The fact that the prophet is drawn is offensive yes. You wouldn't draw jesus or thepope having sex with the disciples or bishops or jesus' mother mary as a whore. That is offensive and would cause uprage in the cahtollic and chiristian world..and also muslim people would find it offensive because he is a prophet too. It is plain offensive.davin said:my thing with Europe was more in reference to that this has drawn the focus of extreme Islamic groups to Europe as a target.
firstly, the nature of the drawings don't MATTER. freedom of speech is for everything. and what do you mean the nature of them? several of them are really nothing other than a drawing of mohommad, the only offensive part being that they exist.
second, i've not seen such a reaction to anything about any leader of a group recently, to the point that there is a demand for economic sanctions, cutting diplomatic ties, etc.
But the difference is the fact that Christians themselves draw Jesus (peace be upon him), the issue here is more the fact that they "drew" the Prophet (peace be upon him) moreso than the way he was depicted. Even if the pictures were to be very decent and perhaps even portraying the Prophet and Islam in a good way, Muslims would still feel offended by the very fact that he was "drawn".withoutaface said:Actually people do draw Jesus. All the time. They even draw him in an offensive manner, and the church barely raises an eyebrow. Muslims need to lighten up.
Why?physician said:Even if the pictures were to be very decent and perhaps even portraying the Prophet and Islam in a good way, Muslims would still feel offended by the very fact that he was "drawn".
imagine if an muslim country did an offensive cartoon about Jesus. Christians would be really pissed. But this cartoon went beyond that and mocked the entire religion. "One showed him wearing a turban shaped as a bomb."Serius said:he already explained why earlier
my rough translation of it was: because muslims are easily influenced fools, so it is important if one is in a position of power to make increasingly rediculous rules and see who is blind enough to follow them.
the justification for such a rule being made was because they didnt want muhamed to be drawn as a particular race or tribe, just so that others relate in appearances and converts more to islam, they wanted people to follow based on his word alone.
Still doesnt explain why it is an insult or an offence for non-muslims, or those living in non-muslim countried to be forced to comply with this rule, sure do whatever you want in your own wacky, fucked up religion and your own fucked up countries, but dont impose your laws and rules on us
True. I guess it's okay for anyone to make illustrations of anything so long as the law supports it. It's just a shame such a repuatable newspaper (voted one of the best in the EU) to publish something this offensive. All the illustrations were offensive in a way, and Muslims have the right to speak their minds and protest against it.codereder said:imagine if an muslim country did an offensive cartoon about Jesus. Christians would be really pissed. But this cartoon went beyond that and mocked the entire religion. "One showed him wearing a turban shaped as a bomb."
not only mocking mohammad, its labelling all muslims as terrorists, its obviously more than just they dont want an image published. I dont think there trying to impose laws and rules on us, people also have the right to disagree and be offended with wats published. Y couldnt they simply sue the newspaper.
when was this published anyway, how comes its being hyped now?
physician said:But the difference is the fact that Christians themselves draw Jesus (peace be upon him), the issue here is more the fact that they "drew" the Prophet (peace be upon him) moreso than the way he was depicted. Even if the pictures were to be very decent and perhaps even portraying the Prophet and Islam in a good way, Muslims would still feel offended by the very fact that he was "drawn".[/QUOTE]
umm muhammad has been drawn in a decent way before.
well, if its just that its unfair, waht about the cartoons that attack Jews taht tend to show up, such as IN the islamic world? why don't those gov'ts feel irresonsible for allowing those to be printed?Salima said:The fact that the prophet is drawn is offensive yes. You wouldn't draw jesus or thepope having sex with the disciples or bishops or jesus' mother mary as a whore. That is offensive and would cause uprage in the cahtollic and chiristian world..and also muslim people would find it offensive because he is a prophet too. It is plain offensive.
i don't think we can apply religious terms in a generally secular worldSalima said:If it was a leader of some sort hten it would be less offensive, but this is a prophet you're talking about it is therefore different. YOu know?! Of course...Maybe some people who are perhaps athiest won't feel empathy becuase they don't have that osrt of following..you know? Religious beliefs of that sort...
Freedom of speech has EVERYTHING to do with it. first, now, there is the apparent issue that drawing mohommad is offensive as an act, but beyond that its split about which ones seem to be actually containing offensive content and which ones do not.Salima said:I don't see why people jsut can't ascpet that it is highly offensive or wrong...freedom of speech has nothing to do with it and everyone knows that!
If you want to link this to Bush, shouldn't you also note that the U.S. State Dept has actually taken a position against the cartoons having been published? This entirely a European issue...America isn't involved, and certainly not responsible. This came about not from the war on terror america is involved in, but the culture clash that europe is facing.Salima said:It's all about Bush:mad1: , and spurring on his war on terrorism...a piece propaganda. It's just like when America and hte rest of the world attack anybody else they hate trying to demonise them...and this is the only way they think is possible...like how america made russians babarians who ate peoples babies and have no mercy and are drunken fools...much like they did to the germans during the war in cartoons. It's the same thing..but it doesn't make it anymore less offensive than it is.
Related note, in many islamic countries, there were additional cartoons also claimed to have been printed, but weren't, they didn't feel they had to clarify that. Second, if you are signing the petition, one would hope that you knew the content of the cartoons, if you were of such a view that content would make a difference. Three, also, only some have offensive content.Blissed said:Sashatheman, does it say anywhere here http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition.html that the images were offensive because of the way they are portraying the prophet (i.e. as a terrorist for example)?
its common knowledge that muslims think its offensive, but thats not the purpose of the petition , it exists because they find it offensive, and want free speech removed, and are creating boycotts of the whole country, threatening terrorist attacks, and will kill any people from denmark or france if they set foot into muslim country.Blissed said:Sashatheman, does it say anywhere here http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition.html that the images were offensive because of the way they are portraying the prophet (i.e. as a terrorist for example)?
Can't you see it doesn't matter WHAT is portrayed, the whole thing was done in an exercise to test the waters in how the Muslim world wants to censor democratic rights such as free speech (we should be able to make humour out of anything without physical violence). The pictures are pure SATIRE which is sending up the association between Islam and terrorism in the same way Bill Clinton was constantly cartooned with semen on his pants and is sending up the link.Blissed said:Sashatheman, does it say anywhere here http://www.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition.html that the images were offensive because of the way they are portraying the prophet (i.e. as a terrorist for example)?