Mohammed cartoons

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

You don't mean numbers as a whole, I suppose . I guess multiplying XVIII*XIXÃ,  or IK*IH is going to be a pain since I'm used to 1,2,3..., but it can be done.

True, but in that case, you won't be able to use the concept of zero...

[Snarky]

Snarky, my points 1 to 7 are written clearly, black and white in the Quran. They don't really leave room for interpretation.

There is always room for interpretation. I just read about naskh, or the concept of abrogation (one law overruling, or deprecating, another) in Islamic law. Or just take "jihad." One simple word, but enough to generate a dozen different interpretations.

Like I said, it would be so much better if everyone could be nice for the sake of it, not because of the law. However, the law is not the only limit to "Freedom of Speech". As funny as it sounds, common sense is also a limit.

This may be turning into a semantic argument; but no, it isn't. Common sense, decency, sense of responsibility or whatever you like to call it, that's between me and my conscience. "Freedom" of speech means that the decision is left up to me as an individual, and I can make my choice based on whatever I like.

You don't have to like that the paper didn't (in your opinion) use common sense when they chose to publish those cartoons. You can criticize them for it. But you cannot demand that they must use common sense. That's what freedom means.

Actually, I don't agree that it was a bad choice to publish the cartoons originally. There were arguments for publishing them as well as against it, and I would probably have come down in favor, as well. However, I don't want to discuss it, since I think it's an irrelevant and dangerous distraction from the much more important issues.

[fred]

Babar, you write that there's no place in the world where freedom means the right to hurt another person. It's not true, and it can't be practiced, because people are hurt by sometimes the most absurd things, and it's impossible to avoid hurting anybody. There's no objective criteria. If you count in the lunatics, there's probably someone to be offended by anything that can be expressed. For instance, some freak tribe may invent and feel very intimately for an abstract notion of their own superiority, and be hurt whenever somebody points out that it only exists in their own imagination. And a common word in one language may be an insult or a blasphemy in another language.

So "hurting someone", for western legislation to deal with it, need objective criteria. Like someone being physically hurt, tortured, or lied about, in a way that it can be proven. And by these criteria, hurting other people is illegal. Whatever else people are hurt by, it's their own mess.

[Barbarian]

I think the whole thing's been "over reacted".
Anyways, just seen a news article I thought was a bit funny.. now the traditional name for "Danish Pastry" is now re-named "Roses of the Prophet Mohammed" pastries. *Sigh*Ã,  :
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/16/iran.danish.pastries.ap.ap/index.html
Ã,  Ã, 

[Sanguinous Rex]

This whole thread proves one thing:

Religion sucks.

[Squinky]

If religion didn't exist, I'm pretty sure human beings would find another way to be ignorant in the same manner. It's human nature.

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

No, i believe the moral of the story is that people enjoy bitching about stuff--no matter what it is.  This is ridiculous...

On a similar note, my older brother drew a picture of Bhudda: 2165.  Bhudda's back from nirvana, and he's pissed.
Even the bhuddists(sp?) laughed at it... one even told him it should be a comic strip.  The people who complain are much louder than the ones who are content.

[Squinky]

Chuck Norris could kick Bhudda's ass.

[Karimi]

Some times I think people go too far with freedom of speech. If you know Muslims have a past of not allowing this stuff, and you know they will get angry why do it ? Its to irritate muslims, its not a show of freedom or a testament to the greatness of the west. This whole thing could have been avoided, but it wasn't. I think Muslims have the right to be mad and protest, but peacefully. But at the same time the west has to realize the gravity of this thing to the muslims and that they won't take it as a joke.

As for boycotting danish goods im all for it, 1.its the muslims' right, 2.It shows how serious this is.

I don't endorse whats being done, but all I have to say is that you sort of brought it on yourself. Mess with the bulls, be prepared to get the horns.

[Sanguinous Rex]

I think Muslims have the right to be mad and protest, but peacefully.

Hey, you're right.

But guess what?  They don't.

[Traveler]

Chuck Norris could kick Bhudda's ass.

God could kick Chuck Norris' ass. General relativity kicks God's ass.

As for boycotting danish goods I'm all for it, 1.its the muslims' right, 2.It shows how serious this is.

