Should These Cartoons Be Banned?

[The old goat]

For some time I read items on this forum to better understand the community that I was moving in to. That, and the newspapers have helped no end and I have encountered much as I expected.

 

In this case I watched this item for some time before deciding to offer some insight when it became clear that the offensive material was intended to be published again this time in the knowledge of how offensive it would be and the comments from various people that followed.

 

Over the last few days I have answered questions raised, some sensible, some stupid, and some deliberately intended to raise issues that would result in inflammatory controversy.

 

Such questions show that there is a lack in understanding that our world is very different from your world and that once beneath the surface our values are radically different from yours.

 

At all times I have provided open and honest answers and as far as I was able I believe that I have remained polite.

 

In return I have been personally abused and my way of life (and that of one and a half billion others ) has been ridiculed, abused, and insulted and that in spite of knowing how deeply offensive it is to me and people like me Islam has been insulted.

 

To “remain in the room” where obscenities are taking place is to be party to the obscenities.

 

I see no point in continuing to try to bring some clarity to this matter, or some insight into Islam at this time on this subject.

[Skeddan]

To “remain in the room” where obscenities are taking place is to be party to the obscenities.

I think its very sad that the old goat has been driven to leave IoM and maybe Western Europe. I now see his call to for Muslims to respond to the insults of cartoons may not have been a veiled threat after all, but was meant to get Muslims in Denmark to leave the country. (or perhaps commit suicide in protest?). If so, I have much sympathy with this stance by the old goat. (I would put a smiley here, but I've now learnt that cartoon pictures of people are offensive to Muslims and an insult to Islam - so ccb or colon close-bracket instead).

 

Freggyragh - ooops I forgot about the curse co cob

 

Meanwhile I think we ought to consider a Sha'ia version of the forums where emoticons are banned.

 

I should also like to clarify that 'pbuh' which can also be used as shorthand for 'point bar underscore hyphen' is not meant to depict the Prophet Muhammed pbuh in a cubist manner or showing him with a big nose and winking like this:

 

.|_-

 

(bother - I think I just made a cartoon picture of the Prophet Muhammed pbuh - sorry).

[Lonan3]

As the old goat has mentioned that he is living in Holland THIS ARTICLE might be of interest.

 

Recent media reports revealed that the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest and most influential of all militant Islamist groups, has gained a foothold in the Netherlands, quietly placing itself behind two of the country’s largest and important mosques (de Rotterdamse Essalammoskee en de Westermoskee in Amsterdam-West).

 

The debate at the Tweede Kamer that immediately followed the revelation mirrors the discussion that is taking place among academics and policymakers throughout Europe and America on the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood and on whether it poses a danger to the West. Some, including the Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid (WRR), consider that the Brotherhood has renounced the violence that has characterized its activities since its foundation in the 1920s, has embraced democracy, and can even be considered a viable partner in attempts to contrast jihadi groups. Others, both in the West and in the Muslim world, consider this position naïve and based on statements made by Brotherhood leaders for the consumption of credulous Western ears, ignoring what the group says in Arabic and, more importantly, what it does on the ground.

 

The truth is that, despite its recent claims of moderation, the Brotherhood still adopts the same radical agenda that has characterized it for the last 80 years. In a December 2005 interview to the London-based Arabic newspaper Asharq Al-Awsat, Mohammed Akef, the group’s official supreme guide clearly stated that “the Muslim Brotherhood is a global movement whose members cooperate with each other throughout the world, based on the same religious worldview - the spread of Islam, until it rules the world.” On the Brotherhood’s website Akef also tellingly said: "I have complete faith that Islam will invade Europe and America, because Islam has logic and a mission.”

[Amadeus]

To “remain in the room” where obscenities are taking place is to be party to the obscenities.

 

I see no point in continuing to try to bring some clarity to this matter, or some insight into Islam at this time on this subject.

Goodbye....

[Chinahand]

Old Goat, I have no idea if it is the right thing for you to leave this forum - maybe it is - the problem is that you believe there is a perfect answer to all lifes problems - following YOUR and your fellow travellers' interpretation of Islam - while the huge majority of people on this forum do not.

 

Your interpretation, as has been point out, relies on violence to "protect" believers from people who have other beliefs, and to coerce people (especially women) to follow social norms.

 

You believe your "perfect" book demands these things, you have dedicated your life to this "perfect" book, and you are going to defend witch beheadings, the killing of apostates and husbands chastising their wives as you believe a divine being has said you MUST do these things.

 

The majority of people on this forum are highly sceptical of your claims - and the only answer you are able to offer this scepticism is that your God has ordained that you are right. Do not be surprised that this is not found convincing and is offered a very British two fingered salute.

 

We are a pragmatic, empirical people - we've built our society and institutions by pushing boundaries, experimenting, taking steps forwards and steps back. We are very aware that circumstances change and policy and rules have to change with them or social tensions increase. The idea that there is a single solution based in a scripture or book, or via the divine right of Kings, or whatever, lost support many years ago as the reality of pragmatic politics and social policy created wealth and societal advance.

 

These may be an anathema to you and your old book, but I'll choose progress over witch beheadings any day of the week - I actually know some Wiccans and practitioners of other such silliness - they are worthy of sceptical ridicule, just like you, and not beheading - but your book demands you disagree - are you really a knife sharpening zealot? I almost prefer the idea that you are a racist stool pigeon, but I sense you are for real.

 

Well good bye if that is your choice - you are a failed prosthelatizer, not really much of a surprise.

 

But if you can escape from your dogma, and occassionally point out that printing cartoons or whatever is offensive, well that's fine - and it may make people think.

