Mohammed cartoons

[RickJ]

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

[/b]
I guess we can rest easy, knowing that the prospect of millions of Danes and other Europeans going apeshit and rioting all over the world has been averted. 

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

Sounds like a resonable criteria for accepting or rejecting content to me.   Would you publish something on your website or in your game that you didn't think was funny/entertaining or appropiate?   Who else but you should decide what content you get to publish?   

I can see the point though.  Clearly the Muslim world is light years ahead of us poor infidels here in the west in terms of morality and fairness; they would have published them in a heartbeat.

[Afflict]

To be honest I didnt read all of your comments, but a picture
is worth a thousand words they say! And those pics are BAD!
Tried to google couldnt find these silly cartoons causing all
this crap.

Some people are just situated on the lower intellectual bracket.

Riot control... Some people have to learn the hard way!
CAUSE AND EFFECT!

[MrColossal]

If that's as much as you choose to educate yourself on the situation, you don't really deserve to voice your opinion on it.

[Nikolas]

Some people are just situated on the lower intellectual bracket.

Riot control... Some people have to learn the hard way!
CAUSE AND EFFECT!

Right! That's a great idea! Teach them the hard way. And btw, we can do that since we are on the higher intellectual bracket!

You've got to be kidding here...

Just for the record I totally agree with SSH on this thread! Totally. So Farlander you've got 1 people backing up SSH 100%.

Now, what I see that most people do is try to put themselves in the position of a Muslim/Syrian/Iraqi or whatever else. Well, people this doens't work this way. If you really want to do this:
Brain wash your selves.
Forget everything you know about freedom of speech.
Have Allah to be the HIGHEST value in your life! More than family, more than offsprings, more the goverment.
Have the representatives of Allah, tell you what to say/do/act/feel.
Have no other way of knowing black from white (and let's forget any shade of grey).

I'm not really certain that this is the way these people think, but actually since I've been in Damascus I have to say that that was the generall idea I was getting from random people on the streets, or the Hammam, or while smoking narghiles...

(Oh, and they adore the dollar. The normal was 1$=36 pounds, and we found people offeing us 55 (!) pounds for 1 dollar. <-off-topic a little)

[Nacho]

Just for the record I totally agree with SSH on this thread! Totally. So Farlander you've got 1 people backing up SSH 100%.

Ergo... Loving husbands with two little kids become absolutelly innocent. 

[Babar]

I consider myself to be a pretty strict muslim. From the point of view of a Muslim who "does everything by the book":

1) The actions by the Newspaper does not fall into the category where violence is justified (and yes, Islam, unlike Christianity, does allow fighting in some cases- This does not make Islam a bloodthirsty religon).

2) When someone insults Islam, the proper course of action is to leave until the topic has changed

3) If you want to show some sort of protest, it should be using the following behaviour:

4) You cannot in any case whatsoever insult another religion.

5) You must not defame, degrade or use insulting language.

6) If you somehow find that the place you are living in is restricting you from practicing your religion, you are obligated to leave it. You cannot use "The law does not allow me" as an excuse.

And for the sake of information:

7) Forcefully converting someone to Islam is not considered a proper conversion.

8 ) A "fatwa" has absolutely no power or importance. Just because someone wrote a fatwa, doesn't make it obligatory for Muslims to follow it. It is simply the opinion of author with (if it is to be considered relevant) backing from the Scripture.

9) Islam has no heirarchy. There are no "Higher Clerics" and "Lower Clerics". You don't have to pass some exam to become an Imam, and the only function of an Imam is to lead the prayer. There is no "Organisation" behind Islam.

As you can see, from an Islamic approach, the muslims who do this are not following Islam!

Saying all that, I'd also like to add that what I found sad about the cartoons was the fact that it actually takes muslims to be like that.
I don't see why everyone keeps pushing "Freedom of Speech" for this. Does anyone say that publishing these cartoons was a GOOD idea? Freedom of Speech does not mean Compulsion to say everything. Personally, I think that Freedom of Speech should be restricted to that which does not hurt a person (a whole subset of questions there: What HURTS a person- I am including mental anguish here). Thus, writing something about "How muslims are doing this and this and this wrong things" or even "This and this thing is wrong with Islam) would be OK (or understandable), but publishing Cartoons that openly insult the entire Islam is not nice.

