2000 AD Online Forum

Can you post lots of anti-islam cartoons so i can print them out and leave in phone boxes around london :)

actually, for balance, cartoons making fun of any religion are welcome, then i can put the url for richard dawkins website at the bottom

:)

Idiot.

'Religion is all nonsense' - R. Dawkins :)

"Man found beaten to death outside phone box- police suspect stupidity involved"...

Of course, all this this does finally put to rest the old 'taking the piss out of Christianity is controversial and edgy' argument.  Clearly, attempting to take the piss out of Islam is where all the risk is at.

we should take the piss out of it all, we are supposed to be in 'the age of reason'

perhaps we can email such cartoons around the planet eh, see if folk jump up and down and try ban the web too ?

'Religion is all nonsense' - R. Dawkins

He should try reading his own books.

shame on you lms for not taking this opportunity for defending the freedom of the press !

"we are supposed to be in 'the age of reason'"

And is it reasonable to wind people up just for the sake of it?

To inform them, so they say 'mm, this religion,its bollocks init, lets just get along, we dont need this stuff'.

Baaa to faith based schools, yeaaa to science :)

Pop along to the 'age of reason' room at the brit museum where they say 'people had a look at how religions formed all over the world, all different, reand realised, it was all twaddle'.

Dawkins is the bloke who ironically religously hates all religions, isnt he???

Hmmmm....

Slips

yes,but he is a humanist

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/

Link: lets be nice philosophy

I think it is a bit hypocritical to be that dogmatic in pursuit of anti-religion as Dawkins is.

The one thing I find hard to understand is how much useless (with regards to evolution) features the human race has, e.g. art and comedy, and whether all emotions are purely down to evolution or something else.

That said, organised religion often seems to be too much like group mental illness for my liking, and often seems an easy way out.

As a mate said to me, it's like getting an organised package tour rather than a holiday where you find things for yourself.

- Steve

If the angry crowds of so-called religious morons picketing buildings around the country shouting slogans and reading out anti-democratic texts from their sacred scriptures to demand that this so-called ?outrage? be suppressed would first of all deal with their own charming habits, such as calling homosexual people evil sodomites and enforcing women?s subordinate status then maybe, just maybe, I?d be bothered to understand all the fuss regarding Jerry Springer The Opera.

we chat, while no cartoons are drawn, we discuss, they prepare to create an islamic europe, we have tea

this is the end :(

Idiot.

Freedom of speech: brilliant.  Poking fun at religions as a valid way of making people look at things in a different way: brilliant (though be prepared to be poked right back).  Satire: brilliant.


Going out of your way to insult every member of a major religion by breaking one of their principal tenets (that the Prophet shall not be represented visually, ever), further doing-so in a supposedly comedic way whilst representing said Prophet with a bomb instead of a turban, doing so in the full and certain knowledge that your action Will Have Repurcussions, and then publishing said insult several times in large-circulation newspapers:  About as fucking stupid and hateful as it's possible to get.


Let's stop using "freedom of speech" as an excuse for acting like wankers, shall we?



(P.S:  Protesting against a hateful religious insult by drawing attention to its stupidity and aforementioned hatefulness: brilliant.  Firebombing embassies and dressing-up as suicide-bombers: Missing The Point Somewhat)

Just because your mouth is free to say what it likes doesn't mean your brain is excused from stopping it.

Yeah, what he said.  

Which, er, took up about 1/1th of the space of what I said, and still did it better.


Er.

1/1th???

I suppose you don't need maths to be a writer...

Oh, piss it.

Which gimble-faced fuckoid included the "insert" key on the keyboard anyway, just out of interest?  And right next to the delete key?  I've got some Freedom-of-Speech for Him, ohoyesbycrikey.


1/100th, for the record.

Muttergrumblepissflaps.

There's a world of difference between saying something that some people will take offence at and deliberately offending someone just for the sake of it.  

