Did You Know That Islam Prohibits ANY Image Of Mohammed?

[omega minimo]

This was mentioned briefly on NBC news but seems to be largely missing from news and discussion of the reaction to the cartoons printed in Danish conservative papers.

If a religion prohibits ANY image of their holy figures, then that would factor in to the outrage over cartoons, wouldn't it? Folks saying "I don't think it's such a big deal" are unaware of the nature of the sparks that inflamed these events. (Intentionally? But that's another thread...........)

Here is an excellent discussion from NewsHour last week.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/religion/jan-june06/cartoons_02-02.html

POLITICAL CARTOON CONTROVERSY

February 2, 2006
Political cartoons published in European newspapers depicting the Prophet Muhammad against Islamic law caused a controversy across the Muslim world. Following a background report, two guests discuss the reaction and opposition to these cartoons.

Beliefs under assault

JEFFREY BROWN: And with me to look at the growing tensions raised by this story are: Ahmed Younis, national director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which promotes civil rights for American Muslims; and Stephan Richter, publisher and editor-in-chief of The Globalist, an online daily that focuses on international politics and culture. He's a German citizen who's lived in the U.S. for 25 years.

<snip>

JEFFREY BROWN: And as best you can tell, does this strike Muslims across the board?


AHMED YOUNIS: Absolutely. This does not discriminate against anyone. Again, religiosity, how conservative or how liberal someone is, has nothing to do with this. This is the tradition that has been set by people who call themselves Muslims, regardless of how they live their life day to day. And the Prophet Muhammad set an example, for instance, in the Medina Constitution of comity between people of multiple faiths when he was the person that had the privilege and the leverage of power.

And really it is very interesting that people say this is an argument between the traditions of freedom of expression in the West, and the traditions of Islam and Muslims, when, in fact, one of the primary goals of the Sharia, the law of Muslims that is promulgated by individuals, is the protection of freedom of speech, the protection of the products of the mind, which is a blessing of God, but there is a difference between freedom of speech and the responsibility of speech, both by the speechmaker and by the authorities that are responsible for an amicable exchange between different members of a society.

A tradition of free expression
JEFFREY BROWN: Stephan Richter, you were able to talk to people in Denmark and in Europe. What do we know about the paper that started this and their reasons for doing it?


STEPHAN RICHTER: Well, there are really two stories. One is the one that you point to, the start and where we're at now. At the start, it was probably a gratuitous effort on the part of the Danish paper; it is a conservative paper, contrary to the good traditions of editorial cartooning, where you need to have some current action, I mean, the images shown about the prophet.

You know, some months ago, there were reasons to perhaps display them, but right now in a series of them, it is questionable cartooning because they just wanted to prove that it can be done, and the editors in various papers are saying, really, it is a domestic question because the conservative paper wanted to inflame some of the anti-immigrant sentiments in Denmark, of that paper of conservative parties, conservative papers and conservative parties, as anywhere in Europe on the progressive and conservative front are closely aligned.

So they wanted to do some cheap domestic gain, and in that context it was not a legitimate means of journalism; at the same time, compared to everything that you said very eloquently, there couldn't be bigger disagreement because the logic of your position, while you talk about benevolence and understanding and so in, is basically that one culture sets up a global standard under which anybody has to live.

:yoiks:
disclaimer: omega minimo does not pretend to know the whole story or defend the actions of any of the players. recent posts by folks blowing smoke without enough information prompted this offering.

[bettyellen]

1. i know there used to be prohibitions against images of any human figures

and that's why there was such a tradition of non figurtive art as well as calligraphy... all that abstract scroll work, etc was pretty much all that was allowed, so it flourished.

[omega minimo]

6. and Nature

Natural forms, plant life are prohibited in design, so the geometric designs developed instead. Interesting.


I work with someone who is Sikh and was distressed by a box of tea that depicted one of their holiest buildings on the box, because it would go in the trash.

[bettyellen]

20. i was sure animals too, but i forgot if plants were involved...

a lot of abstract designs look like they are based on flowers, especially if they are symetrical, it's hard to get around it.
interesting about the tea box.
it's funny, because when you see islamic portraits now, they are so stylized and embellished, it makes me think of saint's portraits,
i can't say i understand how you go from not allowed to portraying people like that. it's interesting.

[Cassandra]

143. Orthodox Judaism, as well.

Other Jews are more flexible about it. It's that graven image commandment, remember?

[Lefty48197]

2. I just learned this during the recent controversey

It would be a good thing if we all learned more about Muslim culture

[Llewlladdwr]

3. This might be pertinent if...

it were true in any meaningful sense. See here:

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

for depictions of the Prophet from both Western and Islamic culture.

[iconocrastic]

131. Very informative, thanks for the link. n/t

[formernaderite]

4. We've also heard conflicting stories regarding this...

the more conservative Wahabbi's and Sunni's believe NO pictures to be admissable, Shia's are more flexible on that point. There is also Persian art as far back as the middle ages with depictions of Mohammed. In other words...no strict consensus. Some of the more conservative branches don't believe a home should have any pictures of any kind, nor photos...and NO dogs. Oh, and I don't even pretend to know or care really.

[TalkingDog]

5. Actually strict observance forbids any images of animals, people, etc.

The moderate sects only forbid the depiction of people, which can be problematic for drawing instructors. You have to find other subjects for them to draw while the rest of the class is doing figure studies.

Their beautiful use of abstract imagery is the best outcome of a constricted situation.

[Burning Water]

7. On the other

hand, why should the Muslims inflict their religious beliefs on the rest of us??

We don't let Christians do it. We don't let Jews do it. We don't let Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrians, pagans, or atheists do it. What makes Muslims so special??

[omega minimo]

10. Check out the link. Good talk on your question

[Burning Water]

I'll feel more sympathy

for the offended Muslims when, 1) they learn to control there rage, and figure out how a multicultural society is supposed to work, and 2) we see a little respect for other religions in their own countries. How about the First Baptist Church of Mecca?


And really it is very interesting that people say this is an argument between the traditions of freedom of expression in the West, and the traditions of Islam and Muslims, when, in fact, one of the primary goals of the Sharia, the law of Muslims that is promulgated by individuals, is the protection of freedom of speech, the protection of the products of the mind, which is a blessing of God, but there is a difference between freedom of speech and the responsibility of speech, both by the speechmaker and by the authorities that are responsible for an amicable exchange between different members of a society. {NO, THERE'S NOT. FREEDOM OF SPEECH PERMITS THAT WE CAN OFFEND EACH OTHER AND SKEW EACH OTHER'S SACRED COWS}

*******


So they wanted to do some cheap domestic gain, and in that context
it was not a legitimate means of journalism; at the same time, compared to everything that you said very eloquently, there couldn't be bigger disagreement because the logic of your position, while you talk about benevolence and understanding and so in, is basically that one culture sets up a global standard under which anybody has to live. {IS THAT THE WEST HE'S TALKING ABOUT, OR THE CALIPHATE?}

And, in Europe, for example, they report cases in France last fall where Jesus was depicted naked, with his -- with a naked erect member with a condom on, and the court in France -- there are lots of Catholics who were incensed by this --they took it to the court, and the court said, look, this is absolutely distasteful; we can understand that lots of people don't enjoy this, would have preferred not to have this published but, and this was the newspaper Liberation, but as a matter of separation of church and state, freedom of speech, all of our traditions established over the last 200 years, we have to put the freedom of expression over anything else. MUSLIMS NEED TO LEARN TO LIVE IN THE WEST OR RETURN TO THEIR COMFORT ZONE.