I also think that the republishing was an immensely foolish thing to do. There are other ways to show support. I'm sure they realised what they were doing. Now because of that (not that I say the blame is on the newspapers), people belonging the publishers country who are in some muslim countries are in danger.

[Nacho]

What do you personally think about point 9?

(This is out of topic, it's jut that I think that's one of the big problems of Islam...)

[Tuomas]

I disagree a bit. I think that publishing these pictures in the first place was a good idea. Actually I think it is the only wasy for people to realize what they should or shouldn't do. I think we in finland should also have published them too. No that I'm a racist or anything and I don't want people to get hurt in such occasions.
Ã,  In my opinion the fault of people getting hurt is completely those muslims who started rioting. how can they say, thatwe should watch what we do, when a)None of us would have been angry for such that concerned us and b) because muslim papers have published much more offendingpictures about my religion. Now I don't give Ã, fuck about that, but if they start judging us by what we have done, well it's just hypocracy. And I will never, might this be their way of doing or not, adjust my ways of acting so that it'll serve other people's needs if they don't even try to do the same. Maybe this time they should try to understand, that to us this would never be such a big deal.
Ã,  Ã, Globally speaking, to me there is no thing more stupid than blindly following a religion, any religion. I think that if one sets his moral rules by what is written in any book, leaves it him as an empty husk and not able to do his own rational decisions. I think trying to find shelter behind something that cannot be proven to exist is weakness, and I think all religions were invented just to help people Ã, hide their fear and lack of knowledge. It's something that you turn to when you need help or advice but can't get it in real life. But using it as a weapon or even as a reason to justify anything... That I cannot accept.
Ã,  Ã, And how fucked up is christianity? We claim that ours is the only real religion, that we have caugh from a fantasy novel. And did you know that in the sequel there was this man called Jesus who used to hurt and kill people because hecouldn't control his "superpowers"? And that all this was removed from it in the middle ages just that it would suit our morals? And at the same time someone decided to collect money from stupid people in exchange for a place in heaven. And how we laugh at scifi movies where aliens give out sacrifices as we did, or how they have all rituals while we go to church every sunday to repeat the same words that we have repeated every week for our whole lives.
Ã,  Ã, Not to mention the fact that we go killing people who "serve" the same God but have a different name for it. I will never start saying what I want and that's because I was granted freedom of speach and a freedom to choose my religion and to express my religion. And today I read in the newspaper, that in some countries the law can order some sentences withdrawn because they offend someone's beliefs. Withdrawing them offends my beliefs in freedom of speech. Not until they say in the constitution that everyone must follow the same religion. This is just why laws are set, to keep that from not happening.

[jetxl]

I think it's funny. No haha-funny, but hehe-funny.
But yeah, freedom of speech above the will of the ignorant masses.

There were manny "political incorrect" cartoons after that airplane hijacking thingy in 2001. I didn't hear any muslim complain about them (maybe because they were living in caves a.t.m., maybe because I only know one muslim which I didn't knew at the time).
Arab papers insult the jewish religion all the time. Hypocrites!
English embassies are targeted. Generalisation!
Taliban members shoot in the crowd to raise the rage. Evil!

[Snarky]

I consider myself to be a pretty strict muslim. From the point of view of a Muslim who "does everything by the book":

1) The actions by the Newspaper does not fall into the category where violence is justified (and yes, Islam, unlike Christianity, does allow fighting in some cases- This does not make Islam a bloodthirsty religon).

2) When someone insults Islam, the proper course of action is to leave until the topic has changed

3) If you want to show some sort of protest, it should be using the following behaviour:

4) You cannot in any case whatsoever insult another religion.

5) You must not defame, degrade or use insulting language.

6) If you somehow find that the place you are living in is restricting you from practicing your religion, you are obligated to leave it. You cannot use "The law does not allow me" as an excuse.

