Man charged over attack on Danish cartoonist

[glo]

A Somali man has been charged with trying to kill a Danish artist whose drawing of the Prophet Mohammed sparked riots around the world.

The suspect, who was shot by police outside cartoonist Kurt Westergaard's home in the city of Aarhus on Friday, was carried into court on a stretcher.

Police say he broke into the house armed with an axe and a knife.

The suspect, who denies the charge, was remanded in custody. Police say he has links with Somali Islamist militants.

The radical al-Shabab group in Somalia hailed the attack.

Al-Shabab spokesman Sheikh Ali Muhamud Rage told AFP news agency: "We appreciate the incident in which a Muslim Somali boy attacked the devil who abused our prophet Mohammed and we call upon all Muslims around the world to target the people like" him.

The suspect, who cannot be named for Danish legal reasons, was charged with attempted manslaughter.

Police say the 28-year-old suspect broke into Mr Westergaard's home and shouted in broken English that he wanted to kill him. He is also alleged to have attacked police with an axe when they arrived at the scene.

The 74-year-old cartoonist, who was in the house with his five-year-old granddaughter, raised the alarm from a specially designed panic room.

[...]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8437652.stm

[Uthman]

The actions of the Somali man go against the teachings of Islam. Therefore I, as a Muslim, condemn it.

Good day!

[Humbler_359]

Not only Danish Cartoonist....

Yes, people do mocking on Jesus(PBUH) and Moses(PBUH), you can see it in South Park, Saturday Night Live, and other comedy shows. Family Guy cartoon make fun ALOT.

The point is Tolerance is something which people have to learn that's very important. It is not necessary to provoke and attack people. Just say "I don't like it"....and leave it.

So best humble way for Muslims is to focus on ourselves; Ignore the provocations. Freedom of Speech always insulting in publics.

[Cabdullahi]

he is connected with al shabab in Somalia lets invade them alongside yemen now now now NOW! - official washington white house souse

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

[Humbler_359]

^ ;D, you are funny.

[Supreme]

This dude tried to kill someone about some offensive cartoons published in a newspaper five years ago? What happened to the good ol' days, when people killed people for less trivial matters? Take murder a little more seriously, please!

[Amadeus85]

This dude tried to kill someone about some offensive cartoons published in a newspaper five years ago? What happened to the good ol' days, when people killed people for less trivial matters? Take murder a little more seriously, please!

Typical anglo-saxon sarcasm :)

I think that the sad thing is that one of the rights of our "modern" societies it the right to make blasphemies.

Why would anyone want to insult other's faith?

[joedawun]

The biggest insult to Islam comes from the moron who attacked the cartoonist and the Al Shahab spokesman in Somalia who praised him for his actions.

The biggest blasphemy would be that you presume to represent the Christain faith as being sympathetic to this cowardly attacker who terrorized a 74 year old man and his 5 year old grandaughter. because his faith was insulted.

Typical anglo-saxon sarcasm :)

I think that the sad thing is that one of the rights of our "modern" societies it the right to make blasphemies.

Why would anyone want to insult other's faith?

[Skavau]

Typical anglo-saxon sarcasm :)

I think that the sad thing is that one of the rights of our "modern" societies it the right to make blasphemies.

Why would anyone want to insult other's faith?

For humour purposes, for the purposes of criticism. Lots of reasons. Why should I recognise the concept of blasphemy?

[Abdul Fattah]

For humour purposes, for the purposes of criticism. Lots of reasons. Why should I recognise the concept of blasphemy?

You shouldn't. On the other hand you should acknowledge concepts such as:
*) Slander (which in western countries is not protected under freedom of speech contrary to popular belief!)
*) Diplomacy, which such humour obviously lacks, given it's sensitive nature.

[Supreme]

This is where I'm divided. As a liberal, I see sacred speech as sacred, but as a Christian, I still don't like other people insulting my beliefs and religion. I really couldn't take a stance on the issue; obviously atheists don't care about it, but then atheists don't know the pain that can be caused by insulting others beliefs. It's a pain I take just as seriously as I would if someone insulted me or my country. Theists here will know what I mean.

[Abdul Fattah]

I don't see why you should be divided on this issue. Even liberals recognise the concept of slander and consider it a punishable offence which does not fall under freedom of speech.

[joedawun]

Then bring the cartoonist to court if the law is applicable in Denmark and a case can be made. The slander laws so not provide for people to kill a person they perceive to have insulted their faith without the due process of the legal system in effect.

I don't see why you should be divided on this issue. Even liberals recognise the concept of slander and consider it a punishable offence which does not fall under freedom of speech.

[Joe98]

Even liberals recognise the concept of slander and consider it a punishable offence which does not fall under freedom of speech.

In what way was it slander?

-

[Ramadhan]

For humour purposes, for the purposes of criticism. Lots of reasons. Why should I recognise the concept of blasphemy?

For many muslims, we love our prophet Muhammad SAW more than we love ourselves.
And the act of the danish cartoonist was obviously inciting hatred, and he knew 100% what he was doing.

If the concept is still not clear to you, let me give you a picture which may clarify the matter to you:
How would you feel if your local news papers carry cartoons of your mother as the biggest ***** in your hometown and your father as a moronic pimp?

[Abdul Fattah]

@Joedawun,
I never said that this justifies killing or anything the like. Please don't put words in my mouth.
@joe98
It slandered the prophet (peace be upon him)

[Joe98]

@joe98
It slandered the prophet

(peace be upon him)

No, the cartoons did not slander the prophet.

-

[Raaina]

I can't believe he tried to murder someone over an act that was made 5 years ago!

A complete lunatic!

[sister herb]

No, the cartoons did not slander the prophet.

-

Making picture about prophet slanders him.

[Abdul Fattah]

Especially mocking pictures. It's not just the fact that they pictured him, because yes that would be blasphemous from an islamic viewpoint, but not slanderous from a western viewpoint. However those pictures went beyond merely picturing him but were mocking him. I cannot believe you can claim that those pictures weren't slanderous. You've either haven't seen them or don't understand the meaning of the word slander.

[★мαячαн★]

but bro, here you just mentioned the critical thing, we love our prophet Muhammad (saw) so why don't we show this by acting as he would have done. There are many stories in which people were rude or tried to anger the prophet Muhammad (Saw) but the prophet showed his dislike/ or ignored it.. he (saw) was tolerant. And i think living in such a muliticultural society that is very important today. If we love our prophet Muhammad (saw) so much, wouldn't the best thing be to follow his guidance and not get distracted by the satan?

forgive me if you do not understand my thinking.
and may Allah (swt) guide us all!
Alhumaa ameen

[czgibson]

Greetings,

This sad event is yet another in the long series of actions that make Islam look bad. It's a shame Muslims have to put up with having so many idiots like this in their ranks.

I really couldn't take a stance on the issue; obviously atheists don't care about it, but then atheists don't know the pain that can be caused by insulting others beliefs.

Atheists have their beliefs insulted all the time. It can be annoying, but I would never think of killing someone because of it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Peace

[Supreme]

I meant religious beliefs.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I meant religious beliefs.

Why does that make a difference? Does having religious beliefs make the actions of lunatics acceptable or explicable?

Peace

[Supreme]

I never said they're acceptable, I stated it is especially hurtful when ones religious beliefs are attacked. As an atheist, I do not expect you to understand.

[★мαячαн★]

feeling remorse and upset is one thing, but if you love someone so much why would you intend to go against all that they ahve taught!

to show your sign of love... i find that an odd way of showing that ....''!

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I never said they're acceptable, I stated it is especially hurtful when ones religious beliefs are attacked. As an atheist, I do not expect you to understand.

That statement is simple enough to understand; if you allow yourself to be upset by it, then clearly you'll be upset.

Your statement has been used for centuries to justify irrational or violent behaviour, and this case of the Somali attacking the cartoonist shows that we humans still haven't grown out of it.

Peace

[sister herb]

Greetings,


Why does that make a difference? Does having religious beliefs make the actions of lunatics acceptable or explicable?

Peace

Peace to you but...

I don´t see that atheism is religion. Even for me it is more like ideology what people believe, like to be green or communist.

[Skavau]

You shouldn't. On the other hand you should acknowledge concepts such as:
*) Slander (which in western countries is not protected under freedom of speech contrary to popular belief!)
*) Diplomacy, which such humour obviously lacks, given it's sensitive nature.

I don't see what slander has to do with 'blasphemy'. You'd have to give specific examples. And on that note, I don't completely accept that things like slander and libel are always things that ought to be resolved legally and such concepts can intervene with free speech.

And yes, of course comedy can lack diplomacy. That's not really its role. Also, I'm curious what link you're putting here between diplomacy and blasphemy here.