If someone were to point out that religions tend to be twaddle - actually, that's been done, lets have a new example.  If you wanted to argue that astrophysics is a load of cobblers, perhaps citing dark matter as an example of utterly made up tosh with no concrete evidence, then that would be entirely reasonable.  Some physicists would undoubtably be offended at your accusations, but you'd be entirely within your rights to make them.  Huzzah for the freedom of speech.

However, making a statement with the sole purpose of insulting physicists would be rather different.  Personally I think you should still have the right to make such a statement, because freedom of speech is a fantastic thing and shouldn't be monkeyed with lightly.  There was a marvellous quote in the news pointing out that very few societies, having restricted the freedom of speech, ever regained it: "You can say what you like, except" is the start of the proverbial slippery slope.  I wouldn't want my freedom of speech to be curtailed just because a particular group took offence at something, but nor would I want to risk losing it just because some pillock insisted on using it to justify being insulting.

The crucial point is that although you do indeed have the right to say what you want, you also have an obligation to not be a complete twat.  You don't get the freedom to drive a car without having the responsibility not to plough through a row of pedestrians: same thing with speech.  If you want the freedom you have to live with the responsibility.  Where speech is concerned, though, it seems to be a lot easier to curb the freedom than to enforce the responsibility.

shame on you lms for not taking this opportunity for defending the freedom of the press !

I refuse to defend wankers who, like schoolyard bullies, punch someone and then run and hide behind teacher to avoid being hit in return.

Such actions will only end up damaging the freedom of the press. Already, the government is suggesting it should try again with the charge of 'glorifying acts of terrorism'.

Religion, as I'm always having to point out, is not the problem - it's the twats who use it as an excuse for not thinking.

Idiots, the lot of them. To be quite honest, they all deserve each other.

Iranian paper calls for cartoons to satirise the Holocaust
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4688466.stm

The original offending cartoons.  Am I missing something?
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/698

I suppose your right,best to do nothing at all, just say 'tut tut' at the news and ignore it.

Bit like nazi germany in the 30s eh.

"Bit like nazi germany in the 30s eh."

You mean you wanting to flypost London with cartoon images denegrating a religious minority?

Yes, you're right. It probably is.

OMG HE'S RIGHT get the nooses out OR IT'S NAZI GERMANY!!!!1!!!

2000AD - the place for informed debate.

"You mean you wanting to flypost London with cartoon images denegrating a religious minority? " , no denegrating the new nazis

Not much to say, aparty from the fact that dreddd has been in my killfile for yonks. He always smelt like "trouble".

"OMG HE'S RIGHT get the nooses out OR IT'S NAZI GERMANY!!!!1!!!

2000AD - the place for informed debate."

ooo nooo,its all wrong, stop the presses, we should not be allowed to say anything, unless everyone agrees its ok !

its ok, i wont do anything at all, just keep shtuum, best move, i think, init

Presumably Dreddd you wont mind being called an idiotic wanker... I mean it's all free speach. And the BNP application form is in the post.

Dreddd,
Please refer back to Fegbarr's Haiku like genius.
Then....step away from the keyboard.
R

Mine too Krusty. So were you until you changed your i.d. therefore bypassing the killfile.

Hmm, good thread.

I believe the the Danish newspaper folk, and even more so the other ones that reprinted it are, without doubt, guilty of inciting hatred among half the world's people. Or maybe they didn't know that portrayals of the prophet were forbidden. Yeah, sure. What amazes me even more is the fact that no British papers did the same. Either they were gagged straight away (yeah, freedom of the press my arse, if you think that, you're sadly deluded I suspect) or perhaps just scared because they work next to whatever tube station might be targeted next.

Speaking of Nazi Germany in the 30's, I wonder what kind of satirical cartoons were being printed then?

Again, no surprise from any of the racist, fascist "new roman empire" they call Europe.

So in conclusion, on the subject of freedom of speech, just because you can say it, doesn't mean you should. Then again, it just depends how little you care about who you're insulting. I feel there are greater things that can be done with freedom of speech than printing a cartoon.

