Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
More Cartoon Offenses: Sweden & Opus
Via Drudge, the Washington Post, according to
"sources" at the paper, killed a Berkeley Breathed cartoon for fear
of offending Muslims. From Fox:
The Washington Post and several other newspapers around the country did not run Sunday's installment of Berkeley Breathed's "Opus," in which the spiritual fad-seeking character Lola Granola appears in a headscarf and explains to her boyfriend, Steve, why she wants to become a radical Islamist.
...
Sources told FOXNews.com that the strips were shown to Muslim staffers at The Washington Post to gauge their reaction, and they responded "emotionally" to the depiction of a woman dressed in traditional Muslim garb and espousing conservative Islamic views.
There was also considerable alarm over the strip at the highest echelons of The Washington Post Co., according to the sources. Lago said she flagged some of the syndicate's newspaper clients for two reasons: because of the possibility that the jokes about Islam would be misconstrued and because of the sexual innuendo in the punchline.
But over in Sweden, where no mainstream newspapers dared run the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (and many of whom tongue-lashed those who did), another cartoon controversy is raging. The top story at Aftonbladet.se, website of Sweden's largest-selling tabloid, says the country's chargé d'affaires to Tehren, Gunilla von Bahr, was called into a meeting to discuss a cartoon of Mohammad that recently ran in the (local) Swedish newspaper Nerikes Allehanda. The Iranians were, apparently, offended by the Örebro daily, and desired Swedish government intervention.
When artist and art historian Lars Vilks, the man behind the beautiful "Nimis" sculpture in Skåne, couldn't find a gallery to display his series of ink drawings, which includes a representation of Mohammad as a dog, the paper published them in support. Sound familiar? The Iranian goverment, on a summer break from hanging gay men, has taken action, warning the Swedish government that the cartoon is "insulting to the prophet Mohammad." A Foreign Ministry spokesman was having none of it: "The Iranian government can protest whatever they want. But the Swedish Foreign Ministry and government have no reason to comment on this protest," the official told TT, the country's largest newswire.
A few English stories on the Vilks controversy here and here. None of them mention that a moderate Muslim group in Sweden offered to exhibit the drawings—that is until Vilks published this anti-Semitic drawing of a hook-nosed sow, gobbling up Palestinians. Caption: "Modern Jew sow, swollen by capitalism, on his way out to tear apart (att böka sönder) some peaceful villages. (In the style of Cézanne)"
Vilks Mohammad cartoon here.
|8.27.07 @ 6:00PM|#
My son drew better than Vilks when he was 3. I'd refuse to exhibit his drawings based on simple incompetency.
|8.27.07 @ 6:12PM|#
Johnny D.
Diddo, those drawings are just awful.
Shame on the Post for giving in to the hysteria. When the original
Muslim cartoon flack hit, I thought to myself, "well, at least that
kind of stuff doesn't happen here."
Ding!
Oh, the oven. I guess my crow is ready.
shecky|8.27.07 @ 6:21PM|#
I'm still trying to figure out why it's bad for a newspaper to
edit a cartoon that might offend it's readers.
As far as Lars Vilks is concerned, I can think of a better reason
why he might have trouble getting his works exhibited.
|8.27.07 @ 6:31PM|#
"I'm still trying to figure out why it's bad for a newspaper to
edit a cartoon that might offend it's readers. "
Someone's bound to drool, I mean say, it's creeping dhimmitude or
something.
BFD, a newspaper doesn't want to publish a cartoon some of its
readers might find demeaning. I would hope they would censor
Vilks's antisemitic pig and his lack of talent.
Nothing to see here.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.27.07 @ 6:31PM|#
Considerable alarm? At the highest echelons? Over THAT cartoon?
Which is actually amusing. Makes me feel like this is a public
school or something.
Shecky, a free paper in a free country can edit whatever it chooses
for whatever reasons. It's the reasons themselves that tell us so
much about the character of those who edit.
That's a wrap.
|8.27.07 @ 6:36PM|#
Wow, the Orlando Sentinel ran it. Maybe I need to watch the
letters this week to see if it ignites a firestorm.
Shecky, a free paper in a free country can edit whatever it chooses for whatever reasons. It's the reasons themselves that tell us so much about the character of those who edit.
This is true. Even so I still don't have any respect for the
Slantinel. I wouldn't wrap fish in it.
|8.27.07 @ 6:43PM|#
His Mohammed dog series sucks as bad as his judensow and the scupture in Skane strikes me as sophomoric, but this is a pretty cool piece. I think that someone other than Vilks did it, though.