[Skavau]

Especially mocking pictures. It's not just the fact that they pictured him, because yes that would be blasphemous from an islamic viewpoint, but not slanderous from a western viewpoint. However those pictures went beyond merely picturing him but were mocking him. I cannot believe you can claim that those pictures weren't slanderous. You've either haven't seen them or don't understand the meaning of the word slander.

Here's the difference.

Denmark is a secular state. It ought not decree on what theological ideals are slanderous, or libellous. You realise that all religious beliefs are routinely mocked on the internet in the media persistently in the Western World? Indeed certain websites or groups make points of blasphemy to make points, however crudely.

[Skavau]

If the concept is still not clear to you, let me give you a picture which may clarify the matter to you:
How would you feel if your local news papers carry cartoons of your mother as the biggest ***** in your hometown and your father as a moronic pimp?

The newspaper would be then making claims about real people that are still alive and then be liable for slander. I know you consider your prophet to be a real and beloved person and the most important person to ever live, but there's no reason for a secular state to recognise this.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Skavau

I don't see what slander has to do with 'blasphemy'. You'd have to give specific examples. And on that note, I don't completely accept that things like slander and libel are always things that ought to be resolved legally and such concepts can intervene with free speech.

I didn't say that it is slanderous because it is blasphemy. I said that from an islamic viewpoint it is both, and that from a western viewpoint it is still slander.

And yes, of course comedy can lack diplomacy. That's not really its role.

Comedy is not an excuse for slander, or lack of diplomacy. Especially not in a public newspaper.

Also, I'm curious what link you're putting here between diplomacy and blasphemy here.

Why does there have to be a link? The cartoons clearly lacked any sense of crucial diplomacy in a multicultural society; regardless of whether or not it would be considered blasphemy from an Islamic perspective.

Here's the difference. Denmark is a secular state. It ought not decree on what theological ideals are slanderous, or libellous. You realise that all religious beliefs are routinely mocked on the internet in the media persistently in the Western World? Indeed certain websites or groups make points of blasphemy to make points, however crudely.

Secular state or not, slander remains slander. The secularity of Denmark has absolutely nothing to do with that. And just because it's common doesn't make it acceptable. Or just because other people accept it, doesn't mean that we should as well.

The newspaper would be then making claims about real people that are still alive and then be liable for slander.

so slander only counts for living people? So I can invent a whole bunch of false accusations against your parents, just as long as they would be dead?

I know you consider your prophet to be a real and beloved person and the most important person to ever live, but there's no reason for a secular state to recognise this.

I don't know of any historian who questions the existence of Muhammed as a historical figure. Perhaps people might question whether or not he was a prophet or not, but that again has no bearing on the issue. Slander is slander. There's no need for the secular state to accept his prophetship in order to recognise slander.

[Skavau]

I didn't say that it is slanderous because it is blasphemy. I said that from an islamic viewpoint it is both, and that from a western viewpoint it is still slander.

You'll have to explain how mockery and/or insults towards belief systems can be slanderous. And you'd have to extend that defense for every belief system as a consequence of it - which would have the absolute consequence of nulling all forms of criticism and humour ever.

Comedy is not an excuse for slander, or lack of diplomacy. Especially not in a public newspaper.

Public newspapers, not owned by the government have no compulsion to observe the diplomatic desires of the government. The paper in question is an independent liberal paper based in Arhus.

Why does there have to be a link? The cartoons clearly lacked any sense of crucial diplomacy in a multicultural society; regardless of whether or not it would be considered blasphemy from an Islamic perspective.

They don't have to have any. There is no right not to be offended in free speech in any nation that recognises it. Or at least there ought not to be.

Secular state or not, slander remains slander. The secularity of Denmark has absolutely nothing to do with that. And just because it's common doesn't make it acceptable. Or just because other people accept it, doesn't mean that we should as well.

I'm not saying you have to accept it. I understand that it might be a blasphemy to you - but you and others ought to understand that you don't get to prohibit things based on this. You don't get to censor others based on this.

so slander only counts for living people? So I can invent a whole bunch of false accusations against your parents, just as long as they would be dead?

That really is the case, I'm afraid. I could start making up stupid comments about historical figures that have been dead for centuries and do you honestly think I would end up in court for it? Look at the criticism of even recently deceased people by journalists. They are welcome to it, however incorrect or ridiculous they may be.

Indeed people speculate on Gordon Brown's motives, agendas and ideals all of the time both in the context of humour and in the context of making points. Should he take all of these to court if they perhaps get him wrong?

I don't know of any historian who questions the existence of Muhammed as a historical figure. Perhaps people might question whether or not he was a prophet or not, but that again has no bearing on the issue. Slander is slander. There's no need for the secular state to accept his prophetship in order to recognise slander.

I also accept his existence as Muhammad as a historical figure as well. That was poor sentence structure on my behalf.

[Pygoscelis]

I can not feel sympathy for a person for his beliefs being attacked when his beliefs include the belief that those who don't hold his beliefs are justly tortured for all eternity.

And to then talk about slander and dimpomacy? Dimplomacy after you declare the other to be "evil"? The double standard simply doesn't leave any opening for it.

The eggshells surrounding religion need to be crushed. The wall of sensitivity needs to be brought down. It should not be any more taboo to criticize religious ideologies than to criticize political or economic ideologies. Making fun of Christianity should be no more taboo than making fun of Capitalism. Making fun of Islam should be no more taboo than making fun of Democracy.

[Amadeus85]

For humour purposes, for the purposes of criticism. Lots of reasons. Why should I recognise the concept of blasphemy?

Yup, humour and criticism is ok if it's against religion, but try to use it against homos or lesbians, then you commit a hate-speach crime.

What a justice. :omg:

[Cabdullahi]

Yup, humour and criticism is ok if it's against religion, but try to use it against homos or lesbians, then you commit a hate-speach crime.

What a justice. :omg:

the pole scores a great goal!! :statisfie

[KAding]

Yup, humour and criticism is ok if it's against religion, but try to use it against homos or lesbians, then you commit a hate-speach crime.

What a justice. :omg:

Absolutely right. But don't most of these hate-speech crime laws also cover religion?

And, who has been convicted by these hate-speech laws exactly? Are there actually examples of Imam's or priests who were convicted for making fun of homos or condemning them to Hell? Or perhaps holy books censored because of it?

[KAding]

You shouldn't. On the other hand you should acknowledge concepts such as:
*) Slander (which in western countries is not protected under freedom of speech contrary to popular belief!)
*) Diplomacy, which such humour obviously lacks, given it's sensitive nature.

If that is so, do you believe religious texts or speech should be held to those some standards? If not, why not? In your opinion is, say, the Qu'ran not slanderous and undiplomatic towards unbelievers? In my opinion it is.

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi pygoscelis

I can not feel sympathy for a person for his beliefs being attacked when his beliefs include the belief that those who don't hold his beliefs are justly tortured for all eternity.

That's funny, I haven't seen you even try to argue against any of my arguments in the other thread. So what is it you're saying here? Because I believe divine punishment for evil is just, I am not worthy of any form of sympathy from your part? Then how hypocrite are you? Because you yourself are acting as though two rights make a wrong, trying to balance out what you believe is an in-balanced situation by depriving me of sympathy, and even expressing your loathing of my viewpoints. But when God would do something the kind, oh all hell breaks loose (if you'll forgive the pun). Oh, or maybe you're allowed to, but God isn't, because you're so much better then God? Really? and I'm the one with the double standards? Or are you by any chance projecting?

And to then talk about slander and dimpomacy? Dimplomacy after you declare the other to be "evil"? The double standard simply doesn't leave any opening for it.

If you'd actually had cared to read my posts in the other thread you'll clearly see that I haven't labeled anybody as evil. However I am realistic enough to understand that evil people exist. You disagree? Or did you not bother to read my comments on the other thread before making judgement of me? Oh wait, I almost overlooked, that's right! Who's the one making judgements here! Real top-class pygoscelis, I thought you were better then that...

The eggshells surrounding religion need to be crushed. The wall of sensitivity needs to be brought down. It should not be any more taboo to criticize religious ideologies than to criticize political or economic ideologies.

Again, this has nothing to do with the right to criticise or voice opinions. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. In fact that so many people are actually unjustly hiding behind freedom of speech all the time is actually doing more damages to the concept then Islam would ever dream to. This is about slander. If the authored wanted to bring his opinions in speech there were a million other ways he could have done so. But he choose to make a mockery of a person, instead of an intellectual debate about a religion.
Yes there should be no taboos.
Yes, people should be allowed to criticize viewpoints.
No, that doesn't justifies these cartoons.

So try again, fire your best personal attacks and flawed arguments at me. Give me the best you've got.

Hi Skavau

You'll have to explain how mockery and/or insults towards belief systems can be slanderous.

Mockery and insults are slanderous by default, I don't believe that requires an additional explanation.

And you'd have to extend that defence for every belief system as a consequence of it - which would have the absolute consequence of nulling all forms of criticism and humour ever.

