Cartoon Solidarity
Europe’s press have shown support for the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, by republishing the controversial cartoons that caused a furore last year. Our commenters have already been discussing the issue but weeks after a Norwegian paper republished the cartoons, now France Soir, Germany’s Die Welt and Berliner Zeitung, Spain’s El Periodico and La Stampa from Eetalee have all published at least some of the drawings, which featured caricatures of Mohammed (why does everyone spell his name differently?)
Die Welt issued a statement saying that it was a right to blaspheme in the West and asked whether Islam was capable of handling satire. I agree that a right to blaspheme is as important as a right to religion. However, the paper, which has a formidable reputation, chose the cartoon of Mohammed wearing a bomb on his head as their front page lead. Slightly stupid, methinks.
France Soir opted for a less controversial approach and claimed “We have a right to caricature God” and ran a cartoon of Buddha, Yahweh, Mohammed and the Christian God floating on a cloud, with God saying to Mohammed “Don’t be mad, we have all been caricatured.”
Freedom of speech (religious hatred bill anyone?) aside, Denmark has faced a more serious backlash. Diplomatic sanctions have been imposed by Arab states and threats from across the Muslim world. Jyllands-Posten’s offices had to be evacuated on Tuesday due to a bomb threat. The EU office in Gaza has been raided by gunmen.
Jyllands-Posten have apologised, but maintain their right to a free press.
The message here is clear - if you want your work to get shown all over the Western world and you’re a (let’s be honest) pretty shit cartoonist, rip the piss out of a religious figure.
There’s lots about this online, over 1000 articles on Google News. It’s making headlines around the world, not just in Europe.
UPDATE: France Soir’s editor has stepped down and now the Dutch media has shown their support. Judge for yourself.
UPDATE 2 (by Sunny)
David T from HP pointed something else out a few days ago, highlighted on Brussels Journal:
The Danish tabloid Extra Bladet got hold of a 43-page report that Danish Muslim leaders and imams, on a tour of the Islamic world are handing out to their contacts to “explain” how offensive the cartoons are. The report contains 15 pictures instead of 12. The first of the three additional pictures shows Muhammad as a pedophile demon, the second shows the prophet with a pigsnout and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog. Apparently, the 12 original pictures were not deemed bad enough to convince other Muslims that Muslims in Denmark are the victims of a campaign of religious hatred.
Not just that, when the Danish Muslim contingent went on their tour, they also made up quite a lot to “convince” their brothers that Muslims were being persecuted all over the place.
Even the MCB reckon they’re going to send a contingent to Denmark. Probably because Inayat Bunglawala wants a holiday because the trip is going to make no difference at all.
Personally, while I would defend the right to offend and freedom of speech, I don’t have the inclination to defend someone who intentionall went out to offend others. My comments below.
Nasty racism on some message boards talking about this.
Yeah, but I bet none of them have what I’m working on. Muahaha.
What’s that then?
Rohin,
Buddy you should suggest this topic to Sepia Mutiny too, assuming that they’re not working on it already.
Even though I support the right of the newspapers to publish the pictures and I feel that Muslims protesting have walked into a trap, the racist undercurrent and glee on some message boards leaves a very very nasty taste in my mouth and makes me believe that the motive behind some peoples excitement is less than noble.
I was sent an email about this. The subject bar said:
BOYCOTT DENMARK.
Now, how do you do that???
Easy, stop eating bacon.
Oh wait…
Don’t listen to the Bombay Rockers
As so often, The Religious Policeman tells it as it is from a Saudi perspective. The piece is entitled A Memo. I particularly liked the part about The Netherlands in the World Cup. Enjoy.
So what is the ooh so sensitive ummah going to do now? Boycott all European goods? They need to grow up.
Nasty racism on some message boards talking about this.
Agreed. Mostly about attacking Danes. Tried several boards, like ummah.com
Lots of boards hating on Muslims and Asians in general too jOnz.
Really? I better I can provide exponetially more links on Muslims hating the kuffar for this insult to the prophet. Up for a challenge?
Vast majority of people (non-Muslims that is) quite clearly state that they have a right to mock religion. Is that ‘hate’?
Jay, look up and now you see what I was working on. It’s rubbish, but I thought it was appropriate!
Jay, I sincerely think you’re being paranoid when you say there’s a nasty racist undercurrent to this. I have seen no evidence whatsoever. I think you are reading far too much into this, seeing what is not there… Apart from the usual hates sites (nazi sites etc) can you give me an example please?
Come on. There is no excuse for racism or generalised hatred of or by any race or religion. Let’s not play ‘they hate us more than we hate them’.
Nice pic Rohin.. Though the more I study it, the more confused I feel!
jonz, there is a lot of Paki Bashing mixed in with Islambashing. That does not mean that all Islambashing is wrong given the context, just as it does not mean that Israelbashing is always wrong because some Jewbashers do it for sport.
However, you remind me of a feckless puppy always yapping with your tongue lolling out, barking ‘challenges’ to people who say something that irks you. Back down little puppy - I can see your erection. I know and can smell Paki Bashing when I see it amidst Islambashing, and I don’t have to account to a monomaniac like you to make that observation, comprendez?
Rohin
I am impressed - that you did it so fast and gonzo - you can see the type printed on the other side of the paper that you scanned. That is art on the move.
Jay calm down mate, no need to get personal. Anyway I think it’s not far off your bed time. I’m sure you’ve got homework to be getting on with!
jonz
Don’t be a sap.
Wow, you’re sharp Jay, I didn’t think anyone would realise those lines are text from the other side. I felt bad I didn’t adjust the levels to get rid of them, but now I’ve been labelled gonzo (I worship Hunter S Thompson) I am very pleased I left them in! Hooray!
I obviously left out Mohammed because I value my life.
Cheers fellas.
Sorry, Jay *the victim* Singh.
What am I the victim of jonz? I ain’t no victim, never have been, never will be.
Like I said, don’t be a sap.
What am I the victim of jonz?
Try re-reading your posts. Reactions like yours are the problem. Trying to stifle freedom of speech through screams of ‘racist’ or ‘pakibasher’ or ‘islamophobe’. I haven’t noticed you acting like an arse like this before, so I’ll put it down to you having had a bad day…
How old are you jOnz? Seriously? I am 30 years old. How old are you?
In dog years or human years?
Hey Rohin! I love the way your cartoon disappears into infinity.
Anyway I’m tired of this. Jay, I apologise for belitteing your comments about their being undercurrents of racism. I’m sure you wouldn’t have said it without good reason.
