Making Fun of the Bearded Guy

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

Some more examples of some Muslims versus free expression for cartoonists and publishers:

SA editor threatened over cartoon
A South African editor has received threats after her paper reprinted one of the cartoons that have angered Muslim groups internationally.

Ferial Haffajee, editor of the Mail and Guardian said she had received abusive letters and text messages.

On Friday, South African Muslim activists won an interdict barring another paper, the Sunday Times, from printing the cartoons.

Cartoons of the prophet Muhammad have sparked protests across the world.

South Africa’s constitution guarantees the right to freedom of expression.

The Mail and Guardian published one of the cartoons on its international news page on Friday, to illustrate a story about last week’s protests.

“People have been phoning my mother and exercising pressure through her,” Ms Haffajee told the BBC News website.

She said some groups had threatened to march on the newspaper’s offices in Johannesburg.

“It displays a lack of tolerance that is nerve-wracking,” she said.

Ms Haffajee said she felt she was being targeted personally because she is herself a Muslim.

“There are people out there who feel it is their duty to remind me that there is a hereafter and I will be punished.”

Interdict

After the Mail and Guardian reprinted the cartoon, the Muslim organisation Jamiat-ul Ulama won a court interdict stopping the Sunday Times from doing the same.

“We are aware of the sensitivities regarding the cartoons, and the editorial team was discussing whether these sensitivities should be given more weight than the right of non-Muslim readers to see the depictions that had caused huge offence in other parts of the world,” a statement published by the Sunday Times said.

“We declined to give an undertaking not to publish the cartoons, not because we were intent on publishing them, but because we strongly oppose the attempt by any group to edit or censor the newspaper,” the statement said.

“We regard this as a serious blow to the freedom of the press and have every intention of challenging the ruling when the matter returns to court,” the statement concluded.

Protests against the cartoons in Muslim countries have targeted embassies of Denmark and Norway, which were the first countries to print the cartoons, which some Muslims see as blaspheming the prophet Muhammad.

TIMELINE:

CARTOON ROW
30 Sept 2005: Danish paper publishes cartoons
20 Oct: Muslim ambassadors complain to Danish PM
10 Jan 2006: Norwegian publication reprints cartoons
26 Jan: Saudi Arabia recalls its ambassador
30 Jan: Gunmen raid EU’s Gaza office demanding apology
31 Jan: Danish paper apologises
1 Feb: Papers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain reprint cartoons
4 Feb: Syrians attack Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus
5 Feb: Protesters sack Danish embassy in Beirut

122

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

This is all true. Of course Islam appears to be the only major religion that is still using violence at a major level.[/quote]

Many Muslims believe that this is due to the fact that since the expulsion of the Moors from Andalusia in 1492, Islam has suffered major indignities at the hands of the Christians and Jews. With the abolition of the caliphate in 1924, and the creation of Israel in 1947, (which would be the equivalent of the United Nations appropriating the most fertile land in Texas, handing it over to the Gypsies and the homeless people of France, and expecting everyone to be okay with that), many young Muslims have felt culturally humiliated and frustrated, “mad as hell and they ain’t gonna take it anymore”. So they pick up a Kalashnikov and a couple kilos of Semtex and start creating holy terror. Literally.

I believe that if Islam ever regains the position, which it held for centuries, of cultural and technological leader of the world, then the violence will stop. For this to happen, the current holder of this position (Christianity, and more specifically the United States of America) will have to be removed from the game. It is a losing battle for the Muslims, perhaps, but one that they refuse to give up. On the other hand, consider that Islam is the world’s fastest growing religion, while growth in Christianity is stagnating.

It’s not a pretty picture, I agree.

123

well Catholicism is the world’s fastest “religion” and the numbers of Catholics and Muslims are about the same, both are in the 1 to 1.3 billion range.

124

[quote]vroom wrote:
Besides, going around and issuing death threats against the cartoonists merely proves the cartoonists portrayal was accurate, doesn’t it?
[/quote]

Bingo. I thought I was the only one to see that a cartoon depciting Islam as violent… produced a violent reaction. Don’t those doing the protesting see the irony?

