The most famous cartoon ever (serius topic, no spam)

[CM]

I know i said i wouldn't respond and in many cases i always limit what i am going to say out of respect for Buck. I am one of the few people who holds opinions which are contrary to the views of the majority of the posters and don't want to cause any fuss for Buck. But enough is enough.

Now firstly to discuss the "grasping at straws" the ones posting the news about the pig picture are doing. Firstly I would suggest you take off those rose-tinted glasses of yours. They skew reality. Now lets go back methodically through the timeline.

1. Sept 2005 - Pictures published. Small protests in the Islamic world.
2. Oct 2005 - Request for meeting - Denied.
3. Nov 2005 - Imam delegation with 3 extra pictures including pig picture travel to middle east. Reaction? NONE.
4. Jan 2006 - Norway republishes pictures. Demonstrations.
5. Feb 2006 - European news papers publish the pictures again. Riots occur now.

Lets see how many months is that? 5.

When were the fake cartoons circulated? Nov. What is it now feb? 4 months....hmmm considering all the big fuss you lot are making about the fake pictures being the main cause of the riots, wouldn't you think that this would have happened in Nov?

Nope. Nothing happened. Rather illogical don't you think?

Considering these fake pictures were shown around in Nov wouldn't you think that the Muslim media would use this as cannon fodder to incite the people?

Yet did that happen? Nope. Nothing Happened do to it. Rather illogical considering the way you lot present the facts.

Secondly you want a causal link between the riots and the pictures? Just look at the BBC website. There is enough there to see that the riots are directly linked to the time when the Europeans re-printed the matter for the 3rd time in Jan/Feb.

Now on to the posts of fellow posters.

[quote="Xandax]When looking objectively at this situation"]

Xandax i can say with 100% certain that is a blatant lie. No pictures exist. Do you have any proof on the matter? Because i know for a fact that there are none and have never been any pictures of paintings allowed of the Holy Prophet. Do you know of the movie "The Message"? Its a movie on the life of the Holy Prophet yet not once is he shown. Everything he said in life is shown through a proxy. If hollywood could respect Islamic traditions in the 1980s. How hard is it for Europe to do so now?

So either prove it Xandax of stop lying.

[quote="Xandax]There is much much more to this then the twelve measely drawings"]

Typical. You have not heard a single word any muslim has said. You really need to learn read my posts more clearly. The issue is not what they depicted. The fact is that they drew the Holy prophet. That was the issue. That has always been the issue. You can not draw the Holy Prophet.

Now Xandax considering you are applying your own moral values to the picture and its offense, please answer my question which i have posed 3 times to you and you have refused to answer. Tell me why should we apply the European moral values to what we deem acceptible or not?

The pictures are not offensive to you? Who really gives a damn. They are offensive to us. So tell me why we should use European values to define what is acceptible to us?

You do realise your "theory" can fall flat in a matter of minutes? Firstly the whole Iran nuclear issue has been boiling before Sept. Actually started in March last year. The Iranis didn't act till what last week? 5 months after the issue started.

The Palestinain elections were held only a month ago, yet this issue is 5 months hold.

You had protests in:

1. Pakistan
2. Afghanistan
3. Iraq
4. Iran
5. Saudi Arabia
6. Syria
7. Lebanon
8. Jordan
9. Egypt
10. Palestine
11. Indonesia
12. Malaysia.
13. Nigeria.
14. Mauritania.

Etc etc.

In indonesia the US and Danish missions were attacked twice.

As you can see this does not link to any single terrorist grouping or terrorist organization.

Malaysia and Indonesia have none. The protests were normal people. Same with Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has a very strict and controlled society. So you can't blame terrorists there.

The only place you can honestly use the excuse of terrorists is Palestine, Syria and Iran. Though everybody knows that in Syria that was the common man and everybody knows the society of Iran so you really can't blame terrorist groups there either.

On to freedom of speech. It is ironic that in europe you can not question facts about the holocaust. Already had a case on it in the UK. It is against the law in Germany, France and denmark (i believe - Xandax i think stated that somewhere). So much for freedom of speech.

