We have partnered with TradePub to bring you free industry magazines and resources - no coupons or credit cards required!
Visit: englishforums.tradepub.com
This is a discussion thread.
Latest post Sat, Feb 18 2006 1:05 AM by Lazarus. 47 replies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Janissary
+
192016
Thu, 02 Feb 06 11:41 PM
as you know , there is an expanding row in the world due to the depiction of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.
first and foremost, i want to debate it by people from all over the world but plz just debate not fight.
as for my opinion on this really contraversial subject, i think firstl these events are wanted to be inhalted by media and by people.
i believe we cannot defend the danish or european media by just claiming , this is the freedom of press and such things are normal in developed and secular , democratic countries. one can evade from the real facts that cause these reactions in the Muslim world. because the real matter is that what ll happen next if retaliations come after? hopefully i dont expect a retaliation by insulting or blaspheming to sacred,holy things of Christian countries or Christianity. afterwards , i was shocked when i watched the news and heard such comments, we are not Muslims and we dont believe Mohammed , so we have right to do these. and i thought can a Christian burnt the Holy Koran and say i am not believer of Koran and this is my right to do that?
and why i said this is wanted to be inhalted.because it seems hypocrisy what the newspapers have done so far. as you know the first caricatures published in newspapers months ago.(in october 2005). i heard that the danish newspaper apologized because of these caricatures.and the day after they had apologized they reprinted the caricatures again. so did the other european newspapers.actually first i had thought when the first caricatures were published in danish newspaper in october that, yes if you dont like what the newspaper had done by depicting Mohammed dont read or buy that newspaper. but now all the things in my mind have changed. because, while people and governments struggle to make and keep peace between several religions what did they do? just provocated the Muslim world by reprinting the same caricatures even in the same newspaper again and again.i dont think this is a freedom of press. this is just an instigation. we dont want to a clash between civilizations.we just want to a compromise between different people with different thoughts. and why people dont behave so? do they not want to permenant peace?
i ll be obliged if you share your opinions with me.but please just debate not fight.
lets share what we think.
Joined on
Mon, Jan 23 2006
Istanbul
Full Member
494
speak english or die
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JCfromChicago
+
192181
Fri, 03 Feb 06 10:06 AM
Janissary wrote: | |
as you know , there is an expanding row in the world due to the depiction of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper.
first and foremost, i want to debate it by people from all over the world but plz just debate not fight.
as for my opinion on this really contraversial subject, i think firstl these events are wanted to be inhalted by media and by people.
i believe we cannot defend the danish or european media by just claiming , this is the freedom of press and such things are normal in developed and secular , democratic countries. one can evade from the real facts that cause these reactions in the Muslim world. because the real matter is that what ll happen next if retaliations come after? hopefully i dont expect a retaliation by insulting or blaspheming to sacred,holy things of Christian countries or Christianity. afterwards , i was shocked when i watched the news and heard such comments, we are not Muslims and we dont believe Mohammed , so we have right to do these. and i thought can a Christian burnt the Holy Koran and say i am not believer of Koran and this is my right to do that?
and why i said this is wanted to be inhalted.because it seems hypocrisy what the newspapers have done so far. as you know the first caricatures published in newspapers months ago.(in october 2005). i heard that the danish newspaper apologized because of these caricatures.and the day after they had apologized they reprinted the caricatures again. so did the other european newspapers.actually first i had thought when the first caricatures were published in danish newspaper in october that, yes if you dont like what the newspaper had done by depicting Mohammed dont read or buy that newspaper. but now all the things in my mind have changed. because, while people and governments struggle to make and keep peace between several religions what did they do? just provocated the Muslim world by reprinting the same caricatures even in the same newspaper again and again.i dont think this is a freedom of press. this is just an instigation. we dont want to a clash between civilizations.we just want to a compromise between different people with different thoughts. and why people dont behave so? do they not want to permenant peace?
i ll be obliged if you share your opinions with me.but please just debate not fight.
lets share what we think. |
|
So threatening to kidnap European workers(of whom had no role in any of this) is justifiable? EU's out of their jurisdiction so threats should be allowed to provide leverage? Sounds like YOU want to keep peace, but not your fellow neighbors.