[omega minimo]

18. The OP is simply about one (overlooked) aspect of this

"....one of the primary goals of the Sharia, the law of Muslims that is promulgated by individuals, is the protection of freedom of speech, the protection of the products of the mind, which is a blessing of God, but there is a difference between freedom of speech and the responsibility of speech, both by the speechmaker and by the authorities that are responsible for an amicable exchange between different members of a society. {NO, THERE'S NOT. FREEDOM OF SPEECH PERMITS THAT WE CAN OFFEND EACH OTHER AND SKEW EACH OTHER'S SACRED COWS}"

To define freedom of speech as the right to consider other's traditions "silly" or "SKEW EACH OTHER'S SACRED COWS" is news to me. There's a range and I guess some folks see it in the negative. Liberty and freedom of speech implies some responsibility and the right to respect others and not be an asshole, too.

The story he told about the Christ cartoon is WHY I BROUGHT THIS UP. It is comparing apples and oranges if one faith does not allow (few if) any visual depictions of their holy figure-- then simply to do so is already outrageous, whatever the added messages of the cartoon.

"MUSLIMS NEED TO LEARN TO LIVE IN THE WEST OR RETURN TO THEIR COMFORT ZONE." This attitude can only fuel the fires that are burning.

[Burning Water]

21. No, I see you as wrong

Liberty and freedom of speech implies some responsibility and the right to respect others and not be an asshole, too.

Tell it to the guy who created "Piss Christ" for example. Muslim moral and theological arguments are binding only on Muslims, and then only on such Muslims as accept them. Freedom of speech means just that: the freedom to speak even if some are offended. Segregationists were offended in the civil rights era. Nobody gave a damn. Conservative Christians (and even liberal ones) are deliberately offended constantly in the media. No riots, no beheadings. The worst you get is suggestions of a cut-off of tax dollars. Jews are constantly belittled by the Muslim press as "pigs & dogs". When's the last time you saw a Jewish riot??

The Muslims are coming to the West to live in Western societies. It is up to them to adapt to us, not we to them. If I was going to Saudi ARabia, for example, I would be careful to observe the local customs. when in Rome..., you know?

Their religious strictures interest only them. They claim to respect Christ as a prophet, for example, but that is blasphemy, in and of itself, from an orthodox Christian perspective. Again I must ask, Why should they be allowed to inflict their religious views on us??

They answer is that they shouldn't. They are, however, perfectly entitled to boycott if they wish. That's part of their freedom of speech.

I'm not quite sure how to tie this last in with the preceding rant, so I'll just say it. Clark for Prez. Unless someone can convince me there's someone better.

[omega minimo]

26. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind

"There's a range and I guess some folks see it in the negative. Liberty and freedom of speech implies some responsibility and the right to respect others and not be an asshole, too."

What part of "there's a range" don't you understand. It's your freedom to be an asshole and go around skewering. Don't be surprised when the sacred cow turns on your bull.


"FREEDOM OF SPEECH PERMITS THAT WE CAN OFFEND EACH OTHER AND SKEW EACH OTHER'S SACRED COWS"

"MUSLIMS NEED TO LEARN TO LIVE IN THE WEST OR RETURN TO THEIR COMFORT ZONE."

"Segregationists were offended in the civil rights era. Nobody gave a damn."

"Conservative Christians (and even liberal ones) are deliberately offended constantly in the media."

[Burning Water]

29. You're right here

What part of "there's a range" don't you understand. It's your freedom to be an asshole and go around skewering. Don't be surprised when the sacred cow turns on your bull.


that range does not, however, include riot, kidnapping, murder, or vandalism. If Muslims can't take the heat, they need to get out of the kitchen. Mocking Mohamed may be taboo to them, but not to me.

In a free society, you have the right to offend, and to be offended. they have their own right to free speech. they can mock Jews, Christians, and the individuals who drew the original cartoons. They can complain, they can boycott. All within their rights. When they threaten violence, they go too far.

They need to accommodate themselves to the culture that they have voluntarily joined.

[omega minimo]

31. You are having this argument all by yourself

or need to go find someone who is saying what you are skewering :thumbsdown:

[Burning Water]

129. As near as I could

understand your argument, that person would be you. One of us has a reading comprehension problem, or one of us writes unclearly. don't know which. Could be me.

[dubya_dubya_III]

120. Here Here

Violence is the defining factor here.

I, for one, am not looking forward to changing my dirty socks for eternity in some endless silly individual 'afterlife' anyhow.....

:-)

[AngryAmish]

44. There are Protestants that think visual depictions of Jesus as idolotry

The very same prohibition that is in Islam. These folks live in the US. Yet they restrain themselves of attacking Catholic churches for their statues of Jesus.

[omega minimo]

61. Some think buttons are "fancy" but don't go ripping people's clothes off

Now quit buggy-ing me! :evilgrin:

[AngryAmish]

62. Easy, English!!!

[omega minimo]

67. Be careful out der among dem Ainglish ;)

and say hi to Viggo! :loveya:

[BoneDaddy]

112. I disagree

I hear what you are saying but I disagree on your last part the saying "Muslims need to learn to live in the west or return to there comfort zone" and your comment that it can only fuel the fires that are burning.

I have worked with addicted adolescents and adults for over 15 years. A boundary MUST be set regarding their behavior, regardless of whether or not they chose to respond to that boundary. I don't think it is insensitive to hold people accountable when they choose to leave their particular culture and live among people who may have a different response to life (ie: freedom of speech).

When violence becomes the FIRST and ONLY response, then we have already lost. There needs to be a moratorium on violence in order for us to get anywhere.

[omega minimo]

130. Agreed

"There needs to be a moratorium on violence in order for us to get anywhere. "

And that moratorium begins with each of us, by not adding to the hatred. There are no easy answers. Clearly the situation is out of control. The voice of reason or moderation is seen as enabling or endorsing violence which is untrue. These events have sparked blind hatred here too and I'm afraid innocent people will suffer from it.

[Moochy]

63. Theocracies n/t

[BoneDaddy]

109. Agreed

I agree. And I often see hypocrisy on these boards re: that issue. A great many of agnostics, atheists and non-Christians poke fun, point out inconsistencies in the religion and sometimes can be outright rude, mean and insulting. That said I respect their free speech even if I disagree with it. So why is Islam granted a special status?

What I would like to see is the moderate muslim community raise an outcry against the fundamentalist communities behavior. Is the cartoon insensitive, yes. Is it done in good taste, no. Should it illicit this type of violent response, absolutely not.

First of all it makes the stereotype of Islamists more concrete and buttresses their critics claims that all muslims are inherently dangerous people who cannot possibly cope with the "civilized" world. This type of behavior works against them.

[omega minimo]

8. I really appreciate the efforts of those correcting this if its untrue

AND THE SNARKINESS SUCKS

[eallen]

9. And why should that matter to those who aren't Muslim?

Many Jews don't eat pork or cheeseburgers. Jehovah's Witnesses don't celebrate Christmas. Christian Scientists don't take blood transfusions. Some protestant sects view prayers to Mary as idolatry. Catholics view the Pope as someone more than a silly man in costume.

Why should any of that prevent me from eating a pork roast for Christmas, after a blood transfusion, while poking fun of the Pope and drawing cartoons of Mohammed? The essence of a free society is people understanding that what they consider sacred their neighbor views as silly. Reverence is private, or at least, shared among cobelievers. What each sect considers gross profanity must nonetheless be tolerated in the larger public.

[omega minimo]

11. That's silly

"The essence of a free society is people understanding that what they consider sacred their neighbor views as silly."

[The Magistrate]

79. It Is Not Silly, Ma'am

It is indeed essential. Persons who cannot manage it are not only unsuited to live in a free society, but actively dangerous to have in one.

[omega minimo]

85. eallen used the word "silly"

referring to "The essence of a free society is people understanding that what they consider sacred their neighbor views as silly."

News to me. People understanding that what they consider sacred their neighbor views as silly is the essence of a free society?

This ranks right up there with "FREEDOM OF SPEECH PERMITS THAT WE CAN OFFEND EACH OTHER AND SKEW EACH OTHER'S SACRED COWS."

"Reverence is private, or at least, shared among cobelievers. What each sect considers gross profanity must nonetheless be tolerated in the larger public."