** Rohin feel free to delete these stupid and off-topic comments. Doesn’t do your art work justice! **
Don’t sweat it jonz. You’re not a bad guy, but you come across as a little obsessed and trigger happy sometimes. Man, hold back once in a while.
It’s cool j0nz, I try to only delete things that contravene decency and you guys have thankfully made up. j0nz I do think that sometimes you can deliberately take one side - Jay is one of the most balanced commenters here and I always enjoy reading his thoughts. As I do yours - but I really don’t think that your criticism of Jay was justified here - he didn’t excuse the idiot Muslims who are threatening the paper or anyone Danish, he just said that he’s noticed some unpleasantness in the blogosphere/fora. Jay’s not someone who cries racism at every turn at all, those people annoy me as much as they do you, trust me.
Having said all that, Jay your puppy dog comment was a bit harsh!
Derka derka, mohammed jihad.
The cartoons were offensive and peaceful action directed against the paper’s who print images is fine [protests, petitions, counter articles]
Boycotting innocent businesses however is not right and ironically goes against the spirit of Islam in my opinion. Just because of association of nationality they are being unfairly targeted and the result has been catastrophic for some and others have got off with just laying off staff, causing heartache and grief among people is not spiritually good and will only bring about more bad press for Muslims.
i commented on this in the previous post…(beat ya to it rohin!!) i cant be arsed to write it again.. so apologies.. but im basicly guna copy and paste…
Look how media in other European countries followed suit of the Danish, like some sort of act of defiance…but really, what are they doing? I see it as arrogance, a stamping of fists of ‘our superior value of ‘freedom’….. our ‘freedom to insult’ so we will insult. The German magazine in a response to an irrational response of a few, decided to go one step further ‘lets try and be as insulting as possible to all Muslims!’
The Muslims shouldn’t be going nuts about it like they are, it is disliked to have images of god and the prophets (pbuh)..so let the newspapers face their own judgment to God, surely they are displaying their own vulgarity, insensitivity, and are just jumping at the excuse to continue their deadman-VanGogh sentiments….. but let them show how crude they want to be, why demand they hide their inner sentiments. With regard to the cartoon images published by the french and germans, why were they itching to further insult Muslims? It was just purely for kick in the face purposes in the name of ‘freedom’.These sentiments are everywhere, In their countries it is their right to insult us Muslims, so let them, surely there is only one way to show the manners and respect Islam teaches us./ They are given the opportunity to behave like cockroaches, and they took it. Big deal. They are just showing the true colours of their hearts./
I think the Danish were quite decent about it all, the apologised and stated they never had the intention of hurting peoples feelings and the website of the newspaper concerned left a statement on the front page, what more can you ask for?
The German paper that printed a picture of the prophet muhammed (pbuh) with a bomb (the first things i associate with the word bomb is Little Boy & Fat Man)should explain themselves, well the artist should especially, in what his picture is supposed to mean. Although I do not condone violence toward him, the fact he is going to be spending his days watching his back is quite amusing!
‘Although I do not condone violence toward him, the fact he is going to be spending his days watching his back is quite amusing!’
No, it isn’t.
“beat ya to it rohin”
I know, hence: “Our commenters have already been discussing the issue”
“the fact he is going to be spending his days watching his back is quite amusing!”
How fucking lame.
Danes are cool people. Very polite, very chilled and very sophisticated. They like to smoke a lot and get mashed, at least my mileau did when I lived there. The ladies are also very very nice to look at and the men aren’t bad either.
They are also very heavily involved with Aid and Humanitarian work in the developing World. I’ve got a lot of time for them. Who would have thought eating Lurpak would be a political act.
Sooooo.. which one is Big Mo?
“Sooooo.. which one is Big Mo?”
This one?
“commenters have already been discussing “……
yeh isaw it… was just saying i beat ya to it in jest man!
As for the artist watching his back…… c’mon hats off everyone lets give him a round of sympathy… FOR WHAT?
Freedom of Speech is one thing…. but Actions purely for motivated by the intent to offend labeled as freedom of speech (I’m talking about the cartoon in the German paper of the prophet muhammad pbuh with a bomb as a response to upset over other pictures) is abusing freedom of speech. Its like if someone comes upto your face and calls your mum and you hit him, surely the violence is wrong but dont give the bully a medal for freedom of speech.
Lets take Islam out of it cos prejudice is rife. A while back I read about Buddishts being offended by the Buddha Bar CD range using images of the Buddha… so in in response, to exercise its freedom of speech, if the record company (pissed off at the protests), prints some proper hard-core XXX Buddha-porn on its next cd cover…. are you going to give the firm a pat on its back for exercising its right to freedom of speech, or are you going to say…well hang about, freedom of speech is a much cherished priveledge we have (compared to other societies) and it ensures free-thinking, but what you have done isn’t about freedom of speech, thats purely about intentionally insulting someone just cos you want to.
I dont have a problem with the Danes, or even the Danish newspaper that printed the initial cartoon (cos it stated it didnt intend to offend), and i reckon in a few weeks, possibly months this will all be forgotten about, and the best reaction to this is to let it be. But i have no sympathy for the artist who drew the cartoon with the prophet pbuh and the bomb, in the german paper… and i doubt anything is going to happen to him, but I am pretty sure he is shitting himself right now… if anyone DOES have any sympathy for him cos he may be shitting his pants…. i’d be interested to read your views.
I didn’t say we should sympathise. But your glee in his plight is no better than the glee Muslim-haters get from offensive cartoons. Honestly, you’re the same - not very nice people.
He’s foolish, the cartoonist, but I wouldn’t wish “having to watch one’s back” on anyone. Especially as we know that fundamentalist Muslims in Europe can kill.
I understand you’re offended, but that line about it being amusing is indefensible.
Why do these muslims care???
Its a bunch of cartoons done by a bunch of dudes from Denmark.
It portray’s the Prophet in a bad light, i got that bit.
But does it really damage islam in any way? No.
Does it offend muslims all over the world (not all muslims)? Yes.
So is that it then. Were just not allowed to offend muslims.
Considering these cartoons were done by rogue random individuals, does that now mean rogue random muslim individuals cannot offend other religions or ways of life or historical characters?
Cos i know plenty that do; and if you check out the press in some of these muslim countries, they don’t seem to care who they offend.
The difference is the people they are offending don’t even know half the time or they don’t care.
Even if they did know, they wouldn’t care.
“Cos i know plenty that do; and if you check out the press in some of these muslim countries, they don’t seem to care who they offend.
