Muhammad Cartoon Controversy (1 Viewer)

[Jordan.J]

i asked you how you immediately reached the conclusion that the cartoons were intended to refer to all muslims (which you call vilification) and not just point otu a connection between some that use terrorism, and your answer was because it was vilifiying all muslims.

do you also believe the cartoons mean that all muslims have oranges on top of their heads, or lead donkeys around the desert at sunset?

I already explained it to you above

 

[Not-That-Bright]

How are nice Christians effecting us any more ngeatively than anyone else? Or any Christians for that matter?

I don't think they're effecting myself much more than other people.

Is hillsong really Christianity or is just a scam? There is more to repeating the dogma.

I don't know what the second part means... but I'd like you to define what 'real' Christianity is... as far as my operational definition goes, if you believe a guy named jesus was the son of god on earth etc then you're a christian - they certainly fit this category.

The thing about the Christian school to put it simply was that I've heard that not many there really believe in Christianity anyway.

You've heard wrong.

But the thing is I dont know how that conclusion could be made. One cartoon of the prophet (pbuh) had his turban as a bomb with a real angry look on his face. Im not sure how that can be interpreted any other way other than he is a terrorist

I've already provided the idea that that cartoon was portraying the way in which mohammeds teachings have been hijacked by radical terrorists.

 

[davin]

then again i ask you Jordan, do you also believe the cartoons mean that all muslims have oranges on top of their heads, or lead donkeys around the desert at sunset?

 

[aamslfc]

These cartoons are merely making light humour of some Muslims, just as other newspapers do the same for other races or religions.

You have got major problems if you find it easy to dish it out and even easier to take offence to anything and everything.

Once again, it is religion that is causing all these problems. Religion, quite frankly, does nothing but stir trouble wherever more than one religious group exists. Stupid, misguided people, all you religious freaks.

I see nothing wrong with these cartoons. It is just that the truth hurts.

 

[Jordan.J]

then again i ask you Jordan, do you also believe the cartoons mean that all muslims have oranges on top of their heads, or lead donkeys around the desert at sunset?

The real issue here was being called a terrorist

 

[davin]

no, my question is relevant, because if you make your claim that becuse mohommad was pictured tied to terrorism is clearly an absolute, then so are the other two examples. so do you believe that the cartoons mean all muslims have oranges on their heads and lead donkeys around the desert at sunset?
yes or no?

 

[Simpson Freak]

no, my question is relevant, because if you make your claim that becuse mohommad was pictured tied to terrorism is clearly an absolute, then so are the other two examples. so do you believe that the cartoons mean all muslims have oranges on their heads and lead donkeys around the desert at sunset?
yes or no?

Davin thats a very glib interpretation, clearly some cartoons are more offensive than the others. otherwise everytime mohammad was depicted like in south park previously there would be the same outrage.

the media themselves only describe a few of them, so i dont know why you believe i need to claim an equal level of offence on each cartoon or our views are seen as unjustified, if we dont show that we are equally offended by each cartoon.

the cartoons themselves as many have admitted are not comlex nor intelligent in nature, so it was pretty straightforward of what the cartoonist was trying to depict, but then again he could have been an ignorant fop, or even more outrageously the voice of reason as so many of u have tried to make these cartoons to seem like.

and as for ur last question its just dumb since many have already told u why those cartoons are offensive to muslims personally by simply portraying mohammad.

so people may decide to ignore your stupider questions, so dont act like they have done something wrong in their posts by ignoring such senseless and often repeated questions.

 

[davin]

you're missing my point. i'm not saying that he has to be equally offended by all of them
my point is if you're going to assume the worst cartoon is speaking in absolutes about ALL muslims in most literal sense, then you should, in theory, be doing that with all of them.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Davin thats a very glib interpretation, clearly some cartoons are more offensive than the others. otherwise everytime mohammad was depicted like in south park previously there would be the same outrage.

