Cartoons of Mohammed

[Jerry Rogers]

I know there is a lot of hoopla about these... what...14 (??) cartoons/caricatures of Mohammed. Does anyone know of any website that has these cartoons depicted? I can't find them anywhere. What is all of the hullabaloo about? Lots of people and leaders get ribbed by cartoonist and satirests?

Thanks. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

[Jerry Rogers]

If this is already being discussed elsewhere on the forum, please let me know, ok?

Thanks

[Neil D]

As I understand it, Jerry, there were only 12 cartoons, and only one published in a Dutch [?] newspaper. The other 11 cartoons were taken by Islamist [how they got them, I am not sure] and publicized but never published by the Dutch newspapers.....

At least, that is what I remember from the BBC interview.

I am still unclear why the general population of Islamic culture are so upset over this.... Oh, yes, I understand being jealous and hurt over religious caracatures...but that is nothing new.....So why the furher over this...? I don't know...

[Dr. Shane]

Humor is often used to say something a person couldn't otherwise get away with saying. That is why political/religous cartoons can be so offending. They are, as I have stated before, inflamatory.

I can understand why a relgious or political group would get upset over a cartoon. I don't understand killing, rioting or damagine property over it.

[Parade Orange]

u guys understand that if many of us were offended down to to the core of our being

we would be upset and maybe loud or blood pressure rising or veins popping out the forehead out.. whatever.

I hope most here would not damage property or people. But they are a few who do exactly that. and maybe in their culture they are like that. I dont fully understand.

My great grandfather came from Lebonon and and was chased in the streets by his father with a sword or somthin.

you can only imagine our get togethers.

God bless

Gay4JESUS

[Parade Orange]

what would happen if the cartoons are put here?

would that offend anyone.?

I havent seen them either

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

My great grandfather came from Lebonon and and was chased in the streets by his father with a sword or somthin.

you can only imagine our get togethers.

---

In my family, we call that...um....dysfunctional...and a lot of other words....

Quote:

---

what would happen if the cartoons are put here?

would that offend anyone.?

---

Well, it might offend you, since you are from that area...might not, I don't know..But it wont offend me...And if there were other cartoons depicting Jesus as some sort of baby killer, or some other obscene act, I would just pass on and avoid the thread.... I figure it this way, if God is truely offended, then He should defend Himself, and not have to command ME or another human to defend Him. If Mohammod is truely God's prophet, and if God is truely offended, then let God defend the prophet Mohommod.... No human should have to defend the character of the devine...

[Parade Orange]

Im from America.

[Aliensanctuary]

Good.

Seeing the violent response of the Muslim world to a few drawings, probably in no way resembling the real Mohammed, makes me think that the Muslim religion is more like a murderous disease than a faith to bring one closer to God. Their god seems to be a God of Death. Death to whoever doesn't think like them or embrace their values.

To me, their riots and arson are over-the-top intolerance and will only lower the regard of Westerners towards their religion. Life seems to be of little value to these people.

They sexually mutilate their women, yet the men are left intact. They insist on public accomodation for their religion in the world, yet are extremely hostile to other religions in their home territory.

I suppose I've over-generalized, but I think I like Love-and-Kindness Christianity far better than the Rock Throwing, Rioting, Decapitation and Car Bombings. This is religion gone off the deep end into barbarism.

Maybe someone can inform me of any benefits of the Muslim religion. I have skimmed through the Quran. It's a rambling, difficult read, for me.

[Nan]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

They sexually mutilate their women, yet the men are left intact.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Muslim men are circumcised. Female genital mutilation is not a specific Muslim teaching, it tends to be localised in its application - especially to subSahara Africa and to a lesser extent in the Middle East. I do not think it is anything like as common in Southern Asia or the Far East (Indonesia, Malaysia).

I have no reason to uplift Islam but I prefer accuracy, and these are the facts as I understand them. (I lived and worked in Pakistan almost 5 years and cannot remember seeing a circumcised female. I did circumcise quite a number of Muslim male babies though).

