Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Cartoon Solidarity


    by Rohin
    1st February, 2006 at 6:53 pm    

    gods copy

    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.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Culture,Current affairs,Religion,The World






    189 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. Opinionated Voice

      [...] 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. [...]


    2. Englishman in New York

      [...] 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. [...]


    3. Thought Leadership

      Thoughts on an Islamic Prophet…

      I respect Muslims and any religion that acknowledges there is just but one God. I also have respect for free speech and not letting free speech be controlled by terror. I believe the Danish people should be proud to freely speak their minds, and I ho…




    1. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:03 pm  

      Nasty racism on some message boards talking about this.

    2. Rohin — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:04 pm  

      Yeah, but I bet none of them have what I’m working on. Muahaha.

    3. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:14 pm  

      What’s that then?

    4. Jai — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:19 pm  

      Rohin,

      Buddy you should suggest this topic to Sepia Mutiny too, assuming that they’re not working on it already.

    5. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:27 pm  

      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.

    6. NorahJones — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:39 pm  

      I was sent an email about this. The subject bar said:

      BOYCOTT DENMARK.

      Now, how do you do that???

    7. Rohin — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:41 pm  

      Easy, stop eating bacon.

      Oh wait…

    8. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:43 pm  

      Don’t listen to the Bombay Rockers

    9. Steve M — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:53 pm  

      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.

    10. j0nz — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:55 pm  

      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

    11. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 7:56 pm  

      Lots of boards hating on Muslims and Asians in general too jOnz.

    12. j0nz — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:00 pm  

      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’?

    13. Rohin — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:01 pm  

      Jay, look up and now you see what I was working on. It’s rubbish, but I thought it was appropriate!

    14. j0nz — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:04 pm  

      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?

    15. Steve M — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:04 pm  

      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’.

    16. j0nz — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:06 pm  

      Nice pic Rohin.. Though the more I study it, the more confused I feel!

    17. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:08 pm  

      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?

    18. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:09 pm  

      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.

    19. j0nz — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:10 pm  

      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!

    20. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:11 pm  

      jonz

      Don’t be a sap.

    21. Rohin — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:12 pm  

      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.

    22. j0nz — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:12 pm  

      Sorry, Jay *the victim* Singh.

    23. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:15 pm  

      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.

    24. j0nz — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:28 pm  

      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…

    25. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:34 pm  

      How old are you jOnz? Seriously? I am 30 years old. How old are you?

    26. j0nz — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:38 pm  

      In dog years or human years?

    27. David — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:43 pm  

      Hey Rohin! I love the way your cartoon disappears into infinity.

    28. j0nz — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:49 pm  

      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! **

    29. Jay Singh — on 1st February, 2006 at 8:55 pm  

      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.

    30. Rohin — on 1st February, 2006 at 9:18 pm  

      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!

    31. Bikhair — on 1st February, 2006 at 10:13 pm  

      Derka derka, mohammed jihad.

    32. Geezer — on 1st February, 2006 at 10:21 pm  

      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.

    33. Tanvir — on 1st February, 2006 at 10:32 pm  

      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!

    34. Don — on 1st February, 2006 at 10:56 pm  

      ‘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.

    35. Rohin — on 1st February, 2006 at 10:57 pm  

      “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.

    36. Siddhartha — on 1st February, 2006 at 11:23 pm  

      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.

    37. El Cid — on 1st February, 2006 at 11:26 pm  

      Sooooo.. which one is Big Mo?

    38. Rohin — on 1st February, 2006 at 11:36 pm  

      “Sooooo.. which one is Big Mo?”

      This one?

    39. Tanvir — on 1st February, 2006 at 11:50 pm  

      “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.

    40. Rohin — on 1st February, 2006 at 11:58 pm  

      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.

    41. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:05 am  

      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.

    42. Rohin — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:11 am  

      “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.

    43. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:16 am  

      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.

    44. Siddhartha — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:20 am  

      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.

    45. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:30 am  

      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.

    46. Bikhair — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:37 am  

      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.

    47. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:44 am  

      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.

    48. Sunny — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:05 am  

      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.

    49. Siddhartha — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:11 am  

      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, I’ll tell you what I’m going to do. I’ve 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 (Metallica’s 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 I’ve gotten it out of my system, I’m going to ignore this idiot controversy and try to get some real work done. I suggest you do the same, dear reader.

    50. Rohin — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:14 am  

      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.)

    51. Eric — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:22 am  

      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.

    52. Eric — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:24 am  

      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.

    53. Bikhair — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:24 am  

      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.

