GameBanshee Forums

One of the questions here is about danish law and what limitations (if any) there should be on freedom of speech.

Another questions is about the printing of the cartoons, and what it say about Jyllands Posten, Denmark, or Europe.

Another one is about the reasons for the severity of the reaction to the cartoons.

I believe that if you don't keep these questions separate it will be very difficult to discuss this further.

---
Now to my opinions.

1.
There are many possible limitations to freedom of speech. You can limit freedom of speech with laws against incitement to hatred. You can also limit freedom of speech with laws against desecrating religious or national symbols. @CM: I think you must agree that one can believe one of these limitations to be good and the other to be bad without being a hypocrite?

The reason that I am a proponent of only laws against incitement to hatred is that the human race have repeatedly displayed a great susceptibility towards this kind of tactic, and it limits no use of freedom of speech that can have constructive components, unlike desecration of symbols which can imo be constructive. Like the flag burning during the Vietnam war for example.

2.
Because of the polarization we see between the west and the Muslim world right now I think it is very important for both sides to be selective in their criticism: Only criticise the aspects that are important and avoid letting any aggression or critique become generalized and spread to other topics.

Considering this I think it was very bad to print cartoons that as far as I can see are much closer to pure provocation than to selective criticism, and I also find it to be in line with the growing xenophobia in Denmark and Europe, and the different standards regarding Christian and Islamic cartoons seems imo to confirm that there is a link.

3.
I don't think either traveling imams or the horrors of portraying the prophet is the real reason for the severe reaction, I think the two most important factors are the ones Fable and Xandax mentions:

There are many people all over the world who benefits from polarization. It's no just good for Dubbyah and Bin Laden, it's good for anyone that wants to hold power over his own people. I'm sure many who holds power is willing to capitalize on a situation like this.

The Islamic world have had to endure attacks from west for almost 1000 years now. The latest invasions along with the Palestine situation any many other things combined with poverty and helplessness increases the sensitivity to insults and violations. It's very easy to laugh something off if you are safe in your home with a good job and your TV. It's more difficult if you have to live with poverty and fear of invasions.

[QUOTE=dragon wench]
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.[/QUOTE]

Sensible girl. And not only ridiculous, but dangerous. There are no more dangerously hind-brain reactors than religious fanatics, because they stop thinking - and religion stops more people thinking than anything else we ever invented.

[QUOTE=dragon wench]
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.[/QUOTE]

Of course not. There is no way to justify terrorism under any circumstance in my book.

Xandax feel free to check the credibility of my sources. Unlike others i have only used one source. BBC. It is in english and it is credible. I have not used any sources which you yourself can not read or understand. I have not used local newspapers with very little credibility. I have not used sources which are from other languages thus limiting the information available.

So go ahead look at my sources and links. Feel free to. You won't find a single source that is not credible or acceptable.

Now can you give me the credibility of your linke?

I am saying you are running away from me. You assume that i implied that. Re-read my post. I find it amazing that i ask you a simple question and you write a half a page post but you don't answer the question and then leave.

If you are going to provide links atleast make them credible. Because i am sure the zombietimes is filled with PHD students from Harvard and Yale with a background in Islamic history and an excellent database of Islamic art

Feel free to leave the discussion. You still haven't answered two of my questions.

Intolerance begets intolerance. Denmark started it. You reap what you sow.

@Fljotsdale i posed a question to you, i was wondering if you may have missed it or not?

@Dottie i will respond to you in a few hours. Have to head to work.

@CM: concerning the portrayal of the Prophet.

I found [url="http://www.slate.com/id/2135661/"]this article[/url] by Reza Aslan on Slate.

About him: Reza Aslan is a research associate at the University of Southern California Center on Public Diplomacy and the author of No god but God: The Origins, Evolution, and Future of Islam.

The article as such is already an interesting read and commentary on things.

But I want to point this out in the article:

I was embarrassed, but not surprised. Since the publication of a series of cartoons depicting Mohammed in Denmark's largest daily, Jyllands-Posten, much has been written about Islam's prohibition against physical representations of the prophet of Islam. In fact, the Muslim world abounds with magnificent images of Mohammed. (In general, Shiites and Sufis tend to be more flexible on this point than Sunnis). In some, the prophet's face is obscured by a pillar of fire that rises from beneath his chin in a veil of flames. In others, he is unveiled and glorious, a golden nimbus hovering over his head. While some Muslims object to these well-known and widely distributed depictions, there has never been any large-scale furor over them for the simple reason that although they depict the prophet, they do so in a positive light.

So that is at least one Muslim researcher, and apparently someone knowledgeable about the Islamic world & culture, who not only says that representations of the Prophet do exist, but are "well-known and widely distributed".

