Skip to main content

View Diary: What Would Prophet Muhammad Do? (110 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  updated (4.00)
    Thanks, I added a link to the Sharon cartoon in the article.

    My criteria for comparing the two cartoons is that one makes fun of an elected powerful controversial official, and another insults a religion and religious leader who's viewed as holy, while publishing it in a country with a 4% minority of that religion (ie weak and powerless).

    •  for the record, i do not believe in (none)
      censorship of ideas - the crucifix in urine that was shown in the brooklyn academy of art a number of years back was offensive and distasteful to many christians, but i support the right of the artist to portray his opinion of religion.

      i also support the right of the cartoonist to express his views - the purpose of "art" is to provoke discussion.  

      the frightening issue for me is when people are so upset by another's perception of one's individual beliefs that the insulted person perpetrates a greater harm.  the rioters in syria and lebanon and other nations are exacting violence under the ruse of religion - they are placing innocent individuals at risk of harm.

      there is NO excuse for violence due to disagreements over religious philosophy!  if you (universal "you") insult my beliefs, i have the right to disassociate myself from your company - i do NOT, however, have the right to punch you in the nose or burn down your house!

      we are at the boiling point of intolerance and both sides are flagrantly pushing "hot" buttons for those they don't like or trust.

      as for insulting cartoons of sharon, printing nazi symbols and rhetoric - i don't believe THESE should be "banned", either.  banning doesn't work.  airing opinions where they can be discussed, disagreed with, argued - THESE are ways to diffuse the hate speech.  it is when it goes underground that the hatred grows and spreads.

      ah, i'm going on and on again - must be because i'm tired and annoyed with all the stupidity going on - on all sides.

      excuses for hatred seem easy to come by these days.  ALL the prophets would be dismayed and disappointed in how their words have been distorted and mispoken.  how very sad that as we have supposedly come so far (in this, the 21st century), on the issue of religion, we seem to be regressing to the dark ages.

      •  In the current geopolitical context, (none)
        publishing these anti-Muslim cartoons seems to me more like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater than noble and innocent self-expression.

        Progressives encourage dissent to improve society through constructive engagement. Conservatives encourage dissent to identify and silence the traitors.

        by sxwarren on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:12:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Thank you for the Sharon cartoon link, but (2.57)

      without at least a link to one of the Mohammed cartoons that you say is "much more insulting," it's not possible to know your criteria and evaluate your claims.

      Let me, however, compare the Sharon cartoon to one of the actual Danish cartoons.

      Alluding to Goya's painting "Saturn Devouring One of His Children", this work by British cartoonist David Brown, of the Independent seems to me (as an inveterate critic and opponent of Sharon [at least until his disengagement from the Gaza Strip]) to cross the boundaries of good taste with its depiction of Sharon as a canibal eating babies (but, of course, I would not ban it).

      I've had difficulty finding separate images of each cartoon. Here' a link to all of them at face of muhammed. And here's an individual image:

      IMHO, ymmv, neither this cartoon nor any of the other actual Danish cartoons approaches the the graphic, unrelieved nature or David Brown's anti-Sharon cartoon. Nor is it obvious that the Danish cartoon casts aspersions at all Muslims rather than at a certain interpretation of Islam (and Mohammed) that is used to justify suicide bombings.


      As I say, your mileage may vary. But I would appreciate a reasoned explanation for why you think the Danish cartoons (if those are the ones you have in mind) are "much more insulting" than the anti-Sharon cartoon in question. (If you are not referring to the actual Danish cartoons, please at least link to what you are comparing.)

      Again, thanks in advance for your consideration.


      f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

      by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:25:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  here's my take (4.00)
        the cartoons about Sharon and equating Isreal with the Nazis are POLITICAL.

        the Muhammed cartoon is RELIGIOUS.

        which is why the Muhammed cartoon is more offensive.

        O'BRIEN: What if Jesus got this card? Would he be angry about it? He's be OK with it, wouldn't he? DONOHUE: Well, maybe he would, but I've never met him

        by PoliMorf on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 04:56:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Personally, I take the cartoons to (3.33)

          be political. But even if they all are religious, why does that it make them worse?

          I agree with Jerome a Paris:

          One point that I have never yet seen mentioned is that several of the cartoons ALSO make fun of JP and/or the cartoonists. One has "PR stunt" quite explicitly visible. The one with the kid stats that "JP's journalists are a bunch of reactionary provocateurs".

