Newspapers decide to reprint Mohammed (PBUH) cartoons

  • Thread starter Thread starter Intisar
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 141
  • Views Views 14K
Status
Not open for further replies.
Muslims came to the west (at least to Denmark) believing that they would be accepted, treated nicely and that their religion would not be insulted in such a bad way from the government itself.
The danish government did not insult anyone. They sticked to their beliefs that the freedom of speech is a fundamental right, that's all. You can't expect them to apologize for a bunch of cartoons in a small newspaper. Nor should they apologize for ignoring the sheik after they clearly told him what their stance is.

We came to Denmark knowing that they had freedom of speech but at the same time knowing all about the blasphemy part too, but aperantly insulting muslims is not considered blasphemy, but instead only insulting christians and jews is considered blasphemy.
The hell you knew the blasphemy part... Nobody knew it until the cartoon controversy. And anyway, if you knew all about it you'd also know that it hasn't been enforced for decades.

A few years ago a local super market in Denmark made some Jesus sandals, christian priests protested and the sandals were banned. Where did "freedom of speech" go! O yeah I nearly forgot, christians were insulted so it is considered blasphemy!
The supermarket decide to withdraw them. I'm sure the state had nothing to do with it.
 
Hello Cognescenti,

A few things I want to say. :)

I doubt you did anything to "deserve" it. I think it is OK to inform non-Muslims how offensive it is to you in order to avoid accidental offence in the future

You might have misunderstood me. It wasn't you or your post that I was offended by. I was still on about the cartoons! Perhaps I should have been clearer. My apologies.

But in case you did understand me, well I fail to see how the offence caused by the publication of the cartoons could be accidental. I would think it would be obvious that it was going to cause offence.

but this notion that they must conform to your views is not going to work.

This bit got me a bit confused.com. I fully accept that nobody must conform to my views. Forgive me if I either said or implied it as I do not believe it to be the case.

That's odd as it did not seem that way to me. The prevailing opinion seems to be that the right to publish the cartoon is valid, even if the cartoon itself is stupid.

Yeah, that's what I meant. Although I accept that the publishers did have a legal right to publish the cartoons, I do not feel that they should have this right, the reasons for which I hope are clear.

How do you think Americans feel when they see a bunch of idiots burning and stomping on an American flag shouting "death to America!"?

I can imagine that they will probably feel the same way that I do when I hear about the cartoons, and it goes without saying that they have every right to feel that way.

You just have to take a cleansing breath and move on.

Perhaps you're right. But as much as I would like to close my eyes and become blind, close my ears and become deaf, it is unfortunately not possible.

I guess I just need to just learn to accept the facts of life. Immaturity, hypocrisy and ignorance are just some of those facts.

Btw, I hope you didn't see my previous post as a personal attack on you. I should have exercised more wisdom in the way I presented it, sorry.

Regards
 
Unintentionally? Do you mean the Danish imams who toured the Middle East actively trying to raise awareness of the cartoons?

I meant the fact that when they go crazy, they're unintentionally drawing more attention to the newspapers.

We have to act in an Islamic manner. Now more than ever, we have to cling on to our Deen and emulate the example of Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu aleyhi wasallam)

Remember the story of Prophet Muhammad's visit to Ta'if? He just went there to invite the people to the way of their lord, Islam. But remember what they did to him? They threw stones at him, such that he was bleeding so much that his feet clogged to his shoes. And then, after he retreated, the angel Jibril (Gabriel) came to him and said that if he so wished, he would make is so that the surrounding mountains would bury the city and it's inhabitants.. But what was his reply? He said:

"Leave them alone. Yes, today the people ignored my message. But I pray that their progeny will be a different group of people. I pray that they will accept Islam."

Also remember the following words of his:

“The strong man is not the good wrestler; the strong man is only the one who controls himself when he is angry.”

It is this kind of character and behaviour that is befitting of a Muslim. If only the majority of Muslims today would return to the true message of Islam, there would not be such a crisis surrounding our religion today.

There is something that I would like people to read as well. Words so eloquent I could not have put it better myself:


Muhammad in Taif by Luqman Ali

:w:

:thumbs_up Jazaki Allaahu khayr.

they are respecting it............its a cartoon

How so? Drawing a picture of our Prophet (SAWS), not only that..but strapping a bomb to his (SAW) head? That's really respecting our deen, huh? :rollseyes

AhLÄÄM;912613 said:
:salamext:

And I hate it when Muslims take that ^ attitude, it annoys the *censored* out of me, because how do they expect other people to respect their religion, when the Muslims themselves aren't!