1. Yes, it's their right. But they don't have a right to burn down buildings, post a $1 million for killing the artists, etc. I don't see how any of these would be counted as "peaceful".

2. No, this is not serious, this is laughable (sad, too.) Muslims went into a screaming frenzy because of a series of badly drawn, unfunny pictures. Boycotting danish goods is one way to go about it, but the kind of "kill everyone" gut reaction that we normally get from muslim countries when they feel they're hurt is pathetic.

There would be hundreds of actually peaceful ways to counter those drawings (which I think were quite idiotic, with the exception of maybe one. I'd actually have thrown them out, not because of the guy in the drawings, but because they're not funny.)

The proposed actions by muslim countries (start denying the holocaust, make crude drawings of Jesus, etc.) plainly show how these countries are unable to think in a flexible, creative way. What kind of a "revenge" is it going to be to draw Jesus with a broom up his ass? Or doing a prostitute? That's going to be some satisfaction, isn't it? It's pathetic, I hope they were just kidding.

It'd be ten times funnier if they tried drawing the stupid Danish artist trying to come up with something funny, or whatever. If muslims started thinking a bit (instead of boycotting and burning things), I'm sure they could come up with an idea so that half of the world would soon laugh at the Danish newpaper - they'd then think twice to post something as crappy as their drawings.

Now make note: I'm not calling all muslim people pathetic (god forbid, someone would read it and boycott me, too! That would be freedom of speech, after all.), I'm calling the muslim leaders pathetic, because they're actively making this mess.

I can see some people being offended by the drawings (they're quite pitiful pictures), and I wouldn't mind them *peacefully*demonstrating or boycotting Danish stuff, etc. But that's not what's happening and that's ridiculous.

Btw, I only believe in science, so if you want to hurt me, you'll have to start swearing at... say... quantum mechanics.

[MrColossal]

Kirimi said that boycotting was their right, Kirimi never said burning buildings down is their right, so I don't know who you're talking too.

You say it would be funnier if they did this and this... They aren't trying to be funny. The offended people don't take jokes when it comes to their religion, I thought that much was obvious. You can't demand they just start laughing about their faith.

[Traveler]

You're right, I didn't want to imply that Kirimi said that - I was just pointing it out that that's what's happening. I'm sorry if it came through otherwise.

Your other remark: what I meant was that the handling of the situation from muslim countries is very poor. It's quite obvious that they're offended and that they want revenge (and they aren't trying to be funny.) It's obvious, because they're burning down buildings, posting bonds to kill the artists (it was the *leaders* who did this, so it's an official way of thinking - this is not some angry crowd raising their fists, it's an order for murder!), etc.

So what I meant was that taking a different kind of revenge would actually be more powerful than shooting in the air and throwing rocks (which we do see very frequently.) Violence will  not give a clue to anyone, it'll just make everyone all the more adamant in their views. The Danish newspaper thinks it was right to publish these drawings because of freedom of speech, muslims think it was wrong because of religious beliefs. In their own views they're both right, but that won't solve the situation. The editor-in-chief shouldn't have published the pictures in the first place (because they're poor, unfunny) and muslims should try to understand freedom of speech - that when someone say something offending, the next person from the same country may not agree with it.

Demanding that there be laws against religious tokens won't help, because freedom of speech in the western world wouldn't allow any such restrictions. However, going about a different route may actually help - that's why I said that boycotting is one way to go. And I (again personally) would find some sarcastic/funny reaction a lot more appropriate in the situation.

Boycotting Danish goods (while it's definitely a right of people whe feel offended) shows the utter lack of understanding of freedom of speech: not all Danish people think that those images are good in any way but boycotting hurts all Danish people.

As a sidenote (concerning all religions): I find all religions unacceptable, simply because they require people to accept statements without critically thinking about them. In this case it's relevant, because muslim people are offended because of a *drawing*. Not because someone was actually hurt, shortchanged, etc., but a stupid, bad drawing. They have a right to be offended but I feel that the current events are a bit over the top. And many of them are offended because they're are told to be offended. However, this would be true of any religion, in a different case.

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

I find all religions unacceptable, simply because they require people to accept statements without critically thinking about them.

Are you SURE that your statement applies to ALL religions?

