Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditMost comments about the Danish cartoons of Muhammad assert that Muslims believe it is completely taboo to depict him, period. But is the ban on depicting the prophet really so severe? At Zombietime you can view dozens of images of the prophet, including some from the Muslim world: medieval Persian miniatures; a portrait of Muhammad as a youth by the contemporary Iranian woman painter Oranous (okay by Shi'ites because he wasn't the prophet yet); posters being sold in Iraq right now.
From the Middle Ages on, Muhammad has appeared in Western art not infrequently--in drawings, paintings, book illustrations, comics, advertisements, and on the covers of books and magazines, including a recent issue of Le Nouvel Observateur.
Muhammad has been portrayed by the cartoonist Doug Marlette and has appeared on South Park. And get this: Muhammad appears on the North Frieze in the courtroom of our very own Supreme Court! He's the man with the scimitar, between Justinian and Charlemagne.
Some of this art is respectful; some fanciful and playful; some satirical or even crude and vicious. Only once, however, has any of it seemed to bother believers: in 2002 police uncovered a jihadist plan to blow up the church of San Petronio in Bologna, site of a fresco by Giovanni da Modena showing Muhammad being tortured in Hell (this scene, from Dante's Inferno, was also depicted by Gustav Dore, William Blake, Auguste Rodin and Salvador Dali).
I don't know where exactly this clarification takes us. Maybe I'm just irked by lazy pundits who talk about the global uproar as if everyone should have known this is what happens when you draw Muhammad: Naturally, believers would go round the bend!
But wait, a solution may be at hand to this whole clash of civilizations thing. Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical weekly which reprinted the Muhammad-mocking Danish cartoons, says it will publish cartoons satirizing the Holocaust. I guess they didn't want to be upstaged by Iran, where President Ahmadinejad an announced a a contest for Holocaust-mocking cartoons. (This is an advance on his previous position, which was to deny the Holocaust occurred. Now, it happened, but it's funny.). At last Muslim fundamentalists and free-speech- loving Europeans have found common ground: Anti-semitism!
Share this article
News & Analysis »
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
RSS
I see that Kathe Pollitt has linked to www.zombietime.com, as did Doug Ireland on his blog. This is just appalling and really condemns them rather than Muslim fanatics. Zombietime is to the Internet what those sleazy redbaiting newsletters were to Hollywood and the trade unions in the 1950s. The blogmeister goes around and takes snapshots of commies and people who don't think that Israel is as pure as the driven snow. He cackles over a Tookie Williams vigil and informs us that those attending included the International Socialist Organization who "are hardcore Trotskyites", to use his own felicitous terms. I haven't read crap like that since I got my SWP files under the freedom of information act. Shame on Pollitt and shame on Doug Ireland.
Posted by lproyect at 02/09/2006 @ 4:36pm
I had honestly hoped that Katha Pollitt would surprise me but instead she merely reinforces the utter cluelessness of western liberals and feminists when it comes to Muslims. I'm a regular reader of Pollitt and think she's probably the best feminist columnist in the US but her powers of argument, her ability to understand context, to make distinctions totally disappear when she discusses Muslims. Instead of going past the simplistic rantings of the fundamentalists (they're the only ones to listen to of course) and looking closer at context (as Gary Younge does so ably), she reduces the cartoon "crisis" to the depiction of Mohammed when anyone with any sense of clarity can tell you that if the cartoons in question had depicted the prophet, say, crying over the corpses of the Egyptian pilgrims who drowned earlier this week then there would've been no protests. It is the CONTENT of the cartoons that is the issue: Mohammed depicted as a terrorist -- therefore Muslims AS A PEOPLE are all bearded violent fanatics. Mohammed represents Muslims -- the cartoons target Muslims as an undifferentiated collective. Liberals like Ireland and Pollitt are totally clueless about how Muslims in Europe are marginalized, discriminated against, despised, hated, feared, routinely attacked physically and verbally. Violent protests (in some Muslim countries) are to be condemned but publishing racist cartoons targeted against a vulnerable minority helps to legitimize more hatred and fear (as Nazi cartoons of Jews did). European Muslims see these cartoons in a context of constant media caricatures of them, public discussions of them as an unassimilated foreign horde with politicians publicly saying they are a "cancer" and so should be killed off. Certainly there should be no prohibition against publishing these cartoons but let's be clear here: freedom of speech in Europe seems to be the cause celebre only when the hate speech is targeted against Muslims; a cartoon of Moses (with the star of David) shooting at children with blood-soaked hands would've been roundly condemned by all the free speech bloviators now huffing and puffing about western liberal values. (And note that some Muslim newspapers in certain countries publish anti-semitic cartoons, but none of them are of Moses or Jesus -- since Muslims revere them). Also note that the violence occurred only in a handful of countries and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims either protested peacefully or didn't protest at all.
Posted by sandra1960 at 02/09/2006 @ 4:57pm
I like the fact that you're taking the MSM to task for its lazy consensus that this is about freedom of the press vs. taboos against idolatry and blasphemy. Dig one centimeter under the surface and you'll find a much more complicated geopolitical context.