Somehow the tone of both these comments doesn't sound very "tolerant" in terms of how "must nonetheless be tolerated" is applied. I am hearing on the board tonight the attitude that our freedoms allow us the right to offend others more than respect them.

I didn't know that the notion of tolerance and respect for others beliefs had morphed into tolerating and disdaining them. Silly me. B-)

"It Is Not Silly, Ma'am
Posted by The Magistrate
"It is indeed essential. Persons who cannot manage it are not only unsuited to live in a free society, but actively dangerous to have in one."

Not sure what "it" you are talking about.

[The Magistrate]

86. The Essence Of A Free Society, Ma'am

Is accepting offense without violent reaction, and understanding that what is important to you may not be even a trifle to someone else. One of the maxims you cited sums it pretty well, to me: "What each sect considers gross profanity must nonetheless be tolerated in the larger public." No one has the right to expect other people to act as they do, or more precisely, to try and prevent other people acting differently then they do. Just as people who think abortion is abomination are perfectly free not to have one, Moslems who believe a picture of the Prophet is abomination are perfectly free not to draw one. But past that person's own actions such an enforcement of belief cannot extend.

[omega minimo]

98. The topic has revealed the odd way that some folks see "it"

which is what I commented on... To define freedom of speech as the right to consider other's traditions "silly" or "SKEW EACH OTHER'S SACRED COWS" certainly trivializes the deep subject you are elucidating upon.




Please, pray tell, no more honorifics :hi:

[dubya_dubya_III]

151. Mustafa Kemal Attaturk

The father of modern Turkey's opinion:


"Religion is an important institution. A nation without religion cannot survive. Yet it is also very important to note that religion is a link between Allah and the individual believer. The brokerage of the pious cannot be permitted. Those who use religion for their own benefit are detestable. We are against such a situation and will not allow it. Those who use religion in such a manner have fooled our people; it is against just such people that we have fought and will continue to fight. Know that whatever conforms to reason, logic, and the advantages and needs of our people conforms equally to Islam. If our religion did not conform to reason and logic, it would not be the perfect religion, the ultimate religion"

[distantearlywarning]

101. Hear, hear!

Thanks for being a voice of reason in a sea of hysterical emotion on this subject...

:applause:

[omega minimo]

137. Thank you

:hi:

[demosincebirth]

14. I think if they want to live their lives in the 8th century, they can,

but shouldn't expect others to observe their religious taboos also.

[Yupster]

15. To me yours is the important point eallen

It's interesting to know what Muslims think and believe, but since I am not a Muslim I am certainly not bound by their beliefs.

Are these protestors actually trying to demand that the rest of the world must follow their beliefs whether they are Muslim or not?

If so that is quite an outrageous demand they make.

[omega minimo]

16. Link was provided for more informed opinions

There are plenty of knee-jerk threads on this already.

[catmother]

50. well from what i understand they want the whole world to be

muslim. if not, kill the "infidels".

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[catmother]

107. well that statement makes a lot of sense.

:puke:

[CJCRANE]

111. See post #108. You're coming across as hysterical nt

[CJCRANE]

90. Well, if that was true

my father would have to kill me and my mother, as he's a muslim and we're not.

Also, most of my muslim cousins have married Europeans so they'd have to kill their partners and children too.

I suggest if you don't know many muslims or been to a muslim country that you should calm down about and not get so scared of something that you little about.

[catmother]

105. i'm only repeating what i heard. isn't that in the Koran? and

i would not visit a muslim country. i would fear that i might be kidnapped and beheaded. no offense to you and your family -- i'm sure your wonderful peace loving people.

how do you justify what happened to daniel pearl? he went to pakistan to get the story from the muslims of what they were upset about, what they wanted and he was going to print the story. so what happened? they beheaded him.

[CJCRANE]

108. What about the poor 100,000

muslims who got massacred by the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq?

What about the 30,000 homicides in the US every year?

What about the innocent people tortured in Abu Ghraib?

What about the innocent German guy who was kidnapped by the CIA?

What about the innocent 18 Pakistani villagers who were bombed by the CIA Predator drone?

What about the people vaporized at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

What about the sections in the Bible that promote mention genocide, rape, incest etc etc ?

On edit: you're terrifying yourself for nothing. Anyone who read all the bad things done by and in America would never want to set foot in the country. But I'm sure you have a nice life unaffected by all these terrible things.

[catmother]

115. i'm not terrifying myself. and yes i do have a nice life, but it

wasn't always that way. i come from a blue collar family in new york. my grandmother was born in this country in 1896. her parents had immigrated from germany. they had 6 children. they lived in a 4 room cold water flat where the bathroom was out in the hall and the bathtub was in the kitchen. my grandmother had to stop school in the 6th grade to work and help support the family.

and being a former new yorker i worked in the world trade tower. i also shopped in the concourse. my best friend's cousin was killed in the tower. he left a wife and 3 little girls. so maybe things are a little personal for me.

[CJCRANE]

124. Well, I understand that

but I believe that this administration has direct links to the people who bought and paid for 9-11 and allowed it to happen at the very least. So, whilst I'm sympathetic I think there's more to it than meets the eye.

(I hope you don't think that's not a nice thing to say to someone who has a personal link to the tragedy but from what I can tell the majority of New Yorkers also believe the govt was complicit in some way).

[catmother]

125. i don't know about most new yorkers but i can assure you that

my friend and his family do not think it was a conspiracy.

as for myself i don't think it was a conspiracy, but i do hold the government and the airlines responsible. bush was warned about an attack and he paid no attention. the FBI had some of the people on their terror list as did the CIA. it seems to me that there was a pissing contest going on with agencies not willing to share information. and if it was a government conspiracy -- well i'm not a religious person, but if i were i would say that there is a special place in hell for the people involved.

[JackRiddler]

12. Yes, I did. Did you know I don't care?

The 2nd commandment of the Old Testament also prohibits graven images and idolatry. Which means? Michelangelo's going to hell, I guess.

If the peoples of all these nations were rioting to overthrow their own lousy governments, or at least to fight something foreigners did that is truly criminal, like the ongoing bombing of Iraq, I'd understand it and support it. In the case of the riots after the "koran flushing" story, it made sense because they had real examples of torture to protest.

Instead, now they took the bait from Danish reactionaries and went out and trashed their own neighborhoods. They reacted as hardwired religious fanatics. They complain, not of genuine exploitation or violence against them, but of "blasphemy" against their totem.

Sorry if I'm grossed out.

I desire the freedom to say truth as I see it.

There is no imaginary sky-friend who doles out nice afterlives to believers and smites sinners. Insofar as there may be a conscious higher entity or universal order, it does not convey simplistic messages to the bacterial-sized organisms that inhabit a small part of its cosmic anatomy.

It never chose a chosen people. It did not make man in its image, it did not condemn newborns to original sin, it did not dispatch a superpowered Son to redeem the newborns by dying on a cross. It offers no cartoon heaven, no fiery hell and no commands to jihad or mission; and just as it does not appoint infallible and celibate popes, or communicate with televangelists and tell them to raise $8 million or be taken up to heaven, it also does not visit seventh-century Arabian merchants and speak to them the final revelation, legitimating a war of conquest on their neighbors. Which is in large part what the Koran is: a justification "from God" for said merchant's policies, not unlike the books of the Bible.

I want the freedom to speak such things. The Danish cartoon challenge was stupid and intentionally provocative, but the fools who go and turn this into the start of world war three are incomparably worse.

Grow up, I don't worship your sacred cows and I can eat them for lunch with ketchup.

[omega minimo]

13. Here is as much hatred about religion as the people you criticize

inluding me, showing you didn't read the OP before reacting with a reactionary pre-recorded reaction

Shows how easy it is to inflame people

[sam sarrha]

17. i dont really hate religion... but there are a lot of people that need it

remain in control of themselves. sometimes that doesn't work either.. especially when the leadership of factions of religious groups takes advantage of the 'Marginally in control' people for divisive purposes.. the homicidal elements in christianity are few due to higher education levels here and lots of jails, but due to the abhorrence of education, in order to control people, in developing countries.. the 'Marginals' in Islam are easy pick'ns

[omega minimo]

19. If all people talkin about democracy, freedom & god quite being hypocrites

it would be a better world.


