Muhammed cartoons: here's what caused all the fuss (merged) - General Discussion

epsom · 02-02-2006, 10:54

Check this site which has all the cartoons in a decent size.

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Car...ds_Posten.html

itsalltelly · 02-02-2006, 11:47

Dont know what all the fuss is about, but then I'm not deeply religious.

Wonder how Dave Allen would have tackled this subject

Raring_to_go · 02-02-2006, 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by epsom

Check this site which has all the cartoons in a decent size.

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Car...ds_Posten.html

Quote:

VISITS

Total 129,654
Average Per Day 18,217
Average Visit Length 0:32
Last Hour 2,538
Today 20,351
This Week 109,303

Just some more info......

Girth · 02-02-2006, 12:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by epsom

Check this site which has all the cartoons in a decent size.

http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Car...ds_Posten.html

No wonder people are up in arms - those cartoons are crap!

Kbox · 02-02-2006, 12:39

Stick to Garfield and Andy Capp, They are more up your street me thinks.

stulancs · 02-02-2006, 12:41

The "run out of virgins" one tickled me

Girth · 02-02-2006, 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kbox

Stick to Garfield and Andy Capp, They are more up your street me thinks.

Those are crap aswell.

Uncle Fester · 02-02-2006, 13:06

I am saying nothing

epsom · 02-02-2006, 16:31

They're pretty childish and stereotypical aren't they?

fitzintite · 02-02-2006, 16:42

they are cartoons , how you interpret them is up to you

Doc Shmok · 02-02-2006, 16:47

I'd love to see the ones about Jesus as a permanently stoned hippie...

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...8&id=339792002

Geeg · 02-02-2006, 16:48

There are two aspects to this for me. On one hand cartoons have been used over hundreds of years to politically bash certain sections of society. They do appear to be a powerful tool.

That said, I am not sure these cartoons do anything other than lampoon a fictional character, in the way that 'Jerry Springer the Opera' does about Christ and Satan and you don't see the Christians getting upset by that....oh oops

Doc Shmok · 02-02-2006, 16:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by epsom

They're pretty childish and stereotypical aren't they?

Not if you interprete them as a dig at pathologically analy retentive religious nutters with a personality disorder as big as Mount Sinai..

There are some Muslims that are in urgent need of brain surgery .. {Abu Hamza etc}

The problem really only arises if someone understands it as a dig at all muslims .. and not only some ... If someone makes a cartoon about a middle western american bible bashing moron ... I do not feel offended at all, although I have been dipped in supposedly holy water when I was young..

Espresso · 02-02-2006, 18:11

It's a bit more than that, though, isn't it? In Islam, any depiction of Mohammed is forbidden, so any picture of him is offensive by itself, never mind pictures or cartoons where he is depicted as a bomber or what have you.

So while the cartoons depicting him as a warmongerer are a over the top and designed to offend - in the same way the Jerry Springer thing was over the top and designed to offend - there's a whole other layer to it; so that even the vast majority of Muslims who are not radical religious nutjobs, but who are the ordinary Joe Bloggs Muslims could easily be offended by them, I'd reckon.

I am not in any way defending the calls for the hooligan element in the Muslim fraternity who are hollering the loudest for retaliation, of course.

blackmagic · 02-02-2006, 18:48

Yes, Muslims do not know what Prophet Mohammed (SAWS) looked like, so any depiction of his appearance cannot be shown, which would indeed by very offensive if it were to be shown (which has been done). Worse is that he has been portrayed as a bomber!

trash80 · 02-02-2006, 18:52

so is wearing a mask and brandishing an AK-47 outside EU offices a good idea if they don't like this "bomber" idea?

kimindex · 02-02-2006, 18:57

Some Christians were offended enough by this to bring a prosecution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon

tired · 02-02-2006, 19:00

Are the cartoons more damaging or the reaction to them I wonder?