Take, for example, this Kuwaiti former resident of Denmark [kuwait-unplugged.com] who decries Danish racism's role in this manufactured controversy. Or take this columnist who brilliantly argues that
"Those who insist that this row is about upholding Islam need to ask themselves at whom the prohibition on depicting the prophet is aimed. The answer is Muslims, so that they do not fall into idolatry and revering the messenger instead of his message. No Muslim is at risk of worshipping the images in these cartoons. So what's the beef?
This controversy is about power. Muslim communities in the West feel under suspicion and under siege through the mere fact of their faith. Muslims in the Muslim world feel war has been declared on them by an adversary who controls the world. In such circumstances, the one power people feel they have left is to insist on their dignity. ...
...Such thuggish behaviour [as the violent protests], wherever it occurs, is testament to a lack of power; only when you feel disenfranchised in those avenues of life that really matter can you become exercised over such trivia."
Or take this bit of analysis on Democracy Now:
"AS'AD ABUKHALIL: Many governments, like the oppressive governments of Syria and Jordan, [whose] security forces have a long record of brutality and of torturing people, have become extremely polite. And I've noticed the footage on the Arabic media, that they allow them basically to proceed peacefully and to speak out and, in the case of Damascus, to torch down the embassy of Denmark; and I find that to be very convenient for those governments, because they are very much under attack by their own people for being largely silent about foreign occupation by the United States and about oppression by these same governments. And this is an opportunity for them to let [the people] let out some steam, because Denmark is an easy country to pick on. And they're organizing a boycott of Denmark, when those same governments would not dare to launch a boycott of Israel or the United States, which have been responsible for more offenses against Arabs by virtue of occupations than the Danish government."
He mentions the blasphemy in passing, but contextualizes it as a pretext for venting steam against foreign occupation and homegrown oppression. Later in the same program, when discussing the cartoons themselves, another critic says:
"IRSHAD MANJI: Yeah, bring on the cartoons, and let's remember that more Muslims are offended by the violence in the name of these cartoons than are offended by the cartoons themselves."
You don't have to look very hard to find sensible Muslims and/or Arabs talking about what's going on, yet the conservative MSM insists on alarmist sensationalizing and oversimplifying.
Left Behinds
Posted by leftbehinds at 02/09/2006 @ 5:52pm
[quote]Posted by SANDRA1960;
[i]It is the CONTENT of the cartoons that is the issue: Mohammed depicted as a terrorist -- therefore Muslims AS A PEOPLE are all bearded violent fanatics. [/i] [/quote]
If you are unable to grasp what [b]cartoon[/b] stands for, yes.
Otherwise it takes a retarded person or a child to think that everything a cartoon pictures are real.
Posted by szlevi at 02/09/2006 @ 6:20pm
This is my take on the cartoon controversy:
1) Muslims are overreacting. We live in a world where our political, religious and other views on a variety of subjects are mocked and ridiculed, sometimes in the most base and contentious ways. (Read some of the exchanges in these Nation blogs for example). Every day, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter talk about liberals like me as if we are spawns of Satan. The Arab and Muslim worlds routinely print and publich the most vile anti-Semetic and Holocaust-denying drivel one could ever possibly see. The Muslim world is oversensitive. Further, by their hyper-sensivity, they have unfortunately sucessfully cowed the Western world into submission, to the point that no major media outlet dares even show the cartoons in question.
2) Not to say that they (Muslims) don't have legitimate beefs in general against the West. They do.
In summary, we have a situation where Muslims HAVE been transgressed against, yet, it can also be said that they are overreacting.
Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/09/2006 @ 6:28pm
"Otherwise it takes a retarded person or a child to think that everything a cartoon pictures are real."
I don't understand that comment. You mena, there is someone out there that, when they look at a cartoon drawing of Muhammad, believe they are looking at Muhammad, the person, himself? You think THAT is what Sandra did?
The point of political cartoons is to make a political point. The only difference between a cartoon and an essay, is that one makes their point with drawings rather than words.
Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/09/2006 @ 6:33pm
As far as the free speech component of the controversy/issue:
I believe in free speech (of course), but I am not a free speech absolutist, as if that concern automatically and totally and always trumps EVERY other concern or consideration. In short, CONTENT of what someone says matters, as well as their right to say it.
Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/09/2006 @ 6:35pm
Am I the only person who can only post comments about the first two Notion posts at any given time? Seems like some technical glitch.
Posted by leftbehinds at 02/09/2006 @ 6:55pm
the cartoons are just an excuse. the residents of the countries where the most violent demonstrations have taken place are really angry with their tyrannical governments, their poverty, and their diminished stature in this technological world, one that they fear, and one that has left them far behind.
Posted by johannesrolf at 02/09/2006 @ 7:10pm
There are so many scholars of Islam and "The Muslim World" popping up in the most unlikely places all of a sudden. Who knew Middle America had so many experts so qualified to tell us what "the residents of these countries" think?
Posted by leftbehinds at 02/09/2006 @ 7:15pm
Leftbehinds
Theoretically, one could be from Middle America and have a reasonable and informed perspective on the Muslim world. (I've even heard that they have colleges out there, and that some attend them.)
Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/09/2006 @ 7:19pm
"the cartoons are just an excuse." -- Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/09/2006 @ 7:10pm
Makes a good point. Note how they redirect their anger onto the great Satan. Note how Bush's actions encourage them. "See Dick run..." [Couldn't resist although many here probably weren't exposed to Dick and Jane.]
Posted by adr at 02/09/2006 @ 7:29pm
"In short, CONTENT of what someone says matters..." -- Posted by FRANK THOMAS 02/09/2006 @ 6:35pm
I'm with William O. Douglas on this one. If it doesn't incite to riot (or equal), it's protected. He refused to view porn movies up for review on the SCOTUS because they were free speech. (Of course, an exception exists for use as evidence of illegal exploitation of minors.)
A political cartoon expresses a point of view. If it does so, then it's free speech -- at least in the good ol' US of A. Doesn't matter who it skewers.
(At least it used to BB -- before Bush.)
Posted by adr at 02/09/2006 @ 7:34pm
ADR, I thought Bush said something that was actually (possibly) beneficial? Didn't he emphasize that we need to respect each others' religious views? (If you know me, you know I am not a Bush supporter or apologist; rather I thought this might be one of those rare times when he actually gets something right.)
Perhaps you are aware of something stupid and detrimental and counter productive than he said that I am not aware of? (I wouldn't be surprised if there was.)
Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/09/2006 @ 7:36pm
"If it doesn't incite to riot"
--In this case, it has done just that.
Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/09/2006 @ 7:37pm
I any case ADR, I think you'll agree that there are many issues involved in thos cartoon controversy, and that free speech rights is only one of them. THAT is what I meant (or one of the things I meant) when I said that it's not as if "free speech" rights automatically trump everything else, as if they are the ONLY consideration/issue/factor/component of this somewhat complex issue.
Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/09/2006 @ 7:39pm
If you incite riot that causes death and destruction, It is not complicated. It is wrong. If you do this based on a cartoon, the pure evil of the act reveals itself.
Nothing "complicated" about this.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 7:55pm
If this was published in the middle east, fine.
But it was published in a secular democracy.
Are muslims marginalized? Yes. Can they mandate what can be published in non-muslim countries? NO!
JR is right, their anger is a manifestation of their other problems. But, I am APPALLED that the MSM, in AMERICA (remember America?), is cowed into not publishing them.
Disgusting.
------------------------------------------------
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 02/09/2006 @ 7:39pm
What's so complex about a bunch of superstitious people getting their feelings hurt?
I know I will piss off most on this blog, saying this. But this is the kind of bullshit that has turned me from non-religious (whatever turns you on) to anti-religious(get a f**king grip, you superstitious whacko).
Can't wait for the Christian America(TM) to manifest itself here.
Mindless bullshit. At rational peoples expense.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/09/2006 @ 8:02pm
MAL3, it's not good to be so simple.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 8:09pm
In my 40-plus years of reading The New Yorker, they must have run hundreds, maybe thousands of cartoons of a white-bearded God sitting on a throne of clouds with a covey of angels flying about. I don't recall any Christians burning down their offices or even any irate letters from the likes of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, perhaps because the magazine is beyond their ken. I do recall one of the now verboten Muhammad cartoons that could easily have graced The New Yorker. It shows the prophet racing across a bank of clouds and yelling: "Stop! Stop! We're running out of virgins!"
Posted by Boobird at 02/09/2006 @ 8:09pm
Katha
Here's a take I took on The Garlic: All The Cloves Fit To Peel
Art Schools, On-Line, Matchbook, "Learn To Draw" Courses Flooded With New Muslim Students
Some Say Alternative To Building Burning; Caricature of Danish Queen Most Requested Program
http://puregarlic.blogspot.com
Peace JTD
Posted by JThomasDuffy at 02/09/2006 @ 8:13pm
But is the ban on depicting the prophet really so severe?
If there are no liknesses of Muhammed, how would Muslims know what he looks like?
How would they know to get angry?
(and they need to stop naming their kids Muhammed or forever Ban the kodak moment)
Posted by Will C. at 02/09/2006 @ 8:24pm
MAL3, it's not good to be so simple.
Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 8:09pm
Umm, if your post was less...uh...simple, I might have gotten the jist of it?
What did you mean?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/09/2006 @ 8:58pm
Were you trying to make my point?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/09/2006 @ 9:21pm
"You mena, there is someone out there that, when they look at a cartoon drawing of Muhammad, believe they are looking at Muhammad, the person, himself? You think THAT is what Sandra did?"
It's not my imagination, she DID say that:
"quote from Sandra: It is the CONTENT of the cartoons that is the issue: Mohammed depicted as a terrorist -- therefore Muslims AS A PEOPLE are all bearded violent fanatics. Mohammed represents Muslims -- the cartoons target Muslims as an undifferentiated collective."
This obviously shows someone really confused about the meaning of a cartoon.
"The point of political cartoons is to make a political point."
Ummm, not exactly - it often a simply political joke, without a point, only for fun.
" The only difference between a cartoon and an essay, is that one makes their point with drawings rather than words."
