Why insulting prophet Muhammad?!

The provocation's excuse is freedom of speech in a civilized world.

0 Replies

No, that's not an excuse. That's what makes the provocation possible, even defensible, but it doesn't excuse it.

I have the right to say the word nigger, right? I can say it all day and every day and anywhere I want to, right? That's my right. And if some black person doesn't like it, that's their problem, right? However, if I say it, and several black people don't like it enough to beat my ass for it, am I completely innocent?

0 Replies

it's not provocation, it's my opinion, or the cartoonists on how he views the world or a situation

if muslims are unhappy say, hey, we don't appreciate people mocking our faith we really wish it wouldn't happen, doesn't mean it's gonna stop, doesn't mean they have to acknowledge it

i'm no supporter of george bush, but how is this depiction of mohammed any different than the characterization of the president as the great satan often presented in many islamic protests

i think that an islamic paper should print 12 cartoons about god and jesus and call it even and just move on

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

The provocation's excuse is freedom of speech in a civilized world.

Everyone's free to say what he wants, where we live.

I just dont see why one should go out of one's way to offend or bait others.

By deciding to run cartoons that they knew would meet fury and hurt (for whatever to-us-infathomable reasons), just to "test the limits of press freedom", thats exactly what the Jyllands Posten editors did, last autumn.

To pick a parallel thats slightly less hot than the one FD brought: everyone on this forum is free to post whatever he want as long as it doesnt breach the TOS. You cant call someone an idiot, but you can rail to your heart's content about why you think someone else's beliefs or convictions are idiotic.

But I, myself, dont see why one should go out of one's way to post in a thread where people you dont understand congregrate just to tell them how stupid you think their beliefs are.

Yanno? Its allowed, fersure, but its hardly nice, or even civil. Freedom of speech means you can do it; but it doesnt say you should do it.

I guess I just see it as a question of politeness.

Mind you, the republication of the cartoons by at least 13 newspapers around Europe this week, though, I think is a different matter.

By that time, the Jyllands Posten people had been threatened, cartoonists gone into hiding, the EU post in Gaza was being circled by masked armed men, Al-Qaeda threatened a bloody attack on Denmark; all those violent threats and attacks very much do constitute an attack on the freedom of press.

So I see the reprinting of the cartoons at that time by newspapers around Europe in a different light: as a deserved signal of solidarity.

I still dont think we should make it a habit, cause that would still be impolite - but this round I think was one of self-defence. And thats a much better excuse than the "well, freedom of speech means I could" one.

0 Replies

I agree with most of that, but not with the "it's not provocation" part. And no, it's not equivalent to cartoons of George Bush. But I certainly agree that the reaction should have been more reasonable, and it probably was for a majority of muslims.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

But I, myself, dont see why one should go out of one's way to post in a thread where people you dont understand congregrate just to tell them how stupid you think their beliefs are.

Yanno? Its allowed, fersure, but its hardly nice, or even civil. Freedom of speech means you can do it; but it doesnt say you should do it.

That's a much better explanation than my example.

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

i'm no supporter of george bush, but how is this depiction of mohammed any different than the characterization of the president as the great satan often presented in many islamic protests

Mohammed is holy to them, and his depiction is (rightly or not) considered blasphemy.
The president is not holy to us/you, and his depiction, even satirically, is not considered blasphemy.
Except by some of the conservatives on this forum. (<-joke)

0 Replies

Hey, by the way, did anyone who went through the list of relevant news article summaries that I posted earlier notice the first one? I thought that one was fascinating. Apparently, in the Middle East too there are Muslims who see this in a more reasonable light (ie, the editors, if not the owner, of Al-Shihan):

Quote:

Cartoons: Jordanian Daily Withdrawn
2006/02/02 · AKI
link

The publishers of the Jordanian weekly al-Shihan, which on Thursday published three of the controversial Danish cartoons satirising the Prophet Mohammed, have withdrawn all copies of the newspaper. The owner says it will "severely" punish those responsible.