    54. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:27 am  

      Eric - how exactly does what I say and you italicise attempt to form a defence of what has happened?

      Please explain.

    55. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:31 am  

      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.

    56. Sunny — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:40 am  

      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.

    57. jamal — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:59 am  

      Yeah its sad. And if those on both sides are pushing cartoons to agrieve the other, then both are as bad as each other.

    58. Sunny — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:43 am  

      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.

    59. Vikrant — on 2nd February, 2006 at 5:03 am  

      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…

    60. mirax — on 2nd February, 2006 at 7:25 am  

      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.

    61. mirax — on 2nd February, 2006 at 7:29 am  

      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.

    62. mirax — on 2nd February, 2006 at 7:38 am  

      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.

    63. mirax — on 2nd February, 2006 at 7:42 am  

      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.

    64. mirax — on 2nd February, 2006 at 7:47 am  

      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.

    65. Steve M — on 2nd February, 2006 at 10:01 am  

      “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.

    66. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 10:22 am  

      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.

    67. Eric — on 2nd February, 2006 at 10:53 am  

      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.

    68. sonia — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:00 am  

      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.

    69. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:04 am  

      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.

    70. El Cid — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:04 am  

      To be honest, I’m kind of disappointed that you haven’t reprinted the Mohammed cartoon.

    71. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:10 am  

      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.

    72. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:15 am  

      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.

    73. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:18 am  

      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?

    74. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:28 am  

      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)

    75. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:36 am  

      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.

    76. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:42 am  

      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.

    77. Jai — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:44 am  

      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.

    78. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:44 am  

      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?

    79. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:45 am  

      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!”

    80. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:47 am  

      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)

    81. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:53 am  

      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?

    82. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:56 am  

      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?!

    83. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:00 pm  

      Jonz

      Given that we’re agreed on FoS, would you say that Jyllands-Posten were “right” to publish the images of Mohammed?

    84. El Cid — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:04 pm  

      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…

    85. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:09 pm  

      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!

    86. Steve M — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:10 pm  

      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.

    87. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:12 pm  

      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!

    88. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:14 pm  

      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.

    89. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:20 pm  

      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!

    90. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:23 pm  

      J0nz

      How many Danish Muslims have issued a fatwa?

    91. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:25 pm  

      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/

    92. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:28 pm  

      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!!

    93. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:32 pm  

      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.

    94. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:44 pm  

      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.

    95. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:44 pm  

      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.

    96. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:49 pm  

      Jay

      I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    97. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:51 pm  

      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.

    98. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:54 pm  

      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.

    99. El Cid — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:56 pm  

      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?

    100. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 12:57 pm  

      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.

    101. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:04 pm  

      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.

    102. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:05 pm  

      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.

    103. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:07 pm  

      duuuh - legitimates should of course read LEGITIMISES

    104. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:10 pm  

      jonz,

      sooner or later you’ll realise that, as I said in [44], that the Jyllands-Posten cartoons has been an own goal.

    105. Cinnamon — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:10 pm  

      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

    106. BevanKieran — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:13 pm  

      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.

    107. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:13 pm  

      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

    108. BevanKieran — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:34 pm  

      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.

    109. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:41 pm  

      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.

    110. Vikrant — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:47 pm  

      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.

    111. Kay — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:48 pm  

      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.

    112. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:48 pm  

      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!”

    113. Steve M — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:50 pm  

      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.

    114. Kay — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:54 pm  

      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.

    115. Kay — on 2nd February, 2006 at 1:56 pm  

      *someone

    116. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:05 pm  

      Steve M

      I agree with you.

    117. El Cid — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:08 pm  

      publish and be damned i say

    118. Rohin — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:09 pm  

      Just a pitstop chaps - but everyone make sure you read Sunny’s update at the end of the post. That is truly scandalous.

    119. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:16 pm  

      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.

    120. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:24 pm  

      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.

    121. El Cid — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:26 pm  

      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.

    122. Don — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:27 pm  

      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.

    123. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:34 pm  

      Thanks for that interesting link, Don.

    124. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:37 pm  

      publish and be damned i say

      I agree.

    125. Don — on 2nd February, 2006 at 2:43 pm  

      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.

    126. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 3:05 pm  

      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.

    127. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 3:23 pm  

      Apparently BBC is going to publish the pictures! On ITV teletext p306

    128. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 3:34 pm  

      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?”

    129. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 3:40 pm  

      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.

    130. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 3:42 pm  

      uh oh, html tagging fuck up.

