satire, freedom, sacrilege, abuse

[Optio equitum]

A question more than a comment. I personally have seen paintings of Muhammad in Saudi Arabia. Is the ban on not having an image of his a recent thing? A particular sects view? Or just a point of view being used to whip up problems? I feel that many of these people protesting are being led by the nose, so to speak, on this issue. Considering the way this has spread, I feel there is a bit of ignorance of their own faith on the part of the protesters, as well as some good old fashion "us against them" propaganda in use. By ignorance I do not mean ignorant in everything, but I do believe the faithful are being whipped into a frenzy over this, and I do wonder about the motives behind those doing the whipping. I hate to compare the attitudes here to the crusades, but it does creep into my thoughts.

[tlclark]

A question more than a comment. I personally have seen paintings of Muhammad in Saudi Arabia. Is the ban on not having an image of his a recent thing?

There are three sources of Muslim religious law, the Quran, the Hadith and the Sharia. NONE of them forbid the representation of Mohammed. All three ban the representation of devotional or religious icons, but not necessarily religious subject matter. Deference to Mohammed creeps in over time until he becomes the equivalent of a religious icon. In Persian Imagery, his face is veiled as a sort of work-around on this deference, but there is no fundamental reason while he can't be depicted in a narrative sense and in fact, he has appeared in numerous examples of Persian & Arab art since at least the 10th C. and shows up in modern images all over the Arab world today.

I do believe the faithful are being whipped into a frenzy over this, and I do wonder about the motives behind those doing the whipping.

This is EXACTLY what is happening IMO. Remember that they were originally published in Sept, circulated first through the Arab newspapers in December but the riots didn't happen until just now. This isn't grass-roots, this is astro-turf. It is a manufactured outrage, and its very unfortunate, since it paints the West as insensitive at exactly the time we need to be buiding bridges, but at the same time, we can't compromise on our principles. To the Arab (which is not necessarily the same as the Muslim world) that would be a sign of weakness. We need to stand up for ourselves, tactfully, but we need to hold true to our values and remind them that Islam is bigger than this.

Travis

[Tarbicus]

A bit more background on the whole thing:

Muslim Society Official Explains Mission Against Cartoons:

February 8, 2006 · Protests against cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad have led to a number of deaths and damage to Danish missions in several countries. The Danish cartoons came to worldwide attention in part because of Ahmed Abu Laban, the religious director of the Muslim Society in Copenhagen. Steve Inskeep talks to Laban.

www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5195798&ft=1&f=1004

[Robert Vermaat]

I do believe the faithful are being whipped into a frenzy over this, and I do wonder about the motives behind those doing the whipping.

This is EXACTLY what is happening IMO. Remember that they were originally published in Sept, circulated first through the Arab newspapers in December but the riots didn't happen until just now. This isn't grass-roots, this is astro-turf. It is a manufactured outrage, and its very unfortunate, since it paints the West as insensitive at exactly the time we need to be buiding bridges, but at the same time, we can't compromise on our principles. To the Arab (which is not necessarily the same as the Muslim world) that would be a sign of weakness. We need to stand up for ourselves, tactfully, but we need to hold true to our values and remind them that Islam is bigger than this.

I agree. Recently they arrested a guy in Germany who told the mechanics behind it all: enrage the western population through attacks, create a rift between Muslims and non-Muslims in western countries.
ThThis erves a dual purpose;
1) anti-Muslim feelings running high in the West (as we see today) create even higher anti-Western feeleings in Muslim countires.
2) anti-Muslim feelings in the West isolate the moderate Muslims there, who are considered an enemy by the extremists. These moderates, who often are blamed for the atrocities of the few, are thus forced to cut themselves loose from their background or, more ofen alas, see themselves forces to choose for their background and take up an anti-Western position. They also radicalise. This we've seen happening also in the UK.

In the long term this development might create a rift between Muslims and non-Muslims worldwide, and many will migrate from Western nations. Muslims worldwide already identify Western countries with israel and the US, who are (in their eyes) committing horrible crimes agains Arabs and Islam. No news there. But it's the recently growing intolerance towards the Muslims in Western nations that will do us in - by forcing 'our' moderate Muslims to radicalise or be repressed, they will choose against moderation.

Recently published evidence of atrocities by Western forces in Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan) is of course extremely valuable to Muslim extremists.
Personally I can see their strategy work - several collegues won't listen anymore to any relativism and are conviced that 'they' are 'themselves' to blame (easily identifying a Taliban with a Dutch Muslim of Maroccan descent without thinking about it - 'they're all Muslims, they're all to blame')

[Optio equitum]

A question more than a comment. I personally have seen paintings of Muhammad in Saudi Arabia. Is the ban on not having an image of his a recent thing?