Hitting closer to home, kurtlar vadisi irak(Valley of the Wolves Iraq) was just released in your country depicting American soldiers as vicious "savages" and Jewish doctors as greedy butchers. Would the Turkish government ban the film from theaters if the U.S. and Israel object? I'd think not. Love it or hate it, freedom of press/speech is a two way street.
There is no hypocrisy; newspapers aren't reprinting the caricatures out of spite. Controversy sells subscriptions(***). You should also be aware of secular countries' greater tolerances for social/religious/political commentary and comedy(in this case caricatures) is a very effective medium. Mohammed has not been the only target.
I do agree that the cartoons were ignorant and in bad taste, but I accede their right to publish it.
Joined on
Tue, Dec 13 2005
Chicago
New Member
03
perhaps your purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Waïti
+
192255
Fri, 03 Feb 06 02:11 PM
JCfromChicago wrote: | |
Hitting closer to home, kurtlar vadisi irak(Valley of the Wolves Iraq) was just released in your country depicting American soldiers as vicious "savages" and Jewish doctors as greedy butchers. Would the Turkish government ban the film from theaters if the U.S. and Israel object? I'd think not. Love it or hate it, freedom of press/speech is a two way street.
...
I do agree that the cartoons were ignorant and in bad taste, but I accede their right to publish it.
|
|
JC, I don't quite agree with your above analogy. There is no common measure between a bad taste cartoon of prophet Muhammad and a full of hatred film depicting Americans as vicious savages. It is a fundamental fact in islam that representation of the prophet as well as key figures of islam isn't encouraged or even permitted. This goes back to early times when people of the arabic peninsula used to worship various gods and idols. Those usually assumed the bodily form of little statues or pictures that people could pray to. Islam then brought a ban on such practices as going contrary to islam as well as other monotheisms. And because it had to set the example, it did not allow the picturing of islam's god and prophet as well. It is therefore my deep feeling that not even a bad taste cartoon of Jesus presented to Christians could compare to how resentful is a silly cartoon of Muhammad to muslims. And again, this is because not even a glorifying picture of Muhammad would be acceptable to muslims. Those are the kind of things you need to bear in mind if you ever want to gain an understanding of why this whole cartoon thing has become an issue. Waïti.
Joined on
Thu, Aug 25 2005
Regular Member
568
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CalifJim
+
192444
Sat, 04 Feb 06 06:24 AM
There is no word "inhalted". Can you please review and change to the word you want? Thanks.
CJ
Joined on
Mon, Aug 2 2004
California
Veteran Member
22,434
"There are no facts, only interpretations" - Nietzsche
|
|
|
|
|
Janissary,
3 yr 294 days ago
inflated or exaggerated
sorry![Smile [:)]](/emoticons/emotion-1.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
YoungCalifornian
+
192711
Sun, 05 Feb 06 01:22 AM
This is indeed a very interesting and controversial subject. Sadly, I get the feeling that whichever side of the debate one finds themselves on is going to heavily correlate with their cultural background. Perhaps I'll be proven wrong, but I think that this entire debate stems from different set of values which exist in the Western and Middle Eastern worlds.
I haven't seen the cartoon myself, but based on descriptions of it and limited knowledge of Islamic tradition surrounding representations of Mohammed, I can understand why Muslims around the globe felt antagonized. If any depiction of the prophet is considered offensive (or at least immoral), be it reverent or anything else, then it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a mocking caricature is going to offend a great number of Muslims. It seems to me that many Muslims feel as though their religion, culture, and values have been, to a large extent, under attack from the West for some time. Whether or not that is actually the case, a political cartoon in which the artist is most definitely attacking Islam (although, in a figurative, and not literal sense), is clearly going to spark a lot of anger and resentment. Thus, I do feel that Muslims have a right to be offended, and that the newspapers which printed the cartoon were aware that they were going to anger many people. It seems that what those international newspapers were not prepared for was the intesity and scale of the backlash.