    131. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 3:54 pm  

      Get a preview button Sunny/PP editors!!

    132. Sunny — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:06 pm  

      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.

    133. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:16 pm  

      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.

    134. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:22 pm  

      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.

    135. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:26 pm  

      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.

    136. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:32 pm  

      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.

    137. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:35 pm  

      That was your HP/Frank Spencer persona talking.

    138. mirax — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:39 pm  

      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.

    139. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:40 pm  

      lol. oh betty!

    140. mirax — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:44 pm  

      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.

    141. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:44 pm  

      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 be offended.

      Ah thats just cock, patronising at best. You’d best read this article from the Guardian which explains the background to any offence Mr Ahmed will have since graven images of the Prophet is quite a fundamental recieved tenet.

    142. Sunny — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:52 pm  

      Of course I’m happy with people being allowed to say what they want. I’ve never veered from that principle. But as I keep saying, there is responsibility to that.

      I will defend a play that wants to make an important point about society and its shortcomings. I will not, in this case, defend a bunch of silly drawings clearly designed only to offend (rather than make any clever point). Though, I will defend their right to be printed, I’m not going gung-ho like others in that this is a life-and-death situation about european freedom.

      Not only are European values of freedom stronger than this (though not if our govts have their way), but so is Islam. Its just people on either side being idiots.

      Our newspapers in the UK and Europe would do a much better job of defending democracy and freedom of speech if they questioned their govts more on their increasing number of laws that limit civil liberty.

    143. Sunny — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:58 pm  

      Mirax, even while I was at university, first coming into close contact with lots of Muslims, my mates told me that it was wrong to have picture of the Prophet because it may be considered idolatory.

      So this isn’t something new. I believe a huge majority of Muslims would be offended if something like this was published, regardless of whether the Saudis wined like bitches or not. That is central to the religion.

      Incidentally, the same debate also sometimes rages in Sikhism, though not with such intensity. Sikhism is also against idolatory in theory, and many people say its wrong for people to put up pictures of the Gurus in their houses and behave like its a picture of God.

      In fact my own brother organised a (peaceful) protest in southall when a local shopkeeper started selling idols of The Gurus. Certain things are just going to cause offence, there is no escaping that.

    144. mirax — on 2nd February, 2006 at 4:59 pm  

      yeah, like Mr Ahmed and Ms Zahra even were aware of offence having read the Satanic Verses, the Jyllands-Postens or even the Newsweek magazine before being insulted.

      These issues are manufactured to a great extent and you know it.

    145. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 5:02 pm  

      I would have to say, Mirax is more correct on this issue.

      I understand that the content of the cartoons were offensive to many and just weren’t needed.
      Even though i don’t fully believe that; as i am the first to criticise islam and the islamic world and indeed the way our history is taught to muslims.

      These Danes did something that i myself would love to do one day.
      That doesn’t mean i want to draw silly cartoons; but express my opinions on islam but with a funny aspect to it.
      So in a way, the islamic world is oppressing my freedom of speech.
      Im not allowed to say the things i really want to say in person with most muslims.
      I am when it comes to non - muslims though. Alright not all non muslims, just to make that clear.

      This is being taken too far; its just some silly drawings.

      To me being a muslim; thier reaction depresses me.
      I don’t care about the Danes or the French or what they think about us.

      Im free to talk about Christianity with christians, judaism with jews, hinduism with hindus; but i can’t converse properly with most muslims about islam even though i am one.
      That to me is the problem.

    146. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 5:10 pm  

      mirax

      Muslims were not aware of the offensive material in Satanic Verses. And yes that offence was largely manufactured.

      Muslims however do know that images of the Prophet is anathema. That outrage does not have to be manufactured.

    147. Cinnamon — on 2nd February, 2006 at 5:15 pm  

      Hey Sunny,

      You said:

      “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.”

      Sure, but it really is not that big a deal. One man’s bigotry is another man’s moderate opinion, the spectrum seems to be somewhat circular here ;)

      And lets take this apart a bit… :)

      you say: blaming an entire religion.

      Where does this cartoon do that? It only shows a beaded guy with a bomb in the turban. What you read into it is your personal problem!

      You (the observer) have to give it the meaning — and your interpretation is offensive to you.

      My interpretation of this cartoon is not offensive, but scary to me. That is because to me the cartoon has another meaning — that of Islam being an explosive idology, springing from Muhammed’s mind.