There are three sources of Muslim religious law, the Quran, the Hadith and the Sharia. NONE of them forbid the representation of Mohammed. All three ban the representation of devotional or religious icons, but not necessarily religious subject matter. Deference to Mohammed creeps in over time until he becomes the equivalent of a religious icon. In Persian Imagery, his face is veiled as a sort of work-around on this deference, but there is no fundamental reason while he can't be depicted in a narrative sense and in fact, he has appeared in numerous examples of Persian & Arab art since at least the 10th C. and shows up in modern images all over the Arab world today.

I do believe the faithful are being whipped into a frenzy over this, and I do wonder about the motives behind those doing the whipping.

This is EXACTLY what is happening IMO. Remember that they were originally published in Sept, circulated first through the Arab newspapers in December but the riots didn't happen until just now. This isn't grass-roots, this is astro-turf. It is a manufactured outrage, and its very unfortunate, since it paints the West as insensitive at exactly the time we need to be buiding bridges, but at the same time, we can't compromise on our principles. To the Arab (which is not necessarily the same as the Muslim world) that would be a sign of weakness. We need to stand up for ourselves, tactfully, but we need to hold true to our values and remind them that Islam is bigger than this.

Travis

So the problem is he is in a less than flattering cartoon(s)? As as opposed to a narrative sense? A tempest in a teapot then, and those affected do not seem to know the difference, and the leaders responsible have no desire to explain it. Wonderful. As if we do not have enough problems in the world, lets make them up. I have seen my fair share of the world, and I worry more and more about humans as a whole. I would like to see a world developing like those in the book 3001 (interesting read by the way, for those who like what if) but I am not so sure. I mean this as no insult to any religion, but the more I see the world tearing itself apart over what I see as minor issues in comparison to the planet as a whole, the more I throw my hands up in disgust at the whole concept. Again, no insult intended, but it does seem a case of (as has been stated already) my god is better than your god, and I will kill to prove me right.

[tlclark]

Robert, great points

ThThis erves a dual purpose;
1) anti-Muslim feelings running high in the West (as we see today) create even higher anti-Western feeleings in Muslim countires.
2) anti-Muslim feelings in the West isolate the moderate Muslims there, who are considered an enemy by the extremists. These moderates, who often are blamed for the atrocities of the few, are thus forced to cut themselves loose from their background or, more ofen alas, see themselves forces to choose for their background and take up an anti-Western position. They also radicalise. This we've seen happening also in the UK.

That's exactly right. I can only speak of my experience in Egypt and Turkey which are the only muslim countries that I know very well. Particularly in Egypt, the gov't is oppressive, and walks a tight rope between the radicals and moderates, playing them off each other to their benefit. The result of this is that the moderates will never fully commit themselves to any route that may get them killed. It has happened that many many times in Egypt, the moderates have extended themselves only to be sold out by their own gov't and handed over to the radical elements. This has made them gun shy.

When people say "Where are the moderate muslims? Why don't they come to our side?" they have to remember that when we speak up in our western countries, the most we get is shouted down or called unpatriotic, in their countries they get jailed or worse! That's asking a lot of them and frankly, they are NOT going to stick their necks out until they are certain, ABSOLUTELY certain, that the Western values, which that they like and admire, will win out in the end. Until then, they have to protect their families, and their very lives.

IMO, it's unfortunate that we have this rioting going on, right now when we NEED to build bridges, BUT we can't back down on this issue. I know that the cartoons are offensive to muslims, but by backing down and NOT publishing them, we will be telling all the moderate muslims in their own countries that we won't support THEIR right to free speech. Yet this outrage is deliberately manufactured to separate that group of people from US, by showing them that we don't respect their tradition.

What we need to do is to try to say that we do respect their tradition but that this is the cost of a free society and the benefit is worth it, and that Islam is big enough, strong enough that it can handle challenges like this should the day come when a free press is a common thing in the Islamic world.

Successfully doing that will pretty much get you the title "GOD of DIPLOMACY" in my book. It ain't easy, but there doesn't seem to be any other way.

James, appreciated your comments as well and I feel your frustration.

Again, no insult intended, but it does seem a case of (as has been stated already) my god is better than your god, and I will kill to prove me right.

Yeah, a lot of people that that relativism would solve this problem "Your God is as good as my God" but that just causes a lot of confusion and difficulty when it's clear not everyone feels that way. In fact it causes tension, because if every belief is equally good, every belief is equally worthless. Rather what we need is pluralism a sort of "My god may be better than your god, but I can prove that by persuasion and I don't need to bomb your street to prove it." I have no problem with conviction, or belief. After all, if people didn't believe their religion was superior why would they believe it? At the same time it seems the minimum we can ask of society is civility.

