Mohammad drawings

The absurd part is that you might actually think people do not know that killing is far worse than drawing, and overgeneralize about the group from a very small sample. But then, Americans harbored many crazy inaccurate (racist?) ideas about the Japanese and Germans during WW II (which some hang on to). Same for the Vietnamese during the 70s. The basic idea is always the same: “Those people aren’t like us.”

The seeming ease with which the USA and other nations slaughter innocent civilians, you’d think they don’t know it’s wrong.

Now we are getting fed misinformation about Muslims. Overgeneralizing from a small sample.

The US State Department called the drawings offensive.

What, all of the Americans? Or are you overgeneralising about the group from a very small sample?:stuck_out_tongue:

And the absurd thing is that many people do appear to think that these silly drawings are of an importance comparable to killing people. In places, the reaction to the drawings has been so extreme that death threats have been made, and citizens of countries involved have been advised to keep a low profile for personal safety reasons.

So, some people out there - only a few, but some - think: “These offensive drawings (that I have never seen) are so offensive that I am prepared to kill someone else who did not draw them, publish them or buy them, and who may never have seen them, simply because he is from the ame country as a newspaper that did publish them.”

And I think John’s comments were aimed at that small but significant minority of arrogant morons who really do think that way.

Throughout history, ancient and modern, people have been killed for less than these silly cartoons.

Oh, and flag burning: for comparison, in the USA it is (or was until recently) illegal to deface or destroy the stars and stripes. To some Americans, the flag is a symbol of identity and pride equivalent in every respect to the level of identity and pride that many Muslims attach to the Prophet. Burning another country’s flag in retaliation is the politics of the school playground.

I would agree totally with this. Last night, I unfortunately had to watch the ITN news, and from their coverage you would think that all the world’s Muslims were ready to kill because of the cartoons. I got the impression that they found the most extremist Muslims they could find and used their most extreme comments for the programme.

From other articles that I’ve read, this whole issue seems to have been fueled by right-wing newspapers, and predictably the more extreme Muslims have taken the bait and given them just what they want: Muslims being shown in news media all over the world as extremist nutters that we should all be scared of.

I think that newspapers should be allowed to publish the cartoons, but I just wonder whether their intention was to promote free speech or just to provoke a reaction.

If anyone’s interested, here are some more viewpoints on this.
All from the same paper but I think the authors see the issue from very different angles.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,1700653,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,1701985,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,1701137,00.html

What people fail to see, is that a small portion of any group can be incited to threats and anger when their sense of propriety is violated. Anger control problems are not limited to any one religious, national or ethnic group. To confuse that with the general core values of the group is to remain an ostrich.

In a global world some kind of democracy should prevail…
I mean if you are a muslim and feel offended you have the right to express that.
This said some remarks:

  • not all drawings are equals in the series. I would suggest muslim organisation to attack only those they feel offensive.

  • hasty generalization leads to other problems: if you feel offended by a dane newspaper why attack all Danes? just as if you get robbed one day by a guy with red socks and now have a grudge about everybody wearing red socks! same hasty generalization for people that equals muslims to terrorists :angry:

  • about protests: requiring the death penalty for the perpetrator is a sure sign of somebody unsure of his beliefs. I feel that a really sincere believer can only scoff at those childishnesses. It is because you are unsure of yourself that you overreact.

  • how come moghol manuscripts of yore had such images?
    the rules about not depicting the prophet were more lax 40 years ago (in a muslim country where I lived at that time…)
    here attached: gabriel show the prowess of Ali to prophet muhamad (1480)

gabriel_ali_large.jpg

looks like stuff is gettin kinda insane…


now I’m completely convinced they’re overreacting. it was very rude of anyone to draw those cartoons in the first place, but going and getting yourself killed over it is just stupid.

this is very interesting too though:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/07/iran.cartoon.ap/index.html

The world hasn’t suddenly gone mad. Just sometimes it’s more obvious for a while.

I am so offended by a cartoon I’ve never seen in a newspaper I’ve never read, in a language I don’t speak, published in a country that I have never visited that I feel it is my duty to my peaceful religion to attack or kill someone I have never met who may never have seen that cartoon, and who may actively disagree with its publication for all I know, because he was born in the country where the newspaper was published.

Yay! And for my next trick, I will eat broken glass because I don’t like sausages.