[Aliensanctuary]

Thank you for your clarification.

Several years ago I watched a sad movie on a female who was coerced into circumcision, and have read several articles, since. One told of a botched female circumcision. The woman was unable to urinate properly due to her urethra being partially closed by amateur stitching following the removal of her clitoris with a razor blade. Another article shared a woman's feelings of sadness years after suffering the procedure.

I am encouraged that this horrific practice is not widespread.

[Nan]

The practice of female genital mutilation is quite widespread in Africa, and as you describe, the results can be horrendous. I just wanted to point out that it is not a basic teaching of Islam, and is more localised in its practice.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Lots of people and leaders get ribbed by cartoonist and satirests?

---

Many followers of Islam take their faith seriously. They are prepared to die for it - and do. They believe that it is wrong to endanger the eternal salvation of billions of people by either ridiculing or idolizing the critical people in their belief system.

American's will get extremely agitated about a single right-to-die case, or a single abortion clinic.

American's will kill 100,000 Iraqi's because GWB and cronies think that Iraq may support terrorists who may kill a few thousand American's.

Why do you think it is strange that people may get upset about attempts to endanger the eternal salvation of billions of people?

/Bevin

[Kountzer]

100s of millions of christians have died for their faith. They did it without revenge, knowing that Jesus is the resurrection.

If only a cartoon picture causes you to lose your faith in salvation, IMO you're in the wrong religion.

DB

[bevin]

It is not "one cartoon will destroy my faith", it is "a barrage of anti-Islam stuff has got to be stopped somewhere before it destroys the evangelistic efforts of hundreds of millions of adherents and their targeted audience"

Of course, most of the 100's of millions of christian's who have died for their faith died at the hands of other christians.

/Bevin

[Edison.G.Muruganandam]

. If Mohammod is truely God's prophet, and if God is truely offended, then let God defend the prophet Mohommod.... No human should have to defend the character of the devine...

---

How one defends is what matters here. When the misapplication and manupulation of relegious beliefs and sentiments is one of the major problems that we are struggling to combat, that such items are published without any concern is alarming. Such things would grow more hatred and even make the otherwise peace-loving layman in that society think the other way. Needn't we to be wiser in dealing with such issues. You may stirr the water and sweep across to one corner to fish in a pond however, it wouldn't be a wise thing to do in an ocean.

Thank you,

[Kountzer]

Quote:

---

bevin said:

It is not "one cartoon will destroy my faith", it is "a barrage of anti-Islam stuff has got to be stopped somewhere before it destroys the evangelistic efforts of hundreds of millions of adherents and their targeted audience"

Of course, most of the 100's of millions of christian's who have died for their faith died at the hands of other christians.

/Bevin

---

Secular and humanistic journalists and cartoonists don't give a rip about evangelical efforts. They mock and lampoon christians just as harsh. That's why you can't let one or two cartoons, or a so called barrage of such stuff throw you off course. Two wrongs don't make a right. Still, those cartoons are mild in comparison to the anti semitic and anti christian stuff that is put out by the middle east media.

In regards to most christian martyrs being killed by other christians, can you really call someone who burns someone else at the stake because their beliefs are different a christian? Which is where the word nominal comes into play. But that's another thread and discussion.

Quite a bit of the fatalities in Iraq are the result of

people of a certain belief blowing up and killing others of the same belief.

Also, I am not under the delusion that everything in this country, or done by this country, or in the West is right and correct.

DB

[bonnie]

Interesting take by two that are usually on opposite ends of the pole

Failure of the Press

By William J. Bennett and Alan M. Dershowitz

Thursday, February 23, 2006

WashingtonPost.com

There was a time when the press was the strongest guardian of free expression in this democracy. Stories and celebrations of intrepid and courageous reporters are many within the press corps. Cases such as New York Times v. Sullivan in the 1960s were litigated so that the press could report on and examine public officials with the unfettered reporting a free people deserved. In the 1970s the Pentagon Papers case reaffirmed the proposition that issues of public importance were fully protected by the First Amendment.

