Man charged over attack on Danish cartoonist

[★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. mg:

 

[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. mg:

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. mg:

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!

-