Regarding cartoon: what should be a taboo?

[Delf]

Situation around offensive cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) depicting Prophet Muhammed have raised a storm of emotions and protest.

What in your view should be a taboo? Say, if you were to make a law, what would you make illegal? How would you define limits of free press?


Delf.
P.S. this controversy is not only about Islam, you can read a list major controversies about freedom of speech and offensive, blasphemous cartoons here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Other_controv ersial_newspaper_caricatures).

[UzLand]

I think it was wrong for people of other faith to caricature the Prophet - something Muslims have never allowed themselves to do it. Not only caricature him, but even portraying his more or less accurate picture. I don't think the freedom of speech excuse is valid here. In a US newspaper they quote a European editor who says that Christians do not mind caricatures on Christ and Christians. This is a stupid excuse to make. If they don't find their religion and religious attributes holy and sacred, it doesn't mean they can react to other religions' same way as well. Another stupid remark was made by another editor in the same newspaper criticizing American mainstream media of cowardice not to run such caricatures, being politically correct and trying to appease Muslims. But isn't this showing a hyppocricy of the Europeans whose same newspapers wouldn't caricature Jews, Holocost and the things like that. Why wouldn't they? They know why. But apparently such a slander is ok against Muslims.

BTW, this incident is a good answer to those who were arguing who is better - Europeans or Americans.

[Royal]

Just setup online email generator, so forum user just enter own email adres or user name , so that script automaticly will enter that users email adress to letter as signature along with protest letter via email to the danish embassy/consulate, state department (if such) or equal governmen office and those media sources...

if any sucess so spread the news other sites as well.

[UzLand]

Just setup online email generator, so forum user just enter own email adres or user name , so that script automaticly will enter that users email adress to letter as signature along with protest letter via email to the danish embassy/consulate, state department (if such) or equal governmen office and those media sources...

if any sucess so spread the news other sites as well.

Where are that generator and the text of the protest?

[Amiri Turkiston]

it should be a respect of other religions

Anyone who cares about Muslims,
Please sign following petitions and support us!!!


Please dissiminate the petition everywhere!!!
------------

To Danish Government : http://www.petitiononline.com/DENMUS/petition.html

To Magazinet editor Vebjoern Selbekk : http://www.petitiononline.com/lana34/petition.html

To HIS EXCELLENCY, Dr. Per Stig Mшller the minister of the foreign affairs of the Denmark : http://www.petitiononline.com/Eagle999/petition.html

To Danemark government : http://www.petitiononline.com/Antislam/petition.html

[Mona Lisa]

Situation around offensive cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) depicting Prophet Muhammed have raised a storm of emotions and protest.

What in your view should be a taboo? Say, if you were to make a law, what would you make illegal? How would you define limits of free press?


Delf.
P.S. this controversy is not only about Islam, you can read a list major controversies about freedom of speech and offensive, blasphemous cartoons here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Other_controv ersial_newspaper_caricatures).
1. What should be a taboo and what should not is very hard to define. All depend on the context.

2. In fact caricatures are build on the basis of a taboo. Because we have all sorts limits, laws and "taboos" caricature is there for that exact reason.

[Frida]

What in your view should be a taboo? Say, if you were to make a law, what would you make illegal? How would you define limits of free press?


Delf.
P.S. this controversy is not only about Islam, you can read a list major controversies about freedom of speech and offensive, blasphemous cartoons here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Other_controv ersial_newspaper_caricatures).

I dont think I would make anything illigal. Because when you start prohibbiting something you end up again not with free press but Uzbek type of press. As Uzland mentioned above there should be strong idea of politicall correctness. I am pretty sure that hundreds of Americans could draw the same stuff and put it on their newpapers, but being the worst PC people they wouldnt do it. Do you remember when Bush by mistake called paskistani people Pakis? The american press itself made a huge thing out of it. so Bush ended up publicly apologizing for his Political incorrect speech. So, anyways slippery slope, how they call it. So if you are calling smth free take it till the end, but make sure that everything is politically correct. also, i dont think the whole government should be responsible because of the things that newspaper people do. let them be responsible for the things that they write.

[PainKiller]

Being honest, I did not find those cartoons offencive:rolleyes:

[Frida]

Well, follow up for Inkognito ---- Being honest, I think it is too much fuss about a cartoon, such as boycotting the goods and shutting down the embassies.