The Wine Commonsewer|8.27.07 @ 6:48PM|#
Course you know that the WaPo has no such considerable
alarm at the highest echelons when it comes to
offending christians.
The only fear the WaPo management has is of looking shabby at the
cocktail party de jour when some trendy prog lefty asks how they
could be so right wing.
Akira MacKenzie|8.27.07 @ 7:14PM|#
OK,I've been out of the loop with Berke Breathed since
"Outland," but...
Steve Dallas and Lola Granola, BOYFRIEND AND GIRLFRIEND???
Akira MacKenzie|8.27.07 @ 7:30PM|#
Anyone besides me notice the lead on the story?
A popular comic strip that poked fun at the Rev. Jerry Falwell
without incident one week ago was deemed too controversial to run
over the weekend because this time it took a humorous swipe at
Muslim fundamentalists.
I can hear the fundies now:
"See! See! They slander the late Reverend Farwell and defer to the
Ay-rabs! The sec-u-lar humanists hate 'Mmerica and Christianity and
want the Islamofascists to win!!!"
Tu quoque anyone? Of course, that's par for Fox.
Paul|8.27.07 @ 7:32PM|#
that is until Vilks published this anti-Semitic drawing of a
hook-nosed sow, gobbling up Palestinians. Caption: "Modern Jew sow,
swollen by capitalism, on his way out to tear apart (att böka
sönder) some peaceful villages. (In the style of
Cézanne)"
So I've seen this movie, "Man of the Year" with Robin Williams.
Anyway, for those of you who haven't seen it, it's this political
comedy where Hollywood gets to craft a kind of 'dream' candidate.
Nothing particularly new. Anyhoo, I'm not going to go into the
movie in general, but there's this one rant by Lewis Black, one of
the characters in the movie that's actually quite poignant. Black's
character starts telling someone why he doesn't watch television
anymore. He basically says that it makes everything *seem*
credible. He describes a faux situation, where on one side, you
have a learned scholarly expert on the holocaust, and on the other,
given equal footing and air time, you have this nutjob who denies
the holocaust ever happened. They go head to head, and the nutjob
eventually makes some good points, and starts to seem credible, and
in the end, it makes everyone lose credibility.
Anonymo the Anonymous|8.27.07 @ 7:38PM|#
Someone's bound to drool, I mean say, it's creeping
dhimmitude or something.
Yes, they
will, in those exact terms.
|8.27.07 @ 7:43PM|#
In the not so distant future people will discuss the rights and wrongs of publishing cartoons that may be deemed offensive to Islam and they won't even need to check if any Muslims have taken offence. Bell, food, saliva. Bell, food, saliva. Bell, food, saliva....
|8.27.07 @ 7:48PM|#
I was privileged to enjoy that latest Breathed cartoon in the
Cincinnati Enquirer where today I saw a political cartoon that I
deem even more incendiary to Islamists. It's by Daryl Cagle who
evidently does his stuff on MSNBC.com. It show 3 little boys lying
on their backs imagining images in clouds. Maybe somebody could
link to it. I can't.
I'm thinking Sinincincinnati's new motto should be: "So backward we
don't know when we're being politically incorrect, and that's a
good thing."
|8.27.07 @ 8:05PM|#
Is it just me, or does that picture look like Alton Brown after a weekend bender?
|8.27.07 @ 8:32PM|#
I read the strip online today at the WaPo and it still seems to
be there.
http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/wpopu/
|8.27.07 @ 8:39PM|#
To heck with comics - I want to see some high class ART
featuring Mohammad.
I want to see Andres Serrano do a "Piss Mohammad" to go along with
his "Piss Christ".
But wait, can't have that, a "Piss Mohammad" would lead to rioting,
burning and murdering by members of the ReligionOfPeace(tm).
Bopo|8.27.07 @ 8:41PM|#
"I can hear the fundies now:
"See! See! They slander the late Reverend Farwell and defer to the
Ay-rabs! The sec-u-lar humanists hate 'Mmerica and Christianity and
want the Islamofascists to win!!!"
Tu quoque anyone? Of course, that's par for Fox."
Yeah, because evidently only "fundies" are able to see the double
standard. You must be too stupid.
Statements, like the one I quoted above, are better at revealing
the prejucdices of the bigots who make them rather than the
intended targets it tries to smear.
