PDA

View Full Version : West and Muslims clash on free speech



islamirama
04-11-2008, 01:44 AM
West and Muslims clash on free speech
By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press

Muslim and Western nations clashed at the United Nations on Tuesday after a measure backed by Islamic countries added monitoring religious prejudice to the duties of a U.N. free speech expert.

The U.N. investigator on freedom of opinion and expression is responsible for reporting on repressive governments' restriction of free speech. The change sponsored by Egypt and Pakistan now requires him to also report acts of "racial or religious discrimination" that constitute "abuse of the right of freedom of expression."

The change passed 32-0 by the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday was seen as a move against forms of expression that have offended Muslims, such as Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The U.S., Canada and some European countries said the measure could curtail freedom of expression and help dictatorial regimes block dissenting views.

"The resolution adopted attempts to legitimize the criminalization of expression," U.S. Ambassador Warren W. Tichenor told the 47-nation Human Rights Council.

European countries, Canada and some other nations abstained from voting last week. The United States is not a member of the council but can speak as an observer.

Pakistani Ambassador Masood Khan said on behalf of the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference that the resolution would not limit free speech and simply attempted to require people to exercise their freedom of expression responsibly.

Egypt's ambassador, Sameh Shoukry, said the right to freedom from religious discrimination and defamation was not being sufficiently protected, permitting "some of the worst practices that incite racial and religious hatred."

Some Islamic groups began demanding limits on free speech after the caricatures of Muhammad provoked riots in 2006. Muslim countries also protested the recent release of an anti-Islamic film by a Dutch lawmaker as well as controversial comments by the pope about Islam.

The Human Rights Council has no enforcement powers, but is supposed to act as the world's moral conscience.

It has been accused of spending excessive amounts of time focusing on Israel while giving a free pass to countries with poor records of observing human rights. The U.S. Senate voted in September to cut off U.S. funding for the council, accusing it of bias.

The council adopted a resolution last week urging countries to enact anti-defamation laws to protect Muslims.

The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders warned that the change in job description could shift Kenyan legal expert Ambeyi Ligabo's role as an independent expert from protecting free speech toward limiting it.

"It turns someone who is supposed to defend freedom of opinion into a prosecutor whose job is to go after those who abuse this freedom," the group said in a statement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/...l9tpsurGA7Xs8F
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Whatsthepoint
04-11-2008, 02:37 PM
This is a not good thing..
But since it's been passed, it could at least be improved, for instance by protecting segments of society other than religion and race as well.
Reply

Gator
04-11-2008, 02:56 PM
From the description of the change it really should have no effect. The monitor reports on GOVERNMENT's restriction of free speech.

Since the cartoons weren't due to the Danish government, this would have had no impact whatsoever.
Reply

AceTCK
04-11-2008, 04:00 PM
I agree with this notion, at least the so called Muslim countries are actually in agreement on something.

I think it should not just be concerning things that relate to Muslims, but other Religions and beliefs. People who are not Muslim cannot be counted on to support a Muslim cause if Justice is not there to protect their beliefs.

I think that this UN resolution is specific to Muslims because as mentioned above, recent events have all been against Islam.

On a side note, that Dutch member of parliament, he has the right to use free speech, but I would think a member that represents the people would be a little more responsible about what he says, because there is no message to educate in his comments but just to promote a hateful view point.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
KAding
04-11-2008, 05:19 PM
Race and religion?

As if religion is a biological attribute :?. Why don't we protect all other ideologies from defamation as well then? What is so special about religion? Except for its self-proclaimed importance that is? :exhausted
Reply

KAding
04-11-2008, 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by Whatsthepoint
This is a not good thing..
But since it's been passed, it could at least be improved, for instance by protecting segments of society other than religion and race as well.
Yes, personally I think the council should adopted a resolution urging countries to enact anti-defamation laws to protect gays and atheists for example! We should call for a ban on all kinds texts that 'defame' them and all that. :enough!: Guess what 'texts' I'm referring too?
Reply

Suomipoika
04-11-2008, 11:55 PM
Who really listens to UN anyway? And the downfall of any sort of credibility just keeps going on...
Reply

barney
04-12-2008, 12:27 AM
So technically now in the UN signed up state of Saudi, Geet Wilders can stand in the street and shout about Islam and it's perceived faults alongside a Iman who can shout about its perceived benifits?