[Samimiy]

P.S. this controversy is not only about Islam

I disagree. Muslims tend to be much more sensitive than others when it comes to ridiculing/belittling what they hold holy and dear. This is evident from the outrage to these cartoons as well as the American troops flushing the Quran down the toilet.
Adherents of other major religions tend to "let it go". For them it's really not a big deal. You see religious-themed cartoons in newspapers quite often and nobody cares.
Going back to your question, I think in general these kind of should be allowed, like anything else. But whoever publishes them should so so at their own risk. In this sense, it's like saying "Hitler was a great man". I mean according to freedom of speech, you should be able to say that, but nobody actually dares. They would be immediately labeled "nazi, fascist, anti-semite", etc. So when this Danish paper published those cartoons, they should have anticipated the reaction from the Muslim world.

[Royal]

it should be a respect of other religions

Anyone who cares about Muslims,
Please sign following petitions and support us!!!


Please dissiminate the petition everywhere!!!
------------

To Danish Government : http://www.petitiononline.com/DENMUS/petition.html

To Magazinet editor Vebjoern Selbekk : http://www.petitiononline.com/lana34/petition.html

To HIS EXCELLENCY, Dr. Per Stig Mшller the minister of the foreign affairs of the Denmark : http://www.petitiononline.com/Eagle999/petition.html

To Danemark government : http://www.petitiononline.com/Antislam/petition.html

ana borakanu yoqdan kora:

Where are that generator and the text of the protest?

lekin shunaqa narsaniyam forumda qoysa bolarmikin degandaydim..

[stanford]

Being honest, I did not find those cartoons offencive:rolleyes:

I believe rules should always be over freedom especially when it comes to express, meaning your expression must be ruled and limited .Like your freedom allows you listening to music but you know that keeping the volume high in the middle of the night will wake up your neighbors. So, when it comes to hurting others and their feelings, your freedom should end there.

We love our prophet more then our families , more then ourselves, we follow him all our life, he is the person who showed us how to live, insulting him means insulting all his followers. Allah S.T says in al-imran “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind”, means the best of people for the people and the Ummah of Muhammad S.W is the most righteous and beneficial nation for mankind. This is our faith. When you start sharing this beleive with us you will understand our feelings and probably would not say "un-offensive".

Cartoons meant Muhammad S.W and his followers less human and stupid, didn’t they? It was totally offensive. They may not believe to what we believe, but attacking our faith is totally wrong.

What we will achieve as Muslims are all because of beloved Muhammad S.W, peace be upon him, the most regarded of Allah's creation and the most honored Messenger.

[stanford]

Well, follow up for Inkognito ---- Being honest, I think it is too much fuss about a cartoon, such as boycotting the goods and shutting down the embassies.

I think you don't realize how it feels when someone ridicules and mocks something or someone sacred to people as their way of life.

[PainKiller]

When you start sharing this beleive with us you will understand our feelings and probably would not say "un-offensive".
.Do u mean I am a Kafeer?:rolleyes:

[stanford]

Do u mean I am a Kafeer?:rolleyes:
I said if you share this


We love our prophet more then our families , more then ourselves, we follow him all our life, he is the person who showed us how to live, insulting him means insulting all his followers. Allah S.T says in al-imran “You are the best of peoples ever raised up for mankind”, means the best of peoples for the people and the Ummah of Muhammad S.W is the most righteous and beneficial nation for mankind

[Guardian]

I wonder what would have happened if an Iranian/Saudi Arabian newspaper depicted a cartoon of a Nazi Concentration-camp with Jews being mocked in there? Would it be freedom of speech, or anti-semitism?

[Буратино]

Hah,they would have bombed the shit out of them

I wonder what would have happened if an Iranian/Saudi Arabian newspaper depicted a cartoon of a Nazi Concentration-camp with Jews being mocked in there? Would it be freedom of speech, or anti-semitism?

[UzLand]

The wrong thing about these caricatures is that the prophet representing Muslims and Islam has been portrayed in a bad manner meaning that all the Muslims are such.

For example, take the caricature about suicide bombers.

By depicting the prophet as a suicide bomber the caricature means that all the Muslims are suicide bombers which is a very wrong assumption. Suicide bombers don't even represent 1 percent of all Muslims in the world therefore such an assumption is wrong politically and logically and therefore has nothing to do with the freedom of speech.