The hypocrasy knows no bounds. When the Taliban were destory the Bayyan Bhuddas everybody was for the respect and tolerance of religion (regardless of what my religion said or did not say)

Yet now its the opposite. Freedom of speech trumps respect and tolerance for religion. So much for tolerance being a hallmark of European Society.

Its amazing that people can redirect the issue all over the place instead of themselves.

Take note of the fact that if the pictures were never published and religion was respected this would never happened.

No respect or tolerance was shown.

Secondly the Danish govt REFUSED to discuss the matter at all. There was no discussion on the matter in any manner. Peaceful or not. They just didn't care. So much for respect and tolerance.

The muslim world did not do anything for 5 months. 5 months there was no reaction. The actions were taken after Europe republished the pictures for the 3rd time.

[quote="xandax]Generalization for the win. No wonder this has blow so much out of proportion when even you can't seem to understand that there is a difference between one newspaper and twenty and an entier nation.[/quote"]

Wow talk about hypocrasy and not knowing what you yourself have stated. Shall we go through your posts where you equate a religion of 1 billion people with the actions of what 10,000 terrorists?

Xandax you state that this could lead to a shift in the right. Do a search on Brookings. They have a nice paper which the Jordanian Ambassador has circulated which shows in figures and facts that the EU as a whole is more a rightest entity in 2004 than it was in 1990. Way before this happened.

In Europe the increase in racist parties getting votes has been on the rise since Haider won the election in Austria. Then you had Switzerland. France. Netherlands. Denmark if i recall correctly had a far right radical party win a large number of seats a few years ago.

Poland is already racist as it is. The only place i know in Europe where being called a Jew is an insult. Belgium the situation is already known after the Iran fiasco.

Europe has steadily become racist against Muslims for the past 10 years. I mean Switzerland nearly passed a bill where they would cap the number of minorities in their lands. Meaning they would have a fixed number of blacks, arabs, chinese, etc etc. So much for tolerance and respect.

This is not a new situation. It is just brushed under the carpet all the time.

@Luis - MSN it is. But i will be on late tonight after 8 pm US time. So thats like 11 pm for you.

[Magrus]

I haven't bothered to read all of the posts here, and haven't kept track of everything in the news about it. Yet, I caught the news involving one of the embassies being attacked a few days ago on my lunch break after reading the first few posts of this thread last week I think it was. So, here's my personal viewpoint.

I have my religion, and I take it seriously. I push it on no one, I hurt no one because of it, and I expect others to respect the fact it is important to me. I would become irate if someone deliberately published something against my religion as a whole for what a number of irrational people who followed it do which is against my religion. Such nonsense is ignorant slander. For those who kept tossing it in my face after peaceful requests to stop, I'd stomp them good and hard until they did stop. Kudos to the Muslims for standing up for themselves I say.

[CM]

Magrus though i sometimes agree with your sentiments, these attacks on the missions have done much worse for us than good. The attacks are just going to be another reason the US attacks Syria. They have been battling at the UN very hard to get their way like with Iraq.

The attacks in Lebanon will just give the Israelis more ammo to constantly bombard Beruit and other cities. The Israeli airforce on average attacks Lebanon twice a month attacks with missles, helicopters and airplanes.

It will stiffen the stance on Iran, which has every right to have nuclear weapons.

It will make it much worse for Pakistan because we are by far the strongest Muslim nation and thus a direct threat to the US's and EU's plans for the world.

[penguin_king]

i can see how these images can be seen as offensive, but i really think people are making a mountain out of a molehill here. i mean, sure it shows a religious... god figure? not sure how to phrase this, but it shows him as a terrorist. and with events over the past few years like 9/11 and the london bombings in july, for example, the cartoon was a foolish idea and should have been kept to the people that mede them and not published for anyone to see.

[CM]

To point out to PK that muslims have an issue with the fact that he was drawn. That was the offense. To draw the Prophet is against our religion. I don't think anybody really in the islamic world has gone past that issue as of yet. Once they do expect more riots.

