Muhummad Cartoons - "growing Global Crisis"

[Mike D]

I was just reading the latest news on the growing violence and civil unrest spreading all over the middle east over the Muhummad cartoons in what is now being called a "growing global crisis". All I can is is WHAT is wrong with people, I am absolutely dumbfounded and speechless!

 

Wouldn't that be a hoot if some stupid cartoons ended up being the catalyst that finally escalates into nukes flying and WWIII begins? No I guess it wouldn't but it really boggles my mind that Christians in the US consider the biggest threat to be gays and atheists.....not Muslims - because we know they are peaceful and loving. I just don't get it....Man I hate religion!!

[Ouroboros]

Yeah, imagine if this will be the start of WWIII, and go to history as the "Cartoon wars"...

[Onyx]

Oh my damn god, not my sacred art form!

I don't want cartoons be the calatyst of a world war 3!

I'm really, really annoyed!

Now we'll get a new stereotype that we don't need.

[odintim]

Have any of you seen these cartoons? There are perhaps a few that from a religious point of view I might find a little offensive, but they're rather hilarious. I know I can only appreciate the irony, however. One cartoon depicts Mohammed wearing a bomb in place of a turban . . . and muslim extremists are protesting (in part) their prophet being mocked in violence by reacting with - violence. And they want the journalists executed for their "crimes", no less. The Norwegian journalist here that posted some of these cartoons received over 2,000 death threats in his email before it shut down. I honestly do not understand the religious mind any more; not even with my own fundamentalist past.

 

OT

[Shadfox]

They're going to come after google next!

[NorthenSun]

The cartoons: WWMD - What would Muhammed do? The question contains its own answer: WMD Build a nuke.

[loves_learning]

As is evidenced by Shadfox's link, depictions of Muhammed are not alien to the Arab world, nor are they alien to southeastern asian muslims. Despite the technical ban on depictions of all characters (heads off idolatry, which is a biggie no-no), it still happens.

 

Anyway, my point is this: the motivation for the cartoons was not exactly a nice one, but that isn't alien to political cartooning. What bothers me is the poor timing of it all, and the fact that those cartoons were merely used to piss off people...and why on earth would anyone who is up to date on current politics between europe/USA and the arab world want to stir up shit right now? Ack! The political climate is tenuous at best...chill out for a bit with the insults? Just a little while? It is just smarter to pick your battles, and if you really think that the eruptions of violence are only about the cartoons and religion...then...well...you're not thinking very much.

[Ms. K]

It doesn't have anything to do with the cartoons, really.

 

Read this. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/5/13149/60748

 

This is all about deflecting attention from the deaths of pilgrims during the Hajj. Saudi Arabia was made to look bad in other parts of the Muslim world, and so this was their way of fighting back.

 

Personally, I think it's the same tactics that this administration pulls. Remember the "War On Christmas"? Same thing.

 

Forget the cartoons. This is a matter of Saudi Arabia rousing the rabble to get the pressure off themselves. And frankly, I'm going to say that religious people getting wound up over pretty much nothing is not unusual.

 

After all, the American Family Association is VERY good at this tactic. Whip the sheeple into a frenzy, because that way, your power base is up in arms, and will believe anything you say.

[Lycorth]

There is something to that, I think - they want to look like the offended and hurt party, not the nitwits who had a stampede at a brainwashing - er, religious - celebration. Though I think it's also just that they are religious fanatics who still haven't gotten out of the dark ages.

 

It's probably a combination of the above - all of which serves to make them look worse and worse.

[BlueGiant]

Wow, these guys are ridiculous (and we have fundies to that extent here as well. Refer to "Christian Mythos" in public sometime...).

 

Do they want our buds up north to resume the pillaging and burning activities they were so good at back in the day...I wonder.

[woodsmoke]

Has ever a year gone by that there hasn't been a lethal stampede during the pilgrimmage to Mecca? Granted, I haven't been paying attention to international news very long, but it seems to me like this happens every year.

[NotBlinded]

I just read on the Washington Post that no American newpaper would publish such images of Jesus that were designed to offend Christians. If that is true...how much freedom of expression do we (Americans) have?

[Eponymic]

I just read on the Washington Post that no American newpaper would publish such images of Jesus that were designed to offend Christians. If that is true...how much freedom of expression do we (Americans) have?

 

This has to be tempered by the fact that the Washington Post is a crappy Christian run, bias paper. Though that can also be said for lots of papers nowadays.

 

As for the idiots rioting. How much blatantly stupid can you get? I mean come on. It's like me saying I hate violence and then turning around and punching the person standing next to me. It's the epitome of hypocrisy.

[NotBlinded]

As for the idiots rioting. How much blatantly stupid can you get? I mean come on. It's like me saying I hate violence and then turning around and punching the person standing next to me. It's the epitome of hypocrisy.

No doubt. But, it is probably the fundy muslims that are taking the 'no image' thing too far because it appears that it is not true. Check this out:

 

There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.

 

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous:

 

A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century); Kamaleddin Behzad's miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century); a painting, "Massacre of the Family of the Prophet," showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century); and Kamal ul-Mulk's portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century).

 

From here.