Buy British bacon only folks :o)

BNP ? lol

some of my best mates are indian,asian,african english folk

i am for 'no borders' and a true 'internationalist' but am totally against extremism and religion

you do realise, this will mean tooth artists considering poppin in a mohammed character into tooth to get tooth in the news dont ya ?

btw, the crusades were evil too

boooo to religion

Link: nasty crusades

I got a haircut on Sunday. Its a belter. I really enjoyed exerting my right to get a haircut. It was almost as good as exerting my right to post self indulgent shit on the web.

Cheers!

your right, i am ashamed, i will remove myself from the board :(

When Europe was tired of the yoke of feudalism, the aristocracy was overthrown in favour of democracy.  In the Middle East, the same thing happened at around the same time, except there was a religious revolution.  As I now live in the Middle East, I can see there's a completely different mind frame, where a moral society is more important than individual freedom.  The strength of your belief in God probably makes you believe one is greater than the other.

Also, the Middle East is still developing (not necessarily into the Western model).  Anti-Christian comments when Europe was ruled by religion would have caused far more violence (not that I'm excusing the burning of embassies).

Chris

Ignoring dreddd's trolling...


Does nobody think that a religion is a different thing to a race?  

Keeping with the Nazi germany thing for a moment, Jews there were targeted because of their race.  Only 20% of Muslims are Arabic, incidentally.

Aren't most of the "arabs" in Sudan closer to African descent as well?

"When Europe was tired of the yoke of feudalism, the aristocracy was overthrown in favour of democracy. In the Middle East, the same thing happened at around the same time, except there was a religious revolution. As I now live in the Middle East, I can see there's a completely different mind frame, where a moral society is more important than individual freedom. The strength of your belief in God probably makes you believe one is greater than the other. "

Nothing wrong with islamic countries having islamic laws but should they really govern the press in other countries ?

What amazes me even more is the fact that no British papers did the same. Either they were gagged straight away (yeah, freedom of the press my arse, if you think that, you're sadly deluded I suspect) or perhaps just scared because they work next to whatever tube station might be targeted next.

Or maybe they refused to join in the pathetic childish stupidity of papers on the continent in pouring petrol on the fire?

They weren't 'gagged', as you put it, in the slightest. For once, they showed some restraint - and almost all of them printed editorials saying they supported freedom of speech but felt there were attendant responsibilities. This might ring hollow considering their usual activity and they might not exactly be angels, but for once they should be congratulated on being sensible.

And dreddd: please, just pack it in. It's becoming something of a bore.

They don't govern the press in other countries.  Hence the cartoons.  But they're just as free to express their anger as the anti-racism movement.  They are offended and want to protest.  Surely that's part of freedom too.  As long as it's in line with basic laws and not calling for murder (that's quite a different line entirely and far more offensive to Islamic teaching than an image of the prophet - in fact, there's a debate in there itself on what images are banned but it's a far more chin-stroking dull argument).

As most people don't seem to know why the cartoons were printed, or indeed much about the background to this story:

Cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad published in several European newspapers have caused outrage among some Muslims. The BBC News website looks at the key questions behind the row.

How did the row develop?

The cartoons were first published in September 2005 by Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten. They were later republished in Austria in January, and then at the beginning of February in a number of European newspapers in France, Germany, Italy and Spain.

Diplomatic protests by governments of Islamic countries started in October 2005, escalating to the closure of embassies.

Boycotts of Danish products and protests across the Islamic world built up in late January and early February. In the Palestinian territories, armed groups have made direct threats against citizens of the countries in which the cartoons were published. There have also been death threats against the artists.

On 2 February, Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen appeared on Arabic TV to apologise for offence caused by the cartoons, but he also defended freedom of expression.

There have since been angry and sometimes violent protests across the Islamic world, and in Britain and France.

What do Muslims say about the cartoons?

