The Cartoons Depicting Mohammed the Prophet

[kitkat]

Diffrent strokes for different folks???


COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - The Danish newspaper that first published caricatures of the Prophet Mohammad infuriating Muslims worldwide previously turned down cartoons of Jesus as too offensive, a cartoonist said on Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Twelve cartoons of the Prophet published last September by Jyllands-Posten newspaper have outraged Muslims, provoking violent protests in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

"My cartoon, which certainly did not offend any Christians I showed it to, was rejected because the editor felt it would be considered offensive to readers -- readers in general, not necessarily Christians," cartoonist Christoffer Zieler said in an email he sent to Reuters on Wednesday.

Jens Kaiser, the former editor of Jyllands-Posten's Sunday edition who turned down the cartoons three years ago, said he had done so because they were no good.

"Having seen the cartoons, I found that they were not very good. I failed to see the purportedly provocative nature," he said in a statement.

"My fault is that I didn't tell him what I really meant: The cartoons were bad." Kaiser said he told Zieler he had not used the cartoons because they were offensive to some readers.

Zieler's five colored cartoons portrayed Jesus jumping out of holes in floors and walls during his resurrection. In one, gnomes rated Jesus for style, another entitled "Saviour-cam" showed Jesus with a camera on his head staring at his feet.

"I do think the cartoons would offend some readers, but only because they were silly," Kaiser said.

Unlike Muslims, who consider depictions of the Prophet to be deeply offensive, many Christians adorn churches with images and sculptures of Jesus. However, some Christian congregations have protested at portrayals they perceive as blasphemous, especially in the cinema. :?  :?

[lionger]

Sorry Ummita,
I might have misunderstood your post a bit. I think I see what you mean when you refer to God's judgement as opposed to ours, and I agree. Yes its is God's to judge; sometimes though we can take that as an excuse for silence which should not be. And actually I did note that you expressed disapproval with the excessive violence in your first post. Your second response just didn't seem in agreement. My bad :)

How is the Darfur issue related to this case? Well it is about as related to this issue as these harsh treatments you brought up that in your opinion has given many muslims a 'victim' mentality:

1. labeling all Muslims as terrorist
2. Discrimination at the work place & public amenities
3. Unjust enrichment on Muslims
4. Promoting women to unveil from their pious model and simply turn into tarts!
5. Salman Rushie had his share, a defamatory novel on satanic verses
6. We have so many internet articles with transparent hate
7. Mortality rate in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, is unbelievable

Please point out if I'm misunderstanding you again. I'm not aiming to argue over the relevance of these things. Frankly I think that among other things the Darfur issue is more damaging to Islam's image than slander in any way, shape or form. As such, propriety dictates that there should be more protestations over the former than the latter. But if indeed the victim mentality is prevalent, then it explains why that is not the case.

Now that is still unacceptable IMHO, and I say this as a religious person to hopefully somewhat like-minded religious ppl. Being the victim or feeling like one does explain in some sense violent reprisal but surely cannot be allowed to dictate our actions in place of God's command. Violence is still a no-no nevertheless! I saw some pics of prostesters in Denmark and London waving placards that read "butcher/ kill/slay those who insult Islam" or "Europe your 9/11 is coming" - obviously ppl like this are certainly ill-prepared for life in a democratic, secolar societies where almost nothing is sacred.

[ummita]

Umitta,

The name is spelt with a double ?M? and not a double ?T?. I stress that it should be spelt out correctly??Thank u

frankly, it is difficult to have a logical dialogue with many Muslims, because logic and reason seem to be highly discouraged.

I have long known that religion is by no means a proper subject of conversation in a mixed company??but, If it is difficult why didn?t you save yourself time?.instead of bringing it up & taking part in it?

Mohammed, unlike the Prophets before him, could not tolerate any kind of ridicule, opposition, or dissent. In fact according to historical documents, he ordered the execution of those who publicly ridiculed him and what he stood for.