I do believe that some people have reprinted the cartoons irresponsibly, knowing that they will cause offence. I do believe that with free speech goes the duty to show reasonable courtesy. Free speech entitles me to tell a lady she has a fat arse; courtesy tells me not to mention it.

However, free speech is important in the sense that we should all be free to critique other peoples’ beliefs. I believe the Muslim belief in Allah is irrational, and I believe the same of the Christian or Jewish belief in God. I can point to a number of reasons, and expose a number of apparent inconsistencies in the religions, and even a few adverse consequences of those religions remaining popular. That is free speech, and vital. If I simply said, “Yeah, well your particular god has dog’s breath,” then that isn’t free speech, it is a gratuitous insult.

Of course, the followers of the religion are free to critique my beliefs in similar measured and rational terms, but not to sink to vulgar abuse and violence.

I haven’t seen the cartoons, but the content isn’t the whole story anyway. I think that the motive in publication is also important. (Just as truly loving but terminally naive husband may honestly risk attempting to persuade his wife to wear somethig more flattering, you can cause offence without being deliberately offensive.)

I think the later reprintings of the cartoons have strayed over the line separating legitimate low level political satire from playground shouts of abuse.

I think a small minority of Muslims are seriously offended, many are mildly offended, most probably don’t give a monkeys… and a few are seizing on the opportunity to be offended. I could be wrong. I work closely with at least three Muslims and not one of them has mentioned the whole silly charade to me or in my hearing.

Paintings, drawings, etc from hundreds of years ago to recently…

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

This site includes historical information which I found interesting. I hope the information is accurate, afterall, this is the internet.

This was from the first link in James Potter’s post above:

“What is happening now and all over the world is the extremists are making use of this and stirring up the masses to react against the Western interests and actually against the good reputation of Islam as a religion, of Muslims as a people, as a peaceful people, and people believing in freedom of speech.” - Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie

Now THAT’S more like it. And I’m sure other Muslims in leadership positions have made similar quotes. But I think al-Rubaie has summed up the situation pretty well. We don’t know the motivation behind the original publicaiton of the cartoons (whether the artist/paper were aware of the rule against depicting the prophet). What we do know is how the extremist Muslim world has capitalized upon this situation and blown it incredibly out of proportion. It is no longer about cartoons, or free speech. It’s about the West disrespecting Muslim values and taking advantage of Muslim people.

It’s an excuse to stir up activism and violence. It’s a way to possibly try to bend the opinions of more sensible Muslims to these extremist views.

I saw a newspaper picture in the last few days, showing a group of protesters with signs that, among other things, promised destruction, and called for the removal of heads connected with these cartoons. Maybe those people are aware that killing is worse than drawing, but they want us to think otherwise. I don’t think anyone here ever suggested these crazies represent the average follower of Islam. Of course they don’t, and sorry to confuse you.

My opinion today is that many extremist leaders have used this turn of events to incite protests, violence, riots, stoning, fire-bombing and at least a handful of deaths, worldwide.

Perhaps I was wrong in wishing for more statements by respected Muslim leaders condemning such acts. Perhaps it is embarrassing for them to even think anyone needs to hear such things. I that, they are right.

On the other hand, the first step in allowing evil stuff to happen, is to do or say nothing when it starts. I applaud people who speak out against crime, racism and other wrongful acts, even if it’s not necessary for them to do so.

On a microcosmic scale, we do some of that here. Like reminding Trials enthusiasts that it’s not okay to destroy public property even though they are members of the public. It makes all of us unicyclist look bad, so we can and do have something to say about it.

the most important images are modern icons drawed by iranians: I can testify I had such an image in my room a long time ago (though it was edited in North Africa) it was a complex image with lot of people (including a naked adam and eve!) and I bought it as an example of syncretic iconography (and real naïve art). It was sold freely in the streets.
alas it worn out and I lost it while moving away.

Locally its been on our news, because a local university professor posted them on his door. Students of Islamic decent became very angry- etc. Police were called to the university… and finally the university forced the professor to take them down (because of health and saftey…). He did, and he made poster size copies, and posted them on his hedges outside his house to make a point.

The professor was seen on the news, refusing to appoligize to the people he offended by posting these cartoons, and saying it was his acedemic freedom. And that he was not going to be bullied by religion.