FYI: Slate is an on-line news & editorial site belonging to the same group as Newsweek & Washington Post.

The link I gave earlier (crankyprofessor) was provided by this site, so concerning credibility, I, maybe foolishly, relied on the Slate journalists. My at the moment 20 kbps connection has something to do with that. I cannot surf well and what I do is about the best I can. I can't easily verify images because they often take a hell of a time to load, but I made some effort especially for you.
Another point, most of the depictions that were mentioned to be of the Prophet were not linked. You'd need to check the references in a library or some such... which doesn't exist in this shot out shell of a country. Make an effort and try to follow up on these non-linked references before attacking the credibility of the site. As said on the site, many of these images are not accessible to the general public and second, as the author of the site says: It begins to make me wonder if the curators are avoiding controversy by keeping the Muhammad images off the internet?
[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buraq"]The wikipedia article about the Buraq[/url] mentioned in the article of the crankyprofessor shows two images of the Prophet on the Buraq. No ref. to the original work for the first one of these, but the second one is said to come from a 15th century manuscript by Nizami Ganjavi called "Khamseh". It is currently located in the British Museum collection in London. Refer to OR-6810.
The Giant Uj and the Prophets Moses, Jesus and Muhammad that is mentioned can be found on the Khalili collection site if you follow the directions, but since there's no description or tag on this site, you are free to doubt whether it is indeed these Prophets that are depicted.

---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.).

The directions are not really correct, instead of clicking on next, you need to click previous (and so you end up in another poem) to get to the Mi'raj image. The confusion is understandable since the "next" button is left and the "previous" button right, contrary to most cases on the net and in software. You can get a close up of the depiction of the Prophet (in this one He is veiled).

The site Xandax linked is in fact better than mine, since it gives the images and for most of them the original source. I don't see what problem you could have with this. The images look authentic and resemble other art of the periods they are claimed to be from, as far as my indeed limited, but not non-existant, knowledge of Islamic art is concerned. Some of the images depict a figure riding what is more than probably a buraq and as far as I know only the Prophet is said to have ridden one. So at least these images are more than probably images of the Prophet. Alas I can not view & comment all images, again because of bandwidth problems (for the majority of them I get the dreaded white sqares with a red x in it).
If you question the information given there, it is easy (for you, not for me) to verify at least part of the information given since the Metropolitan Museum of Art is only a subway ride away (or a stiff walk if I remember well) and some images come from there. For instance [url=”http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/ho/08/nc/hob_1974.294.2.htm”]this one[/url], [url=”http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/isla/hob_57.51.37.3.htm”]this one[/url] and [url=”http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/isla/hob_57.51.9.htm”]this one[/url].

Lestat i am not faulting you for the situation you are in (regard to the internet and stuff) what i am finding fault in is that you are providing links which can not be substantiated at all. Look I have grown up in Pakistan, Indonesia and Egypt. I have travelled to Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the UAE and Oman.

I have never once ever seen a picture of the Holy Prophet. Not once. I will give you an example of credibility. My father was posted in Turkey right after the Lebanese Civil War started. I questioned him on the 3 links on your list with reference to the library in Istanbul. He informed me that they were supposedly of the Prophet. It was a raging debate on the matter even when he was posted there. Some say it is, some say it is one of the Sahaba.

Now that above example provides no credibility to this discussion at all.

I can just as easily say that in Faisal Masjid in Islamabad the Saudi King as a present gave the Mosque a mural of the Holy Prophet from 1680 A.D. Painted in Afghanistan. This is obviously not true.

But the point is that you nor I can prove otherwise as we are not there.

In the Pakistan Residence in Egypt there is one huge painting of 5 men on Horseback fighting to battle. The painting was given to the Pakistan Govt by the Aga Khan. Now it is a good 300 to 400 year old painting. It isn't the prophet or the Sahaba or anybody important. It is just a painting. But what stops me from claiming it is a picture of the Prophet? Nothing. Because nobody can substantiate it.

This link and the links provided can not be substantiated at all. It is basically what you want to believe or what you don't want to believe. Unless someone himself has been to the Library in Istanbul, or my imaginary painting in Faisal Mosque - we can not know for a fact that it is true.

However one thing you can know is true, is that pictures of the Holy Prophet are not acceptible. Why? Not because i say it. Because you have 3 mission burned to the ground because of it. That is enough proof in my eyes that it is not acceptible.

At least two of the images I linked showed a figure riding a/the Buraq, a clear reference to the Mi'raj and a fair indication that the figure is ment to depict Mohamed.
One of them is part of the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art. 5th Avenue. About at the halfpoint of the eastern side of Central Park. UN headquarters: 42nd street. Please go and see then.

