Cartoons Cause Death Among Muslims (America, fanaticism, islam, Article)

[Darkdale]

Originally Posted by gnostic

I am afraid that people in Islam have elevated a human to godhood, because that the only way you can link cartoon with blasphemy. In essence, Muslims are treating their prophet like their idol, and therefore idol-worhipping.

I have no sympathy for any rioter's death, particularly if they kill or injure people or destroy properties.

I'm with you. These people are sick - suffering from some kind of collective hysteria. I mean, if people started riots over Cartoons from any other religious group or organization, we would laugh them off the streets, but because these are Muslims, we're like, "Yeah, OK. What did you expect?" - If I were a Muslim I would be insulted how low the bar has been set with regard to my people. Could you imagine people just expecting you to be violent? That people are actually shocked and surprised when you stand up for peace, compassion, or cooperation? I would be irate.

[dan]

Originally Posted by Karl R

These cartoonists (and the publishers) are pondscum. Even though they can't be held legally responsible, they share the moral blame for the deaths that have occurred.

1- They're not cartoonists, they're illustrators. Cartoonists draw what they want; illustrators draw what someone tells them to draw. These cartoons are the result of an open invitation from the Danish Paper. They were offered $73 and their picture in the paper. Some of the cartoons make fun of the assignment, saying it's just a disrespectful publicity stunt (showing mohammad as a stick figure). Others treat Mohammad with nothing but respect. Irrespective of the content, these illustrators were expressing their views of how Islam represents itself. Do they have the right to do that? Should you condemn them for your assumptions about their intentions? Did you know you are considered a blasphemer by some for having written out the word "God" in your post? Many consider you a blasphemer for claiming Jesus is the Christ. If someone dies because you have that belief are you responsible? All the people who died were protestors who crossed lines they shouldn't have crossed. Two were shot dead by a security quard after they smashed in the window of a bank and tried to force their way in. Are their actions the responsibility of the illustrators? Must I take responsibility for every situation that may arise because of a harmless action taken by me? Am I absolved of responsibility for anything I do if I act upon irrational emotions brought on by the opinions of another?

Maybe you need to think about thigns a little more before you start judging people.

[dan]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

I'm with you. These people are sick - suffering from some kind of collective hysteria.

Perhaps theirs is a culture that you don't really understand. They have different priorities and different measures of what is offensive and what isn't.

You've heard of the Boston Massacre before, haven't you? I'm sure you sympathize with the revolutionists in colonial America. You live right by everything. Did you know the whole Boston Massacre started with one Biritish soldier standing outside a diplomat's house? A group of colonists started harrassing him and throwing snowballs at him because of the recent Stamp Act (meant to help pay for the war with France, the first tax ever imposed on the colonies, and much less than the British paid) and because the king had sent soldiers to America (to protect tax collectors and diplomats). More soldiers came to protect the one. More people gathered around and now the snowballs had rocks and ice in them. Some were spitting on the soldiers and all were screaming insults at the top of their lungs. One soldier was knocked to the ground and his gun went off. The others, already angry and defensive, started firing. Five colonists died because of this collective hysteria. Were those people sick? Were they disgusting human beings? That act galvanized the colonies into action. Many historians think that if those sick twisted people hadn't suffered from that collective hysteria we wouldn't have a United States today.

Just wanted to show you that all of this can be brought closer to home than you think.

[dan]

Originally Posted by wmam

I suppose no one knows who died? Again I ask if anyone knows if it where rioters or innocent by-standers?

Rioters.

[dan]

Originally Posted by gnostic

Are prophet now The God?

I just think it is plain stupid that people would equate insult to any prophet with blasphemy.

I am afraid that people in Islam have elevated a human to godhood, because that the only way you can link cartoon with blasphemy. In essence, Muslims are treating their prophet like their idol, and therefore idol-worhipping.

I have no sympathy for any rioter's death, particularly if they kill or injure people or destroy properties.

