Are they extremists? They seem to be acting extreme, but to some degree the word needs to go out that they find it very offensive to do those pictures.
Yes, I think most Americans are pretty ignorant about Islam. I do not pretend to be an expert either, but some of the basic stuff, like not killing each other, should be relatively obvious to anyone. I think.
And perhaps we do rely too much on what’s presented in the entertainment and ratings-dependent news. Perhaps many of the world’s major Muslim leaders have denounced groups like Al-Qaeda and it hasn’t gotten press because that would be bad for business. One way or the other I’m left with the feeling that many of the world’s good Muslim role models are oddly quiet or gentle in their reactions to some of the crimes of terrorists.