Are you commiting an irrelevant appeal to consequence? If for the sake of argument my viewpoint has an undesirable consequence that doesn't make it any less true.

not owned by the government have no compulsion to observe the diplomatic desires of the government. The paper in question is an independent liberal paper based in Arhus.

I strongly disagree. Newspapers have an ethical responsibility, they form the minds of the masses. If they don't live up to this responsibility, or even worse ignore it by choice; then perhaps there aught to be some form of compulsion keeping them in check.

They don't have to have any. There is no right not to be offended in free speech in any nation that recognises it. Or at least there ought not to be.

There's every right to be offended when somebody does or says something offensive. Just because some choose to forfeit their right of being offended, and consider it acceptable, doesn't mean we have to follow them and lower our standards of what's acceptable as well. And as I mentioned already freedom of speech does not cover slander It never has under any law in any country.

I'm not saying you have to accept it. I understand that it might be a blasphemy to you - but you and others ought to understand that you don't get to prohibit things based on this. You don't get to censor others based on this.

I never implied censor, again this is not about freedom of speech. It's not about the message, but rather about the form. If somebody has certain opinions about the prophet, and feels a need to publish them in a dependant paper, then let him write an argumented article, rather then resorting to slander.

That really is the case, I'm afraid. I could start making up stupid comments about historical figures that have been dead for centuries and do you honestly think I would end up in court for it? Look at the criticism of even recently deceased people by journalists. They are welcome to it, however incorrect or ridiculous they may be.

I don't think it is, I think in most countries relatives can still sue. And if they can't then that's wrong. Just because a person no longer lives shouldn't make it allright to slander them.

Indeed people speculate on Gordon Brown's motives, agendas and ideals all of the time both in the context of humour and in the context of making points. Should he take all of these to court if they perhaps get him wrong?

Again, whether or not other cases choose to go to court is up to them, but just because other people forfeit that right, and accept it, doesn't mean we should do the same.

Hi KAding

If that is so, do you believe religious texts or speech should be held to those some standards? If not, why not? In your opinion is, say, the Qu'ran not slanderous and undiplomatic towards unbelievers? In my opinion it is.

No I don't think the Qur'an is slanderous towards unbelievers. As is the case for the other posters, you seem to have trouble understanding the difference between freedom of speech and slander. I'll give you an example.

If I were to publish in a newspaper:
"people who have loud parties at their house 'till 6 in the morning are jerks"
Then that is merely voicing my opinion and falls under freedom of speech.
If I were to publish in a newspaper:
"My neighbour's a real jerk, and he throws parties 'till 6 in the morning"
Then that's slander.

[Joe98]

Muhammad’s instruction was that there should be no statues or paintings of him because muslims might start to worship him and muslims are only supposed to worship god.

That instruction has been ignored!

If I make fun of you’re god nobody cares. But if I make fun of Muhammad, I am in big trouble!

-

[Joe98]

This is about slander. If the authored wanted to bring his opinions in speech there were a million other ways he could have done so.

But he chose to make a mockery of a person, instead of an intellectual debate about a religion.

I can see you have fallen for the propaganda. There have been attempts to make intellectual debates but Muslims have stopped them.

Movie makers have often made films as a way to stimulate debate on the subject. A film was made about the treatment of Muslim women under Islam. The issue could have been debated but the move maker was murdered by a Muslim.

Not long afterwards, a children’s book was being written intended to describe the life of Muhammad. Three illustrators were asked to illustrate the book. Each said “No!” because they don’t want to be murdered by a Muslim. No opportunity for intelligent debate.

In the world of professional illustrators word got around. Cartooners are illustrators too! A group decide to make some cartoons that would lead to intelligent debate.

The cartoons were published and for 12 months nobody noticed!

For 12 months nobody noticed!

Some imams noticed. They took the cartoons to the Middle East. They themselves made more cartoons, added them to the portfolio and shopped them around the Middle East trying to enrage Muslims.

It took a year and Muslims were finally enraged! (The cartoons done by the imams were quickly removed).

In all that time there was no intelligent debate on any of the individual cartoons.

-

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Joe

I can see you have fallen for the propaganda.

I could say the same for you.

There have been attempts to make intellectual debates but Muslims have stopped them. Movie makers have often made films as a way to stimulate debate on the subject. A film was made about the treatment of Muslim women under Islam. The issue could have been debated but the move maker was murdered by a Muslim.
Not long afterwards, a children’s book was being written intended to describe the life of Muhammad. Three illustrators were asked to illustrate the book. Each said “No!” because they don’t want to be murdered by a Muslim. No opportunity for intelligent debate.

Some muslims did. Well, millions of muslims are not responsible for the actions of a few. You're commiting the hasty generalisation fallacy. Also I'd reply as to Pygoscelis, do you think that two wrongs make a right?

In the world of professional illustrators word got around. Cartooners are illustrators too! A group decide to make some cartoons that would lead to intelligent debate.
The cartoons were published and for 12 months nobody noticed!
For 12 months nobody noticed!
Some imam noticed. They took the cartoons to the Middle East. They themselves made more cartoons, added them to the portfolio and shopped them around the Middle East trying to enrage Muslims.

So right and wrong is decided by how many people noticed? And how do you know if there were many people were hurt and offended but decided not to make a commotion? And if they did, does that mean that making such cartoons should be condoned?

It took a year and Muslims were finally enraged! (The cartoons done by the imams were quickly removed).
In all that time there was no intelligent debate on any of the individual cartoons.

Oh so now you're saying, we should have supplied the intelligent debate, that the cartoonist decided not to go for? So now it's our fault that this is a matter of slander rather then a matter of freedom of speech?

[Amadeus85]

Absolutely right. But don't most of these hate-speech crime laws also cover religion?

And, who has been convicted by these hate-speech laws exactly? Are there actually examples of Imam's or priests who were convicted for making fun of homos or condemning them to Hell? Or perhaps holy books censored because of it?

Ake Green was imprisoned in demototalitarian Sweden, Rocco Buttiglione has been unabled to become a high figure in EU thanx to his uncorrect views about marriage.

[Skavau]

Yup, humour and criticism is ok if it's against religion, but try to use it against homos or lesbians, then you commit a hate-speach crime.

What a justice. :omg:

Please don't assume to speak for me. When have I ever expressed the sentiment that humour and criticism against homosexuality is a hate crime?

Are you commiting an irrelevant appeal to consequence? If for the sake of argument my viewpoint has an undesirable consequence that doesn't make it any less true.

I'm stating the consequences on free society that silencing more or less all criticism and humour would cause.

I strongly disagree. Newspapers have an ethical responsibility, they form the minds of the masses. If they don't live up to this responsibility, or even worse ignore it by choice; then perhaps there aught to be some form of compulsion keeping them in check.

You believe in a totalitarian state decreeing what sort of material is morally acceptable and unacceptable. That's fine. I do not believe in the validity of Big Brother.

Irrespectively, in a general secular democracy that leans towards human rights - no newspaper has (or ought not to) have any compulsion of any sort of any 'ethical responsibility' (which in this case refers to their 'responsibility' to not offending others).

There's every right to be offended when somebody does or says something offensive. Just because some choose to forfeit their right of being offended, and consider it acceptable, doesn't mean we have to follow them and lower our standards of what's acceptable as well. And as I mentioned already freedom of speech does not cover slander It never has under any law in any country.

Let me rephrase that. You can be offended. You are entitled to complain and state how horrible you think someone is. You are not entitled to censor them and punish them for your hurt feelings. You are not allowed to tell people to behave according to your accepted standards.

I never implied censor, again this is not about freedom of speech. It's not about the message, but rather about the form. If somebody has certain opinions about the prophet, and feels a need to publish them in a dependant paper, then let him write an argumented article, rather then resorting to slander.

Humour or offensive statements can effectively convey viewpoints better than massive essays could at times. I don't know of the cartoonists personal objective in producing the cartoons, but I suspect it has something to do with how much they value free speech.

I don't think it is, I think in most countries relatives can still sue. And if they can't then that's wrong. Just because a person no longer lives shouldn't make it allright to slander them.

Have you read any newspaper, tabloid or broadsheet lately? Have you watched any news program? Observed any books? There are ****ing criticisms and observations on all sorts of public figures that your hyper-offensive totalitarian ideals would nullify.

I believe slander, by the way ought not in almost all instances be any legal matter whatsoever. It should only extend to hatred campaigns based on slander or of which slander is a byproduct - but that would not be a free-speech issue.

[Ramadhan]

I can not feel sympathy for a person for his beliefs being attacked when his beliefs include the belief that those who don't hold his beliefs are justly tortured for all eternity.

And to then talk about slander and dimpomacy? Dimplomacy after you declare the other to be "evil"? The double standard simply doesn't leave any opening for it.

Don't you find it moronic that you do not believe heaven and hell exist, and yet you are so offended that others hold such view?