The whole reason Muslims are upset is because of a tradition in their faith that forbids depictions of holy people, because it could lead to idol worshipping (much like praying to statues and little saint playing cards, and even praying to a human being). Blaspheme is to be irreverent. It has more to do with sacred principles than with God himself. No one is elevating Mohammad to godhood, they just find it disrespectful to insult their prophets in such a way. This belief is not necessarily doctrine, though. From a Jordanian cartoonist:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. However, there can be consequences for expressing those rights. For example, no one can make fun of the race of blacks or Jews and not expect some backlash. The difference from doing this in the West is that you are not forbidden from doing it but you may experience some retaliation and negative feedback. The idea of forbidding the drawing of Muhammad is just a historical dogma. The Koran and Hadeeth never mention in any clear text that the depiction of Muhammad is forbidden. But, there is a difference between Islam and Muslims who are unfortunately, a third world people with many distorted beliefs and thoughts about their religion, history and the world itself. I think that a billion and a half Muslims deserve to be understood rather than be provoked or hit on their nerve under the pretext of freedom of expression that serves no purpose. Muhammad has been portrayed in cartoons and comics for decades in the West, and in a very miserable way long before the Danish newspaper published them. The difference this time was that Jyllands-Posten was putting it in his bold way; Hey Muslims, you forbid it, but we'll publish it anyway. They went ahead and published twelve cartoons that depicted a negative image of Muhammad.

[muslimbrother]

Originally Posted by Darkdale

I'm with you. These people are sick - suffering from some kind of collective hysteria. I mean, if people started riots over Cartoons from any other religious group or organization, we would laugh them off the streets, but because these are Muslims, we're like, "Yeah, OK. What did you expect?"

What makes me sick? Did I burn down an embassy, did I kill someone?

Yes, the reaction by Muslims isn't good. Its a completely wrong approach. The perception of Muslims have been one of violence and terrorism. Unforunately, people associate Islam to be about violence and terrorism.

Islam does not teach violence or terrorism. Islam teaches oneness of god (submission to god),peace, prayer, charity, love for prophets, fasting, recitation of the Qur'an. I don't not find anything violent about Islam. I am definitely not ashamed of being a muslim lol, I am blessed to be a muslim.

Unfortunately, this media always links muslims with violence. Whenever a muslim does something wrong, Islam and terrorism is brought up. Why is that. If a jew,christian,buddhist,atheist or whoever did something violent, I would not blame there religion.

[wmam]

Originally Posted by dan

Rioters.

Thanks dan.......... I feel so sad for their families. If only the cartoonist hadn't of made them go out and get involved in a riot that threatened human life and property.

[Karl R]

Originally Posted by Dan

They're not cartoonists, they're illustrators. Cartoonists draw what they want; illustrators draw what someone tells them to draw. These cartoons are the result of an open invitation from the Danish Paper. They were offered $73 and their picture in the paper.

How quickly any of the illustrators bother to publicly apologize to the muslims? Have the illustrators bothered to apologize at all? As I previously posted, that's one way I determine whether someone intended to insult another person.

So far, only one of the newspapers (out of roughly a dozen) have publicly apologized.

Originally Posted by CNN 1/30/06

Jyllands-Posten has refused to apologize for the drawings, citing freedom of speech. The drawings were reprinted on January 10 by Norwegian evangelical newspaper Magazinet in the name of defending free expression, renewing Muslim anger.

Three months after the cartoons were printed, the publisher refused to apologize. I'm guessing the insult was intentional.

Originally Posted by CNN 2/01/06

The Danish daily published the cartoons after asking artists to depict Islam's prophet to challenge what it perceived was a tendency of self-censorship among artists dealing with issues related to Islam.

This makes it sound like the illustrators had a clue (though probably not a clear picture) what they were signing up for.

Up until January 30th, muslim protests had been non-violent. The most effective one had been a boycott of Danish goods. Do you feel that the muslims aren't allowed to non-violently protest? Other European magazines apparently opposed the non-violent protests enough to re-run the cartoons.