My Moneys on the imam!
Reply

AceTCK
04-12-2008, 02:10 AM
The brother from the Netherlands that made a subtle reference to the Quran being banned.

Its not an Islamic Country that you live in, so you dont have to worry about Shariah Law.

On another note, its funny to me how my atheist brother dislike religion, but the very basic of law derive from religion. Such as Not to Commit Murder, Steal, etc... These are the basics that govern society, yet it wasnt a contribution by our atheist ideology by religion
Reply

barney
04-12-2008, 02:24 AM
Originally Posted by AceTCK
, its funny to me how my atheist brother dislike religion, but the very basic of law derive from religion. Such as Not to Commit Murder, Steal, etc...

Those are and have been human values since before religion. Religion was simply the forming of those laws into a organised doctrine.
Reply

AceTCK
04-12-2008, 04:35 AM
So according to you obedience of societal laws and contributions to society is something that a human being naturally inherites?

So before religion, why did people obey the laws at the time, because they felt it was right or because there was one person or several persons who was seen as a god like figure?

So the process of marriage, divorce, debt settlements, charity... was before religion?
Reply

KAding
04-12-2008, 10:30 AM
Originally Posted by AceTCK
The brother from the Netherlands that made a subtle reference to the Quran being banned.
I was being a bit sarcastic. A bad habit I know :-[. I don't want the Qu'ran to be banned. The point that I was trying to make is that Muslims always seem to forget their scriptures 'defame' unbelievers left, right and centre. Read through the Qu'ran and you see it uses negative stereotypes and gross generalization about unbelievers all the time. Yet they are always outraged and demand censorship of texts that 'defame' Islam.

Its not an Islamic Country that you live in, so you dont have to worry about Shariah Law.
That is what you would think yes. But apparently it is a bit more complicated. All these examples from Rushdie to Wilders to this new UN Human Rights Council resolution seem to indicate that Muslims worldwide are demanding that we treat, for example, Muhammed as a holy figure beyond criticism. Simply because he is beyond criticism for Muslims in Sharia law.

On another note, its funny to me how my atheist brother dislike religion, but the very basic of law derive from religion. Such as Not to Commit Murder, Steal, etc... These are the basics that govern society, yet it wasnt a contribution by our atheist ideology by religion
I only dislike religion if it tries to limit my freedoms. I also dislike attempts by religious followers to grant special protection to religious speech. In my opinion religious beliefs are no different from any other belief. Religious ideology is deserves no more protection from criticism then any other ideology. I don't think giving special status to religion makes sense in a non-theocratic state.

There have been several threads on religion and morals in the Comparative Religions section, so I won't respond to that. I find it highly unlikely that religion is the root source of such laws. I think it has more to do with human empathy and a need to formulate such laws in order to be able to live as a group.
Reply

AceTCK
04-12-2008, 11:33 AM
I would like to know which comments you refer to when you make this accusation that it makes generalizations.
If you rever to unbelievers then thats a specific group of ppl that dont believe in One God.
It also refers to the Believers and calls them Believers. It have many chapters in that starts with or has it those chapter advice or warning containing to Believer, for example, it will say, "O, you who believe".
So its not a generalization, you are either a believer or not.
When you compare the Quran to books that are being published today, then we have a problem. The authority of the Quran is God Almighty for Muslims, so you cannot compare it with an authors opinion or novel, whether you are muslim or not. That would be insensitive, and prove that you do not want to get along with your muslim brother or sister, and it further proves to Muslims living in your country that they cannot get along with the West because they are constantly under attack.

Please dont put me in the same category as someone that says its okay to critisize the Prophet (peace n blessing upon him). So the fact that you dont believe he was a Prophet gives you the right to draw an insensitive cartoon that you knowingly will incite the Muslim world at time when people are trying to mend that relationship, and later on reprint it after survey taken in the netherlands reported that over 60% of the people didnt want it to be reprinted after the first time.