Wow! You Sir, just redefined the meaning of both the essay and cartoon... and all this done within one sentence! That's not bad, not bad at all... where did I hear something like this... hmmm...
...
Ah! I remember: the regime I grew up under, the Commies! They often pulled these types of totally rubbish, false street-wise "wisdoms" when they caught you after some "illegal" underground concert or arrested you for some serious thing, like wearing a military boot etc. Of course, I'm sure you have nothing to do with them, they really didn't support political cartoons whereas you do... ummm do you?
Posted by szlevi at 02/09/2006 @ 9:33pm
MAL, Like I said. It's simple. If you don't like being hit, don't hit. And if you get hit - hit back twice as hard!
Right?
Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 9:40pm
And in the mighty words of Uncle Ted...
"Two eyes for an eye"
That's what I'm talking about.
Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 9:51pm
It seems to me that many right now are caught up in stereotyping that doesn't lead anywhere. So what do we (the left, the American people, progressive people of the planet) do to make this a learning experience and an organizing theme? I hope our response is more than "this is all Bush's fault so let's elect a Democratic majority ASAP".
I suggest that we all tend our respective gardens. Lots of voices - hopefully including Nation readers - are needed to encourage the mass of Christians, Jews, and Muslims to loudly decry the perversion of their faith by self-aggrandizing warlords.
The Nation's writers say these sorts of things all the time, but tend to preach exclusively to secular ears. It's time to address the faithful in their own terms, and not act as though religious beliefs of readers are somehow irrelevant to their political sensibilities.
"Keeping the faith" should have a broader meaning than the left generally ascribes.
Posted by Max Entropy at 02/09/2006 @ 9:58pm
Stop being so worried about the rights of people on the other side of the world and start to worry about the rights of ???
hey... What a concept!
Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/09/2006 @ 10:26pm
the cartoons are just an excuse. the residents of the countries where the most violent demonstrations have taken place are really angry with their tyrannical governments, their poverty, and their diminished stature in this technological world, one that they fear, and one that has left them far behind.
Posted by JOHANNESROLF 02/09/2006 @ 7:10pm
Except for that nuclear weapon that we insist they are building?
Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 10:44pm
I had honestly hoped that Katha Pollitt would surprise me but instead she merely reinforces the utter cluelessness of western liberals and feminists when it comes to Muslims. I'm a regular reader of Pollitt and think she's probably the best feminist columnist in the US but her powers of argument, her ability to understand context, to make distinctions totally disappear when she discusses Muslims. Instead of going past the simplistic rantings of the fundamentalists (they're the only ones to listen to of course) and looking closer at context (as Gary Younge does so ably), she reduces the cartoon "crisis" to the depiction of Mohammed when anyone with any sense of clarity can tell you that if the cartoons in question had depicted the prophet, say, crying over the corpses of the Egyptian pilgrims who drowned earlier this week then there would've been no protests. It is the CONTENT of the cartoons that is the issue: Mohammed depicted as a terrorist -- therefore Muslims AS A PEOPLE are all bearded violent fanatics. Mohammed represents Muslims -- the cartoons target Muslims as an undifferentiated collective. Liberals like Ireland and Pollitt are totally clueless about how Muslims in Europe are marginalized, discriminated against, despised, hated, feared, routinely attacked physically and verbally. Violent protests (in some Muslim countries) are to be condemned but publishing racist cartoons targeted against a vulnerable minority helps to legitimize more hatred and fear (as Nazi cartoons of Jews did). European Muslims see these cartoons in a context of constant media caricatures of them, public discussions of them as an unassimilated foreign horde with politicians publicly saying they are a "cancer" and so should be killed off. Certainly there should be no prohibition against publishing these cartoons but let's be clear here: freedom of speech in Europe seems to be the cause celebre only when the hate speech is targeted against Muslims; a cartoon of Moses (with the star of David) shooting at children with blood-soaked hands would've been roundly condemned by all the free speech bloviators now huffing and puffing about western liberal values. (And note that some Muslim newspapers in certain countries publish anti-semitic cartoons, but none of them are of Moses or Jesus -- since Muslims revere them). Also note that the violence occurred only in a handful of countries and that the overwhelming majority of Muslims either protested peacefully or didn't protest at all.
Posted by SANDRA1960 02/09/2006 @ 4:57pm
Excellent post and better than the article itself. The caricature of Muhammad was in the category of the anti-semitic cartoon caricatures of the Jews published by German nazis in the 1930's.
Any cartoons similar to the above published in the Muslim world should be condemned and very likely would be greatly reduced if anyone took the time to honestly debunk the caricatures and the underlying basis. Rather than that, those who want to whip up hatred of Muslims lovingly cherish each one.
Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 10:54pm
"You mena, there is someone out there that, when they look at a cartoon drawing of Muhammad, believe they are looking at Muhammad, the person, himself? You think THAT is what Sandra did?"
It's not my imagination, she DID say that:
"quote from Sandra: It is the CONTENT of the cartoons that is the issue: Mohammed depicted as a terrorist -- therefore Muslims AS A PEOPLE are all bearded violent fanatics. Mohammed represents Muslims -- the cartoons target Muslims as an undifferentiated collective."