On February 1st (when the Danish magazine finally apologized), a French and German newspaper re-ran the pictures in "support" of the Danish newspaper. (It's also quite possible they did it in order to boost sales.) This was a few days after the first violent (though not deadly) protests. Were these European newspapers ignorant of the likely outcome?

Originally Posted by CNN 2/03/06

Flemish newspapers on Friday printed a series of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, including those published in a Danish newspaper that have sparked outrage across the Muslim world ... and quoted renowned Belgian philosopher Etienne Vermeersch as saying that Belgian papers should publish such caricatures every week "so that Muslims could get used to the idea."

Is this freedom of expression or deliberately provoking an unpopular minority group?

Originally Posted by dan

All the people who died were protestors who crossed lines they shouldn't have crossed.

Originally Posted by CNN 2/07/06

a stampede during a protest killed a teenager,

What line did he cross?

Originally Posted by CNN 2/08/06

The French satirical weekly Charlie-Hebdo on Wednesday reprinted cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed which have caused outrage in the Muslim world, saying it was upholding the democratic right of free expression.

This is four days after the first death threats. Do you feel that the European newspapers are still unaware of the danger involved? At what point do we acknowledge that these publishers are willingly throwing themselves in the way of harm?

In the United States, there are laws banning some forms of speech: like inciting a riot.

Originally Posted by CNN 2/10/06

a small anti-immigrant party had put cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed on its newspaper's website,

Did they do this in support of freedom of speech?

Originally Posted by CNN 2/18/06

many of the protesters said they were angry because Italian Reforms Minister Roberto Calderoli recently flaunted a T-shirt displaying one of the controversial cartoons on state TV this week.

That's like fighting fire with gasoline.

Originally Posted by dan

Did you know you are considered a blasphemer by some for having written out the word "God" in your post?

To the best of my knowledge, the only religion that has that stricture is Judaism. Since I didn't write god's name in Aramaic, I haven't violated that rule.

Is there another religion or sect who has that rule, or were you just trying to muddy the waters?

Originally Posted by dan

Many consider you a blasphemer for claiming Jesus is the Christ.

Not according to any of the definition of blasphemy at www.websters.com

Perhaps you were thinking of heresy?

Originally Posted by dan

If someone dies because you have that belief are you responsible?

If I use my heresy to provoke someone, and someone dies because of my provocation, I have become an accomplice in the death. It doesn't diminish the guilt of the person I provoked. It just adds me to the list of guilty parties.

Originally Posted by dan

Am I absolved of responsibility for anything I do if I act upon irrational emotions brought on by the opinions of another?

No. You're still guilty. The other person is an accomplice if they incited you to act in the manner you did.

If you're fuzzy on how this works, watch the movie "The Accused".

If you had bothered to read the last 2/3 of my initial post, I believe (based on my loose understanding of Islam) that violence in this situation is in exact opposition to what Mohammad preached.

Originally Posted by dan

Must I take responsibility for every situation that may arise because of a harmless action taken by me?

If I take a plastic replica of a pistol and point it at an armed police officer, is it a "harmless action" or is it a suicide attempt?

Originally Posted by dan

Maybe you need to think about thigns a little more before you start judging people.

Ooh. I love irony.


In one final point, how do you weigh the cost of apologizing versus the cost of not apologizing?

[dan]

There were twelve illustrators, and I don't think they are at all responsible for the deaths. These were radical muslims consciously taking the law into their own hands. I don't know about you, but I live in a country where I'm responsible for my actions and my neighboor is responsible for his. There is no part of the Koran that says it's blasphemous or even prohibited to draw Mohammad. It's a tradition, like Christmas, so the reactions of the Muslims that rioted were unwarrented. This is exactly what the founders of our country were trying to avoid with the Constitution - someone excercising a natural right and getting a hail of crap dumped on them for it.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by dan

No one is elevating Mohammad to godhood, they just find it disrespectful to insult their prophets in such a way.

They find it even more disrespectful that calling for the beheading of the cartoonists, threatening Denmark with 'their 9/11', and condoning a barbaric onslaught against fredom of the press. And they also find a steady stream of apologists.