Iraqis protest against anti-Islamic Danish cartoons

[norml]

Iraqis protest against anti-Islamic Danish cartoons
43 minutes ago


BAGHDAD (AFP) - With fiery sermons and raucous demonstrations, Iraqis called for an investigation into Danish and Norwegian publications carrying cartoons deemed offensive to the Prophet Mohammed.

Iraq is the latest Muslim country to enter the fray over the cartoons, which has seen the withdrawal of ambassadors, boycotts of products and widespread Muslim condemnation of the Danish government's stance.

On January 10, the Norwegian Christian publication Magazinet reprinted the 12 satirical cartoons as a gesture of solidarity with the conservative Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, which originally ignited the controversy in September.

The publications, who describe the whole affair as an attack on freedom of expression, have been supported by their governments and professional association.

Muslims both in Denmark and around the world have protested the cartoons, which include portrayal of the Prophet wearing a time-bomb shaped turban and show him as a wild-eyed, knife-wielding bedouin flanked by two women shrouded in black.


snip


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060127/wl_mideast_afp/iraqdenmarknorway


Here's a link to the cartoons...

http://www.newspaperindex.com/blog/2005/12/10/un-to-investigate-jyllands-posten-racism/

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Thanks for the link to the cartoons

As I have posted on a thread quite similar to this, personally I find the cartoons offensive, but I will defend the right of the cartoonist to post them-as long as they don't cause some bozo to decide to go out and take out a Muslim or desicrate a mosque.

Realize that many Muslims are quite offended by anyone drawing a picture showing the Beloved Prophet. Traditionally, pictures of the Prophet are not drawn, because the stress of Islam is one's realtionship with God, not with any intermediary. It is as distressing for many Muslims as it was for Christians when a picture of Jesus was placed in a bottle of urine.

[norml]

4. I think it was a picture of a crucifix placed in a bottle of urine.

Barbie VS. Piss Christ: Battle of the Icons

-------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by G.H. Hovagimyan on November 10, 1997 at 11:22:10:


Barbie vs. Piss Christ: Battle of the Icons

Since Mr. Henry Boo- boo has unwittingly (or half - wittingly) pointed out a connection between Andre Serrano's Piss Christ and my BKPC (Barbie & Ken Politically Correct) I feel a deeper analysis is in order.
Piss Christ is a photo work. If one were to see the piece in a gallery, one sees an image of a Crucifix submerged in a yellowish liquid. Without the title, the piece is mildly interesting. The title is inflammatory by nature and is tailor made to fit into existing, abbreviated mass media short span newspeak. Mr. Serrano has publicly stated that he is a devout Christian and was simply trying to illustrate the suffering and degradation of the passion of Christ. In my opinion Mr. Serrano's work and demeanor is totally conservative. Yet his position within a hip avante garde discourse is ironic. This allows the mostly conservative world of galleries, curators and art dealers to have it both ways. They can embrace worn out symbols that are inherently conservative while catering to the avante garde's disdain for the masses. The icing on the cake is the media circus surrounding the work.
The Catholic church tried through court appeals to have an exhibition of Serrano's work stopped from opening in Australia. They lost and the show opened. Piss Christ was immediately attacked by people with hammers and ripped from the wall etc.. Several issues are at hand here. The Church for instance doesn't have a copyright on it's most central image, the crucifixion, therefore within capitalist mass production laws, it has no right to demand censorship. Indeed the Church and it's symbols are from a previous epoch that has lost both it's power and it's relevance. This then is the real message of Serrrano's work which I believe the public has read correctly regardless of Serrano's statements to the contrary, that Christianity and it's symbols are degraded.


snip


http://old.thing.net/wwwboard1/messages/534.html


Yeah, I thought the controversy over "Piss Christ" was a lot of nonsense too.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. And that is your right

I just wanted to explain why Muslims were so upset-especially to those Christians who might have thought their distress was "no big deal".

[400Years]

2. When I was in Denmark oh so many years ago they seemed pretty racist

But they were all smug about it,as if they didn't have a problem with racism.