Ah! I remember: the regime I grew up under, the Commies! They often pulled these types of totally rubbish, false street-wise "wisdoms" when they caught you after some "illegal" underground concert or arrested you for some serious thing, like wearing a military boot etc. Of course, I'm sure you have nothing to do with them, they really didn't support political cartoons whereas you do... ummm do you?
Posted by SZLEVI 02/09/2006 @ 9:33pm
They must have been too busy doing that to teach you how to read English.
Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 10:59pm
Theoretically, one could be from Middle America and have a reasonable and informed perspective on the Muslim world. (I've even heard that they have colleges out there, and that some attend them.)
Posted by FRANK THOMAS 02/09/2006 @ 7:19pm
Could you ask them to start posting here?
Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 11:02pm
"In short, CONTENT of what someone says matters..." -- Posted by FRANK THOMAS 02/09/2006 @ 6:35pm
I'm with William O. Douglas on this one. If it doesn't incite to riot (or equal), it's protected. He refused to view porn movies up for review on the SCOTUS because they were free speech. (Of course, an exception exists for use as evidence of illegal exploitation of minors.)
A political cartoon expresses a point of view. If it does so, then it's free speech -- at least in the good ol' US of A. Doesn't matter who it skewers.
(At least it used to BB -- before Bush.)
Posted by ADR 02/09/2006 @ 7:34pm
It did incite to riot. Because it was a vicious caricature. If your kid took similar cartoons of Jews to school and showed them around, he would be expelled.
Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 11:05pm
In my 40-plus years of reading The New Yorker, they must have run hundreds, maybe thousands of cartoons of a white-bearded God sitting on a throne of clouds with a covey of angels flying about. I don't recall any Christians burning down their offices or even any irate letters from the likes of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, perhaps because the magazine is beyond their ken. I do recall one of the now verboten Muhammad cartoons that could easily have graced The New Yorker. It shows the prophet racing across a bank of clouds and yelling: "Stop! Stop! We're running out of virgins!"
Posted by BOOBIRD 02/09/2006 @ 8:09pm
How many cartoons did you see of Christ throwing bombs on Muslims? Exactly zero . . . right? It's literally amazing how the entire political spectrum industriously massages this issue around until they find an angle that makes the Muslims guilty and the "West" innocent.
The magazine that originally published the vicious Muhammad cartoon not very much earlier swiftly rejected cartoons of Christ that sounded to be immeasurably milder and non-sterotypical.
Posted by fromredbird at 02/09/2006 @ 11:13pm
"They must have been too busy doing that to teach you how to read English."
Uh-oh, yes, apart from Latin, Russian and German. How about you?
Posted by szlevi at 02/09/2006 @ 11:25pm
"How many cartoons did you see of Christ throwing bombs on Muslims? Exactly zero . . . right? It's literally amazing how the entire political spectrum industriously massages this issue around until they find an angle that makes the Muslims guilty and the "West" innocent.
The magazine that originally published the vicious Muhammad cartoon not very much earlier swiftly rejected cartoons of Christ that sounded to be immeasurably milder and non-sterotypical."
Numerous, my ignorant pal. Go to Europe - you know, that big area... what? no, not in Texas, it's overseas... no Canada is not overseas... you must fly over the ocean - and buy some newspapers and you'll be surprise. It's everyday there to see cartoons and ugly jokes about Christians, Ctholic Church or - I know it's unbelievable - about Jews.
Posted by szlevi at 02/09/2006 @ 11:28pm
PS: ehh, sorry for the typos. :(
Posted by szlevi at 02/09/2006 @ 11:33pm
Why don't we publish cartoons of Jesus...him carrying bags of money, for example? Or how about "The Good Shepherd" leading all of his sheep over a cliff while he floats in mid-air laughing hysterically? Then we can equally offend the three most powerful monotheistic religions.
Posted by Paunk at 02/09/2006 @ 11:37pm
MAL, Like I said. It's simple. If you don't like being hit, don't hit. And if you get hit - hit back twice as hard!
Right?
Posted by USAPRIDE 02/09/2006 @ 9:40pm
Huh?
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/09/2006 @ 11:51pm
It is not the content of the cartoon, offensive or satirical.
It is the content of the mind of one, so irrational and out of touch with reality, to riot, because someone picked on their irrational belief. Even though they know others throughout the world hold different beliefs. And they find those others beliefs to be irrational, themselves.
To war for your 'god', even though you, yourself, have to take his existance on faith, with no substansive evidence, is sick.
The same could be said about many 'christians' in America.
Either get more tolorant. Or get real.
Eric
Posted by malcontent3 at 02/09/2006 @ 11:57pm
"The proverbial 'log' in our eye"
It is interesting to me that the one, usually outspoken group that we haven't heard from on the issue of the Islamic protests over the Danish cartoons are the so-called "Christian-right". As you know, these are the same people who vehemently attacked the depiction of Jesus on "The Book Of Daniel" recently and were victorious in getting it canceled after only three episodes had aired. Further, one of the rationale they used for boycotting/blacklisting the show is the fact that the writer is an openly-gay man (and he was writing about Christianity and Christ himself for national programming on a major network, OH MY!).