Mashaa Allaah, perfectly said.

There is a fine line between pure disrespect and freedom of speech. It's only freedom of speech when Islam is insulted. :rollseyes

We'll all meet our creator one day, and we'll have to answer to him, and who knows what good might come out of this (as hard as it is to believe)? People may subsequently want to research about Islaam and come back to the fold of Islaam (revert) inshaa Allaah.

Alhamdulilah, let's take this time to reflect upon ourselves and act according to the sunnah of the Prophet (SAWS). The strong one is the patient one, so let's have sabr guys.

:w:
 
boycotts are very effective...and should be used by muslims all over the world..i agree be smarter and hit them where it hurts as opposed to violence which i dont agree with. They can express their freedom of speach and we can express the right not to support their economy and buy dutch product...you would be surprised how much of their products you use, esp in muslim countries. Non violent methods to stand up for your rights and beliefs....
 
Yes, exactly. They know the consequences of their actions and if the right to insult and offend is so important to them, more important than respect for the beliefs of others, that they will risk their lives for it, then, hey, that's up to them. Just as long as they don't start complaining when someone cracks and does something stupid and attempts to kill them, because they KNOW what they are facing and what kind of trouble they are likely to cause.

But Malaikah, that doesn't address the other side of the question. Why would it be so important for you to take (or at least apparently condone the taking) or another's life for it? People burn the president of my country in efigy all the time, we don't go to war over that, but it appears the Muslims are willing to go to war over this.

As a Christian I shudder when I see someone descrate an image of Jesus, but again I would not kill a person for this. Why, over a drawing of Muhammad, even though it is done in a demeaning way, should that be seen as worthy of death? Especially from adherents of a religion that prides itself on being a religion of peace? That just doesn't make sense to me.



How so? Drawing a picture of our Prophet (SAWS), not only that..but strapping a bomb to his (SAW) head? That's really respecting our deen, huh? :rollseyes
:w:

No, it is not. But it response to it seems all out of proportion to the actual offense.
 
muslims must fight all these newspapers

We must fight these people by our arms if we cant by our tongues If we cant .. by our hearts wad'alika ad'af al iman
 
You need to understand why muslims are so angered. Then decide whether their rage is justified



Well, let's see. I asked the question WHY? several times above.

Instead of giving me a lecture that I need to understand, how about actually taking the time to help me understand. Because quite clearly, I do not. Nor do I think does the rest of the non-Muslim world. I have been trying to listen and seeking to understand, but as of yet it is exactly what you called it, it is rage. And rage induced violence is never justified violence, it is just more rage, i.e. out of control emotions.

Are you telling me that Muslim thinking boils down to something as simple as rage and emotions acted on without the benefit of clear thought? (See the comment directly above.) That hardly seems worthy of your prophet, let alone Allah.
 
Well, let's see. I asked the question WHY? several times above.

Instead of giving me a lecture that I need to understand, how about actually taking the time to help me understand. Because quite clearly, I do not. Nor do I think does the rest of the non-Muslim world. I have been trying to listen and seeking to understand, but as of yet it is exactly what you called it, it is rage. And rage induced violence is never justified violence, it is just more rage, i.e. out of control emotions.

Are you telling me that Muslim thinking boils down to something as simple as rage and emotions acted on without the benefit of clear thought? (See the comment directly above.) That hardly seems worthy of your prophet, let alone Allah.

Firstly, I think you should take the time to read my posts before this. Im ssuggesting to channel our anger ina peaceful way. By using articles etc.

Secondly, havn't you been on this forum long enough to see the respect and love all muslims hold for the prophet Muhammed p.b.u.h?? I won't say 'our' prophet because he was sent with a message for 'mankind'. That includes you.

Those cartoons are simple straightforward disrespect for Muslims and Islam. Have muslims EVER done the same about other religions?? And if they have, do all muslims back them up?????
 
Firstly, I think you should take the time to read my posts before this. Im ssuggesting to channel our anger ina peaceful way. By using articles etc.

Secondly, havn't you been on this forum long enough to see the respect and love all muslims hold for the prophet Muhammed p.b.u.h?? I won't say 'our' prophet because he was sent with a message for 'mankind'. That includes you.