Many Muslims say that the cartoons - one of which shows Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban - are extremely and deliberately offensive, expressing a growing European hostility towards and fear of Muslims. The portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad and Muslims in general as terrorists is seen as particularly offensive.

Some Muslims see the cartoons as an attack on their faith and culture designed to sow hatred.

Islamic tradition explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major figures of the Christian and Jewish traditions.

Has Muslim reaction to the cartoons been uniform?

Not at all - some Muslims have accused protesters of overreacting.

A weekly newspaper in Jordan reprinted some of the cartoons and urged Muslims to "be reasonable".

Websites produced by and for Muslims have shown the cartoons or linked to them. One liberal website said Muslims were making a mountain out of a molehill.

Some Muslims, mainly in Europe, have supported the re-publication of the images so that individual Muslims can make their own minds up and welcomed the debate on the issues that that cartoons have raised.

It has also been pointed out that cartoons in the Arab and Islamic press "demonising" Jews and Israelis are common.

Why did the Danish newspaper publish the cartoons?

The Danish newspaper that originally published the cartoons commissioned them after the author of a book about Islam said he was unable to find a single person willing to provide images of the Prophet.

The newspaper's culture editor, Flemming Rose, says he did not ask the illustrators to draw satirical caricatures of Muhammad. He asked them to draw the Prophet as they saw him.

Rose has insisted that there is a long Danish tradition of biting satire with no taboos, and that Muhammad and Islam are being treated no differently to other religions.

He also argues that the images have raised the profile in Denmark of a debate on integration of religious minorities.

The newspaper editors who have republished the cartoons say they are defending the right to free speech and acting in solidarity with the Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten.

What are the issues raised by the cartoons?

In many European countries there is a strong sense of secular values being under fire from conservative Islamic traditions among immigrant communities. Many commentators see the cartoons as a response to this.

There are also issues of integration - how much should the host society compromise to accommodate immigrant populations, and how much should immigrants integrate into the society they are making home.

Some commentators have defended the cartoons, saying they address fault lines in changing European societies that need to be discussed more openly.

Has anything like this happened before?

Culture clashes of this kind are not new.

In 1989 Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini called on Muslims to kill British author Salman Rushdie for alleged blasphemy in his book The Satanic Verses.

This may be closest comparison to the current situation. It raised many of the same issues - sensitivity of host cultures to religious sensibilities, integration of immigrants, religious intolerance and freedom of speech.

It took many years for the controversy over Mr Rushdie's novel to fade away, and for the author to emerge from hiding.

...cont.

What does the Koran, the holy book of Islam, say on the issue?

There is no specific, or explicit ban on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad - be they carved, painted or drawn.

However, chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: "[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth... [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him."

This is taken by Muslims to mean that Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hand, such is his beauty and grandeur. To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah.

The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.

Chapter 21, verses 52-54 of the Koran read: "[Abraham] said to his father and his people: 'What are these images to whose worship you cleave?' They said: 'We found our fathers worshipping them.' He said: 'Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'"

From this arises the Muslim belief that images can give rise to idolatry - that is to say an image, rather than the divine being it symbolises, can become the object of worship and veneration.

What does Islamic tradition say on the matter?

Islamic tradition or Hadith, the stories of the words and actions of Muhammad and his Companions, explicitly prohibits images of Allah, Muhammad and all the major prophets of the Christian and Jewish traditions.

More widely, Islamic tradition has discouraged the figurative depiction of living creatures, especially human beings. Islamic art has therefore tended to be abstract or decorative.

Shia Islamic tradition is far less strict on this ban. Reproductions of images of the Prophet, mainly produced in the 7th Century in Persian, can be found.

Why is the insult so deeply felt by some Muslims?

Of course, there is the prohibition on images of Muhammad.

But one cartoon, showing the Prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb with a burning fuse, extends the caricature of Muslims as terrorists to Muhammad.