kimindex · 02-02-2006, 19:01

Here's some background to the controversy:

excerpt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_cartoons#Background
Debate about self-censorship
On 17 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[2] ("Deep fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book "Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv" ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen:
One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen. [In October 2004, a lecturer was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen[3]].
The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the Qur'an on television, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction.
Publication of the drawings
On 30 September 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("Jutland Post") published an article titled "Muhammeds ansigt"[4] ("Muhammad's face"). The article consisted of 12 satirical drawings of Muhammad and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented:
The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with temporal democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]" [5]

_drak · 02-02-2006, 19:11

Of course the fact that in Mid East Muslims burn the Israeli (and other) flags every day, almost like clockwork, is neither here nor there when it comes to being offended.

trash80 · 02-02-2006, 19:13

i reckon its a conspiracy by a flag company

oulandy · 02-02-2006, 19:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Espresso

It's a bit more than that, though, isn't it? In Islam, any depiction of Mohammed is forbidden, so any picture of him is offensive by itself, never mind pictures or cartoons where he is depicted as a bomber or what have you.

But that prohibition applies to Muslims - why should others be bound by it?

Dayus · 02-02-2006, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackmagic

Yes, Muslims do not know what Prophet Mohammed (SAWS) looked like, so any depiction of his appearance cannot be shown, which would indeed by very offensive if it were to be shown (which has been done). Worse is that he has been portrayed as a bomber!

Pretty ironic that the response to a cartoon of Mohammad with a bomb is a phoned in bomb threat.

Praxidike · 02-02-2006, 20:20

What's the problem? They can make fun of the people that made the cartoons if they want. Free world. Ish.

fitzintite · 02-02-2006, 20:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimindex

Some Christians were offended enough by this to bring a prosecution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon

phew

.......

02-02-2006, 10:54	#1
epsom Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Surrey Posts: 2,737	Muhammed cartoons: here's what caused all the fuss Check this site which has all the cartoons in a decent size. http://www.di2.nu/files/Muhammed_Car...ds_Posten.html

02-02-2006, 11:47	#2
itsalltelly Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dover and Bluebell Hill Services: Pace Twin, DTR735 and Hauppauge Nova Posts: 1,450	Dont know what all the fuss is about, but then I'm not deeply religious. Wonder how Dave Allen would have tackled this subject

02-02-2006, 12:39	#5
Kbox Banned User Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,986	Stick to Garfield and Andy Capp, They are more up your street me thinks.

02-02-2006, 12:41	#6
stulancs Banned User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London Posts: 999	The "run out of virgins" one tickled me

02-02-2006, 13:06	#8
Uncle Fester Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cardiff Services: Virgin Media Posts: 9,434 Blog Entries: 2	I am saying nothing

02-02-2006, 16:31	#9
epsom Forum Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Surrey Posts: 2,737	They're pretty childish and stereotypical aren't they?

02-02-2006, 16:42	#10
fitzintite Banned User Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: behind the green door Services: running cold water on occasion when the drain outside backs up Posts: 568	they are cartoons , how you interpret them is up to you

02-02-2006, 16:47	#11
Doc Shmok Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Tranquility Base Services: one small sh\|t for a man one giant ... Posts: 14,234	I'd love to see the ones about Jesus as a permanently stoned hippie... http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...8&id=339792002

02-02-2006, 16:48	#12
Geeg Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Here, There and Everywhere Posts: 18,343	There are two aspects to this for me. On one hand cartoons have been used over hundreds of years to politically bash certain sections of society. They do appear to be a powerful tool. That said, I am not sure these cartoons do anything other than lampoon a fictional character, in the way that 'Jerry Springer the Opera' does about Christ and Satan and you don't see the Christians getting upset by that....oh oops

02-02-2006, 18:11	#14
Espresso Forum Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,965	It's a bit more than that, though, isn't it? In Islam, any depiction of Mohammed is forbidden, so any picture of him is offensive by itself, never mind pictures or cartoons where he is depicted as a bomber or what have you. So while the cartoons depicting him as a warmongerer are a over the top and designed to offend - in the same way the Jerry Springer thing was over the top and designed to offend - there's a whole other layer to it; so that even the vast majority of Muslims who are not radical religious nutjobs, but who are the ordinary Joe Bloggs Muslims could easily be offended by them, I'd reckon. I am not in any way defending the calls for the hooligan element in the Muslim fraternity who are hollering the loudest for retaliation, of course.