The difference is the people they are offending don’t even know half the time or they don’t care.
Even if they did know, they wouldn’t care.”
As ever Colonel, you bring a concise wisdom to the comments. Well said.
I just feel as though they care too much about some silly cartoons.
Especially when Iraq jumped on the bandwagon; its like don’t you guys have other issues at hand.
Do you really give a toss about some cartoons?
Do you really think even our Prophet would of even given a toss about these cartoons?
Its just silly to me; its silly that these particular Danes decided to draw these cartoons in the first place and the reaction is even more sillier.
It shows how muslims would react to silly situations.
And it gives out the message that we shouldn’t by any means take the piss out of our beloved religion islam.
But that in turn will be the one thing people will focus on even more; Islam.
Hey look what they do if we cuss thier Prophet.
Lets do it more; lets try and get them to actually start a war over this.
I’d like to know what would of happened if the Danes or Europe in general just said so what.
You aint gonna buy our products, fuck off then.
Would they wage war over it; how far could it go?
I wonder.
My position on this is that of course there is the right to Freedom of Free Speech. We all know and love the sentiment behind it and that it is a cornerstone of the liberal democratic world we all benefit from and should defend to the death.
But why does its boundaries need to be tested on the weakest and most marginalised group of Danish society, whom we all know are going to be insulted and offended by the whole business. The people who will be most alienated are normal workaday Muslims. The very people who are the most valuable in the fight against fundamental Islamists.
Its all very crass, and there are no winners in this affair. Its not unlike outing a closet queer or posting blackmail pics to the net. Yes its freedom of speech, but why at the cost of someone’s sense of self?
To all to the belligerants who are chest thumping and claiming a victory of Free Speech on this shoddy affair, you’re nothing but mealy mouthed score-keepers.
Own goal.
Looking at the cartoons again I have to say that I find them crass not because of their depicting Muhammad which obviously as a Sikh is nothing to do with me, but because of the way that they depict Arabs as hook-nosed, ugly, shifty and sinister bastards. In fact, I find them offensive for that lameness. Such crass and vulgar stereotyping.
Pcikled Poopers,
I gotta admit, the one cartoon with the star as the eye and the crescent drawn below the beard is kinda artistic and if I had seen it any other place I would think it was done by a Muslim. I should have mentioned this before but I have some political Islamic cartoons that I would like to be drawn. I’ve got no talent in that area. My only claim to fame will, InshaAllah, be my sass and brain.
I could describe them to you guys if you are interested in knowing about what I do aside from insultig you disbelievers in Tawheed and everything good about this dunyah.
The one with no more virgins left i found kinda funny cos its a dig at terrorists.
In a satirical way they aren’t offensive but i don’t the cartoonists were going for that.
They were basically testing the boundaries of freedom of speech.
And they chose the people that are most likely to be offended.
But thats what i don’t like; the fact we are the ones most likely to be offended at such rubbish.
Lol, I was gonna write about this too, but as ever Rohin is on the samel level. And ace picture dude! Why is Lord Shiva looking a bit feminine though?
My view is this. I will defend the right of someone to have freedom of speech. But with FoS comes responsibility, because the state is protecting you. In this case, the aim was purely to offend others - nothing else. If it was a play like Behzti, which had a point to it (though some say it made it badly), then I will defend its right to exist.
But when the sole point of exercising your freedom of speech is to offend others, then I’m not going to respect it, though I may have to grudgingly defend that right.
The comments on a lot of messageboards, incl HP, has been like : “ha! look at these Islamofascists getting angry. It shows we are superior in every way“. Bloody SeanT even had the audacity to try the “we are enlightened” rubbish - when eastern civilisations practically invented religious debate and philosophical questioning (though they’ve all forgotten it now).
Either way, I find the whole attitude despicable and condescending, and trying to make out this issue is central to European civilisation, or the future of Islam, is pure bullshit.
This is the best blog peice I’ve read so far which damns the lamers on both sides of this ‘idiot controversy’.
So what, you may ask, is one to do? Well, Ill tell you what Im going to do. Ive already done my duty by the Muslims in criticizing the cartoons. As for the Danes, I think I might do my duty by them by listening to a bit of Metallica over lunch this afternoon (Metallicas drummer, Lars Ulrich, is Danish by birth). If I had the time, money and fewer worries about my cholesterol, I might even go out and buy a tin of Danish butter cookies in solidarity for our suffering European comrades-in-commodities. Or maybe not. Anyway, now that Ive gotten it out of my system, Im going to ignore this idiot controversy and try to get some real work done. I suggest you do the same, dear reader.
Don’t you think Lord Shiva always looks feminine? Look at those eyes! Almost all Indian deities have feminine features - Buddha often has an androgenous face (ok not a deity per se), Shiva, Krishna, Ram. Nataraja has a very feminine form about it, in fact when I was a little kid and didn’t know any better I asked my mum “who is that girl dancing in a ring?”
It’s an interesting feature of human nature that we depict those who are kind, spiritual, enlightened in a form that is neither female nor male. If Jesus didn’t have a beard - look at how renaissance painters made him look. Full red lips, heavy-lidded eyes, blushed cheeks.
Why do you think all the men in the Mahabharata TV show wore makeup?
(truth be told, I didn’t really know how to draw Shiva! Halfway through, I wished I’d opted for Hanuman or Ganesh.)
I feel that Muslims protesting have walked into a trap,
Eh? By putting together a dossier and touring the Middle East. They helped build the trap and then jumped in because they wanted this.
And you shouldn’t generalise about Muslims, I bet a lot are going “Oh fuck, the hotheads are at it again”. Particulary those who might have jobs at companies being boycotted by fellow Muslims or who have export businesses.
Ok,
For those of you who dont know the most correct opinion is that it is haram to reproduce a living image. Bird, girl, donkey, or anything else. There is a hadith about this. It is especially wrong and haram to depict images of Prophet Muhammed (sallalahi alaihi wa salam ) because at his death he cursed the Jews and Christians for taking thier pious men and worshipping them. Prophet Muhammed (sallahu alaihi wa salam) didnt want the Muslims to start worshipping his image after his death, like the Jews and Christians did with many of thier pious predecessors. Obviously there are some devants that do just that. I will not say any names because I will be deleted.
Eric - how exactly does what I say and you italicise attempt to form a defence of what has happened?
Please explain.
[...] Although the Danish newspaper apologised, many European newspapers have reprinted the slanderous cartoons. Some have called it solidarity, I call it collective slander. Apparently much of Europe does not realise the difference between ‘freedom of speech’ and unacceptable slander. At least Great Britain did not jump on the bandwagon like the rest of these losers did. [...]