The reason the rest of the world, non-Muslim world cannot understand this outrage is because you have treated another prophet in such a manner, and it had gone unchallenged. Iam referring to Jesus of course, a prophet which Muslims also believe in. People also have to realize that not all Muslims around the World responded with violence even though they disagreed with it, its just a media portrayal that made it seem like Muslims were destroying and burning everything, everywhere.

So if religion was according to each individual's own likes and dislikes then we would all have a different religion. Religion sets up rules for the betterment of human kind, the whole purpose is that God is the All-Knowing, so he knows something that you dont, there is a benefit in something that he has decreed us to do, but we might not realize the benefit in it.

I dont think anyone should be killed if they oppress an opinion, but, again, but at the same time, we are comparing human knowledge to Divine Knowledge, how do you expect people to react? It might not be divine knowledge to you but dont you think you should respect other people's belief. People critisize your belief because your belief cannot be present without debate, Science is in itself connected to debate, and faith is not.

And brother it doesnt matter what you think, laws that I mentioned did derive from religion.
Reply

Ögedei
04-12-2008, 12:36 PM
Hello AceTCK, interesting thread.
Can I ask you if you are aware of criticism from Islamic sources which unequivocally criticises the use of violence against those who insult the Prophet? I have heard many Muslims say things along the lines of “Violent reactions are wrong, but...”.
I fully accept that Muslims are entitled to feel insulted and hurt, and that they are entitled to protest, but I do not accept that anyone deserved to be killed because of an opinion they express.
Reply

Idris
04-12-2008, 05:05 PM
Originally Posted by Ögedei
Hello AceTCK, interesting thread.
Can I ask you if you are aware of criticism from Islamic sources which unequivocally criticises the use of violence against those who insult the Prophet? I have heard many Muslims say things along the lines of “Violent reactions are wrong, but...”.
I fully accept that Muslims are entitled to feel insulted and hurt, and that they are entitled to protest, but I do not accept that anyone deserved to be killed because of an opinion they express.
Well I don't think they are opinion's more like propaganda.
Reply

S_87
04-12-2008, 05:08 PM
the thing with free speech is where is the limit?
Reply

Ögedei
04-12-2008, 06:43 PM
Originally Posted by Idris
Well I don't think they are opinion's more like propaganda.
I don't think that it is possible to say where propaganda ends and opinion begins, or vice versa. Ill informed opinion is just propaganda which has been taken as fact by the ill informed. All sides are guilty of this.
An essential element in curtailing the ability of a government or group to disseminate propaganda is free speech. Protecting free speech is not necessary when the views expressed coincide with those of the majority or the authorities, it is necessary when the views being expressed are in opposition with the accepted norm. This is a measure of freedom, freedom requires us to accept the right of others to hold views and live in ways with which we disagree.
Reply

kirk
04-15-2008, 03:00 AM
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/1734.htm


Saudi Cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid Warns:
Freedom of Speech Might Lead to Freedom of Belief


Following is an excerpt from an interview with Saudi cleric Muhammad Al-Munajid, which aired on Al-Majd TV on March 30, 2008.

The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate.

That's it. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief.

So where's the conspiracy? They say: Let's have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want?

They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth.

Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate – go ahead. Fancy Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.


Why would a cleric say such things?

k
Reply

Muezzin
04-15-2008, 03:49 PM
Originally Posted by amani
the thing with free speech is where is the limit?
Slander, libel, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, conspiracy to defraud or deceive, breaching a non-disclosure contract, telling me my favourite ice cream flavour is anything other than banana, the usual.
Reply

Izyan
04-15-2008, 04:02 PM
Originally Posted by Muezzin
Slander, libel, conspiracy to commit murder, conspiracy to commit an act of terrorism, conspiracy to defraud or deceive, breaching a non-disclosure contract, telling me my favourite ice cream flavour is anything other than banana, the usual.
You sick sick man. In my new Utopia everything banana flavored will be banned.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-16-2008, 07:37 AM
Originally Posted by KAding
Muslims worldwide are demanding that we treat, for example, Muhammed as a holy figure beyond criticism.
If you can't differentiate between "criticism" and "insult", I feel sorry for you.

Forgive me for this but this is merely as an example(no beef intended):-
If I were to draw someones mother naked being screwed by another man; am I criticizing her or insulting her?
Reply

Keltoi
04-16-2008, 12:56 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
If you can't differentiate between "criticism" and "insult", I feel sorry for you.

