Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Registered: September 01, 2004
Posts: 3
|
quote: The magazine picture mocked the God with a bomb in his hand and sitting funnily;
Prophet Mohammed is not seen as God in the religion of Islam and should not be called one either. He(pbuh) himself did not want to seen as such and belived in one God, Allah. quote: 2) I firmly believe that the Muslims CANNOT use religion as an excuse for TERROISM OR VIOLENCE of that sort. You can't just kill people or burn houses just because your values have been violated. For those who did such things, it was simply an excuse for the cowardly to respond. This act has got to stop.
And I completely agree with you on this. |
Registered: October 03, 2004
Posts: 41
|
quote: Originally posted by MerryMan:
What motives behind the publication of the Mohammed drawings?
Whilst for many people this matter might seem a fuss over very little, I think that it represents very well the situation that we find ourselves in post-9/11, , the publication of these drawings represents the confused and conflicting values of Western media, particularly its much-championed yet hypocritical usage of ‘free speech’
The Danish mainstream media, like the bulk of all Western mainstream media, is ideologically charged and espouses the Western agenda. What were the motives and intentions behind the publication of the Mohammed drawings, when the newspaper knew perfectly well the offence that it would cause? That is not to say, of course, that nobody should publish anything that causes offence. But when publishing something that is obviously hugely offensive, then there must be some positive merit in doing so. The only attempt at justifying the publication of these drawings has been to state that the newspaper was ‘testing the boundaries’ of __expression about Islam. But do you really test boundaries by insulting people? Would you be justified at hurling abuse at somebody in the street, on the grounds that you wanted to see how insulting you had to be before they became angry? Surely nobody would accept this defence, and nobody should accept that defence for Jyllands-Posten and the other European newspapers that have published these drawings. So the defence always swings around to a gratuitous special plea – that the ideal of the freedom of __expression must be upheld, and this, conveniently, pretty much justifies anything they happen to express, regardless of the hidden motives behind it.
freedom of _expression is an ideal and as such it remains an abstract concept in which to guide action. It is not contained in our actions - there is no freedom of _expression in all actuality. Can we say the same things to our mothers as we do to our lovers? Or to strangers as we do to our friends? Or to children as we do to adults? No, because in each situation we assume different roles and different ethical responsibilities. If these responsibilities are transgressed in any way then our cry of 'freedom of __expression' holds little water. The responsibilities of a national newspaper differ again, and they are not 'free' to print whatever they like, despite their desperate claims. The vast majority of Western media output is owned by large corporations and is funded by corporate advertising and sponsorship. From the very beginning it is not free, but it can use and promote long established ideals for its own ends. Witness the Bush and Blair administrations and their use of ideals such as democracy and freedom. Ideals can all too easily be used as masks to hide deadly agendas.
As Nietzsche, someone who knew all too well about the dangers of Western Idealism wrote:
"One is deceived every time one expects "progress" from an ideal; every time so far the victory of the ideal has meant a retrograde movement."
THANNK YOU SO MUCH. And you quote Nieetzche. You are are amazing.
she was a good girl & it felt great liar - - - dee
|
Registered: August 25, 2004
Posts: 1
|
I think that the cartoonists shouldn't have published the picture (I know that they have the right to publish anything they want, but they are not at all being respectful).
But also some Muslims overreacted---I mean its just a cartoon.
|
Registered: February 15, 2006
Posts: 2
|
What motives behind the publication of the Mohammed drawings?
Whilst for many people this matter might seem a fuss over very little, I think that it represents very well the situation that we find ourselves in post-9/11, , the publication of these drawings represents the confused and conflicting values of Western media, particularly its much-championed yet hypocritical usage of ‘free speech’
The Danish mainstream media, like the bulk of all Western mainstream media, is ideologically charged and espouses the Western agenda. What were the motives and intentions behind the publication of the Mohammed drawings, when the newspaper knew perfectly well the offence that it would cause? That is not to say, of course, that nobody should publish anything that causes offence. But when publishing something that is obviously hugely offensive, then there must be some positive merit in doing so. The only attempt at justifying the publication of these drawings has been to state that the newspaper was ‘testing the boundaries’ of __expression about Islam. But do you really test boundaries by insulting people? Would you be justified at hurling abuse at somebody in the street, on the grounds that you wanted to see how insulting you had to be before they became angry? Surely nobody would accept this defence, and nobody should accept that defence for Jyllands-Posten and the other European newspapers that have published these drawings. So the defence always swings around to a gratuitous special plea – that the ideal of the freedom of __expression must be upheld, and this, conveniently, pretty much justifies anything they happen to express, regardless of the hidden motives behind it.
