Depiction of Mohammed

Share on Facebook

YoungCalifornian

#197248 Wed, 15 Feb 06 11:40 PM

I do think that the Danish newspaper was being somewhat hypocritical if they did indeed refuse to print a cartoon of Jesus because they didn't want to offend Christians, and then turned around and printed cartoons of Mohammed knowing that Muslims would be offended. That said, it doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if the cartoons were printed in a periodical dedicated to offending Muslims. The same issues would still be raised.

The debate surrounding this incident seems to center around two questions. The first is whether the cartoons are truly offensive and, if so, did the newspapers who printed the cartoons exercise poor judgment in doing so? The second question, which assumes that cartoons were offensive and shouldn't have been printed, is what should those newpapers' governments do about it? Because most Muslims have already made up their minds about the first question, it has ceased to be important. Unfortunately, the answer to the second question is nothing, and hence the stalemate which now exists. Angry Muslims want some kind of recompense, but there is none that those governments can give to satisfy them.

again and again the same thing. i get bored to explain why it is a silly opinion to think we are not Muslim and so we can offend Muslims as much as we want.
but the matter is not this. the danish newspaper have said from the very beginning of the row not we are Christians so no matter what Muslims think but they have said we did this because we defend the freedom of press. they said even Jesus have been depicted so many times in newspapers.
but we see they didnt published the cartoons of Jesus because they thought there will may be people who ll be offended,( as is said in reuters)
now think again and be fair. isnt it a hypocrisy or whatever lets say two facedness.

Not to speak for Lazarus, but I think his point is that perhaps the newspaper's decision whether or not to print seemingly offensive material is based not simply on how offensive may be, or how many people worldwide would be offended by it, but rather on how much of their audience would be offended. For instance, have you ever told a joke to friends that you wouldn't say in front of your mother? If so, then you are using the same discretion. Looking at it from that perspective, it makes a lot of practical sense that they would print cartoons of Mohammed, but not Jesus. Such discretion would not be hypocritical, nor would it be limited to the Western media. Since the start of this controversy, I'm sure that many of you have seen examples of the horribly racist and offensive caricatures of Jews that recur in Arabic media.

YoungCalifornian

Joined on Mon, Feb 14 2005

Los Angeles, California

Regular Member (586)

Jokes

Lazarus

#197250 Wed, 15 Feb 06 11:47 PM

Janissary wrote:
again and again the same thing. i get bored to explain why it is a silly opinion to think we are not Muslim and so we can offend Muslims as much as we want.
but the matter is not this. the danish newspaper have said from the very beginning of the row not we are Christians so no matter what Muslims think but they have said we did this because we defend the freedom of press. they said even Jesus have been depicted so many times in newspapers.
but we see they didnt published the cartoons of Jesus because they thought there will may be people who ll be offended,( as is said in reuters)
now think again and be fair. isnt it a hypocrisy or whatever lets say two facedness.

I'm sorry you're so bored, Janissary, but I did address Waiti with my post.
If the newspaper says they published cartoons of Jesus, but didn't, that's deceitful, yes. But I still don't get why it matters. "Freedom of the press" means they can publish what they want and when they want to. And they can say whatever they want about what they publish and why. Obviously, the paper is interested in making money. It's a business.

I'm beginning to think that some of the disagreement over all this stems from a misunderstanding of what "freedom" means. I'm not sure that contries lacking freedom of the press can understand it. I don't know.

Lazarus

P.S. As a extra note, please don't be thrown off by my username. I'm not a Christian.

Lazarus

Joined on Wed, Sep 28 2005

U.S.

Full Member (285)

paco2004

#197321 Thu, 16 Feb 06 03:54 AM

I rather hesitate joining the discussion of this sort. But let me try to throw my two cents. I agree it was an offence to Muslims to draw an image of Muhammad with a bomb on the head. It might be true some terrorists may be Muslims, but I believe more than 99 % of Muslims are pacifists. On the other hand, I feel we have rights to draw images of Muhammad if we have no particular intention to offend Muslims by it. I am customarily born Buddhist but as a scientist I believe all founders of all the religions in the world were human, how much the believers of the religion deny it. I believe Muhammad was a great person who lived in Arabia from 570 to 632. I believe nobody can violate our freedom to draw images of any historically great persons who lived on this globe in the past, no matter who they are, be it Buddah, Jesus, Muhammad or George Washington.

paco

paco2004

Joined on Wed, Nov 17 2004

Senior Member (4,095)

In Japan today even dogs are learning how to bow-wow in English.

LanguageLover

#197457 Thu, 16 Feb 06 11:50 AM

And I think it's all a dirty game of politics! Why there were no serious protests between the time the cartoons first appeared in the Danish newspaper- 4 months ago- and the time it was reprinted-a few weeks ago. And even if depicting pictures of holy people are allowed outside Islam, why newspapers continued reprinting the cartoons despite seeing the reactions from the Muslims; unless the main goal was to proove that Muslims are violent and terrorists,... to take advantage of the Westerners' media-fed opinions when they need their support when the needs come (that I think with the things going around nowadays, they are gonna need more support for their campaign in the Middle East.