      My interpretation sounds exactly the thing you’re decrying above I think, so, I feel I ought to explain this in depth a bit why this is my logical conclusion:

      As an Atheist, Islam to me is a fiction that has been invented by Muhammed — whether he was delusional or simply using artistic freedom is beside the point, but, because I do not believe in any supernatural phenomena, the only explantion that I can come to is this. It is not a respect issue — in fact, asking me not to analyse the story on my own terms but to perpetute and support the myth by respecting it… is disrespectful to me… :) (!)

      So, therefore, making a cartoon with Muhammed and his (rather brutal) ideology is not bigotry at all in my eyes, but simply a very accurate depiction of the situation as I see it.

      As for respecting religion, atheists also deserves respect for their non-believe, and so, religious people have to live with the fact that atheists consider religion to be supersticious humbug that is brainwashing folks.

      Ps.: Ever wondered why the middle of ‘belief’ reads ‘lie’? ;)

    148. El Cid — on 2nd February, 2006 at 5:16 pm  

      Sunny, I’m sorry mate, but you’re being relativist here.
      A cartoon that satirically tries to illustrate the link between extremist interpretations of a religion and political violence is legitimate FoS. Who the fuck said anything about “forever be depicted”. Don’t twist things.
      When the Kenyan writer NgÅ©gÄ© wa Thiong’o used the religious metaphor of a Devil on the Cross to highlight the continuing power of those who would suck the Kenyan people dry even after independence, he wasn’t hounded as a blasphemer in the West.
      And back where my parents come from people habitually say “I shit on God” (or on the milk of the virgin Mary, or on the Holy Host for that matter). If the home of the Inquisition can handle that, so should others.
      It might be painful, but taboos have to be broken.
      As I said, publish and be damned. About fucking time too BBC (I’m sorry Mr Ahmed in Leeds 6, I really don’t mean you any harm. But we all have to put up with things we don’t like in a truly free society).

    149. Jay Singh — on 2nd February, 2006 at 5:18 pm  

      BNP dudes have been acquitted

    150. mirax — on 2nd February, 2006 at 5:23 pm  

      Sid, If muslims are so aware that images of Mohammed are so haram, I suggest that they also organise a boycott of Turkey, at least of the Turkish embassy in Washington DC for this offence:

      http://www.turkishembassy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=111

      They may also want to rip up some persian and turkish artistic treasures in museums right now.

    151. Sunny — on 2nd February, 2006 at 5:26 pm  

      El Cid - I’m not being relativist here, not to my knowledge anyway.

      I’m saying they have the right, but one must exercise that with responsibility. I’m not obliged to defend and stand up for every silly manufactured incident? I don’t see this as a political statement really. The newspaper could have printed one or two straightforward illustrations of the Prophet to make a statement that “we should be allowed to print this if we want to”.

      But printing a religious leader with a bomb on his head? You really think that isn’t going to annoy people? That is being naive.
      I’m not saying don’t do things that will annoy others
      I’m saying if you want to knowingly annoy others behind the cloak of FoS, then you better well have a good reason for it.

      Another example being Theo Van Gogh’s joke that when they burnt Jews in Auschwitz it smelt like caramel (or something). Its just silly.

    152. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 5:44 pm  

      Mirax

      In the link you sent of the Turkish embassy, notice the first picture. The image Mohammed, which is the central figure in the picture, is whited out. Other traditional images will show his figure but his face will be obscured by clouds (not a Pink Floyd reference) or by flames.

      Also if images of the Prophet were created, they would be done so for Ottoman kings and other royalty figures and they were careful that they wouldn’t pass into “common” hands.

      And you’ll notice that the images, when produced in Shia communities, are highly reverential, and not, of course, piss takes of bombs in turbans.

    153. mirax — on 2nd February, 2006 at 5:58 pm  

      Actually Sid the faces are not whited out as such; the usual tradition was to draw a white veil over the face OR to have a burst of flames where the head should be. I am well aware of this. But nevertheless, the so called ‘fundamental’ tenet against depiction of the prophet has historically been substantially compromised with, has it not?

      Did you pay any attention to the fact I brought up of how even the reverential and traditional depictions of Mohammed are now suddenly so very bad? Re the newsweek furore?

      Do you begin to grasp my point at all?

    154. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 6:07 pm  

      the so called ‘fundamental’ tenet against depiction of the prophet has historically been substantially compromised with, has it not?

      Where? Are you saying this is universally the case in the Islamic World. Perhaps in pockets, but even then, “compromised with”? Not sure what you mean.

      Did you pay any attention to the fact I brought up of how even the reverential and traditional depictions of Mohammed are now suddenly so very bad?

      I don’t understand your point? How can traditional depictions become bad “now suddenly”?