"the homicidal elements in christianity are few due to higher education levels here and lots of jails"

If you believe that, you have a skewed view of what's goin on in this world.

[Wrinkle_In_Time]

27. "I am intrigued by your philosophy and

wish to subscribe to your newsletter"

/Which is my ironic way of saying that I totally agree with your sentiments. Fortunately, your system of values does not require me to send you a percentage of my income, convert people to the same world-view, nor kill those who don't subscribe to the newsletter.

//Edited for the bad spelling that I just detected. Any remaining bad spelling is therefore an act of God* and really nasty things will happen to you if you find fault with it.

*pick one

[JackRiddler]

127. thanks Wrinkle!

I sure remember that book from grade school!

Now on one point you mention, while you're not required to tithe, don't think for a moment you aren't welcome to do so! Tithing is received most gratefully! PM me for account information and PO Box for checks.

But seriously - best to you!!!

[Julius Civitatus]

22. Islam is an iconoclast religion

The creation of images is a big no-no, almost all across the board for Islam (how many Arab painters can you name, off the top of your head? My point exactly). Visual images, the portrayal of visual images of just about anything was traditionally replaced with a type of calligraphy instead, which only allows the reproduction of passages of the Koran (see a pattern here?)

For the record, I remember seeing some Syrian and Ottoman paintings from early times of Islam that actually represented Mohamed, I believe that trend was smashed quickly by the most radical visions of their religion. I just did a quick google, and found some of those early representations of their prophet:

http://www.ee.bilkent.edu.tr/~history/ottoman33.html

I seriously wonder if these ancient paintings that represent Mohamed are actually threatened by the fanatic fundamentalists, given for example what the Taliban did to the ancient statues of Buddha in Afghanistan. I don't put anything past those crazy fundies.

Anyway, while Islam is an extremely iconoclast religion that rejects visual representations of of things, people, and specially their religious figures, I don't believe other cultures should abide to their strict standards. While a middle ground of respect for their traditions would make sense, I think all bets are off when they start making death threats and burning embassies because some remote newspaper from a non-Muslim nation made a cartoon representing Mohamed. It's beyond irrational.

[omega minimo]

23. Thank you for sketching that out

"Anyway, while Islam is an extremely iconoclast religion that rejects visual representations of of things, people, and specially their religious figures, I don't believe other cultures should abide to their strict standards. While a middle ground of respect for their traditions would make sense, I think all bets are off when they start making death threats and burning embassies because some remote newspaper from a non-Muslim nation made a cartoon representing Mohamed. It's beyond irrational."

Agreed. And I believe my disclaimer established that the OP doesn't advocate "other cultures should abide to their strict standards." The taboo and restrictions on visual images makes the intentionally offensive cartoons even more powerful. Thanks for contributing to more informed discussion.

:yourock:

[Julius Civitatus]

84. Thank you

Just adding a tidbit of info on the matter.

[corporate_mike]

24. Did you know they hate freedom of speech?

[omega minimo]

25. It's time for women to take over

:evilgrin: :hi:

[catmother]

28. well i'll probably get flamed but i don't give a shit. they can make

cartoons about the jews -- they can dish it out but they can't take it. i've had enough. they look for any excuse to use terrorism.

[IndianaGreen]

30. All Muslims are terrorists?

You keep talking about "they" this and "they" that. Answer this: Once it became obvious that the cartoons were offensive to all Muslims, why did some people continue to publish them?

The story posted by omega minimo makes clear that the original publisher of the cartoons was a rightwinger with an Islamophobic and xenophobic agenda and that the intent was to inflame passions. Don't you find that troubling?

[catmother]

32. because everything seems to be about "them". "they" can

put down the jews, the christians, but just let someone say something about "their" religion and "they" go nuts. i'm tired of this shit. "they" will use anything as an excuse to riot and burn down buildings. and no all muslims are not terrorists, but i want to see more of the mullahs come out against the terrorism and violence. yes some of them do -- but i -- and many other people want to see more.

"they" have been using terrorists tactics for as long as i can remember -- do you remember the old man in a wheel chair on a cruise who was thrown overboard or the flight over scotland that was blown up, the attack on the embassy in sudan, or the first world trade bombing and the latest world trade. i'm telling you i'm a peace loving person but i have had it.

[omega minimo]

36. Understood.

Does it seem BushWarofChoice primed this tinderbox too? And when we step back we might wonder at the motives of those who decided to light it?

And if it increases hatred and decreases chances for rational relations..................................

I mentioned the woman I work with who's Sikh. Are all brown skinned Americans going to have to worry (more) about gung ho yeehaws attacking them randomly here?

Are Halliburton's new "immigration" detention camps going to be used to corral Muslims the way the Japanese were?


the old man was
(Klinghoffer on the Achille Loro)

[catmother]

45. thank you for remembering his name. i certainly hope that this

does not go the way of the japanese, but i'm fearful that if this violence keeps erupting that might happen.

i live in phoenix and unfortunately after 9/11 2 Sikh business men were murdered because they were thought to be muslims.

yes bush has a lot to do with this. he had no damn right going into iraq -- a country who never attacked us. iraq may have had a dictator, but from what i hear they were better off than the mess we've created over there.

[guidod]

39. Why are you so angry and afraid?

I got this link from Thom Hartmann's blog. I believe it's something everyone should listen to and it explains fear and the republican party with absolute clarity.

[catmother]

42. i'm not afraid but i am angry -- it's always something and i'm

just tired of it.

[guidod]

48. Maybe you're not, but you sound

very angry. Do yourself a favor and watch the link I sent you. It lasts about 45 minutes.

:toast:

[catmother]

52. i said that i was angry. read the whole post.

[guidod]

54. I read the whole post...

...I mis-spoke, I meant afraid. You sound very afraid. Here's another link, why don't you pay attention to what I post?

http://www.weblog.ro/soj/2006-02-05/Muslim+Cartoon+Controversy%3A+What+the+Media+Isn%27t+Te

[catmother]

59. maybe tomorrow. i'm too tired to listen to a 45 minute speech.

good night

[catmother]

60. where is the link???????

[guidod]

128. Right here.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/video1037.htm Wrong link again



http://www.weblog.ro/soj/2006-02-05/Muslim+Cartoon+Controversy%3A+What+the+Media+Isn%27t+Te

[Douglas Carpenter]

46. If the North America was as dominated by the Islamic world as the Islamic

world is dominated by America, do you think that Americans might also be resentful?

For all the terrorism which is awful no matter who does it, I think a simple dispassionate review of recent history would show that the Arab world has been on the receiving end of terror from the West far, far more often than the other way around.

here is one fairly good article from Mother Jones. But the work done on this subject is voluminous:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_273_01.html

[catmother]

56. well i heard something on bill maher's show that arabs were

attacking ships back in the 1400s and when they were asked why they said "because you are the infidels". i know the work is voluminous. i just watched the movie "exodus" last week to try and refresh my memory of some of the history.

[Douglas Carpenter]

87. I would hardly claim that the Arab and Muslim world has been 100% innocent

and I certainly think that this most recent spat over the cartoon is not helping their cause one little bit. And they obviously have their own political charlatans who use religion for totally political purposes.

But we don't have to go back to the 1400's to find the Christian west murdering people of other faiths. It was happening in the 1940's. And it wasn't a few little ships. It was by the millions.

In the whole history of the Muslim world, I am not aware of anything remotely resembling the level of intolerance by Western Christians to non-Christians or even "not the right type of Christian" . The Muslim world has never reached anything even close to the level of the Inquisition,the expulsion of the Mores,the Protestant versus Catholic conflicts or the persecution of small religious sects.

