Should These Cartoons Be Banned?

[Skeddan]

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.

I think old goats views were shared by many Muslims who went mental over this - and that this is a kind of 'doublethink' - on the one hand it is turned into some religious cause because of a supposed prohibition in the Qu'oran on images - as noted by old goat - other than that there is no 'religious offence' for Muslims to go mental over. At the same time this reaction is a kind of idolatrous reverence for Mohammed as having a divine or semi-divine status, son of God or the like. The Qu'oran seems pretty clear on that - it's bullshit - he was just a vehicle, and when not inspired was wrong, made mistakes and was just a plain old human being - no fairy tale walking on water or turning wine into water or anything like that. To me the furore which is supposedly 'Islamic' is nothing of the sort - rather a kind of radical bigotry that goes under the guise of religion and which brings disrespect on that religion. However I'd like to understand the views of Muslims better on this.

[The old goat]

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.

 

For the most part you are correct.

 

Mohammed (saw) was a man chosen to be The Messenger. (That is why we find the description of us as being "Mohamadens" so offensive.) We do not "worship" Mohammad and certainly not see him as any representation of Alllah, but simply respect him and offer prayers for him and his family and obey the message that he brought.

[Albert Tatlock]

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.

So it's ok for you to insult us and tell us how wrong we ALL are - but not for some of us to want to discuss and then choose to ignore your (and the myriad of other religions) religious storytelling nonsense?

 

You meme (look it up) - especially the reference to virus.

[bluemonday]

[Skeddan]

old goat - please could you explain - I really don't get it. Is the offence because :

 

i) it is a representation of the Prophet Muhammed pbuh and this is really only offensive because of a general prohibition of images of living creatures (which maybe I haven't understood), or because this is an 'idolatrous image' - which I don't think anyone supposes it is;

 

ii) an offence because Muslims idolise Mohammed (saw) - which seems peculiarly un-Islamic to me;

 

iii) or simply because this is seen as a distasteful portrayal which is not actually any more offensive to Muslims than a bad-taste cartoon of the Archbishop of Canterbury might be offensive to Anglicans (And unlike the kind of offense Roman Catholics get heated about over certain kinds of representations of 'divine figures' they idolise - e.g. the Madonna in the Condom artwork).

 

iv) offensive to Muslims for some other reason that I've missed?

 

To me the kind of outrage expressed over this seems tantamount to a worship of Mohammed (saw) - I find it hard to comprehend this type of heated reaction - and the reaction to 'Mohammed Bear' - in the absence of what amounts to an idolatrous worship of Mohammed (saw).

[The old goat]

old goat - please could you explain - I really don't get it. Is the offence because :

 

i) it is a representation of the Prophet Muhammed pbuh and this is really only offensive because of a general prohibition of images of living creatures (which maybe I haven't understood), or because this is an 'idolatrous image' - which I don't think anyone supposes it is;

 

You should read the Hadith

 

http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/creed/ab...KT1-chap-58.htm

 

ii) an offence because Muslims idolise Mohammed (saw) - which seems peculiarly un-Islamic to me;

 

No, as I explained we do not “idolise” The Prophet.

 

iii) or simply because this is seen as a distasteful portrayal which is not actually any more offensive to Muslims than a bad-taste cartoon of the Archbishop of Canterbury might be offensive to Anglicans (And unlike the kind of offense Roman Catholics get heated about over certain kinds of representations of 'divine figures' they idolise - e.g. the Madonna in the Condom artwork).

 

It is a combination of the cynical and insulting representation OF Allah’s Prophet that includes an insult to Islam.

 

iv) offensive to Muslims for some other reason that I've missed?

 

To me the kind of outrage expressed over this seems tantamount to a worship of Mohammed (saw) - I find it hard to comprehend this type of heated reaction - and the reaction to 'Mohammed Bear' - in the absence of what amounts to an idolatrous worship of Mohammed (saw).

 

The insult involved by the foolish woman who allowed a child to name a thing that should not have been allowed to the children’s sight in the name of a man let alone the name of Allah’s Prophet was what was the issue.