          Which brings me to the point that I disagree with the almost universal opinion that these cartoons were pretty bad. There are provocative, sure - that was the explicit intent, but they are not without ambiguity, which is the hallmark of good caricature. And several I liked.


          f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

          by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:02:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Personally (4.00)
            I agree. There is MASSIVE overeaction on the Muslim side. but I have to wonder, such over reaction is not new. What on earth were the cartoonists thinking ? "This is going to sell a few more copies" ?

            O'BRIEN: What if Jesus got this card? Would he be angry about it? He's be OK with it, wouldn't he? DONOHUE: Well, maybe he would, but I've never met him

            by PoliMorf on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:12:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Perhaps Tri can explain how quoting Jerome (3.00)

            a Paris warrants a "0" rating. Or, perhaps, Tri is incapable.


            f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

            by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:11:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  good point , except (none)
          in the middle east religion and politics are the same thing.  
          •  No not always (none)
            oh Religion heavily influences politics and vice versa but they are not indistinguishable-- after all not every poltician is a imam/mullah/ayatolah

            You know someone is prone to violent overreaction, and you provoke them. Yes, their violence is wrong. But your provocation is just stupid.

            by PoliMorf on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 02:10:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  The Sharon cartoon is not just political (none)
          One of the traditional anti-Semitic smears is that Jews eat the blood of children for Passover.    By showing the leader of the Jewish state eating a baby, the artist is deliberately and intentionally repeating this blood libel and it is anti-Semitism.  
          •  true (none)
            Right, and one of the traditional Islamophobic smears is that Islam is pro-terrorism, and by showing this depiction of Muhammad, peace be upon him, with dynamite in his turban, the artist is deliberately and intentionally repeating this libel over again, and this is Islamophobic hate speech. After Srebrenica, can we afford to do this again either? Anti-Semitism should be illegal, along with hate speech at other minorities.
            •  Hate speech sucks but should be allowed (none)
              No,  hate speech should not be illegal.  Speech inciting violance should be.   In the U.S., the best example is the KKK.   We despise them, counter protest but we know they have the right to speak until they start threatening to hurt people.

              These cartoons were stupid and offensive but did not incite violance against Muslims and should be allowed.

              Imagine if you will if hate speech was banned, then who defines what hate speech is?   Christians who say everyone is going to hell?  People who think illegal immigration should be stopped?  Anti-war protestors?

      •  I see it differently (4.00)
        Another American, I see it differently. Sharon is a politician and gets mocked all the time, it's not like he's a religious leader or Pope or anything.

        While the Danish cartoon looks less graphic on its face (and darn it, don't post the image link! The cartoon offends me and I'm avoiding it.), there's obvious meaning behind it. Imagine some Right-winger in America hates illegal hispanic immigrants and decides to insult them by publishing an obscene drawing of the virgin Mary, peace be upon her. Isn't that going to draw protests from all over, not just the immigrant community?

        The reason this got to be such a giant issue, is that the Sharon cartoon was challenged under Europe's anti-Semitism laws. The Danish cartoons, however, don't fall under those laws. You can insult Muslims, but not Jews. Muslims are screaming "Double standard" and Europeans decided to handle this by patronizing them. Europeans constantly complain about anti-Semitic cartoons in the Arab world, but defend their Islamophobic cartoons?

        •  If a "1" rating is your response to (3.00)

          a reasoned difference of opinion, then I'm not sure continuing the discussion is useful. And if you're avoiding looking at the actual cartoons, how can you offer any reasoned comment yourself? (But I won't reciprocate the rating.)

          You wrote: Another American, I see it differently. Sharon is a politician and gets mocked all the time, it's not like he's a religious leader or Pope or anything.

          Here are two American cartoons about Christian religious figures. Do you find them more or less or equally insulting as the Danish cartoons, for example the one I posted?


          This is a cartoon of Cardinal Law, the former Archbishop of Boston.



          f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

          by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:36:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  the 1 rating (2.40)
            The 1 rating was in response to you posting the image of the offensive cartoon. I really didn't want you to do that. As a Muslim, I'm offended by it, and I'm tempted to put a warning above the bump, because I've been avoiding the cartoon and I'm sure some of my Muslim friends are too.

            Why couldn't you just have used a link? Other diaries have put a link in with a warning next to it.

            •  If you haven't seen the cartoons, (3.20)

              how can you possibly have an opinion about them worth reading?

              If you give a 1 rating because you are offended by the cartoon, why should people not give you 1 or 0 ratings if they are offended by your views?

              My understanding is that, at Daily Kos, we don't rate people down because we disagree with their views. You may not like the cartoon, but as a community I don't think they are viewed as beyond the pale.