Historical documents! I beg your pardon!?some historians have left blank spaces in their writing for things they simply didn?t know & historians are very good in altering the past. More to this, all historians of present days have never met any of the Prophets of the earlier days! So am saying, I cannot afford to accommodate any principle in its scheme which was not truthfully sustainable in the earlier periods?.
Furthermore, if you are talking about intolerability, most humans are intolerable. I remembered sometime back when I read about the famous council of Nicea (325 AD), the church of St. Paul (The Roman Catholic Church) which selected four most closely conformed  doctrines over three hundred Gospels in their possession. All others, including the Gospel of Barnabas, were ordered to be completely destroyed. They also ruled that all Gospels written in Hebrew were to be destroyed. A decree was then passed that anyone found in possession of an unauthorized Gospel would be put to death. Countless numbers of Christians were then systematically killed as heretics and burned at the stake if they maintained their belief in the divine Unity of God and did not conform to the innovative teachings of Paul. It is well known that this practice continued until at least the year 1616 AD. Now doesn?t this for example show the zero tolerance level St Paul church had against anyone who does not conform to the teaching of Paul in their times? So just don?t point a finger alone on Prophet (PBUH) and accuse him of any intolerability. Besides you have never had any encounters with him to prove it, neither have I met with the disciples of St Pauls but am trying to tell you intolerability is domiciled in the minds of everybody. Even if you claim such revelations showed that the Messenger was intolerant to those who ridiculed him, was made by  historians, yet today you stand to use it as an argument marking your belief in a very bogus information.

Then you went on to proclaim all these peace about Islam and the non violent , non agressive philosophy of the religion, and that is completely false.

It is no exaggeration to tell you that Islam & violence are contradictory  to each other. The concept of Islamic violence is so obviously unfounded & stands rejected. The fact that violence is not sustainable in the present world is enough for you to atleast consider despite your disapproval of facts you blatantly refuse to have an open eye on, but least know that violence in alien to the principles of Islam.  An attempt to bracket violence with Islam amounts to making the very eternity of Islamic religion doubtful & it is something I cannot do!!!! Islam is a religion of peace, love and human brotherhood. However this is also a fact that in later times the image of Islam has  altered drastically. Now Islam is obviously regarded as a religion of violence rather than as a religion of peace. This change/transformation in the image of Islam is NOT experienced by ALL Muslims. Its responsibility falls on the latter-day Muslims, who fail to maintain the original image of Islam.!  Though "it has been said that, it is pointless & one cannot argue with someone who denies the first principles anyway!

Whether you deem it false?or bogus, am telling you for billions of years even before you were born, the entire universe has been fulfilling its function in total harmony . Islam also is an attachment to peace and cannot afford a non-peace situation or a state of non peace. Islam aims at spiritual progress, intellectual development, character building, social reform, educational activities & above all these cannot be achieved except in an atmosphere of peace & harmony but today such an atmosphere is cancerous for Muslims. In Islam, peace is the rule & war is only an exception. Acts of belligerence is to be avoided by any Muslim and God abhors disturbance of peace and promotes peace and many more (2:205)

But not to digress, please answer my question, is a cartoon a threat to Islam?

This is exactly why I made that comment about you sounding like a toddler (no offense intended). How can you spank a kid & ask him just for the hell of it, why is he crying? Hmmm?.I am continually fascinated at the difficulty intelligent people have in distinguishing what is controversial and offensive! With all due respect stop camouflaging your question and I beg to differ???let me honor your question by giving it a reason for it to suffice as a genuine question?.Is the content of an impertinence cartoonish image portraying a religious figure of a religious group bound to be detrimental to them? You can carry out your homework on that?..because I have already done mine and concluded.....(YES). In all of this, you seem to be nagging over one issue & you have been going on about in circles and clearly the purpose of your post is Do we think it was right for Muslims to act brashly?Had it been you posed it out that way.....we wouldnt have been making so much rif-raf about something already done..... & might have called it a "wrap"....Also my answer would have been capital NOOOOOOOOO!  

