Let's eliminate the misconceptions about Jyllands-Posten

[ironduck]

I've seen the cartoons, and while many are pretty mild, several and one in particular are wildly offensive and obviously intended to spread hateful misconceptions about Islam. You even seem to agree with this when you say that most of them aren't hateful.

Actually my point is that most of the drawings cannot possibly be seen as hateful. The ones that can are clearly in the minority (and I don't think they are particularly harsh compared to many other illustrations I see in newspaper satire).

The contents of Arab newspapers have absolutely nothing to do with this. Nobody here is defending the violent reactions or the hypocrisy of fundamentalists.

They do have something to do with it because Arab muslims are very angry that someone satires their faith, but they are apparently not angry when another faith (judaism) is satired in their own countries. If they can accept one they should accept the other.

 

[ironduck]

You know, before I opened this thread earlier today, I thought the newspaper in question was largely innocent, that it didn't have bad intentions when it started this mess. However, largely thanks to the appalling defenses of their actions from other posters in this thread, I've been convinced that this newpaper is indeed to blame for igniting the idiocy we've seen. Well done everyone who'd rather talk about what Muslim countries publish and how these cartoons weren't really offensive.

Are you talking to me? Feel free to show how my 'defenses' are 'apalling'. Unlike you I'm actually giving objective information.

All you are doing is being inflammatory.

 

[Aramazd]

They do have something to do with it because Arab muslims are very angry that someone satires their faith, but they are apparently not angry when another faith (judaism) is satired in their own countries. If they can accept one they should accept the other.

Obviously you don't understand that just because the Arabs have anti-semitic cartoons doesn't mean that anti-Muslim cartoons are okay.

 

[ironduck]

Obviously you don't understand that just because the Arabs have anti-semitic cartoons doesn't mean that anti-Muslim cartoons are okay.

First off, are the offending cartoons anti-muslim, or are they satires of the fanatical islamists that dominate the picture today? The way I see the 'offensive' ones, they are very much directed at the fundamentalist muslims. If you've never seen satire in a newspaper you may be surprised by their harshness, but they are no different than other satire here of politicians, various religions, and other groups as well as various individuals.

Secondly, if the Arab muslims are unhappy with the - much stronger - anti-semitic satire in their newspapers, shouldn't they be protesting those? They don't seem to mind as long as it's not their own religious feelings getting hurt.

In comparison, we regularly have people complaining loudly if satire is taken too far, and in fact many non-muslims in this country said publicly the drawings were done in poor taste. In other words, they were debated in public which is the kind of response that is needed.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

In democratic societies freedom of speech is essential, even if many people will find it distasteful.

All of this, "don't say that, or they might come hurt us" stuff is crap. Private media has NO responsibility not to offend people.

Personally, I didn't find the cartoons that funny. Surely if they were going to open a Pandora's Box like this, they could have made a truly hilarious cartoon to do it.

 

[Capulet]

Do you have the same concern for "hate speech" when mullahs and imams are spouting out hatred about Jews, Hindus and Westerners?

Yeah, yeah I do. I know that one day its them, the next day its us. And that is definitely happening.

First off, are the offending cartoons anti-muslim, or are they satires of the fanatical islamists that dominate the picture today? The way I see the 'offensive' ones, they are very much directed at the fundamentalist muslims. If you've never seen satire in a newspaper you may be surprised by their harshness, but they are no different than other satire here of politicians, various religions, and other groups as well as various individuals.

Satires of fanatical Islamist? The pictures were of the Prophet Muhammad (SWT), not of fanatical Islamists. There have been hundreds of thousands of cartoons of fanatics, and there hasn't been one protest against it. They are protesting showing the Prophet as a terrorist.

Secondly, if the Arab muslims are unhappy with the - much stronger - anti-semitic satire in their newspapers, shouldn't they be protesting those? They don't seem to mind as long as it's not their own religious feelings getting hurt.

Islam and Judaism are two different religions with different rules. In Islam, it is a big rule that you don't draw the Prophet. There is no such rule in Judaism, so finding Jews protesting a cartoon would be very rare. I believe that the anti-Semtic cartoons are equally wrong, but drawing the Prophet in Islam is a no-no. So, going a step further and drawing the Prophet as a terrorist makes things a whole lot worse.

 

[Markus6]

Secondly, if the Arab muslims are unhappy with the - much stronger - anti-semitic satire in their newspapers, shouldn't they be protesting those? They don't seem to mind as long as it's not their own religious feelings getting hurt.

In comparison, we regularly have people complaining loudly if satire is taken too far, and in fact many non-muslims in this country said publicly the drawings were done in poor taste. In other words, they were debated in public which is the kind of response that is needed.