For centuries now the Arab and Muslim world has been under either European colonialism and since the end of World War II; American hegemony. The degree of domination by the Western powers in the Middle East is far greater than the degree that British dominance over the thirteen colonies ever was. And we didn't like that very much at all and they were fellow Protestant Christians (for the most part) with the same or close ethnicity. Imagine if they had been a completely foreign society with totally different culture and religion. Imagine if foreign fire power surrounded us on all sides and was constantly threatening military action against us. Imagine if we suffered a long history of these foreign powers over throwing our own governments and installing ones to do the bidding of the foreign powers.

It can hardly be a wonder that there is resentment that sometimes boils over to irrationality. Resentment is not always rational when acquiescence means constant humiliation and "spreading democracy" is a euphemism for even great domination.

[catmother]

106. okay there's a lot of history. but when does the violence stop?

we're in the 21st century now. civilized nations sit down and talk and try to solve the problems. i will never, ever take the side of anyone who commits acts of terror. what happened in the past is the past. revenge does make sense.

[Douglas Carpenter]

118. that is part of my point -- the violence against the Arab and Muslim

world has not stopped... it continues now even as we speak.. and in far greater proportions than anything we have had the misfortune to experience.

[Bridget Burke]

95. If you're interested in history, try reading some books.

Don't use Bill Maher & a movie treatment of a novel as your primary sources.

Start out with the Crusades.

[ieoeja]

117. Crusades?

Why would you start with The Crusades several centuries after the Muslims conquered Arabia, North Africa, Spain and Central Asia and initiated their efforts to conquer Byzantia?

But, okay, let us pretend all of the above never happened. But can't we at least go back a couple decades before The Crusades? Then we have the Caliphate of Damascus going to war with the Caliphate of Cairo succeeding in taking away Jerusalem. Follow this up with two decades of increased persecution against the Jews and Christians there. And, of course, securing the southern border allowed Damascus to step up their campaign to invade and conquer Byzantia.

[Bridget Burke]

145. Byzantia?

Do you mean the Eastern Roman Empire? The term "Byzantine Empire" has been in usage since the 19th century. And Constantinople was often called "Byzantium." Byzantia?

The Fourth Crusade did more damage to Constantinople than the Ottomans.

Jerusalem flourished under the Muslims. But a period of persecution of Jews & Christians occurred under a Fatimid Caliph in the 11th century, providing an excuse for the First Crusade. WHen that Crusade conquered Jerusalem, most of the inhabitants were killed--Muslim, Jewish & Christian. Saladin was much more merciful when he recaptured the city.

[ieoeja]

146. Excuse or cause?

Excuse implies it gave them a reason to do something they wanted to do anyway. But I have never seen any evidence that the Vatican was planning an invasion of the Middle East prior to the period of persecution you mention. While there *is* evidence that this was one of the three causes of the Crusades.

But, again, we're on the freakin' Crusades! It is as if all conflict between Islam and Europe began and ended with the Crusades then re-started again after WW-I.

Fourteen Hundred Years - Islamic rule over Iberia, their war against the Byzantine Empire, their conquering of the Balkans, their rule over Greece, and their invasion of Austria, Russia and Poland.

One Hundred Plus Years - European rule over portions of the Middle East during the Crusades and post WW-I period.

Yeah, those 1400 years are just f---in' nothing compared to the 100+ years the Euros been f---in' them over.

[Bridget Burke]

155. So--get your guns & start another Crusade.

When we look at the success of Islam, it's easy to see why you are afraid. Spain, in many ways, was better off under Islamic rule.

Yes, the Caliphates lost power. European Colonialism had its day. But things keep changing, don't they?

[kutblok]

49. Anger

Rational anger.

[catmother]

57. my anger is rational. and you know what, i'm tired, and i'm going

to bed. so goodnight to all of my fellow DUers whether we agree or not.

[CJCRANE]

89. "They" killed 100,000 innocent civilians

in Iraq, "they" dropped two nuclear bombs on civilian cities, "they" kidnapped and tortured innocent people, their spokesperson Ann Coulter called for muslim leaders to be killed and the rest converted to Christianity, "they" murder 30,000 of their own people every year etc etc.

Yes, all 300 million Americans are evil murderers.

Don't fall into the "they" trap. There is no "Yellow Peril", no "Jewish Mafia", no "Muslim horde". Just lots of different types of people, some good, some bad, some indifferent.

[catmother]

110. let me assure you that i am not part of the "they" that you talk

about. what this country did in iraq is reprehensible. we are certainly not "without sin". we've done terrible things not only in iraq but in el salvador, panama and places that are too numerous to mention. and ann coulter is a nut.

i like your last sentence -- some good -- some bad. then why don't the good come out and condemn the acts of terror. some do, but not enough.

and why are you picking on me? there seems to be quite a few others on this thread that have the same opinion that i do.

[CJCRANE]

113. Because you're generalising about "them"

as if all one billion muslims are terrorists so I'm showing you the reverse generalisation: that all 300 million Americans are freepers and neocons and war criminals.

I can understand that the MSM promotes the climate of fear and terror but in the world outside there's billions of normal people who never do anything bad or have anything bad happen to them in - in America, Europe, muslim countries, Africa, Asia etc.

That's all I'm saying.

[catmother]

114. and all i'm saying is that nothing will be resolved by terrorisom or

murder on anyone's part. and i mean anyone.

[omega minimo]

33. Us and Them-ism

During the Rodney King riots, Rush Limbot was spewing that the way to stop them was to cut off all the welfare benefits.

AS IF all the rioters were on welfare. AS IF all the people on welfare were rioting.

These events are really feeding the dittohead hate mentality.



(I knew I'd need that disclaimer in there, and the kneejerkers don't read it anyway)

[AngryAmish]

34. So?

The killing of cows is a great crime under some Hindu belief. I really like steak.

Killing almost anything is a great crime under Jainism. I like to go fishing.

There are no Hindus and Jainists burning American embassies for my crimes. There is an element in the Islamic world that thinks it can boss the rest of us around (BTW, I know we do the same thing but 2 wrongs don't make a right.) I do not want to convert, I do not want to be a dhimmi and I would rather the fanatics not be violent. They can complain but that is as far as it goes.

[omega minimo]

38. The violent response does not justify the deliberate flamebait

[catmother]

53. well said. i had hindu neighbors in new york. it was an apartment

building. they would not let the exterminator into their apartment to kill the roaches. that was their belief and they happened to be very nice, educated polite people who would never take to violence if they saw me kill a cockroach.

[GOPNotForMe]

35. Newspapers are not bound by religious rules.

It's a cartoon and therefore by definition has to be visual. If a newspaper or book prints something I find blasphemous, I ignore it or write a letter. I don't burn down embassies.

[omega minimo]

40. The OP offered another aspect for informed opinions

which you are welcome to ignore, but not dispute. It's information, not an argument.

[Odin2005]

37. Don't tell them there is an image of Mo in the SCOTUS building.

It's on the "lawgivers" wall sculpture there, in between Charlemagne and Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

41. At it again, O?

Still trying to get people to understand each other, are we?

You're a shameless liberal. :spank:

[omega minimo]

43. Mighty progressive of you to notice, Beam

:rofl: :rofl:
:rofl:

I can't give up the fantasy that people will read what is written rather than what they already think.
:yoiks:

[beam me up scottie]

47. Snort!

I suppose you actually think they'll start clicking on links and reading articles, too?

You is craaaaaaaaaaaaaazy.

[omega minimo]

51. So next time put the disclaimer at the TOP?

:shrug: :hide:

[beam me up scottie]

55. Try using shiny objects and

pretty pictures.:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

65. Like churches used stained glass windows back when folks couldn't read?

:think:

[Czolgosz]

58. Did you know that Christians prohibit graven images? It's right there in

their 10 Commandments (unless they're Catholic, because the Catholics have a different version of the 10 Commandments which is more lenient on the issue of graven images).