I think there are other reasons why the Muslims are reacting so agressively.Some expessed earlier that they feel merginalised and want to capture what they percieve to be their rightly place globally.

Humans boil at different degree??..!!! but ?I? am not supporting what is going on in Denmark. And pls! don?t bring up any geographical boundary??issues up (i.e Israel & Palestine are well far ahead of the crisis between Denmark Muslims vs Denmark Cartoonist!!! but lol (a big pat on your back for saying that!)
My sermon may continue some other time.......................

Lawd of mercy...... eyyah......have anyone heard bird flu....is just begining to manifest amongst "our chickens with Nigerian citizenships" Eyyah dem poor things!!

[mallamt]

This disussion has really highlighted some of the main problems on the issue while there have been very educated contributions there have been some very silly comments and ignorant contributions.  But let us see where this leaves us.

We live in a global village community as they say, with communication systems and technology that is beyond belief.  Equally the attack on religion has been on the increase around the world.  For years religions have been attacked vehemently through caricatures and articles, however islam was relatively saved from some of the attacks.  The attacks came from hollywood right to the coner shop with caricatures and articles riddiculing most faiths, with christianity being one of the biggest targets, both from aethist and members of other religions.  Christ was(is) caricatured and or ridiculed in writtings, the bible itself did not escape and obviously the disciples such as Paul did not stand a chance (remember Jesus Christ the super star movie, The Da Vinci Code etc).

So what now with these cartoons of the Prophet?  The reality is that they would continue in various ways, wether it is done in the private or in the public domain these kind of thing would continue and will find there way into the public domain.  It will become more and more difficult in future to even identify the author. Most likely also the publication they appear will become more difficult to identify.  People who create these caricatures thrive on the emotions it generates, therefore it is very important not to give into there play on the emotions of the faithful followers.  

There is alot of lessons muslims can learn from christians and other faiths on how to handle these types of attacks on their faith.  One of the first questions muslims must ask themselves is does the prohibition of drawing/representing the prophet in any way extend to non-muslims? if yes then there is a question that must be asked and that is realistically how possible is it to stop non-muslims from depicting the prophet in any way in contemporary times and in the future?  There is a need for muslims to really examine this issue in great depth and not just shelve it or sweep it under the carpet.  We are just to look at the image a population of muslims have created for islam, they have made islam look like a violent religion because of the way they react to issues.  The world has been sold the idea that islam is just a violent religion that plans and executes the murder of innocent people including women and children and does not allow any kind of freedom for people moreso women.  It has been easy to sell this thanks to 911, the taliban, bali bombing etc.

The current problems of the cartoons should be seen as an opportunity by muslims to really discuss some critical elements of the faith and how it (islam) has been potrayed to the world.  It is an opportunity to wrest the faith from the trouble makers who have succeeded in giving it (islam)a bad name.  Muslims should brace themselves for more of this type of attacks and they would become increasingly difficult to know the real source, it is time to relook the strategy of how muslims react to these types of attacks, because the way they react will either make or break the religion.

As suggested earlier on islam can learn from other religions on how to handle this type of attacks.  One should just have a look at christianity, christians have protested the caricature and ridicule of it and its symbols in very tactical manner that has seen a gradual reduction of this type of attack infact its symbols and characters are becoming increasingly desirable and revered more and more in modern spiritual movies and writtings.  Of course the attacks have not stopped as seen with the Da Vinci Code, where attempts are made to give "logical" and "scientific" basis to the attacks.  These types of attacks are better because it has been relatively simpler to show the falsehood in them, they just end up being interesting readings nothing more.

[lionger]

Great post Mallamt, I truly hope everyone reads it carefully. I would also like our muslim friends to address this particular point you brought up:

One of the first questions muslims must ask themselves is does the prohibition of drawing/representing the prophet in any way extend to non-muslims?

Guys realize again that the core of this problem is clearly ideological, i.e. some sort "clash of civilizations". Both sides cleary have different thinking processes. Desisting from making images of the prophet Mohammed because it is prohibited in your holy books and thus offensive to Muslims makes some sense to me; I would gladly comply. However the other side's remonstration is that they have no obligation to comply to a set of beliefs that they don't accept. If so, they might as well be compelled to go to the mosque and become muslims altogether! Seems like a stretch but that is their line of reasoning.