[Traveler]

Are you SURE that your statement applies to ALL religions?

Of course, I'm not sure about all possible religions, but I'm quite sure about the major ones. Do you have an example where my statement wouldn't apply - I'm open to arguments.

(Now as I think of it, I could probably be convinced otherwise about Buddhism, although I'm not too familiar with it. This may be a very naive thing to say, but as far as I know, Buddhists are very relaxed, laid-back people, not trigger-happy as some in other religions.)


The very core of religion is belief in something supernatural, which needs admiration and unconditional acceptance - to accept statements without proofs. This also requires believers to accept statements from their religious leaders; if they have their own agenda, they'll use their immense influence to gain and stay in power. Take a look at Iran or the Vatican; there are other examples, too.

Perhaps it came through already, but in this stupid cartoon-scandal, what I find most appalling is the bounty for the artists' life, simply because it's not just overreacting: it's a cold-blooded, calculated call for murder from influential people who would do anything to anger their people by pointing out a common enemy and talking about mortal danger, so they can stay in power through the chaos they cause. The fake cartoons that were used to ignite the demonstrations come to mind, or the frequent mention of the crusades (which happened 800 years ago, for heaven's sake!)

This whole thing wouldn't be anything but a storm in a teacup, but the extremely conservative and authoritarian muslim governments can use it as an excuse to create one more enemy.

[RickJ]

Some times I think people go too far with freedom of speech.  If you know Muslims have a past of not allowing this stuff, and you know they will get angry why do it ? Its to irritate muslims, its not a show of freedom or a testament to the greatness of the west. This whole thing could have been avoided, but it wasn't. I think Muslims have the right to be mad and protest, but peacefully. But at the same time the west has to realize the gravity of this thing to the muslims and that they won't take it as a joke.

First of all who the hell do "the muslims" think they are that they can tell the Danes what they can and can't do in their own damm country??   It's not the Danes fault that muslims have a long history of being humorless dick heads nor is it their responsibility to worry about it.   The whole purpose of political cartoons and humor of this type is to illustrate the absurd with absuridty.    The cartoons effectively served that purpose by exposing many tens of thousands of muslims as being the insecure, violent, intolerant, bigoted assholes they are.

Second of all  I am deeply offended and angry with people who have this sentiment about freedom.   The US was founded on Judeo-Christian values as espoused in our Declaration of Independance and our Constitution.   Many people through out our history, including many of my family, have fought and/or died for these values and to secure the freedom we in the US and EU enjoy today. 

Declaration of Independance
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, ...

US Constitution
Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You see in our tradition FREEDOM IS GOD GIVEN AND IS NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM US BY ANY OTHER MAN OR NATION.   Notice the wording of the first amendment of our constitution above.  It begins by saying that "Congress shall make no law ....".  That means that the freedom of speech cannot be taken away from anyone by any man made law.  It was given to us by GOD and only GOD can take it away, got it?   Can't you see that what is being demanded of the west is impossible?

Why can't muslims respect my God and my beliefs in the way they would like me to respect theirs?    I am just as insulted, offended, and angry as they are!  Don't I have a right to be?  Perhaps I don't have the same rights because I am not muslim?   

At this point I think the only sensible thing for people in the west to do is make more cartoons that make fun of the behavior of the many muslims that rightly deserve it.

Just my two cents worth...

[SSH]

You see in our tradition FREEDOM IS GOD GIVEN AND IS NOT TO BE TAKEN FROM US BY ANY OTHER MAN OR NATION.Ã,  Ã, Notice the wording of the first amendment of our constitution above.Ã,  It begins by saying that "Congress shall make no law ....".Ã,  That means that the freedom of speech cannot be taken away from anyone by any man made law.Ã,  It was given to us by GOD and only GOD can take it away, got it?Ã,  Ã, Can't you see that what is being demanded of the west is impossible?

You're confusing the USA and "the west".

Why can't muslims respect my God and my beliefs in the way they would like me to respect theirs?Ã,  Ã,  I am just as insulted, offended, and angry as they are!Ã,  Don't I have a right to be?Ã,  Perhaps I don't have the same rights because I am not muslim?Ã,  Ã, 

If the muslims have a right to "[no law] prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" then how can you say what they should or shouldn't get angry about?