And for the sake of information:

7) Forcefully converting someone to Islam is not considered a proper conversion.

8 ) A "fatwa" has absolutely no power or importance. Just because someone wrote a fatwa, doesn't make it obligatory for Muslims to follow it. It is simply the opinion of author with (if it is to be considered relevant) backing from the Scripture.

9) Islam has no heirarchy. There are no "Higher Clerics" and "Lower Clerics". You don't have to pass some exam to become an Imam, and the only function of an Imam is to lead the prayer. There is no "Organisation" behind Islam.

As you can see, from an Islamic approach, the muslims who do this are not following Islam!

It's always debatable what a religion "really" instructs. The most objective measure is to look at the behavior of its followers. Your list does not seem to describe the behavior of a large group of Muslims (especially point 5).

I don't see why everyone keeps pushing "Freedom of Speech" for this.

Personally, I think that Freedom of Speech should be restricted to that which does not hurt a person

That's why. People keep pushing Freedom of Speech because you want to take it away from us.

When you say "Freedom of Speech should be restricted to that which does not hurt a person," what I hear is "We shouldn't have Freedom of Speech." Freedom of Speech that does not include the right to say things that are not "nice," or that might cause some people "mental anguish," is no freedom at all.

[passer-by]

When you say "Freedom of Speech should be restricted to that which does not hurt a person," what I hear is "We shouldn't have Freedom of Speech."

I think it's more like "My liberty stops where the other people's liberties start to get violated." Kind of democracy.
Liberty is the right to make mistakes, not the right to do the wrong things.

[Nacho]

There's also the "Freedom means being able to say things that people doesn't want to hear"

-George Orwell, in his book, 1984.

Freedom of speech mustn't be restrained unless you enter into criminal messages. I've been hearing cartoonists this days. They say "People say we mustn't do cartoons that might annoy muslims... So? Where do we paint the line? Can we do "leftists" jokes, or can't be because it's going to annoy the right? Can we do "rightists" jokes? Which cartoons are we allowed to do? the ones annoying less than a million people, or those annoying less than 10?"

So, where do you paint the line? Shall we remove all graphic humour?

[passer-by]

There's also the "Freedom means being able to say things that people doesn't want to hear"

-George Orwell, in his book, 1984.

Freedom of speech mustn't be restrained unless you enter into criminal messages. I've been hearing cartoonists this days. They say "People say we mustn't do cartoons that might annoy muslims... So? Where do we paint the line? Can we do "leftists" jokes, or can't be because it's going to annoy the right? Can we do "rightists" jokes? Which cartoons are we allowed to do? the ones annoying less than a million people, or those annoying less than 10?"

So, where do you paint the line? Shall we remove all graphic humour?

You put a line yourself : "unless you enter into criminal messages". Not that I believe that the cartoons were criminal messages, I just used your line. But again, if you ask ten people about waht is criminal you'll get twelve answers.
I said earlier in the thread that I'm not offended by cartoons and I never think a situation is not suitable for humour (even a death). If it's not humour-resistant, it 's not serious enough. I was talking about freedom in general, not only freedom of speech. Why aren't I free to dump my waste in my neighbours garden, if freedom should not be restricted? I think that small restrictions make what I call civilisation. I don't say we should hide the truth, only that we accept that a coin has two sides.
For the record, I find nothing more insulting than political correctness, tiptoeing around tricky terms and avoiding the issue altogether.

[Nacho]

So, if you don't think they're illegal, what the hell are you talking about?

[Snarky]

The point isn't that freedom of speech shouldn't have any limits whatsoever. The point is that restrictions like "as long as it's nice," or "as long as it doesn't cause anybody mental anguish" defeat the whole point of the freedom. Speech that isn't controversial doesn't need protection. We have freedom of speech in order to protect precisely the speech that some people won't like to hear.

Farlander, if you're going to quote Orwell, be accurate, or at the very least grammatically correct.

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"
--George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism

[Nacho]

I quoted from spanish and then translated... Do the same with a sentence of the Quijote into English, smart ass... 

[passer-by]

So, if you don't think they're illegal, what the hell are you talking about?