We are in a secular society where the belief that there is no absolute truth is common. The Arab muslims see their faith as the one true faith (which seems perfectly fair to me) so have a harder time seeing how offending the jewish religion is bad. It is to the credit of the Jewish people that there has been no reaction like this one. There is also the Muslim law that there should be no drawings of Muhammed which differentiates the situations (although this is the muslim world trying impose their laws on other people you only have to look at the homosexual marriages issues in the Christian world to see this is quite common). But the age old adage still stands, "Two wrongs don't make a right". Just because they offend jews doesn't mean we should offend their religion.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I've seen the cartoons, and while many are pretty mild, several and one in particular are wildly offensive and obviously intended to spread hateful misconceptions about Islam.

What is your point? Are you saying they should be restricted from printing it, or that they are just of poor taste?

Enough of, "that mean man hurt my feelings, Mommy."

 

[Aramazd]

First off, are the offending cartoons anti-muslim, or are they satires of the fanatical islamists that dominate the picture today? The way I see the 'offensive' ones, they are very much directed at the fundamentalist muslims. If you've never seen satire in a newspaper you may be surprised by their harshness, but they are no different than other satire here of politicians, various religions, and other groups as well as various individuals.

It is offensive to depict the prophet Muhammed in Islam, and it is certainly offensive to depict the person who founded the religion to be depicted as a terrorists. I have seen satire in newspaper and I do not find them harsh. Some are, but most aren't.

Secondly, if the Arab muslims are unhappy with the - much stronger - anti-semitic satire in their newspapers, shouldn't they be protesting those? They don't seem to mind as long as it's not their own religious feelings getting hurt.

Throughout the thread people aren't defending the Arabs protests, but are attacking the cartoon.

 

[ironduck]

We are in a secular society where the belief that there is no absolute truth is common. The Arab muslims see their faith as the one true faith (which seems perfectly fair to me) so have a harder time seeing how offending the jewish religion is bad.

Which, if true, really does not speak in favour of the Arab muslims.

There is also the Muslim law that there should be no drawings of Muhammed which differentiates the situations

Muhammad has been depicted many times in the Arab world through history, there are examples of that linked in this thread. It's really a matter of current doctrine just like christian and jewish doctrine changes.

But the age old adage still stands, "Two wrongs don't make a right". Just because they offend jews doesn't mean we should offend their religion.

I agree that escalating the conflict certainly does not help anyone. It should be kept in mind, however, that people should be free to poke fun of a religion. I enjoyed Monty Python and the Holy Grail and do not think it would be acceptable to ban it on the premise that it hurts someone's feelings.

 

[ironduck]

It is offensive to depict the prophet Muhammed in Islam, and it is certainly offensive to depict the person who founded the religion to be depicted as a terrorists. I have seen satire in newspaper and I do not find them harsh. Some are, but most aren't.

What is considered harsh and offensive is very subjective. What is published in newspapers varies tremendously. Have you taken a look at the 'political cartoons' thread in Humor and Jokes forum? A few of the posted cartoons have quite the hard edge even though most are fairly soft.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103719

You may well think some of the cartoons crossed the line - that's fine. But many people would probably disagree with you, and they should have the right to debate it with you.

I personally think it was clumsy because it was partly meant as a provocation by the newspaper, and that's just stupid. At the same time, I don't think any of the cartoons are too offensive to be published. The way I see the most offensive ones they're actually commenting on what's happening in the world today, they're not demonizing muslims.

If you wanted to demonize muslims you would do the kind of crude photo manipulation that the imams toured the middle east with - and that were never part of the Danish debate nor published in any newspaper!. The very same imams ask the newspaper to apologize for publishing their cartoons, while at the same time they went to extreme efforts to spread the much more offensive ones themselves! When asked in interviews, they see nothing wrong with it, 'because they were sent to them anonymously'.

 

[Aramazd]

What is considered harsh and offensive is very subjective. What is published in newspapers varies tremendously. Have you taken a look at the 'political cartoons' thread in Humor and Jokes forum? A few of the posted cartoons have quite the hard edge even though most are fairly soft.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=103719

I have seen some before from the thread. Could you tell me what page? I don't have a lot of time to dig through a huge thread for a few cartoons.

You may well think some of the cartoons crossed the line - that's fine. But many people would probably disagree with you, and they should have the right to debate it with you.

We're doing this now and I believe we should be doing this.

I personally think it was clumsy because it was partly meant as a provocation by the newspaper, and that's just stupid. At the same time, I don't think any of the cartoons are too offensive to be published. The way I see the most offensive ones they're actually commenting on what's happening in the world today, they're not demonizing muslims.