Etric
Don’t bother answering that - I get a sense of what you are saying. I reckon people on both sides are playing the game - and with glee.
Eric - yeah I just made the same point above. In fact the Danish Muslims decided to slip in some extra choice cartoons too, just to get the blood pumping. How fucking convenient.
On both sides, all I see is bunch of people jeering each other on so they can compare who has the most power. It’s quite sad.
Yeah its sad. And if those on both sides are pushing cartoons to agrieve the other, then both are as bad as each other.
Obviously there are some devants that do just that. I will not say any names because I will be deleted.
Wow! And I didn’t even notice that our Bikkhi has learnt to control her tongue and follow the rules. There IS a god.
Well what pisses me off is the self righteousness of Muslims. There have been similar incidents with other religions. M.F Hussain paint Goddess Lakshmi in nude. Except “communalist thugs” other Hindus dont even protest. Remember last May when the the great Koran flushing controversy had Muslim mobs rioting all over; some frenchie company put Lord Ram on its shoes. Did Hindu mobs descend into murderous frenzy? No…
The danish paper was well within its rights to test the boundaries of free expression of speech in THEIR own country and the hysterical overreaction did not take off until recently despite the publication several months ago. It is a fucking stage-managed controversy and the bloody saudis who are hypocrites par excellence played a big part in this.
It is the overreaction by the middleeast muslims (but others will jump on the bandwagon a la the rushdie affair) that is causing the counter-reaction by the other European media. I do believe it important for the media to take a principled stand on this.
Sunny seems to decry this issue (of free speech)as not crucial or central to european civilisation when many europeans would claim otherwise. The double standards stagger me.Bikkhair above repeats what many muslims say about iconic representation, her very explanation is insulting and demeaning of other religious traditions yet that should pass unchallenged? Do even muslims follow their their own strictures; do they all abstain from photographs, movies? Even drawings of the prophet have been present in Turkish/persian art for many centuries, the current sensitivity is should not be taken at face value.
btw Shiva IS androgynous- the dude is shown often as half male,half female. Which is cool.
me personally, I would rather batter ideas, especially ridiculous, religious ideas than cartoons and statues. I am iconaclastic in that way.
I think that muslims who are offended are well within THEIR rights to protest and boycott whatever they wish. It is when the anger tips over to violence and threats of violence, or even the ‘amusement’ that some take in another human being in actual danger of life like the muslim poster above, that I find truly despicable- far more so than the cartoons.
Anyone remember the wonderful Bamiyan statues that were wantonly and needlessly destroyed in 2001? I wonder where the saudis were then with their boycotts and embassy shutdowns? That was a far greater and REAL offence in my books.
Re the Bamiyan destruction, the global buddhist community showed real grace and class under that provocation. It is my firm belief that muslims are equally capable of the same grace, dignity and stoicism. For there will undoubtedly be further tests.
“Prophet Muhammed (sallahu alaihi wa salam) didnt want the Muslims to start worshipping his image after his death, like the Jews and Christians did with many of thier pious predecessors.” - Bikhair
I’ve often felt that it was unfortunate that Christianity portrayed Christ as God rather than as an enlightened human. The ethos became one of separation instead of one of holding up the behaviour of Christ as an example of what Christians could aspire to themselves. I also note the deification of the Virgin Mary by Catholics and even the semi-worship of the Pope (as opposed to the secular worship of John Lennon or Wayne Rooney).
The images of which pious predecessors were worshipped by Jews, Bikhair? My understanding was that Judaism is very similar to Islam in this respect, even down to the banning of art and music until relatively recent times.
Vikrant
MF Hussain did have death threats made against him by murderous thugs, he was intimidated, and riots, beatings and book burnings take place fairly regularly in India by Hindu extremists.
Well, it’s actually the nastyness of the Islamist backlash that means we should publish the cartoons.
If death threats and gunmen were not involved then I would not be bothered about their publication in the UK. Since death threats are being made, they should be published as an act of solidarity with those threatened. After all, they can’t kill us all.
poor prince harry. maybe someone ought to tell him he shouldn’t have had to ‘apologize’ about his uniform trick last year, after all why shouldn’t he have access to this right too. i did think everyone went overboard and went on and on about the poor thing’s little joke.
Eric
You tend to use the offence of others to push a rather odious machismo posturing. Lets not forget that the publishing of the images caused the outrage in the first place.
I think its time to scale down this shitty affair now, rather than add more fat to the fire.
To be honest, I’m kind of disappointed that you haven’t reprinted the Mohammed cartoon.
To be honest, I’m kind of disappointed that you haven’t reprinted the Mohammed cartoon.
Me too!
Anyho you can get all you want and more ,here.
The link just posted has been updates some of which I do object to. The one with the Mohammed and a swastika on his head is a bad as the cartoons in the Arab world.
Does anyone else discern a discrepancy in the hypocrisy in the reactions between publishing antisemitic images of spiders’ webs, hooked noses, Sharon eating children and then the publishing of images of Mohammed as suicide bomber, hooked nosed Arab etc?
Siddarth,
But let’s face it, (and I’m bracing myself for impact) the picture of Mohammed with a bomb on his head is funny.
Why?
Well 9/11, Bali, 7th July to name just a few attacks by pschcopaths who believe Mohammed has inspired them to blow people up.
Ariel Sharon eating children? How is that funny? It’s not - why because its utter BS.
Ok now feel free to attack with screams of Islamohobe/blasphemor as you see fit..
Though having said that Siddarth, I do se your point. But people have a right to protest for against whatever they see fit. Muslims have a right to protest against the cartoons. It’s doen’t mean they are right, but they have the right! They’re certainly nasty elements on both sides.
For example as I said in #73 some of it goes too far (yes even for an Islamohobe like me)
hmmmm, look at J0nz bending over backwards to rationalise this hypocricy.
Here’s how I see it:
Publishing pics of spiders webs as the Zionism and Sharon eating pictures is abhorrent antisemitism.
Publishing pics of Mohammed as suicide bomber and hook nose Arab is Freedom of Speech.
LOL
I know I’m not going to win with you Siddarth. But I will say that the cartoons showing abhorrent antisemitism is just plain wrong (in light of Holocaust etc). However, repellant though I find them - they have a right to print and publicise such things.
Muslims have a right to disagree/have upset feelings/be angry at the cartoons, that’s their prerogative.
Only where we have a direct link to inciting murder against a group should they be banned/not be published.
Okay, here’s my take on this issue…..