    155. sonia — on 2nd February, 2006 at 6:58 pm  

      sunny’s got some sensible stuff to say as usual. good for you sunny!

    156. Buitar — on 2nd February, 2006 at 8:21 pm  

      None of the argument I´ve heard so far from the muslim side, has convinced me in terms of limitation on the free press towards one of the major religions.
      We have to protect the minorites in our countries, but this issue has gone way beyond that, and is now something like 1.5 billion people from one religion, demanding that the rest of the world take a particular consideration to them. Why? When no other major religion can?

    157. Buitar — on 2nd February, 2006 at 8:31 pm  

      Another thing struck me as being weird. I consider myself to be multi-religious, I´ve taken a bit from nearly all religions, but none from the islamic?
      It got to be the most closed religion, and the one with the most “absoluts”, meaning teachings, which you cannot question or contradict.

    158. FOB — on 2nd February, 2006 at 8:35 pm  

      Religion is a colossal waste of time.

      There is no God people. NO GOD.

      Get a life.

    159. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 9:19 pm  

      Ok then they shouldn’t of done it; they shouldn’t of deliberately tried to piss off the muslim world.

      But what about the next book, or film or whatever comes out in the future that criticises certain aspects of islam, or points out the stupidity of people following something blindly, maybe even gets abit more personal.

      Does the same apply to that as well; i.e it shouldn’t be made in the first place as its intention is to offend.

      Im sorry, but sometimes that’s the only way to get your message across.
      Hit em where it hurts.
      These pictures didn’t really have much of an educational point to them and the intention was clear.
      So on that basis and given the situation (i.e the muslim world and the fact that they always get wound up) these cartoons shouldn’t of been published.

      Then the freedom of speech thing has to be changed, or made to adapt to particular regions or religions.

      So in this case; if you look at it case by case rather than trying to assess it according to freedom of speech; the overall view most probably would of been no, its not the right time to be publishing these silly cartoons.

      But in another case where lets say a film has been made; Life of Brian style but about islam and our prophet; you let it pass due to its content.
      Basically the film is out to offend but also holds many strong points.
      But heres the thing; the majority muslim view on that would be no it doesn’t have any strong points.
      Its bollox, and its demeaning, and it offends us.

      So what do you do in that position? And who is it upto to decide what has good points or not.

      If islam is offended by this and as weve seen has taken considerable measures to try and stop these cartoons from entering other peoples visions; (its like the fucking ring or something) then noone is allowed to express freely what they want to about islam.

      And as you know human behaviour is such that when your not allowed to do something; you want to do it more.

      These cartoons maybe crass; tasteless; shit but they have shown that islam won’t stand for anything being said against or drawn about the Prophet.

      If this was a one off incident, then it wouldn’t be so bad.
      But when a Dutch filmaker has already had his throat slashed for making a film which showed islam in a bad light; its put this into a different perspective then.

      Im not saying that noone should not get offended; thats just silly.
      But look at mel gibsons Christ and how he portrayed the jews in that, and also Jesus himself.

      There was uproar over that; but it didn’t get banned; Mels not dead yet, nor was he scared to do it in the first place; no trade between any countries has stopped.

    160. El Cid — on 2nd February, 2006 at 9:43 pm  

      Let’s not start criticising Islam per se. I’m not interested. Sure, there is greater element of discipline in Islam than in other religions and it has gone through relatively fewer changes but it is also a broad mosque. Let’s not veer off topic.

      As for this: Another example being Theo Van Gogh’s joke that when they burnt Jews in Auschwitz it smelt like caramel (or something). I don’t get your point Sunny. Let’s compare apples with apples.
      If you were trying to show how a Hutu joking about dead Tutsis or a Pakistani making light of the rotting corpses of Bangladeshis might also be offensive, then I would see the connection. Another example would be two BNP skinheads having the following conversation:
      “Do you know how many people were killed in the Kasmir earthquake?”
      “Who cares. They were all Pakis anyway. Ha ha ha ha ha”
      These are real people in horrible real life situations.
      If I were to draw a line, such vile comments would be on the wrong side of it.
      Jokes/observations about Gods and other theoretical constructs, however, would not be.
      Think about it: real people, Gods, real people, ideas, real people, religion. Hmmm.. The distinction seems clearcut to me.
      A better analogy with the current furore would be to have, say, a cartoon of Tony Blair, with a big crucifix around his neck, having a romantic dinner in a restaurant with a dead corpse bearing the inscription on his tattered t-shirt of “The Iraqi People”. The caption could be “Christian Love”
      Or how about having a Moses on the Mount getting the 10 Commandments direct from Jehovah: 1) Thou shalt bulldoze Palestinian homes, 2) Thou shalt covet thy neighbour’s land; 3) Thou shalt take the UN’s name in vain, etc.
      You get the picture? Some Jews and Christians might not like such (attempted) satire, but that is their problem.
      Otherwise, where will it end? Since God/Allah is omniscient he knows what we’re thinking anyway. Right now I have an image of Mohammed with a bomb for a turban. And that could be really frustrating to the Taliban thought police of tomorrow. I’m being silly, I know, but taken to its logical conclusion….