In this image, Muslims see a depiction of Islam, its prophet and Muslims in general as terrorists.

This will certainly play into a widespread perception among Muslims across the world that many in the West harbour a hostility towards - or fear of - Islam and Muslims.

mass rally

ooo, this is not me, someone else is doing this, i think its getting out of hand, i dont like mass demos

just letters to the times, thats more my style

Link: oops its gone mad rally

> Culture clashes of this kind are not new.

They're certainly not new! However, I'm surprised that the BBC News Website cites Salman Rushdie as an example instead of choosing a much more famous blasphemer. A man who actually was executed because he spoke out against the oppressive religious dogma of the time. His name was, of course, Jesus Christ.

I'm also important to remember that in modern times the concept of religious hatred is not solely confined to "Muslims versus everyone else." I was raised as a Catholic in Ireland, and we were taught (in school and in church) that all non-Catholics were Hell-bound. Not non-Christians, mind you: non-Catholics. Especially Protestants! Oh, those heretics would be sent to the deepest, hottest fires of Hell for not believing in exactly the same things that we believed in! In secondary school we had a religion teacher who was particularly enthusiastic about this subject, yet was completely unable to specify exactly what the differences were between Catholicism and Protestantism (twenty-five years on, I'm still not sure of the differences).

I?ll stop there before I go off on a rant against religious zealots (because such a rant would also make me a religious zealot), but I will say something that seems to have been missed regarding those ?anti-Muslim? cartoons: they?re not funny. Even if they weren?t insulting, they still wouldn?t be funny.

-- Mike

ooo,apparently the muslims are publishing anti danish,jewish cartoons now

thats out of order, they are widening the attack,

'this thing is going to get out of control and we will be lucky to live through it ! - hunt for red october

unsure if its really fair to lock up this extremist muslim for speaking his mind,too,to be honest

Link: locked up for talking

yet was completely unable to specify exactly what the differences were between Catholicism and Protestantism (twenty-five years on, I'm still not sure of the differences).

Hats.

Pope-mobile envy.

"Pope-mobile envy. " pmsl

Grud grant me mystical powers so that I can miniaturise all the BNP supporters in the world and have them live the rest of their natural lives on a dog turd, in Milton Keynes.

'now then, be honest, did you draw those cartoons ?'

"Grud grant me mystical powers so that I can miniaturise all the BNP supporters in the world and have them live the rest of their natural lives on a dog turd, in Milton Keynes."

yea,i would like to do that too but as we live in a democracy, its kind of , un democratic me thinks

the BNP are silly folk, everyone knows we are the children of norman and roman invaders and the real english are in wales

"but for once they should be congratulated on being sensible"

Agreed, I find it quite amazing that none of them did. Even if just to say, this is what's causing all the fuss.

Time for Big Dave to return! Or not...

ooo,apparently the muslims are publishing anti danish,jewish cartoons now

thats out of order

Why? That's pretty much exactly what you were asking for in your first post...

anti danish cartoons ok because a dane did a cartoon against muhammed is a tit for tat thing, what have the jews got to do with this ?

i have changed my mind anyway, best to say nothing, and let the world carry on as it is

shuffle along there now, nothing to see, type situation

Sadly the cartoons involved are a bit arse. "Ooh, lets give Mohamed a bomb shaped turban - SYMBOLISM!".

Meanwhile the main affect iof this seems to be increase the net amount of stupidity in the world. The first post in this thread very much included.

What a brilliant thread.

I havn't read this much 'fun' since JEB and TPS.

Dreddd you are a complete idiot.

i live in a muslim dominated area of the world.

i am respectful of their views and wishes, but this whole saga stinks of any little excuse to brew up trouble sadly.
though locally for now at least the community is not reacting in such an extreme manner.

but do you see Jews on the march over stereo types and jokes about them,or catholics making such a scene over small issues.

this only increases the polarity of the views of those whom do not have regular contact with muslims and as such pushes them further in the minds of many as extremeists.

hopefully it will all blow over soon.before any more bloodshed is scene.

well,it was supposed to be a wind up, and at 3 pages, i think it worked very well


teee heee

Tsk. Another idiot seeking a "it was just a wind up" excuse for idiocy. Where have we seen that before? And why am I strangely unconvinced?