Now, I agree that there is no comparison between someone committing suicide by blowing up a large group of passers-by and someone using their influence as religious (cult?) leaders to strong-arm American corporations and government entities into self-censorship. However, short of a handful of thugs who burned Danish flags and set fire to embassies – the majority of Muslims in the crowds of protestors are shouting "Death to Denmark!" while otherwise conducting themselves in a peaceful, civil manner.
Further, the REASON the Danish press published the cartoons in the first place was as commentary to (and to begin a dialogue on) the trend towards self-censorship in the West towards religion (and Islam in particular) and its relationship to this time in the history of western civilization, during the secularization of E. U. countries' societies and the polarization of American society between secular and religious-fundamentalist forces.
So, in the final analysis, who ARE the "terror-ists"?
Posted by Tim-PA at 02/10/2006 @ 01:07am
"The proverbial 'log' in our eye"
It is interesting to me that the one, usually outspoken group that we haven't heard from on the issue of the Islamic protests over the Danish cartoons are the so-called "Christian-right". As you know, these are the same people who vehemently attacked the depiction of Jesus on "The Book Of Daniel" recently and were victorious in getting it canceled after only three episodes had aired. Further, one of the rationale they used for boycotting/blacklisting the show is the fact that the writer is an openly-gay man (and he was writing about Christianity and Christ himself for national programming on a major network, OH MY!).
Now, I agree that there is no comparison between someone committing suicide by blowing up a large group of passers-by and someone using their influence as religious (cult?) leaders to strong-arm American corporations and government entities into self-censorship. However, short of a handful of thugs who burned Danish flags and set fire to embassies – the majority of Muslims in the crowds of protestors are shouting "Death to Denmark!" while otherwise conducting themselves in a peaceful, civil manner.
Further, the REASON the Danish press published the cartoons in the first place was as commentary to (and to begin a dialogue on) the trend towards self-censorship in the West towards religion (and Islam in particular) and its relationship to this time in the history of western civilization, during the secularization of E. U. countries' societies and the polarization of American society between secular and religious-fundamentalist forces.
So, in the final analysis, who ARE the "terror-ists"?
Posted by Tim-PA at 02/10/2006 @ 01:08am
I would like to underline 4 facts that probably can add some more scope on this issue:
1. I am an adult, I didnt know until now that depicting the Prophet is forbiden. So, I, my culture, my education and my civilization have ensured my (and many others) ignorance on this prohibition. At the same time, Islam could have channeled more clearly and centuries ago this prohibition to the other civilizations.
2. At home (and also at several school libraries), I have found several books, mostly books explaining religions to children, with a depiction of the Muslim Prophet. Some of this books are from the 50s, others are as recent as 2002. Why ?, these ones do not cause trouble the ones of Denmark yes ?.
3. When Islamic extremist carry out terrorist attacks, they do so in the name of Allah, so to my point of view, Muslims could understand why Westerners mix Islam with terrorism.
4. The Danish cartoons are of a very low quality and taste. so it should be seen as that.
I am afraid that too much people are trapped in the ideological prison of Religion.
Posted by areyouok at 02/10/2006 @ 05:11am
"Otherwise it takes a retarded person or a child to think that everything a cartoon pictures are real. "
No, actually one of deep faith and personal bias towards "thier" God will most deffinitely defend their God up unto the point of death.
I'm certainly not suggesting that the press shouldn't have published the cartoons, however as with anything regarding faith, when they did, the paper that published them should have been prepared for the consequences of their actions.
I get upset when I see derogatory images/pictures of Jesus such as the idiot a few years ago that placed a clear glass of piss with a crucifix sitting in it and called it "art".
I was extremely mad and offended, the only difference is I didn't start protesting in the streets and killing people over it.
Todd
Posted by Oksportsguy at 02/10/2006 @ 08:01am
"Otherwise it takes a retarded person or a child to think that everything a cartoon pictures are real."
The sheer stupidity of this comment boggles the mind. It is absolutely amazing that I even have to waste bandwidth to explain this: Political cartoons express something VERY real, VERY concrete: a political point of view shared by the general public as much as people in power. Nazi cartoons such as this one: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/sturmer/sturm05.jpg and this one: http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/images/diebow/cover.jpg expressed very real hatred of Jews. Cartoons like that were a propaganda mechanism (among others) by which Nazis convinced Germans that Jews were a group to fear and hate. Cartoons like this were more powerful than the many anti-semitic articles and essays in the Nazi press of the 1930s in generating and crystallizing hatred and fear of Jews as a so-called "nation within a nation" that was an imminent danger to the German people. And it takes no great expertise to understand the Muslim experience in Europe. All one needs to do is read their press (easily available online), read the general European press and know of the many public statements by politicians and media personalities calling Muslims "pigs and goats," demanding that even Muslim citizens (born and raised in Europe) should be deported; or the many cases of blatant job discrimination, or the acquittal of white supremacists like Nick Griffin (in the UK) for threatening Muslims while jailing imams (for threatening non-Muslims) and read the writings of European Muslims themselves to understand their situation. Almost every day there's a report of some new attack, some new case of a Muslim getting beaten up. (And yes, it helps that I do personally know some Muslims living in Europe -- a dear friend of mine living in Denmark has had her veil torn from her face and ripped a apart 3 times now, she's given up on buying them; a mother of a friend mine in Holland now confines herself to her neighborhood whereas a few years ago she'd freely take public transportation to street markets quite far from her home). Analogies to racist cartoons against Christians or Jews do not work. While they are to be condemned there is a distinction between racial abuse hurled against a group that is not marginalized and vulnerable. The imbalance of power between an oppressed minority and the group in power is the major distinction. Racist beliefs held by the group in power has far-reaching political and institutional consequences (as any African-American can tell you) that racism held by a powerless, vulnerable group does not. The Nazis had the "right" to publish anti-semitic cartoons too.