Shihan published the cartoons in an article headlined 'Intifada against the Danish insult', which invited Muslims to be "reasonable". The editor asked readers: "What brings more prejudice against Islam, a foreigner's depiction of the Prophet, or a suicide-bomber who blows himself up at a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

The furore over the cartoons shows no signs of abating, as Tunisian and Moroccan authorities banned the French France Soir daily, and Al-Qaeda announced "a bloody attack" against Denmark in retaliation.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

djjd62 wrote:
i'm no supporter of george bush, but how is this depiction of mohammed any different than the characterization of the president as the great satan often presented in many islamic protests

Mohammed is holy to them, and his depiction is (rightly or not) considered blasphemy.
The president is not holy to us/you, and his depiction, even satirically, is not considered blasphemy.
Except by some of the conservatives on this forum. (<-joke)

i realise they are not in the same league, but as you stated mohammed is holy to them

not me, worry about your own affairs, not mine, let mohammed deal with me if i offend him

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

No, that's not an excuse. That's what makes the provocation possible, even defensible, but it doesn't excuse it.

I have the right to say the word nigger, right? I can say it all day and every day and anywhere I want to, right? That's my right. And if some black person doesn't like it, that's their problem, right? However, if I say it, and several black people don't like it enough to beat my ass for it, am I completely innocent?

You damn sure are!! This is my point exactly.

You are guilty of bad manners. They have broken the law. It is very serious to me that you give them a pass, because of a word you said.

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

nimh wrote:
djjd62 wrote:
i'm no supporter of george bush, but how is this depiction of mohammed any different than the characterization of the president as the great satan often presented in many islamic protests

Mohammed is holy to them, and his depiction is (rightly or not) considered blasphemy.
The president is not holy to us/you, and his depiction, even satirically, is not considered blasphemy.
Except by some of the conservatives on this forum. (<-joke)

i realise they are not in the same league, but as you stated mohammed is holy to them

not me, worry about your own affairs, not mine, let mohammed deal with me if i offend him

Incredibly valid point.

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

You damn sure are!! This is my point exactly.

You are guilty of bad manners. They have broken the law. It is very serious to me that you give them a pass, because of a word you said.

You keep thinking I'm giving them a pass, which is to willfully ignore how I've repeatedly said that the reaction is out of proportion and just plain stupid.

But in the example I gave, I brought it on myself by deliberately provoking, saying something that serves no other purpose except to provoke. So while legally I'm innocent, I'm still stupid, inconsiderate, and impolite. What if I did it in the middle of a high school basketball game between an all white school and an all black school? In the sixties? And then ran away while the brawl ensued? Still innocent?

The fact is, though I have the right be stupid, it doesn't mean I have to be.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Mind you, the republication of the cartoons by at least 13 newspapers around Europe this week, though, I think is a different matter.

By that time, the Jyllands Posten people had been threatened, cartoonists gone into hiding, the EU post in Gaza was being circled by masked armed men, Al-Qaeda threatened a bloody attack on Denmark; all those violent threats and attacks very much do constitute an attack on the freedom of press.

So I see the reprinting of the cartoons at that time by newspapers around Europe in a different light: as a deserved signal of solidarity.

I agree and would add that they had to preprint them. How do you tell this story without showing what all the fuss is about? It would be so much easier to talk about this subject if we could just see all of cartoons.

And I did see that article about the Jordan paper. I'm not really surprised but I'm glad it's in the news.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Lash wrote:
You damn sure are!! This is my point exactly.

You are guilty of bad manners. They have broken the law. It is very serious to me that you give them a pass, because of a word you said.

You keep thinking I'm giving them a pass, which is to willfully ignore how I've repeatedly said that the reaction is out of proportion and just plain stupid.

But in the example I gave, I brought it on myself by deliberately provoking, saying something that serves no other purpose except to provoke. So while legally I'm innocent, I'm still stupid, inconsiderate, and impolite. What if I did it in the middle of a high school basketball game between an all white school and an all black school? In the sixties? And then ran away while the brawl ensued? Still innocent?

