Kuwaitis call for boycott of Danish goods

[Justin24]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm

 

[deep]

another shows him saying that paradise was running short of virgins for suicide bombers

It did so to show "religious dogma" had no place in a secular society, the paper said.

European Muslims spoke out against the pictures.

The president of the French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM), Dalil Boubakeur, described France Soir's move as an act of "real provocation towards the millions of Muslims living in France".

In Germany, the vice-chairman of the central council of Muslims said Muslims would be deeply offended.

"It was done not to defend freedom of the press, but to spite the Muslims," Mohammad Aman Hobohm said.

This time I believe the Muslims

these papers were not under attack for freedom of the press.

They could write pages and pages about this issue, and anything related to it with little if any protests.

the pictures are to incite, no other reason.

 

[Justin24]

And Osam dosent insite Violence with his corrupt version of Islam. Mabey the papers were showing europe what all the fuss is about.

 

[U2Man]

This time I believe the Muslims

these papers were not under attack for freedom of the press.

They could write pages and pages about this issue, and anything related to it with little if any protests.

the pictures are to incite, no other reason.

How are these papers not under attack for freedom of the press??!

....and what is your conclusion in this concrete case? Which initiatives must be taken right now?

 

[verte76]

And Osam dosent insite Violence with his corrupt version of Islam. Mabey the papers were showing europe what all the fuss is about.

Of course Osama incites violence with his twisted interpretation of Islam. I think the papers had a very secular mindset when they published these cartoons, and there is a grand total of one secular state in the Middle East, and that's Turkey. The cartoons strike me as having a "I'm going to freak out the Muslims" intent.

 

[deep]

The cartoons strike me as having a "I'm going to freak out the Muslims" intent.

as someone who has a better understanding of Islam than many posters
in here
I am not surprised that you get the intent is to incite

not fighting for a free press

 

[A_Wanderer]

and some people might not see anything wrong with naked pictures of your sister


you might be outraged
and others might say
"I don't see anything wrong with that."

Piss poor example if I do say so, genuine pictures of my sister would be illegal at this stage and if later on she elected to do such photography it would hardly be against the law.

On the other hand taking pictures without consent, that would be a legal issue.

As for freedom of the press the danger the paper highlighted is self-censorship. Because of the virus of the mind that is religion (broadly speaking) that has a great ability to drive people insane at a percieved slight many do not mock Islam and it's beliefs like they do others, the case of Theo Van Gough illustrates how such criticism can be dangerous in modern Europe. If Muslims get offended tough fucking shit, but we should not be cowed into self-censorship and silence out of fear from the minority of literalists that would do harm to those who offend them.

 

[deep]

Piss poor example if I do say so,

Is this a piss poor example?

many find this image offensive

 

[A_Wanderer]

Yes and they don't go around demanding boycotts or getting a little bit choppy at it's creators.

 

[deep]

Yes and they don't go around demanding boycotts or getting a little bit choppy at it's creators.

i'll give you a redo

on this one

 

[A_Wanderer]

Boycotts and murders are factual examples at what critics of Islam in Western Europe have faced in recent years, this represents a great danger to free expression and is the reason that the paper invited cartoonists for their view on Mohammed.

 

[deep]

Serrano's art work generated many boycotts.

 

[A_Wanderer]

At a national level

Any murders?

And wasn't Piss Christ underwritten by a government grant?

 

[deep]

It was Piss Christ, Andres Serrano's photograph of a crucifix immersed in his own urine, together with Robert Mapplethorpe's homoerotic images, that in 1989 set off the attack against art from the far Right. In a short period of time, Serrano was transformed from a relatively successful but reclusive New York artist and member of the collective Group Material into a celebrity/pariah under perpetual public scrutiny.

He has received death threats and hate mail and has lost grants on the one hand, and on the other has enjoyed dozens of laudatory articles and a sizeable hike in his prices. Furthermore, the fuss caused by Christian fundamentalists has hardly dimmed Serrano's fascination with religious iconography.

 

[A_Wanderer]

But Christians around the world didn't start demanding boycotts of US goods and the artist didn't get a nasty note pinned through his sternum.

The response that a believer gives when their beliefs are threatened in the slightest way will be disproportionate. But if we allow the believers to dominate expression with violence then free discourse doesn't exist.

 

[deep]

Christians promote pictures and images of Christ they create and sell them.


Moslems forbid any images of Mohammed.

There are no images. (period)

This is sacred to them, I do not get it, personally.

That is why the poor comparison of naked pictures of your mother.

Mothers are sacred to many/most.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Perhaps you should look at the archive of Mohamed images including those created by Muslims in Islamic countries.

Gallery

There is absolutely nothing right about having the secular community forced to abide by Islamic principles. It is free expression by non-beleivers of a historical figure/cult leader/military leader who's ideology has lasted to this day and is at the core of many a contentious issue.

 

[Justin24]

Those are some great examples A_Wanderer. Who's idea was it not to have paintings of Muhommad

 

[deep]

i know you had a birthday- are you slipping?

You're a real smart guy

and this site is how you make your argument?

most of those images are centuries old European authors and artist

and the claims "this is Mohammed by a Moslem artist" is hardly convincing

i particularly like this one

You are letting your extreme anti Moslem bias erode your usual high debating standards.

 

[indra]

Their belief is no images, likeness, of any kind of Mohammed.

And I think that is fine. For Muslims.

It's a rule for them to live by, not for me. Why should infidels have to abide by it too? Especially in non-Muslim governed nations.

I don't even have a problem with them choosing not to buy products from nations that don't officially share their belief. But before they demand an apology for this, perhaps many Islamic nations should apologise to Israel for the clerics who preach it should be wiped from the face of the earth.

