Is it correct to say the protests are about how Mohammad was portrayed rather than the image of Mohammad (illegal in Islam)?
I take it that this is the case but would like confirmation as MS in a post early said it was the actual use of an image of Mohammad.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
i think its both..
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
I take it that this is the case but would like confirmation as MS in a post early said it was the actual use of an image of Mohammad.
I think it's a combination of several things, namely:
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
Not to forget the little fact that the problem you have with no images is that no one knows what the Prophet looked like, so aside from totally false representation you gotta fall back to heavy racial stereotyping. We all know where that lead to.
I can't understand why on earth they couldn't have used a caricature of bin Ladin or any other two-bit jihadi imam? Except for the reason that nobody would have given a crap about it then? The only purpose of the cartoons it seems is to show how badly the danes suck at satire.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
^^ exactly
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
I can't understand why on earth they couldn't have used a caricature of bin Ladin or any other two-bit jihadi imam? Except for the reason that nobody would have given a crap about it then? The only purpose of the cartoons it seems is to show how badly the danes suck at satire.
Because bin Laden invokes the name and teachings of the prophet in his jihad. Satrical cartoons are somewhere between literal truth, metaphor and sarcasm. They are not meant to be picked apart literally. Political satire, by definition, is disrespectful. Political and religious figures have been lampooned in the west for hundreds of years.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
The reason I get offended is because it was a deliberate act of offending and provoking billions of Muslims.
Freedom of expression is one thing, but press has to show SOME responsibility.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
no, really? I would never have guessed!
The very important thing you missed out in your bloody patronising write-up seminole is that satire, yes even political satire requires a purpose, there has to be a point to it, for it work. Being overly offensive for the sake of being offensive makes you look none too clever, as the newspaper found out. The other very important point in satire is knowing your subject, and knowing what will work and what won’t to get the message across and again here the cartoons show up an impressive amount of ignorance of the subject and the audience. Both of these points work against the cartoons and the supposed satire, which is non-existant.
Thirdly, according to the editor himself one of the reasons- among many dodgy reasons given was ‘I asked them to draw the Prophet as they see him’. So that makes your point about bin laden defunct. There is nothing new or even original in depicting the Prophet in the worst manner possible, infact the west has a great and creative tradition of this, it is called Orientalism. So its not even an issue of free speech, which is always the last resort of any work without merit of its own in any case. But in this case any idiot can see personal prejudice and racial and religious bias towards a particular group (jews, muslim black etc) does not make for very good satire.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
you call that satire? 
Theres nothing satirical, methaphorical or humourous about it.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
Agreed. :k:
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
Too bad you only quoted part of my post and ignored this part "because bin Laden invokes the name and teachings of the prophet in his jihad" which negates your diatribe that this was meant for offensive purposes only.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
Ok Ma, onle more defintion, just for you:
sat·ire
literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit.
Whether you approve of the cartoons or not, it was satire.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
And you’re point about bin ladin is a non-issue, more of wishful thinking on your part, since the editor himself stated what his intended purpose was and it did not include “because bin Laden invokes the name and teachings of the prophet in his jihad”. But of course in your delirious obsession and attachment to anything remotely against islam, you wouldn’t understand that. Carry on bleating bin Laden and maybe if you say it for long enough you might even believe it.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
I think you're not aware of why these cartoons were published seminole. The purpose was not satire at all, but was in response to a 'dare' by the editor. Some 40 journalist were dared him to depict the face of the Prophet (saw). This was after three illustrators had refused to draw the Prophets picture in a children's book, knowing it was not allowed in Islam, and hence would be offensive to muslims. But, i guess the editor thought he was being really funny and clever by insulting the beliefs of billions. Either that, or he was really thick not to forsee the offense he would be causing.
Hence, its safe to say the sole purpose of the editor was to offend. he got alot more than he bargained for as his dare backfired miserably. I dont suppose he will be giving out any more childish dares in a hurry. lol.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
Yeah its ironic alright. I’ve never seen ‘satire’ fail and backfire so spectacularly and in doing so exposing the folly of the ‘satirists’ themselves.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
hang in there ma mooli, semolina here needs time to get over his bin laden hangover. Not that the hair of the mad dog will do him any favours. I suggest a decade or so for him to catch-up.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
I wasn't aware of this 'dare'. So it sounds like he published something deemed politically incorrect that he wouldn't have otherwise if other journalists weren't looking for someone to push the boundaries (which happens in western society every day). Or was it a hate campaign of 40 journalists to insult Islam? The end result was a satire and a satire that people understood - whether it was published because journalists wanted to stretch the limits of free expression or not. As far as 'backfiring', I wouldn't limit it to the editor.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
**This was all about demonizing Muslims, all Muslims.
All Muslims 99.99% mainstream and 00.01% supposed fundos revere the prophet. The images portrayed the Prophet as a terrorist, equating all Muslims to terror.
Hitler used similar tactics against the Jews before WWII to great effect. Caricaturing them in the press as pedophiles, thieves and murderers.
This is all about fascism and hate speech, against which the Muslims are totally unprotected, as were the Jews.**
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
satire or not, the intent was to offend. The underlying the reason was islamophobia and ignorance. One thing is clear, that the british and the mainstream american media did not publish these pics, as the two are much more culturally aware and have a better understanding of the Islamic beliefs as compared to the european countries that pub. the cartoons. The differences in the racist attititude is blatantly obvious when you visit these particular countries.
Also, out of the 40 journalist, im not sure how many were printed, however, there were three/four of them that caused the major offense. but what i'd like to know is, do you think these same journalist would dare publish anti-jewish cartoons in the guise of free speech? Some how i dont think so cuz the free speech excuse is full of sh1t. Prince harry is prolly still having nightmares for wearing a swastika at a fancy dress party.
Re: Clarification on the cartoon please
The intent of political cartoons is to make people think, make a point and yes, to offend. You shouldn’t feel so special that you are immune to what every other group also experiences. There is no person or entity in the west that is off-limits for depiction. When the west was developing the laws, mores and freedom of expression guidelines, Islamic tradition was not involved.
I guess your passions in this matter blinds you to the fact that there are regular anti-Jewish cartoons published all the time. And anti-American. And anti-Christian.
And while there are protests against offensive things like the Prince of England wearing a swatiska, no one threatens death and kidnappings, burns embassies and fire trucks, throws stones at churches, shoot guns in the air and cry “Death to the West”. I don’t know what these protests will accomplish except this: If there is a battle to win the hearts and minds of non-Muslims, this has the TOTALLY OPPOSITE effect. The most you can get out of it is to slow down editors portraying your prophet with a bomb in his turban in non-Muslim socieities, then - wow - big, important accomplishment in the scheme of things.
There is an interview here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11179140/site/newsweek/
with the editor. He does not sound like the rampant insulting bigot you make him out to be.
Excerpt:
*You have different points of view, and I think it’s problematic if any religion—it doesn’t matter if it’s Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, any religion—tries to impose its own taboos on the public domain. *
When I go to a mosque, I behave by the rules that exist in that holy house. I will not stand up and make a cartoon of the holy prophet in a mosque. But I think if any religion insists that I, as a non-Muslim, should submit to their taboos, then I don’t think they’re showing me respect. I think they’re asking for my submission. This is a key issue in this debate.