1. I suspect there’s an element of deliberate provocation by some of the newspapers/countries concerned (what Asians term “panga lahena”) — it’s an act of thumbing their noses at the jihadists and radical Islamists (both foreign and domestic) who they feel are targetting the West. I also think that to some extent they are jumping on the bandwagon with regards to showing solidarity with Denmark etc — in the mode of “I’m Spartacus….No, I’m Spartacus” — meaning, if you want a fight, you’ll have to take us all on. You can take the murder of that Dutch film-maker, for example, as a driver behind this.
2. Depending on the particular people involved in each newspaper/country, their specific motivations will vary: Some will be driven by the ethos of freedom of speech, others will be motivated by the reasons I’m mentioned in point 1, and for others it’ll be a combination of the two. If indeed in some cases freedom of speech — indeed, freedom to offend — is one of the major drivers, and they really are trying to make some kind of genuine point both by publishing drawings which they are well aware many Muslims will find offensive and in the “message” behind the pictures, then I don’t think one can have double standards by attacking these depictions on the one hand yet (for example) simultaneously defending the “right” of certain people to create the play “Behzti” last year. Whatever arguments can be used to defend Behzti can also, to a great degree, be used to defend these pictures (and, of course, vice versa).
3. Having said that, though, I think it’s both immature and uncivilised to go out of one’s way to deliberately insult people regarding their religious beliefs and affiliations. If there are certain practices which are deemed grossly offensive by the adherents of certain faiths (eg. pictoral depictions of their prophets), then in any discussion/debate of that religion, one can make one’s point effectively without necessarily deliberately acting in violation of the faith’s tenets in that regard. You have to at least show a degree of sensitivity, both as an act of basic human decency and courtesy, and also as an act of consideration towards that religion’s innocent/neutral followers who may not necessarily have any antagonism or animosity towards you in the first place.
Sorry j0nz, don’t agree.
This is about Freedom of Speech. Everything else is academic.
Either publishing anything is Freedom of Speech. So pics of Sharon eating Palestinian children and Mohammed as a hook nosed suicide bomber are all fair game.
Or each group is legimitate in their right to declare offence.
Which one is it going to be?
And let’s face it - most would tend to agree with me on #75.
“You want the truth! The truth! You can’t handle the truth!”
Siddarth,
Well I woudl have to say legitimate in both cases.
(negating incitement to murder - i.e. go and kill the Jews/Muslims should not be allowed)
J0nz
So lets get this right. You’re saying mpacUK were in the right to publish anti-semitic pics of spiders webs etc on their website, as it was in their right to practice FoS?
No, IMO they weren’t right to do that.
But they have the right to do that. FoS. It’s legitmate. I don’t like it one bit (and I think grossly inaccurate) but there you go.
Do we actually agree on something Siddarth?!
Jonz
Given that we’re agreed on FoS, would you say that Jyllands-Posten were “right” to publish the images of Mohammed?
Or each group is legimitate in their right to declare offence.
No one can deny that to anybody. But I don’t think that is the point. Again I’m reminded of a seminal piece of Western art that was directed at another religion. Click here.
As I said, I’m disappointed.
When you consider the secular kickings Christianity gets…
Siddarth, Hmm.
Tricky one. They weren’t incorrect, put it that way. I mean anybody, Muslim or non-Muslim will instantly understand the motivation of painting mohammed with a bomb on his head. Is it right or wrong morally ? They’re are no clear cut answers. But as this picture denotes; if Muslims are worried about PR, cartoons are the least of their worries!
It should be pointed out again that the cartoons were published in Jyllands-Posten (the most circulated daily newspaper in Denmark) four months ago.
The recent controversy started when the Saudi government (which is in absolute control over the Saudi media) instigated the publishing of a number of articles on the subject in different newspapers - all on the same day in late January.
Most rational people would agree that for the Saudis to adopt this stance in the light of their own anti-Semitic cartoons is hypocritical at best. It has been postulated that it was done to deflect media attention from the recent Hajj disaster.
Anyway, for a fuller picture I recommend from the excellent href=”http://muttawa.blogspot.com/” title=Religious Policeman>
At least we should understand where this nonsense is coming from.
El Cid - Brilliant Life of Brian.
As some journalist pointed out a while ago, one looksforwards to the days when Bradford halls are packed out with Muslims going to see Monty Python’s the Life of Mohammed. There’s tons of material for it!
J0nz
I can see from you’re side-stepping that you have come face to face with the hypocricy that is at the heart of the matter here.
Publishing antisemtic pics is wrong and morally abhorrent, even if within the constraints of FoS.
Publishing pics insulting Muslims (and of course Sikhs, Hindus etc) is OK, especially as its within the constraints of FoS.
Siddarth, I know what you’re saying. And yes it, may seem to you that there’s double standards. But from my perspective there’s not.
1. There really isn’t a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. It’s fantasy. Even if you see Zionism as a conspiracy - it only aims to take over a contry the size of Wales. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a fake. It’s wrong because it’s factually incorrect. Not based upon reality!
2. There really is a Jihad against myself and other non-believers. There have been several fatwas declaring my blood halal. Many Islamists have stated their goal is that Islam is to dominate The World!… This is a fact! Based on reality!
J0nz
How many Danish Muslims have issued a fatwa?
And apparently the whole cartoon thing was the fault of the Zionists anyway, according to MPACUK!!
http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/6/1344/105/
I dunno Siddarth! Certainly a few have.
However I know most European Muslims believe in FoS just like you and me. I’m not niave… It’s mostly the hypocritical Saudi regime. I’m not tarring all Muslims with the same backwards brush. Honest!!
I dunno Siddarth! Certainly a few have.
Danish Muslims have issued a fatwa and are terrorists? Where? Links?
This episode also demonstates how this whole thing is playing on people’s paranoia. But the hypocricy in the relativist arguments used to validate FoS as the reason for publshing offensive material aimed at a social group is is simply amazing.
This episode also demonstates how this whole thing is playing on people’s paranoia
6% of British Muslims said in a poll that the London bombings were justified.
I don’t recall such a signifcant percentage of any other ’social group’ in this country thinking that mass slaughter in this country is ‘justified’.
Anyhoe, I think Theo Van Gogh had a fatwa stabbed to his corpse if I remember correctly. So there’s one.
jOnz
This is an interesting debate that is taking place between you and Sid.
Notwithstanding the excellent posts that SteveM makes in his post # 87, which I am entirely in agreement with, in order to pursue a thread that is interesting me, regarding the cartoon of Sharon eating Palestinian children in relation to the crassest of the Muhammad cartoons.
