Muhammad Caricature

[Perakp]

For those that don't understand how a caricature can be offensive:

[hide]

 

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2009/09/a-double-standard/

[/hide]

[Dire_Wolf]

Some of you have said people can't joke about Islam. As a tolerant person i am when it comes to religion, i want to ask you this, how is a sucidie bomber who kills innocent people, and someone who portrayes Muhammad the profet as one and Islam a joke?

 

OldJoe, i agree with you, there is many muslims who must become more tolerant.

you know what the funny thing is, the way Muslims reacted to his cartoons only strengthened the point he was making.

 

people make fun of christians, jews and hindus all the time, but hey don't really go bat[cabbage] crazy. why should islam be immune from being made fun of?

 

it's like this:

 

cartoonist: "haha muslims are violent"

muslims: "no we're not, we'll [bleep]ing kill you for that"

I got a funny cartoon strip that goes exactly with what your saying! :lol: And unlike the caricature it's actually funny.

 

[Bouwzie]

Didn't this happen years ago already?

[Dire_Wolf]

Didn't this happen years ago already?

I believe so, but the problem came up again when a norwegian newspaper decided to print the picture recently. Honestly they have the right to print anything they want, but when it's clearly a provacing carciture, not being a joke, and having a very serious subject, the person responsible should have been smarter and not print it.

 

IF i was leader of all muslims, and they printed it. I would tell all my fellow muslims to demonstrate in a good way against the carciture. I would not allow violence, threatning, burning of flags and so on.

 

Politicians, newspapers, organization etc...they do everything they can to profit from doing something. Example, a politician had the carciture of Muhammad as his Facebook profile.

 

What was his motives?

Probably status.

 

Point:

They try to profit from negative things going on in society.

[Will H]

Didn't this happen years ago already?

I believe so, but the problem came up again when a norwegian newspaper decided to print the picture recently. Honestly they have the right to print anything they want, but when it's clearly a provacing carciture, not being a joke, and having a very serious subject, the person responsible should have been smarter and not print it.

 

IF i was leader of all muslims, and they printed it. I would tell all my fellow muslims to demonstrate in a good way against the carciture. I would not allow violence, threatning, burning of flags and so on.

 

Politicians, newspapers, organization etc...they do everything they can to profit from doing something. Example, a politician had the carciture of Muhammad as his Facebook profile.

 

What was his motives?

Probably status.

 

Point:

They try to profit from negative things going on in society.

 

I don't think that this guy's thinking was that shallow. He knew it would offend, the idea was to demonstrate that far too many Muslims are far too violent about their religion. The meaning of the caricature was not on the paper. The meaning of the caricature was on the actions of the protesters.

[fakeitormakeit2]

I just rather resent the Western criticism of Islamic extremism now when they've only dealt with it for the last few decades, while for instance my ancestors have dealt with it for the last 1200yrs and my father and his parents left because they received enough death threats. The only reason why Islamic extremism is so widely portrayed in the media now is because America encountered it in 9/11, so now it's horrible and a crisis. Don't get me wrong, it isn't right, but America had no problem funding the Taliban (Afghanistan), the Shah's oppressive regime (Iran) or claim their support for Hezbollah when they fought the Christians (in Lebanon) who were pro-Saddam. America only wears its morality as its best garment, i.e. they have double standards and only condemn something if they're effected, and they'll allow an injustice to occur because it benefits them.

[/rant]

[Rainy_Day]

He should not apologize.

I remember the Danish state-minister said something the lines of "we have freedom of speech and press in this country".

Was what happend to be expected? I guess. But i don't see why he should apologize.

I agree, it reminds me of an English lady being locked up for naming a teddy bear Muhammad. It was absolutely rediculous, with people calling for her to be executed and all sorts of extreme punishments. Just because someone of another religion/belief breaks a 'rule' of another religion, doesn't mean they should be punished unless of course it were law. But even then in some countries their 'law'/punishments is pretty laughable.