Do you have a cat?

Funny, that.  Oh no, sorry.  Not funny.  The other one.  Crap.



Anyone notice how any time someone makes a daft suggestion and gets made to look like a moron, it was All A Wind Up?


File under the same heading as "Oh no, no, I don't HAVE to apologise for insulting you, because, look, I included a winking SMILEY..."

::"Nothing wrong with islamic countries having islamic laws but should they really govern the press in other countries ?"

It's that kind of statement that propogates bigotry and ignorance.  Placing all "islamic countries" (itself an ill-defined phrase) under some kind of universal islamic banner where they are all an imagined hive mind bent towards the same nefarious purpose (in this case, governing our press) is clearly misleading and inacurate.

It's akin to assuming that all westerners (that word a gargantuan generalisation of individuals in and of itself) are agreed that publishing these cartoons is a good idea.  Clearly not the case, as this thread proves.

Just because logic (may) state that religion is inherently useless, that's no justification for banning it.

Logic may also prove that the best way of saving the human race is to cull 50% of it right now - starting with YOU!  If you're such a fan of logic, you'll march merrily over the nearest cliff for the good of humanity.

With two dice, a pencil and an eraser...

The original offending cartoons. Am I missing something?

They're a bit meh. I've heard unsubstantiated reports that agitators are showing show cartoons because they're not sufficiently offensive. And  theres a lot to be said for the theory that this is more of a trigger than the actual cause.

::"but do you see Jews on the march over stereo types and jokes about them,or catholics making such a scene over small issues."

Yes, probably.

Hardline supporters of any faith are incredibly robust in defending any slight (real or imagined).

(Some) hardline supporters of the Israeli government accuse anyone who criticises their policy of military occupation and subjugation of being a nazi sypmathiser and an anti-semite.

(Some) hardline supporters of christianity burn black people on crosses, or throw buckets of piss at toddlers.

And these are over what I consider small issues - any criticism of government policy; skin colour; what road to walk to school down.  None of these things deserve a violent response.  To juxtapose, the offending cartoon is denegrating an entire religion by linking it directly to terrorism, when clearly there are terrorists in the world of all faiths (some of them working at the behest of their governments) and, just as clearly, there are those within all faiths that have nothing to do with terrorism.

now now, calm down and have some tea

I've seen one (very badly drawn) of Mohammed with horns molesting children - obviously not one of the original cartoons.

A trawl of the political cartoonist websites threw up a link where there a bunch of much more offensive ones, (well photoshop jobbies) - but these seem to have been in response to the furore over the originals.

- Steve

Sir.....
Step away from the keyboard...
 Really.

Wake, can you kick Judge Idiott out yet?

Finsbury Parks a tad safer these days...

wonder if the screws will consficate his picklock?..

Kick somebody out for having a stupid opinion?  Half the board would have to go...

Just thought I'd give a Danish perspective.

1) The cartoons were published back in September 2005.

2) The cartoons were only published in one paper, Jyllands Posten. Although local Muslim communities kicked up a fuss, it didn't make "headlines" in Denmark (until two weekends ago- more specifically after Friday prayers).

3) I work in the shipping department of a major food exporter. The Middle East countries and the customers we have there-in are my responsibilty. Since the weekend of the boycott ALL my orders have been canceled to the middleast and mulim-african countries.

4) We have a Christian customer in Lebanon, who's attitude until today was that the goods he buys from us are "his" and NOT danish- they are just produced here. Today HE started to try to blackmail the company.

5) All these cancelled orders are giving me  a lot of time to do other things- so that's something good. Just a  shame we have so much produced that we can't shift it.