If the answer to mallamt's question is yes, then by the same reasoning you, Ummita and Husnaa, have also crossed the line by saying that my Christian faith is the product of some guy's imagination rather than the work of the Almighty God. In my opinion, you have attributed the work of God that He has carefully preserved over the centuries to the devious conceptions of men and a corrupt institution; that could be interpreted as a blasphemous statement. Am I obliged to demand that you cease and desist? Should I be angry with you? Should I make threats? Well I don't think that way and so the answer is no  8)   . As you said Ummita, God is the final judge.

I am not surprised, though still curious and would like to inquire as to why the legitimacy of the Christian faith and the Bible is being challenged on this thread. Denmark and most other European countries are not ruled by a Christian religious hegemony.  This issue doesn't really directly implicate Christianity. Can someone kindly show me how?? Some of this rage is being misdirected and spilling over into other arenas:

1)  The European governments are not Christian, as already stated. So the misdirected rage at churches that occured in Lebanon is out of place.
2) Your beef is not really with the European governments, but with the newspapers that published the offensive material! As I said, these countries are democracies and as such the government can't twist the arm of the press. The Denmark govt apologised infact. So burning flags, effigies of the Danish PM, embassies/consulates, and threatening the lives of ppl from these countries are not really in order.
3) The U.S. ain't part of this brouhaha; I believe they have condemned the cartoons. So why are ppl burning U.S. flags? Why the needless loss of life that has occured in Afghanistan where thousands were protesting outside the U.S. military base?

Back to the issue of the Christian faith: Ummita and Husnaa, if you are keen on discussing the so-called "Pauline Christianity" subject, then perhaps a separate thread would suffice. I would be happy to discuss with you there in a friendly manner w/out bitterness, and I'm sure mallamt would as well. I believe he has tackled the subject once.

God bless

[sammy]

Very well expressed Mallamt. Great questions Lionger.  As you stated, one tabloid published these caricatures, but the Muslim are burning Danish flags, embassies, buildings, etc.  Now, they've turned their attention to America as if America had anything to do with the cartoons. That is Muslim logic for you.  And I say this without disrespect, all it takes for Muslims to whip up a frenzy, is an order from some Sheik or Imam, and before you know it, thousands of people would have taken to the streets chanting and gesturing wildly, and of course burning things.  The images you see on T.V has been played out over and over again at different times and in different circumstances. I have no idea why Ummitta chooses to be blind to these realities.  I have never seen Muslims or their leadership take responsibility for anything. Rather than assume any responsibility, they rationalize and justify the actions of their faithfuls, and as such, it is pointless to reach any consensus with them.

The other thing that intrigues me is how quick Muslims try to drag other religion into discourse even if the issue at hand is completely unrelated.  Earlier on in this thread, someone already began attacking Christianity. If anything, a normal individual would have attacked all other religions.  And as I said previously, this kind of paranoia is a confimation to me, that Muslims have a deep rooted fear of the Christian philosophy. My Question to Ummitta and to the other writers that have toed that line is this, why do you fear Christianity? I have debated with Christians and I notice they do not fear Islam or any other religion for that matter, and as such would express their beliefs and position on any issue without references or comparison to believers of other faiths.

What I fail to understand from my Muslims friends is why they are so apprehensive about a 'false' or to use their word, a 'corrupted' religion like Christianity. This fear drives them to attack anything they perceive to be Christian or connected to Christianity.  This is why when rioters were done burning Danish flags, they automatically turned their bloodthirsty appetites to the next best thing....America of course. They did not need an excuse to focus some of their aggression on America. Interestingly enough, President Bush had already issued a condemnation over the publication, but did that make the zombies stop for a second and think? NO!