[omega minimo]

64. That must be why there's crosses, crucifixes, statues, stained glass, etc.

etc. etc. etc. in Christian churches.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

96. Coincidentally, they worship Mary

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

102. "veneration of Mary, a holdover from... when Goddesses were worshipped"

"Many churches dedicated to Her were built over pagan sites."


Exactly.

[Bridget Burke]

103. Yes, & the more backwards Protestants regard this as a problem.

While some of us think that Catholicism's deep roots are a source of strengh.



Brigid herself was a Goddess before she was a Saint.

[omega minimo]

136. Really a shame

that thoughtful exchange was exorcised. :hide:

[Czolgosz]

100. My point was that you can say Islam prohibits any image of Mohamed, but

the truth is more complicated than that, and any suggestion that this is a uniform belief among all Muslims is an inherently problematic suggestion.

I offer the second commandment as an example of why such broad statements are not a sound basis for categorizing a whole faith. It is true that the second Commandment in the protestant branch of the Christian church bans graven images: "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." The Catholic church espouses an alternative interpretation of the 10 Commandments by which the prohibition against graven images is read within the first commandment (i.e., "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me") so that the prohibition against graven images is a prohibition against graven images of strange gods and against worshiping graven images (e.g., the Golden calf of Exodus Chapter 32).

There is a good discussion of the 10 Commandments here: http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.pdf

In short, if you don't think that this thread topic is peculiar in its attitude toward Islam, ask yourself how would react to a thread topic that pronounced "Did You Know That Christianity Prohibits ALL Graven Images?"

[Heewack]

66. It's not just Islam.

Judasim strictly forbids any earthly portrayals of God, and likewise so does Christianity, but Christians seem to have forgotten that rule.

[omega minimo]

69. Ah

Interesting. Do you know what the reason for the prohibition was?

[Heewack]

71. Well, according to scripture...

No images of God were to be created by man. So, if you were to take it literally it was a edict from God himself.

[omega minimo]

74. And GOD doesn't have to tell you WHY sucker!!!

....and it's been Big Daddy Top Down Strict Father Framing ever since!
:bounce: :bounce:

[Heewack]

75. The actual reasoning

Is that no human could portray the perfectness of God, and any attempt would be seen as idolitry.

[Heewack]

68. Check out this pic

This sure stirred a controversy.

[omega minimo]

70. People must have been shocked

to find out women have to put their feet in those goddammed STIRRUPS

[Heewack]

73. LOL!

That was the thrust of the angst. ;) Actually the objections ran the gammut from both sides of the political fence.

[beam me up scottie]

76. Oh my!

I am SO going to use that.

Do you have the link to the original?

[Heewack]

92. Here.

[Wordie]

72. This is an OP in which wisdom is evident. Thank you, omega minimo.

Here is another in the same vein that you might like to read:

"The ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x327183

Recommended (I actually did so earlier.)

[omega minimo]

77. Although from different positions, both guests are remarkable

communicators. Seen Stephan Richter on there before-- very sharp. And Ahmed was amazing to listen to. Richter even commented on his "eloquence."

Ahmed seemed to be about the larger Muslim community relations and not identifying with or justifying the outbreak of violent reaction.

Here's ta wisdom, Wordie :toast:

[Wordie]

82. I hope you don't mind, omega, but I'm posting a link to your thread in

some others that I've seen. I hope it makes people think.

And I'll drink to that...
:toast:

[JMDEM]

78. A lot of these folks are obviously unbalanced

On the other hand, they really pretty much want to be left alone, don't they? So wouldn't it be a good idea to figure out a way to do this?

[Withywindle]

80. I think I'm with you - I think it's more complicated than many think...

Obviously if it came down a simple freedom of speech issue, or a question of whether non-Muslims should have to observe Islamic laws, or even whether immigrants should suck it up and deal with the laws of the countries they're now living in even if the laws contradict their own customs, I'm totally on the liberal-secular-pluralist side. People wanna draw Mohammed - let 'em! Welcome to the West!

But then there's the issues in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2440937

Read the blog piece quoted there too (from Romania of all places). To the hajj tragedy in the article, I'd also add the Egyptian ferry tragedy, which in terms of loss of life is a kind of Arab Titanic and is getting shockingly little coverage here. Big questions about the safety of that boat I'm sure could raise very inconvenient questions in Egypt and Saudi Arabia (where it was coming from). And of course, the War (in the greater sense of the War, including Iraq but not limited to it).

NONE of this is in any way meant to excuse the violence. I have the same contempt for some Islamic fundie who sets fire to an embassy over a cartoon as I do for some Xtian fundie here who sets fire to a gay bar or some KKK POS who sets fire to a Black church, and believe me, that contempt is vast, bottomless, and eternal. I have contempt for the brutal and ignorant who can't think of any better outlet for their misplaced rage than violence: it applies to wife-beaters and child-abusers too, it's a similar impulse.

But there are greater forces at work that KNOW that this violence is easy to incite, and have their own reasons for doing so, and we need to stay aware of that.

[omega minimo]

81. Don't let them turn us all into dittoheads

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2440937

[liberalpragmatist]

83. But Islamic Law DOESN'T Apply to NON-MUSLIMS

I direct you to this blog post from a Muslim group blog. This post was linked from the website I'm linking to:

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/275

Well, “Islam” is a concept, not a agent. Thus it’s not “Islam” that forbids anything, but the (human) authorities on Islamic law. And, it’s not the “depiction of the religion’s founder Muhammad” that is forbidden, but either the depiction of any of God’s creatures (but particularly humans) OR the slander of a prophet - be it Muhammad or Moses or Jesus or Abraham, etc.

Slandering a prophet would, however not fall under something like “slander” or “hate crime”, but actually be seen as “kufr”, i.e. unbelief/apostasy, as the assertion that a prophet was anything but a noble man . Of course, that only applies to Muslims. There is no provisio (sic) in Islamic law how to deal with non-Muslims who disparage a prophet, as they already are unbelievers. Also, the legal authorities in the Muslim world are quite unanimous in their verdict(s) that Muslims living in non-Muslim polities (i.e., states) should adhere to the law of the one in which they reside or travel.

Also, for those of you who are asking "where are the Moderate Muslims?"

Well, try the blog linked to from the above site.

Also, check out this article from the Times of London: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2025704,00.html

Muslims tell Yard to charge protesters

By Abul Taher and David Leppard

BRITAIN’s leading Islamic body yesterday called on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, to press charges against the extremists behind last week’s inflammatory protests in London over the “blasphemous” cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

This weekend bitter protests continued across the Muslim world with hundreds of demonstrators storming the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus, Syria, setting fire to them both.

<snip>

In London, Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the extremists should be prosecuted. “The Metropolitan police should now consider all the evidence they have gathered from the protests to see if they can prosecute the extremists,” he said.

“It is time the police acted, but in a way so as not to make them martyrs of the Prophet’s cause, which is what they want, but as criminals. Ordinary Muslims are fed up with them.”

[msongs]

97. infidels vs heathens: the last one standing is the winner and

what is written in books is ALL TRUE every word in every book so if you don't wanna get
weak people protesting, quit reading books and hide in your closet.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[Freddie Stubbs]

91. Islam also prohibits eating pork

Yet there wan't any rioting when the Spam museum opened...

http://media.hormel.com/templates/knowledge/knowledge.asp?id=9&catitemid=16

[Neil Lisst]

93. And cursing God is a stoning to death offense under the Old Testament

It still would be one, if we let religious zealots impose their will on society as a whole.

[WinkyDink]

104. The BASIC FLAW in this argument is this: Islam claims to be

the FINAL stage in the PROGRESSION from the O.T. Ergo et ipso facto, Islam should be MORE enlightened than the NEW Testament!!
But it is not. What it IS, is the Arabic response to Judaism.

[Neil Lisst]

139. Islam seems more egocentric than other religions.

I could care less what their rationale is. Ditto extremists from all religions. We'd all be better off if religious people would worry about cleaning up their own religion, instead of policing those of others.