Forgive me for this but this is merely as an example(no beef intended):-
If I were to draw someones mother naked being screwed by another man; am I criticizing her or insulting her?
Could be either one or both if you want to get technical about it. The point isn't whether something is offensive, the question is should someone be allowed to say it. If a secular/democratic country begins censoring speech deemed to be offensive to one group or another, it becomes a neverending speech monitoring beaucracy. Probably not that much different than Stalin's Russia...without the Great Purges hopefully.
Reply

Amadeus85
04-16-2008, 01:17 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
If you can't differentiate between "criticism" and "insult", I feel sorry for you.

Forgive me for this but this is merely as an example(no beef intended):-
If I were to draw someones mother naked being screwed by another man; am I criticizing her or insulting her?
I agree with hmmm, its just that the problem is that our western provocators(those who insult religion) wont stop their actions and we cannt do anything about this.So if religions must be insulted, they should be insulted equally.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-16-2008, 09:05 PM
Be very careful with repressing speech. Put in hate speech laws and expand them just a tiny bit, and most of your holy books (christians, jews, muslims alike) could very well be banned. Christians in the west are aware of this. You want to ban hate speech against identified groups? Ok... we'll include homosexuals as such a group and there goes your bible.
Reply

Amadeus85
04-16-2008, 11:08 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
Be very careful with repressing speech. Put in hate speech laws and expand them just a tiny bit, and most of your holy books (christians, jews, muslims alike) could very well be banned. Christians in the west are aware of this. You want to ban hate speech against identified groups? Ok... we'll include homosexuals as such a group and there goes your bible.
In West when you criticize christianity/islam you are a freedom fighter.
When you criticize homosexuality you can face a judge for hate speech or go to jail(vide Ake Green). :D
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-16-2008, 11:26 PM
I am for complete freed of expression, and that includes the freedom for people to preach their ridiculus and even harmful religious views. The only limit I'd place on free speech is where it directly causes a situation of danger, such as the tired example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
Reply

Amadeus85
04-16-2008, 11:38 PM
Originally Posted by Pygoscelis
I am for complete freed of expression, and that includes the freedom for people to preach their ridiculus and even harmful religious views. The only limit I'd place on free speech is where it directly causes a situation of danger, such as the tired example of shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
I think that freedom of speech must have some aim. Of course freedom of speech is needed in dictatorships, in communist regimes. I just dont think that everyone who wants to spit on mine/others religion should have right to do this, only because he WANTS to do this. For me its no sense, as it is fruitless.It doesnt have any depth or meaning. there should be some rules to follow, some limits.
Today a singer from polish black metal band was accused for insulting religious feelings of catholics, because during one concert he tore down Bible in pieces and burned it. he may face 2 years in prison(but its unlikely to happen,probably he would have to pay and apologize).Few years ago,so called artist girl, hanged a man's sexual organ on cross and put it to museum exhibition. She also had to face judge and stopped from this exhibition.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-16-2008, 11:43 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Could be either one or both if you want to get technical about it. The point isn't whether something is offensive, the question is should someone be allowed to say it. If a secular/democratic country begins censoring speech deemed to be offensive to one group or another, it becomes a neverending speech monitoring beaucracy. Probably not that much different than Stalin's Russia...without the Great Purges hopefully.
There is no point getting technical about it. Indeed you are right. It's all about whether they are allowed to say it or not. That's what is called freedom of speech after all. BUT please don't be cowards and keep on talking about how Muslims can't take criticism. Please be honest enough and say that Muslims should learn to take INSULTS.

Being a Muslim myself, I am ashamed that some Muslims would take law into their own hands. This is indeed the work of WEAK Muslims who get angry easily.

The Prophet (PBUH) said: A strong man is not he who defeats his adversary by wrestling, but a strong man is he who controls himself at the time of anger.

Yet, it's a disgrace that people would let it go by calling it "freedom of expression" or even worse "criticism". I do believe in dialog and debate but such a thing is a direct provocation and shows how morally dead are the cartoonists and people who back them.
Reply

Keltoi
04-17-2008, 01:27 AM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
There is no point getting technical about it. Indeed you are right. It's all about whether they are allowed to say it or not. That's what is called freedom of speech after all. BUT please don't be cowards and keep on talking about how Muslims can't take criticism. Please be honest enough and say that Muslims should learn to take INSULTS.