My thoughts… when youre in a position such as a professor, shouldn’t you sensor things you post like this, if you know it is going to offend people of that religion? Its fine to laugh and joke about these cartoons with friends or something, but to publically post them, just doesnt seem as cool to me. I also don’t think its being bullied by religion to feel as though you shouldnt post something that is offensive to a religion. It makes life easier if we just tolerate that there are groups of people with other beliefs, and if you dont believe them, its not your business. Well…

I think some of you are dismissing the issue too lightly. Just because a drawing doesn’t mean much to our Western sensibilities, it doesn’t give us license to disregard others’ beliefs, just because we don’t believe the same thing. We’re not talking about just saying something that offends people; we are violating something sacred to them.

The perspective of these particular Muslims (from what I understand) is that the Western World, already attacking Islam with the use of force in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, is now taking something sacred that belongs to them, and violating it.

If someone acquired a photo of your family naked and published it in the newspaper, would you get angry? I would. I would start a campaign to try and get someone fired. Why? Because the newspaper had no right to violate my privacy like that. What about freedom of speech? It doesn’t apply here. And the Mohammad issue is even bigger to these particular Muslims. They’re angry, and they have every right to be angry. What right did that newspaper have to draw those pictures?

Having said that, I also think torching buildings, killing people, etc is an extreme reaction, and I don’t think anyone has the right to violate other people’s right to live because of the drawings.

I would gladly hope this to be true: alas! there may be contradictions in practice between lay culture and law and religious practices.
for instance we would like to avoid discriminations based on sex, supposed race, or whatever human categorization one may fancy but alas some philosophical groups have a practice (or sometime fundamental principles) that collides with that.
Pinpointing those collisions is a very cultural thing: some groups are called “church” in a country and “criminal organisation” in another (not kidding I have examples!).
Another point: “offence” is a very difficult thing to define. Let’s suppose we’re in a country with two differents political/philosophical groups: frogs and toads. As an independent I raise an objection on how some toads behave. On the spot ALL toads are roaring that I insult them and that I am an agent of frogs! I will be lucky not to be assaulted (or worse: brought to court!).

This is precisely what I would like a policed society to avoid: conflicts are part of democracy (as long as they are without weapons).

Does the newspaper have the right to publish those pictures. I will assume for the moment that it’s an American newspaper: Yes.

SHOULD the newspaper publish those pictures? That’s a much harder question. I don’t think it’s necessary to depict the prophet if you don’t want to. You could do most or all of those cartoons without using Muhammad as the subject. Or you could have him just out of frame, or obscured, or behind a partition, etc. American TV commercials do the same thing with doctors and dentists (who aren’t allowed to endorse products in the medical/dental fields).

But in the end, it is not against the law to publish such pictures (apparently) in Denmark or the United States.

IS IT IN POOR TASTE? Certainly it is. If the artist and/or paper were aware of the edict against depecting the prophet (which I wasn’t really aware of before this), I think they’re being rude. They could use the methods above if they chose. But if they don’t, they are also choosing to make a statement as well.

A great many political cartoons are in poor taste, or are intended to be offensive to someone, such as an opposing political party. So to some extent, those offended need to get over themselves. Indicate your displeasure, get mad, make noise, demonstrate, denounce the paper, and of course encourage your friends to cancel their subscriptions. None of that would be over the top.

The reaction in this case is way over the top, and seems to have moved well beyond the scope of the original issue. Now it’s just demonstrating and being pissed off in general, radical/fundamentalist Islam vs. the West.

What about the professor mentioned above, with his large posters? I understand what he’s doing, though I would not do it myself in this situation. He’s trying to make a point about freedome of expression. People must remember that they have the right to be offended. This does not override his right to express. In societies that allow freedom of expression, people have to agree to be exposed to stuff they may not like. This is no less true for Muslims than anyone else.

So do I want to paint pictures of Adolph Hitler, Satan, Stalin and naked ladies on the outside of my place of business? No. But all but that last example would be legal. Same idea.

I think it all got out of hand due to lack of knowledge on both sides. The paper did expect to offend a few extremists, but noone thought it would be a big deal. I don’t think they expected the drawings to be noticed outside the country. They probably had no idea how offensive the drawings where. Not that that’s an excuse.

Another reason things got out of hand is the misinformation people has been fed. Alot of false drawings have been circulated and a number of rumors too.
Among these:
That the queen had encouragded people to oppose Islam
That Kurans where being burned in the streets.
That the government was making a censored version of the Kuran and a movie about the prophet (peace be upon him).
That muslims wheren’t allowed to protest against the drawings.
That there’s no possibility of legal action against the paper.