I think that they were offensive. My position is they should be allowed to publish the cartoons, but expect criticism if they publish something offensive.

If you wanted to demonize muslims you would do the kind of crude photo manipulation that the imams toured the middle east with - and that were never part of the Danish debate nor published in any newspaper!. The very same imams ask the newspaper to apologize for publishing their cartoons, while at the same time they went to extreme efforts to spread the much more offensive ones themselves! When asked in interviews, they see nothing wrong with it, 'because they were sent to them anonymously'.

I do not support what the imams or arab protestors are doing. I think what they are doing is worse then the publication of the cartoon. I interpret some of the cartoons as anti-muslim and I think anyone with any knowledge of Islam should know better than to publish them.

 

[luiz]

The real question is: if this outrage was caused because muslims are offended by 'hate speechs'(whatever that is), than where is the outrage caused by the coutless cartoons published on arab newspapers that depitc the Jews in a way that makes nazi literature look mild?

I'm yet to see a jewish mob torch some arab embassy because of that. If the Jews can take it, so can muslims.

 

[Shaihulud]

The Israelis have never burned any embassies, but they have used terrorist method to attack U.S and British interest in Egypt 1954.
Source: Lavon Affair

The Lavon affair ("Esek Habish" - the shameful affair) was one of the most bizarre chapters in Israeli history. In 1954, the Israeli secret service set up a spy ring in Egypt, with the purpose of blowing up US and British targets. The operation was code-named "Susanah." The terrorist hits were to be blamed on the regime of Egyptian President Gamal Abdul Nasser, with the purpose of alienating the US and Britain from Egypt and Nasser and somehow preventing Egyptian nationalization of the Suez canal. The ring was discovered. Strict censorship ensured that that the Israeli public officially knew little or nothing of the affair for many years. Names were not mentioned, the affair was called "Esek Bish" - the affair of shame, and key protagonists were referred to as "X" and "the third man." Unofficially and through leaks, most people knew at least the outlines of the affair.

Not including the several terrorist attacks against the British that help establish the independence of the Israel state. The Israelis are no softies, if they are really pissed off, they use more efficient methods. Now poor Syria and Lebanon lets Denmark gain diplomatic leverage after letting dumbos set the Embassies on fire. Dis the Fundies gain anything from those incident? Other than letting self righteous Westerners say "See we are right all along!"

 

[Gibsie]

Are you talking to me? Feel free to show how my 'defenses' are 'apalling'. Unlike you I'm actually giving objective information.

Not you in particular, though your main defense seemed to be, "they don't offend me, therefore they're not really offensive". However, you seem to have clarified your statement to be, "I personally think it was clumsy because it was partly meant as a provocation by the newspaper, and that's just stupid. At the same time, I don't think any of the cartoons are too offensive to be published."

Which is exactly what I was arguing in the first place! Now of course, these cartoons are childs play compared to those we see about people like Bush- difference being, Bush is not a holy figure (Although sometimes I wonder, the way many Republicans worship the guy)...

 

[El_Machinae]

But that's almost the point.

If I can draw Bush as a terrorist, I can draw Mohammed as a terrorist. Why? Because I have no innate respect for either of them. Running a country? Founding a religion? Pffft, who cares?

There's no one forcing me to care. And there shouldn't be.

 

[ironduck]

Some examples of cartoons in Arab newspapers side to side with the Danish ones:

http://myblog.de/politicallyincorrect (near the bottom of the page)

Note how the stereotypical jew is almost exactly like the one used in the 1930s and 1940s nazi propaganda. Note the use of extreme violence and equalizing jews with nazis.

These cartoons are so extreme that several of them would most likely be considered hate speech here. Edit - probably not in legal terms though, typically a threat has to be clear and specific to be considered illegal. Such as when Hizb-ut-Tahrir publishes a message to 'kill all jews where ever you may find them'.

As I said, in comparison, the Danish ones (the few that can be seen as offensive) are quite tame.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

What is your point? Are you saying they should be restricted from printing it, or that they are just of poor taste?

Enough of, "that mean man hurt my feelings, Mommy."

As I've said many times, I certainly don't support censorship of this or anything else. My main point is that the people who printed these cartoons are right-wing jerks undeserving of any of the respect that they seem to be getting in the name of defending freedom of speech.

 

[ironduck]

I'm hardly right wing in the social context, but when people tell me I'm not allowed to do something which is basically harmless I'm usually very tempted to do it just to spite them.

I have a hard time bowing down to authorities, and many of the people who are objecting in this particular case are doing so on behalf of a divine authority. They say they need to 'protect the prophet, the messenger of god'.

I'm sure god has enough authority to protect his prophet if he needs protection.