[Magrus]

*shakes my head* As long as there are those in power of this country as there are now, no country with resources they see as being needed here is safe from intrusion. The USofA has gone from world superpower to desperate conquerer. IMHO those countries mentioned are already future targets.

Violence always causes more problems once started. The questions is always "for whom" though, isn't it? There have been violent problems in those areas for a while, and other areas trying to quiet it down. It hasn't quieted down, people have stepped in, done so for them, and then it's gone right back to being violent. I don't see that as changing soon. If it just takes a cartoon to set things off....it wasn't all the well to start with in the first place. Chaos is spreading, and in an increasingly violent manner.

[penguin_king]

now that i know that drawing the prophet is against the religion, these "artists" are truly sick minded and probably did this intentionally to offend muslims and 'cause further problems.

[Lestat]

Read the [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4693292.stm"]coverage of the BBC[/url] on amongst others the motivations of the cartoonists and the paper before making such statements PK.

Concerning the prohibition on imagery of the Prophet.
[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4674864.stm"]BBC[/url]
[url="http://www.slate.com/id/2135670/?nav=navoa"]Slate[/url]

Xandax i can say with 100% certain that is a blatant lie. No pictures exist. Do you have any proof on the matter? Because i know for a fact that there are none and have never been any pictures of paintings allowed of the Holy Prophet. Do you know of the movie "The Message"? Its a movie on the life of the Holy Prophet yet not once is he shown. Everything he said in life is shown through a proxy. If hollywood could respect Islamic traditions in the 1980s. How hard is it for Europe to do so now?

So that seems to contradict you, CM. And from the link in the Slate article I quote:

So, journalists, don't tell us this is a taboo subject matter in Islam. The physical depiction of the Prophet Muhammad may be a taboo subject matter in some sects of contemporary Islam, but let's all be clear -- this is not a universal prohibition.

Here are LOTS of examples for you arranged in chronological order:

From Rashid al-Din's Jami al Tawarikh (Compendium of Chronicles) - here's a page from the Met (with pictures) explaining some history of the book.
-----Khalili Collection Ms 727, Rashid al-Din's Compendium of Chronicles, f3a: Muhammad conquers Mecca, 1314, painted Iran.
-----Edinburgh University Library MS Arab 20, Rashid al Din's Compendium of Chronicles, Scene of the Birth of Muhammad, 1315, painted Iran. The baby Muhammad has a visible face. Here's a link to an image of ONE folio, though not one showing Muhammad.

---Topkapi Sarayi Library, Istanbul, B.282 Kulliyyat-i Tarikhi of Hafiz-i Bru, folio 171A: Muhammad Conquers Mecca, 1415-1416, painted Afghanistan -- Muhammad's face is a golden wash of fire and he stands in front of a gold background. F 169A shows Ali storming a fortress.

---Topkapi Sarayi Library, Istanbul, MS Hazine 2154, F 107:Muhammad describing Jerusalem, 1400-50, painted Iran -- FULLY FACED Muhammad.

---Paris, Bib Nat, SupplTurc 190, Hari-Malik Bakhshi, Mi'rajnama, folio 34B: Muhammad and the Angel Gabriel, 1425-50, painted Afghanistan. Fully faced Muhammad, both Muhammad and Buraq encased in flames.

---Khalili Collection MSS 620, The Giant Uj* and the Prophets Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, 15th Century book, painted Iraq - click this link, choose Publications, choose Vols XXV-XXVI, scroll down - it's the image in the left margin. I can't find the folio information without going to our library and the Khalili collection doesn't allow access to pages deep in the directory. Sorry.

---London, British Museum. Mi'raj, 1497, painted Iran. The thumbnail image I can see looks like a fully-faced Muhammad, but it won't enlarge and I'm not sure.

---Worcester Art Museum, page from a Khamseh of Nizami, Mi'raj, Muhammad on Buraq, 1550, painted Iran. Here's a link to a page from the book, but like the Edinburgh link not to the correct page. It begins to make me wonder if the curators are avoiding controversy by keeping the Muhammad images off the internet?