[melo]

I wonder what would have happened if an Iranian/Saudi Arabian newspaper depicted a cartoon of a Nazi Concentration-camp with Jews being mocked in there? Would it be freedom of speech, or anti-semitism?

:rolleyes: Ridiculous- Iran has vowed to toally detsory the Israeli state and Israel hasn't done anything back. Seems like stronger words than a cartoon. Multiple arab nations have tried to destroy Israel several times and failed. I don't think Israel would be so concerned with a cartoon.

[Pinkie]

:rolleyes: Ridiculous- Iran has vowed to toally detsory the Israeli state and Israel hasn't done anything back. Seems like stronger words than a cartoon. Multiple arab nations have tried to destroy Israel several times and failed. I don't think Israel would be so concerned with a cartoon.
Of course Israel wouldn't be concerned with the cartoon........................................... ............................do I need to say why?:rolleyes:

As for the taboo subject....It's hard to specify what is taboo in the law of society. People break cultural traditions, societal laws etc. What is taboo for me, might not be taboo for you or the U.S government or what is taboo for society is not for me. It's all based on the values of the individual...and that individuals cultural background (if they follow their traditions). The list can go on...

[Aziz]

Situation around offensive cartoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy) depicting Prophet Muhammed have raised a storm of emotions and protest.

What in your view should be a taboo? Say, if you were to make a law, what would you make illegal? How would you define limits of free press?


Delf.
P.S. this controversy is not only about Islam, you can read a list major controversies about freedom of speech and offensive, blasphemous cartoons here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy#Other_controv ersial_newspaper_caricatures).

anything that offense any icon or any belief, or shows racism, is not considered to be a freedom of speech.

your freedom ends when you violate others' freedom.

[Aziz]

I wonder what would have happened if an Iranian/Saudi Arabian newspaper depicted a cartoon of a Nazi Concentration-camp with Jews being mocked in there? Would it be freedom of speech, or anti-semitism?

don't go so far....what if that same newspaper denied the holocost?, it would be a disaster.

[Samimiy]

:rolleyes: Ridiculous- Iran has vowed to toally detsory the Israeli state and Israel hasn't done anything back.
This is false. Israeli Defense minister acknowledged that his country was considering a military strike against Iran.
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1078198.php/Iran_faces_%60destruction%60_-_Israel_warns

Plus, if by Iran you mean their president's recent speech, nowhere in the speech he says Iran would (try to) destroy Israel. He said Palestinian people would wipe Israel off the map.

A poll on the CNN website on the issue:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/02/02/cartoons.wrap/index.html

[Frida]

Seems like everything is mocking of Islam for some people, no matter if it is a cartoon or a teacher who taught some stuff about terrorism....
Teacher Charged With Mocking Religion Sentenced to Jail
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=73171

[Delf]

Wow, so much offtop!

People please stick to the topic:

What in your view should be a taboo?
If you were to make a law, what would you make illegal?
How would you define limits of free press?


Delf.

[Uzbek.1]

Wow, so much offtop!

People please stick to the topic:

Delf.
What in your view should be a taboo? If it insults way too many people!!! If it is far far away from truth ..and serves no purpose..

If you were to make a law, what would you make illegal? They should only print educational and things they well aware of..
How would you define limits of free press?
This is tricky... When i saw those cartoons i just did not feel like they were serving any purpose at all... They make fun of Jesus all the time in here but not to the point at those cartoons...

[Guardian]

In fact Danish Criminal Code prohibits any person to publicly ridicule or insult the dogmas of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark. Section 266b criminalizes the dissemination of statements or other information by which a group of people are threatened, insulted or degraded on account of their religion.


The right to freedom of speech must be exercised with the necessary respect for other human rights, including the right to protection against discrimination, insult and degradation.

Depicting Black people = Racism!
Depicting Swastika/ German con-camps = anti-semitism!
Depicting Holy Prophet of Islam (PBUH) in ridiculing way = They are OK. Freedom of speech???

[bacha]

All the above having been said, just wanted to remind that in Afghanistan the huge and beautiful statutes of Buddha were destroyed. How a buddhist must have felt at that time?

[UzLand]

don't go so far....what if that same newspaper denied the holocost?, it would be a disaster.

