I apologize if my post or a part of it been understood as a slam this is not my intention, Muslims hold great respect for Jesus pbuh and his teachings, I meant to point that people in West should not expect that Muslims would deal with cartoons that represent Mohammad pbuh same way as people in west would deal with cartoons that represent Jesus pbuh due to several differences in both religions and cultures. its good to mention too that Muslims never did a pictorial representations or movies, or even articles that ridicule Jesus or Moses pbut, some may say this is because Muslims believe in Jesus and Moses pbut, while this is true, Muslims were able to ridicule other religious characters like the pope for example but they did not do this either. I agree that the drawing itself did not shot somebody in head and drop him dead but lets have a look at this cartoon by Naji Al-Ali a Palestinian cartoonist who been shot dead in London in 1987 ( unknown who shot him but there are links to the Israeli Mosad in his assassination) both the drawing above and Naji assassination says that such images, or movies can cause violence. we have seen how this been used in American movies since very long to gain the public support ( or at least to silence them) for a war that was based on lies, and in some cases we have seen how such works been used to justify the killing of Arabs even Arab kids and absorb the reaction of the American public by picture all Arabs ( even their children) as terrorists. then the Danish cartoonists come and picture all Muslims as terrorists by picturing the prophet wearing a turban with a bomb on it and other similar drawings, and want Muslims to think they are funny and not attacking Islam, sorry if I personally find it hard to think so. I also mentioned Naji Al-Ali as an example for the double standards in the West, there is also Ghassan Kanafani an Arab short story writer who been assassinated by Mosad ( they admitted it this time ) and many others whom the west probably never heard about them, what I mean, what Muslims see is there were no real defenders of freedom of speech when the victim was a Muslim or an Arab who criticized Israeli barbaric actions in his works, just maybe shy condemn words from here and there, but when the victim is somebody who insulted 1.3 billion Muslims, and pictured the prophet as a terrorist, or a person who pictured a totally naked woman wearing Quran as a diaper on a Muslim praying mat, then, the west cry for the freedom of speech, I m not sure if I was successful to explain how Muslims feel about this double standard, and how such double standard adds to the general feeling of anger against the west, that in some cases caused riots. I am in no way trying to find an excuse for such violent actions, they are refused and condemned by the majority of Muslims everywhere. knowing too the law that punish with jail anybody who asks Did Six Million Really Die? in the holocaust, makes it hard for Muslims to believe the "freedom of speech" excuse used by West.
The Iranian govt recently sponsored a series of cartoons depicting Jesus in not too respective ways. Maybe you didn't know about that.
Imad, I did not take your post as a slam on anything. I am an atheist, by the way, and do not have any religious sensibilities, though I admire much of the teachings among many of the world's religions. I am not saying this as a badge, but more just to inform my particular stance. Christians are, however, deeply offended by "Piss Christ," etc., and my point is that everywhere in the world are things deeply offensive to many, and none have the right to murder, or threaten to murder, over such offenses. I can accept that an offensive picture of Muhammed would be reacted to differently by Muslims than an offensive picture of Jesus by Christians. I cannot accept that the difference allows violence on the part of anyone, from any faith, over a picture. It is not an easily dealt with thing, though, I will grant you that. The right to free speech, at least in the United States, is not an absolute - there are limits, and those limits usually swirl around speech that is by definition inflammatory such that violence would ensue, on the part of any reasonable person. Shouting "Fire in a Crowded Theatre," as it is commonly called. Two things have been addressed, essentially, as thresholds in limiting speech. Keep in mind I can only speak from a perspective of U.S. law, and that from a layman's perspective. The first is a direct incitement to violence. One person screaming to another, "Kill (fill in the blank)." This differs from what I have seen in the protests in London, for instance - "we will kill you," as this latter example does not specifically call for or induce another to kill. Vile, but protected under U.S. law, at least as I understand it. A second threshold exists, however. In the United States, limitations on speech are indeed construed very narrowly, and must include one element - namely, that the person being subjected to the inflammatory speech must, in so many words, be captive - the person cannot avoid enduring the speech. One poster here, for instance, has in the recent past vigorously proclaimed a defense of the right to free speech, on the one hand, while supporting a move to censor Wikipedia. In attempting to defend the inconsistency, this poster raised the issue of the Westboro Baptist Church, who regularly picket the funerals of fallen U.S. soldiers, stating "God hates America" because "it supports homosexuality." I pointed out that under U.S. law, such speech is not protected, because by using bullhorns at a family funeral, in effect, the Westboro people were inciting what amounts to a captive audience, the fathers, mothers, siblings of the fallen dead. In the case of the Danish cartoons, or, to be honest, Wikipedia and similar circumstances, as offensive as it is to you (and, in the case of the Danish cartoons, to me), we are both free to simply turn the page, or click to another website. No one is forcing us to endure anything. And so, at least by "our" (I can only speak for U.S. standards) sense of free speech, there is no disconnect. Murdering Naji Al-Ali was wrong, and so is murder or the threat of murder in the case of the Danish cartoons. I don't think the cartoons are funny - any of them. I understand the outrage, and I think it is a vile way to make a point, of any kind, under any circumstances. I also understand the outrage over a feeling of a double standard. In the case of holocaust revisionism, as vile as I think the body of "work" is, and as informed by, among other, neo-nazism and its variants, I support it's right to put forward its crap and consider it wrong to criminalize it. In brief, I understand the feelings. I cannot justify violence in voicing those feelings. Whether Khomeini's fatwa calling for the death of Salman Rushdie over The Satanic Verses, the murder of Naji Al-Ali over his cartoons, or the murder of anyone voicing an opinion, however vile, reprehensible, or offensive to someone, somewhere, none of this belongs in the community of civilization, in my opinion. We're one planet, one people - I earnestly believe this. Communication, and not its abrogation, is the only way out of this morass we find ourselves in.