All religious zealots expect their superstitions to be respected, but they do not respect the right of others to reject their silly superstitions, whatever they may be. In this case, Muslims can be as upset as they like about the cartoons, and they can demonstrate all they want. But when they start burning down buildings, they're just rioters who need to be hosed down and arrested.

The world of Islam swims in anti-Jewish hatred daily, and nowhere is that seen more than in their cartoons. I suggest they focus on cleaning up their own cartoons and religion before worrying about what the Danes are doing.

[dubya_dubya_III]

116. Sadly, the Heirs of Liberty have no memories.

"As the union between spiritual freedom and political liberty seems nearly inseparable, it is our duty to defend both. And defense in the FIRST INSTANCE is best." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War - 1775

Our forefathers adopted a system of mutual respect for the One Who Is Love, no matter what sort of brokerable religious fascist fairytale-dogmatist lies an unfortunate individual may have been brainwashed into believing. Dogmatic religious fascism was correctly regarded for what it was and must always and forever remain, and complete separation of Religious Fascist socialist 'patriotism' from the political affairs of state became the new paradigm for nations offering individuals freedom of and from religious fascism. Of late even the anti-religious labor-socialist version of fascist dogma proselytized by Marx and Lenin have been included in that exclusion.

This system of governance free from hateful, violent and destructive tyranny of religious fascism is called Republican Liberty.

If someone wants to draw honestly derisive cartoons of these imaginary, fictional, tribal fascist folk heroes, more power to them. Mankind has more than enough real, living and breathing hateful religious fascist and mercantile military industrial tyrants to deal with, and the self-appointed pious brokers of biased hateful and destructive fascist 'religiosity' must always remain high on those lists

[Wordie]

138. Yet so many crying "free speech" would NEVER use the "N" word to

describe a black person, would they? It's because there is a recognition of the harm such words do, and that recognition, in the minds and hearts of enlightened people leads to self-restraint. Why do so few see an equivalent need for self-restraint in the case of these bigoted cartoons?

[dubya_dubya_III]

147. If Allah is Love itself, there can be no problem

when the love for ones enemy becomes less than the love for ones friends one becomes a fascist a liar and a sinner.

[Igel]

156. Give me a sufficient reason to use the word, and I would.

But without a sufficient reason, it's merely inflammatory. And inflammatory speech for the mere purpose of being inflammatory is irresponsible and ill-suited for a civil society.

Should I feel physically threatened for engaging in an honest treatment of some aspect of black history, with that sort of intimidation--as far as I can perceive--being countenanced by spokesmen for the black community--I might view that as sufficient reason. I might not. It would certainly be offensive and uncivil, esp. if reduced to a 5-second sound bite. But not using the word in that situation wouldn't be self-censorship out of respect or the desire to avoid offense, which is, to my mind, the only valid reason for self-censorship in a free society; this would be forced censorship out of fear. Such fascism should be resisted by all free-thinking people. Otherwise we're yielding "essential liberty" for "temporary security": once thugs get a whiff of power, they tend to assume they have power for other things.

For such reasons I defend the Klan's marching in public places: I find their message loathsome, but banning hate speech presupposes knowing exactly what words constitute "hate speech", now and for all time, and that restraining freedom of speech is a valid endeavor. But we can't know how a court will rule in 30 years, and predict all uses that the banned words will be used for. Ban the n-word, and many black comedians must be jailed, or we have to decide that some laws have race-based implementation.

[Hidden Stillness]

119. Two Points; Two Issues

Hi, omega minimo--well you really do have some of the goddamnedest thread topics, and generally 100-200+ replies, too. I'm waiting for it to be locked, like your others; as a matter of fact, for a while there I was even thinking they were going to lock your "Will You Be Watching the Super Bowl on Sunday?" just for the hell of it. I just wanted to comment on one part of your Original Post, which was about the idea that these things are so offensive because there are supposed to be no representations of Muhammad at all. I know that paintings only show Muhammad's face as a white veil, not even a face, and also, the pronoun for God/Allah is not "he," but an Arabic word meaning both, like "it" but a personal noun. There are many opinions on this topic, and this is my understanding of the Christian/Lutheran one. I became a Christian again after some years of being an atheist feminist, and after I drove all the learned/societal lies and social opinion masking as revelation ("images"), I returned with my own mind cleared. Later, I learned that this "starting from scratch" was considered essential by early Christians, before the Church was so falsely codified. Making an image of the eternal, or trying to describe it, "kills" it, as it reduces the All Beyond that can't be named, to your fixed place. That which existed before every thought, before our existence, is actually not connected to a line that extended to our finite thinking and naming. It can only be grasped by another kind of mind, a contemplation that freed itself of its own inventions. ("The Mystical Theology" by Pseudo-Dionysuis the Areopagite is one of my favorite writings of this type, from about the year 500; all abstract.) There is presumption with naming things you have not even met, and this is why many believe that you are nowhere near meeting God, until you have lost. (By the way, the supposed "Protestant version" of the Second Commandment was unreal. I have never heard of that before; it is not in Luther's "Small Catechism," which is the text. Of course, whenever I want to search for religious texts, I always go to atheist websites first. They are so intelligent and honest.) The mind you think with to search finite things that had a conclusion, is antithetical to the mind you use to seek the Spirit that bloweth where it listeth--and it is Its truth, not your claim. The point is to let that deepening mind be, and not thwart it by pretending you already had all the truth "locked up," and there IS no further reality. All this can only come about, though, by a disciplined, willful choice, and not by the imposition of another (as the "Islamic Police," who drive around checking that women are wearing the slave's head-to-toe covering, and arresting her if she is not; what do you mean when you call it "their" culture?).

The other part, about the specifics of the cartoons, I don't even know what they are (although I have not really been following this), except two descriptions: one, was Muhammad with a bomb in a turban, and one was of dreaming of "virgins in Heaven," the Muslim male's Heaven and the Muslim woman's Hell. These are all tricky topics--if the angry reaction to these cartoons is justified because it is "their religion," then what about a riot because someone suggested that a woman might be a prophet or salvation of the world, or suggested that God created gays and loves them? Calling it "their culture" does not do it; sometimes they are wrong, sometimes we are wrong. What I hate is, "Women should wear Islamic-style clothes when they go there, because it is their culture; no one should make women from Islamic countries change their clothes style when they come here, because it is their culture..." Where the hell is "our" culture? This reminds me of when some stupid male judge in Cananda a couple of years ago was actually going to entertain a motion brought by Islamic males, to impose the horrific Sharia law in Court, for Muslim citizens, instead of Canadian law. You know who killed that idea? Horrified Muslim women, who thought they had escaped that! Maybe the real distinction is whether it was a sincere criticism, or a taunt. The first, everyone has to learn to take, but the second is what is killing our own culture. Christians "have to learn to take ridiculing attacks"; what about women, gays, blacks, poor elderly people? Change the group, and know your own hypocrisy.

This bastard who just attacked those victims at a gay bar, then murdered the woman who was also in the truck, would be cheered as "moral" by fundamentalist Muslims; I would give this devil the death penalty (if it hadn't already happened). There is no meeting-place. Eventually, you have to admit that you will not sacrifice your culture for theirs--modern democracy, education, freedom of thought, at least an attempt to be egalitarian, civic/Constitutional democracy--and so there will either be clashes or complete ignorance of each other. If there will be violent protests because someone in the West criticizes Islam bravely (remember the Dutch, I think it was, feminist male filmmaker who made a documentary on male Islam's oppression of women, then was murdered by "offended" male Muslims), then the critic who attacked Islam was right. You have to admit that you were making a judgment.

Well anyway, this post skipped all over the place and I don't know what it added, but I think there were two issues: the need to keep the Absolute Beyond un-interpreted, and understood as being unlike what we can think (although we can reach it, just not describe it as it was in itself), and the understanding that you cannot stop criticizing the injustices of Islam (as everything else) just because there is retribution. What is the only possible result, when the enlightened, tolerant side allows expression of attacks against it, and the oppressor allows no expression but submission, and then attacks the other? Eventually, it makes inroads that become threatening and that eventually, whatever anyone wants, will have to be confronted with criticism anyway.