Exactly. Nobody would call it a freedom of speech. It would be called anti-semitism:)

[PainKiller]

All the above having been said, just wanted to remind that in Afghanistan the huge and beautiful statutes of Buddha were destroyed. How a buddhist must have felt at that time?Well, it was destroyed by Taliban terrorists. Do u think it is correct to compare the newspaper published in Democratic country, with what was done by Taliban? :rolleyes:

[Joha]

People please stick to the topic:

What in your view should be a taboo?
If you were to make a law, what would you make illegal?
How would you define limits of free press?


Delf.

“And whoever does not Rule by what Allah has Revealed, Verily they are Kafiroon (Disbelievers)” [Al-Maidah 5:44]

[Delf]

“And whoever does not Rule by what Allah has Revealed, Verily they are Kafiroon (Disbelievers)” [Al-Maidah 5:44]

Devil is in the detail, Joha :)

General statements are of no use when it comes to framing a law. You have to define certain things and adopt a law according your definitions. That is what I am asking.

Delf.

[Joha]

Devil is in the detail, Joha :)

General statements are of no use when it comes to framing a law. You have to define certain things and adopt a law according your definitions. That is what I am asking.

Delf.

No need to create wheel again. Accordingly there is no need to search and create "perfect" law when it is already given by GOD to human kind.

[Sayyoh]

Being honest, I did not find those cartoons offencive:rolleyes: ...hypocritical (http://www.forum.uz/showpost.php?p=320661&postcount=13)...





Please make your point without using swear words of any form!

[referee]

Well, follow up for Inkognito ---- Being honest, I think it is too much fuss about a cartoon, such as boycotting the goods and shutting down the embassies.

Frida and Inko,
Are you both Muslim? How much do you know of your religion?
Sorry for a personal question (no need to answer if preferred), but if you are then you'd know that depicting Prophet in any image is not allowed in order to prevent idolotry, not to mention about cases when such images are intended to ridicule, defame or dehumanize our Prophet pbuh....

[bacha]

Well, it was destroyed by Taliban terrorists. Do u think it is correct to compare the newspaper published in Democratic country, with what was done by Taliban? :rolleyes:
Taliban terrorists are/was a part of muslim society/ummah. If we understand that, maybe we will react to those kind of cartoons in a less emotional form? In every society there is a bit of intolerance and radicalism. The story of those cartoons say that a man wrote a book, and looked for charicaturists. As nobody dared to do so, he asked 50 charicaturists all over the country to do that. Only 12 responded, and their works were printed in that newspaper. The book was for kids, and drawing the prophet(may peace be upon him) as a terrorist was a direct intention to insult muslims. It was obviously drawn by "talibans" of Danish origins. 13% votes for far-right nationalist parties in that country, they have their own fascists.

[krokobazuka]

I wonder what would have happened if an Iranian/Saudi Arabian newspaper depicted a cartoon of a Nazi Concentration-camp with Jews being mocked in there? Would it be freedom of speech, or anti-semitism?

In fact, this has just been done on the web site of Arab-European league...

http://www.lenta.ru/news/2006/02/05/cartoons/

As you all may know, denying "Holocaust" or making fun of Jews with regards to WW-II is considered a crime in many European countries. Why is that? Why you can have a taboo on Holocaust and can't even present a scientific case against it, yet it is allowed to make cartoons that offend the faith of more than a billion of people..

This is where hypocrisy lies.. Many European countries talk about the freedom of speach - but it is not completely free. There are still "fragile points", "taboo lines" which you can't cross. Can you imagine if these AEL cartoons were posted BEFORE Danish cartoons?

[Delf]

No need to create wheel again. Accordingly there is no need to search and create "perfect" law when it is already given by GOD to human kind.

That is not a law. It is a phrase from Koran.
I am talking about laws, those that are discussed, passed, amended and dismissed. I am not talking about phrases from Koran that are recited during prayers.

Even if you try to take Koran as a base you have to make a law. What would be law on embrionic research? On genetic research? On space exploration? On nuclear weapons? On telecommunication networks? On file sharing software? On intellectual property? On patents? Etc etc etc.

Again, I am talking about laws.

Delf.

[bacha]

Dear Delf,
You perfectly know that for a devoted muslim there is no law above the Quran. For you the laws that are discussed and amended are the ones that might be called a law, for me personally the Quranic suras contain more authoritative power than those of yours. Everybody has his own opinion, so lets respect each others beliefs, values and etc. ;)

Second paragraph of your post is not worth discussing as you are mixing scientific laws with societal ones.