6) 99% of the people I know here, included myself are now extremely worried about the  threat of retaliation, and belive that Denmark will be the targets of terrorist actions (more so now than because of the armys participation in the Iraq war).

7) As a result of the events, I think some if the comments made here have been pretty careless and irresponsible, as a result of which, I think that certain members of the board ought to me more responsible when posting comments here.

its all building up nicely to a big off...we need thinning out as I said on another thread...more cartoons, more marches, more anger .. and when it does kick off we'll be all posting pictures of Kittens on threads like these...hurrah!

Link: (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v108/Thrillpowerseeker/snuffx-dot-com-behead-those-who-say.jpg)

This is true, things have got out of hand.

If it is against Islamic religion to ridicule the prophets then the Dutch really should retract and apologise.

Then they can do cartoons of certain religious leaders who, I think, are probably mis representing Islam.

After all, during the crusades Saladin was a rather decent chap compared to the crusaders so its more a matter of individual extremists.

I still thing religion is all bollocks but one should be diplomatic to the uninformed.

"The Dutch"?

I hope that was a joke - it's as bad as those rioting twats burning the Swiss flag.

Mind you, I saw CBS News saying that Vienna was in Italy the other night - maybe they're just getting in to the spirit of things.

- Steve

tee hee

"I still thing religion is all bollocks but one should be diplomatic to the uninformed."


Trust me, we are...

Your original request, insensitive comments, ill informed argument and sweeping generalisations beggar belief.

I suppose it?s some consolation that apart from occasionally visiting this board and reading the odd thread I don?t have to share any other part of my life with you.

Dreddd

I was speaking with a guy who works in the same building as me last night and we got onto the Muslim cartoon thing ( I was showing him some caricatures someone had illustrated for us). He's a Muslim, not very devout but respectful, and he explained in laymens why the cartoon was offensive.

What you have to be is respectful of other cultures and their beliefs. No matter how ridiculous it may seem to you to them it is part of their life. I was trying to find a comparison within western culture and the nearest I could think of would be to print a cartoon in a newspaper such as the Times showing an ugly postive stance towards peadophilia, makes me cringe thinking about it and my apologies to anyone reading this don't mean to offend but our culture is pretty tolerant of lots of things and I was trying to find something that is a comparison.

Therefore Dreddd I think a serious apology is in order please, and I mean serious.

I don't think it is as cut and dried as respecting other people's beliefs.

At what point do you draw the line?

There's obviously going to be some point that beliefs of some religion are going to collide with a personal view. Certain religions views on homosexuality for example.

- Steve

"Therefore Dreddd I think a serious apology is in order please, and I mean serious."

I agree !

I am very sorry, I was mistaking the issue for an attack on free speech and religous fundamentalism where we must all, after consideration, realise that with free speech comes responsibility for those in the media to use it wisely.  

The cartoons were a blatent act of provocation and a full page apology should be published.

Its ok to cartoon lampoon the leaders of the faith but not the prophet, thats a different matter and something that highly offends muslims.

I believe the muslims have a very valid point,though I dont think they are putting it across in the best way.

Dreddd may be being a bit of a prat but that's no reason to ban him.


I wonder how many of the protesters have actually seen the images or whether they have just been told that newspapers are taking the piss and its time to burn down the embassies?

It could even be argued (according to the BBC thing) that the ban on images is one interpretation of the Koran. It might miss the point somewhat, but still should generate some debate within the Muslim community.

Have there been any Muslim comic strips that have depicted Mo I wonder? Or non-Muslim for that matter.


MikeC had an interesting point about anger in organised religion. I once went to my local mormon church (don't ask) and everyone who got up on the stage was ranting about their way being the true way and everyone else was wrong and going to suffer.

Are religions in general just quick to take offence?

The media in general has a big part to play in this with its portrayal of 'Islamic Terrorists'. A new phrase really needs to be coined for the terrorists and its widespread use is part of the reason behind a) the stupid-think behind the Mo bomb cartoon in the first place and b) the fear currently being experienced in Denmark over repercussions.