And to top it all off, there is a swipe at Fox. What better way to
show the world how sophisticated you are. Evidently, the tiresome,
well-worn Fox schtick is still cutting-edge for some people. I
suppose this person reads only the New Yorker and will only eat
food flown in from Vermont.
Bopo|8.27.07 @ 8:46PM|#
"I'm thinking Sinincincinnati's new motto should be: "So
backward we don't know when we're being politically incorrect, and
that's a good thing"
Everything about that motto is fine, except the first part about
being "backward". Exactly what makes them backward? Is it because
they have differing political views than you? You seem to be of the
same ilk as Akira MacKenzie. If you would have only closed with an
anti-Fox joke, we all would be congratulating you for being more
wordly than those hayseeds in Cincinnati.
iih|8.27.07 @ 8:56PM|#
As a Muslim I did not find the Opus cartoon offensive. It is a
bit stereotypical and misrepresents what the hijab (i.e.,
scarf without face veil) - as opposed to the burqa --
means to many Muslims. The burqa is associated with fundamentalism
(not the a colorful scarf as the one shown in the Opus cartoon --
the mouth covering is realy neither a burqa nor a standard
hijab -- a cute stereotypical addition by the Opus
cartoonist) and most Muslims (outside KSA and Afghanistan) find it
too extreme and even offending.
It is funny, I came across the news regarding Opus on Micelle
Malkin's website, confirmed by Fox and no where else! They
basically propagated the "fact" that they are offensive, that
Muslims are already "outraged" and that
Westerners/Christians/"free-speechers" should stand up to Muslim
"outrage". Well, being connected to many Muslim news sources (here
and abroad), I have found very little regarding Opus (let alone the
fact they are necessarily "offensive"), no "outrage", and the whole
thing seamed theatrical and staged.
In any case, someone on this thread once shared this George Bernard
Shaw quote:
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread
it."
I did find the original Danish cartoons disturbing (not offensive).
I found it to be an expression of liberty, but was certainly
irresponsible. The Danish cartoons did, however, provide the
precedent to initiate debate (and was sad to see the outrage on the
Muslim side, and equally sad to see the ignorance and stereotyping
on the side of many Westerners). Now repeating the offense seems to
me pointless. It seems to me to be irresponsible, the quality of
tabloids, or is just meant to antagonize and not debate.
|8.27.07 @ 9:06PM|#
"See! See! They slander the late Reverend Farwell and defer
to the Ay-rabs! The sec-u-lar humanists hate 'Mmerica and
Christianity and want the Islamofascists to win!!!"
You've been skipping your medicine again, haven't you?
|8.27.07 @ 9:14PM|#
iih- It's hard to tell exactly where Breathed is coming from all of the time. His jabs at people can be a bit clever and subtle, he spreads it around a lot, and it's generally fairly good natured. I'm just guessing, but I think that the stereotypical and/or misrepresentative nature of the clothing may have been very intentional- not to pick on Muslims but to pick on the person that Lola Granola represents- she would make up some funky outfit and not know the better of it. He finds a way to simultaneously pick on the male chauvinist pig (Dallas) and the hippie (Granola).
|8.27.07 @ 9:17PM|#
....and for anybody that doesn't know about it, Yahoo posts
classic Bloom County strips every day.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/bloomcounty;_ylt=AlG4tOXEgM6PLDpl4tBejNkDwLAF
iih|8.27.07 @ 9:31PM|#
JLM:
Yes, indeed, I agee. I have not found the cartoons offensive. If
anything may be they did annoy me a bit since it may have
described the headscarf as a symbol of "fundamentalism". Looking at
the cartoon, since I was referred there from Fox and Michelle
Malkin's website, I tried (hard) to see how this could be offensive
to me as a Muslim. The only thing I found is the
mischaracterization of the head scarf as "fundamentalist" (which I
do not think is true). But that was after trying hard to see where
the offense lies.
I am a practicing Muslim by the way, with a feminist
(headscarf-wearing believe it or not -- she is a career woman,
quite successful and seem to have a great professionl future)
Muslim sister. I do not think either of us is fundamentalist since
we approve of women wearing the headscarf. My sister's reasoning
for wearing it is that "she wants to be valued for how she thinks
and not for how she looks" (and she is quite attractive -- if I may
say so).
In any case, this "controversy" is a bit blown out of
proportion.
Akira MacKenzie|8.27.07 @ 10:37PM|#
Yeah, because evidently only "fundies" are able to see the
double standard.
You don't know what a Tu Quoque fallacy is, do you?