Fas, you said there where no depictions made of the Prophet. I and other provided them. You questioned the credibility of the sources, I give you the Metropolitan Museum of Art. You still don't accept because they can depict whatever, you say, but the three last pictures I linked are attested by this reputable institution to be of the Prophet, with one of them showing the Buraq which is uniquely linked to the Prophet. As far as I'm concerned, and apparently quite a few researchers, journalists and others, muslims included, there thus exist depictions of the Prophet in Islamic art. Now you want apparently physical evidence... that's hard to provide over the internet, but take that subway trip, if not for the images (they might not be accessible for the public for all I know), well they have a decent collection of art that is worth seeing.

I would have appreciated though that you would have told what level of proof you needed from the beginning, instead of moving the goalposts bit by bit and sending me on a merry chase on the internet. At least I hope some other people found it educational.

This has left me in a state of moral exhaustion that I'm totally unwilling to continue discussing on other points since I don't want to go through this experience again. I'm out.

Well lestat i am sorry to see that credibility means nothing in this discussion. Then i guess i might as well post articles from news papers in arabic which you can't understand or read and translate them for you and expect you to take my word for it.

Am i going to believe a website called the "zombie times"? Absolutely not. I don't care if they said that Bush is going to attack Syria next or that Muhammad is the prophet important to muslims. The fact is that this site has no credibility in my eyes.

Its amazing that credibility is not an issue of discussion because it fits your point of view.

What i also find incredible is the entire Islamic world is saying that it is against our religion. From Indonesia to Nigeria. Have you ever seen such unity among the islamic world on any matter? I haven't. Not even during the 1973 war with Israel was there such unity.

At the end of the day this discussion boils down to the following:

You are providing links which can not be substantiated and saying they are correct when you honestly do not know if they are or are not.

While on the other hand the entire islamic world says we do not allow the pictures of our prophet.

You had the Govts of 56 Muslim countries say this in the OIC reaction to the cartoons. However that is not acceptible to others. They have to find "pictures" which supposedly support the concept that we do have pictures of the prophet.

56 govts and their people say otherwise. 1 billion people say otherwise about a religion they have lived and grown up in.

But no we have to be wrong.

Just to point out, the horse that the holy prophet flies to heaven on is pegasus to the average european. The horse is white and made of light and has wings if i recall correctly. There is the official narration by the prophet on the matter.

What you have provided are links which fit your political view point but have no credibility and can not be substantiated at all.

Would you have accepted the link i posted by the guardian if i had linked it from the arab news website? Be honest when you answer.

A. In my one but last post I posted direct links to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Which you pointedly ignore.
B. [url="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5494602"]The editorial of the Economist this week[/url] comes closest to voicing in my opinion on the cartoon controversy and does it more eloquently than I could.

[QUOTE=Lestat]A. In my one but last post I posted direct links to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Which you pointedly ignore.
B. [url="http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5494602"]The editorial of the Economist this week[/url] comes closest to voicing in my opinion on the cartoon controversy and does it more eloquently than I could.[/QUOTE]

Ignore no. Can i open them? No. Remember i am at the UN. I have stated i believe 3 times earlier in this thread that i can't open half the links you guys provide. If i can see the pictures i can comment on them. I can't see them i won't comment on them.

I will look at them when i get home.

Second welcome to credibility. The economist i won't doubt on facts. Ever. The Economist is a sound and well founded magazine. I don't agree with their right-orientated point of view. But their facts are never wrong. They are credible.

Crazy professor is not a credible source for any information.

I have never seen the word "credible" or a derivative of it used so many times in my life. I figured I'd go through and count how many times it popped up: I stopped after Fas's 17th.

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]I have never seen the word "credible" or a derivative of it used so many times in my life. I figured I'd go through and count how many times it popped up: I stopped after Fas's 17th.[/QUOTE]

Sadly tony i haven't used it enough as can be seen by the above discussion. Questioning credibility of links that fit the european model of thinking is a general no no. I should remember that next time i enter a discussion.

Actually, what this entire mess boils down to is quite simple:

1. The moslems (still) think that their rules should apply to everyone else on the planet, under the threat of death, destruction and general mob rule. They are not alone in this amongst the organized world religions, but seems willing to go to greater extremes than anyone else to impose their views.

2. The islamic world constantly gripes about the west imposing their "decadent and uncivilized" way of life on them, yet are at the moment showing themselves to be perfectly willing to do the same thing to us. As I write this, a militant maniac is standing in front of a frenzied throng of countless thousands on live TV demanding that Europe changes our laws on freedom of expression. Just how insane is that?