Dammit, I’m going to kill the next person who talks about homosexualty being okay, since the God of my parent’s faith states that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death. Sheesh.

125

The Danish clerics that blew this stuff out of proportion used three pictures (Mohammed with a pig’s snout, Labeling him a paedophile, and showing a praying Muslim being raped by a dog) that were never published by the Danish newspaper.

–

"The Danish Muslim clerics and activists took themselves off to the Middle East to drum up support for their campaign against the 12 cartoons published in the Danish newspaper, “Jyllands-Posten”.

They carried with them a 43 page dossier, containing not 12, but 15 images of the Prophet Mohammed. The three extras were far more obscene, depicting Mohammed with a pig’s snout and labeling him a paedophile, and showing a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.

The Muslim delegates insisted they made clear the three extra cartoons were not from “Jyllands-Posten”, but were included to show the level of racism faced by Danish Muslims. They say the images came from hate mail sent, anonymously, to Danish Muslims.

There is certainly a problem with this account: every time Danish or foreign reporters asked to meet the Muslims sent those letters, or simply to see the original hate mail, they were told no, or promised they would be made available, only for that promise not to be kept.

To me, the case is inconclusive - definitely worth reporting, but impossible to prove either way. Other voices in the blogosphere have already made up their minds, it seems, declaring the extra three cartoons were faked by the imams themselves.

In the US, lots of bloggers have been linking to Gateway Pundit, which pins the blame on the Copenhagen-based imam, Ahmed Abu Laban, stating as fact that he “faked obscene cartoons on his trip to the Middle East.”

Gateway Pundit cites an interview with Abu Laban on the US Fox News network, including the following commentary by the Fox correspondent, Jonathon Hunt: "After the publication the Imam and others toured the Middle East showing the cartoons but adding three more new ones that were far more offensive than anything the paper published.

“He [Imam Ahmad Abu Laban] told us they were from threatening letters but promising to give us copies of those letters, he never did.”

Also in the States, American Thinker, says: “these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet.”

The Brussels Journal, a blog which deserves credit for following the story long before the maintsream media, is slightly more cautious, posing the thought as a question. To quote from a recent posting of theirs, the original 12 cartoons were “so inoffensive in fact that alienated Danish Muslim fanatics had to add three truly offensive cartoons (of their own making?) to deliberately incite Islamic hatred against Denmark.”

Another much-linked blog, the Counterterrorism blog, merely calls the extra cartoons “fabricated”. Or were the images pulled from the internet - either by the imams, if they are lying, or by racist white Danes to create hate mail, if the imams are telling the truth.

One visitor to Gateway Pundit mentions an article in the Norwegian paper, Verdens Gang, which says the images were taken from “Christian fundamentalist websites in the US”. This analysis is attributed to a professor at Oslo University."

126

Another good op-ed, from John O’Sullivan:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul07.html

Good quote:

[i]As riots spread through the Islamic world, the British foreign secretary, the U.S. State Department, the U.N. secretary general, various responsible Muslim organizations and many commentators in Europe and America are calling for restraint on both sides.

What both sides would those be? Well, one side has published a handful of cartoons, arguably blasphemous and certainly insulting to the Prophet Mohammed, and the other side has burned embassies, taken hostages, murdered three people suspected of being Christians and/or Danes, shot at Danish soldiers helping children in Iraq, marched through London with banners threatening further bomb attacks on the city, and attacked and beaten people whom they suspected of some vague connection with, well, with Europe or Christianity.[/i]

127

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Another good op-ed, from John O’Sullivan:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul07.html

Good quote:

[i]As riots spread through the Islamic world, the British foreign secretary, the U.S. State Department, the U.N. secretary general, various responsible Muslim organizations and many commentators in Europe and America are calling for restraint on both sides.

