Man charged over attack on Danish cartoonist

[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/commentis...04/prejudiced-danes-kurt-westergaard-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/danish-exporters-hit-by-muslim-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.