Akira MacKenzie|8.27.07 @ 10:40PM|#
If you would have only closed with an anti-Fox joke, we all
would be congratulating you for being more wordly than those
hayseeds in Cincinnati.
You jerk-off to Sean Hannity, don't you?
Geoff Nathan|8.27.07 @ 10:43PM|#
The Detroit Free Press chose not to run it also, running
Candorville instead, without comment. They normally run Opus on
Sundays, but Candorville (which is an edgy race-related comic) was
in Opus' normal place, without comment. Interesting....
Detroit has one of the largest Arab populations in any US city. But
many of them are not Muslim but Christian, FWIW.
|8.27.07 @ 11:25PM|#
That outfit was totally supposed to be what Lola Granola thinks
a Muslim woman wears.
Breathed never has just one target.
iih|8.27.07 @ 11:38PM|#
That outfit was totally supposed to be what Lola Granola
thinks a Muslim woman wears.
That is exactly why I wasn't sure if I should be annoyed (though
Michelle Malkin and Fox say that I ought to be outraged as all
Muslims are ;-) ). I am really not familiar with Breathed to judge.
But if this is about a serious debate, I actually pretty welcome
the cartoons as an opportunity to understand what the veil means to
Muslim women. To some it is a portrayal of male chauvinism and
oppression, but to some it is a matter of deliberate choice as I
had mentioned above. Some others do it because it is a "social
tradition" without either hating it or loving. And this (just doing
something because this is "the way it is supposed to be") I do have
a problem with.
|8.28.07 @ 12:36AM|#
Whoa....wait a minute.... Lola Granola, Opus' ex-fiancee, is
dating STEVE??!?
And the WaPo editors are a bunch of fucking pussies.
Chuck Butcher|8.28.07 @ 2:53AM|#
The WaPo has lost its collective mind...and its nuts.
It would be just toooooo bad if a cartoon told the truth and
offended idiots. I didn't say Muslims, I said idiots.
Cactus|8.28.07 @ 4:30AM|#
If the Christians want some street/press cred they need to start
having some of those nifty massive street riots and start cutting
heads off of journalists, blowing up buildings, beheading thai
schoolgirls and slamming airliners into high rise office buildings.
Once you start doing that everyone is really worried about
offending you.
for instance a Saturday Night Live won't do an offensive Mohammad
skit but they will gladly do a Jesus one. Oh they're all avant
garde and cutting edge and full of the first amendment when the
people they are offending might do something like, oh, pray at them
or at the outside not watch their program. It makes them look all
impressive and edgey and committed to the rest of the hipsters.
"Look at us! We really told those bible thumping hicks! Aren't we
edgey and cutting edge and over top! We shit on Jesus! We actually
shit on their savior and they couldn't stop us! They'll hate that
but we did it lol! But we're edgey and hip like that and we won't
be censored because we're artists and we must express our work and
these bible thumping fascists won't stop us!" If those Christians
they were offending were coming to the studios to blow themselves
up or to kidnap them and cut their heads off or to simply demolish
the various studios by plowing into it with a 747s all of their
hipster artiste bullshit bravado would end up as a brown and yellow
puddle on the floor.
Eric Dondero|8.28.07 @ 8:31AM|#
No threat from Radical Islam.
All the stories of the Rise of Islam threatening Western Europe's
history of tolerance and openess, are way overblown.
Alarmists like Donderoooooooooooo, are just plain wrong. They're
closeted bigots who hate all Muslims. There's no truth to Dondero's
allegations that Radical Islam is spreading across Europe and
indeed to the shores of the US.
There's no reason for America and the American Military to fight
back against Radical Islam. We should just ignore them, and they
will leave us alone.
|8.28.07 @ 8:34AM|#
...mischaracterization of the head scarf as
"fundamentalist"
But wait, doesn't the head scarf mark a woman as "for Muslims
only"? Doesn't it mean that an "honor" killing may follow if this
woman is alone with a man not her close relative? Is it not a sign
of complete and utter discrimination against any non-Muslim
man?
grylliade|8.28.07 @ 8:53AM|#
Alarmists like Donderoooooooooooo, are just plain wrong. They're closeted bigots who hate all Muslims. There's no truth to Dondero's allegations that Radical Islam is spreading across Europe and indeed to the shores of the US.
There's no reason for America and the American Military to fight back against Radical Islam. We should just ignore them, and they will leave us alone.
