Mohammad caricatures

[ejda]

Originally posted by Aristotle
That's right. There is NO DEFENSE. Furthermore, there is NO BLAME to be placed on the people who created those comics or published them, just as there is no blame to be given to Salman Rushdie or the publishers of "The Satanic Verses." Period.
[/B]

There is no defense, I agree. However, as others said *most* of the riots are organized.

For example, I am sure a large percentage of the Iranian people are happy for the publishing of the cartoons (because of the tyranny of the 'Islamic Republic'). An even larger percentage are angry but not to the degree to even demonstrate, let alone riot. I am 100% sure the attacks on embassies in Iran were orchestrated and organized by the same group who oppose the reformists.


On the other hand, there is a blame on people who published the cartoons. They have anti-immigrant and anti-arab agendas so their act could be interpreted as racism or hate speech. However, saying that, again there is no defense on the riots.

However, an interesting observation that I make is that those riots and violence happen mostly in third world countries (with corrupt, manipulative governments) or Europe (with high tension between Europeans and immigrants). If you look at north america, you hardly see those violent moments. I think that tells a lot about the reasons why violence occurs.

[Caer]

I don't really want to get involved in this debate, but I did want to make a couple observations, so...

I think Reuters has done a very good job of covering this situation (well, any news for that matter). I wanted to point out this article , a small portion of which I've quoted for you:

Another blogger calling himself "The Religious Policeman" said the government wanted to divert attention from the deaths of over 436 pilgrims in January during the haj pilgrimage.

The tragedies of a hostel collapse and overcrowding sparked rare domestic criticism of Saudi organization of the haj.

"In order to divert public attention from the regrettable demise of a small number of pilgrims, Saudi newspapers ... revive the four-month-old story of cartoons about the Prophet (peace be upon him) in a Danish newspaper," the blogger wrote.

"So far this has worked reasonably well, although major Danish exports are bacon and lager beer, which we do not import, except as 'special consignments' for some members of your family," he wrote, in a sarcastic letter to King Abdullah.

"What I fail to understand is that for an issue that has been simmering for many months, why it has suddenly hit boiling point," wrote another calling himself "Opinionated Voice."

"It is absurd that we are now known to become more outraged over these cartoons than we do over poverty, occupation, terrorism, war and oppression."

The two important things from this are that the cartoons did not spark immediate protests. The protests began happening -four- months later. What makes you decide four months after something that, dammit you really are angry and you need to show everyone!

Secondly, the last sentence in there underscores the issue we're seeing even in this thread. All we, the West, see of Muslims is hate-mongerers, terrorists, chaos, and corrupt governments. Blame that on the media if you will - it's partially true - but they're not completely to blame. Muslims, whether extremist or not, have played a large role in creating this image. One Reuters journalist noted that (though I was unable to find the article again) it is kind of hard to report on something good when there was yet another bombing.

In a way, I can see how these cartoons were created. It is a reflection upon the image the West sees of Muslims. What has struck me as curious the entire time is that Muslims aren't more angry that they've created a bad image of themselves, one that would generate such negative cartoons, rather than the fact that these were published.

[Solubynn]

Originally posted by Caer
The two important things from this are that the cartoons did not spark immediate protests. The protests began happening -four- months later. What makes you decide four months after something that, dammit you really are angry and you need to show everyone!

I have seen this claim on various websites, so I took the time to dig up a source that gives some of the progress about this situation eversince the publishing of the caricatures. This article can be found here . It didn't take Muslims 4 months to react, but 4 months for Abu Laban to internationalize the matter.

Originally posted by Caer
Secondly, the last sentence in there underscores the issue we're seeing even in this thread. All we, the West, see of Muslims is hate-mongerers, terrorists, chaos, and corrupt governments. Blame that on the media if you will - it's partially true - but they're not completely to blame. Muslims, whether extremist or not, have played a large role in creating this image. One Reuters journalist noted that (though I was unable to find the article again) it is kind of hard to report on something good when there was yet another bombing.

In a way, I can see how these cartoons were created. It is a reflection upon the image the West sees of Muslims. What has struck me as curious the entire time is that Muslims aren't more angry that they've created a bad image of themselves, one that would generate such negative cartoons, rather than the fact that these were published.

I agree with most of what you said above. Regarding your last paragraph, however... once again, Muslims value God and the Prophet more than their friends, relatives, families and lives. Mock Muslims as much as you want, it's been going on for quite a few years now, but when you directly mock the Prophet and consequently God (no, the Prophet isn't God, but His messenger, so an insult to Him is an insult to God), shit hits the fan. Or at least, it's easier to rally up Muslims against you.