---Freer Gallery, Washington, Jami, Haft Awrang (Seven Thrones), F 275A, Mi'raj, Muhammad on Buraq, painted Iran, 1556-65. Go here, scroll to Arts of the Islamic World, choose the last virtual exhibition -- your tax dollars at work!! Choose the first poem of the 7 - "Chain of Gold." The Ascent of Muhammad (the Mi'raj) is the 4th page in. There's a nice note on the use of the veiled prophet (anyone from St. Louis reading? That's where it comes from.).

---Topkapi Sarayi Library, Istanbul, MS.Hazine 1221, Kitab Siya-i Nabi (Life of the Prophet), multiple scenes from the life, including the Birth, Call by Gabriel, the Call to Prayer from the top of the Kaba, the Mi'raj, and the Death of the Prophet, 1594, painted Turkey.

Maybe more reaction on other points later.

[Xandax]

<snip>
Xandax i can say with 100% certain that is a blatant lie. No pictures exist. Do you have any proof on the matter? Because i know for a fact that there are none and have never been any pictures of paintings allowed of the Holy Prophet. Do you know of the movie "The Message"? Its a movie on the life of the Holy Prophet yet not once is he shown. Everything he said in life is shown through a proxy. If hollywood could respect Islamic traditions in the 1980s. How hard is it for Europe to do so now?

So either prove it Xandax of stop lying.

Typical. You have not heard a single word any muslim has said. You really need to learn read my posts more clearly. The issue is not what they depicted. The fact is that they drew the Holy prophet. That was the issue. That has always been the issue. You can not draw the Holy Prophet.
<snip>

Well - 20 sec of searching yielded this site http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/
I'm sure a more extensive (re)search can provide with pictures/drawings from Muslims of muslims and - well Mohammed as well.

Welcome to the merry-go-round.
I've answered this so many times now in so many different forms from you, that I've lost count.
Islam dosen't have to "apply" our moral vaules to themselves - however the Western world or anyother non-islamic part 100% does not have to apply Islamic rules to their societies. If a paper in Denmark, Norway, France or elsewhere wishes to print these pictures they are well within their free democratic right to do so - unless the courts find them guilty of violating a law. That is what "you" fail to understand and thusly "you" are punishing an entier nation based on your moral values for the actions of a few.

<snip>
You do realise your "theory" can fall flat in a matter of minutes? Firstly the whole Iran nuclear issue has been boiling before Sept. Actually started in March last year. The Iranis didn't act till what last week? 5 months after the issue started.<snip>

Yes, of course I know that, but because evnts happen prior, doesn't mean you can capitalize on other events later.

And? - The loosing part in Palenstine could easily use this as a stepping platform on getting added support they so lost to Hamas.

<snip>
Malaysia and Indonesia have none. The protests were normal people. Same with Pakistan. Saudi Arabia has a very strict and controlled society. So you can't blame terrorists there.<snip>

Yes, I'll belive you when you say there are no terrorists groups or militant muslim groups in thoese countries. Of course I will.

I never stated it was against the law to question the Holocaust in Denmark, I'm not sure about Germany because they are touchy about that subject.
What I said was that it was illegal to instigate violance for instance by suggesting to kill jews everywhere you meet them.
How you possible can equate that with not being able to question the holocaust I can only image, although I have a pretty good idea.

A void argument which could just as easily be turned around.
If muslims tolerated and respected freedom of press and speech in democratic countries, this would never have happened.
Infact when Islam has no rule over the countries in question it strikes me as even more intolerant. These drawings where released in a non-Islamic country where Islamic laws and dogma hold no power over anything but the muslims and does not superseed national laws.
Blatantly wrong.
Some of the timeline:
14. oktober 2005: Two cartoniest go underground due to death threats adviced so from the police intelligence agency.
2. december 2005: Bounty on the cartonist set by Pakistanian party Jamaat-e-Islami
7. december 2005: Demonstrations in Pakistan
29. december 2005: Arab League critisises the government for not doing anything (which they can't).
10. januar 2006: Norweigen paper brings the picture.