The cartoons are real and deemed extremely offensive by muslims.
While for you hell is not real, therefore you should feel no emotion about it.

[Ramadhan]

Muhammad’s instruction was that there should be no statues or paintings of him because muslims might start to worship him and muslims are only supposed to worship god.

That instruction has been ignored!

If I make fun of you’re god nobody cares. But if I make fun of Muhammad, I am in big trouble!

-

HUH?

how come the instruction is ignored?

Your sentences above does not make sense at all.

[Ramadhan]

And yes, of course comedy can lack diplomacy. That's not really its role. Also, I'm curious what link you're putting here between diplomacy and blasphemy here.

Have you even seen those cartoons?
And you think there were just forms of comedy, nothing more nothing less?

[Ramadhan]

If that is so, do you believe religious texts or speech should be held to those some standards? If not, why not? In your opinion is, say, the Qu'ran not slanderous and undiplomatic towards unbelievers? In my opinion it is.

Have you read the Qur'an in its entirety and understood its meanings, instead of reading bits and pieces about hell for the disbelievers?

[Ramadhan]

The eggshells surrounding religion need to be crushed. The wall of sensitivity needs to be brought down. It should not be any more taboo to criticize religious ideologies than to criticize political or economic ideologies. Making fun of Christianity should be no more taboo than making fun of Capitalism. Making fun of Islam should be no more taboo than making fun of Democracy.

Capitalism and Democracy are not religions, Islam and Christianity are. Therein lies a big difference.
But of course, for atheists who are against religions, they would do their utmost to undermine religions.

[Ramadhan]

The newspaper would be then making claims about real people that are still alive and then be liable for slander.

LOL.
So you have the right to define where the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not, and deny others to do so.

I know you consider your prophet to be a real and beloved person and the most important person to ever live, but there's no reason for a secular state to recognise this.

I seriously question whether your intellect/honesty is sound.

[Ramadhan]

[B]
Not long afterwards, a children’s book was being written intended to describe the life of Muhammad. Three illustrators were asked to illustrate the book. Each said “No!” because they don’t want to be murdered by a Muslim. No opportunity for intelligent debate.

In the world of professional illustrators word got around. Cartooners are illustrators too! A group decide to make some cartoons that would lead to intelligent debate.

-

First, it is against Islamic teaching to kill anyone for reasons and conditions not established in the Sharia. So make no mistake that Islam condones it.

Second, you keep mouthing up "intelligent debate".
What kind of "intelligent" and what kind of "debate" is going to be achieved by drawing offensive pictures of the Prophet PBUH?
If you consider drawing those flaming cartoons as being "intelligent", then I seriously question your own capacity to reason.

[Italianguy]

I'm not sure i understand Atheism? Clearly you believe in something? It is mans inherent God given......let me say that again more cleary for ya there buddy ....GOD GIVEN!! need to believe in Him. A want to praise Him, and your duty to glorify Him!

You atheist believe so indepth that religion is wrong and that you must voice your OPINION, that it comes off as a system of belief.

Every human has been given....BY GOD, free will, so you do have the right to not believe.....I will pray that one day you do realize your beliefs are wrong. One day after you stop spending so much time denying that there is a God you will find peace in believing in God. You will take the time to learn. If you have no belief in Him....Why are you here???:hmm: why waste your time talking to people who do believe in God.

One other thing. I notice some of our Atheist friends seem to have forgotten proper etiquette and respect in general. Wether or Not you believe in God, you will show respect in your posts by capitalizing His name, in every form! His,He, God and any of the prophets names....Christian and Muslim.

I find it perplexing how an atheist can lead a life of emptiness, unGodliness, Angst, and hatred.?? I was told by an atheist once that "religion is so hard to believe in and so much work that it leaves you feeling, empty and depressed" .....I can't imagine what it would be like without God....empty, depressing, and scary...sounds like a life wasted?

But it's ok keep yourself busy complaining about life and God, it will lead you somewhere i'm sure......I'd pack some extra spf lotion and chaffing cream:phew

Ok i'm done sorryimsad

I will be praying for you, God be with you brother......And i didn't just waste my breath, I wold give my life just to give you a glimpse of the happiness that you can experience living a life for God.

And about the cartoonist, That sux:heated: I will pray for them.....it's sad someone would try to take a life that is not his to takeimsad. Can't say I feel sorry for the killer though.

[★мαячαн★]

Don't you find it moronic that you do not believe heaven and hell exist, and yet you are so offended that others hold such view?

The cartoons are real and deemed extremely offensive by muslims.
While for you hell is not real, therefore you should feel no emotion about it.

I don't think thats approapriate at all bro. I'm a muslim too and just because some other brothers / sisters in humanity are athiests that does not mean they have no emotioons! They are humans also, remember that and Inshallah none of us will become ignorant with knowledge.

ALso Muslims may be offended or hurt by those images definately, like i was for sure. but do they love the prophet so much that they decide to go against all that he taught about peace, and being tolerant and being gentle with people. no we should not be trying to justify the actions of these people. I am a Muslim in the west and it seems due to these "islamic" acts of "muslims" we are all tarnished with a bad brush. And i feel that is not right. How many times was our beloved prophet taunted by others, and he simply ignored them or moved away, he never let the satan get to him! and by us doing the opposite of what we taught we are definately showing our love? what a weird way of doing so!

[Ramadhan]

I don't think thats approapriate at all bro. I'm a muslim too and just because some other brothers / sisters in humanity are athiests that does not mean they have no emotioons! They are humans also, remember that and Inshallah none of us will become ignorant with knowledge.

Atheists claim they do not believe in the hereafter, including heaven and hell.
If they don't hold that believe, why should they get upset that we muslims believe about the concept of hell and heaven?
Except if deep down they acknowledge it as a possibility.

ALso Muslims may be offended or hurt by those images definately, like i was for sure. but do they love the prophet so much that they decide to go against all that he taught about peace, and being tolerant and being gentle with people. no we should not be trying to justify the actions of these people. I am a Muslim in the west and it seems due to these "islamic" acts of "muslims" we are all tarnished with a bad brush. And i feel that is not right. How many times was our beloved prophet taunted by others, and he simply ignored them or moved away, he never let the satan get to him! and by us doing the opposite of what we taught we are definately showing our love? what a weird way of doing so!

AFAIK no one here in these forums try to justify the act of the attacker.
However, we must defend the dignity of our prophet SAW.
I think there was an example by Fatimah r.a. who defended prophet SAW when the quraish disbelievers threw goat intestines at him, while Rasulullah SAW prayed in front of Kabah and then Rasulullah asked Allah SWT to give equal punishment for those people.
I'm sure there were other examples by other shahaba who defended rasulullah honor and dignity.

[★мαячαн★]

defending honour is one thing... but doing it by disobeying what he taught can not be coorect surely?

did fatimah (ra) try to kill someone while trying to do this... astaghfirullahh.

[Supreme]

I'm not sure i understand Atheism? Clearly you believe in something? It is mans inherent God given......let me say that again more cleary for ya there buddy ....GOD GIVEN!! need to believe in Him. A want to praise Him, and your duty to glorify Him!

You atheist believe so indepth that religion is wrong and that you must voice your OPINION, that it comes off as a system of belief.

Every human has been given....BY GOD, free will, so you do have the right to not believe.....I will pray that one day you do realize your beliefs are wrong. One day after you stop spending so much time denying that there is a God you will find peace in believing in God. You will take the time to learn. If you have no belief in Him....Why are you here???:hmm: why waste your time talking to people who do believe in God.

One other thing. I notice some of our Atheist friends seem to have forgotten proper etiquette and respect in general. Wether or Not you believe in God, you will show respect in your posts by capitalizing His name, in every form! His,He, God and any of the prophets names....Christian and Muslim.

I find it perplexing how an atheist can lead a life of emptiness, unGodliness, Angst, and hatred.?? I was told by an atheist once that "religion is so hard to believe in and so much work that it leaves you feeling, empty and depressed" .....I can't imagine what it would be like without God....empty, depressing, and scary...sounds like a life wasted?

But it's ok keep yourself busy complaining about life and God, it will lead you somewhere i'm sure......I'd pack some extra spf lotion and chaffing cream:phew

Ok i'm done sorryimsad

I will be praying for you, God be with you brother......And i didn't just waste my breath, I wold give my life just to give you a glimpse of the happiness that you can experience living a life for God.

And about the cartoonist, That sux:heated: I will pray for them.....it's sad someone would try to take a life that is not his to takeimsad. Can't say I feel sorry for the killer though.

I've always found atheists who can't concieve ideas unanimously shared by theists rather ignorant, but then atheism itself is the concept that there's nobody higher than you, no being greater than yourself. Which is rather ignorant.

