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.
1 2 3 4 5
There is no word "inhalted". Can you please review and change to the word you want? Thanks.
CJ
inflated or exaggerated

sorry:)
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
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.
YoungCalifornian

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.

firstly thnx for your care about the matter young californian.

actually i didnt consider the matter as a problem or clash between different religions but i just wanted to show the importance of the matter and what can the problem cause if such things happen.thats my fault.

but really thnx for your correcting me and sorry for my fault.

as for the flag there are such problems in my country too. and even last year or the year before an artist was prosecuted due to kicking baloon which has the figure of Turkish flag.nothing has happened to her about that trial she was absolved but it was a long standing debate in Turkey too.

Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
As Muslims, we respect what we believe. We respect to all other religions as well. The only thing we want is respect from you. We are not asking non-muslims to practice our beliefs or anything. What we want is zero interference from non-muslims. Because we're not interfering or making fun of any other religions' beliefs. That's all.
We respect to all other religions as well. The only thing we want is respect from you. We are not asking non-muslims to practice our beliefs or anything. What we want is zero interference from non-muslims. Because we're not interfering or making fun of any other religions' beliefs.
I'm pretty sure that the artist behind the infamous cartoon was not intending to make fun of Islamic beliefs. Rather, the cartoon was a commentary on what he perceived as tendency towards violence on the part of the religion's practitioners. While the artist may have been aware that depicting Mohammed is forbidden in Islamic law, I think it's clear that his intention was not to simply offend Muslims by mocking one of their time-honored traditions. As for your comments regarding interference on the part of non-Muslims, I'm not sure what you mean. The cartoon in question was drawn, printed, and sold by non-Muslims to readers in a non-Islamic country. If anything, this is a case of Muslims interfering in the matters of non-Muslims. Lastly, I would not be so quick to claim that Muslims do not interfere or make fun of other religions or their beliefs. In the wake of this debate, I have seen many examples presented of offensive Arabic political cartoons depicting Jews as greedy, crooked-nosed misers seeking to control the actions of the United States. I'm afraid that it's looking more and more to me as though Muslims want a double standard to apply.
AnonymousBecause we're not interfering or making fun of any other religions' beliefs. That's all.
I know that is how you feel as an individual, but I must say your fellow muslims might be a bit more discriminatory towards other regions/religions. See: http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ArabCartoons.htm

JANISSARY, I agree with Anonymous and his/her comparison is relevant to this discussion and your response to him/her did not justify the double standard that exists.

WAITI, I agree that my analogy sucks. However, it shows that the Muslim world can also create controversy. It cannot be up to you or I to determine that U.S. and Mohammed portrayals are "not measurable." I think they are, you do not. You claim a fundamental fact that is foreign to me and a lot of the non-Muslim world and expects us to respect it without question. Well being raised in a secular society, I found myself to question very much the validity of this fundamental fact. You provided a great amount of insight into why images of Mohammed are forbidden(thank you) but to me it sounds like a method to strive for Islam purity by elimindating all detractions from the original religion. I have no problem with that, Islam can declare anything to ensure its surivival and purity. I'll leave to Young Californian to discuss the religious aspect because he seems to be more articulate and concise on this subject.

What I do have a problem with is that Muslims expect the world to respect their fundamental ideals and yet cannot respect the importance of freedom of speech in secular societies. Muslims whom have immigrated to European and American countries have mostly enjoyed freedom to practice their religion. Does anyone else find the Muslim protests in the EU ironic? That is, them utilizing the very fundamental freedom that they are protesting against(if you consider freedom to protest to be equal to freedom of press).

I also hope that ALL OF YOU, regardless of religion, are not condoning the destruction of Danish embassies; it just further promotes the violent Muslim stereotype.

BTW, thank you moderator for fixing my previous post to make it more readable.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Show more