Cartoons Offensive, but so is violence, Canadian Muslims say

[applegrove]

Cartoons Offensive, but so is violence, Canadian Muslims say
By COLIN PERKEL
Thursday, February 2, 2006 Posted at 6:03 PM EST
Canadian Press

Toronto — Cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed as a terrorist are deeply offensive, but so is the violent reaction to the drawings from Islamic extremists, Canadian Muslims said Thursday.

Outrage over the cartoons, first published in Denmark in September and reprinted in other European countries, has been spreading along with ominous threats throughout the Islamic world.

“The protests in the Middle East have proven that the cartoonist was right,” said Tarek Fatah, a director of the Muslim Canadian Congress.

“It's falling straight into that trap of being depicted as a violent people and proving the point that, yes, we are.”

....SNIP"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060202.wgravenimage0202/BNStory/Front

[uppityperson]

1. Very good.

Nice to read this. Cartoons are offensive, but reaction (violence) is also offensive.

[corporate_mike]

24. I support Denmark

[applegrove]

2. One person responded to a post in the discussion:

"....SNIP

So ? Muslims do not permit insulting other
religionsThey would never countenance calling Jews brothers of monkeys and pigs.They would never call Christians infidels that must be converted or killed.They would never allow such things as propogating the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as hisroric fact or allow the spreading of Holocaust Denial or preach the wiping out of
a nation.That's against the Islamic religion and a sin.

...SNIP"

Just thought it was interesting.

[fujiyama]

20. I'm sorryr but they aree full of shit thhere

Islamic societies are FAR from tolerant. Many, if not most don't allow for freedom of the perss or religion.

I know for one they mock Jews all the time in their cartoonsn.

It's good tto see some enlightened enoughh to be disgusted by thte violence (and I would assume thatt a majority of Muslims are disgusted by this violence), but the hypocrisy is pretty astounding (though I see some from the freeper set too). There iis plenty of hatred eminating from the Islamic world as weell.

[Erika]

3. No one should approve of cartoons

downing prophets of world religions.

This Canadian remark is interesting seeing that they tried to invoke Sharia law. Maybe they just peacefully wish to change Canadian law to Sharia.

[applegrove]

4. The Sharia law issue came about because Canada had gone so

far with tribunals. Jewish, aboriginal, etc. So Sharia fit in that way. The debate was about whether you could exclude one religion from the laws. Government said no. Everyone gets the same rights or nobody does. We were very happy with the results.

I think aboriginal tribunals still exist. The Sharia issue was in Ontario.

[applegrove]

5. I agree. Using the image of a religious icon wantonly is wrong. But

the point that violence is just as bad a blasphemy is well taken. So too that all manner of insults are thrown on non-muslims. When it suits whoever is doing it.

[Erika]

6. Never was a cartoon shown maligning Christ

but Mohammad was maligned. You can try to explain it, rationalize it, or whatever. But Muslims never maligned Christ.

[tocqueville]

7. NOT TRUE, check previous answer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=314692&mesg_id=314692

anD I bet those found cartoons are only the tip of the iceberg (I googled 10 minutes to find them)

and as I said before Talibans blowing up Bhuddas never outraged many Muslims.

But it doesn't matter how many cartoons from which side. Muslims cannot IMPOSE a belief on us by forbidding "non believers" to behave in a non-islamic way. They have the right to criticize everything, even our religion. But we have the right to criticize theirs. And NOBODY, Jesus, MOhammed, Buddha, Moses etc is an exception

that's what separates us from the Middle-Ages. It's called Enlightment.

[regnaD kciN]

8. Not at the moment, at any rate...

But it doesn't matter how many cartoons from which side. Muslims cannot IMPOSE a belief on us by forbidding "non believers" to behave in a non-islamic way.

Should Muslims manage to establish Sharia as part of the law in any given country, they can impose said beliefs and behavior to their heart's content.

And, as we've already seen over this very issue, even when they can't invoke Sharia in a given non-Islamic country, they can do so elsewhere (as in recent attacks on Europeans and European institutions in Islamic lands) in such a way as to pressure that other country to "say 'uncle'" to their demands.

And, lest it seem that I am only attacking Muslims (or at least Muslim fundamentalists) in this post, I could make the same comments about some of the "Christian reconstructionists" in my own faith, who seek to replace the Constitution with the Bible as the source of U.S. laws.

I think the big difference isn't between one religion and another, but between the notion, held by mainstream Christians (and, as I understand it, non-radical Muslims as well as proponents of other religions) that any committment between a human and God has to be based on the former's free will -- that "obedience at the point of the sword" is meaningless -- and the counter-notion, beloved of triumphalists of all stripes, that it is proper to use the binding force of human law to "improve" the character of "weak, sinful" humanity until they are "mature" enough to see that your way is the correct one. :eyes:

[tocqueville]

9. Amen n/t

[Yupster]

11. Agree Tocqueville

If a Muslim insults he prophet, then they can excommunicate him or offer him pennance or whatever else their religion says within the local law.