3. The lack of understanding amongst moslems of how things work in their hated "western world" will lead to yet more anger and resentment. They simply fail to understand that a newspaper editor does not answer to the Prime Minister of a country. The basic concept of freedom of expression simply eludes them when they waltz up to said PM and demand that he apologises for something he had nothing to do with in the first place!

4. The western world is capable of gross stupidity and insensitivity in the name of freedom of speech/expression. Whether this is due to these liberties being under constant attack by certain of our own ruling powers, I do not know. What I do know is that IMHO the liberties we are taking under this mantra needs to be examined and questioned far more often than it is at the present moment, because it seems to me that it's become increasingly fashionable to test the limits and push back borders at the cost of decency, basic morals, and first and foremost common sense.

People are idiots! Period. Faith heals, religion kills.

Now I'm gonna go downtown to the Iranian embassy. I'm gonna stand there with my pals and scream insults, jump up and down like rabid gibbons on crack, and when we've worked ourselves into a suitable frenzy, we'll start throwing rocks and firebombs, and eventually storm and torch the entire place. If we get our hands on a suitably moslem-looking cabdriver, we'll lynch him, torch his car, and then march on to the next embassy, no doubt picking up more supporters along the way. Why? Because the uncivilized heathens torched our flag on TV from the far side of the world, and according to our laws, that's illegal!

And it just goes on and on and on....

[QUOTE=CM]Ignore no. Can i open them? No. Remember i am at the UN. I have stated i believe 3 times earlier in this thread that i can't open half the links you guys provide. If i can see the pictures i can comment on them. I can't see them i won't comment on them.

I will look at them when i get home.

Second welcome to credibility. The economist i won't doubt on facts. Ever. The Economist is a sound and well founded magazine. I don't agree with their right-orientated point of view. But their facts are never wrong. They are credible.

Crazy professor is not a credible source for any information.[/QUOTE]Then please wait next time before reacting until you can open them and critisizing the sites that posted those links. On the crankyprofessor site, as said the link was provided by a fairly reliable newssite.
And on credibility: even if a rabid nazi site posts those images, if they come with a reference to a source this can be checked, regardless of credibility, thus site credibility is not an issue. But I'm not the best placed for checking them, as explained earlier, but even then I checked a few of them and fell on sites as the Met one and the Khalili one.

I advise you to well read the Economist of this week then. I can't post links to the other articles concerning this issue since they're subscribers only content. But it's available in the stores.

[QUOTE=CM]Sadly tony i haven't used it enough as can be seen by the above discussion. Questioning credibility of links that fit the european model of thinking is a general no no. I should remember that next time i enter a discussion. [/QUOTE]

I won't argue with you considering I've never heard the whole "Mohammed is never depicted in art" thing before but then I have next to no real understanding of Islam either (and I mean real understanding, not that "people who look vaguely Arabic must be Islamic terrorists" BS ).

I'd also like to say Zombietimes or crazy professor don't impress me either and yes, I took a fairly thorough looksy through the links. .

I would, however, like to point out that wikipedia seems fairly credible to me or at least I hope so because I use it for my college research all the time .

CM. I am not sure if I have understood your point about credibility correctly. It seems to me that you are a little inconsistent since you seem to believe Lestat exists.

I thought long and hard before entering this debate, but now I'm in I will stay the course.

Claims of credibility. This is just a tactic. CM, you have claimed that there are no terrorist organisations in Indonesia. Where is your credible source? I ask because while it is all well and good to require a particular standard of proof of others if you do so you need to keep your part of the contract. The simple fact of the matter is that there are extremely active and militant Islamic terrorist organisations in Indonesia.

Racism does not equal religious discrimination (bigotry). It has been stated that there is racism behind actions against Muslims. Semantics perhaps, but there is no one race that is Muslim. To, incorrectly, claim that so and so is a racist because they have a stance that is distasteful to Muslims is just name calling.

The crusades. An excellent example of why religious tolerence should be practiced by all civilised people. They occurred because christians were forceably expelled from what they believed were holy sites. They had their freedom to practice their religious beliefs curtailed and the reaction was a sickening campaign of hatred that blights the middle east to this day. Few people would now support the actions of those fanatical bigots, but it seems that the world is being asked to accept violence as an appropriate reaction to a religious slur. If you accept that stance then you have to at least consider acknowledging that the crusaders were just doing the same thing, and for slightly more reason than some cartoons.