The truth is, we can spin it and decieve ourselves that the Majority of Muslims are not radicals.  We can create labels and call some Muslims moderates, etc.  But a grim reality is becoming apparent.  That reality is,  it is becoming increasingly impossible for Muslims to peacefully co-exist with non Muslims.  The only time calm exists in a society where Muslims co-exist with others is when they are a clear minority (even then,  anything can set them off).

Many Western or should I says "christian" western European countries, go out of their way to accomodate Muslims. Many have programs to integrate Muslims into the society of the host country. Muslims are welcome to build their worship centers, they are allowed free expression of their cultural and religious identity, and can freely gather and associate with whomever they choose.  The same courtesy and freedom is not extended to non Muslims and foreigners in Islamic countries.  FACT

England that has been one of the most accomodating nation to Islam and Muslims leaned a bitter lesson recently. They were so accomodating, that radical lunatics  were openly holding gatherings where young Muslims were being encouraged to cause destruction to the English society through their usual means (bombs).  England wanted to be seen as a friendly nation to the Muslim World. The very Muslims that collect English welfare,  and enjoy British rights and protection were the ones plotting who plotted, and executed the deadly London triain bombing of the year before. They simply massacred innocent citizens going about their everyday lives.  What was the provocation then?  What was the provocation for bombing the popular tourist spot in Bali? what was the provocation for bombing the US embassies in in Kenya and Tanzania that killed more innocent Africans than anyone one else? Yet, the Africans did not take to the streets and burn Islamic flags, or embassies of Islamic nations....

I must say this however, the desire of Muslims to execute anyone that published any unflattering article or depiction of mohammed goes back to the days of the prophet himself.  This is not just a recent phase in the history of Muslims.  I will conclude by leaving you all with this article complied by the historian, Ali Sufi akbar. Take a read.....


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3) Assasination of poets who criticised Mohammed's murderous ways
Date: Late March-April, 623 A.D
Place: Medinah
Victims: Two of the most famous poets of Medinah, who had the courage to criticise the murderous actions of Mohammed and his gang

After the battle of Badr, the people of Medinah were horrified that they had given refuge to such a blatant criminal and his followers in their city. Many began protesting the presence of such violent and murderous people in their city. In a free society like Pre-Islamic Arabia, the poets acted as society's conscience and were free to criticise, satirize and examine the actions of people. The two most famous poets of this kind were Abu 'Afak; an extremely old and respected poet and Asma bint Marwan; a young mother with the gift of superb verse.

Muhammad was enraged at their criticism. When he heard the verses composed by Asma Bint Marwan he was infuriated and screamed aloud, "Will no one rid me of this daughter of Marwan!" That very night a gang of Muslims set out to do the dirty deed. They broke into the poets' house. She was lying in in her bedroom suckling her newborn child, while her other small children slept nearby. The Muslims tore the newborn infant off her breast and hacked it to pieces before her very eyes. They then made her watch the murder of all four of her children, before raping and then stabbing her repeatedly to death. After the murder when the Muslims went to inform the Prophet, he said "You have done a service to Allah and his Messenger, her life was not worth even two goats!"

A month later the distinguished and highly respected Abu Afak, who was over a hundred years old and reknowned for his sense of fairness, was killed brutally in the same manner as he slept. Once again the Prophet had commented that morning "Who will avenge me on this scoundrel!"

This shows us exactly how much the tolerant and peace loving Prophet respected life. Muslims claim that Mohammed was extremely gentle and loved children. Indeed the horrifying way he had Asma Bint Marwan's five infants slaughtered certainly attests to this "loving" side of the Prophet.

-Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Muhammed Marmaduke
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[admin]

This thread is going to be closed because it seems like it can be better discussed in this manner elsewhere.

Also for the deep thinkers amongst us?.

This matter is much more complicated than it may seem. . .
There is definitely something fishy about the timing of all this, what with the media blitz of late, especially the last couple weeks, focusing on what to do about Iran. It seems a perfect sideshow for bolstering anti-Muslim attitudes among the populations of some nations and garnering support for the upcoming escalation of war cries and fear mongering.

Also check this out?
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512