[Saviourmachine]

There are indeed Jesus cartoons. Google helps.

 

Not very funny, but it's a start: Gott mit Jesus. Translation: "Father, I don't like those people. They are so rude to me." "Shut your mouth! You're going directly downstairs. It's today almost 24th of december. And don't forget your cross!"

 

This one is better: Inside.

This one is much better: He's back

Fun (should be riding two of them isn't it?): Donkey

Smoked something? Haderer's

Lovely: Piggy

True: Bomb

Didn't know this: Vatican and Jews

Down to earth: Joseph & Maria

[mako]

For those (mostly Americans) who have not seen the cartoons that rocked the world, go to the following website - http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/1626

By Western and Oriental standards those things are really rather benign. I have seen Jesus and Buddha treated worse in our publications.

[The Sage Nabooru]

I just read on Yahoo! now a news article that says Afghanis are rioting around a US military base because, although America didn't publish the cartoons "America is the head of Europe and all the infidels."

 

Hmm. Okay, well, first of all, upon studying a map, I made a few key discoveries:

 

 

By studying this map, we can acertain that America and Europe are, in fact, seperated by a considerably large body of water. In fact, they are two seperate continents.

 

Also, by viewing the map, we can also know that Europe and America are two politically distinct areas of land. In fact, while America is just a fat yellow blob, Europe is divided into a bunch of tiny little Easter-egg-colored countries. So we can see that not only are America and Europe politically seperate, but Europe is in fact far from one country and is actually a single continent with multiple countries on it.

 

(One will notice that Canada is not mentioned here. The reason is because Canada is not mentioned anywhere, because nobody cares about Canada.)

 

So we can see, both geographically and politically, America is seperate from Europe and Europe is also a collection of independent countries. Also, we can assume that in Denmark (where the cartoons were originally published) that there are actually multiple people living there, perhaps even besides the cartoon's artist and newspaper staff. Maybe these other persons didn't even know the cartoonist nor were they aware of his drawings and intent. Of course, this is all simply conjecture at this point.

[Evelyn]

Here's a Muslim's take on the controvery: Beliefnet article

[Biggles7268]

I just read on Yahoo! now a news article that says Afghanis are rioting around a US military base because, although America didn't publish the cartoons "America is the head of Europe and all the infidels."

 

Hmm. Okay, well, first of all, upon studying a map, I made a few key discoveries:

 

 

By studying this map, we can acertain that America and Europe are, in fact, seperated by a considerably large body of water. In fact, they are two seperate continents.

 

Also, by viewing the map, we can also know that Europe and America are two politically distinct areas of land. In fact, while America is just a fat yellow blob, Europe is divided into a bunch of tiny little Easter-egg-colored countries. So we can see that not only are America and Europe politically seperate, but Europe is in fact far from one country and is actually a single continent with multiple countries on it.

 

(One will notice that Canada is not mentioned here. The reason is because Canada is not mentioned anywhere, because nobody cares about Canada.)

 

So we can see, both geographically and politically, America is seperate from Europe and Europe is also a collection of independent countries. Also, we can assume that in Denmark (where the cartoons were originally published) that there are actually multiple people living there, perhaps even besides the cartoon's artist and newspaper staff. Maybe these other persons didn't even know the cartoonist nor were they aware of his drawings and intent. Of course, this is all simply conjecture at this point.

 

 

 

[Vigile]

Here's a Muslim's take on the controvery: Beliefnet article

 

 

"These depictions are so offensive because the Prophet holds such a special place in the hearts of every Muslim on earth. We believe he was the Messenger of God and the seal of the prophets."

 

Oh cry me a river. Fucking pussies!

 

It's really interesting how everyone who has a god has to run around the world and control the behavior of everyone around them even if those around them don't share their belief in said god. Again, I don't think this is anything other than an artificial stir up from religious leadership, but those protesters are fucking idiots as is the writer of this article.

 

I'll say it again. The only respect their religion deserves is the right to practice it. I deserve the same right to criticize it if I want to. At least my criticism isn't hypocritical. I'm not saying Islam is stupid while holding onto the belief that Christianity is superior. All belief in magical sky people will receive equal disdain on my part.

 

Thanks for posting the article Evelyn.

[BlueGiant]

It's a big world. The public face of your people is a bunch of barbarians, burkas and bombers, and they get cheered on by the flippin' theocratic governments...yeah, they deserve to get worse in the papers.

 

It's a big world, get used to people making fun of you and not respecting your beliefs if you act that way. Doesn't fly for Christians, sure as hell won't fly for Muslims either.

[Saviourmachine]

"These depictions are so offensive because the Prophet holds such a special place in the hearts of every Muslim on earth. We believe he was the Messenger of God and the seal of the prophets."

Yes, oh baby! And that's why he would kill me, if he could. Bunch of religious fanatics or more briefly named: criminals.

 

It has been a few hundred years since the crusades.

 

It's not oil = development.