The mass media that backed the plaintiffs in these cases understood that not only did a free press have a right to report on critical issues and people of the day but that citizens had a right to know about those issues and people. The mass media understood another thing: They had more than a right; they had a duty to report.

We two come from different political and philosophical perspectives, but on this we agree: Over the past few weeks, the press has betrayed not only its duties but its responsibilities. To our knowledge, only three print newspapers have followed their true calling: the Austin American-Statesman, the Philadelphia Inquirer and the New York Sun. What have they done? They simply printed cartoons that were at the center of widespread turmoil among Muslims over depictions of the prophet Muhammad. These papers did their duty.

Since the war on terrorism began, the mainstream press has had no problem printing stories and pictures that challenged the administration and, in the view of some, compromised our war and peace efforts. The manifold images of abuse at Abu Ghraib come to mind -- images that struck at our effort to win support from Arab governments and peoples, and that pierced the heart of the Muslim world as well as the U.S. military.

The press has had no problem with breaking a story using classified information on detention centers for captured terrorists and suspects -- stories that could harm our allies.

And it disclosed a surveillance program so highly classified that most members of Congress were unaware of it.

In its zeal to publish stories critical of our nation's efforts -- and clearly upsetting to enemies and allies alike -- the press has printed some articles that turned out to be inaccurate. The Guantanamo Bay flushing of the Koran comes to mind.

But for the past month, the Islamist street has been on an intifada over cartoons depicting Muhammad that were first published months ago in a Danish newspaper. Protests in London -- never mind Jordan, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, Iran and other countries not noted for their commitment to democratic principles -- included signs that read, "Behead those who insult Islam." The mainstream U.S. media have covered this worldwide uprising; it is, after all, a glimpse into the sentiments of our enemy and its allies. And yet it has refused, with but a few exceptions, to show the cartoons that purportedly caused all the outrage.

The Boston Globe, speaking for many other outlets, editorialized: "[N]ewspapers ought to refrain from publishing offensive caricatures of Mohammed in the name of the ultimate Enlightenment value: tolerance."

But as for caricatures depicting Jews in the most medievally horrific stereotypes, or Christians as fanatics on any given issue, the mainstream press seems to hold no such value. And in the matter of disclosing classified information in wartime, the press competes for the scoop when it believes the public interest warrants it.

What has happened? To put it simply, radical Islamists have won a war of intimidation.

They have cowed the major news media from showing these cartoons. The mainstream press has capitulated to the Islamists -- their threats more than their sensibilities. One did not see Catholics claiming the right to mayhem in the wake of the republished depiction of the Virgin Mary covered in cow dung, any more than one saw a rejuvenated Jewish Defense League take to the street or blow up an office when Ariel Sharon was depicted as Hitler or when the Israeli army was depicted as murdering the baby Jesus.

So far as we can tell, a new, twin policy from the mainstream media has been promulgated: (a) If a group is strong enough in its reaction to a story or caricature, the press will refrain from printing that story or caricature, and ( if the group is pandered to by the mainstream media, the media then will go through elaborate contortions and defenses to justify its abdication of duty. At bottom, this is an unacceptable form of not-so-benign bigotry, representing a higher expectation from Christians and Jews than from Muslims.

While we may disagree among ourselves about whether and when the public interest justifies the disclosure of classified wartime information, our general agreement and understanding of the First Amendment and a free press is informed by the fact -- not opinion but fact -- that without broad freedom, without responsibility for the right to know carried out by courageous writers, editors, political cartoonists and publishers, our democracy would be weaker, if not nonexistent. There should be no group or mob veto of a story that is in the public interest.

When we were attacked on Sept. 11, we knew the main reason for the attack was that Islamists hated our way of life, our virtues, our freedoms. What we never imagined was that the free press -- an institution at the heart of those virtues and freedoms -- would be among the first to surrender.

William J. Bennett is the Washington fellow of the Claremont Institute and a former secretary of education. Alan M. Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard.