The fact is, though I have the right be stupid, it doesn't mean I have to be.

No need to get personal. I'm not ignoring anything.

You are innocent of provoking murder riots and violence. You were guilty of rudeness. Possibly a few other things. To have an expectation of violence from it is the problem. We are saying we had better watch what we say because there is an element of humanity who can't be relied on to react in a civilized manner.

I say as long as that is our expectation, that will be our reality.

I'm not arguing with you. Just trying to be understood.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

The fact is, though I have the right be stupid, it doesn't mean I have to be.

Exactly. Just cause its legal to do something, doesnt mean you should, or that its not stupid.

I think what Jyllands Posten did was stupid, even though it was completely legal, and even though I think one should fight for its right to be stupid like that, when fanatics try to shut it down.

(Whats that famous quote again: "I despise every word you say, but I'll die for your right to say it", or something? Well, here I'm saying both: I disagree with what they did, but would stand against fanatics for their right to do it.)

0 Replies

I can dig that.

<made me laugh>

Viva la estupidos sometimes>

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
You keep thinking I'm giving them a pass, which is to willfully ignore how I've repeatedly said that the reaction is out of proportion and just plain stupid. [..]

No need to get personal. I'm not ignoring anything.

You realised that she called the reaction [to the cartoons] "just plain stupid", right - not you?

0 Replies

Yeah. I wasn't "willfully ignoring" anything.

That made me sad.

Sad

0 Replies

Lash wrote:

No need to get personal. I'm not ignoring anything.

I didn't think that was personal, except for the word "you".

Quote:

You are innocent of provoking murder riots and violence. You were guilty of rudeness. Possibly a few other things.

And that's all I'm saying about the authors of the cartoon.

Quote:

To have an expectation of violence from it is the problem.

I'm not sure that there was an expectation of violence. Some reaction, yes. Protests even. I myself didn't really expect people to set embassies on fire.

Quote:

We are saying we had better watch what we say because there is an element of humanity who can't be relied on to react in a civilized manner.

That's not what I'm saying. Maybe the US government in its caving is saying that. I'm saying that people should use good judgment and not add fuel to the fire when it can be avoided.

Quote:

I'm not arguing with you. Just trying to be understood.

I didn't think we were arguing, just maybe not completely understanding one another. To be as clear as I can be, the cartoonists have the right to draw offensive cartoons, papers have the right to publish them. I have the right to call them offensive and be offended. I even have the right to boycott products and protest. I don't have the right to burn embassies. In addition to all of that, I think that the cartoons in question were deliberately offensive and provocative. That's pretty much the extent of my thoughts on the subject.

0 Replies

Here, this is interesting: a Dutch poll on this controversy. Interesting part is how the opinions break down by party preference.

Code:

Can you understand the uproar that erupted over this?





                          Yes   No



All                       30%  64%





List Fortuyn              16%  66%



VVD (Rightwing liberal)   17%  80%



Christian-Democrat        42%  53%



Democrat (left-liberal)   16%  82%



Labour                    28%  64%



Green Left                32%  60%



Socialist                 31%  65%





Do you think that Denmark should apologise for the fact that muslims were insulted by the publication of the cartoons? 



                          Yes   No



All                       15%  82%





List Fortuyn              10%  72%



VVD (Rightwing liberal)    9%  91%



Christian-Democrat        23%  77%



Democrat (left-liberal)    6%  94%



Labour                    10%  85%



Green Left                10%  77%



Socialist                 22%  73%





Do you think that limits should be set to the exercise of press freedom, so respect for religious convictions is not imperiled?



                          Yes   No



All                       32%  64%





List Fortuyn              31%  67%



VVD (Rightwing liberal)   26%  74%



Christian-Democrat        56%  39%



Democrat (left-liberal)   13%  84%



Labour                    17%  79%



Green Left                18%  78%



Socialist                 26%  67%

0 Replies

Why insulting prophet Muhammad?!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know