The attacks on the embassies didn’t start until the Kuran-burning rumor hit the internet and text-messaging.
Someone (may their private parts get caught in a meat grinder) did try to organize suggest such a demonstration, but they appearently changed their mind when it became clear that it would be attended by 3 policemen per civillian, and anyone who showed up with a match or a book would be arrested and charged with everything from blasphemy to violation of the fire code.

Another point of view could be to analyze the facts in the light of the Quran.
I am not a muslim scholar but nonetheless here is my opinion (based on what I know: I may stand corrected by more knowledgeable people).

Idolatry and magic are strictly forbiden.
With this we can analyze the images of Muhammad shown in the abovementionned site (that shows previous images of muhammad)

Some are frankly Icons and should be avoided (BTW the modern iconic images of some muslims clerics -as shown on every wall and tv- verge on utter sin!)
I dare say some should be “legal”: the extreme example is the one that illustrates a french child book that depicts the life of Muhammad (this is intended to teach non muslims about islam and it is for the use of children).

Now what about the cartoons from the Dane newspaper?
Each one should be analysed separately:

  • none is intended as an Icon (there is a contradiction here: one cannot accuse a non-believer to use an Icon!)
  • some are offensive because they equate muslim to terrorist … those may lead to court action even under lay law.
  • other require a more complex analysis: the extreme example is the one about the lack of virgins. Here I am unable to part from my own opinion on the role of humour and of psychological compensation so I am unable to try an objective advice.

I do support freedom of speech. I also think that the freedom, comes with a certain responsibility to express oneself tactfully. If something is being used as a tool to degrade others, or cast a stereotype of a group of people, then maybe it’s not so funny. But I suppose that’s up to each reader to decide.

However, I don’t think that it’s the fault of these drawings that is sparking such anger and in some cases, violence. The people of certain religious groups, and more importantly, the leaders of groups, should pass the message that these are only drawings, and that people must be strong enough to take “insults”. I believe what I believe, and others can say whatever they’d like against it. I still believe, and feel no shame in it.

Freedom of speech- I say yes.
Responsible expression of one’s opinions- I say yes.
Not over-reacting about opposition- I say yes.

Of course, I agree with the whole freedom of speech/but be responsible about it/and violence is not the way spiel outlined above. However, as a religious person, my main critique is from a religious point of view. Of course, I’m the last one to say that people of a different faith should or shouldn’t believe this or that, and so as a Christian, I tread as if on eggs here. However, I think my criticism is pan-religious enough for me to take some liberties.

From my understanding (please correct me), the reason Muhammed asked that he not be depicted (and why he was supposed to have worn a veil throughout his ministry) was in order to discourage his divinity, as an act of humility. He didn’t want to be worshipped. Like Jesus and Buddha, he saw himself as the path, not the destination. He was just a guy with some good ideas, or at best, God’s lowly messenger-boy.

Yet something that recurs again and again in religion is that people begin to follow the letter of the law instead of the meaning of the law. It’s easier to follow static words on a page than the dynamic impression of God on your heart. So what we get is the very law designed to keep Muhammed in a low place, ends up being used to raise him up to Divine status - something to fight and die for.

If this sad situation didn’t inform me about my own religion, I’d say it’s not my place to make the above statement. But lately I’ve been seeing a lot of common threads in what makes religion in general (and Christianity specifically) so un-appealing to many.

Sunday NYTimes Op-Ed–It’s complex; hang in there–Billy

Op-Ed Contributor
Our Faith in Letting It All Hang Out
E-Mail This
Printer-Friendly
Save Article

By STANLEY FISH
Published: February 12, 2006
Delray Beach, Fla.

IF you want to understand what is and isn’t at stake in the Danish cartoon furor, just listen to the man who started it all, Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Mr. Rose told Time magazine that he asked 40 Danish cartoonists to “depict Muhammad as they see him,” after he noticed that journalists, historians and even museum directors were wary of presenting the Muslim religion in an unfavorable light, or in any light at all.

“To me,” he said, this “spoke to the problem of self-censorship and freedom of speech.” The publication of the cartoons, he insisted, “was not directed at Muslims” at all. Rather, the intention was “to put the issue of self-censorship on the agenda and have a debate about it.”

I believe him. And not only do I believe that he has nothing against Muhammad or the doctrines of Islam, I believe that he has no interest (positive or negative) in them at all, except as the possible occasions of controversy.

