Friday, February 03, 2006

Mohammed as a Cartoon

To some people in the world, it's ok to blow people up and kill randomly, but you'll be damned for rendering an ancient founder of religion in a cartoon. Is it me or is this going on a bit to seriously? I'll be the first one to say that there are injustices, but to get pissed off and riot over a cartoon? A cartoon?

Maybe printing and publishing it is a good thing, it takes some of the rub off, or better yet, the American media (who is afraid to re-publish it) should bow to the political pressure to not reprint it. You know, we are so big on the idea of not offending anyone, to keep the riots from being about us. But is that really fair? Are more Muslims blowing themselves up than Christians? At the moment, no. So then why is the imagery not a fair representation? Are they pissed because it's an iconic representation, is that the excuse they want to use to burn flags and shoot guns in the air? Maybe it's the disrespect they feel for the illustration, infering Mohammed as a bomber. But then, if people are bombing in his name, maybe he is.

Is it really a question of media freedom or being bullied buy a radical religious group? Maybe the evangelicals will start burning TV's in front of the office of CNN. Religion cannot be made to dictate to society. This is not the 10th century, we are enlightened. Is this the fight we are approaching?

When will we STOP trying to make everyone think the same way?

| | |


At 3:46 AM, Anonymous John Hardy said...

Well, yes, there's certainly no law that says a newspaper can't go around insulting a group of people. It's another question though as to whether they have to. It's not exactly against the law to bait Jews or Blacks either.

Some other takes:

At 2:11 PM, Blogger Dinah Lord said...

Some backstory from the Brussels Journal:
The newspaper published the cartoons when a Danish author complained that he could find no-one to illustrate his book about Muhammad. Jyllands-Posten wondered whether there were more cases of self-censorship regarding Islam in Denmark and asked twelve illustrators to draw the prophet for them. Carsten Juste, the paper’s editor, said the cartoons were a test of whether the threat of Islamic terrorism had limited the freedom of expression in Denmark."

It sure looks like Carsten got his answer. But there's more to this story than meets the eye.

These cartoons were published back in September why all the outrage now?

This from The Counterterrorism Blog.
Last November, Abu Laban, a 60-year-old Palestinian who had served as translator and assistant to top Gamaa Islamiya leader Talaal Fouad Qassimy during the mid-1990s and has been connected by Danish intelligence to other Islamists operating in the country, put together a delegation that traveled to the Middle East to discuss the issue of the cartoons with senior officials and prominent Islamic scholars. The delegation met with Arab League Secretary Amr Moussa, Grand Imam of Al-Azhar Sheikh Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi, and Sunni Islam’s most influential scholar, Yusuf al Qaradawi. "We want to internationalize this issue so that the Danish government will realize that the cartoons were insulting, not only to Muslims in Denmark, but also to Muslims worldwide," said Abu Laban.

On its face, it would appear as if nothing were wrong. However, the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet...

The Good Imam has admitted as such. I guess it falls under those 'fake but accurate' guidelines frequently used in reporting these days.

There have been subsequent updates on this topic. They might be helpful in deciding whether or not the Jylands Posten was being inflammatory OR if the Danish Imams took the ball and ran with it, fanning the flames along the way. Hijacking a religion, I believe it is called.

I'm not saying Muslims can't have their own beliefs, but by God they shouldn't tell me that the only belief I can have is THEIRS, either. That IS what the Islamicists believe, advocate and want.

Last time I checked the Southern Baptists weren't the ones flying planes into buildings, beheading hostages or taking the lash to women for being something called 'malveiled'. Meaning improperly covered up via hijab.

(Sorry, don't mean to rant but moral relativism in the face of evil really fries my bacon. Although bacon might be a bad choice of words in this instance. Hey, let's all keep our sense of humor, right?)


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home