Actually I think you're just choosing to ignore the whole thing about this being published in egypt months before and how some imams with an agenda were spreading lies.... But muslims in this thread continue to side-step this issue.

the cartoons themselves as many have admitted are not comlex nor intelligent in nature, so it was pretty straightforward of what the cartoonist was trying to depict, but then again he could have been an ignorant fop, or even more outrageously the voice of reason as so many of u have tried to make these cartoons to seem like.

I really don't see how it is that the idea that these cartoons were depicting the idea that muhammeds teachings have been hijacked by terrorism by using muhammed as a symbol. I sincerly doubt they believe muhammed was a terrorist.

 

[somechick]

Many of the anti-islamic rhetoric im hearing is about how Jesus (pbuh) has always been made fun of, so why is it such a big deal?

Well, this is the reason. It is sad that i have to point this out but i need to in order to answer this question.
Not even Muslims of the lowest order have ever even so much as POTRAYED Muhammed (pbuh), let alone a 'humourous' cartoon animating him. In history
there has never been a depiction, represention, painting WHATSOEVER about him, partly because of what had happened as a reaction to Christianity. People during both Jesus (pbuh) and Mohammed's (pbuh) time began depicting them by drawing pictures of them. This would indeed lead to idolatry, and a false representation of what were pure beings, so Mohammed (pbuh) asked to cease anything to do with a drawing of himself so as to prevent idolatry. If you see paintings from the middle ages of Muhammed (pbuh), you will indeed see a fire covering his face, so as to not blaspheme his holy image. Representations are depictions according to ONE sole being's perspective, and therefore are UNTRUE, and you will find this, not as Islamic dogma, but as part of postmodern arguements about 'realism' (i emphasise this to show you that Islam is not all backward).

What had happened with Christianity is that people began to try to make sense of the concept of God, and to preserve the 'white' image of Jesus, they began drawing representations of them. The human brain, unfortunatley, as we saw in with Moses (pbuh), is not equipped to understand even so much as the essence of God, and God's humanisation was therefore a representation according to what the human brain can understand.

What im trying to say is, the Christian Jesus, God, and Mary, are as a result, icons. Their images have been circulated so much that they are simulacrum. Islam has called for the end of idolatry, and in so doing, did not seek to represent Mohammed (pbuh), and this is why it is difficult for some to see his image as cartoon.

 

[HotShot]

I know why thay don't want to see his image, but it doesn't give them the right to censor free speech.

Its not "censor" free speech, that has been the way for centuries and as result ppl should respect it. The cartoons were unnecessary and pointless. It all depends on how appropriate it is and cartoon was inappriate (much like how generated singled me out/discrimination on my inappriopate language, but no i am not saying "free speech" etc, its an excuse).

If they had a message, (the cartoons seems to have no purpose), they could have done it in writing, a description etc, But no illustration of the prophet.

 

[HotShot]

I don't have to respect it. I don't respect muslims belief at all.

Then dont expect ppl to respect "freedom of speech"

It doesn't matter if the cartoons were "unnecessary and pointless", the artists still have the right to deliver any message they want.

Freedom of Speech. Muslims aren't going to be allowed to fuck this freedom up.

Muslims have the freedom to fuck anything up!

The artists dont have right to abuse other ppls belief.

 

[somechick]

I know why thay don't want to see his image, but it doesn't give them the right to censor free speech.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2025511_1,00.html.

Dont worry, the writer isnt muslim, and nor is The Times a very muslim-loving media.

It is not about censoring free speech, it was about blasphemy. You can present free speech as an arguement in a rational , logical manner, in order for it to be regarded and taken to note for answers.

OK so they called muslims terrorists, they cop enough of that everyday. Thats ok, because they can take that and perservere. But a holy figure is another thing, because Mohammed (pbuh) was a defender of rights, he was a humble, peaceful man, if people 'with opinions' had have done some research on the matter they would have known. He defended the rights of women, the poor and the orphans. He was a man, just like Jesus (pbuh) and Abraham (pbuh), a man of God. Never has his face been painted or represented and this indeed is detrimental.

