Mohammad cartoons -- definitely the most important political issue currently.

The back edge of freedom of religion is the freedom to not give a damn about a religion. Extremely devout Christians think saying "Christ" or "Jesus" as an exclamation is terribly offensive too, but they've learned to deal with the fact that most people dont give a damn about strict adherance to their beliefs.

I can sympathise with people being offended over things like this, but only to a point. Nobody has the right to not be offended ever. No matter what your religion, you have to accept the fact that the majority of the world *doesn't* practice your religion, and aren't going to live their lives as if they do - nor should they.

Going out of your way to offend someone is rude, of course. But learn to grow a thick skin to what others say, if you want to interact with the world at large. Maybe the artist is ignorant. So what. It's his right to be ignorant if he chooses to be. It's his right not to give a damn even if he isn't ignorant.

I'll normally be the one to say "freedom of speach doesn't mean freedom from responsibility"... But that's not even the issue here.

Heh. Counting sentences is a lot quicker than reading them. Besides, the outside world scares me.

If it had been rodeo cowgirls vs. religious fundamentalists, I would've sided with the rodeo cowgirls. Hell, if it had been eco terrorists vs. religious fundamentalists, I would've sided with eco terrorists. *I was expressing my contempt, not trying to prove a point. If I was analyzing the issue critically, I'd side with a balance between social responsibility and free speech. But I consider religious fundamentalists to be irrational, so I tend to turn my sense of social responsibility and tolerance down for their benefit because I know they would do the same for me if the needs of their deity(or deities) superseded the needs of society. What's that old saying, to treat a fool seriously is to be a fool? I mean, really... "Don't draw a picture of the magic man because he belongs exclusively in our imagination." It would be a sin for me not to laugh at that.

So very much true, I think there are also other figures in the bible which is against Islamic law to depict and/or satire, which leads to an interesting thought..

The Western world being the culture it is, it depicts and indeed satirises Jesus and God quite regularly. But you never hear a murmur from Muslims about this, do you?

But now Mohammed has been depicted and satirised, the mob grabs the torches and heads to the embassy. Why do they tolerate our lampooning of other prophets, but save the matches for cartoons of Big Mo? Hmm...

Now, Muslims are not supposed to raise Mohammed above God. You ask a Muslim, "So, you worship Mohammed?" and they will be aghast: They worship God alone, they revere Mohammed but they don't worship him.

And, you know, the West has drawn lots of pictures of God, some probably quite insulting. Again, no Muslim mass outcry over this.

So it appears the Muslims are more over-protective of Mohammed than they are of God.

Naughty, naughty...

If only there were this kind of violent outcry from the Muslim world when horrific terror acts are committed in the name of Islam.

Can we decide if this is going to be a serious thread here and now?

Good effort but it falls a little short and still smacks of ignorance and intolerance

The people who really follow islam always denounce it. The is a weak arguement.

How is it a weak argument? They are burning down embassies over cartoons - yet there has never been strong denouncements of terror in any tangible way.

Yes to tha have studied it part. And you know what? I still find little value it it. And I still think it encourages extremism. Sorry.

Ignorance and intollerance have become buzzwords, rapidly loosing all real meaning. Much like racist has and homophobe will if some of the dumbasses out there don't wise up.

The phrases are used to marginalize and discredit ideas. But they are almost never actually argued for... They are like the "racist bomb" used to be, drop and walk away... Need to find a way to shut down an arguement? Just find a way to drop the racist bomb! Doesn't matter if true racism has anything to do with the arguement, if you can find a way to claim it does, the arguement is yours in a politicly correct society, or it used to be.

And it's a shame, because true racism, true homophobia, or true ignorance and intollerance are *nasty* things sometimes. Nothing in this thread has really been that bad, not by a longshot... even the "republican" reference that still makes very little sense to me. But if people keep using the words to shut down any arguement without debate, then pretty soon the words are going to loose meaning.

That your oponenent is intollerant, or indeed even ignorant, does not automaticy discredit their comments. And that's assuming they are either of those things, and don't just happen to disagree with you.

I have heard plenty of denouncements of terrorism. For example it took about 2 minutes to find these on the web:

islam democracy

freemuslims

from radio free europe

British Muslim Scholars Denounce Terrorism

and there are many more. How much stronger or more tangible do you need?

I am also just a *little* bothered by the generalising word "they" that you used Cristiano. I know many moslems here in the UK and none of them have burned down an embassy. It has opened a lively debate about the contradictions between freedom of speech and religion, and you would be surprised at the wide ranging views that I have heard in the moslem community.

There is an interesting global / local dynamic going on here.

I think the internet and our ability to over communicate really contributed to this fiasco.

Sometimes, I think the same thing happens in the forums here. Our fears and insecurities have been given international megaphones.

It makes you ponder the nature of freedom of expression, and that perhaps such freedoms made sense in a world where communication was less global in nature, and not so much anymore.