Those cartoons are simple straightforward disrespect for Muslims and Islam. Have muslims EVER done the same about other religions?? And if they have, do all muslims back them up?????


Well what you said is second I will take first.

First, the length of time I have or have not been on this forum is irrelevant to whether I have enough background to see the respect and love all Muslims hold for the prophet Muhammad. My daughter is Muslim. I think I have an idea.

I've come here asking questions. I've asked them before, and as yet have not found the answers very helpful by way of promoting understanding. Maybe it is something you can't communicate to others. Or maybe it is something you don't care to take the time to actually deal with someone who comes seeking to understand. May you just want to live in that rage you spoke of. I guess that's your choice. But I find it a sad one that the first thing (correction, second) you choose to do with someone who is seeking to understand is to disrespect them, at the same time you are demanding respect for your prophet. Do you even get the irony?


As to your closing questions, "Have muslims EVER done the same about other religions??" Quite simply, Yes. Not all Muslims. But some have.
"And if they have, do all muslims back them up?" Again, not all Muslims. But some have.

I think you will note that not all non-Muslims have backed up the cartoonists depiction. Not all papers have published it. I can understand how it is offensive. I'm not Muslim and I resent that portrayal of Islam as violent at its core, which is what those pictures were really about -- not demeaning Muhammad, but all Muslims in one broad swoop. What I don't understand is why it should incite violence? Doesn't acting violently in response, just make the cartoonist's point?

I am glad that you are suggesting the anger be channelled in peaceful ways. I am glad to see that you are not alone, and that this actually is the majority response. But what of the response of taybe smiler above? What of those who find in a drawing justification for murder and even war? This seems to be a disproportional response. And far too many who are themselves not involved in the violence are giving encouragement to those who are with comments like "We must fight these people by our arms if we can't by our tongues..." Yes, I recognize its source, that too is part of the problem.

When the people of my church ask me questions about Islam, why this? or why that? I ask them to try to think not from their own perspective, but from that of those they are asking about. They understand the natural anger because they remember when photographer Andres Serrano exhibited a picture entitled "Piss Christ" -- it depicted a small plastic crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist's urine. But what they don't understand is the way that anger is experssed.

Woodrow makes sense:
Sadly we allow ourselves to become angered over the sins of others. It is fine to hate the sins, but it is wrong to react to them in a manner that is just as bad or even worse.

The goal of the cartoons seems to be one of showing the world that Muslims are immature, ignorant and prone to emotional outbursts. Our reaction often solidifies this belief. As a result we give the impression that Islam is backwards, oppressive and dangerous.This is the image we are promoting, not an image of strength or one of reason. Our behavior seems to be our worse enemy.

So, as I ask the members of my church to think like a Muslim in order to understand where the anger comes from over what they see as simply a political cartoon, I also ask the Muslim world to think like a western newspaper. I doubt if the Danish have a motive of trying to stir up the Muslim world just to make Islam look bad in order to accomplish some other end. (Though I don't put it past George Bush do something like that, but that would be another story altogether.) So, what might their reasoning be?

Well the article itself gives some clues:
  1. The move came one day after Danish authorities arrested three people allegedly plotting a "terror-related assassination" of Kurt Westergaard, the cartoonist behind the drawing.
  2. And the newspaper they were printed in is on record saying, "We are doing this to document what is at stake in this case, and to unambiguously back and support the freedom of speech that we as a newspaper always will defend,"
I think it makes some sense to take them at their word. It is part of a news story because of the arrest, and the paper reprints the pictures as a way or reporting on (by way of reminder) what was at issue originally. Hopefully, people (non-Muslims that is) can look at the pictures with fresh eyes. For his part, the artist claims that he did not do it to insult the Prophet, but "that he wanted his cartoon to say that some people exploited the prophet to legitimize terror." Surely you can recognize that some people have indeed done this, they have tried to make Islam into something different than it truly is. Now, they didn't convey that message to the average Muslim. How much better would the world have been if instead of showing rage, the Muslim world had protested, but done so peacefully. It would have been a great lesson to all those who are of the opinion that Islam is a nothing but a religion of violence. And it certainly would have done wonders for teaching others to view the world from a perspective other than just their own point of view. But no, while certainly not every Muslims respond violently, so many gave did that it became worldwide news.