freedom of _expression is an ideal and as such it remains an abstract concept in which to guide action. It is not contained in our actions - there is no freedom of _expression in all actuality. Can we say the same things to our mothers as we do to our lovers? Or to strangers as we do to our friends? Or to children as we do to adults? No, because in each situation we assume different roles and different ethical responsibilities. If these responsibilities are transgressed in any way then our cry of 'freedom of __expression' holds little water. The responsibilities of a national newspaper differ again, and they are not 'free' to print whatever they like, despite their desperate claims. The vast majority of Western media output is owned by large corporations and is funded by corporate advertising and sponsorship. From the very beginning it is not free, but it can use and promote long established ideals for its own ends. Witness the Bush and Blair administrations and their use of ideals such as democracy and freedom. Ideals can all too easily be used as masks to hide deadly agendas.
As Nietzsche, someone who knew all too well about the dangers of Western Idealism wrote:
"One is deceived every time one expects "progress" from an ideal; every time so far the victory of the ideal has meant a retrograde movement."
|
Registered: February 15, 2006
Posts: 1
|
All this Islam crap, it's excellent, it was produced to cause reaction, not offence. And by everyone’s posts it seems to have done just that. So well done to the Danes.
I work and live in London, the train I use was bombed last year and if I wasn't 'on time' this day it could have been a close call, then a week later they bomb the bus that I get from a tube station to an over-head train link.
I always sympathised with the people, what with all these internationally illegal was going on, I couldn’t blame them. But after all these bombs I thought I have a read of the Qu'ran and see what all the fuss was about. About 60 pages in I had been told that god was great and he’s the supreme being about 100,000 times; that 2 women are required to replace 1 man regarding intellectual responsibilities; and that I could ‘hit’ my wife if she disobeyed me. - (the translator may have layered it on a bit thick so take it with a pinch of salt)
Some of the cartoons highlighted these very...selective views…. chosen by Islam and it offended them? Well compared to some of the Anti-Jewish views in the Arab press (as mentioned elsewhere) what do we expect?
Every country and religion has members that take the word of their leaders straight to heart so when 3 new pictures were added to the list of 12 cartoons people didn’t question it. They didn’t even see them just presumed they were as bad as everyone said they were.
I would lastly like to say that I seen two excellent picture in the British papers. 1. Protester with the signs ‘behead those who insult Islam’ & ‘massacre those who insult Islam’ – followed by the caption, “how dare these cartoonist stereotype Muslims as violent, aggressive and filled with hate towards the west. 2. A Middle Eastern man standing in front of a magazine stand with the titles of, what car? What Camera? What Bike and What Holocaust? – excellent. Also everyone should see a documentary called ‘the route of all evil’ – based on Judaism, Christianity & Islam.
|
Registered: October 06, 2004
Posts: 3372
|
quote: Who says they want to? Or even need to?
Theyu seem to enjoy using mortars and bombs invented in the west. I am a far cry from a hater of islam. I am rather in awe of it's period of preëminnence in the decorative arts, literature, and architecture, but seriously, if they remain behind, they will become a malignant blister on the face of the earth, even moreso than they are today. quote: There are two reasons for that. One, the West is highly desensitized to things such as that. Two, there aren't any Christian religious objections to drawing Jesus or God. In Islam there are.
You know what I mean. In the west, we harbor Satanist groups. We constantly poke fun at the religious, and hold in the lowest esteem in much of the political and scientific world (and therefore, the comic world) christian dogma. The flavor of our society is extremely secular, while the middle east is slipping into a dark age of ignorance and destruction. The people who are empowered are not educated, as was once the norm, but are a group of ignorant zealots who have no quams to use violence to meet thier needs. They have to modernize because not only are they a danger to themselves, but a danger to the world.
O of where dost thou hail, Celephanil, Celephanil? Why dost thou wander in Tengelwar great, why on the sea do you sail?
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6039
|
quote: people must stop their fundementalist extreamism if they are ever going to enter the modern world.
Who says they want to? Or even need to? quote: In america, christianity is bashed every single day, and nobody burns flags or destroys streets of houses.
There are two reasons for that. One, the West is highly desensitized to things such as that. Two, there aren't any Christian religious objections to drawing Jesus or God. In Islam there are.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: October 06, 2004
Posts: 3372
|
quote: The caricature expresses narrow-minded beliefs, but when have political caricatures been flattering and appropriate, anyway?
You people must be mad. Islam is ripping appart the world, as we can see by the foolishness of the protest of this idiotic picture. There is no reason to make such a stink about something so small or so insinificant, and people must stop their fundementalist extreamism if they are ever going to enter the modern world. The protest is absolutely outragious and shows the love of killing that exists in muslim nations. quote: Both drawings are highly insulting.