[Delf]

Dear Delf,
You perfectly know that for a devoted muslim there is no law above the Quran. For you the laws that are discussed and amended are the ones that might be called a law, for me personally the Quranic suras contain more authoritative power than those of yours. Everybody has his own opinion, so lets respect each others beliefs, values and etc. ;)

Second paragraph of your post is not worth discussing as you are mixing scientific laws with societal ones.
Second paragraph is not mixing anything. I am stating that there are laws (societal) on areas of human activity, like file sharing, privacy; laws on on such things as patents, intellectual property, certain areas of scientific research.


I perfectly undertand that Koran is sacred for some people and spiritually stands above all. What I am saying is that Koran itself is not a law. It is a sacred text/book (in the view of a Muslim). A law is a different thing. You can derive law according to Koran or according to other things.

So, if you go to my 1st post in this thread, my question is: "Say, if you were to make a law, what would you make illegal?"


Delf.

[PainKiller]

...hypocritical (http://www.forum.uz/showpost.php?p=320661&postcount=13)...





Please make your point without using swear words of any form!The thing with me is, I think Muslims should react for this kind of cases. I belive this will prevent "Journalists" to go further. But I am not offended. I even understand those "atheist" Journalists, who probably did not realize how serious it was for the opposite side. U call those people "silly", not provocative. And U let them know. But u do not push the goverment to apologize for what the press did. Because, press it is not controled by the goverment. This journalist, could've made fun of president or some govermental official the same way. And, the fact that goverment and press is not connected anyhow, makes press more open, gives journalists chance to work freely. If Goverment will ask them to apologize, that means, the press is not free anymore. And for any crap said by the paper, the goverment will have to take responsibility. I belive, Muslim Organizations, should work with the lawers of this country to find the law which will be on their side, and try to solve the problem through the court. But no Goverment. No boycott. Goverment has nothing to do with it. I am not offended, But I think they should not leave it this way.
Kapish?

[Abu Hurayra]

Even christians and other non muslim Parties who respect themselves and the culture of others said that this was irrespectfull and offensive action towards the belief of Muslim-Islam. Ofcourse we can not accuse the whole danish nation.
The weekest level of our Belief is that when we see something bad we must hate it.
I am sorry for those who pretend to be muslim but do not care about it.

Note: they ve killed our people,
they have tortured our people,
they have burned our Qur'an..
they have Laughed at our Prophet..
what is next?


PS: The time is coming soon.....

[Amiri Turkiston]

I'm sure threre is some third entity who benefits from all these things

Sometimes when the country's economy feels some regration the government/president of that country is trying to scapegoting to other external events

And populations of that powerful country who are not happy with his government - are loosing their watchfulness & forgeting their disagreements


Just find what country do I mean??

[Sayyoh]

The thing with me is, I think Muslims should react for this kind of cases. I belive this will prevent "Journalists" to go further. But I am not offended. I even understand those "atheist" Journalists, who probably did not realize how serious it was for the opposite side. U call those people "silly", not provocative. And U let them know. But u do not push the goverment to apologize for what the press did. Because, press it is not controled by the goverment. This journalist, could've made fun of president or some govermental official the same way. And, the fact that goverment and press is not connected anyhow, makes press more open, gives journalists chance to work freely. If Goverment will ask them to apologize, that means, the press is not free anymore. And for any crap said by the paper, the goverment will have to take responsibility. I belive, Muslim Organizations should work with the lawers of this country to find the law which will be on their side, and try to solve the problem through the court. But no Goverment. No boycott. Goverment has nothing to do with it. I am not offended, But I think they should not leave it this way.
Kapish? Агар бир марта булганда эътиборсизлик килиб, индамай утирилаверса, кеыинги сафар яна бирон бир ахмокликни ойлаб топади. Кечирим сураши керак.i enjoy conversing with you, Krootaya...

[referee]

I even understand those "atheist" Journalists, who probably did not realize how serious it was for the opposite side.

Just a factual information on what was behind the decision of the extremist papers to publish the insulting cartoon. They aren't naive or misinformed as people like to believe...
Read below

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702538,00.html

[PainKiller]

i enjoy conversing with you, Krootaya...Stop confusing feelings with what is right and what is not. I am repeating for u, Sayyoh, The Journalist who did this, should either appologize or muslim organizations Of UE should file against him.
This will prevent publishing pictures of this sort, and help people like u from being offended one more time. I am talking case, Sayyoh, no emotions. I have more emotions regarding import-export boycotts.

