French edditor fired

[Bitterandtwisted]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4672642.stm

Notice the lack of the offending cartoons in the article. BBC not brave enough to show them?

Here they are:
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c308/ ... lands-.jpg
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c308/ ... ylland.jpg

Why do people cave in to muslim demands for censorship so much more readily than any other religion? Remember how little luck Christian Voice had with Jerry Springer?

[hr]

We're the MTV generation. We feel neither highs nor lows.
Really? What's it like?
Meh.

[Haunted]

Quoting Bitterandtwisted from 12:13, 2nd Feb 2006
Why do people cave in to muslim demands for censorship so much more readily than any other religion?

Because they are more likely to kill you.
Racist? No, thats how it is.

Dear Militant Muslims, LIGHTEN UP.

[munchingfoo]

and not in petrol on ones self arson way.

[hr]

I'd like to change the world but they won't give me the source code.

[DrAlex]

Quoting Haunted from 12:32, 2nd Feb 2006
Because they are more likely to kill you.
Racist? No, thats how it is.

funny, if you were there, they'd probably say the same thing about Christians and Jews.

[hr]

La loi est dure, mais l'aigle ne chasse pas les mouches.
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

[Haunted]

Quoting DrAlex from 13:40, 2nd Feb 2006
funny, if you were there, they'd probably say the same thing about Christians and Jews.

If I was where exactly?
I seriosuly doubt that if the cartoon had parodied Jesus instead we would be hearing of death threats, ambassodors leaving or an armed raid on an EU office.

[OffHeGoes]

Quoting DrAlex from 13:40, 2nd Feb 2006

Quoting Haunted from 12:32, 2nd Feb 2006
Because they are more likely to kill you.
Racist? No, thats how it is.

funny, if you were there, they'd probably say the same thing about Christians and Jews.

[hr]

La loi est dure, mais l'aigle ne chasse pas les mouches.
http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37100343

i think the question is more about our own media caving in to Muslims more than to Christians or Jews. nothing really to do with whatever the situation is there, wherever there is.

in which case it's easy to see why as we've had far more Islam-linked violence on TV and in newspapers than we have Christian-linked. Christianity comes across more like a nagging elderly neighbour in comparison to Islam in our eyes.

[Guest]

Whereas Christianity regularly makes use of icons and figurines to portray Jesus and the Virgin Mary (for example) such things are not allowed in Islam (so that they are not deified or prayed to like the idol of the golden calf), as the BBC article mentions. So it's not even the fact that a cartoon is made of it, but the fact that attempts are made to depict the Prophet (pbuh) or Allah, expressly forbidden in Islam, that causes great offence due to a lack of understanding and religious sensitivity on the part of the editors.

I don't think it's as much the content of the cartoons as much as the fact that they try to depict the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) in a parodied light that offends Muslims. Although parodying any religion will offend some of its followers, it is particularly true of Islam because there are strict rules about these things that make it more likely that a majority will take offence.

Muslims, are not by inherent nature, any more or less sensitive than someone following a different faith, but in general, follow their religion very strictly. Islam is a whole way of life, central to the way Muslims lead their lives, and any attack on Islam becomes very personal.

People misunderstand the indignance of Muslims at such things as 'not being able to take a joke' which I think is unfair and ignorant, because such things breach the very terms of the religion they believe in and follow. Attacking the very tenets of a religion and then criticising its followers when they take offence is a lose-lose situation for its followers - they are right to take offence at direct breaches of their religion and it is not fair to criticise them for this.

This is not censorship for censorship's sake in that they don't like what is being said necessarily, but the fact that it has been done in a way that is totally unacceptable to Muslims.

As an aside, the majority of Muslims live in peace and it is a shame that the religion itself has been brought into disrepute by militants and so-called 'fundamentalists' using religion wrongly to provide divine justification for their actions. The media are very quick to pounce on the sensationalist aspects of this aberrant 'Islam' and it does get a lot of bashing because of the actions of a minority of its misguided followers. It is like saying all Irish people are bombers because of the IRA - very very offensive and completely false.

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting from 15:11, 2nd Feb 2006



People misunderstand the indignance of Muslims at such things as 'not being able to take a joke' which I think is unfair and ignorant, because such things breach the very terms of the religion they believe in and follow. Attacking the very tenets of a religion and then criticising its followers when they take offence is a lose-lose situation for its followers - they are right to take offence at direct breaches of their religion and it is not fair to criticise them for this.

If all they did was whine like the Christians do, then fine. They can piss and moan all they like. I don't care if I get called an infidel, or told my fate is to burn for eternity as punishment for not being exactly like someone else. I do object to death threats, though.

If they don't like free speach - and they don't have to, after all - they can always go and live in Dirkadirkastan.

[hr]

We're the MTV generation. We feel neither highs nor lows.
Really? What's it like?
Meh.