What both sides would those be? Well, one side has published a handful of cartoons, arguably blasphemous and certainly insulting to the Prophet Mohammed, and the other side has burned embassies, taken hostages, murdered three people suspected of being Christians and/or Danes, shot at Danish soldiers helping children in Iraq, marched through London with banners threatening further bomb attacks on the city, and attacked and beaten people whom they suspected of some vague connection with, well, with Europe or Christianity.[/i][/quote]

it would seem the “other” side, besides the fanatics, would be some sort of enforcement agency. like the military. hmmm, possibly? i doubt they are talking about cheezy ass animator’s from the land of delicious breakfast food’s. though that would be a funny sight, danish animators armed with thick pencils, attacking a crowd of fanatical minority Muslims. or is it Muslim fanatical minorities, or the minority of fantatical Muslims. beats me, you decide.

128

[quote]PSlave wrote:
Bingo. I thought I was the only one to see that a cartoon depciting Islam as violent… produced a violent reaction. Don’t those doing the protesting see the irony?
[/quote]

Would it be equally ironic if an avatar depicting a schoolgirl as lascivious… produced a lascivious reaction?

Damn, baldie! That be some fine bootie on that little high skool honey.

Let me guess…the P in Pslave stands for “panty sniffer”?

Ahem…

Sorry folks. We were discussing religion, right? :wink:

V

129

Amusing.

http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_02_05-2006_02_11.shtml#1139372115

I Demand a Fatwa:

Several seemingly reputable press accounts (NPR, New York Times, and The Observer (U.K.)) report that, when the 12 Danish cartoons depicting Mohammed ( http://blog.newspaperindex.com/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/ ) were distributed in many Muslim countries, they were distributed alongside three other cartoons that were much more offensive ( Scandinavian Update: Israeli Boycott, Muslim Cartoons | The Brussels Journal ). One of the extra cartoons showed Mohammed as a pedophile demon, another showing him with a pig snout, and a third apparently showing a praying Muslim being sexually mounted by a dog. The accounts report that the cartoons were in a packet distributed by some radical Danish Muslim imams, who are apparently not saying where they got the cartoons.

Now the first two cartoons, if they purport to be depictions of Mohammed, would presumably be at least as blasphemous as the original ones (if not more so). What’s more, anyone who distributed them as the work of the Danish cartoonists, knowing that this wasn’t so, is guilty of bearing false witness against others ? potentially in a way that threatens others’ lives. I take it that Islam takes a dim view of that.

Is there an attempt to bring this heinous blasphemer to Islamic justice? To punish him for his sins against Allah and his fellow man? If there is, please let me know about this.

130

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
PSlave wrote:
Bingo. I thought I was the only one to see that a cartoon depciting Islam as violent… produced a violent reaction. Don’t those doing the protesting see the irony?

Would it be equally ironic if an avatar depicting a schoolgirl as lascivious… produced a lascivious reaction?

Damn, baldie! That be some fine bootie on that little high skool honey.

Let me guess…the P in Pslave stands for “panty sniffer”?

Ahem…

Sorry folks. We were discussing religion, right? :wink:

V[/quote]

How’d you guess?!

I mean, um, er… no!

131

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Off the bat, I can’t think of any religion that hasn’t been used at one time or another as an excuse for rape, murder and armed robbery on a national level.[/quote]

We could start with Buddhism…

132

[quote]jwillow wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Off the bat, I can’t think of any religion that hasn’t been used at one time or another as an excuse for rape, murder and armed robbery on a national level.

We could start with Buddhism…[/quote]

you could ad mormon’s to that list.

133

[quote]jwillow wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Off the bat, I can’t think of any religion that hasn’t been used at one time or another as an excuse for rape, murder and armed robbery on a national level.

We could start with Buddhism…[/quote]

Read up on the actions of Japanese monks, say during sengoku jidai.

134

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
jwillow wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Off the bat, I can’t think of any religion that hasn’t been used at one time or another as an excuse for rape, murder and armed robbery on a national level.

We could start with Buddhism…

Read up on the actions of Japanese monks, say during sengoku jidai.[/quote]

Thank you, Aleksandr. You beat me to it.