I'm defending none here, neither the ones who provoke Muslims by the name of freedom of speech ( remember that even showing your doubts about haulocaust in some European countries is banned; so, come on, this is not the freedom of speech!), nor the Muslims who burnt the flags and burnt or attacked the embassies (I personally feel that it was rediculous that in some of the Muslim countries, including where I live, Danish products were removed from the supermarkets shelves!)

It's just a game, and a shame that many people were tricked into it, both Muslims and non-Muslims. This is exactly the trap some politicians wanted for reaching their own goals.

I'm not interested in participating thread like this myself, the debates are useless. I'll keep having my own thoughts, and the participants will do the same! But just wanted to suggest that there is always a lot going on behind the curtains. So, it's better not to judge people who are fallen to the traps by their forced reaction, not the journalists, diplomats, citizens, protestors, ...

Just I wish we were more understanding and tolerant of each other. I still hope that day come some time soon in the future. Amen.

LanguageLover

Joined on Fri, Feb 25 2005

A proud Iranian living in the UAE

Contributing Member (1,393)

The similarities among the languages are more than their differences!

Waïti

#197495 Thu, 16 Feb 06 01:23 PM

Lazarus wrote:

I'm beginning to think that some of the disagreement over all this stems from a misunderstanding of what "freedom" means. I'm not sure that contries lacking freedom of the press can understand it. I don't know.

Yes Lazarus, I fully agree with you here. I guess that's what I tried -and failed- to explain in an earlier post to this thread, the one about how 'not smart' and 'not fair' some of the western newspaper have been with regards to this issue. It is my opinion also that one cannot expect citizens in countries lacking freedom to fully comprehend and accept the concept of freedom of speech. Like -I think- somebody said, it has to be a two-way street, in other words both a right AND a duty. So whoever can't enjoy it as a privilege isn't fully equipped to understand it and is likely to not see it as an obligation.

Waïti

Joined on Thu, Aug 25 2005

Regular Member (568)

Regards

LanguageLover

#197542 Thu, 16 Feb 06 03:42 PM

And I want to add something following my previous post, though I don't know why, it was posted as an anonymous with an angel sign! I just saw the pictures of the Iraqui prisoners abused by American soldiers about two years ago- and I remember it being followed up by the US judicial system at the time, in the papers here that were published in an Australian newspaper yesterday. So, is this all just a coincidence? It is obvious to me that some people ( I don't know who-though I can guess, but that part is not obvious and this makes me to keep it for myself) are trying to cause some kind of hatred, or maybe something even more severe, to trigger hard feelings between Muslims and non Muslims by delving into the past and refreshing the bitter memories and feelings that were almost forgotten, or maybe deliberately ignored. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not pointing fingers at a specific party, actually I think that there are some extremist in both the parties who does not desire peace between the two of them!)

LanguageLover

Philip

#197561 Thu, 16 Feb 06 04:50 PM

1. I saw the cartoons and found them offensive, even though I am not a Muslim. Only one brought even a smile to my face.

2. One editorial where I lived mentioned the concept that freedom of the press is not limited to what one prints, but also to what one chooses not to print.

3. Mass violence against innocent people is never a justifiable reaction to an injustice.

Philip

Joined on Thu, Jun 23 2005

USA Pacific Northwest (Seattle)

Veteran Member (6,320)

At reise er at leve! - H. C. Andersen

Waïti

#197620 Thu, 16 Feb 06 07:59 PM

LanguageLover

LanguageLover wrote:
...I don't know why, it was posted as an anonymous with an angel sign!

Maybe because you are one Angel [A]

, my dear, releasing peace on earth, and bringing open-minded togetherness on all of us Left Hug [{]

?!

Philip
I think you've wrapped it up quite well in your concise 3 points (cents ?) note. I don't have anything to add... for a change Smile [:)]

Waïti

Lazarus

#197717 Fri, 17 Feb 06 01:59 AM

Waïti wrote:
Lazarus wrote:

I'm beginning to think that some of the disagreement over all this stems from a misunderstanding of what "freedom" means. I'm not sure that contries lacking freedom of the press can understand it. I don't know.

Yes Lazarus, I fully agree with you here. I guess that's what I tried -and failed- to explain in an earlier post to this thread, the one about how 'not smart' and 'not fair' some of the western newspaper have been with regards to this issue. It is my opinion also that one cannot expect citizens in countries lacking freedom to fully comprehend and accept the concept of freedom of speech. Like -I think- somebody said, it has to be a two-way street, in other words both a right AND a duty. So whoever can't enjoy it as a privilege isn't fully equipped to understand it and is likely to not see it as an obligation.

Well said, Waiti. You and I do agree on the basic points you make here.
I don't think, though, that this newspaper had an obligation not to print the cartoons. While it may have been the decent thing to do (not publishing them), it wasn't the necessary thing to do. We may disagree on this point, I'm not sure.

Lazarus

Lazarus

Regards

1 2 3 4 5 6