      I offer one concession: I was just watching BBC4 news where the editor of Die Welt said he had printed those Danish cartoons on 4 separate occasions. Now that IS provocative and unjustified. Maybe the time is right to dust down and cool off. Big’up to the Jordanian paper that published the cartoons, though, and pleaded for perspective in the Arab world.

    161. El Cid — on 2nd February, 2006 at 9:45 pm  

      My first point isn’t aimed at you Colonel.

    162. El Cid — on 2nd February, 2006 at 9:47 pm  

      Jesus fucking H Christ! I forgot to turn my italics off after “like caramel (or something)”. Mr Editor will you oblige?

    163. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 9:54 pm  

      Its not about discipline.
      Some cartoons were drawn about the Prophet and we saw the reaction.

      Not all reacted the same; but most did.
      And that reaction is my problem; not whether or not this falls into the boundaries of FOS.

      Or whether other incidents compare in some way or not.
      The only reason they depicted the Prophet in the way they did was to see what would happen.
      Im pretty sure these Danish cartoonists aren’t dumb enough to think all muslims are terrorists.
      They know that what they were doing was going to get some attention; but why did they do it?

    164. The holy kerrang — on 2nd February, 2006 at 10:14 pm  

      You must not laugh

    165. The holy kerrang — on 2nd February, 2006 at 10:15 pm  

      at us

    166. El Cid — on 2nd February, 2006 at 10:22 pm  

      As I said, first point wasn’t aimed at your post Colonel but at #158

    167. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 10:25 pm  

      As I said, first point wasn’t aimed at your post Colonel but at #158

      Oh.

      Lets just say im not quite with it right now. hehehe

    168. Bikhair — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:01 pm  

      Vikrant,

      “Surely that would have Bikki frothing with anger.”

      You couldnt imagine how much blessings I recieve when I remain patience in the face of difficulty. Do you think I will let a twit like you take that away from me? Sure…

    169. Bikhair — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:02 pm  

      jOnz,

      “According to many Islamic scholors, Mohammed masterminded over 60 slaughters (Jihad operations).”

      Slaughters? Were we that good? Aww the good ol’ days.

    170. Col. Mustafa — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:09 pm  

      funniest question time time ever.

    171. Bikhair — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:09 pm  

      Col Mustafa,

      “Im free to talk about Christianity with christians, judaism with jews, hinduism with hindus; but i can’t converse properly with most muslims about islam even though i am one.
      That to me is the problem.”

      You can talk to me, over the net. Ask me anything and if I have the ilm, I will let you know. But lets get serious Col. you want shock and I want to teach. YOu want qauntity and I want qaulity.

    172. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:13 pm  

      Sheeeeeeeit Bikhair.

    173. Bikhair — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:13 pm  

      Buitar,

      “We have to protect the minorites in our countries, but this issue has gone way beyond that, and is now something like 1.5 billion people from one religion, demanding that the rest of the world take a particular consideration to them. Why? When no other major religion can?”

      1.5 billion? Dont exaggerate. I am sure those Muslim kids dying of malaria and their parents are worried about a slightly different issue at the moment. Statements like the one you just made turns your strange imagination into reality and no one should have to bend over backwards for that.

    174. Bikhair — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:17 pm  

      Siddhartha,

      I hate shirk, but I think you are suffering from your constant adoration of me.

    175. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:20 pm  

      Bikhair,

      I apologise, according to Indonesian Sheikh Mukhlas said;
      …the Prophet Mohammed …undertook to murder infidels… and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?”

      Although admittedly I haven’t been able to verify this rather outlandish claim from Hadith or Suras… I think he’s talking bollox, what say you?

    176. Siddharth — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:23 pm  

      ooh missus!

    177. j0nz — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:24 pm  

      I’d be surprised if he manged more than a handful. I’d expect full blown Jihad to be pretty damn tiring on reflection…

    178. Don — on 2nd February, 2006 at 11:58 pm  

      Sid,

      By the way, very stylish handling of the dickhead on the other thread.