[melo]

Ok- Denmark is a mostly Christian country. Like most scandanavian countries - almost everyone there is of the same ethnic backgorund. It is not a diverse country. Why is the international muslim community becoming so concerned with what was written in a danish newspaper. You guys didn't know there are idiots in the world. I see idiots everyday- I ignore them. How does it affect anyone that some idiot wrote a stupid cartoon in a danish newspaper????? If people hate freedom of press- don't imigrate there in huge numbers. There are plenty of middle eastern countries that have no freedoms at all (Iran, Saudia Arabia)

[Amir_Caric]

bu oddiy provokatsiya!

[UzLand]

Дания - это бывшая страна варваров:) А так, вполне демократичная. Просто идиоты встречаются везде.

[Sayyoh]

Stop confusing feelings with what is right and what is not. I am repeating for u, Sayyoh, The Journalist who did this, should either appologize or muslim organizations Of UE should file against him.
This will prevent publishing pictures of this sort, and help people like u from being offended one more time. I am talking case, Sayyoh, no emotions. I have more emotions regarding import-export boycotts. sweetheart, i have only quoted YOURSELF... nou hart pilinks uotsoevir

a tak i think that if yourn't offended with tohse pix, then u should prolly check out [whether] your iyman [is there in the first place?!]

Piligrim

BTW, I admire your persistence in spelling the "Journalist" with a capital J...

[Frida]

Frida and Inko,
Are you both Muslim? How much do you know of your religion?
Sorry for a personal question (no need to answer if preferred), but if you are then you'd know that depicting Prophet in any image is not allowed in order to prevent idolotry, not to mention about cases when such images are intended to ridicule, defame or dehumanize our Prophet pbuh....

Yeah, dont preach me here. I know what is written about the image and other things. The idea is some people are making this whole thing so provocative. It could have been solved in more civilized way. If they draw it, let them pay for that. Burning embassies, shootings and diying in the protests and sanctioning goods is not the response. Why do Muslims wanna see everything from one angle? Now they rioting, but when the whole statue of Buddah was destroyed for most of the Muslim world it was a good thing -- it was destroying Ma'buda. The freedom of expression and press wasnt created so that some people can just threaten it and stop it. Of course there should be limits, values, (I mentioned about in posts above). You can call me what ever you want to, but dont question my faith. People can have strong faith but have different opinion on the same issue. That is the beauty of diversity -- in culture, values and the opinion.

[Sayyoh]

If they draw it, let them pay for that. I think you were answering yourself for the above statement by saying Burning embassies, shootings and diying in the protests and sanctioning goods

Why do Muslims wanna see everything from one angle? Now they rioting, but when the whole statue of Buddah was destroyed for most of the Muslim world it was a good thing -- it was destroying Ma'buda.... I am not too sure whether you are realizing what you are saying... Ms Kahlo, do you understand what you are saying?.. You are saying "Muslims thought it was a good thing when a Buddah statue was destroyed"... Nu da!!! Ty blin dayosh! Razve ne budet hristianin rad uslyshat, chto Injeel est naibolee reliable divinely-inspired book, naprimer?! eto je LOGICHNO!!! Logichno, chto Musulmane ne byli protiv (schitay chto Sayyoh byl ochen daje rad), kogda Taliby otpravili k samomu budde "ego" statuyu - potomu chto eto idol, i konechno Musulmane PROTIV togo, chto b risovali Muhammada saw! Ne oznachaet li eto chto Musulmane PRIDERJIVAYUTSA svoih kanonov?..

[Frida]

I think you were answering yourself for the above statement by saying

Let them pay for that --- newspaper and those people who drew it, not the Danish embassadors and the bussinesses. That is what I meant.

... I am not too sure whether you are realizing what you are saying... Ms Kahlo, do you understand what you are saying?..
Yeah, you are right, I am having the same feeling. You arent getting what I am saying. I guess to understand that you have to look to the other side of the issue too. I guess it requires a bit tolerance to other ideas, perhaps??

... eto je LOGICHNO!!! Logichno, chto Musulmane ne byli protiv (schitay chto Sayyoh byl ochen daje rad), kogda Taliby otpravili k samomu budde "ego" statuyu - potomu chto eto idol, i konechno Musulmane PROTIV togo, chto b risovali Muhammada saw! Ne oznachaet li eto chto Musulmane PRIDERJIVAYUTSA svoih kanonov?..