You are of course right in saying that the disgusting fantasies of Jewish world control are hateful lies. But given that cartoons are robust and satirical encapsulations of political stances, what is the border between a cartoon of Sharon eating Palestinian children and the previous set of anti-semitic cartoons we mention?
Because it can be argued that the Israeli state through its actions has been implicated in the deaths of Palestinian children. And even if you disagree with this, you would not deny, would you, that the cartoon represents metaphorically, this legitimate observation quite powerfully, does it not?
So Freedom of Speech would apply to that caricature as well - and those that point out how offensive these cartoons are should not really be lectured by being told to lighten up in the face of racist caricature, in the same way that Israelis offended by Sharon cartoons should be.
Jay
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Jay I think Ariel Shaoron eating Palestinian childrens eyeballs is just wilfull fantasy. Hateful lies like you say.
But hateful lies should not be illegal. Unless hateful lies directly urge people to commit murder.
But thats not the point thats being made.
Its within FoS to publish the cartoons of Sharon, since there is a sizeable gruops of people who’s semtiments are in line with that of the caricature.
Just as the sentiments behind the Mohammed cartoons are similarly one that regards Muslims as dangerous terrorists - but still, right to be published by the strictures of FoS.
Sooo….. assuming that we agree that the Sharon cartoon should also have been allowed and agree that relativist racial/religious arguments are unsound, why stop short of showing Mohammed in the above cartoon?
Ok (bracing myself for impact again) but the cartoons in the arab world about Isreal / Jews routinely mimick (if not copy) Nazi propoganda. Literally.
The Danish cartoons are hardly propganda, they are just illustrations of Mohammed. One has a bomb on his head.
Hardly baseless fantasy, considering man Islamists around the world think Mohammed has inspired them to blow people up.
An unfortunate consquence is that such an image is to a degree ambiguous, and that it upsets peaceful Muslims.
Jonz
in (101) you are dangerously wanting to have your cake and not only eat it, but not willing to share with anyone else.
It now applies, in the light of the Mohammed episode, that Muslims/Arabs can publsih anything in the name of FoS. As indeed they do.
Jay I think Ariel Shaoron eating Palestinian childrens eyeballs is just wilfull fantasy. Hateful lies like you say.
jonz
It seems to me that you have one thing in common with some literalists - an inability to understands the dynamics of metaphor.
The cartoon of Sharon eating Palestinian children is an encapsulation of a belief that Sharon is responsible, through his policies, for the deaths of Palestinian children. Given his record, I believe this is a legitimate expression of a political perspective - robustly and controversially expressed, for sure, but legitimate none the less.
In the same way that the existence of Jihadis legitimates the satirical placing of a bomb in the turban of Mohammad.
I find the Sharon cartoon troubling, to be honest jOnz, and as you may know, I have defended Israel at great length on this site. But I just want to tease out some strands in the arguments here - get people to think of what they are saying.
duuuh - legitimates should of course read LEGITIMISES
jonz,
sooner or later you’ll realise that, as I said in [44], that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons has been an own goal.
Well, there is a definite mood change in Europe, and the meaning of tolerance is being reevaluate by many people.
It isn’t a matter of ‘right or wrong’ or ‘fair and unfair’, (and if Allah is really upset(and exists ;), surely he can smite the sinners DIY style, without needing help here
but it is a matter of the level of openess and willingness to be with each other, which has dropped drastically due to this fiasco.
Right now, the general impression of muslims is that of ungrateful, uneducated imbeciles, and the forums on German top papers (and also leftwing papers) make very grim reading and they are exploding in unprecendeted ways, Der Spiegel has the largest forum discussion ever on this, the numbers of people who have a strong enough opinon or worry to voice is staggering.
No, there are no cheap hate tirades, but a disillusionment and tiredness is setting in. People are asking themselves, ‘Should we tolerate the intolerant?’, ‘What will they demand next and will they start to blackmail us regularily after that?’ and,: ‘Is Islam just another form of Fascism?’[1]
For all those questions, it doesn’t matter what the answer is, what matters is what is asked, and how it is asked and above all, that it is asked.
Now, the fuss over the cartoons will die down eventually, but, the atmosphere has hardenend, and people will be less willing to make compromises or help out.
And that is the _real_ probem.
It doesn’t matter how many fools each side has, what matters is how the majority of people treat each other. You cannot integrate a society where people are indifferent and uninterested in being together and to not even give each other a chance to be friends.
I’m not ready to even begin to form an opinion, but I thought I’d let you know what kind of serious intellectual dilemma this all has brought up for many people in Europe.
Cinnamon
[1] Now that takes a bit of explaining because you Brits will not really understand the nuances here… But Nazi culture was a lot more than just killing jews and praticing funny walks.
The Germans themselves were shoehorned into a strictly regulated society, where the males were the masters and a woman could get a ‘motherhood medal’ for having 10 kids.
Much was made of ‘absolute obedience’ to one’s superiors, it was forbidden to critisise the Fuehrer (or anyone else important), and the political correctness in bureacracy flowered rather strangely too. People were compelled to act, think and be ‘German’, well, I guess you can imagine the detail this went into, to give you an idea, beards also were a topic of the times, no Imam to advise on this, but, the barber would ensure that you didn’t look ‘jewish’ but had a ‘German’ style.
And so it went, everything was assessed for ‘Germanness’ and there was one right way to do things, period. It was like a collective madness that everyone had to conform to(or get killed, many people were terrified of the Gestapo knocking in the night…).
Contrast this to the religious police in arab countries who beat people for not conforming to the dress laws etc, the Sharia laws with all it’s beastly brutality and unfairness, the oppression in Islamic countries of anyone who dares to think freely and the treatment of woman in that culture in general, and the general feeling that individualism under Islam is not possible, because the Koran defines not only spirituatlity, but also dictates the daily life, and peer pressure to conform is extremly extreme.
Add to that the fact that apostasy in Islam is punished by death (or, in the west, social exclusion from their old community) and you can probably see why many people in Germany who have been told by their parents and grandparents how the Nazitime was, are drawing direct parallels.
Most Germans are aware that ‘Mein Kampf’ is a bestseller in Turkey[2], and the Iranians with their Holocaust conference for the arabic countries are causing deep resentment.