    179. Alarmed pig farmer — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:18 am  

      From today’s newswire:

      “In Beirut, the leader of Lebanon’s Shi’ite Hizbollah said the row would never had occurred if a 17-year-old death edict against British writer Salman Rushdie been carried out.

      The late Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini called on Muslims in 1989 to kill Rushdie for blasphemy against Islam in his book “The Satanic Verses.” Rushdie went into hiding and was never attacked.”

      Notice how the muslim’s view of the situation is exactly the same as a Mafia Don’s? But I think it would be instructive to turn this around. What if the British had arrested khomeini and brought him back to London to face charges pertaining to ordering the death of a lawful British subject? What if the clown who is running Iran has been arrested as soon as he deboarded at JFK a couple months ago and made to answer for kidnapping and terrorizing Americans in 1979 - 1980? These arse-holes continue to threaten because they are never held accountable.

    180. Bikhair — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:42 am  

      jOnz,

      “I apologise, according to Indonesian Sheikh Mukhlas said;
      …the Prophet Mohammed …undertook to murder infidels… and that the Prophet waged jihad operations 77 times in the first 10 years as head of the Muslim community in Medina?”

      Hmm, I dont know either. I have never heard the ulema of ahlul Sunnah talk about those kinds of things. I can certianly ask but it will take weeks.

      jOnz, I caution you about taking it upon yourself to read hadith and Quran and come to you conclusions about Islam. I have lisented to enough lessons from ISlamic teachers from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, bondafide scholars and listening to them reinforces that fact that it takes alot more than reading a hadith to understand it.

      Dont take Islamic texts as a joke because its an “Oriental” discipline. Dont think because you have a copy of Muslim and Bukhari that youve got the edge. I have the same books as you do and more. I dont read hadith and make up my own mind. Why should I when there are people alive who have memorised more hadith than you and I both know exist.

      You live in England so if you would like I can direct you to some brothers who are holding some knowledge because it looks like you are biting off more than you can chew and choking on it.

    181. Bikhair — on 3rd February, 2006 at 3:44 am  

      Alarmed Pig Farmer,

      “Notice how the muslim’s view of the situation is exactly the same as a Mafia Don’s? But I think it would be instructive to turn this around.”

      I am a Muslim. Are you talking about me? BTW stay away from those nasty pigs. Farms chickens instead, it is a more dignified profession.

    182. Cinnamon — on 3rd February, 2006 at 12:38 pm  

      Bihar said:

      “jOnz, I caution you about taking it upon yourself to read hadith and Quran and come to you conclusions about Islam. I have lisented to enough lessons from ISlamic teachers from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, bondafide scholars and listening to them reinforces that fact that it takes alot more than reading a hadith to understand it.”

      So… you’re basically saying here that it is all a question of interpretation, and that what is in the Quran & Hadith isn’t _really_ meant this way, but, the cleric will tell you what he thinks is the correct interpretation, therefore, the word of the cleric is a more lucid, logical and important to you than the original word of your deity?

      Methinks you’re making it up as you go along :)

    183. Anil — on 3rd February, 2006 at 1:09 pm  

      Hi guys…I am jumping a little late in the argument but heres my 2 cents…

      I see that one aspect of this whole shemaroo is not mentioned. That Islam forbids idolatory is understood. But are all those guys out there really worked up due to the morality or legality of the thing? I think not.
      I am quite sure the reason of the ire is the effect of this idolatory. For e.g. if the Koran said, if you make an idol of me…you will be spanked on your bottom 5 times and given a soother later on - I guess the Muslims will not mind as much. But the descriptions of a steamy hell for all these fundos is whats getting them all worked up. Again it all boils down to the fear of something that propels these guys into action. And that is what gets my goat. Most arguments you will find on websites end with this…’THink about the Akhira (afterlife)’ - this is their day of judgement where they will be put in boiling vats of oil or some such.
      It is this irrational fear of what will happen when they are dead (no one miss the irony here) that scares the beejesus out of these guys.
      Thats me…

    184. Bikhair — on 3rd February, 2006 at 7:33 pm  

      Cinnamon,

      You really stepped into it Cinammon. Dont worry, your spanking will not take too long.

      “So… you’re basically saying here that it is all a question of interpretation…”

      No I am saying it is about how much knowledge you have. You dont need to interpret the Quran and the Sunnah but you certianly need to know it. I know jOnz does not know it, even if he thinks he knows it.