[munchingfoo]

My Sig - don't you dare be so "ignorant" as to doubt its validity.

[hr]

Anyone questioning how I post on the sinner, my new way of life, will offend my "religion" and as such will be dealt with in manners inclusive but by no means exlusive of death threats, random acts of violence, maiming of the general public not involved in this matter and finally a Jihad from all my fellow religious sinners.

For years we have been oppressed by you post nazis, the time of change is upon us.

[Guest]

I am by no means justifying the violent reprisals, only trying to explain why people might be offended at the cartoons in response to the original poster.

[Steveo]

The second one is rather funny.

[hr]

Strangers passing in the street, by chance two seperate glances meet.

[The chap]

Bless the French. They don't put troops in Iraq and incur the wrath of the U.S media. A cheeky cartoon or so later and the Muslims hate 'em too.

Haw-he-haw-he-haw!

[a registered user]

The problem is also that there were twelve cartoons originally and they accompanied an article explaining how a writer was finding it difficult to find an illustrator for his book on the prophet. Now of course there are only two pictures and the newspaper depicted the prophet as a terrorist for fun and as part of an anti-Muslim campaign that has been running in Denmark.

Another factor could also be that certain elements within the Muslim community found time to take some fake pictures and show them to people in the Middle East and help stir up trouble. One particularly amusing example has in fact been banned from Egypt and other countries in the Middle East for his ultra religious views and yet he then finds shelter in Denmark. He blotted his copybook further by saying in Denmark that he would work towards ending the boycott on Danish goods following the newspaper's apology and following this with an interview on Arabic television where he further endorsed the boycott. Sadly for him there is more than one person in Denmark who understands Arabic so he was caught and has now been told to shut up by the Muslim council.

Personally if he has such a problem with the country that he is willing to cause so much damage to it politically maybe he should consider his future back in Egypt.

[Rilla]

I think this is crazy. It's only a bloody cartoon! I genuinly don't understand the big fuss.
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0203/mideast.html

So Muslims are going to hold a "day of anger".

The singular form of the word Muslim comes from the Arabic plural form 'Al-Muslimīn, from the tri-consonantal root SLM, also found in the words Islam and salām (peace).

WTF?? how can a "peaceful" religion hold a day of anger?

Is there not enough problems and issues in the world without getting upset about a stupid cartoon? They should be getting upset about war, famine, injustice. No, they care that someone drew a picture.

I've just lost so much respect for Islam. People will argue (I hope!) that the majority of muslims are not like this, but burning danish flags? Gunmen surrounding EU offices? It's crazy!!

And yes Steveo, they are quite amusing. It's even funnier that most of us would not have even heard of these cartoons if certain people hadn't decided to make a big fuss about them.

[hr]

Time Dedicated to You.

[Anon.]

If I've got it right - it is forbidden to depict the face of the Prophet because his image could be potentially treated as an idol and worshipped. But no Muslim is going to worship a satirical cartoon. So the issue is simply about disrespect to Mohammed rather than about the existence of a pictorial representation of him.

[exnihilo]

In the words of Anne Coulter, this would be "another PR setback for the religion of peace".

[Irish Frank]

To be honest, a backlash is pretty predictable when you publish a picture of a religious leader with a bomb stuck in his head. We would get much the same response if an Arabic or western newspaper had published a picture of Jesus with a bomb in his head. My favourite interpretation of the drama came from yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which of course missed the point completely:

"Those Muslims who cannot tolerate the openness and robustness of intellectual debate in the West have perhaps chosen to live in the wrong culture."

[Irish Frank]

To be honest, a backlash is pretty predictable when you publish a picture of a religious leader with a bomb stuck in his head. We would get much the same response if an Arabic or western newspaper had published a picture of Jesus with a bomb in his head. My favourite interpretation of the drama came from yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which of course missed the point completely:

"Those Muslims who cannot tolerate the openness and robustness of intellectual debate in the West have perhaps chosen to live in the wrong culture."

[Irish Frank]

To be honest, a backlash is pretty predictable when you publish a picture of a religious leader with a bomb stuck in his head. We would get much the same response if an Arabic or western newspaper had published a picture of Jesus with a bomb in his head. My favourite interpretation of the drama came from yesterday's Daily Telegraph, which of course missed the point completely:

"Those Muslims who cannot tolerate the openness and robustness of intellectual debate in the West have perhaps chosen to live in the wrong culture."

[Bitterandtwisted]

Quoting Irish Frank from 14:12, 4th Feb 2006
We would get much the same response if an Arabic or western newspaper had published a picture of Jesus with a bomb in his head.

I doubt it. Even operas claiming Jesus was gay didn't provoke such violent scenes. And Arab papers do publish pictures like these:
http://www.adl.org/main_Arab_World/asam ... n_2005.htm



[hr]

We're the MTV generation. We feel neither highs nor lows.
Really? What's it like?
Meh.