So as you can see here - actions were taken prior to the reprinting. How was it you said to me ... "stop lying"?

Well - given the method used in this case, it does seem appropiate to "generalize" like that. It is what you are doing when asking that the PM appoligizes (more then he already have) and boycutting danish companies. Afterall - every dane is responsible just as every muslim is - right?
But then again - I've done my very best in this thread to seperate the fanatical madmen from the moderate who actually wants this issue resolved with something other then violence. And these people are the ones the danish government is in dialog with - not some random extreemist burning down embassies.

And the reason for this is excatly actions as these.
If the moderate muslim world could unite as it does against a couple of drawings against the (socalled) extreemists minority of terrorist and militant groups, then perhaps there would be greater sympathy and understanding.
But when you are met with a wall of "this is the only way because it is Islam" - tolerance is hard to give back.

[CM]

[QUOTE=Lestat]Read the coverage of the BBC on amongst others the motivations of the cartoonists and the paper before making such statements PK.

Concerning the prohibition on imagery of the Prophet.
BBC
Slate


So that seems to contradict you, CM. And from the link in the Slate article I quote:


Maybe more reaction on other points later.[/QUOTE]

Lestat just to point out three of the pictures in that list are not the Holy Prophet.
http://www.worcesterart.org/Collection/ ... 35.16.html - That is one example of a picture in the list that is not the Prophet Muhammad. (SAW) It is of another prophet. Read the second paragraph in the link and the title of the picture. This is why i never believe anything i read on the net unless I can back it up with credible proof. I will go through the rest later on as some of the links are not opening up at the UN.

Xandax i will respond to you later on today sometime hopefully.

[Lestat]

[QUOTE=CM]Lestat just to point out three of the pictures in that list are not the Holy Prophet.[/QUOTE]
Just to point out: neither did two of the twelve cartoons in the Jylland-Posten

And sorry no time to edit, but if you follow the link in the Slate article to [url="http://www.crankyprofessor.com/archives/000492.html"]this one[/url], you'll find the list with some links to images.

Edited since most images are not linked...

[CM]

Meeting has broken for 10 minutes. Thought i would respond to both Lestat and Xandax.

Firstly what is the credibility of your links? No seriously? Is this research done by a think tank? A Museum? A known expert on Islam? Is it Sells? Lapidius? Espisito? Chomsky?

What provides these links with credibility that they are truthful and honest?

I will like to take this topic by topic since i don't have the time to answer every post individually.

If it is ok with the both of you i would like to discuss:

1. The links above and the concept of the pictures of the prophet
2. The attacks in Islamic countries
3. The lack of action on the part of Europeans which ignited this mess.
And one or two more if i can remember what they are.

Lestat already checked the list 3 of the linked pictures do not long to the Prophet.

[quote="Lestat]Just to point out: neither did two of the twelve cartoons in the Jylland-Posten [/quote"]

Not the issue. Even if one was of the prophet that is a violation of the traditions of our religion. To add that has no relevance on the matter as you and xandax are trying to prove that there are pictures of the prophet. However in your list so far 3 are not. As you can see the credibility of your link is extremely low.

Anyway back to the question what is the credibility of the two links you both have provided?

[Fljotsdale]

[QUOTE=Woozaii]It is a serius topic actually, and something that has been weighing on my mind heavily these last few days. This has to be this decades most famous cartoon: The drawings of Mohammed, that JP Århus were foolish enough to publish... I am sure you all have heard of it.

But just in case: Not so long ago, a danish newspaper (Jyllands Posten Århus) published 12 very provocative drawings of Mohammed in one of their issues. Mohammed was being displayed as a terrorist, and a lot of the moslems living in Denmark took great offense in this. Some of them then went down to the middle east, and complained. The middle east ambassadors then requested a meeting with the danish prime minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. He refused to even meet with them.
And now all hell has broken loose, and Denmark is in the middle of all this. The danish government, as well as Jyllands Posten Århus, claimed that there was no basis for a discussion, since the newspaper were simply utilising their freedom of speech (JP Århus has now officially apologised though), even though the drawings are unconstitutional.