02-02-2006, 18:48	#15
blackmagic Forum Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: 53° N, 1° W Posts: 1,067	Yes, Muslims do not know what Prophet Mohammed (SAWS) looked like, so any depiction of his appearance cannot be shown, which would indeed by very offensive if it were to be shown (which has been done). Worse is that he has been portrayed as a bomber!

02-02-2006, 18:52	#16
trash80 Banned User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: B'ham / Metro Manila Services: Telewest TV, Phone & BB, DAB Posts: 20,752	so is wearing a mask and brandishing an AK-47 outside EU offices a good idea if they don't like this "bomber" idea?

02-02-2006, 18:57	#17
kimindex Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cornwall (ex-London) Posts: 39,959	Some Christians were offended enough by this to bring a prosecution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse_v._Lemon

02-02-2006, 19:00	#18
tired Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 4,911	Are the cartoons more damaging or the reaction to them I wonder?

02-02-2006, 19:01	#19
kimindex Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Cornwall (ex-London) Posts: 39,959	Here's some background to the controversy: excerpt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_cartoons#Background Debate about self-censorship On 17 September 2005, the Danish newspaper Politiken ran an article under the headline "Dyb angst for kritik af islam"[2] ("Deep fear of criticism of Islam"). The article discussed the difficulty encountered by the writer Kåre Bluitgen, who was initially unable to find an illustrator who was prepared to work with Bluitgen on his children's book "Koranen og profeten Muhammeds liv" ("The Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's life"). Three artists declined Bluitgen's proposal before an artist agreed to assist anonymously. According to Bluitgen: One [artist declined], with reference to the murder in Amsterdam of the film director Theo van Gogh, while another [declined, citing the attack on] the lecturer at the Carsten Niebuhr Institute in Copenhagen. [In October 2004, a lecturer was assaulted by five assailants who opposed the lecturer's reading of the Qur'an to non-Muslims during a lecture at the Niebuhr institute at the University of Copenhagen[3]]. The refusal of the first three artists to participate was seen as evidence of self-censorship and led to much debate in Denmark, with other examples for similar reasons soon emerging. The comedian Frank Hvam declared that he did not dare satirise the Qur'an on television, while the translators of an essay collection critical of Islam also wished to remain anonymous due to concerns about violent reaction. Publication of the drawings On 30 September 2005, the daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten ("Jutland Post") published an article titled "Muhammeds ansigt"[4] ("Muhammad's face"). The article consisted of 12 satirical drawings of Muhammad and an explanatory text, in which Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's culture editor, commented: The modern, secular society is rejected by some Muslims. They demand a special position, insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings. It is incompatible with temporal democracy and freedom of speech, where you must be ready to put up with insults, mockery and ridicule. It is certainly not always equally attractive and nice to look at, and it does not mean that religious feelings should be made fun of at any price, but that is less important in this context. [...] we are on our way to a slippery slope where no-one can tell how the self-censorship will end. That is why Morgenavisen Jyllands-Posten has invited members of the Danish editorial cartoonists union to draw Muhammad as they see him. [...]" [5]

02-02-2006, 19:11	#20
_drak Forum Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: London Posts: 5,328	Of course the fact that in Mid East Muslims burn the Israeli (and other) flags every day, almost like clockwork, is neither here nor there when it comes to being offended.

02-02-2006, 19:13	#21
trash80 Banned User Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: B'ham / Metro Manila Services: Telewest TV, Phone & BB, DAB Posts: 20,752	i reckon its a conspiracy by a flag company

02-02-2006, 20:20	#24
Praxidike Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 8,137 Blog Entries: 3	What's the problem? They can make fun of the people that made the cartoons if they want. Free world. Ish.