This is what it means today to put self-censorship “on the agenda”: the particular object of that censorship — be it opinions about a religion, a movie, the furniture in a friend’s house, your wife’s new dress, whatever — is a matter of indifference. What is important is not the content of what is expressed but that it be expressed. What is important is that you let it all hang out.

Mr. Rose may think of himself, as most journalists do, as being neutral with respect to religion — he is not speaking as a Jew or a Christian or an atheist — but in fact he is an adherent of the religion of letting it all hang out, the religion we call liberalism.

The first tenet of the liberal religion is that everything (at least in the realm of expression and ideas) is to be permitted, but nothing is to be taken seriously. This is managed by the familiar distinction — implied in the First Amendment’s religion clause — between the public and private spheres. It is in the private sphere — the personal spaces of the heart, the home and the house of worship — that one’s religious views are allowed full sway and dictate behavior.

But in the public sphere, the argument goes, one’s religious views must be put forward with diffidence and circumspection. You can still have them and express them — that’s what separates us from theocracies and tyrannies — but they should be worn lightly. Not only must there be no effort to make them into the laws of the land, but they should not be urged on others in ways that make them uncomfortable. What religious beliefs are owed — and this is a word that appears again and again in the recent debate — is “respect”; nothing less, nothing more.

The thing about respect is that it doesn’t cost you anything; its generosity is barely skin-deep and is in fact a form of condescension: I respect you; now don’t bother me. This was certainly the message conveyed by Rich Oppel, editor of The Austin (Tex.) American-Statesman, who explained his decision to reprint one of the cartoons thusly: “It is one thing to respect other people’s faith and religion, but it goes beyond where I would go to accept their taboos.”

Clearly, Mr. Oppel would think himself pressured to “accept” the taboos of the Muslim religion were he asked to alter his behavior in any way, say by refraining from publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet. Were he to do that, he would be in danger of crossing the line between “respecting” a taboo and taking it seriously, and he is not about to do that.

This is, increasingly, what happens to strongly held faiths in the liberal state. Such beliefs are equally and indifferently authorized as ideas people are perfectly free to believe, but they are equally and indifferently disallowed as ideas that might serve as a basis for action or public policy.

Strongly held faiths are exhibits in liberalism’s museum; we appreciate them, and we congratulate ourselves for affording them a space, but should one of them ask of us more than we are prepared to give — ask for deference rather than mere respect — it will be met with the barrage of platitudinous arguments that for the last week have filled the pages of every newspaper in the country.

One of those arguments goes this way: It is hypocritical for Muslims to protest cartoons caricaturing Muhammad when cartoons vilifying the symbols of Christianity and Judaism are found everywhere in the media of many Arab countries. After all, what’s the difference? The difference is that those who draw and publish such cartoons in Arab countries believe in their content; they believe that Jews and Christians follow false religions and are proper objects of hatred and obloquy.

But I would bet that the editors who have run the cartoons do not believe that Muslims are evil infidels who must either be converted or vanquished. They do not publish the offending cartoons in an effort to further some religious or political vision; they do it gratuitously, almost accidentally. Concerned only to stand up for an abstract principle — free speech — they seize on whatever content happens to come their way and use it as an example of what the principle should be protecting. The fact that for others the content may be life itself is beside their point.

This is itself a morality — the morality of a withdrawal from morality in any strong, insistent form. It is certainly different from the morality of those for whom the Danish cartoons are blasphemy and monstrously evil. And the difference, I think, is to the credit of the Muslim protesters and to the discredit of the liberal editors.

The argument from reciprocity — you do it to us, so how can you complain if we do it to you? — will have force only if the moral equivalence of “us” and “you” is presupposed. But the relativizing of ideologies and religions belongs to the liberal theology, and would hardly be persuasive to a Muslim.

This is why calls for “dialogue,” issued so frequently of late by the pundits with an unbearable smugness — you can just see them thinking, “What’s wrong with these people?” — are unlikely to fall on receptive ears. The belief in the therapeutic and redemptive force of dialogue depends on the assumption (central to liberalism’s theology) that, after all, no idea is worth fighting over to the death and that we can always reach a position of accommodation if only we will sit down and talk it out.

But a firm adherent of a comprehensive religion doesn’t want dialogue about his beliefs; he wants those beliefs to prevail. Dialogue is not a tenet in his creed, and invoking it is unlikely to do anything but further persuade him that you have missed the point — as, indeed, you are pledged to do, so long as liberalism is the name of your faith.

Stanley Fish is a law professor at Florida International University.