[omega minimo]

135. Beautiful

Better answer quick ;) :hi:

Beautiful as always, HS. Thank you for going down into the hidden stillness. That is ZACKLY what this (at least this OP) is about.

"Making an image of the eternal, or trying to describe it, "kills" it, as it reduces the All Beyond that can't be named, to your fixed place. That which existed before every thought, before our existence, is actually not connected to a line that extended to our finite thinking and naming. It can only be grasped by another kind of mind, a contemplation that freed itself of its own inventions."

Then:
"These are all tricky topics--if the angry reaction to these cartoons is justified because it is "their religion," then what about a riot because someone suggested that a woman might be a prophet or salvation of the world, or suggested that God created gays and loves them?"

I wouldn't say it is justified. It seemed that the outrage would be impacted by the taboo on visual imagery; it was obvious at DU that many Americans were ignorant of it and the "get over it" crowd might learn something (or not :rofl: ) I certainly learned something here.

Brilliant:

"I think there were two issues: the need to keep the Absolute Beyond un-interpreted, and understood as being unlike what we can think (although we can reach it, just not describe it as it was in itself), and the understanding that you cannot stop criticizing the injustices of Islam (as everything else) just because there is retribution. What is the only possible result, when the enlightened, tolerant side allows expression of attacks against it, and the oppressor allows no expression but submission, and then attacks the other? Eventually, it makes inroads that become threatening and that eventually, whatever anyone wants, will have to be confronted with criticism anyway."

And the really tricky part is when it goes both ways.

edit:
BTW all this conflagration and the insistent destructive hatred of MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN (where are the women?) is PROOF as well as a CALL for "a woman might be a prophet or salvation of the world." Plural.

[dubya_dubya_III]

148. Surely the second.

"the need to keep the Absolute Beyond un-interpreted, and understood as being unlike what we can think (although we can reach it, just not describe it as it was in itself)"


IMHO this is a total and complete non issue, the new covenant that Christ taught most of us (apparently but for a few of his Satan-imagining disciples), clearly defined symbolized and proclaimed the Deity of Infinite Love. It was this revolutionary thinking revelation that most threatened the temple proselytizers who saw him executed for heresy.

Einstein defined practically all in the universe but for the universal, intrinsic, all pervasive and timeless dimension of gravitation itself because it is the proof of the universality of attraction of all, and to all, both at a distance and at none.

Yes, there is a One Who Is Love and a Love That Is In And Of All, the proof of this dimension is the transcendental dimensionality of attraction itself.

In short, "God" is the thing that is literally holding your bum on that sofa...

[omega minimo]

153. "Absolute Beyond" = "Infinite Love"

"the Deity" serves as intermediary. Jesus said he was the Way, the Truth and the Light-- I don't think he intended to "clearly defined symbolized and proclaimed the Deity of Infinite Love" in an artificially limited fashion.

Jesus' radicalism was "and you can do this too."

"Absolute Beyond un-interpreted, and understood as being unlike what we can think (although we can reach it, just not describe it as it was in itself)" describes quite well the impulse in different traditions to obscure the face of god. This seems related to the rules of the ancient Hebrews regarding the secret name of god: YHWH

[Snivi Yllom]

121. that's nice, still no excuse for setting embassies on fire

there is no justification no matter how offensive it is

[catmother]

123. i totallaly agree. violence does not solve anything, just makes

matters worse.

[Wordie]

122. NPR interview is worthwhile part of this debate. PLEASE recommend this

thread, so others will have a chance to read this excellent OP and subsequent discussion. It just needs one more. Thanks!

[dryan]

126. Pictures of Mohammed...

in early Islamic art, Mohammed's face is always obscured. The arabs invented "paisley" to show decoration in their mosques they were so concerned about this. Maybe some people don't remember that there was a takeover of an American mosque (if I remember in the DC area) about 30 years ago over a movie that was made on Mohammed's life. They didn't show him at all but a lot of Moslems got upset over it.

[fujiyama]

132. I already knew that

and while it is interesting, it is irrelevant for me. No one is forcing Muslims to have icons of Muhammad in their mosques.

But as I said, for me this fact is irrelevant. I am not Muslim and will not abide by Muslim rules and traditions. Just as I am not Christian, Jewish, or for that matter a Scientologist. If I wanted to do so, I would convert to Islam and move to a nation like Saudi Arabia, ruled by religious fanatics practicing Sharia law.

In a free society, no one has the right to impose their particular religious beliefs on the rest of society.

[catmother]

133. well said. i feel the same way that you do.

:toast:

[omega minimo]

134. "The willingness to be offended"

2-6 another very good discussion on PBS NewsHour tonight on this topic. A guest says that life in liberal societies involves "the willingness to be offended"-- perhaps a smoother way of saying what some here have tried to say (that seemed to me a "negative" or "skewed" view of freedom of speech.) He said that some immigrants to Europe who do not share this "willingness to be offended" ("and look the other way, in a liberal society") are "geographically in Europe, but not OF Europe" (meaning in their own attitudes).

This perception is part of why I started the thread. To bring up one aspect of the tradition (strictures on visual imagery and portrayals of the prophet) that would influence the reaction to images that some of us might think of as "just a cartoon."

There are some EXCELLENT POSTS HERE and thank YOU ALL very much, everyone who replied. On the OP topic of visual imagery in Islam, there are some valuable posts in #126 #119 #83 and elsewhere.

I would like to quote a post that seems a good middle way viewpoint that expresses what a lot of people are thinking:

BoneDaddy (273 posts) Mon Feb-06-06 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #7
109. Agreed
................................
What I would like to see is the moderate muslim community raise an outcry against the fundamentalist communities behavior. Is the cartoon insensitive, yes. Is it done in good taste, no. Should it illicit this type of violent response, absolutely not.
First of all it makes the stereotype of Islamists more concrete and buttresses their critics claims that all muslims are inherently dangerous people who cannot possibly cope with the "civilized" world. This type of behavior works against them.

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

140. ... and Jesus and Moses and Ibrahim and ...

[SteppingRazor]

141. I'm aware of that, but my reaction is: So what?

So a Danish paper prints these images. Yeah, it's against your religion. So you then go on a rampage of rioting, firebombing, and murder? How terribly religious. It is not the job of the Danish press to appease any particular religion, sect or ethos. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are both far, far more important than one's freedom to avoid being offended.
I certainly agree that these images were offensive to Muslims. Anyone who's seen them and knows a little about the religion would have to agree. But the reaction has been completely overblown.

[omega minimo]

152. A little subtlety never hurt nobody

:evilgrin:

[WinkyDink]

142. So? Just because, decades ago, Catholics couldn't eat meat

on Fridays, didn't preclude restaurants from serving any.
Just because many Jews observe the Sabbath (e.g., Lieberman) doesn't mean stores must close then (same with Saturdays/Islam and Sundays/Christianity).

Muslims hate the Western world and its freedoms (yes, Bush is right on that one), period. They immigrate to TAKE OVER.

And frankly, their tetchiness, their zero-to-60 "takin' it to the streets" is getting very tiresome.

[catmother]

144. agreed. nt

[Arugula Latte]

149. To that I say: "Too bad."

Religion. Ugh. :eyes:

[NativeTexan]

150. I can remember when Christians didn't like moving images......

...of Jesus. Many considered it sacrilege to see Christ's face in a movie. For many years you never saw it either. Of course, that has changed with time.

[Hippo_Tron]

154. It's still free speech

Most people don't particularly care for what Fred Phelps has to say about homosexuals either, but in a free society he is still entitled to say it so long as he isn't endangering peoples' lives.

[Greyhound]

157. Yes I did. The question is do they have a right to restrict my freedoms

to preserve their discrimination?