V

135

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Another good op-ed, from John O’Sullivan:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/osullivan/cst-edt-osul07.html

Good quote:

[i]As riots spread through the Islamic world, the British foreign secretary, the U.S. State Department, the U.N. secretary general, various responsible Muslim organizations and many commentators in Europe and America are calling for restraint on both sides.

What both sides would those be? Well, one side has published a handful of cartoons, arguably blasphemous and certainly insulting to the Prophet Mohammed, and the other side has burned embassies, taken hostages, murdered three people suspected of being Christians and/or Danes, shot at Danish soldiers helping children in Iraq, marched through London with banners threatening further bomb attacks on the city, and attacked and beaten people whom they suspected of some vague connection with, well, with Europe or Christianity.[/i][/quote]

This is why it just seems so ridiculous to me.

In no way is any cartoon worth murder, arson, or whatever else they are doing. Maybe that culture is just so desensitized to death and murder that it no longer strikes them as “wrong”. I just can’t understand it.

136

[quote]mazilla wrote:
jwillow wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Off the bat, I can’t think of any religion that hasn’t been used at one time or another as an excuse for rape, murder and armed robbery on a national level.

We could start with Buddhism…

you could ad mormon’s to that list.

[/quote]

Mormonism hasn’t been used as an excuse for rape, murder and armed robbery?!

Ha

Ahaha

Ahahahahaha

(wait…)

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!

http://www.realmormonhistory.com/

Ha ha.

137

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
I don’t believe in Allah. I don’t believe Mohammed was a prophet of God. I perceive that he was demon-possessed according to historical accounts conveyed by his mother and his nanny (and the fact Mohammed confessed that an angel would frequently taunt him to throw himself of a cliff as an act of suicide for many years).

Aside from accounts that he’d go stark-raving mad and throw himself down to the ground in fits as a child quite often (or be thrown down by an internal force/entity), I think it belittles and disrespects the Muslim people to portray and distribute pictures of Mohammed as a pig. No good can come of this.

Mocking someone’s religion is no laughing matter (aside from the fact that such mockery may ignite suicide bombings in these parts of Europe by terrorists and fanatics). Two thumbs down for the Danish and the French. Their laughter may soon turn into sobbing…

Peace be with all.[/quote]

We all should be able to mock. If you cant mock, what can you do. our tradition of satire has actually made things change in the past. in this instance, for the worst. When the audience is not rational and reactionary, the the device used to satire it was a blunt one. Do you remember Salmon Rushdie, who wrote the satanic versus…he had a jihad sent on his ass.

The reaction just substantiates that those that are “prayer” inclined are irrational and scary. It has been unfortunate that it has turned into an international issue. These were printed around september the other year, but have only come to light recently, and the bandwagon just rolls on.

We talk avout defending rights, tempering that with tollerence. This just shows how bloody tricky that really is.

The other interpretation of this could be a haterd diguised or shielded by “freedom of speech”. this could just be as bad as using faith as a shield, in the knowledge that no one will openly challeng or disagree, for fear of being disresectful.

138

Look around and you will find similar material being produced by muslims against the west, christianity, jews, etc.

Sure the cartoons are stupid. But that doesnt give anyone an excuse to kill.

If this is how the prophet taught them to behave then the cartoons are pretty damned accurate.

139

An interesting question to ponder:

Let’s suppose we develop an ethic of, for lack of a better word, self-censorship in these situations. Over at Firstthings.com, Father Neuhaus said something very interesting today. He said, and I’m quoting here from his website, “A very large sector of the Islamic world is now demanding that the West live by Islamic rules.” … If we develop an ethic of self-censorship … haven’t we, in some sense, … already lost the war by … conceding that we’re going to live by their rules?

140

[quote]miniross wrote:
stellar_horizon wrote:
I don’t believe in Allah. I don’t believe Mohammed was a prophet of God. I perceive that he was demon-possessed according to historical accounts conveyed by his mother and his nanny (and the fact Mohammed confessed that an angel would frequently taunt him to throw himself of a cliff as an act of suicide for many years).

[/quote]

I wonder if this was the same angel that taunted Jesus to throw himself off the parapet of Solomon’s temple.