 

A very foolish woman who should have been discretely put on the first airplane out of the country with an explanation of her stupidity and advice to keep it to herself would have been a very much more sensible arrangement in my view.

 

As for The Cartoons, think of it in these terms.

 

How would you feel if someone were to publish a cartoon of (for example) your mother engaging in some disgusting act, and proclaiming that all her family were perverts?

 

Would you not be angry, deeply offended, and resentful of what had been done? Would that be because you saw your mother as a deity?

 

Or rather that you were deeply offended at what can only possibly be an insult to her, to your family, and to yourself?

[Skeddan]

You should read the Hadith

http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/creed/ab...KT1-chap-58.htm

 

I'm sorry, I'm still confused.

 

This supposedly says that to even draw an atom (perhaps a picture of a molecule) a grain of barley (or the picture on the packaging of the bread I just bought), make a teddy bear, or draw any kind of picture is to do something that is forbidden. Did your children and grandchildren not draw pictures when they were infants and growing up? Are you not party to this offence by handling coins and paper currency, having a passport photo etc.?

 

I don't read arabic and am not remotely fluent, but to me it seems like what is being said is it is a kind of blasphemy to attempt to imitate Allah in the creation a living thing - a bit like Dr Frankenstein - and this - I understand might well be reason for not having cloning and genetic modification and so forth. At the heart of this seems to be respect for living things - but 'trying to create the llikeness of Allah's creation' does not 'prove' a prohibition on making drawings - or set out to reveal anything other than the weakness and incapacity of those other than Him to create even the simplest of things from nothing.

 

If you genuinely believe that -

 

"The most severely punished of people on the Day of Resurrection will be those who try to make the like of Allah's creation."

 

and further take it that this means anyone who draws a picture, since this is part of normal human development, doesn't it mean that everyone will be severely punished - that everyone is 'most unjust'?

 

Is this a kind of Islamic 'original sin' for which mercy and repentance must be sought? Why, I wonder, would Allah create human beings with a natural disposition to do what is hateful to him in this way? Mysterious to me. More precisely - this interpretation seems just plain nonsense and those who spout it I believe will find if they look to their conduct will see they are proved to be 'most unjust' by their own measure.

 

Were not the moon and stars also Allah's creation. Do these not appear on the flags on Islamic states? On passports of Islamic countries? Are those who govern these countries not therefore 'most unjust'?

 

I really have difficulty taking seriously the idea that anyone could seriously suppose such a total prohibition on making such pictures or images is considered one of the most heinous acts not only for Muslims, but for anyone. I have great respect for the Qu'oran, but I cannot seriously accept this as a belief. Do you?

[hboy]

The insult involved by the foolish woman who allowed a child to name a thing that should not have been allowed to the children’s sight in the name of a man let alone the name of Allah’s Prophet was what was the issue.

 

Its a friggin teddy bear FFS. This is where you just make yourself sound plain nuts - children can't see teddy bears because they are representations of something Allah made and therefore forbidden. What a load of pure, unadulterated, stone age, retrograde old toss.

 

Have you ever watched TV? Do you walk around with your eyes open? If so your undertaking a profane act.

 

As for:

 

How would you feel if someone were to publish a cartoon of (for example) your mother engaging in some disgusting act, and proclaiming that all her family were perverts?

 

That's happened to you too has it? No wonder you have no sense of humour.

 

As others have noted - you have to be a wind up - nobody in this world could profess to being such an out and out moron.

[Freggyragh]

I, Freggyragh - 'The Answerer', mighty sword of Manannan, have cursed all those who persist in reading the disgusting views of Old Goat. Those who are not only are aware of this curse, but continue to display their disdain and ignorance will be doubly punished. I am not tolerant of the ignorant, blasphemous and evil views expressed by the Horny Old Cloven Hooved One, nor will I spare those who expose their minds to his filth.

[bluemonday]

I wish to apologise unreservedly to all Christians for uploading the cartoon of Jesus on a bicycle.

 

I have now read the bible from start to finish and accept that nowhere in the book does it say, or otherwise imply that Jesus rode a bicycle.