[Supreme]

Atheists claim they do not believe in the hereafter, including heaven and hell.
If they don't hold that believe, why should they get upset that we muslims believe about the concept of hell and heaven?
Except if deep down they acknowledge it as a possibility.

I've found that odd too. If someone were to come to me and claimed a lepricaun would kill me when I didn't believe in lepricauns, I wouldn't be offended by it. The same goes for Heaven and Hell. If you don't believe in them, don't get upset if someone claims you're heading to an afterlife you believe to be false.

[Maryan0]

defending honour is one thing... but doing it by disobeying what he taught can not be coorect surely?

did fatimah (ra) try to kill someone while trying to do this... astaghfirullahh.

The brother did not condone the actions of the attacker you should read the post again.

Drawing the most holy figure in islam with a bomb on his head was obviously meant to provoke muslims and the cartoonist's intention was clearly to incite hatred I dont see how freedom of speech changes anything in that regard. Even if you do not recognize the holiness of the prophet muhammed it still does not validate childishly maligning him in the form of a cartoon. Like others have said if intelligent debate was what the cartoonist was aiming for he fell short I really do not see what an offensive and inflamatory cartoon accomplishes. We muslims will not accept slander against our prophet under the pretentious guise of freedom of speech and no amount of arguing will change that fact.

[Skavau]

Don't you find it moronic that you do not believe heaven and hell exist, and yet you are so offended that others hold such view?

I can only speak for myself here, but I do not find the belief that others hold regarding hell as offensive - but I do find it unethical. And I do understand the possibility that some being told that you're going to hell, or that all non-muslims/non-christians are going to hell could find it a tiny bit offensive. It doesn't matter whether you believe it to be true. Threats of eternal torture can be construed as personal attacks.

Just like how arguments against specific religions are at times considered by their adherents as offensive and insulting.

The cartoons are real and deemed extremely offensive by muslims.
While for you hell is not real, therefore you should feel no emotion about it.

I understand that you find it offensive. But being offended is no grounds for censorship.

Capitalism and Democracy are not religions, Islam and Christianity are. Therein lies a big difference.
But of course, for atheists who are against religions, they would do their utmost to undermine religions.

You're quite right that Capitalism and Democracy are not religions. Pygo's point was that we need offer no religious belief any more protection against mockery, insult or criticism than we do to the aforementioned ideologies.

LOL.
So you have the right to define where the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not, and deny others to do so.

Everyone does. This is how laws began to exist. We began establishing boundaries.

I seriously question whether your intellect/honesty is sound.

You must be referring to my sentence structure. I know Muhammad is a historical figure.

[جوري]

I can only speak for myself here, but I do not find the belief that others hold regarding hell as offensive - but I do find it unethical. And I do understand the possibility that some being told that you're going to hell, or that all non-muslims/non-christians are going to hell could find it a tiny bit offensive. It doesn't matter whether you believe it to be true. Threats of eternal torture can be construed as personal attacks.

Isn't hell some imaginary place that doesn't exist per you? How can that be offensive? I don't see how you can equate that with offensive 'Name specific' cartoons that exist in the here and now!

I understand that you find it offensive. But being offended is no grounds for censorship.

Hope you find that equally applicable to Muslims marching in the grounds where fallen British turds are being paraded as heroes!



all the best

[Skavau]

I'm not sure i understand Atheism? Clearly you believe in something? It is mans inherent God given......let me say that again more cleary for ya there buddy ....GOD GIVEN!! need to believe in Him. A want to praise Him, and your duty to glorify Him!

I'm not sure this is the correct thread to discuss this on, but nonetheless I am happy to reply.

I don't have a 'god given' need to believe in god, nor a desire to praise or glorify this god. Remember I don't even believe in a god, so telling me ther is an "inherent god given" need to believe in this god is meaningless to me. Moreover the argument you use to demonstrate it is begging the question.

You atheist believe so indepth that religion is wrong and that you must voice your OPINION, that it comes off as a system of belief.

Uh, no.

I know many atheists that actually are not anti-religious, or anti-theistic but are just not convinced that theism or religion is true. They wish they could believe, but are not convinced. All atheism means is someone who does not believe in the existence of supernatural being(s). It does not describe a worldview nor a system of belief. You are conflating atheism with anti-theists, who by definition would be atheists.

Every human has been given....BY GOD, free will, so you do have the right to not believe.....I will pray that one day you do realize your beliefs are wrong. One day after you stop spending so much time denying that there is a God you will find peace in believing in God. You will take the time to learn. If you have no belief in Him....Why are you here??? why waste your time talking to people who do believe in God.

Interest. Discussion. Debate.

Why are you here on a Muslim forum?

One other thing. I notice some of our Atheist friends seem to have forgotten proper etiquette and respect in general. Wether or Not you believe in God, you will show respect in your posts by capitalizing His name, in every form! His,He, God and any of the prophets names....Christian and Muslim.

?

I think you'll find that in most instances I do passively capitalise the term 'God' (although not so with the prophets or scriptural terms). I have no need nor desire to change this based on how important it is to you personally. If the moderators however tell me they have a forum policy to do it, then I would respect that.

But I'm curious: why would you expect an atheist (I don't even capitalise atheist!) to capitalise and revere your self-declared important terms?

I find it perplexing how an atheist can lead a life of emptiness, unGodliness, Angst, and hatred.?? I was told by an atheist once that "religion is so hard to believe in and so much work that it leaves you feeling, empty and depressed" .....I can't imagine what it would be like without God....empty, depressing, and scary...sounds like a life wasted?

Sigh...

I don't live a life of emptiness, "unGodliness" (whatever that means), angst or hatred. Where have I expressed hatred towards anyone on here?

And why do you think it is a life wasted? Being an atheist, I mean?

But it's ok keep yourself busy complaining about life and God, it will lead you somewhere i'm sure......I'd pack some extra spf lotion and chaffing cream

Veiled supernatural threat of eternal torture noted.

Whos' hatin' now? Remember, you're the only one who has described me as hateful, empty, angst-ridden and disrespectful. Sounds fairly condemnatory to me. I'll leave it up to the dear audience to decide.

I will be praying for you, God be with you brother......And i didn't just waste my breath, I wold give my life just to give you a glimpse of the happiness that you can experience living a life for God.

This is a fairly subjective plea. I have no doubt that believing in God and partaking in religious duties in Christianity means a great deal to you, and I appreciate that it gives your life meaning and I have no desire nor reason to prevent you from having these gifts. But please, understand this - your lifestyle is not a one size fits all. For people who honestly cannot believe in God due to lack of evidence, or reason - they cannot lead your lifestyle convincing, or seriously - and they would be worse off for trying. They enjoy rather more secular lifestyles (as do I) for many reasons.

[Skavau]

I've always found atheists who can't concieve ideas unanimously shared by theists rather ignorant, but then atheism itself is the concept that there's nobody higher than you, no being greater than yourself. Which is rather ignorant.

What do you mean about a diminished capacity to conceive ideas unanimously shared by theists? Could you give some examples?

And secondly, atheism is not the concept that there is 'nobody higher than you'. It is the disbelief in the existence of a god(s). It has nothing to do with believing that you are the greatest being in the universe (as you imply).

I've found that odd too. If someone were to come to me and claimed a lepricaun would kill me when I didn't believe in lepricauns, I wouldn't be offended by it. The same goes for Heaven and Hell. If you don't believe in them, don't get upset if someone claims you're heading to an afterlife you believe to be false.

In my time on Muslim forums (not specifically this one) I have been accused of being hateful, angst-ridden, arrogant, hypocritical, immoral, amoral, grotesque, burdened, shameless, etc (countless other claims on my character) that are claimed almost entirely because I am an atheist, or because I don't accept Islam.

At the very least, telling people who don't accept your belief system that they are going spend eternity wallowing in eternal anguish is a very bad representation attempt at convincing people that it is true, and more importantly moral. It will put people off and convince them that your belief system is a cruel system laced with threats and tell them that the adherents of it are self-segregated from others. At the very worst, yes it can offend others if it is laced as an insult, or an attack. Being told that everything I do is worthless (ItalianGuy) and my life meaningless and then being told that I am deserving of hell, or am going to hell can at least give me an unfavourable view of that person.

[Skavau]

Isn't hell some imaginary place that doesn't exist per you? How can that be offensive? I don't see how you can equate that with offensive 'Name specific' cartoons that exist in the here and now!

I can only speak for myself here, but I do not find the belief that others hold regarding hell as offensive - but I do find it unethical.

I can only speak for myself here, but I do not find the belief that others hold regarding hell as offensive

Anyway, no I have no problem with that march.

[جوري]

Anyway, no I have no problem with that march.

Unethical? I can be game with that, we too find the turdy danish cartoonists unethical..

glad you have no problem with the march!

all the best

[Supreme]

What do you mean about a diminished capacity to conceive ideas unanimously shared by theists? Could you give some examples?