[2] Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4361733.stm
The “Ariel Sharon eating Palestinian baby” won cartoon of the year. The criticism from the Israeli side included a few statements from Natan Sharansky and the Embassy in London. I cannot recall any threats to the cartoonist or boycott of Britain by Israel.
http://www.somethingjewish.co.uk/articles/627__grotesque__cartoon_.htm
I agree with FoS should prevail: it is an eye-opener to the society in which the cartoons are produced. The Mohommed picture with turban bomb is offensive but the channel to register a complaint (in civilised society) is through diplomatic statements, letters etc.
I think many on the pro-Danish position in Britain should recongnise the difference between societies with regards to the far-right. The DPP polled 13.3% compared to 0.74% of the B.N.P vote here. The same newspaper also published the names of 5000 new immigrants in a DPP (anti-immigration) advert, a clearly inflammotory gesture.
When Tanvir says (WBW)
” Although I do not condone violence toward him, the fact he is going to be spending his days watching his back is quite amusing!”
He hints to one simple fact, that Newstatesman (Kosher conspiracy picture) and Independant are able to produce the most vile anti-semitic images in safety. As Siddartha pointed on another thread (HP), some religions are not to be fucked with.
Here is the cartoon that was published in the Independent in 2003 - not in any Arab or Muslim media, but in a mainstream British newspaper. It was drawn by Dave Brown and won the ‘Political Cartoon of the Year Award’ given by the Economist magazine.
http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/independent-sharon-toon.jpg
Also, certain President’s policies are not to be criticised. The baby-eating photo would have been more apt if the baby was Iraqi and Sharon was replaced with Clinton.
Cinnamon makes some good points there.
Its the image that islam portrays as well.
I can see in the future the reaction of the muslim world being used against us.
Its not about the cartoons; the cartoons are silly and not even well done.
Thier aim wasn’t to express thier feelings through the cartoons.
It was to see what happens if they did cross a so called border that islam has set up.
The Ariel sharon pictures are nothing compared to what jewish comedians or artists have said or wrote or made films about thier own culture or religion.
I think its safe to say jews know how to take the piss out of themselves without bloodshed.
Hindu’s always the piss taken out of thier gods; or the fact that they worship more than one god.
When East is East came out; and the correct term used there was “Cow worshipping bastards” by a muslim.
I know exactly what context it was used in but it was still used, to stick to reality.
The same if the sides are reversed would be a different story.
So my point is; muslims can take the piss out of other religions, ways of life, political stances, eating habits etc because those people have already cussed themselves silly.
And the cartoons are a form of protest by these Danes.
They see the Dutch filmaker get murdered just like a film.
Just like how hollywood would of portrayed a muslim to react in that circumstance.
So alot of people in europe are like why can’t i say something about islam?
Its just your religion; why do you need to kill me just cos i spoke about your religion.
Apparently two non-Danish employees or Arla Foods (a Danish company) were beaten in KSA. OTOH seeing that most blistering criticism of Denmark comes from KSA makes me wanna scream “People livin in f***ing glass houses shouldnt throw stones at other”. Dont you find it hypocritical that a country which has practically zero-tolerance for non-Islamic religions waves around its **** everytime the honour of Islam is challenged.
Anyways I helped author Uncyclopedia entry on Islam (and also one on Hindus). Surely that would have Bikki frothing with anger.
Interesting…
Agree, that tolerance is being re-evaluated in the UK aswell esp. after the aftermath of july.
The impact of cartoons in tabloids is much more powerful then the actual text itself.
Such cartoons are triggering ‘racism’ etc, instead of cartoonists getting awards for such unamusing,contraversial & politically incorrect works, they could be receiving the opposite.
Funnily, enough we had discussions abt such cartoons this morning and a majoirty of my colleages seem to find them amusing. Sad really.
Having read some very good comments and Col. Musatfa’s summation their, I have thought I an anology that you might have said about somebody at school - you know the one who always takes the piss, but when you take the piss back there’s hell to pay! (Maybe I just went to a downmarket Grammar school)
“They can dish out, but they can’t take it!”
I do find that cartoon offensive, Jay. Not because of the metaphor of Sharon eating a baby but because it relates to the traditional anti-Semitic ‘Jews eating children/eating matzos made from the blood of children’ caricatures. Many Jews have suffered and been murdered because of these stories.
Just the same, the fact that I find the cartoon offensive doesn’t mean that I think it should be banned, although I would question the attitudes of Dave Brown, The Independent and The Economist.
To be honest, I’m not clear on my views on whether such cartoons should be legal or not; whether a distinction should be made between offensive truth (allowed) and offensive lies (not allowed). What’s the truth is not always so clear.
It’s a pity that any racist cartoons or items should be published in The Independent or in the Danish media. It doesn’t help. However, the reaction to such publication is also at issue here and the making of threats and boycotts has led to the same cartoons being published in Fench, German, Spanish and Italian newspapers - as well as a thousand blogs. The Saudis can publicly flex their muscles whenever they want - even to distract the world from other failings. However, in the face of such flexing they shouldn’t expect the non-Muslim world to cower and retreat.
Col. Mus.- hunny to voice your views is one thing, but tooffend somewhen is completely different.
For e.g. we as ethnic minorities are somewhat cautious and worried about the BNP voicing their opinions and in someways we (south asians) don’t want to hear such harsh/fascist/racist comments per se.
Simiarly, the white majority dont want to hear and be branded as being ‘racist/intolerant etc’.
In the past 5 years, such issues have become highly blurred.
*someone
Steve M
I agree with you.
publish and be damned i say
Just a pitstop chaps - but everyone make sure you read Sunny’s update at the end of the post. That is truly scandalous.
Yes i read about that also. Its typical though of Imams and muslims to try and exaggerate the issue.
If you look at the other 3 cartoons, they look very scrappy and not done well at all.
Its almost as if some kid at a school drew them.
Theres no need for more agression towards this; but like ive already said before, some muslims are so offended by this that they included another 3 worse cartoons just so everyone agrees with them 100%.
Its stupid and pointless.
Kay, people are getting offended all the time; whether they be overweight, underweight, too fair, too dark, too gay, too camp, too tall, too short, too poor, too rich, too snobby, too by the book, too reckless; the list goes on.
But im talking about reactions.
Lets get ready to defend some BNP twat who might create and post images to a website caricaturing Africans as primitive, naked, corrupt cannibals?
Given that when they protest, the BNP will say, given the Mohammed cartoons, Freedom of Speech is perfectly alright in the UK.
The cartoon with Mohammed and a bomb for a turban was also making a point (whether it was cliched, funny, whatever, is irrelevant) and I will also defend it to the death in the name of FoS (Well, in theory).