[Nero]

I better watch out because I drew Muhammad too!

 

 

Dazzling artwork, yes?

 

--

 

Actual opinion: The whole thing is stupid.

[Skully]

I find it funny.

[Zaaps1]

Picture has been removed from flickr, apparently.

[soulless]

Muhammad isn't supposed to be drawn because he is only to be seen as a prophet and not equal to Allah correct?

Don't know, i am a failure as a muslim lol. But in our religion drawings of Allah and so on is not allowed.

Either way Muslims would've been pissed because Muhammad was drawn. With or without the bomb hat.

Only the idiot muslims yes. Honestly i am not pissed, or annoyed or angry about the drawing. But i think that was a very stupid thing to do by the man.

 

The drawing message is crystal clear, so i do not get why the freedom of printing should matter when it's bad for society. It basically says "Muslims are terrorists, and islam is a bomb", which is discrimination. Isen't that what majority of democratic countries are against?

 

If he lived in Australia and did a cartoon like that he would be in jail for 4 years or deported. A few months ago here in Australia a guy made a racist video and put it on Youtube, he is now in jail for 2 years.

[Will H]

I just rather resent the Western criticism of Islamic extremism now when they've only dealt with it for the last few decades, while for instance my ancestors have dealt with it for the last 1200yrs and my father and his parents left because they received enough death threats. The only reason why Islamic extremism is so widely portrayed in the media now is because America encountered it in 9/11, so now it's horrible and a crisis. Don't get me wrong, it isn't right, but America had no problem funding the Taliban (Afghanistan), the Shah's oppressive regime (Iran) or claim their support for Hezbollah when they fought the Christians (in Lebanon) who were pro-Saddam. America only wears its morality as its best garment, i.e. they have double standards and only condemn something if they're effected, and they'll allow an injustice to occur because it benefits them.

[/rant]

 

Just because America (I don't believe it is right to use the term 'Western', it to a huge tool for generalisation) made the tactical mistake of equipping one of it's enemies, doesn't mean that they ever supported their causes. It just angers people when people from one religion tries to suppress everyone else from doing what is perfectly within their rights. The length of time is also irrelevant, we live in far more enlightened times than 1200 years ago.

[fakeitormakeit2]

I just rather resent the Western criticism of Islamic extremism now when they've only dealt with it for the last few decades, while for instance my ancestors have dealt with it for the last 1200yrs and my father and his parents left because they received enough death threats. The only reason why Islamic extremism is so widely portrayed in the media now is because America encountered it in 9/11, so now it's horrible and a crisis. Don't get me wrong, it isn't right, but America had no problem funding the Taliban (Afghanistan), the Shah's oppressive regime (Iran) or claim their support for Hezbollah when they fought the Christians (in Lebanon) who were pro-Saddam. America only wears its morality as its best garment, i.e. they have double standards and only condemn something if they're effected, and they'll allow an injustice to occur because it benefits them.

[/rant]

 

Just because America (I don't believe it is right to use the term 'Western', it to a huge tool for generalisation) made the tactical mistake of equipping one of it's enemies, doesn't mean that they ever supported their causes. It just angers people when people from one religion tries to suppress everyone else from doing what is perfectly within their rights. The length of time is also irrelevant, we live in far more enlightened times than 1200 years ago.

-I meant for the last 1200yrs which means 800 AD -now, meaning on going. It would be strange if my father was 1200yrs [unless that make me like 800yrs old, then that would be pretty cool].

-You're right, I shouldn't have used Western.

-That's exactly my point, they might have not supported their causes, but they supported them for their own agenda, and whatever group that supported in turn then used that support and applied to whatever else they were doing.

-I don't think I understand "It just angers people...within their rights."

[Rock Hard]

What's wrong with offending people? It's a staple of our culture - Enter any pub in any street in any country of the world and you'l find offensive and hurtful banter - You just shrug it off and fire one back about the geezers sister.

 

'Oooh noooo im soooo offended'

 

man the [bleep] up