Here, here it is ---- a hypocrasy!!! Yes, it is ok to blow up Buddah cause it is written in Holy Koran, and they are PRIDERJIVAYUTSA svoih kanonov!!! So, you dont care what Buddist think, believe and value? It is ok to blow the f*** Buddah up and send it as you say to Buddah just because according to your beliefs this statue is bad??? And now dearest Sayyoh who byl ochen daje rad when the world got rid of a wonderful historical reminder, tell me, why should people with different beliefs respect your values if you arent doing the same towards them? Dont you think journalists are PRIDERJIVAYUTSA svoih kanonov!!! So according to you the values of Muslims are real and anyone else should go to hell? Maybe you should look around and see that this world is not homogeneous? --- That was an answer to your previous questions.
Well back to my point: Newspaper should be responsible what it did -- not the government and people! and it already apologized. It just crazy Muslim clerics who are trying to make this whole thing big issue.

[bekzoduz@la]

In my opinion, the author of the cartoon meant no harm. I think it was a satire. He was just satirizing the people who think that way about Muslims. The Christians, Jews, and others also satirize their own religious figures. If you watch cartoons like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park, there is satire about god and Jesus. They make Jesus look like a fool. Most people know that is not true; these cartoons are just satires of our societies. Another reason why Christians and Jews don't look at religious cartoons in an offensive way is because they have had Enlightenment about their beliefs: there was a period when they questioned their religious beliefs. In our religious world, we have not had an Enlightenment. There hasn't been a period where we have discussed some of our beliefs. That's why there are Muslim terrorist who think Jihad means commiting suicide and killing others. Muslims know that Jihad doesn't mean that. I think if we had an Enlightenment we would not see this Danish cartoon as an offensive message.

[Black]

In my opinion, the author of the cartoon meant no harm. I think it was a satire. He was just satirizing the people who think that way about Muslims. The Christians, Jews, and others also satirize their own religious figures. If you watch cartoons like The Simpsons, Family Guy, and South Park, there is satire about god and Jesus. They make Jesus look like a fool. Most people know that is not true; these cartoons are just satires of our societies. Another reason why Christians and Jews don't look at religious cartoons in an offensive way is because they have had Enlightenment about their beliefs: there was a period when they questioned their religious beliefs. In our religious world, we have not had an Enlightenment. There hasn't been a period where we have discussed some of our beliefs. That's why there are Muslim terrorist who think Jihad means commiting suicide and killing others. Muslims know that Jihad doesn't mean that. I think if we had an Enlightenment we would not see this Danish cartoon as an offensive message.

First, you are wrong if you think that the author did not mean to harm. If somebody make a draw of you mother having sex with a dog and say that he did not mean to harm do you believe to him? If you say "Yes", sorry dude you place is in phsycopheratic hospital (Jinnihona). (Sorry for being rude, but I try to explain to you what you could not understand so far)
Second, muslims always did and do question their beliefs throught history. The fact is that you don't know it. That's why you are saying such silly words.
Third, muslims are niether Cristians nor Jews, we don't mind them having sex with their own sisters (under their "free will of expression") but we do not allow them to have sex with our sisters (sorry for being rude but I want to explain you something you could not understand so far). Thus they can make cartoons of their own beliefs as much as they want, but they have no right to attack our belief. It is like you can curse you mom as much as you want, but you can not curse my mom. Got it!
As for the Enlightment, Qur'an is the Enlightment, so saying muslims did not have englightment is totally absurd.
I sincerely advise you, before joining such discussions you need to learn something on Islam.

No offence intended anybody.

[Black]

P.S. As for the Buddah stature, How short minded people are, how easily they forgot what was the real reason Taliban destroyed it. Or maybe they are delibarately "forgetting" it. I think they are.
This fact shows that the West and people (some muslims as well) brainwashed by the West have double standards and try their best to demonize muslims as much possible. Shame on you!

[referee]

Yeah, dont preach me here.

It was a question, not an act of preaching - no need for insecurities to take charge here...

I know what is written about the image and other things. The idea is some people are making this whole thing so provocative. It could have been solved in more civilized way.

How do you define "a civilized way"? Is it a way that Europeans tell you what is civilized and what is not? How civilized was publishing such a provocation and then covering up it all behind freedom of speech?