[Antlerman]

He does go on in page two of his article to say the protests went too far:

 

Printing these cartoons once was bad enough, but Muslims protested and Denmark apologized. The whole thing might have ended there. But for other European newspapers to reprint them just to say “We have the right to print these, and we will.”--that was the kicker. Freedom of expression is one thing, but to deliberately print something you know is offensive just to prove that you have the right to do so, that is cruel. The ensuing protests shouldn’t have surprised anyone--but the intensity of the protests, that’s another matter.

 

The Muslim reaction went way too far. Most definitely Muslims have a right to protest such an insulting and degrading depiction of their Prophet. But to torch a Danish embassy (Syria), throw eggs at a Danish embassy (Indonesia), take over a European Union office at gunpoint (Gaza), and even beat two employees of the Danish company Arla Foods (Saudi Arabia) is completely unnecessary and--dare I say it--barbaric. Moreover, it is totally insulting to the example and character of the very man these Muslims claim to be defending.

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/184/story_18486_2.html

It's like I said earlier that I can understand average people feeling offended by something like this and even feeling compelled to protest, but it's the political opportunists who exploit the people to violence for their own selfish ends that are the real devils here.

 

There is a the long history of division between the cultures, and these sorts of things on both sides only adds fuel to it. It's not the same as American Catholics protesting the South Park episode of the Virgin Mary bleeding out of her ass. Trey Parker and Matt Stone afterall are a part of the same culture criticizing it from the inside.

 

It doesn't excuse any of the behaviors and I condemn any actions of violence that happen in protests, but I think it's helpful to know there's a history under the surface that is really behind this intensity. If there's ever going to be any forward movement, the middles of each culture need to recognize and respect these issues, whether it makes sense to them or not. If people on either side simply choose to dismiss each other, then their fates are sealed.

 

These sorts of thing affect me seeing this, and this is just my two cents worth. I don't want to accept there can be no peace. All that's served by that is anger, not peace.

[loves_learning]

It's like I said earlier that I can understand average people feeling offended by something like this and even feeling compelled to protest, but it's the political opportunists who exploit the people to violence for their own selfish ends that are the real devils here.

 

There is a the long history of division between the cultures, and these sorts of things on both sides only adds fuel to it. It's not the same as American Catholics protesting the South Park episode of the Virgin Mary bleeding out of her ass. Trey Parker and Matt Stone afterall are a part of the same culture criticizing it from the inside.

 

It doesn't excuse any of the behaviors and I condemn any actions of violence that happen in protests, but I think it's helpful to know there's a history under the surface that is really behind this intensity. If there's ever going to be any forward movement, the middles of each culture need to recognize and respect these issues, whether it makes sense to them or not. If people on either side simply choose to dismiss each other, then their fates are sealed.

 

These sorts of thing affect me seeing this, and this is just my two cents worth. I don't want to accept there can be no peace. All that's served by that is anger, not peace.

 

Bravo, Antlerman, for being a voice of reason in all of this. I was trying to express that earlier, but obviously didn't do a very good job. Perhaps if more Europeans and Americans understood that these cartoons were not about free speech, they were about insulting another culture who already has a pretty bad impression of us anyway, then they would be less condemnatory. I too disagree with the violent reaction, but the violence really doesn't have all that much to do with the cartoons, it was just the latest catalyst.

 

I do a lot of research on peace and conflict issues as well as human rights in countries that are predominately Muslim, and there is still deep seated fear and distaste for the colonialist pursuits that only ended in the FREAKING 1960'S!!!!! I liken it to the commie hunts in our very own country during the cold war, and the internment of the "japs" during WWII. People are afraid, and the littlest things will set them off, and as you stated, those who would use these incidents as a reason to get a big crowd of angry people to burn down an embassy are succeeding.

 

I don't know why the cartoons couldn't have been ignored after the first time they were published. Not because we are limiting our free speech rights, but because it would have been smarter for the time being. Why start a fight if you don't need to? What have we really accomplished by reprinting the cartoons? Asserting our right to be rude and inflammatory? Ok. If that is what you want to fight for, then by all means...go ahead. But, I'm not going to be part of it.

[Vigile]

Bravo, Antlerman, for being a voice of reason in all of this. I was trying to express that earlier, but obviously didn't do a very good job. Perhaps if more Europeans and Americans understood that these cartoons were not about free speech, they were about insulting another culture who already has a pretty bad impression of us anyway, then they would be less condemnatory. I too disagree with the violent reaction, but the violence really doesn't have all that much to do with the cartoons, it was just the latest catalyst.

 

I get that the Muslim nations have a bad taste in their mouth from past colonialization and certainly do not dismiss current petro political policies. But this is an issue about free speech. It absolutely is an issue about free speech. Christ, this is about a cartoon with Mohammed wearing a bomb on his head and a second one where he tells the suicide bombers to "stop, there are no more virgins." This is apt political commentary and it should be treated as such.

 

Normally I'm pretty liberal about these issues and am willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the culture that I don't understand, but I will not give up my right to free speech. This is too fundemental. We are not going to war over this. This is not what is at stake. But even it we were, I don't know how it can be argued that this is not about free speech. This is all about free speech and its all about a few muslim clerics that riled up a bunch of unthinking religious zealots to rally behind the cause. There are few principles in this world that are worth making a stand on, but free speech is one that I'll be damned if I give up to avoid offending sensibilities.