'Anti' Isalm cartoons....

Hodders · 3 Feb 2006 at 10:48

This is really starting to get my blood up.....

The reaction of the muslim extremists over these cartoons is just laughable if it wern't so serious.

They are 'cartoons', drawings, not a personal attack on anyone.

Now I know the Islam bans images of Mohammed to prevent worship of icons and idols, but this is the 21st century.... WAKE UP.

It also seems very inconsistant that the same people that choose to live in Britain making use of its healtcare, schooling, liberal society (which are all the result of democracy, freedom of expression and tolerance) are now complaining, often violently, against the very core the sociey they live in.

Maybe we should allow Muslims complete freedom of expression and religious understanding be implementing Sharia law whenever a Muslim is found guilty in this country ? Would that make them happy ?

Now I know this has all sounded like a rant, and it is to a degree, but if a child of mine behaved like these people, I would send it to it's room until it calmed down and could behave rationally.

I am not trying to say anything generalised about all Muslims, but this hard line minority has got to be dealt with as it will lead to ever increasing isolation for the Muslim community in this country and that scares me and is not something I want to see happen.

It seems such a shame the a small Muslim minority is tarnishing the whle community as people with thinking stuck in the dark ages somewhere.

cleanbluesky · 3 Feb 2006 at 10:52

The idea of Mohammed cartoons is, of course, a double-standard - after the original cartoons were published - there were 'positive' cartoons published by Muslim artists. It seems perhaps they just dont want US drawing Mohammed.

I fear these events will not be easily forgotten. If any violence sparks up over here because of this, the quality of 'interfaith relations' will plummet.

theleg · 3 Feb 2006 at 10:54

You are forgetting that the people who are getting all stroppy about this dont live in the 21st century...

You wont find any muslims in the west taking such action, even though they may agree that the cartoons are offensive.

GSDog · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:06

I think this is all a bit of a joke to be honest. Like Hodders said, it is a cartoon and they shouldn't be offended so easily, and they certainly shouldn't threaten some countries because of a cartoon, its almost like they want to start trouble. I know it can be offensive to some people, but why can't they ignore it? Instead of making it such a big deal, its been done, nothing can change that.

-Laser- · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:07

i find it a bit funny that to protest against them (or their god) being portrayed as terrorist-like in the cartoon, they take to the streets waving guns around!

i know its a bit more complex than that but stil...

Manlove is my forte · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:11

IMO This was a touchy subject and we (well the Danish) have offended people of another land with different cultural beliefs. FFS he is the profit of their religion and there are a lot of nations in the world that have western resources, technology and communications but not western attitudes. The countries offended by this will see it another reason to hate and attack the west. Remember the stink the Christians made about Dogma? (ok they didn't propose violence but they did kick off)

I think an apology needs to be made. No More, No Less.

Matblack · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:14

cleanbluesky said:
The idea of Mohammed cartoons is, of course, a double-standard - after the original cartoons were published - there were 'positive' cartoons published by Muslim artists. It seems perhaps they just dont want US drawing Mohammed.

This isn't quite true, within Islam there is a rejection of any iconography and the human form is not used in their art, instead abstract and forms and functional items are favored, drawing Mohammed is increadably taboo. So they don't want anyone drawing Mohammed

That aside I must say I am concerned about what I am hearing; listening to an interview on R4 this morning it would seem that there is a huge amount reactionary agression being generated in the Muslim community over this. Apparently there was a picket of the BBC this morning and they didn't even show the images, in fact they went out of their way to reconstruct them without including any representation of Mohammed.

Stuart Lee made a very interesting point regarding this, he said that as a religon Christianity had sold out its own iconography the moment the Vatican started selling snow globes of the baby Jesus, but to draw Mohammed remained offensive because Muslims themselves did not feel comfortable to depict Mohammed . I don't nessesarily agree that doing so should be taboo but it remains quite insulting to presume to draw a figurehead of a faith when a member of said faith would not deem to do so.