If a non-Muslim insults the prophet, it's just not their business. People have a right to free speech. If you don't like it, you don't have to listen or look.

I think if more of these incidents would come up and the world doesn't buckle in to the bullying, Muslims around the world would see that the world and their lives and their families and their religion will go on just fine even if things insult their sensibilities once in a while.

That's a lesson most of us learned long ago.

[genie_weenie]

17. Good point about the Buddhas

I think alot of people had forgotten about the wanton destruction of Humanity's history, but of course when destroying statues which are obvious blashphemy it's all okay...

Why do so many DUers accept this double standard?

[suffragette]

23. you make a good point about imposing beliefs

This intolerance is at the core of this situation. Religious fundamentalists demanding sanctions based on their beliefs. It reminds me of the Rushdie situation, moreso now that the cartoonists are now reported to be in hiding for their protection. i wonder how long they will have to do this.
Zealotry seems to be center stage too often these days, the zealotry of fundamentalists in the US, which propelled the Schiavo situation and is espoused in the megachurches is akin to that being shown over the cartoons.
Unfortunately, instead of Enlightenment, we seem to be sliding back to the Dark Ages that characterized the Middle Ages.

[applegrove]

10. Those were Western papers I think. The point is putting Mohamed

in effigy is wrong. So too is a number of things. Like violence. And insults to other religious groups.

Apples & oranges. Putting a "god" in a cartoon is wrong in this teeny, tiny world. But it does open the discussion as to what muslims do that goes against the same principle. That religions are sacred. But civilian life is not?

[Yupster]

12. If someone doesn't think it right to picture someone in a cartoon

then they shouldn't.

This just doesan't seem like a hard call to me.

If you don't want to see the prophet in a comic then don't draw one.

If you don't want to see someone else's drawing, then don't look.

Why is this a hard call?

Now if someone wanted to put the pictures on government property or pay for them with government money, then I'd be against them.

[applegrove]

13. Because we know that religious leaders of the fundamentalist kind

use excuses to whip their believers into shape. So,when you know it is out there, one click away from your cartoon, you don't do it.

For sure in the West religious leaders are used to discussion and satire having to do with god. But in a very big part of the world they are not.

[PaulaFarrell]

14. So what else should we be afraid of?

Hey, it wasn't so long ago in western culture that heresy was a crime. I just don't believe we can tiptoe around other cultures, afraid of stepping on any toes, or we will sink into giving up our own hard-won freedoms. You are right that people are being whipped up to a fever about this, but it would not surprise me in the least if the people doing the whipping are the repressive governments in those places. Much easier to focus all the anger and resentment on an unseen enemy. After all, if the people in those countries were to really use their collective power they would be storming US (and UK) embassies around the world, and perhaps even their own leaders, and I don't think the Saudi or Pakaistani governments would allow that.

[applegrove]

16. I agree that whipping people into a frenzy benefits certain portions

of the religious. And religious strength benefits those who want society tribalized.

I just think we have to be real. Reality is that info will get across the world in a second. So - if you are going to cause riots - it is your responsiblity as a journalist to know that.

Seems there are theries that these cartoons are old or something. Don't know what the facts about the cartoons will say in the end - and how they were used.

But I think we can learn about culture clash as computers open us up to everything.

Personally - I would hope that big discussion on mohamed being used in cartoons will soon beg the question in Islamic minds.. and what do I make fun or or slur.

Empathy is a mightier sword than just about anything else.

[Benfea]

15. What strange logic, but then I never understood religious conservatives

Why is it admirable to engage in terrorism in the name of Mohammed, but offensive to portray Mohammed as a terrorist?

Caveat: I pretty much hate all Abrahamic religions.

[applegrove]

18. So do you like Buddah? Or shintoism? Or Hinduism?

[fujiyama]

21. .

.

[applegrove]

22. Said he didn't like Abrahamist religions. That would be xtianity,

Judaism, & Islam.

I was just wondering if it was just these or organized religeon in general.

[fujiyama]

19. Smart guy

I feel sorry for sane and sensible Muslims that are NOT acting this way. They should not be painted with a broad light.

It's not always easy living in a free society. Politeness isn't what freedom of the press is baseed on. Sometimes editorials and political cartoons in particular can get offensive, and possibly even racist, mysoginstic, or homophobic at times.

Those that can accept these drawbacks are mature tthough. Because ultimatetly, tthese drawbacks are also thee strengtthhs of a free society.

[TheFarseer]

25. He's exactly right

Most muslims seem to have no tolerance and no sense of humor. They need to settle the f*ck down and that's putting it mildly. I get so sick of muslims having a fit over everything. Christians have a fit over everything also, but they don't burn cars, issue death warrants and set building on fire over cartoons. They bitch and bitch some more, but they are generally not violent. I'm glad not all muslims are like this. Maybe they can shame the others into disgarding this behavior, but I am not opptomistic. This reaction over a cartoon is insanity.