Now, you have before you a second opportunity to respond, to either have a conversation or to have a riot. I will wait to see if it is the wisdom of folks like Woodrow that we see this time, or if once again it is the hot-headedness of the taybe smilers that become the face of Islam.

In the mean time, I pray for peace. And, yes, I also pray for respect and understanding.
 
Last edited:
Well, let's see. I asked the question WHY? several times above.

Instead of giving me a lecture that I need to understand, how about actually taking the time to help me understand. Because quite clearly, I do not. Nor do I think does the rest of the non-Muslim world. I have been trying to listen and seeking to understand, but as of yet it is exactly what you called it, it is rage. And rage induced violence is never justified violence, it is just more rage, i.e. out of control emotions.

Are you telling me that Muslim thinking boils down to something as simple as rage and emotions acted on without the benefit of clear thought? (See the comment directly above.) That hardly seems worthy of your prophet, let alone Allah.

Same post replicated?
 
Last edited:
Well, let's see. I asked the question WHY? several times above.

Instead of giving me a lecture that I need to understand, how about actually taking the time to help me understand. Because quite clearly, I do not. Nor do I think does the rest of the non-Muslim world. I have been trying to listen and seeking to understand, but as of yet it is exactly what you called it, it is rage. And rage induced violence is never justified violence, it is just more rage, i.e. out of control emotions.

Are you telling me that Muslim thinking boils down to something as simple as rage and emotions acted on without the benefit of clear thought? (See the comment directly above.) That hardly seems worthy of your prophet, let alone Allah.

If I may jump in here....

I'm a Sikh, and we're told to respect all religions, because It was God who introduced them to the world. Now, as Sikhs are tolerant, we do not appreciate attacks on Sikhism or on our Gurus or our Holy Scriptures. Nobody should be allowed to make a mockery of another persons religion! It can't be classed as 'freedom of speech' because it's PROVOCATION - Incitement of hatred expressed at a religion. I get enraged when Jesus is mocked, but as Christians you don't seem to kick up a fuss, maybe if you did it would occur less. Somethings are SACRED and should not me defiled in such a way!

In our recent history, we've had our holiest shrine in Amritsar (City of Nectar) The Golden Temple attacked (in 1984) this resulted in the assassination of indira gandhi the primeminster of india. This was just. A sect of hindus mocked the Sikh Gurus they were killed by Sikhs. Only last May another cult leader mocked the Tenth Sikh Master Guru Gobind Sngh Ji Mahraaj Sahib, Sikhs were rioting all over india (for some reason they don't report this like they do other events) Last week his vehicle was blown up by Sikhs, but he survived. (He'll be dealt with) This is what happens when the sentiments of a particular religion are attacked. Not to mention the Sikh protests in England, about a play in Birmingham depicting a rape in a Sikh Gurdwara. Sikhs gathered and demonstated (as did Church Priests, they supported the Sikhs) and the play was removed, Yes it got violent, but like i say, there is a LINE and if it's CROSSED, well then expect a response!

Point being, everybody feels the same about their religion, so others should respect this! Making pictures of Mohammed will only enrage, nothing more! :sunny:
 
Last edited:
If I may jump in here....

I'm a Sikh, and we're told to respect all religions, because It was God who introduced them to the world. Now, as Sikhs are tolerant, we do not appreciate attacks on Sikhism or on our Gurus or our Holy Scriptures. Nobody should be allowed to make a mockery of another persons religion! It can't be classed as 'freedom of speech' because it's PROVOCATION - Incitement of hatred expressed at a religion. I get enraged when Jesus is mocked, but as Christians you don't seem to kick up a fuss, maybe if you did it would occur less. Somethings are SCARED and should not me defiled in such a way!

In our recent history, we've had our holiest shrine in Amritsar (City of Nectar) The Golden Temple attacked (in 1984) this resulted in the assassination of indira gandhi the primeminster of india. This was just. A sect of hindus mocked the Sikh Gurus they were killed by Sikhs. Only last May another cult leader mocked the Tenth Sikh Master Guru Gobind Sngh Ji Mahraaj Sahib, Sikhs were rioting all over india (for some reason they don't report this like they do other events) Last week his vehicle was blown up by Sikhs, but he survived. (He'll b dealt with) This is what happens when the sentiments of a particular religion is attacked. Not to mention the Sikh protests in England, about a play in Birmingham depicting a rape in a Sikh Gurdwara. Sikhs gathered and demonstated (as did Church Priests, they supported the Sikhs) and the play was removed, Yes it got violent, but like i say, there is a LINE and if it's CROSSED, well then expect a response!