If USA Today (a nationally available newspaper like the Danish newspaper) had published cartoons expressing the view that Mexicans by definition are dirty welfare cheats and a danger to the American economy (with a Mexican drawn as filthy, wearing a sombrero, etc.) the paper would quite rightly be condemned for its blatant racist depiction. No national newspaper in this country would publish a hook-nosed Moses shooting children with blood-soaked hands -- the outcry would be defeaning. And no, there would be no violence, just as there has been no violence in the western countries where Muslims have protested.
At any rate, the notion that a political cartoon isn't "real" demonstrates an incredible level of ignorance of how political cartoons can work as political propaganda.
Posted by sandra1960 at 02/10/2006 @ 09:36am
AREYOUOK said
1. I am an adult, I didnt know until now that depicting the Prophet is forbiden...
2. At home (and also at several school libraries), I have found several books, mostly books explaining religions to children, with a depiction of the Muslim Prophet. Some of this books are from the 50s, others are as recent as 2002. Why ?, these ones do not cause trouble the ones of Denmark yes ?.
As I understand it, Islam's prohibition of such images (and blasphemy in general) is only intended to apply to believers. Infidels can do these things; of course they are damned anyway.
So again, it seems the content is what is the issue rather than the iconography per se.
Posted by Max Entropy at 02/10/2006 @ 09:55am
Complementing SANDRA1960
Mexicans have been depicted as fools with the "Speedy Gonzales" Cartoons.
Woman in Europe are afraid to use public transport because of constant sexual harassment, mostly from muslim youth. Muslim girls usually move accompanied by a male member of her family, to ensure she does not engage too much contact with undesired western males.
A large amount of Muslim girls worldwide must decide between being expelled from their families because refusing to use the veil, and forget of living a western live (job, friend, etc). Or commit to her religion, and stay out of the play.
In Europe, large amounts of social help go to Muslim recipients, their polygamy is accepted because of religious bases, so in a system where you get paid for each child, being a Muslim is a good economic advantage.
There are several more examples as these ones that you fail to mention in your comments
Posted by areyouok at 02/10/2006 @ 10:10am
"Woman in Europe are afraid to use public transport because of constant sexual harassment, mostly from muslim youth. Muslim girls usually move accompanied by a male member of her family, to ensure she does not engage too much contact with undesired western males. A large amount of Muslim girls worldwide must decide between being expelled from their families because refusing to use the veil, and forget of living a western live (job, friend, etc). Or commit to her religion, and stay out of the play. In Europe, large amounts of social help go to Muslim recipients, their polygamy is accepted because of religious bases, so in a system where you get paid for each child, being a Muslim is a good economic advantage. There are several more examples as these ones that you fail to mention in your comments"
I can't even take this reply seriously. What all the above has to do with the issue at hand is quite beyond me. What exactly is the relevance? During the period of racial persecution/segregation of blacks in the American south, some black abused their women -- what is the relevance of that to the issue of the injustice of racism and segregation? Your comments are idiotic. And your claim that women in Europe are all scared of taking public transportation because of Muslim youth harrassment (and the ludicrous claim that polygyamy is legal in Europe) demonstrates your ignorance and racism. (As if non-Muslim youth never harass women of course). Making sweeping generalizations like this based on "what you've heard" and not on fact adds nothing to your argument.
Posted by sandra1960 at 02/10/2006 @ 10:21am
MAX ENTROPY
Iconography is widely used as a tool of religious endoctrination, while content is a tool of political propaganda. For centuries there has been a philosophical discussion on the subject of amalgamation of religion and politics. This discussion suggests that all 3 monotheist religions are political instruments.
Posted by areyouok at 02/10/2006 @ 10:23am
Dear SANDRA1960
I posted those facts because you mentioned the problems of your friends in Europe (Denmark and Holland), I am complementing a reality you did not mention, of course this has nothing to do with the Prophet cartoons. My remarks took wrongly for granted that you understand that public transport sexual harrasment is not a muslim monopoly.
My idiotic comments, as you say, are the fruit of personal experience and of a whole community as well. And please, do not corrupt my words, In no way I intend to comment on Muslim religion, I do not know anything about it and do not wish to comment on any specific religion as well. Please understand my use of the word Muslims as a well identified social community, as Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Nordic or Mediterraneans are, do not amalgamate it to religion.