If they draw it, let them pay for that.

So you agree that there is a price to pay for this provocation? The difference is that Europeans wanted us to set a price too low, and some Muslims wanted to set it high.

Now they rioting, but when the whole statue of Buddah was destroyed for most of the Muslim world it was a good thing -- it was destroying Ma'buda.

Many Muslims were against the distruction of the Buddha statue! Now you want Muslims go and riot on behalf of Buddhists? We can't fight all battles! However, such criticism can be made of non-Muslims too!

The freedom of expression and press wasnt created so that some people can just threaten it and stop it. Of course there should be limits, values, (I mentioned about in posts above).

I agree that freedom of expression is too dear to be threatened, threatened by the right-wing fascists of Europe who abuse it and try to hide their agenda behind it, just like Hitler did. So may people accusing Muslims of threatening freedom of press and speech are barking at the wrong tree!

You can call me what ever you want to, but dont question my faith. People can have strong faith but have different opinion on the same issue. That is the beauty of diversity -- in culture, values and the opinion.

It may surprise you but I'm not concerned about the state of your faith. My question was about how much you know about Islam's position on such issues as mocking the Prophet pbuh. Opinions differ indeed (e.g. how to respond to provocation), but there are concepts and issues that are crystal clear to all Muslims except for those who are either ignorant or in denial...

no personal feelings i hope:)

[bekzoduz@la]

First, you are wrong if you think that the author did not mean to harm. If somebody make a draw of you mother having sex with a dog and say that he did not mean to harm do you believe to him? If you say "Yes", sorry dude you place is in phsycopheratic hospital (Jinnihona). (Sorry for being rude, but I try to explain to you what you could not understand so far)
Second, muslims always did and do question their beliefs throught history. The fact is that you don't know it. That's why you are saying such silly words.
Third, muslims are niether Cristians nor Jews, we don't mind them having sex with their own sisters (under their "free will of expression") but we do not allow them to have sex with our sisters (sorry for being rude but I want to explain you something you could not understand so far). Thus they can make cartoons of their own beliefs as much as they want, but they have no right to attack our belief. It is like you can curse you mom as much as you want, but you can not curse my mom. Got it!
As for the Enlightment, Qur'an is the Enlightment, so saying muslims did not have englightment is totally absurd.
I sincerely advise you, before joining such discussions you need to learn something on Islam.

No offence intended anybody.

Hey, I am sorry if I offended you by anything I said. I was just offering my opinion. Maybe you are right, but that doesn't mean I don't have the right to my opinion. Apparently, I am not the only one with this opinion. Lastly, I am a Muslim, so I wouldn't have expressed my opinion without previous knowledge of the subject.

P.S. Christians and Jews are against incest. Can you provide me a certain period of history when we questioned our beliefs?

[Delf]

Wow, so much offtop!!!

Guys, plz get back to the topic:
What in your view should be a taboo in mass media?
Say, if you were to make a law, what would you make illegal?
How would you define limits of free press?

Delf.

[Mubina]

Russia press published pictures of Mohammad saw from their point of view. Astag'firillloh.

<H3 class=title_of_newsarticle>Caricature depicting holy figures appears in Volgograd


Volgograd, February 14, Interfax - Volgograd's Gorodskiye vesti newspaper has published a drawing depicting Jesus Christ, Moses, Buddha and the Prophet Muhammad watching TV.

Two groups of people are ready to clash on the TV screen. The caption reads: "We did not teach you that."

The United Russia party's Volgograd branch said the drawing were offending the feelings of believers and called on the city's population to boycott the newspaper, a source in the party's branch told Interfax.

However, neither Volgograd's Orthodox and Catholic churches, the local Jewish community center nor the Volgograd region's Muslim community has described the drawing as offensive, a source in the newspaper's administration told Interfax.

The article and the drawing accompanying it were dedicated to an agreement signed by the region's parties and public organizations to fight nationalism, xenophobia and religious strife, the source said.

Volgograd region prosecutor Mikhail Belyak has sent a letter to Gorodskiye vesti urging "effective measures to prevent similar incidents in the future," the press service of the regional prosecutor's office told Interfax.

"Given today's tensions among various religions in the world and Russia, publications of such caricatures may provoke an inadequate reaction among believers, lead to attempts by radical forces to fuel religious discord and entail extremely negative consequences, including religion-based crimes and violations," the letter reads.
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=1027
</H3>