Now The United States have been brought into this. As well as Germany and France, and Denmark can really do nothing to stop these events from escalading, and Denmark are closer to terrorism than ever, after the series of threats and attacks from varius militias troughout the world.

What do you say? What are your opinions?[/QUOTE]

My opinion is that the rioting and threatening language being used by those Muslims participating in it, actually proves the point the cartoon was making.

Which is a pity, because most Muslims have more sense than to react in such a scandalous way. These rioters actually bring their religion and their god into disrepute.
So what if the cartoon offended them? We live in 2006, not 1006, and all of us should have sufficient knowledge and understanding and tolerance to let such bits of nonesense go by without comment, rather than engaging in such primitive outbursts of childish - though dangerous - rage.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Lestat]Just to point out: neither did two of the twelve cartoons in the Jylland-Posten
<snip>[/QUOTE]

Actully - 3 of them doesn't depict Mohammed. The one with the stick figure can hardly be said depict anybody, but instead is a sartiric drawing of the chief editor of the newspaper which an orange in his turban - which symbolises a danish expression which roughly translated would be something like a "publicity stunt (which the orange also has as lable).
The abstract drawing and the one of Mohammed from 7th grade on Valby school doesn't show him either.

[QUOTE=Fljotsdale]My opinion is that the rioting and threatening language being used by those Muslims participating in it, actually proves the point the cartoon was making.

Which is a pity, because most Muslims have more sense than to react in such a scandalous way. These rioters actually bring their religion and their god into disrepute.
So what if the cartoon offended them? We live in 2006, not 1006, and all of us should have sufficient knowledge and understanding and tolerance to let such bits of nonesense go by without comment, rather than engaging in such primitive outbursts of childish - though dangerous - rage.[/QUOTE]
I could not agree more. This is 2006 and not 1006.
The best one of the drawings in my view is the one with the cartoonist looking nerviously over his shoulder while drawning Mohammed - which illustrates fully the situation at hand, no doubt with Theo Van Gogh in mind.



Anyways, I'm done with this topic - I've said what I felt needed to be said and strongly belive that Denmark should not back down for the fundamentalisme shown by many protesters. Dialog is the way forward; not demands nor threats and certainly not violence.

Some random facts so far:
1) The newspaper have appologized.
2) The PM has appologized as much as he can withouth breaking the consitution. The government and ministors can agree or not (and most FYI disagrees with bringing the cartoons) with what is written in the papers, but they can not censor it withouth breaking out consitution.
3) The matter of the drawings are up to the danish court to judge as they are the only entity in this country with that power. The Courts are where civilized countries settle disputes, not with sword in hand.
4) The "punishments" issued so far targets every dane and not only the one responsible, while at the same time we hear we shouldn't punish every muslim because of a "few" extreemists. And as I understand from the statements the government has issued, "Denmark" as a nation will not, but will try to continue the foreign aid projects even in middle eastern countries.
5) Many lies have been spread or attempted spread by more or less fanatics and fundamentalist, which are hard to counter. I just hope that logical people will see through this web of lies and actually try and understand the situation before making broad generalizing statements.


There is such a thing as being respectful towards others religons and belives and this country is indeed one of the most tolerate countries in the world and a contry which tries to do much to help out wherever we can which we have done for years - even in the middel east by helping out in Palenstine. I personally think it was very stupid to bring the cartoons in the first place as well, as I've said often in this thread.
However, unless the courts in Denmark state they are against the "Blasfemy legislation" (Danish penal code §140) the newspaper was well within its right to bring them. The courts are the only entity which can do that.
But - tolerance and respect goes both ways. It isn't a one way street - if "we" should respect Islam - Islam should respect us and respect the fact that we don't act within the same framework. You can't demand without giving.