The idea that offending religion is neither funny nor acceptable. Religion is held dear to the hearts of all its adherents, and offending it is really quite different from offending one's nationality.

[Skavau]

The idea that offending religion is neither funny nor acceptable. Religion is held dear to the hearts of all its adherents, and offending it is really quite different from offending one's nationality.

I understand that and I am not going to go out of my way myself to offend anyone's religious beliefs. Specifically not so on here or similar forums because I respect the rules and the objectives of these rules. I have no problem with private groups or companies setting up their own standards that their employees, editors or guests must abide to when in their company. I have no problem with people in their own homes deciding that they won't put up with religious mockery. I have a problem when people insist that the government should intervene and censor and/or prosecute mockery or 'blasphemy'.

I don't see why there should be a restriction in other environments, such as comedy panels, stand-up shows, blogs, websites or even in newspapers if the owner doesn't mind (which obviously he did not in the case of the danish paper).

[Amadeus85]

The idea that offending religion is neither funny nor acceptable. Religion is held dear to the hearts of all its adherents, and offending it is really quite different from offending one's nationality.

The fact is that the "religiou feelings" term is secular and modern. Religion isn't based on "feeling". The blasphemers dont offend my feeling, but they offend God only.

[Pygoscelis]

Don't you find it moronic that you do not believe heaven and hell exist, and yet you are so offended that others hold such view?

The cartoons are real and deemed extremely offensive by muslims.
While for you hell is not real, therefore you should feel no emotion about it.

Not at all. The fact that somebody endorses a God who wishes torture upon me shows me that they wish torture upon me. It doesn't matter if they are mistaken about such torture, that they wish it is sufficient.

The cartoons not endorsing anything remotely similar. Now, if those cartoons somehow suggested it would be a good idea to torture muslims (or any other group of people) then you'd have something comparative.

Capitalism and Democracy are not religions, Islam and Christianity are. Therein lies a big difference.

And as I said, there is no reason to afford any more sensitivity to religious ideologies than we afford to political or economic ideologies. Just because something is labeled a "religion" should not afford it special protection from criticism. The marketplace of ideas should always be a free market.

[Pygoscelis]

If someone were to come to me and claimed a lepricaun would kill me when I didn't believe in lepricauns, I wouldn't be offended by it.

No, but I bet you'd be offended if they then went on to say that they support said Leprechaun in the enterprise and wish the Leprechaun luck in killing you. And I bet you'd be especially concerned if they went on to say that they'll help the Leprechaun along.

An ethical person or somebody who even remotely respected you would not support said Leprechaun, and a moral person may even fight them for you (and steal their pot o' gold to donate to a children's charity).

[Ramadhan]

I can only speak for myself here, but I do not find the belief that others hold regarding hell as offensive - but I do find it unethical.

Please explain why it is unethical.

And I do understand the possibility that some being told that you're going to hell, or that all non-muslims/non-christians are going to hell could find it a tiny bit offensive. It doesn't matter whether you believe it to be true. Threats of eternal torture can be construed as personal attacks.

Again, this is the case of having your cake and eat it too aka double standards.
You have no problem that atheists find it offensive about a belief which they themselves don't find true and real but you cannot see why it is such a problem when a billion people are offended by real mocking insulting cartoons.
Who's being sensitive now?

You're quite right that Capitalism and Democracy are not religions. Pygo's point was that we need offer no religious belief any more protection against mockery, insult or criticism than we do to the aforementioned ideologies.

Capitalism is a social economic system and Democracy is a political system.
Religion, at least for muslims anyway, encompasses and governs everything for the individuals. Religion is extremely personal and public at the same time, while Capitalism and Democracy are impersonal.
So when something so personal is mocked, insulted and unfairly attacked, it becomes a problem.

I have already given you a picture that might drive home the point:
you should not be offended or insulted when your deceased (yes, after their death because you pointed out that in your political sytem it is not a slander when the object of slander is dead) mother or sister or wife (anyone you love dearly) portrayed in your local/national newspapers as being the biggest w hores in town.

Everyone does. This is how laws began to exist. We began establishing boundaries.

Then why the boundaries of muslims in this case are not respected?
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[Ramadhan]

And as I said, there is no reason to afford any more sensitivity to religious ideologies than we afford to political or economic ideologies. Just because something is labeled a "religion" should not afford it special protection from criticism. The marketplace of ideas should always be a free market.

And the world is more and more aware that there is little to no market in the business of mocking/insulting prophet Muhammad SAW.

[Skavau]

Please explain why it is unethical.

Not in this thread. There is a thread on it in the Clarifications About Islam section. It would be off-topic here.

Again, this is the case of having your cake and eat it too aka double standards.
You have no problem that atheists find it offensive about a belief which they themselves don't find true and real but you cannot see why it is such a problem when a billion people are offended by real mocking insulting cartoons.
Who's being sensitive now?

Don't misrepresent my position. You are welcome to your offense. I have no problem and can even understand how you could be offended by mockery of your belief system. This however does not grant you the right to insist everyone else observe this offense and recognise your hurt feelings.

And by the way, I don't contend that people who state that atheists are going to hell ought to be silenced. You are free to make that claim as much as you like.

Capitalism is a social economic system and Democracy is a political system.
Religion, at least for muslims anyway, encompasses and governs everything for the individuals. Religion is extremely personal and public at the same time, while Capitalism and Democracy are impersonal.
So when something so personal is mocked, insulted and unfairly attacked, it becomes a problem.

Excuse me, but this sounds like desiring the ability to influence the public sphere and exist in the public sphere but at the same time declaring that you ought to be free of attack. You can't very well decree something as public on one hand and on the other state that it is personal, and therefore some things you might have to talk about concerning it might upset me.

I have already given you a picture that might drive home the point:
you should not be offended or insulted when your deceased (yes, after their death because you pointed out that in your political sytem it is not a slander when the object of slander is dead) mother or sister or wife (anyone you love dearly) portrayed in your local/national newspapers as being the biggest w hores in town.

Yes, and I've answered that.

Then why the boundaries of muslims in this case are not respected?
You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Why should they be? Why should people have their free speech stifled over your hurt feelings?

[جوري]

can you tell the difference between 'free speech' vs. libel and slander?
The latter is a criminal offense!

whereas hell as per atheists doesn't exist, false defamatory statements are being made in the here and now against the messenger and Muslims to incite nothing but hatred and inflammation ..

there is certainly is no object of comparison, one is palpable exists in the here and now, the other is some other worldly tale that per atheists should really hold no value!

[Ramadhan]

Don't misrepresent my position. You are welcome to your offense. I have no problem and can even understand how you could be offended by mockery of your belief system. This however does not grant you the right to insist everyone else observe this offense and recognise your hurt feelings.

The cartoonist insisted that he has the right to insult the feelings of a billion muslims and make a undue and unjust mockery of someone those billion people love and respect, and he has DONE it.
He is even given protection by the Danish government to exercise his right.
So, why can we not have right to say that everyone should refrain themselves from insulting the prophet SAW?

Do you not consider this as a blatant double standards?

Yes, and I've answered that.

So you have no problem at all that your (deceased) mother is the biggest w hore in town??

[Skavau]

The cartoonist insisted that he has the right to insult the feelings of a billion muslims and make a undue and unjust mockery of someone those billion people love and respect, and he has DONE it.
He is even given protection by the Danish government to exercise his right.
So, why can we not have right to say that everyone should refrain themselves from insulting the prophet SAW?

You can. You're allowed to to try and convince people to refrain themselves. You can emphasise the importance of cross-faith dialogue if you like, as well as protesting those who do otherwise.

What is unacceptable though, is to try and insist by law that people should be censored based on your hurt feelings.

Do you not consider this as a blatant double standards?

No. You've not pointed it how it is. The cartoonist has the right to his free speech and you have the right to respond.

So you have no problem at all that your (deceased) mother is the biggest w hore in town??

It is a difficult issue, I agree. Most of us would be inclined to say that there ought to be no badmouthing or insults towards the death and emotionally would agree that the newspaper would be out of line. But this is not an accomplishment by law, or by the state - it is a societal accomplishment. I expect there could be (successful) court cases over such an issue of insulting others relative, if recently deceased based on the idea of slander - but we use this only sparingly, or is only bought to issue if considered obscene.

For example, celebrities, politicians and public figures in general - in any newspaper are routinely chastised, attacked, criticised, mocked as well as possibly lied about. It is not to the extent that you propose in the inflammatory example concerning someone's deceased mother - but it still exists. They're allowed to do this so much as the lead editor allows it (based on public image or desirable public image). Do you propose that we end all this observation on the pretext that it might hurt the feelings of them? I brung up the example of Gordon Brown. He is routinely battered by many papers. Shall we null and void that criticism based on this idea that it might be slanderous?