[TheYak]

Is the same discussion still going on?  What pisses me off are people that resort to violent acts in demonstration of their hatred.  The fact that they're demonstrating utter fucktardedness by responding in this way to illustrations only serves to reinforce my feelings about that issue.  Muslims are offended?  I don't give a flying fuck. 

We've got plenty of religions to offend and none of them can be kept consistently happy without compromises made by others or by a massive lobotomy-induced adoption of utter obsequiousness.  Of course, any posts in the tone of mine are automatically lumped together with statements of racial or religious bigotry.  I'm not isolating Muslims in my irritation - it was every bit as stupid (perhaps more so) when there were renamings of "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" and abysmally simple-minded of US citizens to advocate the Iraq conflict based upon the same reactionary jingoistic (what's the word of the day again, kids?) fucktardedness. 

Religious or not, this skin color or that, people as a whole are profoundly stupid. That much is no surprise.   If only some groups would recognize ignorance for what it is and either laugh at it or ignore it.  They're only words, pictures, or statements that happen to rub a specific group the wrong way - anybody who thinks they're worth killing over is somebody whose life has little worth anyway. 

If they'd like to boycott or rename their food, they're more than welcome to do so.  The only thing it demonstrates to me is that they take themselves too seriously.   

In cases of "humor" demonstrating igorance, it'd be nice if the offended group moved towards correcting misimpressions instead of confirming them ? (Why is it that after a lengthy post everything I wanted to say can be summarized in one sentence? Too damn long-winded)

[edit: Checked out the drawmohammed.com site.  After looking at a few and neither finding quality nor wit I figured I should give equal time to something in refutation.  I checked out the drawjesus link figuring I'd find the same sort of content.  It would seem, however, after clicking through a couple links that at least some people are capable of being the bigger person in petty squabbles: http://perihanacehan.com/index2.htm. While I could give a damn about their theology at least they preach a peaceful message and attempt to educate.]

[HillBilly]

In case someone hasn't read it, here's the official explanation from Jyllandsposten's editor:

http://www.jp.dk/udland/artikel:aid=3566642:fid=11328/

I think it's worth the read, it brings up alot of valid points.

We have a tradition of satire when dealing with the royal family and
other public figures, and that was reflected in the cartoons. The
cartoonists treated Islam the same way they treat Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and other religions. And by treating Muslims in Denmark as equals they made a point: We are integrating you into the Danish tradition of satire because you are part of our society, not strangers. The cartoons are including, rather than excluding, Muslims.

One cartoon -- depicting the prophet with a bomb in his turban -- has drawn the harshest criticism. Angry voices claim the cartoon is saying that the prophet is a terrorist or that every Muslim is a terrorist. I read it differently: Some individuals have taken the religion of Islam hostage by committing terrorist acts in the name of the prophet. They are the ones who have given the religion a bad name. The cartoon also plays into the fairy tale about Aladdin and the orange that fell into his turban and made his fortune. This suggests that the bomb comes from the outside world and is not an inherent characteristic of the prophet.

On occasion, Jyllands-Posten has refused to print satirical cartoons of Jesus, but not because it applies a double standard. In fact, the same cartoonist who drew the image of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban drew a cartoon with Jesus on the cross having dollar notes in his eyes and another with the star of David attached to a bomb fuse. There were, however, no embassy burnings or death threats when we published those.

Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn't intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.

[RickJ]

You're confusing the USA and "the west".

I was thinking about the Magna Carta, the valiant Scotts that resisted Roman and British oppression/domination, the French reveloutiobn, the first and second World War's,  etc.  Perhaps you are right about the Britian/EU having made less progress with respect to freedom than the US.  The documents I cited are from the US and were used to rid ourselves of a King; many EU countries still think having a king is a good idea.

If the muslims have a right to "[no law] prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]" then how can you say what they should or shouldn't get angry about?

It's my opinion and I have a right to voice it.  I didn't say that Islam should be outlawed did I?  I think it's long settled jurisprudence that one's rights end wehre another's begins.  So the free exercise of one person's religion doesn't take precedence over another person's right of free speech.   Similarly murder and mayhem,. in the free exercise of one's religion, are not justifed.   

... But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission.

And that's exactly what they are after isn't it, our submission?