Point being, everybody feels the same about their religion, so others should respect this! Making pictures of Mohammed will only enrage, nothing more! :sunny:

Did Indira Ghandi have 100% control over the many hundreds of millions of Hindus? A grievance with those who shared some of her beliefs is not justification for murdering her. She may have actually wished to live. I can't believe you said that.

Is it prudent for a newspaper to publish a picture of Muhammed in 2007....No, not really, unless they want to spend a lot on security.

It is acceptible for angry Muslims to plot to kill an old guy over a stupid cartoon....No.

"I get enraged when Jesus is mocked, but as Christians you don't seem to kick up a fuss, maybe if you did it would occur less. Somethings are SCARED and should not me defiled in such a way!"

Jesus himself was mocked by his executioners. He forgave them. You should try it.
 
I think the newspaper could not find anything else to increase their income only by doing this. :-[
 
I think the newspaper could not find anything else to increase their income only by doing this. :-[

Thats true sister,publishing it for THE SECOND time just shows how pathetic theyre
 
:salamext:

I was thinking about this all night, and my viewpoint is:

Just ignore.
 
what annoys me the most is when they say freedom to express what ever we want and then drawing a cartoon thats just childish
 
:salamext:

Allaah won't guide them until they wish to be guided. Leave them alone brother, they will taste their punishment soon Inshaa Allaah.
 
The danish government did not insult anyone. They sticked to their beliefs that the freedom of speech is a fundamental right, that's all. You can't expect them to apologize for a bunch of cartoons in a small newspaper. Nor should they apologize for ignoring the sheik after they clearly told him what their stance is.

Last year the Danish fascist government proudly stood up and informed everybody that he did not see anything wrong with these cartoons and that it is the full right of someone to make these cartoons. Freedom of speech is far from the fundamental of Denmark but anyways, blasphemy has bin there for much longer and if anything then blasphemy is The fundamental of the danish society!

Jyllands Posten is not a small newspaper, its one the well....... Biggest!? They wouldn't even talk to Ahmad Abu-Laban, what loss could a dialog have brought?

The hell you knew the blasphemy part... Nobody knew it until the cartoon controversy. And anyway, if you knew all about it you'd also know that it hasn't been enforced for decades.

Your own ignorancy has nothing to do with what I know and what I dont know! I know the law here and how the society works, respecting others is the fundamental! Take that away and there will be no society. We didnt just randomly chose Denmark to live in!

The supermarket decide to withdraw them. I'm sure the state had nothing to do with it.

Did I not mention that the sandals were banned!? Guess who banned them!
 
Last edited:
Did Indira Ghandi have 100% control over the many hundreds of millions of Hindus? A grievance with those who shared some of her beliefs is not justification for murdering her. She may have actually wished to live. I can't believe you said that.

It wasn't the Hindus who went into the Golden Temple armed to the eyes with tanks and guns. (well only a few idiots in the army) It's like if an army was sent into Mecca, and shot at the Kaaba! Or Holiest shrines of the Jews or Christians. She gave the order, and she said she knew she'd signed her death warrant the day she gave tbe order. (How right she was) She was the female version of Hitler. Genocide of the minorites.

Is it prudent for a newspaper to publish a picture of Muhammed in 2007....No, not really, unless they want to spend a lot on security.

Have they nothing better to do? Can't they join Stan Lee instead and make a few more comic heroes....

It is acceptible for angry Muslims to plot to kill an old guy over a stupid cartoon....No.

Hmmm, not sure about the killing, but he should at least be dealt with by the courts for hurting the religious sentiments of the Muslims!



"I get enraged when Jesus is mocked, but as Christians you don't seem to kick up a fuss, maybe if you did it would occur less. Somethings are SCARED and should not me defiled in such a way!"

Jesus himself was mocked by his executioners. He forgave them. You should try it

Yes, he did. He was Prophet. Dhan Guru Arjan Dev Ji himself was tourtured and killed by the Mughals, he too sat on the hot plate asked for God to forgive them. But Sikhs are entitled to defend what we regard as sacred. It will always be this way.

Gur Fateh
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top