Caricatures of Muhammad

[Puck]

They had a right to publish them, but they shouldn't have done it, simply because it was offensive. Liberty and freedom of speech is one thing, but taking liberties through licentious action is another. I don't have enough time to make my point more effective, but hopefully you will get what I mean: simply, you give love and respect to get it back. If you give out the opposite, you get that back, and why in god's name (whichever name that is) would anyone want to do that?

 

[bs98r3kjf]

They had a right to publish them, but they shouldn't have done it, simply because it was offensive. Liberty and freedom of speech is one thing, but taking liberties through licentious action is another. I don't have enough time to make my point more effective, but hopefully you will get what I mean: simply, you give love and respect to get it back. If you give out the opposite, you get that back, and why in god's name (whichever name that is) would anyone want to do that?

Great post.

 

[NeverAmI]

Idealistic but unpractical. You have to expect people are always going to attempt to push the line, both through words and actions.

Muslims have every right to protest the actions non-violently as much as the other side has the right to criticize or caricature whomever they please. Offensive? Definitely!

I definitely wouldn't expect to get away with the actions without getting at least a few crazies with bad intentions after me, definitely not a generalization of the entire religion, though.

 

[muir]

In the UK there have been new 'terror' laws created which obviously are open to abuse by the authorities

Many muslims are under surveilance and there have been many arrests

Many muslims feel that they are being targeted

The problem is that many muslim males (mostly males) are feeling alienated within british society and perhaps some of the ideas of islam are at odds with a consumerist western life. Also many muslims believe in the uma; that all muslims are one community regardless of what country they are living in, so that acts carried out against muslims in Israel or Iraq are acts against all muslims

This anger is finding an outlet in extremism. In extremism they find something to believe in, hope for, work for and fight for....it must seem an attractive option sometimes

The reality is that many people feel alienated within british society

If we are to stop muslim men from waging physical jihad then perhaps we need to do a number of things.

One is obviously withdraw western influence from muslim lands (can this happen whilst there is conflict over oil?)

Another is to try to find the common ground for everyone and to build a society which everyone feels they have a stake in. The current capitalist society is leaving many people divided, embittered, paranoid and angry

 

[Soulful]

It was obviously hugely disrespectful to the views of the Muslim world, but I don't see how that justifies striking out in violence. I believe violence is almost never an answer.

There's enough strife in this world. Why people feel the need to stir more is beyond me - that's largely my thought on the cartoonist and publisher.

 

[NeverAmI]

One is obviously withdraw western influence from muslim lands (can this happen whilst there is conflict over oil?)

Agreed, although impossible. We can at least stop fucking them over every chance we get and actually respect their nation's privacy.

I can just hear the political guffaws now.

 

[muir]

Yeah i know, it would be viewed as politically naive in some circles

If the world dissapears in a cloud of nuclear dust, the last thing they will think is 'damn our aggressive foreign policy was naive!'

There are always options

 

[Ecton]

I would need another option on the poll

Option X) They had every right to publish the cartoon, and the feelings of the Islamic world are justified, but the repressive actions resulting are not.

 

[Norton]

Free speech can be disrespectful. So what?

Interesting that many Palestinians joyfully celebrated in the streets about the 9/11 murder of 3,000, yet they violently protest a cartoon. We should worry about offending these people who celebrate the death of innocents? Sharia prescribes chopping off the hand of a thief. What does it prescribe for murdering 3,000 people? Oh, I forgot, they were infidels.

 

[NeverAmI]

Free speech can be disrespectful. So what?

Interesting that many Palestinians joyfully celebrated in the streets about the 9/11 murder of 3,000, yet they violently protest a cartoon. We should worry about offending these people who celebrate the death of innocents? Sharia prescribes chopping off the hand of a thief. What does it prescribe for murdering 3,000 people? Oh, I forgot, they were infidels.

A media portrayal certainly doesn't signify the position of an entire population of people.

Nor do the actions of Israel imply that all Israelis share the same stance.

 

[Barnabas]

correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the response to this cartoon a boycott of goods, was there any large scale violence or violence at all over this controversy?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I thought they were mildly amusing.

 

[Shai Gar]

I think the elephant in the room is immigration

How do you harmonise areas which have people of different cultures/belief systems?

Hostility towards immigrants....will it help integrate them or will it make them angry and more isolated?

No, the elephant in the room is secular law vs religious law

 

[Barnabas]

No, the elephant in the room is secular law vs religious law

Realy, I thought it was Horton.

 

[Norton]

A media portrayal certainly doesn't signify the position of an entire population of people.

Nor do the actions of Israel imply that all Israelis share the same stance.

I don't know what media you think has been portraying the majority of muslims as violent. Certainly not the NY Times, Washington Post, NPR, etc. I'm not concerned with the majority because they're not the problem. I'm concerned with the violent minority. 9-11 was caused by a handful of islamo-fascists. Supposedly, the Taliban is a minority of, at most, 25,000 in Afghanistan. Yet, think of all the trouble and pain they cause. You certainly don't want to be a woman in a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. Under Taliban rule, a woman is no more than chattel.