[Lester]

The destructive reaction of some Muslims to the cartoons obviously is counter productive, to say the least. Read the letters to the editor in the online edition to the Paksitan newspaper, Daily Times, to see some very good Muslim reactions to the riots. School children to retired military captains are bemoaning what this is doing to the image of Islam. They see those reacting this way as hoodlums and not Religious advocates.

I would agree, however, with those who ask the west to be tolerant of the Muslim religious soul. Why should anyone want to belittle another's God or divine messenger. At least the Dutch newspaper apologized, those who showed their "freedom" to shame others, printed it to show they could. I say "shame on them." For us Christians, the Golden Rule says we don't have to understand why this is upsetting the Islamic world so much; we just will choose not to do what hurts them.

[bonnie]

You are right of course, I don't think we should mock anyone's believe. However it is done here with frequency. Cartoons are posted as a way of getting a point across and then say " I was just joking" Why exempt those that have actually caused so much death on our own soil??

Bonnie

[David_McQueen]

In the UK there was major outrage by Christians when Jerry Springer the musical was shown on TV. Reminisent of the outrage shown across the world when the Last Tempatation of Christ came out in the cinema. Whilst the acts of violence are inexcusable I can understand why many Muslims do feel violated by something which they deem sacred.

Maybe all of us could learn a lesson in communication and understanding from this.

[Dr. Shane]

The violence is the issue. Hollywood offends me every day but I don't go out and burn theaters.

[bonnie]

Quote:

---

David_McQueen said:

Whilst the acts of violence are inexcusable I can understand why many Muslims do feel violated by something which they deem sacred.

Maybe all of us could learn a lesson in communication and understanding from this.

---

Mocking the beliefs of political figures in the Word Affairs forum is a favorite or so it seems by several here. What makes the beliefs of muslims off limits?? I don't think it should be done to anyone, but if done to some what makes one group special in your eyes? I don't recall in the past a desire on your part to learn a lesson in communication and understanding.

Pat Robertson, James Dobson, any that felt the ten commandments should be displayed, George Bush etc have had cartoons displayed here frequently. Not dealing with political issues, but poking fun at their religious beliefs. Explain to me the difference. It has been passed off as "just a cartoon", "freedom to express your opinion" "a way to get your point across in a humorous way".

While I don't know that I believe all muslims behave in a violent manner when given the opportunity, I am wondering where this feeling of violation of what they hold sacred was when they heard the screams of pain and fear of the beheading of the first young man in the name of "Allah"'

If a cartoon violates what they hold sacred you would think that would have had them by the thousands in the streets protesting instead of the few tepid responses that were made.

Quite by accident and before I realized what I was actually listening to, I heard the screams of this young man while the actual beheading took place. It is something I will never forget. If this does not violate something sacred for muslims, the rest of their protests leave me cold.

Doesn't absolve anyone else for what they do, but nor do I lose sleep over their suppossed feelings of violation. I did however lose some over the real vioation of the young man beheaded in the name of the vicious God of this group doing the beheading.

Bonnie

[CyberGuy]

The problem here is that those who are rioting are the masses. The un educated who are led to do these acts of violence by religious leaders or agitators. Those who study the Koran know that Islam forbids this kind of violence.

The problem is that according to Islamic law it is sacrilege to make an image or drawing of Allah or Mohammed. This is why we tolerate cartoons poking fun at Christian saints such as Saint Peter but the Muslims do not like it when people do that to Mohammed.

Here is some cartoons about this whole affair. It makes one think and smile at the truth behind the cartoon.

http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/directory/m/muslim.asp

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The problem here is that those who are rioting are the masses. The un educated who are led to do these acts of violence by religious leaders or agitators. Those who study the Koran know that Islam forbids this kind of violence.

---

Ah, the fervently religious being lead by Pharisees of Islam [a insult to bring these two terms together, methinks]leading the uneducated .... Gee, this sounds a lot like christianity in the US.....

/tic