Which, (Just to bring this back to Roman times) was accomplished in large part by the rule of law and equity of all citizens, something Romans knew well. In the end a lot of Roman provinces didn't revolt because they knew the Roman system DID treat them fairly.

Travis

[Optio equitum]

Thank you TL. I wish people could just believe in themselves, and humans as a whole, but that seems to be wishful thinking. For any that have seen war, it is an ugly, horrible thing, and is glamorous in the movies ONLY. I realize that it is sometimes necessary, but should be a last resort. It is all too easy to point at a group and say "kill them, they (look,feel,are) different, and then sit back and watch the fireworks. I know I am babbling, but I do worry about the human race. I think of the great things we have done, the universe that is open before us, and we cannot seem to pick our eyes up off the ground. Anyway, I hope just a few people learn from this insanity, and try something better.

[Arthes]

Greetings,
some Muslims feel that they are targeted because of their faith.
I wish this human race could put aside their differences long enough to sit down and have a friendly chat.
It strikes me that the various names given to 'God' make no difference, unless you happen to be a Buddhist or Sikh or other culture who are not given to violence (and quite often also tend to vegetarianism)
Each of the 'violent' faiths preaches that their 'God' condemns bloodshed and violence (I think) except - read the small print - it is alright to rid the world of those who worship 'false idols' ie, anybody who worships the same God under a different name or form.... hock:
Take the Spanish Inquisition (no, not Faventianus asking for translations... :wink: )
all the persecution and torture carried out in the name of religion.....but what about the part of the bible that says 'forgive' 'love thy neighbour'....'do not kill'...'turn the other cheek', etc, etc..
The Muslims also say that a strong man is one who can resist the temptation to strike back.
Why is it that people only look at the incitement to hurt, not at the incitement to talk out the differences and come to understandings and agreements.
Everyone gets angry and feels like punching someone at times, but violence and even murder seems to be coming the norm nowadays - we will soon be carrying swords on a daily basis again..... :roll:
Why is it so hard for people to accept everyone's differences...there is no RIGHT or WRONG, we should be allowed to chose our beliefs because that is what we feel comfortable with, without fear.
The underlying reasons behind a lot of trouble at the moment, is because of heavy immigration which is bound to cause resentment and fear of losing your own cultural identity and with certain cultures who have strong family bonds, if one comes over - they all have to come over.
Without wanting to sound too awful, where I went to school now has around 95% or more, immigrants of a dark hue, as the whites pass away or move out, mostly the dark skinned seem to move in. I don't know if the local authority has some sort of ethnic equality scheme - which is discriminating against those 'whose ancestors have lived here for generations' who are looking for homes...!
regards
Arthes

[john m roberts]

Arthes:
I'm afraid you are talking about a rational, reasoned discourse between open-minded people of good will who have a genuine desire for reconciliation and peace. In other words, the last thing a religious fanatic wants.

[tlclark]

Arthes

Everyone gets angry and feels like punching someone at times, but violence and even murder seems to be coming the norm nowadays - we will soon be carrying swords on a daily basis again.....

Was this meant tongue in cheek? :lol:

I mean, I find that really ironic coming from a bunch of re-enactors, since we basically would LOVE to carry swords around all day.

Sorry, this just struck me as very ironic.

[FAVENTIANVS]

Take the Spanish Inquisition (no, not Faventianus asking for translations...)

Why me?!

[Optio equitum]

Well, have to pick on someone...

[Tarbicus]

since we basically would LOVE to carry swords around all day.

Not I !! I'd trip and stab myself, or something like it. Give a monkey a flick-knife and trouble's sure to follow... :wink:

[Optio equitum]

Tarbicus, you would not believe the mental image your phrase creates...something along the lines of a demented "2001" opening scene...

[Arrian]

A few weeks ago, just after the embassies in Syria had been burned, me and a friend of mine were in what you might call an "unresonable" frame of mind about the whole issue. The debate had been driven to extremes and we were, I am ashamed to say, not to fond of some of our muslim countrymen, especially some radical minorities who had been whipping things up.

Then, on the news, the representative of "islamic council" a leding muslim organization here in Norway, said something very touching:

"I as a norwegian muslim have been deeply offended twice in recent days. First, when the caricatures were printed, and then again when I saw Norwegian flags burned in the middle east."

We do believe he was sincere, and it put everything in a new light for us.