In america, christianity is bashed every single day, and nobody burns flags or destroys streets of houses. quote: Though freedom of expression and press freedom are vital for a progressive society it nevertheless has limitations
No. When you limit the freedom of the press, you limit democracy. Freedom of the press must be freedom of anyone to say anything they want. quote: By the way, does anyone find it ironic that the Islamic world responded to the portrayal of Mohammed as a terrorist by burning flags and killing people?
true that quote: The cartoons were definitely in bad taste
The cartoons are very benign if you see the,. I would have pictured a terrorist raping Liberty, if it were me.
O of where dost thou hail, Celephanil, Celephanil? Why dost thou wander in Tengelwar great, why on the sea do you sail?
|
Registered: January 15, 2006
Posts: 484
|
quote: Originally posted by clpo13:
Indeed. But the moderate Muslims have protested peaceably and garnered just as much media attention, although probably as a direct result of the more violent Muslims.
Probably. In Britain there were Muslims protesting completely peacefully but in countries like Syria, Lebanon and Afghanistan things got out of hand. I think that proves that its not that Muslims are violent; it's that Afghanistan Lebanon and Syria have no one organzing these things and that their governments are out of control, something we already knew.
~*The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.
|
Registered: October 30, 2005
Posts: 130
|
It disgusts me that religious tolerance still isn't in full swing.
"Security gives way to conspiracy."
|
Registered: February 22, 2004
Posts: 13958
|
quote: When was the last time someone listened to that kind of whining in the US?
The UNs been whining in New York for years now and we have listened then ignored what ever the hell they said
"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done"."
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6039
|
Indeed. But the moderate Muslims have protested peaceably and garnered just as much media attention, although probably as a direct result of the more violent Muslims.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: January 15, 2006
Posts: 484
|
quote: By the way, does anyone find it ironic that the Islamic world responded to the portrayal of Mohammed as a terrorist by burning flags and killing people?
Burning flags isn't a terrorist action and the only people that have been killed were protesters and rioters that were killed accidentally. It's not like they just went out and started killing random Danish people. quote: But because the West is a somewhat less violent region than the Middle East, Christians would just whine and moan about it, as opposed to burning consulates.
When was the last time someone listened to that kind of whining in the US? I'm not condoning burning consulates but at least now the world knows that we're angry.
~*The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.
|
Registered: November 05, 2004
Posts: 6039
|
quote: Though freedom of expression and press freedom are vital for a progressive society
They're signs of a progressive Western society. The Muslim world has existed without those freedoms for well over a thousand years. They don't want or need it. The cartoons were definitely in bad taste. However, much of the Muslim world overreacted to the whole situation. Yes, it's taboo in Islam to depict the Prophet without a veil, especially when he's being shown as some sort of terrorist. It'd be the same as someone drawing Jesus killing Jews. But because the West is a somewhat less violent region than the Middle East, Christians would just whine and moan about it, as opposed to burning consulates.
The more you know, the less you don't know.
|
Registered: November 29, 2003
Posts: 1908
|
They have every right to be offended, we (being Westernized, free-speech-martyrs) have every right to completely ignore them. By the way, does anyone find it ironic that the Islamic world responded to the portrayal of Mohammed as a terrorist by burning flags and killing people?
"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated," p.60, "1984," by George Orwell
|
Registered: October 30, 2005
Posts: 130
|
Because everyone respects everyone else's beliefs and rules, right?
"Security gives way to conspiracy."
|
Registered: February 22, 2004
Posts: 13958
|
quote: I'm not muslim, I do not have to follow Muslim rules.
true but we should respect those rules
"The very existence of flamethrowers proves that sometime, somewhere, someone said to themselves, "You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done"."
|
Registered: February 02, 2004
Posts: 9212
|
quote: Wee there aren't rules against depecting God/Jesus/Prophets in the christan faith in Islam there is and we should honor that rule
I'm not muslim, I do not have to follow Muslim rules. quote: The cartoonist should not have generalized the extremist activities as that involving the whole Muslim community and dragged the Muslim God into this context.
That's what cartoons do, they generalize. "You learn about equality in the classroom but you find out about it in life" - Campus Confidential www.myspace.com/yogore |
Registered: January 15, 2006
Posts: 484
|
quote: Originally posted by csapkota:
The cartoonist should not have generalized the extremist activities as that involving the whole Muslim community and dragged the Muslim God into this context.
I'm not sure if I understood you propperly but Mohammad is the prophet of the Islamic religion, not the Muslim God. The Muslim God's usually called Allah (which is really just the Arabic word for God) But I completely agree with you!
~*The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.
|
Registered: January 15, 2006
Posts: 484
|
Oops... double posted, sorry for the spam! Please ignore
~*The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true.
|
|