Just a point of information, if you're going to claim that you will find no Muslim depictions of Mohammad, you should check the truth of that statement first.

Please see below.

Here : Miniature of Mohammed re-dedicating the Black Stone at the Kaaba. From Jami Al-Tawarikh ("The Universal History" written by Rashid Al-Din), a manuscript in the Library of the University of Edinburgh; illustrated in Tabriz, Persia, c. 1315.

Here : The Ascension of the Prophet, also from Jami Al-Tawarikh ("The Universal History"

Here : Mohammed on his prayer rug; Persia, late medieval (date unknown)

Here : Mohammed Received by the Four Angels; Persia, 1436

Here : This is a miniature from Siyer-i Nebi, an Turkish religious biography of Mohammed completed in 1388 and later lavishly illustrated with 814 miniatures under the reign of Ottoman ruler Murad III, being completed in 1595.

There are many more of such depictions of Mohammed in Arab & Persian Islamic art if you're willing to spend the time to research it, especially if you're going to throw around charges of being "grossly ignorant". Sometime he is fully depicted, other times he is depicted with his face covered. In short it is historically not as black & white as your make it out to be. Much like other "absolute prohibitions" claimed in other religions. And to answer your question yes, I studied Islam in my journey to becoming an agnostic many years ago.

There has been among UK Muslims.

The poor Moslems I feel so sorry for them having to suffer such discrimination and all. Try being Jewish.

I was born into my "religion" and they weren't. They can choose to be whatever they want. I have no such choice. I can convert to Christianity or Islam but I will still be Jewish no matter how many nose jobs I get.

The "they" I am referring to are those who are reacting so strongly over a cartoon that they are spurred to violence. BTW, the links you provided actually bolster my argument about the Muslim response to terror:



Strongly worded statements are not enough. It is also not about Muslims in Britain or America so much as it is Muslims in the Middle East, where the worst of extremism persists and where the goverments are often complicit, often times in the name of Islam. When the people of these countries truly stand up and fight against the very groups doing terror in their name, then they will lose the stigma of being ambivalent or even tacitly approving terrorism. Terrorism done in the name of Islam is far more sacreligious and dangerous to their beliefs than any cartoon could ever be.

Wow, great points, Alexin. I'd wondered about that. I mean, there can't NOT have been this done in the hundreds of years before now. I also agree that it's not black-and-white, there's a huge complexity here that goes beyond the cartoons.

There's a lot of disturbing things about this whole issue, and I'm just going to express myself on them, so sorry if I reiterate stuff others have already said.

One, where is the right of one religion to enforce it's doctrine on a person or persons who don't personally observe that religion? Does the belief system apply to everyone, regardless if everyone actually believes in it or not, to the point that violation of rules these others don't believe in anyway is punishable by their death/damage? This isn't limited to Islam fundamentalists (as I'm sure someone else pointed out), but it's still Not A Good Idea overall. I'm not sure where the people rampaging now are getting this, since the ban on images of the prophet is to prevent -Muslims- from reverting to idolotry, not non-believers. There's a logic I'm failing to understand here, between the purpose of the ban and how the ban is being used today to justify the violence. Quote a source: "Anyone who insults our prophet deserves to die. There is no mercy for blasphemers," said Ahmed Hashem, 24, a protester who held a piece of black cloth over his mouth to avoid breathing tear gas. "Any Muslim should be willing to die to defend the prophet's honor." Like, whoa.

Two, I guess you don't see Christains rampaging about this because the punishment for taking the Lord's name in vain is more personal, and not something punishable by your congregation killing you. Islam takes violations more seriously, and they also treat every single copy of the Koran as the real, physical words of Allah (explaining why the rumors of flushing one hit so hard some time ago.) There's some doctrine there that differs. I'm not religous scolar, and the difference interests me enough to look up in a bit. It's like most Eastern religions don't go launching holy wars because a lot of them don't believe that what is written is The Truth, so there isn't anything like that to take up and defend with a fight. Is the "purity" and "life" of one religion defended by the individual or the group, between other religions and Islam? I guess you could ponder why the Ten Commandments and the Koran are treated differently, since both can lay claim to being the actual words of respective Gods, but see point three.

Three, the situation is being fanned out of proportion by elements who already want a fight, and it actually has little to do with religion or freedom of speech. The boiling minority is making the whole religion and majority look bad, as seems to happen a lot. It struck me when I read that actual religious clerics were out there trying to convince the young mobs to stop, and were pushed aside anyway. That tells me, anyway, that no, these guys aren't doing this out of real religious outrage, they're in it for other reasons. Valid, perhaps, but I wouldn't believe the cut and dried 'your freedom of speech ran over my religion' explanation at all.

At any rate, it's so subjective that there is no real answer or "right" way other than, well, violence is bad, mmkay. It's just a troubling development in a troubling trend. Personally, I do believe in free speech, that they should have been able to publish the cartoons, that the specific drawings depicting the Prophet as promoting violence (the turban bomb one in particular) falls under at least poor taste and at most insulting and should not have been published, and that violence in any case is not the proper way to address it.