Posted by areyouok at 02/10/2006 @ 10:36am
Dear SANDRA1960 I posted those facts because you mentioned the problems of your friends in Europe (Denmark and Holland), I am complementing a reality you did not mention, of course this has nothing to do with the Prophet cartoons. My remarks took wrongly for granted that you understand that public transport sexual harrasment is not a muslim monopoly. My idiotic comments, as you say, are the fruit of personal experience and of a whole community as well. And please, do not corrupt my words, In no way I intend to comment on Muslim religion, I do not know anything about it and do not wish to comment on any specific religion as well. Please understand my use of the word Muslims as a well identified social community, as Blacks, Asians, Latinos, Nordic or Mediterraneans are, do not amalgamate it to religion."
Fair enough. If I misunderstood your intent and was caricaturing you, my sincere apologies. But the issues you brought up seemed all too reminiscent of the same sorts of things majority groups have always said about oppressed minority groups. The same sorts of things were (and are) said by whites in Australia about the aborigines, whites in New Zealand about the Maori, white American settlers about the native American, white American southerners about blacks, anti-semitic Germans about Jews, the French settlers in Algeria about the Arabs, and so on. In other words, groups in power always use (and exaggerate or wholly invent) cultural aspects of the marginalized group (whatever they may be---religious practices, social mores, etc.) as excuses for racist oppression.
Posted by sandra1960 at 02/10/2006 @ 10:54am
SANDRA1960
I fully agree with you, history has shown that Mayorities have been subordinating minorities very badly, besides, people like me, who wish (and try hard) not to mix arguments, nor carry out stupid simplifications, usually are misunderstood when presenting specific facts. I appreciate your comments, and please do not apologise for saying what you believe, I never took your comments as an insult, I take them as added value.
Posted by areyouok at 02/10/2006 @ 11:01am
I'm just getting around to reading Imperial Hubris. Anonymous paints a picture of the Muslim world united in opposition to US actions and policies in the Middle East. The reaction to the Danish cartoons is probably a spillover of the Islamic world's antipathy to the West, radicalized by the US footprint in Muslim regions.
Posted by John Earl at 02/10/2006 @ 11:15am
"I'm just getting around to reading Imperial Hubris. Anonymous paints a picture of the Muslim world united in opposition to US actions and policies in the Middle East. The reaction to the Danish cartoons is probably a spillover of the Islamic world's antipathy to the West, radicalized by the US footprint in Muslim regions."
This is a point many analysts have made as well, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Juan Cole, for example, as an article in yesterday's Salon stressing the impact of Bush's war on terror in the region, the invasion of Iraq, etc. and how the protests in the region about these cartoons must be seen locally. In the article, he goes thru each country in which protests occurred and explains the local dynamics that affected the use of the cartoons to protest something much larger. I think it's also important to separate the nature of the protests in the Muslim countries (and there were only a few of them) and the peaceful protests that occurred in Europe (tho some had inflammatory placards). Each has its context. I also think the cartoons can also been seen as the old straw that broke the camel's back.
Posted by sandra1960 at 02/10/2006 @ 11:22am
"They must have been too busy doing that to teach you how to read English."
Uh-oh, yes, apart from Latin, Russian and German. How about you?
Posted by SZLEVI 02/09/2006 @ 11:25pm
No problem. I don't post at Latin, Russian and German blogs.
Posted by fromredbird at 02/10/2006 @ 11:56am
"How many cartoons did you see of Christ throwing bombs on Muslims? Exactly zero . . . right? It's literally amazing how the entire political spectrum industriously massages this issue around until they find an angle that makes the Muslims guilty and the "West" innocent.
The magazine that originally published the vicious Muhammad cartoon not very much earlier swiftly rejected cartoons of Christ that sounded to be immeasurably milder and non-sterotypical."
Numerous, my ignorant pal. Go to Europe - you know, that big area... what? no, not in Texas, it's overseas... no Canada is not overseas... you must fly over the ocean - and buy some newspapers and you'll be surprise. It's everyday there to see cartoons and ugly jokes about Christians, Ctholic Church or - I know it's unbelievable - about Jews.
Posted by SZLEVI 02/09/2006 @ 11:28pm
Provide an example of a cartoon of Jesus or Jews that was as derogatory and false as one that depicts Muhammad as a bomb thrower in any mass circulation news media.
The stereotype would be much more accurate if applied to Christ since that is the primary religion of those who have thrown 99.9999% of all the hundreds of millions of tons of bombs in the last 50 years.
Go ahead. You say they're all over the place. Let's see some. Prove my "ignorance".
Posted by fromredbird at 02/10/2006 @ 12:06pm
RB check out http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/j/jesus_christ.asp
More to the point it is not the minority or the majority which is outraged by these depictions. The real threat is to the leaders of these majoritys power, anything that creates an alternative viewpoint from their proscribed "reality" will in time create change and diminish their hold on those who follow. Lord Acton's statement on power is once again proven.
The common individual a guess is in the 85 percentile could care less about weather these dipictions are a threat to their ideology, it takes a dominate force IE religious, political, greed to create a need to complain or retaliate against a perceived threat to move the common force against change.
Posted by dycel8r at 02/10/2006 @ 12:28pm