At that time Denmark was very homogenous and probably still is so the smugness was unjustified.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. Americans protest against movies, TV, music, and books.

For the same reason for the same God.

[NoPasaran]

6. At the risk of offending everybody

Some folks just have their turbans wrapped too tight.

Protesting over these cartoons is just as idiotic as it would be for Danes to riot over the insults to their heritage portrayed by "Hagar the Horrible".

[neweurope]

7. I don't wear a turban and I find them offensive. Hägar is funny,

he could be depicted in any kind of society. But these "cartoons" are derogatory. Racist, even; don't forget that we here in Europe have large Muslim minorities.

Apart from everything else I think we could maybe agree on the following: In a world that is almost daily getting more polarized, with the danger of a real big war, even a world war, growing, we should avoid everything that widens frontiers. We should, on the contrary, work for better understanding.

And your US-"christians" would be foaming at the mouth if the Arab world showed cartoons like that.

-----------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[NoPasaran]

8. Our US-"chistians" are already foaming at the mouth

They don't need cartoons.

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. But should there be an investigation into everything offensive?

Yes, I think we know many Muslims, and some non-Muslims, find them offensive. I'd suggest that they boycott the newspaper and cartoonist.

I would dispute whether they are racist. They are cartoons about Mohammed. Why is that racist? Derogatory? They're certainly critical of Islam; I thought the one of Mohammed, with his eyes blanked out, flanked by women with only their eyes showing, makes a very good point.

[neweurope]

10. These are European cartoons and in Europe hate speech etc. is

forbidden by law. Which is good. Also when you have minorities it is disgraceful - and unwise - to make fun of their religion. Depicting Mohammed as the devil is derogatory, unwise, hateful and dumb to the utmost. Stuff like this deepens the trenches between Muslims and "Christians" (trenches that your government dug) further; nobody needs that.

-------------------

Remember Fallujah

Bush to The Hague!

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. That's a generalisation - "in Europe hate speech is forbidden by law"

For instance, here in Britain, speech that incites racial hatred is outlawed, but not religious hatred - though the government is trying to extend the criminal offence to religion too - and many people, including myself, think they shouldn't, because religion is an idea that is freely believed, and religions themselves can contain offensive ideas, so others should be able to denounce them as "a load of codswallop", "evil", "crap" or whatever.

Depicting Mohammed as the devil may be all those things you said, but what's it got to do with the government? The newspaper and the cartoonist did it. Why should Mohammed, one historical figure, get special treatment that wouldn't be given to, say, Genghis Khan or Atilla the Hun?

And just because something is offensive to a group, that does not mean it is stirring up hatred against them. If I say I hate Mohammed, or that the god of the Old Testament is psychopathic, that doesn't mean I hate Muslims, Jews or Christians, or want others to hate them - I just think they're following the wrong moral ideas. Religions spend lots of time denouncing each other as 'false prophets' - and these cartoons just do that.

The trenches between Muslims and Christians may be deep, but they go back a long way, and they're not dug just by one side.

[mogster]

12. Just a short comment

On January 10, the Norwegian Christian publication Magazinet reprinted the 12 satirical cartoons as a gesture of solidarity with the conservative Danish daily Jyllands-Posten, which originally ignited the controversy in September.

This is wrong.
Magazinet is an extremist-christian paper of NRO/FOX quality, known for their undying support of mr. Hagen, mostly known for his attacks on immigrants (not muslims only), single moms, Norwegian aboriginals, you name it.
He is a stauch supporter of Bush, and was the architect in bringing Norway into the coalition between February 2003 and June 2003.

Hagen has consistently attacked the muslims here in the lowest way possible; by branding their children as 'suicude bombers' and also by connecting the 'dots' to other immigration groups, to make them look bad as well.

The print of these cartoons by Magazinet was a PR-stunt to escalate the situation in Norw. politics, and to try to provoke our muslim community into doing something threatening, to make the situation more difficult for the newly elected social democrat govt.
Unfortunately for Magazinet, the Norw. muslim community isn't very radical and has responded with a :shrug:

It also has a lot to do with money, as the Magazinet is a small paper without many readers.