Why insulting prophet Muhammad?!

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I didn't get that cartoon at first...

It's a bit our of range for Sun-readers, I know :wink:

CAIR will: 1) urge the American Muslim community and American media outlets to continue to show the restraint they have exhibited during this controversy, 2) reiterate the Muslim community's strong belief that the controversy is not an issue of free speech, but is instead based on concerns over hate speech and incitement, 3) condemn all violent actions by those who are protesting the cartoons, and 4) preview educational initiatives that CAIR is formulating in response to the defamatory attacks on the Prophet Muhammad.

Logic and principle can't resolve the row over the Danish cartoons, says Andrew Brown

Major Charles Napier was wounded at the battle of Corunna. "His leg was broken by a musket shot, he received a sabre cut on the head, a bayonet wound in the back, severe contusions from the butt end of a musket, and his ribs were broken by a gunshot," says the Dictionary of National Biography, describing the events of January 16, 1809.

He was captured by the French, and eventually exchanged. He resumed a military career under Wellington, when he was wounded twice more and fought the Turks in Greece with Byron (he was the first British governor of Cephalonia). The men who spread the Empire were tough. Eventually, he came to British India, and in the winter of 1842/3 this remarkable soldier conquered Sind, now part of Pakistan - thereby preparing the ground for the grievances of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and similar extremist organisations.

The dictionary of National Biography does not mention the exchange for which he is now most famous, which apparently came after the conquest. When a group of Brahmins petitioned him for permission to burn a widow alive after her husband's death, explaining that it was the custom of their country, he replied that it was the custom of his country to hang those who did so, and if they followed their custom, his soldiers would build a gallows beside the funeral pyre and follow his custom as soon as they had followed theirs.

All conversations about multiculturalism come back to this point sooner or later. In the end it is force, or the threat of it, which decides whose customs are followed and whose taboos are honoured. I'm not arguing for moral relativism here. I don't think that burning widows or unsatisfactory wives alive is ever anywhere a moral thing to do. But any attempt to impose one set of customs on the whole world is now going to require more force than the globe can safely contain.

In the 19th century there was no question but that it was the customs of European countries which would be imposed on those of the rest of the world. In the second half of the 20th century, this very obviously stopped being true. The row over the cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad makes it look as if the present question is whether European countries will be able to hang on to their own customs and to resolve their disputes within a framework of law that takes for granted that freedom of speech is part of a civilised society.

Within that legal framework, it is possible to debate whether the papers that have done so should have exercised their right to print all or some of the cartoons - myself, I'd not have printed or reprinted the one showing the prophet with a bomb in his turban. But the question underlying all this is whose laws should apply to western newspapers in western countries. One of the origins of the whole row was a report, last autumn, that Danish illustrators were frightened to illustrate a book about the prophet in the wake of the Rushdie affair. The newspaper commissioned the drawings partly as a way of demonstrating against that fear, and some of the demonstrations are clearly intended to make Islam appear more frightening.

But politics, good manners, and principle all suggest that if we must offend people, we do so as politely as possible. This is difficult for newspapers at the best of times, and almost impossible in a world of globalised religions and communications where every insult provokes a response which is itself insulting.

Already one Dutch website has held a competition for the most offensive Photoshopped picture of Muhammad, and some of these are very offensive indeed. In London we have seen the disgusting demonstration with placards calling for fresh suicide bombers. And that has in turn ensured, I think, that the leaders of the fascist British National Party can never be successfully prosecuted. Last week they walked free when a jury could not agree to convict them of inciting hatred against Muslims. After the demonstrations in London, it will be difficult to find a jury whose members all find their views unreasonable.

That's not the only bad news for liberalism. All the large, general principles involved in this row are going to end up as battered as Major Napier at Corunna. The questions must instead be decided by politics, which is to say by the intelligent self-interested use of largely unarmed pressure. In the end some compromise will be struck between the right of newspapers to offend and the right of Muslims not to be offended, but it won't be logical. It just may be better than that. It may be something that all Europeans of any religion can live with. We can hope.

Dutch MP receives Danish-cartoon death threats

The Dutch MP Geert Wilders has received forty death threats after publishing the Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad on his website. Mr Wilders says he is shocked at the number of threats. He also said that members of a radical Muslim organisation had distributed pamphlets threatening him.

The Dutch-based Centre for Information and Documentation on Israel has filed a complaint against the Arab-European League alleging anti-Semitism. The complaint follows the publication on the AEL website of cartoons in response to the Danish cartoons. One of the website cartoons, depicting Anne Frank in bed with Adolf Hitler, has since been removed.

I know. Tempers are flaring, feelings are hurt, emotions are rampant right now. Hopefully, this will wan and we can all learn from this.

The original cartoons were not deliberately offensive.

They raised legitimate questions about the nature of Islam as perceived by the West.

intelligent Muslims should think about why their religion is seen in that way, and welcome the opportunity to correct wrong ideas and impressions.

I wish that right now the Muslims would stop and think about what you just said. Your last statement is very wise. Perhaps if they stopped and thought about why it is exactly others view them this way, they could understand. I hope they do.

Do you want the world to believe that if one does not convert to Islam that they will be beheaded? Is this what the Quran teaches?

Is this the way you want Islam to be seen?

It only reinforces the negative image of Islam that many have already.

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

The original cartoons were not deliberately offensive.

Do you think so?