 

But I'd like you to think about whether it is offensive or not to have a zealot attempt to cut the throat of a cartoonist - and how westerners should react to such terrorist plots.

[The old goat]

I am not departing the forum, I am departing this item.

[Skeddan]

I am not departing the forum, I am departing this item.

Glad to have you back with us - at least for the time being.

 

I'm a bit confused though - is it ok to remain in the house where obsenities are taking place even if you know it is going on - provided you're not in the same room? I find that a bit confusing. Does that mean it is ok for Muslims to live in Denmark after all - I saw a lot of Danish flags being burnt.

 

I'm also honestly confused about this prohibition of images - what about TV, CCTV, passport photos, advertising billboards, childrens' story books - most of the corpus of western art? Is handling paper money and coins with graven images of the Queen not also being party to an offense? Will I have to burn books like Tintin and Winnie the Pooh? 'cob'. How about chess sets - don't those show stylised depictions of knights, kings etc.? (I thought chess originated in the Middle East and was popular in Islamic countries - isn't it? Or are these ok - like teddy bears not called Muhammed?).

 

I am really interested in the idea of children growing up without being able to draw pictures of people. This is such a fundamental and universal part of childhood development. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have children banned from drawing pictures of people and animals and not being allowed to see picture books etc.

[Lonan3]

[gazza]

I am not departing the forum, I am departing this item.

 

 

also let us know when u got your boat ticket we come and wave you good bye,

still got that bio fuel if u stuck for some, (i like to help sort of person i am)

 

o and everything chinahand said as well

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I am not departing the forum, I am departing this item.

Glad to have you back with us - at least for the time being.

 

I'm a bit confused though - is it ok to remain in the house where obsenities are taking place even if you know it is going on - provided you're not in the same room? I find that a bit confusing. Does that mean it is ok for Muslims to live in Denmark after all - I saw a lot of Danish flags being burnt.

 

I'm also honestly confused about this prohibition of images - what about TV, CCTV, passport photos, advertising billboards, childrens' story books - most of the corpus of western art? Is handling paper money and coins with graven images of the Queen not also being party to an offense? Will I have to burn books like Tintin and Winnie the Pooh? 'cob'. How about chess sets - don't those show stylised depictions of knights, kings etc.? (I thought chess originated in the Middle East and was popular in Islamic countries - isn't it? Or are these ok - like teddy bears not called Muhammed?).

 

I am really interested in the idea of children growing up without being able to draw pictures of people. This is such a fundamental and universal part of childhood development. I cannot imagine what it must be like to have children banned from drawing pictures of people and animals and not being allowed to see picture books etc.

 

Not sure if I am missing something about this issue. The issue with the cartoon is about depictions of Mohammed not cartoons in general.

[Skeddan]

Not sure if I am missing something about this issue. The issue with the cartoon is about depictions of Mohammed not cartoons in general.

 

 

Amongst the things that we ALL are required to do is not to create any of what you call craven image. That means that it is forbidden to create any likeness of any creature into which Allah has breathed life, as to do otherwise is to mock Allah by the very act.

[The Old Git]

Damn, I was just searching for the exact same sentence to quote but you beat me to it

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Not sure if I am missing something about this issue. The issue with the cartoon is about depictions of Mohammed not cartoons in general.

 

 

Amongst the things that we ALL are required to do is not to create any of what you call craven image. That means that it is forbidden to create any likeness of any creature into which Allah has breathed life, as to do otherwise is to mock Allah by the very act.

 

I missed that explanantion, sorry, but I still think the above quote is not the same as the 'problem' with the Danish cartoons.

 

From my understanding the real anger over the cartoons was the reaction to depictions of Muhammed, not depictions of living beings in general. Therefore, the issue of any possible ban, and I don't know if there have been any moves to ban such depictions in the media in future, is about the Mohammed depictions.

[Skeddan]

And the rest of the old goat's argument stems from that - i.e. because it is forbidden and a mockery of Allah to make images of any creature, making images of the Prophet Muhammed pbuh - who - supposedly - is a particularly special man - is really really bad.

 

My understanding was that there is a prohibition on idols and idolatrous images - like golden calf and so forth - i.e. images and representations used as objects of worship. I also understood that Islamic art does have images of people and animals (they also have teddy bears as we found out recently). The huhah over the cartoons seems to overlook that these are not idolatrous, and that the over-reaction and behaviour is itself a kind of idolatry. One of the reasons why images of the Prophet are particularly prohibited is that this might lead to a kind of idolotrous reverence and worshipping of the Prophet (who was just a man) - the kind of blind and excessive adulation of a kind of demi-god that seems to be going on in this response by many Muslims. However the old goat I'm sure has a better understanding of the Qu'oran and I hope he might clarify this for me.

 

I actually think some of the cartoons are offensive - it is interesting to compare with some of the early anti-Jewish cartoons in Weimar and Nazi Germany, with similar lack of artistic merit and lack of genuine humour. However that is not the same as the offence that the old goat sees in these cartoons.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

humour. However that is not the same as the offence that the old goat sees in these cartoons.

 

Aah right, I wasn't sure if you were making comments purely on the offensive of the cartoons for the Muslims who went mental over them or just OldGoats views of them.

 

Certainly the furore created by the cartoons of Mohammed are simply about them being a representation of the Prophet who means so much to Islam. The anger that came about from the Danish cartoons has nothing to do with simple representations of of 'Allah's creations', in this case Mohammed but just because it was Mohammed. If pictures, art, and cartoons in general were a huge problem for even a small number of zealots then you would have regular protests across the Western world. This hasn't happened so although it may be stated in the Qur'an that any depictions are bad it clearly isn't an issue for Muslims in the western world.