Misquote it is about the Holocaust, the Dear Iranian President instead of directing his anger towards Danes choose Jews instead, something which I do not understand.
I haven't seen this, although I have seen a new fun and games contest being mounted in Iran to mock the Holocaust victims. Iranian Holocaust Cartoon Contest Same principle, same idiocy. Proving a right to free speech by deliberately posting vile garbage is disgusting. Defensible, in the name of free speech, but unhelpful at best. Edited to add: Posted before seeing Wisdom's response. Yep, this is what I saw as well.
Old folks like me can't remember that well sorry I haven't seen Israelis burning cars, rioting, issuing death threats and so on.
Can't I have the "old" moniker? It gives me an excuse when I have a brain fart - c'mon, don't take that away from me.
Ziya, I'm sorry - but though I see the point you're making, I'm having a hard time seeing your source - the cut and paste is quite jumbled. Can you please provide a source for all this? (Hyperlink, in other words)? Secondly, again, I say, that regardless of how unfair, or vile, or offensive, or whatever the issue is - and I'm in agreement with you, and Imad, that these cartoons are vile, and to the extent a double standard exists, it is flatly wrong, and I understand the outrage - nothing justifies murder over it, or the threat of murder.
Yeah... they know they have their mossad to do all that for them... And they can always kill a few more Palestinians, destroy houses of a few hundred more, and imprison a few thousand more...
Lol.. my post so jumbled .. I am sorry for that, i have deleted it , but it was late to delete .. Let me try again lol i want to say there is a double standart regarding to freedom of speech. Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons .Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny. In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten. Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them." The illustrator said: "I see the cartoons as an innocent joke, of the type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy." The source is " http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/06/pressandpublishing.politics " Thanks
Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons | Media | MediaGuardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/feb/06/pressandpublishing.politics
Old NPT and Old Wisdom, I read an article claiming that an egyptian newspaper published these pics of Mohammed first, 5 months before initial rioting in Denmark newspapers. They actually have scanned photos of the Egyptian newspaper. I realize you cannot believe everything you read on the Internet, but very strange if true. I found that at Freedom for Egyptians.
Gauharjk, I would like to clarify what you are saying. Are you saying that the protests we are talking about - taking place in Paris, London, Denmark - with many of them turning to bloodshed, are justifiable? With our past conversations in mind, I don't believe you are saying this. But if so, I can't agree. Wrong is wrong - to murder over words, or a picture, is wrong, no matter how outraged one feels. To look to another injustice as defense for it makes no sense to me. Does it to you? To clarify, are you really saying that the lack of similar protests in Israel over a campaign to vehemently dishonor the Holocaust fallen is because Israeli citizens have Mossad as a kind of surrogate instrument for their rage?
Those hateful cartoons of the prophet, which portray all Muslims, as terrorists, is shameful. It is like a slap on the face of all 1.3 billion of our brothers. I wouldn't condone violence, but what do these cartoonists expect? What would you do, NPT, if someone slapped you, & insulted you parents, in front of the world? You wouldn't take it lying down... You have to understand the love & passion
Everyone should expect a civilized response form civilized people. Your implication that the violence should be expected is a justification. You are making the point of the movie as well, that violence should be expected when insulting Islam. It should not. Insults do not give rise to a violent response. Are you implying that Muslims lack such self discipline that they can't be held accountable for their violent response to a cartoon?
Absolutely - shameful, despicable, wrong. But it isn't a slap in the face, Gauharjk. It's an unconscionable insult. The moment someone raised a hand to me or mine, that is the moment they'd find they're face meets the pavement. But "like" a slap in the face isn't "a" slap in the face, and the moment someone insulted me or mine, so long as I'm able, I'd turn the page. An insult isn't violence. And this is the key distinction. Edit: Posted before I read Browntwn's post. I agree with him. There is no justification for violence in the face of insults, period. Otherwise, this forum would be a bloodbath, for instance. Are we free to level death threats here? No. The same obtains anywhere.
These days, "taking" an insult and getting on with it, is seen as a sign of weakness. Forgiving an insult opens you up to more, in most cases.