Anyways -I'm out of this thread, because it has become far to circular for my liking and I have posted more harshly then I'd actually care to on this forum.

[CM]

Xandax. Its amazing. You can not back up any single one of your comments with any proof.

You provide a link which has no credibility and what now you leave the thread?

I just realised something. This is absurd. People who are not muslims are telling me a Muslim what my faith does and does not accept. Then you go around pulling out links with no credibility whatsoever as they fit the "political" view point you suscribe too.

Talk about wearing rose tinted glasses.

Anyway on to question of credibility - is there any for the links?

Fljotsdale yes it is 2006. In 2006 isn't it normal to respect the traditions of another culture and religion and tolerate them by respecting them? Or that still isn't a 2006 norm yet?

[CM]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 01,00.html

I know this is just adding to subject nobody wants to read about. But do read this.

To summarize the main point of the article:

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Welcome to respect and tolerance!

[fable]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 01,00.html

I know this is just adding to subject nobody wants to read about. But do read this.

To summarize the main point of the article:

Quote:
Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.

The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Now, that's interesting, because I said that Danish newspapers wouldn't show a cartoon of Christ at the head of an army invading Baghdad towards the beginning of the thread, and was then lectured that I knew nothing about Danish Christianity or the newspaper, which has a tradition of allowing full discussion from all views. It appears I was right, after all.

I especially like this paragraph:

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

I withdrew my comment of hypocrisy about the Danish newspaper, earlier. I think I'll withdraw my withdrawal.

[TonyMontana1638]

Wow Fas, I've been trying to follow most of this (though much admittedly flies over my head) and nothing either you or Xandax have said so far has changed my convoluted opinion on anything: it seems the argument just goes around in circles (no offense, just my take). Howevere that interesting little bit of info, if it's true, seems to be so damning I can only come up with one possible explanation: the drawings depicted scenes much worse than these Mohammed ones. Hell maybe they were of jesus eating babies. I just thought that should be considered, but that's terrible. Really, really awful. I have no sympathy whatsoever for this newspaper anymore.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=CM]Xandax. Its amazing. You can not back up any single one of your comments with any proof.

You provide a link which has no credibility and what now you leave the thread?

I just realised something. This is absurd. People who are not muslims are telling me a Muslim what my faith does and does not accept. Then you go around pulling out links with no credibility whatsoever as they fit the "political" view point you suscribe too.

Talk about wearing rose tinted glasses.

Anyway on to question of credibility - is there any for the links?

Fljotsdale yes it is 2006. In 2006 isn't it normal to respect the traditions of another culture and religion and tolerate them by respecting them? Or that still isn't a 2006 norm yet?[/QUOTE]

Well - I was about to write a piece about remembering to critque your own "sources" as much as you do the ones of oppersite view, however I'd guess it would be futile as we have seen.

Don't think I'm "running scared" of you - that could not be further from the truth even if you think it, I just have no interest in discussing with you at all, but lets just say my cup is enoughly filled with religous intolerance towards countries outside that religon, and thus if I countining debating with you - I'll likely find myself saying things which I'd regret shortly after.


(EDIT: It appears that at least some of the cartoons have been brought in an egyptian paper as well http://freedomforegyptians.blogspot.com ... -that.html, which if correct only further shows the hypocrasy behind this whole situation)

[dragon wench]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 01,00.html

Oh lovely.... more fuel for a fire already raging out of control..

I found this bit especially rank..

But the Jyllands-Posten editor in question, Mr Kaiser, said that the case was "ridiculous to bring forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons.

"In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons. That's the difference," he said.

"The illustrator thought his cartoons were funny. I did not think so. It would offend some readers, not much but some."

Somehow this does not make the situation sound any better. What? The editor requested the Muhammed drawings, but turned down the offer of those depicting Christ. I really don't think he's helping his cause here...

However, I maintain, this still does not, in any way, justify the violence that has occurred. The whole thing has become utterly ridiculous on both sides of the spectrum.