I hope this clarifies some of what you were pondering.

[Gromgor]

Originally posted by Solubynn
I agree with most of what you said above. Regarding your last paragraph, however... once again, Muslims value God and the Prophet more than their friends, relatives, families and lives. Mock Muslims as much as you want, it's been going on for quite a few years now, but when you directly mock the Prophet and consequently God (no, the Prophet isn't God, but His messenger, so an insult to Him is an insult to God), shit hits the fan. Or at least, it's easier to rally up Muslims against you.

I'm curious if this is supposed to legitamize the actions many of them take?

I can't kill someone "because they insulted God". If I tried that I would be just as guilty as if I were a Muslim and killed somebody because "They insulted Mohammed". Fanatical devotion to a religion does NOT a get out of jail free card make.

[Aristotle]

Originally posted by Solubynn

I agree with most of what you said above. Regarding your last paragraph, however... once again, Muslims value God and the Prophet more than their friends, relatives, families and lives. Mock Muslims as much as you want, it's been going on for quite a few years now, but when you directly mock the Prophet and consequently God (no, the Prophet isn't God, but His messenger, so an insult to Him is an insult to God), shit hits the fan. Or at least, it's easier to rally up Muslims against you.

I hope this clarifies some of what you were pondering.

It clarifies that you are giving them a free pass to do whatever they want just because of their beliefs.

Sorry, that isn't how it works.

What if Christians and Jews decided all Muslims were evil. Would they be justified committing mass genocide to wipe out the entire Muslim faith? Guess what, they could. But of course that would be wrong.

This is basic Political Correctness gone totally insane. Muslims can do anything they want because god forbid we are not "sensitive" to their beliefs.

The current radical Muslim set of beliefs is an outrage, and the behavior they engage in is totally reprehensible. It is not excuseable simply because it is done in the name of their religion.

[Solubynn]

Originally posted by Aristotle
It clarifies that you are giving them a free pass to do whatever they want just because of their beliefs.

Sorry, that isn't how it works.

When you re-read the passage I wrote and you quoted, it only clarifies what happens when you insult the Prophet of Islam. It doesn't give them a free pass, weither it being from the law or from Islam. That's one issue I'll address later in this post.

Originally posted by Aristotle
What if Christians and Jews decided all Muslims were evil. Would they be justified committing mass genocide to wipe out the entire Muslim faith? Guess what, they could. But of course that would be wrong.

I didn't adress the issue of legitimacy when Gromgor posted because he didn't specify weither he meant legitimacy according to the laws or the laws of Islam. I apologize for not giving you the following exhaustive answer earlier :

- Concerning the law in general or even the laws of social morality, it's wrong. You already know this.
- Concerning the laws of Islam, it's despicable. Once you feel interested in knowing why it is, I'll let you know. I suspect it's the same in any religion.

Originally posted by Aristotle
This is basic Political Correctness gone totally insane. Muslims can do anything they want because god forbid we are not "sensitive" to their beliefs.

Muslims can't do what they want, or else it wouldn't have been easy to manipulate some of them into riots and violent acts. It's fairly easy to drive the anger of a crowd towards such a goal when you find so many actions in the world taken against Muslims, on a social, physical and psychological level, weither it being on the hands of Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, western governments and even their own Muslim corrupt governments. (in no specific order)

Originally posted by Aristotle
The current radical Muslim set of beliefs is an outrage, and the behavior they engage in is totally reprehensible. It is not excuseable simply because it is done in the name of their religion.

Yes, I agree with you, and so do a lot of sunni Muslims.

[Katidyd]

was: French Fries
now: Freedom Fries

was: a Danish
now: a Rose of the Prophet Muhammad

Our constructive non-violent method of building community to protest is rubbing off.

[Savaric]

What we need is another crusade.

I don't know how you can justify their actions/reactions and not be a little crazy yourself.

[kestra]

a local conservative magazine re-printed the cartoon, siting that they had to, to preserve their freedom of expression.

I think that reason is bullshit!! How was their right suddenly in danger? (The Western Standard) How does re-printing this over and over improve the situation?
This publisher, Ezra Levant, by the way -is- Jewish. The more cynical side of me wonders if he saw this as just an opportunity to say:"Gee, look how crazy and violent those muslims are". Many Canadian retailers have declined to stock the Feb. 27 issue of the Western Standard due to the controversy.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Darion]

The more cynical side of me wonders if he saw this as just an opportunity to say:"Gee, look how crazy and violent those muslims are".

Does anyone really need a reason to express that sentiment anymore?