On a seperate note I find it facinating and slightly scary that the Muslim community can summon up such reactionary rage so quickly. There were members of this demonstration at the BBC calling for violence and someone when asked if they would kill based on this said that they wouldn't HOWEVER they insinuated that anyone who did would be considered a matyr and would go to heaven for it (apparently there maybe a shortage of virgins when they do get there though).

MB

Vonhelmet · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:15

Blah... none of you have any right to question what offends someone, so don't. You are perfectly at liberty to question how they react to that offence, and I concur that waving weapons about isn't likely to help the situation.

Vonhelmet · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:16

Kronologic said:
Remember the stink the Catholics made about Dogma? (ok they didn't propose violence but they did kick off)

Fixed that for you.

cleanbluesky · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:16

Kronologic said:
I think an apology needs to be made. No More, No Less.

Its been done and still some Islamic associations are calling for "war"

-Laser- · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:17

Kronologic said:
IMO This was a touchy subject and we (well the Danish) have offended people of another land with different cultural beliefs. FFS he is the profit of their religion and there are a lot of nations in the world that have western resources, technology and communications but not western attitudes. The countries offended by this will see it another reason to hate and attack the west. Remember the stink the Christians made about Dogma? (ok they didn't propose violence but they did kick off)

I think an apology needs to be made.

that is a bit kinda double standards though isn't it. there's a lot of stuff based around christian religions (dogma, little nicky, saved) that portray them quite negatively in some places. imagine what would happen if the subject was Islam instead of Christianity.

AJUK · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:18

This whole sorry affair is going to end in violence in this country, maybe not now but there is a deep seated undercurrent of resentment building, on both sides, and it will have to come to a head.

cleanbluesky · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:19

We are not of their faith - why should we let them decide what we are and are not allowed to do and what the standards of 'offence' and socially acceptable behaviour is?

Manlove is my forte · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:19

cleanbluesky said:
Its been done and still some Islamic associations are calling for "war"

Oh, From what I saw on the News last night the editors of various news papers were refusing to apologise. I havent seen the news today so I guess their opinions might of changed.

Vonhelmet · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:20

cleanbluesky said:
We are not of their faith - why should we let them decide what we are and are not allowed to do and what the standards of 'offence' and socially acceptable behaviour is?

Why, because they have guns and C4 and they aren't afraid to use them!

Matblack · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:21

cleanbluesky said:
We are not of their faith - why should we let them decide what we are and are not allowed to do and what the standards of 'offence' and socially acceptable behaviour is?

Devils Advocate

They are not of our faith - why should they let us decide what they are and are not allowed to do and what the standards of 'offence' and socially acceptable behaviour is?

/Devils Advocate

MB

If you had added a disclaimer regarding in a prodominately Muslim/ Christian country I might have agreed with you.

Vonhelmet · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:23

Matblack said:
Devils Advocate

They are not of our faith - why should they let us decide what they are and are not allowed to do and what the standards of 'offence' and socially acceptable behaviour is?

/Devils Advocate

MB

If you had added a disclaimer regarding in a prodominately Muslim/ Christian country I might have agreed with you.

Curse your ninja editing! I was about to make that disclaimer point in response to your post!

sandy10 · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:23

Religion, once again, the biggest cause of controversy, pain, heartache and war.

Vonhelmet · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:24

sandy10 said:
Religion, once again, the biggest cause of controversy, pain, heartache and war.

And science creates the weapons of war. DISCUSS.

Alternatively, be quiet, that anti-religion argument is old and tired. It's the human condition that causes these problems, not religion.

theleg · 3 Feb 2006 at 11:25

cleanbluesky said:
We are not of their faith - why should we let them decide what we are and are not allowed to do and what the standards of 'offence' and socially acceptable behaviour is?

Well why are we so worked up about what they are doing in response?

What business is it of ours whether they get angry or not? Those radicals in the middle east can do what they please in their own countries..

Those who disagree with it over here are free to protest peacefully, as they have been doing..

So whats the problem?