One of the truly sad things about this incident is that it is going to further reinforce many prejudices peoples of the West and Middle East have of one another. It is my understanding that what the artist behind this particular cartoon was attempting to make fun of is a tendency of many Islamic radicals to resort to violence as an effective and justified means of imposing their will. It is beyond ironic (and perhaps even tragic) then, that so much of the Islamic reaction to the cartoon has been violent. Rather than question why a foreigner viewing their collective actions would seek to address what he perceives as their violent tendencies, many Muslims have played right into the stereotype he is attempting to comment on through humor. It seems clear that most of those involved in demonstrations have not seen the cartoon, but only know that it depicted Mohammed, and in an unflattering way at that. That is what upsets them, and so that is why they demonstrate. In their eyes, people of the West have once again shown no respect for their religion and its traditions. They have spat in the face of Islam for all in the world to see. Still, if Muslims around the world expect others to show respect and deference to their traditions and values on certain matters, then they must be willing to do the same. It is unreasonable for them to be so upset about a disregard for their customs in a non-Islamic state, while at the same time making little attempt to try and understand what space within Western culture political cartoons occupy, and what the larger intentions of the artist behind it may have been.
| i believe we cannot defend the danish or european media by just claiming , this is the freedom of press and such things are normal in developed and secular , democratic countries. one can evade from the real facts that cause these reactions in the Muslim world. because the real matter is that what ll happen next if retaliations come after? hopefully i dont expect a retaliation by insulting or blaspheming to sacred,holy things of Christian countries or Christianity. afterwards , i was shocked when i watched the news and heard such comments, we are not Muslims and we dont believe Mohammed , so we have right to do these. and i thought can a Christian burnt the Holy Koran and say i am not believer of Koran and this is my right to do that?
|
|
I don't think it is fair to so quickly disregard Western traditions of free speech and press. Before any Muslim can justifiably expect Westerners to understand why it is so offensive to depict Mohammed in any fashion, they must try and understand why reacting as they are would seem so uncalled-for and senseless to most Westerners. It's a two-way street, as the expression goes. The better that Muslims understand why such a cartoon would be printed by the Western media, the better they can utilize effective means of protest and debate.
Your comments regarding Christians and Christianity, and possible religious retribution, further illustrate the different perspectives from which people in the West and Middle East approach this issue. Notice that at no point did I make prior mention of Christianity or "Christian countries". The reason is simple: I, and most citizens of Western countries, do not see this as a conflict between religions. This is without a doubt a conflict between secular Western values and religious Middle Eastern ones. Nowhere in the Bible is there the suggestion that the freedoms of speech and press were guaranteed human rights. In stark contrast, organized Christianity has historically shown a very low tolerance for anything determined to be blasphemous or heretical. That values that led to a belief that human beings have a right to speak their minds, no matter how controversial what is said, arose totally separate from religion within the Western world. Most people in the West believe that if a person wants to burn the Koran (or the Bible, or any other revered text) he has the the right to to do... just as people aware of the act have a right to voice their disapproval and make judgments on his actions, their meanings, and his character.
There have been many instances of controversy surrounding films, books, music, and television deemed offensive in Western countries. Typically, those who find whichever cultural artifact offensive react by making their views known, and attempting to explain why it is they feel such a thing is offensive and others should follow their lead in condemning it. In 1999, a controversial painting entitled Holy Virgin Mary was displayed in the Brooklyn Museum of Arts. For those who don't know, the Virgin Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ, and is held is very high esteem by Christians, especially Roman Catholics. The painting depicted her as an African woman (which is not necessarily offensive, but controversial nonetheless), featured numerous cut-outs of photographed female genitalia, and was splattered with elephant dung. Needless to say, the painting offended many, many people. Even a large number of those who were not offended themselves, thought that the painting was tasteless and intended more to offend than as a personal expression of one's own feelings. Similarly, there has been a long-standing debate in the United States over whether or not citizens should be allowed to burn the American flag. Most Americans find such an act offensive, and would like to see it made illegal. Throughout it all, the right of people to express themselves has been upheld. By and large, Westerners hold such freedoms as sacred and find it more important to protect them than censor what is said or shown, even if it means occasionally being offended by what is allowed.