Being a Muslim myself, I am ashamed that some Muslims would take law into their own hands. This is indeed the work of WEAK Muslims who get angry easily.

The Prophet (PBUH) said: A strong man is not he who defeats his adversary by wrestling, but a strong man is he who controls himself at the time of anger.

Yet, it's a disgrace that people would let it go by calling it "freedom of expression" or even worse "criticism". I do believe in dialog and debate but such a thing is a direct provocation and shows how morally dead are the cartoonists and people who back them.
Yes, I understand it is insulting, and yes I believe Muslims should grow thicker skins if they want to be citizens in Western secular societies. Criticism comes in many forms, and many times it takes the form of an insult. To be frank, insulting free speech used to be much more common in the U.S.(can't speak for Europe) in the past. John Adams, the second president of the United States, was called a hermaphrodite..among many other colorful insults. This was in major newspapers of the day. In more modern times, political and religious insults tend to be more subtle, especially in the U.S. Occasionally someone comes along to push the boundaries out again.

There comes a time when one must accept that many people do not have the same beliefs as you do, do not hold the same things as sacred, and do not feel the need to censor themselves in order to achieve "good taste".
Reply

barney
04-17-2008, 03:09 AM
Thre was a good deal of debate recently in the UK wether religion was byond critisism.
Overwhelmingly the debaters on Radio 4 and other stations said that it shouldnt be.
The panel was Christian Clergy and politicians.

It's my beleif that once a subject is banned from free speech on the grounds of being "insulting", thats the start of a dictatorship.
Free speech means you can insult back.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-17-2008, 03:57 AM
Originally Posted by Aaron85
I think that freedom of speech must have some aim. Of course freedom of speech is needed in dictatorships, in communist regimes. I just dont think that everyone who wants to spit on mine/others religion should have right to do this, only because he WANTS to do this. For me its no sense, as it is fruitless.It doesnt have any depth or meaning. there should be some rules to follow, some limits.
But there is plenty of reason to disrespect religions, as many of them disrespect us. I find it highly suspect that a person could declare others "sinful" and deserving of eternal torture simply because they live a different lifestyle. and then call shenanigans when there is backlash.

You may say that those who disrespect and ridicule religion are meanspirited and insulting, but seriously... these religions get much less than they give. Most anti-religious folks don't approve of the idea that the religious should be subjected to eternal torture, simply for believing what they do.
Reply

barney
04-17-2008, 04:13 AM


Christian attacks on atheism. Cartoon horror.
Reply

Pygoscelis
04-17-2008, 04:37 AM
Are you sure that isn't an attack on monkeys? I bet they'd be mighty miffed to see us comparing them to the horrid human species :)
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-17-2008, 01:54 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Criticism comes in many forms, and many times it takes the form of an insult.
I still can't comprehend how is an insult a criticism? I believe though they are both part of free speech; there is a manifest difference between them.
Reply

barney
04-18-2008, 04:48 AM
OK.
Im going to critisise the Tellytubbies. Ahem:
The tellytubbies is a TV program for children. It's lack of use of language is going to in my opinion, stunt the development of kids language. The repetetive and seemingly absurd storylines are trite and farcical, they teach children little of the real world and provide intellectually restrictive challenges. The spinning windmill that provides magical powers is an eyesore on the land. The Tubbies tubbyhouse is a architectual nightmare. Its covered with grass that is hard to mow, it has no letterbox, its open plan interior is chaos and the tubbycustard machine is inefficient and provides a bland and tasteless diet. The Tubbies suits are garish and loud, their anatomy is promoting obesity and a TV culture not to mention providing little stability for the tubbies themselves.



Now i will insult them.
Tubbies are a waste of freaking space, i mean their suits look gay and their house sucks. their sentinant vacum cleaner is a freaking slave to the lazy fat useless nutjob loser Tellytubby dictator scum.
They can all go to freaking hell and i'll laugh when they do.