Indeed, I would actually say let newspapers print this sort of grotesque stuff. People shun these sort of things and it is a societal accomplishment. The biggest threat to censorship in the west is indeed not the government, or politicians - but the abrasive general public themselves - keen to defend the non-existent right of not being offended.

Also I would add that your comparison is one that misses the point. Islam is a religion. It is a specific belief system that makes claims on reality, and claims about what ought. It is no more different than mocking democracy, or secularism, or communism. They are all specific ideologies. If the cartoonist made cartoons designed to promote violence against muslims, or spur on others to commit violence against muslims - then it would have real life implications. As it is, it does not.

And as a final point, focusing on the objective of the comparison. You bring about the deceased mother analogy presumably in order to compare it to Muhammad, who is also deceased. The problem is on that basis do we prevent everyone from criticising or mocking historical figures if someone takes offense to it? Why or why not?

[hooralayn72]

Assalamu alaikum,

My Personal Belief is that he has deserved to die

But i dont know if it is right or not in Islam,

But What the somali guy has done is wrong

Thank You

[Uthman]

Prejudiced Danes provoke fanaticism

The Danish cartoonist who survived an axe attack

[Skavau]

From Uthman's article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...gaard-cartoons

His cartoon depicted the prophet Muhammad in a turban with a stick of dynamite protruding from the top. Muslims failed to see Westergaard's cartoon as satire. Instead, they saw in it a defamatory and humiliating message: Muslims are terrorists. Humiliation is a devastating feeling. But most people who are insulted will accept an apology. If an apology had been forthcoming from the then prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, that probably would have been the end to it – but none came, and the humiliation was compounded.

How exactly would the Danish Prime Minister be expected to apologise? Would he perhaps apologise for the existence of free press? Express his sorrow for the drawings of others? There are two points to this claim that the Danish PM ought to have apologised. The first is that it would have eradicated media confidence in general. What a standard to set for yourself in saying that the free press on Denmark can at times be 'regrettable' and something to 'apologise' for. The second point is that I do not believe that it would have ended there. Many groups desired that Denmark began censoring anti-Islamic statements, cartoons and media in general and desired that across all of the western world. Not only is that a ridiculous proposition, but it is something that the Danish Prime Minister could not have actually achieved without ripping apart Denmark's constitution. We know by the attempts to get a blasphemy law through the UN that this really was just waiting to happen and that Denmark was a scapegoat.

The brute fact is that the people that desired this censorship either lived in, or believed in the rule of totalitarianism - where the state issues and controls people's personal lives and issues moral edicts as to what one ought and ought not do. I have no doubt the cartoons offended them very sincerely so, but it is no pretext for control in a secular world.

Why did the editors of Jyllands-Posten want to mock Islam in this way? Some of us believed it was in bad taste and also cruel. Intentional humiliation is an aggressive act. As a journalist now living in the same town as Westergaard, I thought some at Jyllands-Posten had acted like petulant adolescents. Danes fail to perceive the fact that they have developed a society deeply suspicious of religion. This is the real issue between Denmark and Muslim extremists, not freedom of speech. The free society precept is merely an attempt to give the perpetrators the moral high ground when actually it is a smokescreen for a deeply rooted prejudice, not against Muslims, but against religion per se. Muslims are in love with their faith. And many Danes are suspicious of anyone who loves religion.

LOL

What is this? I've never been to Denmark, and indeed it is a highly secularised, liberal and democratic nation - but that is still no reason to make such sweeping claims on the population. It comes across as directly blaming the cartoonists for all the problems and yet offers no critical examination as to how or why people can get so enflamed when offended.

On the last day of the American Society for Muslim Advancement's conference in 2006, Flemming Rose, Jyllands-Posten's cultural editor, who commissioned the Muhammad cartoons, agreed to meet the delegates and took more than an hour of questions. I witnessed this exchange and admired his honesty.

"Are you not at all religious?" someone asked him. "No. Most Danes are not religious," he responded. "Well then … can't you at least respect religious people?" "No, not really," Rose answered candidly. "Generally speaking, I think Danes are a little suspicious of religious people."

Oh I see, basing all stereotypes on here on the cultural editor of Jylland-Posten.

What a surprise.

[جوري]

The best way to handle the danes and those like them:

Danish exporters hit by Muslim boycott

07/02/06 02:02 CET
Denmark


world news

Play/Pause Video

1. smaller_text
2. larger_text
3. print_article

The following article has been retrieved from the archive and no longer contains the original video.


The outcry over the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed has left a sour taste for many Danish companies selling products in the Muslim world. In some supermarkets shelves have been cleared of stock, while others have put up special labels. Henriette Seolvtoft from the Confederation of Danish Industries says the true impact is yet to become clear.
“Of course it has had a big impact for individual companies so far, but it is difficult to come up with a qualified guess in terms of exact numbers when you talk about lost exports,” she said. Dairy firm Arla Foods is the hardest hit. It is estimated to be losing 1.3 million euros a day. And it is feared other more iconic Danish brands could suffer longer term, including toy firm Lego and home entertainment company Bang and Olufsen. Seolvtoft says they’re hoping to head-off the problems: “We are considering how to re-establish the good relationship with the Arab world because of course it’s important when the immediate conflict has been solved that we can re-establish a good relationship.” Tour operators are also feeling the pinch. The Danish Travel Association says millions could be lost as Danes cancel winter sun breaks to resorts in Egypt, Morocco and Tunisia. Copyright © 2010 euronews


http://www.euronews.net/2006/02/07/d...uslim-boycott/

Just hit the turds where it hurts.. the one god they still unanimously worship is money!

[Skavau]

Yes, let us unleash fury on the entire population of an inoffensive small democratic european state with no colonial history purely for having free press. That'll show the detractors that our problems are based entirely on shortcomings and ill-treatment from the western world historically.

[zakirs]

Yes, let us unleash fury on the entire population of an inoffensive small democratic european state with no colonial history purely for having free press. That'll show the detractors that our problems are based entirely on shortcomings and ill-treatment from the western world historically.

Peace and blessings bro,

i think you should check for facts before posting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_colonial_empire


Anyway , i believe what he(killer) did was wrong. We should just ignore danish guy.

[جوري]

Yes, let us unleash fury on the entire population of an inoffensive small democratic european state with no colonial history purely for having free press. That'll show the detractors that our problems are based entirely on shortcomings and ill-treatment from the western world historically.

Yeah, do you have a problem with that? Actions have consequences...
and I for one come from a family life time devoted to Danish cheese/cream products and medical clogs.. I know from my family alone they have lost thousands.. and we are a 1.86 billion Muslim strong-- and the results are in!

They can keep their cartoons and their 'freedom' to libel and slander if it is all worth it!

[Skavau]

Peace and blessings bro,

i think you should check for facts before posting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_colonial_empire


Anyway , i believe what he(killer) did was wrong. We should just ignore danish guy.

By colonial history, I meant one that would be comparable to say the British empire. The Danish colonial history extends essentially entirely to Greenland, Norway, and the Faroe Islands with tiny outposts in other regions. They have done nothing to Islam, or Muslims historically.

The reason I bought this is up is often Muslims contend that their issues with the Western World is the persecution that it has reaped on them and is still reaping on them now. The span of the British Empire, the United States attempts to policing the world, and occupying Iraq etc. These are legitimate complaints and reasons to have issues.

We know that this is not entirely true. And we know this thanks to Denmark. It is as much a cultural issue and contempt of western secularism just as much Muslims claim the opposite.

[جوري]

with no colonial history.

I love how an expression meant to emphasize a negative statement evolves to mean something else as facts become elucidated...

It is a reciprocal relationship of pure and utter contempt don't you agree? Surely we don't take false statements meant to take a stab at the very citadel of Islam as a augury of friendship!

[Supreme]

Yes, let us unleash fury on the entire population of an inoffensive small democratic european state with no colonial history purely for having free press. That'll show the detractors that our problems are based entirely on shortcomings and ill-treatment from the western world historically.

Not many posts make me laugh, but this one did. I love sarcastic humour.

[جوري]

Not many posts make me laugh, but this one did. I love sarcastic humour.

I enjoy how weak and insecure you are to engage in any single argument with some dexterity that you must ally yourself with anyone who remotely echos your views to bring down your quarry.. How old are you?

[Skavau]

I enjoy how weak and insecure you are to engage in any single argument with some dexterity that you must ally yourself with anyone who remotely echos your views to bring down your quarry.. How old are you?

I think you should read some of what Supreme's said on this thread.

[جوري]

I think you should read some of what Supreme's said on this thread.

what does some of 'supreme's said' mean? and how would it change the fact of the matter which extreme end his uses to strengthen his views?