 

I am aware that if the Son of God ever chose to ride a bicycle, he would most certainly wear the appropriate protective safety equipment including a helmet.

 

 

I am sorry that people also took the cartoon as an insult to health and safety regulations which I fully agree have saved many injuries and even deaths to cyclists.

 

To depict the Son of God as being a bad example on the serious issue of road safety is unforgivable and in extremely bad taste.

 

My apologies to all Christians, road safety officers, safety conscious cyclists and anyone else I have offended with this depiction of bad cycling practice.

[Skeddan]

bluemonday - I was wondering why you put that picture of the dude on the bike in the hospital gown and poncy purple sandals. I thought he was wearing some new style bright yellow dayglo safety helmet - a bit geeky, but it seemed a really good idea, especially at night.

[Lonan3]

LINK TO STORY

 

A Paris court today acquitted the editor of a satirical French weekly sued by two Muslim groups for publishing cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, in a case seen as a test for freedom of expression.

Applause broke out in the courtroom at the announcement of the verdict, which ruled that three cartoons published by the weekly Charlie Hebdo in February 2006 were not insulting to Muslims.

The Paris Grand Mosque and the Union of Islamic Organisations of France took Philippe Val, the Charlie Hebdo editor, to court for reprinting cartoons that first appeared in a Danish newspaper, sparking angry protests by Muslims worldwide.

They argued that the images drew an offensive link between Islam and terrorism and asked for 30,000 euros (£20,000) in damages.

 

Mr Val welcomed the ruling and said it would open a much-needed debate among Muslims in France.“If you believe as we do that Islam is perfectly compatible with French democracy, such a debate is a blessing,” he said.

The court ruled that two of the cartoons were absolutely not offensive to Muslims. One, reprinted from Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, showed the prophet standing on a cloud, turning away suicide bombers from paradise with the caption 'Stop, stop, we ran out of virgins'.

The second, by the French cartoonist Cabu, showed Muhammad sobbing, holding his head in his hands and saying:“It is hard to be loved by fools”, under the caption 'Muhammad overwhelmed by fundamentalists".

On the third cartoon - showing Muhammad wearing a turban shaped as a bomb, and first printed in Jyllands-Posten - the court’s ruling was more nuanced.

The court decided that the caricature could potentially be insulting to Muslims but that the context of its publication in Charlie Hebdo made clear there was no intention to offend.

 

The president of the Union of Islamic Organisations of France, Lhaj Thami Breze, said following the hearing that he intended to appeal “because we are unhappy with the verdict".

[The old goat]

You should read the Hadith

http://www.islamicweb.com/beliefs/creed/ab...KT1-chap-58.htm

 

I'm sorry, I'm still confused.

 

This supposedly says that to even draw an atom (perhaps a picture of a molecule) a grain of barley (or the picture on the packaging of the bread I just bought), make a teddy bear, or draw any kind of picture is to do something that is forbidden.

 

An atom or a molecule does not have the breath of life imparted to it. Living things do and so to depict them is forbidden by the most devout.

 

Did your children and grandchildren not draw pictures when they were infants and growing up?

 

We discouraged and later punished them whenever they attempted anything suchlike and used the opportunity to teach them the true meaning of life, how to be good Muslims, and the place that the Noble Qu’oran has to us ALL.

 

Are you not party to this offence by handling coins and paper currency, having a passport photo etc.?

 

There are things that must be done in order to live in the world as it presently is, that does not mean it is the right thing to do. Allah is the most merciful and so provided that we do not engage in that which is forbidden as deliberate acts of denial of disobedience but out of necessities we trust in His mercy on the final day.

 

I don't read arabic and am not remotely fluent, but to me it seems like what is being said is it is a kind of blasphemy to attempt to imitate Allah in the creation a living thing - a bit like Dr Frankenstein - and this - I understand might well be reason for not having cloning and genetic modification and so forth.

 

At the heart of this seems to be respect for living things - but 'trying to create the llikeness of Allah's creation' does not 'prove' a prohibition on making drawings - or set out to reveal anything other than the weakness and incapacity of those other than Him to create even the simplest of things from nothing.