Pym

I need to add that muslim is a cloth and Moslem is a religion.

I'll then need to note that you might want to correct all the news agencies referring to Muslims too, such as the Tapiei Times in this article: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2006/02/06/2003291767 Go for it.

There's a number of spellings, and Moslem is actually a variant of Muslim (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=muslim). The cloth is called muslin.

I wouldn't launch a righteous charge up the grammar high ground unless you know you can win. No offense taken, it's just amusing.

Pym

I have no control how others use or misuse the English Language.

Both are romanizations of a word that isn't meant to be wrote with anglo-romanic characters. One is not particularly "more right" than the other. Muslim is perfectly valid.

Try reading romanized japanese sometime. There are *tons* of ways forign words get transcribed, and there isn't a single divinely-dictated correct way.

Here is the ugly truth. The people who drew the cartoons were not(un named religion) ,
they did not draw it in a country that is under (un named religion) law nor is it illegal
for the drawings to be made, printed, distributed or read. What you have is
a group of people trying to enforce their will upon another with the threat
of violence. That is the point of the cartoons, to show the extent in which
uneducated mouth breathing (un named religion) hold the west hostage and attempt to
limit free speech(consider Salman Rushdie). I think it rather courageous on the part of the
cartoonists myself and I fully support them. I don't cotton to no danged
preacher with a post-hole digger hat in Italy telling me what to do, I sure as
hell ain't gonna let some wild eyed punks with table cloths on their heads
tell me what I can or can't draw.

I'd say 9/11, suicide bombings, random violence and be-headings are far more
egregious sins compared to some rather bland cartoons don't you think? You
have to keep in mind that in strict (un named religion) countries it is not very common
to see pictures of anything really. That is why you see a lot of pattern art
and designs rather than western style painted pictures. If they could, they
would impose this on the rest of the world but threatening violence over
cartoons is a good start. Also, for those using the "redneck" and "ignorant" cards I will add that the cartoons originally appeared in September and although it pissed off a lot of (un named religion) nothing really came of it, the reason they are burning embassies is because it was printed again and this seems to be a provocative event and it likely was. It also goes a long way toward showing radical (un named religion) as chumps and some clerics know it.

Also, in their belief system, everyone in the world is born a (un named religion) and if
you do not follow (un named religion) then you are an "infidel" and are technically on
(un named middle eastern mythilogical figure) hit list and taking you out puts you in good wit da boys upstairs, ya know whadda mean. Badda bing. This isn't the teachings of ( un named prophet) but it is the way things are. Much like the fundy (un named prominant western religion) age of the world being roughly 6,000 years old, written not in the (un named western religious book) but some crusty medieval scholar. Also, for those who think (un named religion) respects (un named prominant western religion) didn't read enough. The (un named eastern religious book) says (un named western prophet) was just a man, a teacher mostly who performed no miracles and did not rise from the dead but lived a normal life, had a wife and kids and lived to be a ripe old man. That trivializes (un named western religion) I'd say. (un named middle eastern mythilogical figure) is a god of love but your individual mileage may vary.

Tell ya what, if (un named religion) stop blowing up innocent people, kidnapping,
beheading and other general thuggery I'll stop wearing my (un named mythilogical figure) with a bomb-for-a-hat T-shirt. Deal?

If my words are intolerant and ignorant in your opinion well, I can live with that. If I offend any (un named religion) , I am an atheist and, well, (un named middle eastern mythilogical figure) can take it up with me personally when I'm dead.


Edit: due to a line from this post being used as a signature getting me a disiplinary report filed against me, I have edited this post so that it may pass through the censors. This is exactly the reason the cartoons were printed. QED

Warrents repetition. However, there is more to the story.

Islamic faith suggests that criticism of Mohammad is blashpemy because, if Mohammad is the prophet of Allah, then to criticise Mohammad to to criticise Allah. Not only westerners get nailed by this... witness the case of poor Salaman Rushdie. Last I heard, the second Fatwa for his death had still not been rescinded.

That said, their faith *is* being *exceedingly* hypocritical in this regard. The islamic faith holds a metric assload of people to be prophets, and some of them messengers. As mentioned, Jesus among them. Yet it is only criticism of Mohammad that provokes responses like this. This is more the veneration of Mohammad... For someone who is not supposed to be idolized, he is idolized an awful lot in songs, sculpture, tapestries, festivals, etc.

*shrug*

I think this is a good point, although I can't speak to if that was the *original* intention of the cartoons...

And this shows something else.

Why do some of us keep saying "You don't hear any outrage from the Muslim world about (terrorism/whatever)", when people can point to obscure links about this muslim professor or that muslim on the street saying it?

Because the visible muslim faith pulls shit like this.

The rational muslim faith doesn't.

When the muslims get as worked up about the terrorism as they do stuff like this, THEN we'll stop saying it.