I'm talking about generalising and being ready to react like the ones we blame for being "sheeplike" while we claim we are different. About ignoring political agendas and blamingit to people who are less informed and less free(yes, I agree here) than me. About not putting those who don't participate and may not even know about the riots under the same label with those Ã, who make me think bad things about the human brains.

I don't think I ever agreed with the riots and the violence, or that they were right in the first place, but someone has to realise that if we throw their ambassadors out and if we keep talking about racist/hateful/uncivilised muslims we 're going to have a war for Ã, no real reason. And I think that if a war can be avoided it should Ã, for as long as peace doesn't get worse than war, which may happen, of course. I think the current peace is good enough to spoil it for some hot-headed fanatics. Ã, 

If a violent crowd of hot-headed christian football fanatics from Ã, my country come and burn cars and smash shop windows and even stub people in your country,after a game they clearly lost for no reason, say that the referee was unfair to them, Ã, will you be willing to declare war or will you think "What a bunch of d*icks?" and spare the generalisations?

[Nikolas]

Hehe, Farl, he gots you on this one! Be correct next time you quote somebody!!!!!

Now, Jet, thanks for showing this. I didn't have a chance to see any cartoons yet, but I find this quiet funny to be honest. And I can understand how someone that dresses up like this, and have at least a cuople of women dressed up like that, could be insulted.

Of course I can never see why these people should start violent acts. And of course I don't think what BBC or CNN shows us! Do you?

Now, about freedom of speech, everything is nice a cute and all and I think that it's just an excuse to say whatever you want. It is an excuse and nothing more.

Of course by having freedom of speech in here, I get to say and write this post. But in the meantime I take care that I don't insult anyone, be polite, or strict when the need arises, have fun. As far as I've seen bullshit posts are erased! Or answered accordingly. So where's the freedom of speech here? Heck, Gilbot erased LJUBIs' post in the prite contest thread. And now Kinoko sees him like a giant 10ft tall! (<-Check the thread...) where is the freedom of speech here? Nowhere.

Actually my definition of freedom is sort of the one lie Babars. My freedom ends where someone elses starts, unless we have agreed on something so it ends elsewhere. Simple as that. I'm free. It doesn't mean that I can go stealing, fucking, raping, whatever. But I'm free!

With this idea in mind I can't go swearing, insulting, saying whatever I want. But I have freedom of Speech!. Well taught luck!

[Nacho]

The discussion is if there's something wrong with a culture with makes this riots for 12 cartoons.

The "we are generalisating" stuff is irrelevant, because if there is a group of people (a family, let's imagine) who hasn't commited a crime, and there's another family composed with the same number "x" of members, with a member who is a criminal: Wouldn't you think that there's been a mistake in the family enviroment for having a criminal? Parents, brothers and grandparents must be responsible for the education, we can simply say "hey! only one criminal, he is the only guilty!"

No. Things happen for something. Islam has problems. And I really loved Babar's post, because it confirmed my suspects that there is nothing in Coran that supports this behaviours (and when I talk of problems, I am not talking af the Riots, I am also talking of the bad treaty to the woman, etc...)

Islam's message is being intentionally changed by bad intentionated people for having an army of sheeps disposed to attack by their will.

I don't really think that if Mohammed raises his heads would agree with diverses "Sharias" and bad intentionated "Ashuras", with "burkas" and "Yihads".

It's great to see that there are good muslims, but it's very disencouraging that people from "here", is disposed to abandon this good muslims understanding the acts of the bad ones.

[Snarky]

Of course by having freedom of speech in here, I get to say and write this post. But in the meantime I take care that I don't insult anyone, be polite, or strict when the need arises, have fun. As far as I've seen bullshit posts are erased! Or answered accordingly. So where's the freedom of speech here? Heck, Gilbot erased LJUBIs' post in the prite contest thread. And now Kinoko sees him like a giant 10ft tall! (<-Check the thread...) where is the freedom of speech here? Nowhere.

You're right. We don't have freedom of speech on these forums.

With this idea in mind I can't go swearing, insulting, saying whatever I want.

Actually, you can. Just not on these forums.