Hope this helps
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-18-2008, 03:13 PM
^One is called constructive criticism and another is loathful bashing. What was the point again you were trying to make?
Reply

Keltoi
04-18-2008, 11:12 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
^One is called constructive criticism and another is loathful bashing. What was the point again you were trying to make?
Sometimes one is insulted by the position of another. I think a comment by Barak Obama is perfect for this. At a San Francisco fundraiser, Obama made the comment(I paraphrase) "Small town people are bitter and cling to guns and God and are anti-immigrant as a result of their bitterness". Now did Obama intentionally mean to insult these people? Obviously not, as he depends on their votes in Penn. However, these people were offended.

Was Obama making a criticism or an insult?
Reply

barney
04-18-2008, 11:22 PM
Neither! He made a "Informed Observation"
Whhooo! Score!!!!
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-19-2008, 04:27 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Sometimes one is insulted by the position of another. I think a comment by Barak Obama is perfect for this. At a San Francisco fundraiser, Obama made the comment(I paraphrase) "Small town people are bitter and cling to guns and God and are anti-immigrant as a result of their bitterness". Now did Obama intentionally mean to insult these people? Obviously not, as he depends on their votes in Penn. However, these people were offended.

Was Obama making a criticism or an insult?
So you are suggesting that sometimes criticism from one's point of view are perceived as insults by another group of people. I don't know much about the remarks made by Obama and the state of people who live in small towns but can you explain how is depicting Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) as a terrorist with a bomb on his head criticism of the Prophet from any point of view?

Mind you, I wouldn't mind had he drew Osama in a similar manner but Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)? He never even saw a bomb during his lifetime to be fair.
Reply

Keltoi
04-19-2008, 02:51 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
So you are suggesting that sometimes criticism from one's point of view are perceived as insults by another group of people. I don't know much about the remarks made by Obama and the state of people who live in small towns but can you explain how is depicting Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) as a terrorist with a bomb on his head criticism of the Prophet from any point of view?

Mind you, I wouldn't mind had he drew Osama in a similar manner but Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)? He never even saw a bomb during his lifetime to be fair.
Okay, if you can, step away from the "blasphemy" angle. What do you think that cartoon was trying to say? Was it supposed to say Muhammed liked bombs? Did they draw those cartoons simply because they thought it would be funny to draw Muhammed with bombs in his turban? We both know the answer to that question. It was meant to depict, in parody, the ideology and the cult of death that is embraced by a particular sub-section of Muslims. I understand why many Muslims, who have no connection to this terrorist ideology, found the cartoons offensive. However, those cartoons were attempting to make a point. I'm not defending the "artwork" involved, but those cartoons were also a form of criticism.
Reply

Roasted Cashew
04-19-2008, 03:24 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Okay, if you can, step away from the "blasphemy" angle. What do you think that cartoon was trying to say? Was it supposed to say Muhammed liked bombs? Did they draw those cartoons simply because they thought it would be funny to draw Muhammed with bombs in his turban? We both know the answer to that question. It was meant to depict, in parody, the ideology and the cult of death that is embraced by a particular sub-section of Muslims. I understand why many Muslims, who have no connection to this terrorist ideology, found the cartoons offensive. However, those cartoons were attempting to make a point. I'm not defending the "artwork" involved, but those cartoons were also a form of criticism.
That certainly wasn't what I call "constructive criticism" but an insult to our beloved messenger(pbuh) from my point of view. And anyway if he was looking to criticize the terrorists he should have mocked their leader Osama and not Prophet Muhammad(pbuh).
Reply

Keltoi
04-19-2008, 07:07 PM
Originally Posted by hmmm5
That certainly wasn't what I call "constructive criticism" but an insult to our beloved messenger(pbuh) from my point of view. And anyway if he was looking to criticize the terrorists he should have mocked their leader Osama and not Prophet Muhammad(pbuh).
I actually agree with you. The target should have been Bin Laden, but that would also be missing the point in a way. What does Bin Laden use to brainwash people into buying into his worldview? He uses Islam. There is no way dance around that reality.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-05-2012, 10:06 PM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-24-2008, 07:23 AM
  3. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-26-2007, 12:20 AM
  4. Replies: 63
    Last Post: 04-29-2006, 01:05 AM
  5. Replies: 54
    Last Post: 04-09-2006, 02:21 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!