However my gut feeling is the protesters have gone way too far and there's a huge whiff of hypocrisy in some of their actions. The easiest example is the pillock dressed up as a suicide bomber who is a convicted drug dealer. Is there nothing in the Koran that forbids followers to sell crack? How about setting fire to embassies?

The protesters complain about being insulted, yet I find placards proclaiming the beheading of anyone who isn't muslim pretty insulting, and horrifying, myself.

I find the Daily Mail insulting and evil but I don't want to behead its readers.

I guess the sad truth is that muslim leaders need some pretty good PR (thinking Prentis McCabe) in order to be viewed how the majority of them actually are and not the unbending, uncompromising death to all infidels image that they seem to have  in the media currently.

Thanks Dreddd much appreciated.

Agree with Andy no need to ban.

I also agree that even though the cartoon was a bad move, people have apologised as much as they can. But to rebel like the fundamentalists have done is an exagerated reaction to a bad mistake.

Just to lighten the mood a little, here's a quote from the Artdroids forum on the published cartoons.

"I was just wondering what people thought of the controversial 'Prophet
Mohammed' cartoon row.

To me it seems to demonstrate a nice use of feathering, especially round the
bomb in the turban. The inking is strong, even though stylistically the
drawing is somewhat behind the times, harking back to Gilray.

I can see why people might prefer a more contemporary look, though that's no
reason to run riot in the streets."

Genius!

That's no genius, that's Adrian Bamforth!

If all the Islamic countries just cut economic ties with denmark for 6 months i think everyone would get the message.

Just stop it.

M@

I watched the 10 o'clock news here in bed last night, so was unable to post.

15 minutes of a raport, instructing parents how to deal with the situation, with regards to your children. It really brought home to me how serious this situation has become.

More on those fake cartoons.

It's now looking like the whole thing was an attempt by danish immans to drum up trouble with images like this one (purportedly an image of the prophet Mohammed, actually a contestant in a French pig-squeeling contest).

It's all very depressing and stupid.

And here's Frenchy. Oink Oink!

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8959820

Oh, and heres my Prophet Mohammed Emoticon:

:-{>

Not actually a comic strip, but have you seen the South Park episode 'The Super Best Friends'? (based on DCs SuperFriends). Jesus Christ, The Prophet Mohammed and Moses team up to take down David Blaine. Very funny...and more offensive than the Danish cartoons - but Trey Parker and Matt Stone haven't been fatwahed.

Hey I was thinking about that, even looked it up with an image search but in the end assumed they avoided Muhammed since there wasn't any fuss. I guess depicting the deities as best friends isn't really much use to those trying to stir up friction. If I had to draw obne it would be Mohammed and Moses or Abraham looking down comforting each other. Noticably, the cartoon that was most focussed upon was the least funny, less clever and made less of a point. If it was a good cartoon it may at least have provoked some level of thought. That's the thing about satire, if there's some element of truth in it they can't really touch you for it.

Awful business, though bound to happen eventually - there's always some blasphemy happening somewhere for someone to blow up large, though on a national level I genuinely believe it's a good thing: Like the London bombings, British Muslims have to face the problematic side of their religion many were in denial of until recently, and moderate Muslims here finally have their chance to face down the extremists on the Saturday demo campaigning equally against defamation of their religion and the extremist reaction it provoked. Some things have to get worse before they get better.

ADE

Apparently the newspaper/magazine that first published the cartoons is now looking to print cartoons on the Holocaust.

See the way Google has been found to be censoring itself? (Check out the Chinese version and type in Tianenemen Square.)

Well , in that spirit I propose a fatwah on Google, I was horrified to type "Mohammed" into their image search feature only to be met with dozens and dozens of blasphemous artists' renditons of the prophet.

Let us burn down the internet in solidarity with our muslim brothers.