The crux of freedom of speech is that we all 'contract' (agree if you prefer) that in return for being able to express what ever view we hold we allow others to express theirs. This means that while I may be seething with rage at what someone else has said I must allow them to say it. They, in turn, must allow me to say what ever I wish regardless of how upset they are by it. I wont waste space by telling what things other people say get such a strong reaction from me, but believe me there are more than a few. I just accept that for this whole thing to work I need to allow others the freedoms that I exploit. I personally think that anti-hate laws are self defeating, but then I also think that if the existing laws against inciting violence were properly policed there would be quite a few empty pulpits and desks in parliaments. Being free to say it means being responsible for having said it.

I'm not suggesting that the publication of the cartoons was an innocent act either. I think it is becoming clear that it was a calculated act to incite precisely the reaction it did. Does Denmark have laws about inciting violence?
I don't think that the offended muslims have acted in a supportable manner, but in the real world it is a sad fact that expecting the oppressed people of the middle east to renounce violence is practically futile.

I don't intend to be flipant here but the follwing struck me as being a clear illustration of some of the issues that must be faced in an integrated society. I'm a rollerbladian. I have to wear my rollerblades at all times, or I am insulting my god. It may sound crazy and weird but it's my religion and I expect people to respect it. The other day at work, I work in a skyscraper, there was a fire alarm. I lined up with everyone else to be evacuated but when it came to my turn to go down the stairs the fire warden said I would have to wait until everyone else was down and clear of the stairs! Had there been a real fire, and at this stage I didn't know if there was or there wasn't, then I was being put in danger purely because of my religious beliefs. I am now pursueing the matter in the human rights commision and expect an apology and a significant payout. Furthermore, the rules governing fire stair use need to be altered so that there is an equitable means for rollerbladians to exit any building, it is only fair. I would like to point out that people who are confined to wheelchairs are in precisely this position it just isn't, for them, a matter of faith. - Curdis !

[QUOTE=Curdis]The crusades. An excellent example of why religious tolerence should be practiced by all civilised people. They occurred because christians were forceably expelled from what they believed were holy sites. They had their freedom to practice their religious beliefs curtailed and the reaction was a sickening campaign of hatred that blights the middle east to this day.[/quote]

Huh? The Seljuks who were taking over the Anatolian penisula (what became the Ottoman Empire, and later Turkey) were notable for providing *full protection for all sects,* and were in fact angrily condemned by many Christians when they did so as well for Jews. The Byzantine Emperor Alexius I called for assistance in forcing back the Turks, and that--not any forcible expulsion from holy sites--was the cause of the First Crusade. It should be noted that when the Christian Crusaders took Jerusalem, which was Islamic at the time, in 1099, they massacred the population.

Or did you mean the Second Crusade? That was also caused by the advancement of the Turks. Again, no Christians were being expelled or prevented from worshipping under the Seljuks. Remember, the Q'ran declares that Christians and Jews are "people of the Book," meaning the bible, and therefore not enemies by faith. On the other hand, many Christians of that period were losing sleep seeking every justification they could twist out of the bible to kill Jews, Muslims, and even Christians who had chosen the "wrong" Christian sect. It was not Europe's brightest moment.

Bah. I lost my post because i wasn't logged in. Anyway I just got back. Anyway i checked the pictures/paintings and I was wrong. There have been pictures/paintings of the prophet. I was wrong (obviously) and for that i apologise.

Islamic Shariah law does not allow the depiction of the Holy Prophet. But i guess that rule was laxed in parts of the world.

As for the terrorist comment Curdis what i was refering to if you can see by my examples was "home grown" entities. My list of terrorist nations is Palestine, Syria and Iran. I forgot to add Lebanon to that list. Palestine has Hamas. Syria and Iran officially support Hezbollah and Lebanon houses the Hezbollah.

Pakistan has very active elements of Al Qaeda as does Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan. But pakistan has no purely Pakistani terrorist organizations. Neither does Jordan, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait. But in Jordan you had those bomb blasts linked to Al Qaeda. I however do not list any of these countries as terrorist nations or with terrorist organizations. I don't list Afghanistan as a terrorist nation even though it has the remants of the Taliban. Basically because they are not home grown supported entities.

According to the US govt the elements in Indonesia are part of Al Qaeda. I based my indonesia has no terrorist organization off of that. The Philippines has a 2 or 3 Terrorist organizations, but they are not part of Al Qaeda. The Bali bomb blasts were linked to Al Qaeda. They were not linked to the Aceh rebels (who are muslims) or the muslims in Sulawesi or Java.

[QUOTE=Fiona]CM. I am not sure if I have understood your point about credibility correctly. It seems to me that you are a little inconsistent since you seem to believe Lestat exists.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm, seems you are invsible Fiona. Or, worse yet, just a figment of my imagination.