If you want your say, you can have a rational debate with muslims (just dont go up to those hypocrites who call themselves muslim ie those 'fully sick bro' idiots).

Having said that, i think that the reaction is absolutely appalling. Beyond appalled, i am nearly in tears to see idiots taking on the name of Islam with their patriarchial stupidity and using the rioting to their own political means. Shame on them, and shame on those who are using violence without using their understanding. Some of these men are uneducated people who think they have knowledge, when they clearly dont.

 

[davin]

how bout this, don't expect people to respect Muslim beliefs when Muslims don't respect the beliefs of others?

there's a difference between muslims simply saying that they are offended and muslims saying that they have the right to not be exposed to things that would offend them. you don't have a right to not be offended.

also.....artistic work of Muhammad from Persia, around 1550:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Miraj2.jpg
and additional images of Muhammad:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hi/hi_fimu.htm

so yes, he has been depicted, though I will grant that these are diferent contexts and content than the cartoons in Denmark

 

[somechick]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

From Wikipedia:

Omg you're qouting wikipedia? LOL!
wikipedia is a website blog for anyone on the internet. How is that reputable? Anyone from ol' hick ville can write up an essay and post it online.
Goes to show. Get your sources right buddy.

 

[davin]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

what was he quoting? plenty of those things are sourced so that you can check the accuracy.
not to mention the media has been very lacking in this case...BBC incorrectly reported what cartoons there was, and few media outlets will show what the pictures are so they're not really reporting anything on this

 

[somechick]

how bout this, don't expect people to respect Muslim beliefs when Muslims don't respect the beliefs of others?

there's a difference between muslims simply saying that they are offended and muslims saying that they have the right to not be exposed to things that would offend them. you don't have a right to not be offended.

also.....artistic work of Muhammad from Persia, around 1550:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Miraj2.jpg
and additional images of Muhammad:
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hi/hi_fimu.htm

so yes, he has been depicted, though I will grant that these are diferent contexts and content than the cartoons in Denmark

Will you also grant how i have already explained that even in these pictures his face is unrecognisable? Look closer, sometimes there is no face where there should be one. I said before that they have never represented his facial features, they usually cover it up with fire. But thank you for the rebuttal.

 

[davin]

take a look at the link of additional images. to give a more direct link, its http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/isla/hob_57.51.9.htm
its circa 1425, and shows his face.

 

[somechick]

Re: Jihad Against Danish Newspaper

what was he quoting? plenty of those things are sourced so that you can check the accuracy.
not to mention the media has been very lacking in this case...BBC incorrectly reported what cartoons there was, and few media outlets will show what the pictures are so they're not really reporting anything on this

sorry i didnt see if it had qouted properly. This is what he sourced from wikipedia

[/QUOTE]Islam

Kind of like the Mormonism of Arab religions, Islam (as in "I slam women to the ground and kick in their teeth for leaving the house") was created by a crazy guy who thought that his religion was a continuation of Christianity. Formed by the "prophet" Mohammed at least 100 years ago, Islam is supposed to be a continuation of God's word.

They call God Allah and read the Koran (Aramaic for "completely irrelevant history") instead of the Bible and instead of Moses or Jesus, their main guy is Mohammed.

Like its big brother Christianity, Islam is all about oppression, genocide, oppression of women, and Jihad. Unlike its distant creepy cousin, Judaism, Islam preaches tolerance and love, and lashes out against occupation of Palestine./QUOTE]

But how can you compare Wikipedia to CNN? Wikipedia is a like a blog, like myspace where u can write stuff online. Just because it has "pedia" in it doesnt make it reputable. Universities will fail you if you use wikipedia.
Like i said, anyone with two cents in their pocket is bound to chuck theirs online

 

[davin]

a question, if i found the Quran offensive, does that give me the right to say taht it can no longer be printed so that i don't have to feel 'offended'?