It should be up top. You’re scared of wot exactly? Sure, vulgar references to Mohammed’s taste in young brides, I understand you taking those down/censoring them. But this cartoon? Fuck dat sheeet!
As for Sunny’s Update 2 above: That’s scandolous. If that’s true, then that should be made much more public.
The Sharon baby eating cartoon (thanks for the link, Jay) is a reference to Goya’s ‘Saturn …;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Goya_-_Saturno_devorando_a_su_hijo.jpg
which may or may not put a different perspective on it, as Goya was preoccupied with the horrors of war and occupation. Moving it away from anti-semitism into a more legitimate context.
Just read the update. Moves this thing into new territory, doesn’t it.
Thanks for that interesting link, Don.
publish and be damned i say
I agree.
Looking at the original cartoons again, apart from the bomb/turban one and one with horns, they just are not offensive. And even the two exceptions are very mild indeed. From the tone of some of the comments made here and elswhere you would have thought that they were the paedo/dog-raping kind which have now apparently been faked up.
So the outrage is at the act of portrayal, not at some vicious, hate-filled campaign. Possibly the one thing worse than censorship is a culture which has learned to self-sensor through fear. the original publication was legitimate and the right thing to do.
[...] Related links: Tom Gross highlights offensive Arab cartoons (via Clive Davis) Following reports that some of the cartoons doing the rounds of the Middle East were NOT printed in Jyllands-Posten, Sunny at Pickled Politics says Danish Muslims made up quite a lot “convince” their brothers that Muslims were being persecuted. Twelve cartoons were printed in Jyllands-Posten but 15 have been handed out in Muslim countries: The first of the three additional pictures shows Muhammad as a pedophile demon, the second shows the prophet with a pigsnout and the third depicts a praying Muslim being raped by a dog. [...]
http://www.talibanreunited.com/talibanpictures.html
These were posted on Barficulture; i thought i’d link them there as well.
There pretty funny, see what you think.
Apparently BBC is going to publish the pictures! On ITV teletext p306
Lebanese Magazine Publishes Controversial Cartoons
In the article with the subtitle reading, “World’s Muslims, be logical,” Jihad Momani asks, “Which one do you think damages Islam more? These cartoons or the scene of a suicide bomber who blows himself up outside a wedding ceremony in Amman, or the kidnappers that slaughters their victims before the cameras?”
Apparently BBC is going to publish the pictures!
Why, is the BBC concerned that it needs to ensure FoS still exists in Britain? Surely we can have this debate in the UK without these cartoons published here?
What will this do but offend little Mr Ahmed in Leeds 6, who never fucked with anyone in his life and continues to pay his BBC license fee diligently. And a few million others like him.
All I can do is to urge the Muslims in this country to follow Robert Sharpe’s advice from his blog post here
Protesting against the Mohammed cartoons is precisely what legitimises them. Those who are offended would serve their goals better by keeping quiet.
The single comment in there by someone called Clarice is also just as good.
uh oh, html tagging fuck up.
Get a preview button Sunny/PP editors!!
1) I thought the Ariel Sharon cartoon eating a baby was not only legitimate, but perfectly acceptable. He is a bigoted mass-murderer.
2) Just because I’m against the cartoons in themselves (rather than the idea of them being published) doesn’t mean I throw my hat in with the Middle East and the Saudi Regime.
The Saudis are the biggest hypocritical twats right next to the American administration.
That doesn’t detract from the point that the cartoons were initially designed to be deliberately offensive, and I don’t see the point of that.
3) The cartoon with Muhammed with a bomb on his head is downright bigotry, nothing else. Blaming an entire religion and its community because of the actions of a few.
Given Christians are historically reponsible for far more deaths, possibly with everyone else combined, would it be then right for Jesus to forever be depicted in the Muslim or Hindu world as being pinned to a grenade? The whole idea is fucking absurd.
J0nz I thought at least you were capable of some rational thought, if not all the time, at least some of the time. Your hypocrisy in this thread is clearly laid bare.
Thanks Sunny! You must be having a lurch even further to the left day…
Well me n Siddarth sorta came to the conclusion that you can say what ever you want now matter how disgusting or repellant it seems (as long as you don’t incite murder).
So, Sunny, are you for freedom of expression or against it?
Like El Cid said, be published and be damned! Hyprocisy? Like the hypocrisy of the left in bed with fundamentalist Islamists? Like the anti-war crowd who glorify terrorism in Iraq? You’re having a laugh.
thought the Ariel Sharon cartoon eating a baby was not only legitimate, but perfectly acceptable. He is a bigoted mass-murderer.
Some people would say the same about the prophet Mohammed, mate. You’re freaking me out. Are you parodying yourself Sunny?
According to many Islamic scholors, Mohammed masterminded over 60 slaughters (Jihad operations). Is this illegitimate to portay this in a cartoon? This bound to get deleted. Ho-hum.
Woah Sunny, I don’t know if j0nz’s “hypocrisy in this thread is clearly laid bare”. If anything, I think we’re all struggling to come up with a consensus here. As opposed to scumtarts on HP, where they’ve decided that Muslims are the enemy. Full stop. If anything J0nz has been receptive to ideas that I didn’t think he would accept, so fair play to him.
We all say things in the heat of the moment, me more than others I suspect. After #137 I wish I hadn’t of blabbed #136.
That was your HP/Frank Spencer persona talking.
In 2002 several muslim countries banned Newsweek magazine for reproducing a famous centuries old turkish art manuscript that depicted the Mohammed and the Archangel(it is a pic I have in my Islamic art books)..There was no intent at all to offend, the article accompanying the pic was very respectful of islam and the representation itself was from a strain in muslim traditions, yet great offence was taken, though there too was a build-up (Malaysian censors were unaware of offence initially).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1819070.stm
Sunny is too certain that the only motive in commissioning and publishing the cartoons was malice. I put it that even if there was no malicious intent, great offence would have been taken EVENTUALLY when it became convenient to certain muslim organisations’ agendas to rouse the ’street’. I also suspect that Sid is being too presumptuous in assuming Mr Ahmed, whether in Leeds 6 or KL 20003, was all that bothered about the cartoons until it was made clear to him by certain busybodies that he SHOULD be offended.
lol. oh betty!
To be fair to HP, not ALL the commenters are islamophobes or racists, just a very vocal minority. Indeed a good few are stalwart defenders of muslims.
mirax
I also suspect that Sid is being too presumptuous in assuming Mr Ahmed, whether in Leeds 6 or KL 20003, was all that bothered about the cartoons until it was made clear to him by certain busybodies that he SHOULD b