[★мαячαн★]

Danish / Denmark Cartoon Controversy with Hamza Yusuf. PLEASE READ BELOW:

ALL MUSLIMS HERE IN AMERICA ARE ASHAMED AT THE MUSLIMS IN DENMARK WHO BURN DANISH FLAGS AND ACT LIKE FOOLS. MAY GOD GUIDE THEM.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT ISLAM, ISLAM IS PURE - IT'S THE IGNORANT FOLLOWERS WHO MISCONSTRUE AND MISINTERPRET THE FAITH.

THERE WAS A MAN DURING THE TIME OF THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) WHO WROTE A POEM ABOUT HIM IN A BAD WAY BY CHANGING HIS NAME "MUHAMMAD" TO "MUDAMMAM" - WHICH MEANS THE OPPOSITE OF "THE PRAISED ONE". WHEN THIS NEWS CAME TO THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM). HE SHUNNED IT AND SAID, I FEEL SORRY FOR THE GUY HE'S MAKING FUN OF (MUDAMMAM) - MY NAME IS MUHAMMAD.

THE LESSON WE CAN TAKE FROM THIS TODAY IS THAT THOSE CARTOONS THAT SUPPOSEDLY PORTRAY OUR PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM - FOR WE KNOW HE WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL, THE MOST BALANCED, THE MOST PATIENT, THE MOST LOVING, THE MOST MERCIFUL, THE MOST COURAGEOUS, THE MOST SPIRITUAL, THE MOST ANGELIC, THE MOST PURE, THE MOST ELOQUENT, THE MOST...EVERYTHING OF ALL THE GREAT QUALITIES THAT CAN BE FOUND IN A HUMAN, BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL.

THE CARTOONS ARE A COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF HIS PERSONALITY.

MUSLIMS IN DENMARK:

GOD DOESN'T NEED US TO PROTECT HIS PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) - SO ALL YOU IRRATIONAL MUSLIMS JUST STAY AT HOME. YOU'RE DOING MORE HARM THAN BENEFIT TO OUR PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) AND HIS WAY (TEACHINGS).

DO YOU THINK THE PROPHET WOULD GO OUT AND BURN FLAGS AND BOYCOTT DANISH GOODS? NO. JUST STUDY HIS LIFE (SEE THE EXAMPLE FROM THE CITY OF TA'IF OR AFTER THE CONQUEST OF MECCA)

MY MESSAGE TO THE DANES - WE HAVE NOTHING AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE OUR BROTHERS IN HUMANITY. LETS TRY TO BUILD BRIDGES RATHER THAN BURN THEM. WE ALL WANT WHAT YOU WANT - TO LIVE IN PEACE.

MY MESSAGE TO MUSLIMS:

BE MUSLIMS!! FOLLOW YOUR PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM). DON'T LISTEN TO EXTREMIST FOOLS.

MY MESSAGE TO ALL:

WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH COMES RESPONSIBILITY

[zakirs]

By colonial history, I meant one that would be comparable to say the British empire. The Danish colonial history extends essentially entirely to Greenland, Norway, and the Faroe Islands with tiny outposts in other regions. They have done nothing to Islam, or Muslims historically.

The reason I bought this is up is often Muslims contend that their issues with the Western World is the persecution that it has reaped on them and is still reaping on them now. The span of the British Empire, the United States attempts to policing the world, and occupying Iraq etc. These are legitimate complaints and reasons to have issues.

We know that this is not entirely true. And we know this thanks to Denmark. It is as much a cultural issue and contempt of western secularism just as much Muslims claim the opposite.

Ok so you have brought this point. I did not want to bring this but yeah i think since you brought this point i have the right to answer.

Why do you people from west live in a cocoon ( not all of you but many) . I believe there is other half of the world where 2/3 of the population lives and i guess its east.Why do you see everthing on the point of veiw of west.

to hell with western secularism.Not so long ago i remember westerners started dividing areas onm basis of religion. (israel , WWII ring a bell ? ) . And --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I just stopped writing because it was coming out of frustration than anger.


Sorry

[★мαячαн★]

this post is not only about the cartoons but the burning of danish flags and events as a subsequent result of that occurance.

[جوري]

Burning the flag is trifle.. boycotting their products is paramount!

[Skavau]

Ok so you have brought this point. I did not want to bring this but yeah i think since you brought this point i have the right to answer.

Why do you people from west live in a cocoon ( not all of you but many) . I believe there is other half of the world where 2/3 of the population lives and i guess its east.Why do you see everthing on the point of veiw of west.

What are you talking about? I've already said in my last post that you are directly responding to:

The reason I bought this is up is often Muslims contend that their issues with the Western World is the persecution that it has reaped on them and is still reaping on them now. The span of the British Empire, the United States attempts to policing the world, and occupying Iraq etc. These are legitimate complaints and reasons to have issues.

And I passively always going to see things on the side of the West, because I live in the west.

to hell with western secularism.Not so long ago i remember westerners started dividing areas onm basis of religion. (israel , WWII ring a bell ? ) . And

Thank you for demonstrating my point that there is a cultural issue with "western secularism".

And uh, what religious conflict happened in WWII exactly? That was not a religious war.

[zakirs]

I guess we all have agreed upon a few things here and may be we can end this sucker thread.

* WE all condemn this terror act
*the pictures were offensive but should be ignored
* We love each other ( yes i love you too skavau )


regarding WWII , it reffered to creation of israel after ww2 both are same)

[glo]

I guess we all have agreed upon a few things here and may be we can end this sucker thread.

* WE all condemn this terror act
*the pictures were offensive but should be ignored
* We love each other ( yes i love you too skavau )

Yes, perhaps the thread can be closed on this happy note ...

[★мαячαн★]

soryy about that... i was meant to have placed this onto that part also :) pardon me:

this is something that was sed by shaykh hamza yusuf....

ALL MUSLIMS HERE IN AMERICA ARE ASHAMED AT THE MUSLIMS IN DENMARK WHO BURN DANISH FLAGS AND ACT LIKE FOOLS. MAY GOD GUIDE THEM.

THE PROBLEM IS NOT ISLAM, ISLAM IS PURE - IT'S THE IGNORANT FOLLOWERS WHO MISCONSTRUE AND MISINTERPRET THE FAITH.

THERE WAS A MAN DURING THE TIME OF THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) WHO WROTE A POEM ABOUT HIM IN A BAD WAY BY CHANGING HIS NAME "MUHAMMAD" TO "MUDAMMAM" - WHICH MEANS THE OPPOSITE OF "THE PRAISED ONE". WHEN THIS NEWS CAME TO THE PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM). HE SHUNNED IT AND SAID, I FEEL SORRY FOR THE GUY HE'S MAKING FUN OF (MUDAMMAM) - MY NAME IS MUHAMMAD.

THE LESSON WE CAN TAKE FROM THIS TODAY IS THAT THOSE CARTOONS THAT SUPPOSEDLY PORTRAY OUR PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PEACE BE UPON HIM) HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM - FOR WE KNOW HE WAS THE MOST BEAUTIFUL, THE MOST BALANCED, THE MOST PATIENT, THE MOST LOVING, THE MOST MERCIFUL, THE MOST COURAGEOUS, THE MOST SPIRITUAL, THE MOST ANGELIC, THE MOST PURE, THE MOST ELOQUENT, THE MOST...EVERYTHING OF ALL THE GREAT QUALITIES THAT CAN BE FOUND IN A HUMAN, BOTH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL.

THE CARTOONS ARE A COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF HIS PERSONALITY.

MUSLIMS IN DENMARK:

GOD DOESN'T NEED US TO PROTECT HIS PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) - SO ALL YOU IRRATIONAL MUSLIMS JUST STAY AT HOME. YOU'RE DOING MORE HARM THAN BENEFIT TO OUR PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM) AND HIS WAY (TEACHINGS).

DO YOU THINK THE PROPHET WOULD GO OUT AND BURN FLAGS AND BOYCOTT DANISH GOODS? NO. JUST STUDY HIS LIFE (SEE THE EXAMPLE FROM THE CITY OF TA'IF OR AFTER THE CONQUEST OF MECCA)

MY MESSAGE TO THE DANES - WE HAVE NOTHING AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE OUR BROTHERS IN HUMANITY. LETS TRY TO BUILD BRIDGES RATHER THAN BURN THEM. WE ALL WANT WHAT YOU WANT - TO LIVE IN PEACE.

MY MESSAGE TO MUSLIMS:

BE MUSLIMS!! FOLLOW YOUR PROPHET (PEACE BE UPON HIM). DON'T LISTEN TO EXTREMIST FOOLS.

MY MESSAGE TO ALL:

WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH COMES RESPONSIBILITY

[Cabdullahi]

Yes, perhaps the thread can be closed on this happy note ...

to add to that note

the attack on the danish artist just after the Nigerian lingerie bomber is part of the calculated plans that will hug our tv screens until it legitimizes the occupation of yemen by america or it could be that america and the zionists want Iran to fight a war with Saudi Arabia regarding the shia houthi's a perfect example of trying to kill two birds with one stone


lets end it there my friends