 

It is not just Allah’s creations, it is those things in to which Allah has breathed the breath of life and so yes it does.

 

If you genuinely believe that -

 

"The most severely punished of people on the Day of Resurrection will be those who try to make the like of Allah's creation."

 

and further take it that this means anyone who draws a picture, since this is part of normal human development, doesn't it mean that everyone will be severely punished - that everyone is 'most unjust'?

 

No.

 

Is this a kind of Islamic 'original sin' for which mercy and repentance must be sought? Why, I wonder, would Allah create human beings with a natural disposition to do what is hateful to him in this way? Mysterious to me. More precisely - this interpretation seems just plain nonsense and those who spout it I believe will find if they look to their conduct will see they are proved to be 'most unjust' by their own measure.

 

It is mysterious to you because you do not have a perception of life as it is. You and others live for the world and not for the Final Day.

 

Were not the moon and stars also Allah's creation. Do these not appear on the flags on Islamic states? On passports of Islamic countries? Are those who govern these countries not therefore 'most unjust'?

 

No. Such immages are of things which were not imbibed with The Breath of Life.

 

I really have difficulty taking seriously the idea that anyone could seriously suppose such a total prohibition on making such pictures or images is considered one of the most heinous acts not only for Muslims, but for anyone. I have great respect for the Qu'oran, but I cannot seriously accept this as a belief. Do you?

 

Yes. Absolutly.

[Chinahand]

Did your children and grandchildren not draw pictures when they were infants and growing up?

 

We discouraged and later punished them whenever they attempted anything suchlike and used the opportunity to teach them the true meaning of life, how to be good Muslims, and the place that the Noble Qu’oran has to us ALL.

 

Is this a kind of Islamic 'original sin' for which mercy and repentance must be sought? Why, I wonder, would Allah create human beings with a natural disposition to do what is hateful to him in this way? Mysterious to me. More precisely - this interpretation seems just plain nonsense and those who spout it I believe will find if they look to their conduct will see they are proved to be 'most unjust' by their own measure.

 

It is mysterious to you because you do not have a perception of life as it is. You and others live for the world and not for the Final Day.

 

I have great respect for the Qu'oran, but I cannot seriously accept this as a belief. Do you?

 

Yes. Absolutly.

 

the Old Goat once again conforms to the worst stereotype of a heaven obsessed, brutal enforcer of his interpretation of religion certain that he is able to interpret his God's words correctly.

 

Seriously frightening.

 

I wonder what he thinks of Turkey's attempt to reinterpret the Hadith.

 

I assume if he agrees with it it fits his God's purpose, if he disagrees with it it is an abomination.

 

The Hadith is a collection of thousands of sayings reputed to come from the Prophet Muhammad.

 

As such, it is the principal guide for Muslims in interpreting the Koran and the source of the vast majority of Islamic law, or Sharia.

 

But the Turkish state has come to see the Hadith as having an often negative influence on a society ... It says that a significant number of the sayings were never uttered by Muhammad, and even some that were need now to be reinterpreted.

 

ome of the sayings - also known individually as "hadiths" - can be shown to have been invented hundreds of years after the Prophet Muhammad died, to serve the purposes of contemporary society.

 

Turkey is intent on sweeping away that "cultural baggage" and returning to a form of Islam it claims accords with its original values and those of the Prophet.

 

"There are some messages that ban women from travelling for three days or more without their husband's permission and they are genuine.

 

"But this isn't a religious ban. It came about because in the Prophet's time it simply wasn't safe for a woman to travel alone like that. But as time has passed, people have made permanent what was only supposed to be a temporary ban for safety reasons."

 

Prof Gormez points out that in another speech, the Prophet said "he longed for the day when a woman might travel long distances alone".

 

So, he argues, it is clear what the Prophet's goal was.

[Miss Take]

Sounds like any other religion to me - believe the bits that you need to in order to get through your day and stay part of the club. Ignore the bits that you can't get around and say 'well, it obviously wasn't meant to be interpreted that way'. To me it has the hand of man all over it, not the hand of god.