Joined on
Mon, Feb 14 2005
Los Angeles, California
Regular Member
586
|
|
|
|
|

Anonymous,
3 yr 293 days ago
Janissary, I know depicting Allah, Mohammed or other Prophets is forbidden, for Muslims that is. I can't understand why rules you choose to live by and honor, should also be honored by non-muslims. Muslims can't drink alcohol or eat pork. Should the entire world live by those rules too? During the Ramadan, you can't eat between sunrise and sunset, should the entire world honor Ramadan? Should every able-bodied person in the world take up Hajj once in their life? And what about other religions? Can we eat cows or are Hindi's offended by that? I'm sure in those cases you would say that would be nonsense. To me, it's the same with depicting Mohammed or Allah: when you are a muslim, don't do it. I don't see why someone who isn't a muslim can't. You are right: whether the cartoons were bad taste or not (I think they were) doesn't make a difference in my view. And they certainly didn't convey how I see Islam or the muslim world. Some might, others don't and these certainly didn't. I've seen cartoons from the muslim world and in some cases I thought they were bad taste too, in other cases they made me smile, in other cases I thought, "Wow, is that the way they see ‘us’"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Janissary
+
192914
Sun, 05 Feb 06 07:29 PM
Anonymous wrote: | Janissary, I know depicting Allah, Mohammed or other Prophets is forbidden, for Muslims that is. I can't understand why rules you choose to live by and honor, should also be honored by non-muslims.
Muslims can't drink alcohol or eat pork. Should the entire world live by those rules too? During the Ramadan, you can't eat between sunrise and sunset, should the entire world honor Ramadan? Should every able-bodied person in the world take up Hajj once in their life? And what about other religions? Can we eat cows or are Hindi's offended by that? I'm sure in those cases you would say that would be nonsense. To me, it's the same with depicting Mohammed or Allah: when you are a muslim, don't do it. I don't see why someone who isn't a muslim can't.
You are right: whether the cartoons were bad taste or not (I think they were) doesn't make a difference in my view. And they certainly didn't convey how I see Islam or the muslim world. Some might, others don't and these certainly didn't. I've seen cartoons from the muslim world and in some cases I thought they were bad taste too, in other cases they made me smile, in other cases I thought, "Wow, is that the way they see ‘us’"?
|
|
although there is no relevance what i said in my first post and what you have said so far, never the less i ll try to make myself clear about these thoughts. i have never said non Muslims mustnt do what Muslims mustnt do but i think these are all you thoughts which had already been in your mind.because i just said there must be regards to others who have different opinions on the same topic.
Anonymous wrote: | | To me, it's the same with depicting Mohammed or Allah: when you are a muslim, don't do it. I don't see why someone who isn't a muslim can't. |
|
as you said of course people are not bound to thought that they dont believe but there must be regard.nevermind religions or prophets.just think you have just left a football match in which your team has won the game and you are returning to home by cheering and yelling. and you are disturbing the people who are not even aware of what are you yelling for.can you say if you dont want to be disturbed close your ears and not listen.
of course we are free and we should do not only what we are supposed to do but what we want to do.however this shouldnt be by disturbing or annoying others.
as for the pictures. i am so sorry especially about the first picture which is baout a boy carries a board.i am so sorry not beacuse of what would Muslims do according to that picture but because of the the fact stems from ignorance. this is mere ignorance what causes people to do such things believe me. and even i am suıre that the boy who carries the board dont even know one english word in it.it is too easy in undeveloped countries to make people such things. and even if my thought is not true there is a good Turkish proverb for it. " exceptions dont spoil the genarals". of course this not the general idea in Muslim countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|