 

[TinyBubbles]

Free speech can be disrespectful. So what?

Interesting that many Palestinians joyfully celebrated in the streets about the 9/11 murder of 3,000, yet they violently protest a cartoon. We should worry about offending these people who celebrate the death of innocents? Sharia prescribes chopping off the hand of a thief. What does it prescribe for murdering 3,000 people? Oh, I forgot, they were infidels.

this statement offended me. yet, you'll claim the right to freedom of speech in your defense if i accused you of doing something wrong. imo, freedom of speech is an illusion. there are always limits to what people are willing to talk about, and likewise that others are willing to hear, and the proof of it is in the reactions to things like these religious caricatures. push the limits too far and you'll create arguments, even wars.

 

[Norton]

this statement offended me. yet, you'll claim the right to freedom of speech in your defense if i accused you of doing something wrong. imo, freedom of speech is an illusion. there are always limits to what people are willing to talk about, and likewise that others are willing to hear, and the proof of it is in the reactions to things like these religious caricatures. push the limits too far and you'll create arguments, even wars.

So, for example, no one should write an article decrying female circumcision in certain Muslim societies because it might offend muslim sensibilities?

In what way is freedom of speech an illusion? Well, I guess it's an illusion when "political correctness" inhibits political or other expression. Thus, atheists should shut up to avoid offending Christians and Jews?

It's one thing to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, but that's not what is at issue here. Sticks and stones are one thing. Words are another.

ed: If you can't write, you can't think. If you can't think, you can't write. Thought and speech are inextricably entwined. Limiting expression always limits thinking. That's always bad for a society. It's regressive and, indeed, evil.

 

[TinyBubbles]

So, for example, no one should write an article decrying female circumcision in certain Muslim societies because it might offend muslim sensibilities?

not at all, if one feels strongly that it's wrong, then they by all means should state it. but not in a way that deliberately provokes the other party into a defensive state, which the example of this cartoon would have done. there are WAYS of saying what you want to say without automatically offending the other person.

In what way is freedom of speech an illusion? Well, I guess it's an illusion when "political correctness" inhibits political or other expression. Thus, atheists should shut up to avoid offending Christians and Jews?

it is an illusion because it doesn't exist in the real world. people won't condone hearing just anything. you have to taper your thoughts with regard to the other party's culture, customs and accepted level of etiquette, otherwise your words will likely be dismissed -going against your objective of bringing the issue to light.

It's one thing to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater, but that's not what is at issue here. Sticks and stones are one thing. Words are another.

words can have as much, perhaps MORE, impact than sticks and stones. words catalyze thoughts, and lead to certain actions - they are a very powerful way of influencing what people do. why do you think politicians rule the world, instead of engineers, or scientists, who actually manipulate the forces behind those "sticks and stones"? because one forms the rationale for even attempting the other; you need to be convinced before you'll do anything physically damaging. or unconvinced, as the case may be.

 

[Norton]

not at all, if one feels strongly that it's wrong, then they by all means should state it. but not in a way that deliberately provokes the other party into a defensive state, which the example of this cartoon would have done. there are WAYS of saying what you want to say without automatically offending the other person.

it is an illusion because it doesn't exist in the real world. people won't condone hearing just anything. you have to taper your thoughts with regard to the other party's culture, customs and accepted level of etiquette, otherwise your words will likely be dismissed -going against your objective of bringing the issue to light.

words can have as much, perhaps MORE, impact than sticks and stones. words catalyze thoughts, and lead to certain actions - they are a very powerful way of influencing what people do. why do you think politicians rule the world, instead of engineers, or scientists, who actually manipulate the forces behind those "sticks and stones"? because one forms the rationale for even attempting the other; you need to be convinced before you'll do anything physically damaging. or unconvinced, as the case may be.

Having personally witnessed (i.e., I was there, I saw it, I tasted the acrid soot, my eyes burned from the smoke and my clothes reeked of it) the 9-11 Pentagon conflagration, I have an especially personal and strong view of 9-11 and what it wrought. I want strong words. Mature, free societies need to learn to respond to strong words with strong words and discipline, not mindless rioting. The fact is, Palestinians did celebrate in the streets after 9-11. The fact is, there has been no strong organized protest within the muslim world against suicide bombers yet they riot against a cartoon! There is no freedom of speech, much less freedom at all, where decent people are afraid to protest the use of suicide bombers. This is the essence of oppression. Indeed, it is because people don't "condone hearing just anything" that freedom of speech must exist. In the US, that's why it's the subject of the first amendment.

 

[acd]

The caricatures are propaganda that make light of a violent regime and in my interpretation, with the intent to ironically get people to think about it seriously. Radical Islam is a pretty scary thing. The caricatures seek to minimize that fear by presenting it's practices and goals as ridiculously violent.

Propaganda isn't really a bad thing if there is information to back it up. It's just a form of persuasion. I guess it's only a bad thing if people accept it without looking into it's claims..

And people do not think reasonably when in fear or experiencing trauma. These caricatures are funny, but also thought provoking.

I don't think people should worry so much about stepping on the toes of a violent regime by being critical of it.