      “…and that what is in the Quran & Hadith isn’t _really_ meant this way but, the cleric will tell you what he thinks is the correct interpretation, therefore, the word of the cleric is a more lucid, logical and important to you than the original word of your deity?”

      No dear that is what you are saying. What I am saying is that the person of knowledge is more lucid, logical, and important, in matters of the deen of Islam than jOnz is considering that they have far more knowledge of Islam they he will probably ever have.

      Consider the earliest scholars of Islam: THe Companions of Prophet Muhammed. What did he say about them, their knowledge of ISlam, their practice of ISlam, and their opinions of Islam.

      Prophet Muhammed: “Indeed, the people of the Book (Christians and Jews) before you split-up into seventy-two sects. And this nation (Muslims) will split-up into seventy-three sects, seventy two are in the Fire and one is in Paradise.” [5] And in another narration, “All of them are in the Fire except one.” It was asked, ‘Who is that one?’ He replied, “That which I and my Companions are upon.”

      Now Prophet Muhammed didnt say the religion that only I was upon, because he knew that his Companions have enough knowledge and understanding of Islam that the poeple could take understanding from them. Their actions didnt contradict that of Prophet Muhammed but preserved it.

      So if Abu Bakr, or Umar ibn al Khattab, were walking the earth today, or if Aiesha (may Allah be pleased with them all) were walking the earth today they would be the most knowledge poeple on Islam. Why? Because they have the most knowledge. Similarly the scholars that I can suggest to jOnz, who are in fact walking the earth today have the most knowledge.

      The characteristics of some of these scholars are as follows:

      Imaam Aboo Haneefah (d.150H) - rahimahullaah – said, “If a hadeeth is found to be authentic, then that is my madhhab.

      Imaam ash-Shaafi’ee (d.204H) - rahimahullaah – said, “Everything that I say, for which there is something authentically related from the Prophet (sallallaahu ’alayhi wa sallam) contrary to my saying, then the hadeeth of the Prophet comes first. So do not make taqleed (blind-following) of me.”

      Imaam Ahmad (d.241H) - rahimahullaah – said, “Do not make taqleed (blind-following) of me, nor make taqleed of Maalik, nor of ash-Shaafi’ee, nor of al-Awzaa’ee, nor of ath-Thawree. But take from where they took.”

      Somethings Prophet Muhammed had to say about knowledge:

      ‘Abdullaah Ibn ‘Umar Ibnul ‘Aas (radiyallaahu ‘anhu) who said, “I heard the Messenger of Allaah (sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) saying, ‘Verily Allaah does not take away knowledge by snatching it away from the people, rather He takes it away by taking away the scholars, until there is not one scholar left. So The people will take ignorant leaders, so they will be asked, and they will give rulings without knowledge. So they will be misguided, and they will misguide. [Saheeh Muslim (8/60)]

      And dont let me get on what Ibn Taymiyah says about learning the Arabic language.

      “Methinks you’re making it up as you go along…”

      Methinks youre not thinking at all, or is that your ignorance talking?

    185. Bikhair — on 3rd February, 2006 at 7:37 pm  

      Anil,

      “I am quite sure the reason of the ire is the effect of this idolatory.”

      They are not commiting idolatry, they feel insulted. As do I as a Muslim.

      “For e.g. if the Koran said, if you make an idol of me…you will be spanked on your bottom 5 times and given a soother later on - I guess the Muslims will not mind as much. But the descriptions of a steamy hell for all these fundos is whats getting them all worked up.”

      This statement doesnt jibe with what you just wrote. Prophet Muhammed (sallalahu alaihi wa salam) forbade images of himself so the Muslims would not follow the footsteps of the Christian and Jews who idolized their pious predecesors.

      “THink about the Akhira (afterlife)’ - this is their day of judgement where they will be put in boiling vats of oil or some such.”

      You dont know that nor do “they know that” And to claim to have that kind of knowledge is kufr.

      “It is this irrational fear of what will happen when they are dead (no one miss the irony here) that scares the beejesus out of these guys.
      Thats me…”

    186. Kathy Schroeder — on 12th February, 2006 at 2:48 am  

      Muslims Blaming all Jews and Christians for a single cartoonists’ unfortunate cartoons done in poor taste, is ridiculous. That is racism in it’s rawest form. The Holier Than Thou syndrome affects peoples of all nationalities and religions it seems. Islam, Jewish, and Christian Cultures in their truest forms all practice peace and understanding. It seems that the most ignorant of all the faiths are the most intolerant, and tend to take the word of others as to what they believe.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.