              It's still not too late for you to change the rating. If not, then, with regret, this is goodbye. Not because I crave a higher rating but because I vehemently object to the censorship it (to me) implies.


              f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

              by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:10:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  What bullshit (none)
                Your are one of the best trolls out their.  We don't rate people down because we disagree with their opinions?  Then why did you zero rate me in another post because you disagreed with my opinion?  Everything I have ever seen you post has preached "republican" hatred, except when you are throwing around random posts to increase your ratings.    

                Boycott Citibank/Citicards. They are corporate thieves and terrorists.

                by tri on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:13:57 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  you deserve a 1 rating (none)
                I don't think the diarist should down rate people in his own diary.  However you posted that cartoon to be an ass and I hope some other people do pass you out the ones you so richly deserve.  Grow up, baiting people and being intentionally offensive is not enlightening anyone or anything.
              •  I don't need to see them (none)
                I don't need to see them. If someone tells me it's a cartoon of Muhammad, peace be upon him, being raped by a dog, do I need to see them to actually get angry? I don't need to watch pornography to make up my mind on those matters either. I didn't have a problem with you putting up a link to the cartoons, but I don't want them shoved in my face every time I read the page. They're sinful, I feel I should avert my eyes out of respect. Surely you can understand that.
                •  But none of the actual cartoons is of (none)

                  Mohammed, or of anyone else, being raped by a dog. Neither did I myself reproduce any such image. More to the point, the Danish newspaper did not publish any such cartoon, as you would know if you looked, for example, at Wikipedia. The dog-rape cartoon, and two others, appear to have been fabricated by a Danish-Islamist group trying to foment greater controversy and hostility. See, e.g., my diary The Cartoons: A Manufactured Controversy? (Illustrated).

                  The organisation Islamic Society in Denmark toured the Middle-East to create awareness about the cartoons, bringing 3 additional images, which HAD NEVER been published in any media source. Evidently, the originals were not offensive enough for the trip . . .[original emphasis]

                                    * * *

                  The three additional images (which as a matter of good taste I will not reproduce, but which may be seen here, here, and here) are described, respectively, as depicting Mohammed as a pedophile demon, showing Mohammed with a pig's snout, and showing a praying Muslim being raped by a dog.

                  Akhmad Akkari, spokesman of the Danish Muslim organisations which organised the tour, explained that the three drawings had been added to "give an insight in how hateful the atmosphere in Denmark is towards Muslims."

                  Akkari claimed he does not know the origin of the three pictures. He said they had been sent anonymously to Danish Muslims. However, when Ekstra Bladet asked if it could talk to these Muslims, Akkari refused to reveal their identity. These images had however never been published in Jyllands-Posten.



                  f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                  by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 01:39:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  As I said before, (none)
                    in your diary, I said that I'm skeptical, I don't think the case is proven yet, and you're jumping to a conclusion too quickly. You're getting your information from a right-wing source, who made their allegiance clear already, not someone I'd trust.
                    •  Anyone who goes to Wikipedia (none)

                      can see for themselves a reproduction of the original page from the newspaper. It contains only twelve cartoons, none of which shows either a dog or a rape scene, much less a dog raping Mohammed. At this point, I regret to say that a refusal to accept this easily verifiable fact amounts to wilful blindness.


                      f/k/a one of the people "`Our country, right or wrong!' . . . when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right." (Sen. Carl Schurz)

                      by another American on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 05:06:08 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  I give you a one (none)
              for using the ratings system as a form of censorship. Something which is most certainly "unproductive".
        •  it is really bad form (none)
          to down rate people commenting in your own diary just because they disagree with you.  It is also a good way to make sure people no longer comment in your diaries.  
          Think of this diary as a party you invited people to.  I would suggest changing any low ratings you gave people.
      •  I think... (none)
        ...based on what the original diarist said.  Mohammed is a very close and revered person in every muslim's life.  As he said they are closer to them than their own family.

        I think even the possibility of insulting Mohammed the prophet is something we might equate with various "yo momma" insults in western society but worse by magnitudes.

        At the same time I think the idea that this cartoon is the cause for the embassy fire is kind of rediculous.  I think it's far more probable to say that there's been a long stewing annimosity in Europe as it relates to the treatment of muslims and this was just the final of many straws.

        That's how I see it.

        I can't wait til they start making us wear armbands.

        by DawnG on Sun Feb 05, 2006 at 06:58:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  exactly! (none)
          This is exactly my point, and my reason for the diary. I tried to tell people why it's so offensive, and went to great lengths to condemn the violence, but its like nobody read the diary.

          Thanks, I feel better now.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site