 

[deep]

Those are some great examples A_Wanderer. Who's idea was it not to have paintings of Muhommad

maybe it was a link from this site

http://www.digitalsword.co.uk/truthaboutislam.htm

In 1990 a well preserved Tyranosaurus Rex skeleton was found.
Parts of this dinosaur had NOT been fosillised (odd if it was around sixty five million years old?) and scientists found red blood cells inside.

All the tests done to prove it is blood, by showing it contains hemoglobin, have ALL had postive results - laser light testing and even injection into rats showed it to be exactly what it appears to be, blood cells.

The problem is that a sixty five million year old dinosaur skeleton should have been completely fossilised (other partially fossilised remains have been found so this is not a one off find).

Also DNA decomposes when an animal dies and after less than fifteen thousand years there wouldn`t be DNA left, certainly not after 65,000,000 years.

On this site Wanderer can learn the truth about evolution.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It prevents idolotry, Christians have not been afraid to do similar things over time.

 

[A_Wanderer]

On this site Wanderer can learn the truth about evolution.

Actually that t-rex discovery where the tissue inside the bone had fossilised perfectly was a genuine discovery, not one that supports creationism but a tremendous specimen that showed similar marrow to that of the modern ostrich.

 

[verte76]

Muslims don't believe in visually portraying Mohammed. They don't like to create images of him. It's like idolatry to them. So images of him are banned in their countries. Even in secular Turkey, most of the people are Muslim, therefore no Muslim in Turkey would draw a picture of him. I've personally decided not to ever draw him in a picture because it wouldn't make my Muslim friends happy, and I really have no reason to put him in a picture. If I want to depict something Islamic, I use something more abstract and symbolic, such as a crescent, a frequently used symbol in Islamic cultures. I suck as a figure drawer, anyway.

 

[DrTeeth]

I support the right for everyone to publish whatever they want, within the legal limits obviously. But I wouldn't want to be caught dead thinking I'd have to support freedom of press/free speech by means of publishing cartoons which do not meet my standards. These do not add anything to any discussion, it's obviously that they're only made to provoke and on top of that, they seriously lack in the humor department (not unlike the work of Van Gogh btw). I'm not surprised to see people like Geert Wilders put them on his website, considering it's incidents like these which gives him the attention he needs.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Re: i know you had a birthday- are you slipping?

You're a real smart guy

and this site is how you make your argument?

most of those images are centuries old European authors and artist

and the claims "this is Mohammed by a Moslem artist" is hardly convincing

i particularly like this one

You are letting your extreme anti Moslem bias erode your usual high debating standards.

Where his face isn't depicted they are the Islamic, I fail to see how it is "hardly convincing", they are all sourced and you can track them down.

I have an anti-religion bias and in this case the believers that are stifling free expression are Muslim. The religion has not been neutralised by secularism and mockery like Christianity has so this isn't unexpected.

The principles of free expression and secularism are being eroded in this case. In Western Europe in the 21st century it is disgusting that people are threatened for blasphemy. I refuse to give it a pass consistently be it Christian or Muslim.

Islamic tradition bans any depiction of the prophets either in drawing or statues, even respectful ones, out of concern that such images could lead to idolatry, and thus worshipping of Muhammad instead of the One God.

However, some Muslims do not subscribe to this and several representations of Muhammad in Islamic art do in fact exist, although some Islamic depictions of Muhammad from the front did not include his face.

Taken from wikipedia.

If bad taste is a criteria for free expression then I guess that we should start banning every Pauly Shore movie.

 

[deep]

It is too bad Israelis did not produce these images in Israel.

I have to hand it to Israel they know how to deal with these incidents.

In 1997, an Israeli woman named Tatiana Soskin drew this caricature of Mohammed as a pig authoring the Koran and tried to display it in public in the city of Hebron. She was arrested, tried and sentenced to jail.

 

[A_Wanderer]

You are letting your extreme anti Moslem bias erode your usual high debating standards.

And you are more or less saying that this is offensive to Muslims, I agree with that - sure it's offensive and crude but is that cause for censorship - be it self censorship or government blasphemy laws (I mean religious tollerence laws - always get those mixed up).


I reiterate that making a cartoon of Jesus ejaculating over Mary while being done over by Joseph would be a depiction of supremely bad taste - but I think that I could safely draw and distribute something like that without having to worry about personal safety.

Where do we draw the line? If these cartoons get deemed offensive enough to ban to we ban books that are offensive to Muslims, ones that portray Mohammed in a poor light, do we succumb to pressure and outlaw The Satanic Versus?

What course of action do you advocate, I agree that they are offensive pieces to believers but that in and of itself is no cause for censorship and I will fall strongly on the side of free speech - where do you stand?

 

[A_Wanderer]

It is too bad Israelis did not produce these images in Israel.

I have to hand it to Israel they know how to deal with these incidents.

You are infering that you advocate jail for people's free expression

 

[deep]

Re: Re: i know you had a birthday- are you slipping?

Taken from wikipedia.

I did read the whole Wiki entry earlier as one source on Mohammed.

and here is what I found

Even non-iconic representations of Muhammad are traditionally discouraged. From the 16th century, however, Persian and Ottoman art frequently represented Muhammad in miniatures, albeit with his face either veiled, or emanating radiance (see e.g. Siyer-i Nebi). Modern caricatures of Muhammad have caused great controversy and criticism (see Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons for an example).

I did go to the links and all the old Moslem paintings had a male figure in long robes with a veil over his face.

So i was left with no visual concept of what Mohammed may have looked like.

I was trying to learn why Moslems feel so strongly about this and if it was true they had no likeness of him.