Thank God you're finally admitting it.
|8.28.07 @ 8:59AM|#
There is no Berkeley Breathed. Everyone knows that Bloom County was actually penned by Francis Bacon.
|8.28.07 @ 9:14AM|#
"We should just ignore them, and they will leave us
alone."
Ah, PeaceInOurTime(tm) - how wonderfully ignorant of history one
must be to even consider this possible.
iih|8.28.07 @ 9:33AM|#
KenK:
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic of those who lump Muslims
into one basket labeled "Islamic fanatics" or you are genuinely
asking. Though I think it is the latter. I do not think it is
either accurate or beneficial in the US effort (and anyone else's
for that matter) to fight Islamic terrorism. If the West wants to
win this "war", it needs to be very careful about how to
characterize the general Muslim public. Most importantly, one
should never lump them into one basket as a single monolithic group
of fundamentalist people. The headscarf certainly does not equate
to extremist fundamentalism. If you do so, fighting terrorism will
be an utter failure.
And, of course, it would plainly be stupid to go back to 9/10/2001
kind of mentality towards the threat. But that does not mean the
West should spring to the other extreme end of the spectrum by
inappropriately responding to the threat.
Just my humble opinion.
iih|8.28.07 @ 9:49AM|#
Correction:
By "it" in
I do not think it is either accurate or beneficial in the US
effort (and anyone else's for that matter) to fight Islamic
terrorism.
I mean lumping Muslims into one basket label "fundamentalists".
|8.28.07 @ 10:16AM|#
"Akira MacKenzie | August 27, 2007, 10:40pm | #
If you would have only closed with an anti-Fox joke, we all would
be congratulating you for being more wordly than those hayseeds in
Cincinnati.
You jerk-off to Sean Hannity, don't you?"
I think you're guilty of a TU COCK fallacy here.
|8.28.07 @ 10:52AM|#
That's very insightful, Eric. Especially since the Muslim
Washington Post staffers were obviously Radical Islamists. And
because comic strip syndicators don't ever, ever send out these
warnings about potentially offensive strips in any situation except
for jokes involving Muslims.
Bedwetter. You can't even look a fairly straightforward case of
bland inoffensiveness without wetting yourself about the Mooslem
hordes.
Ah, well, at least you aren't transparently fantasizing about how
cool the murder of your political opponents would be, like Cactus.
Yellow and brown smears! Yeah!
dhex|8.28.07 @ 11:20AM|#
i'm proud of you eric; you've really made a breakthrough
here.
now repeat after me:
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
rudy is a dimestore crook.
An Arab|8.28.07 @ 12:03PM|#
Hi all,
This is my first post here.
iih,
You claim that you are a practicing Muslim, and that you were not
offended by the cartoons. In my opinion, you are on the other side
of the bell curve, in that, 95% of all Muslim friends/relatives I
talked to since, have found those cartoons to be hands down
offensive. I have lived in the Middle East for 20 years, and in the
West for 8. This is why I am confident you are more of an exception
than the rule, regarding this particular matter.
More to the point, most Muslims do not like that the prophet
Mohammad is being put on such a negative spotlight by the
West.
One may argue that current violent events by other Muslims disgrace
Islam more than cartoons. I counter that those events are done in a
political vein, with a religious veneer. Westerners believe its the
opposite: Religious fundamentalism, masquarading as political
griefs.
This initial assumption on their part is factually wrong - humans
dont generally think in existential terms - they might motivate or
provide some sort of annesthezia, but at its heart, motivation for
humans has to do with on the ground, earthly issues.
It is for this reason that Westerners in general see Muslims blow
themselves up and then assume its an 'Islamic thing', thereby
tainting the entire religion.
Its almost as if Westerners spend 1 minute listening to an entire 1
hour speech by Muslims, but then spend 1 hour analyzing the final
"Allahu Akbar" phrase in closing statements.
Westerners are not stupid. Seeing this is not hard. And yet many
still do it.
In my dealings with Westerners who mis-understand this, I have come
across two types of people, whom I have roughly classified.
-- The first type are the ignorant ones. Through no fault of their
own, they just simply do not know enough about politics and history
of the Middle East. Generally a polite bunch, they approach issues
with an open mind. On the flip side, they are the ones most likely
to by swayed by whatever sounds and points are floating around,
without giving it too much thought.
-- The second category are the Westerners with a more malevolent
streak: They look at you, hypothesize you are middle eastern, and
will immediately think you have insider knowledge as to why OPEC is
raising oil prices. Now I do have a sense of humor, so I ask them
to call Cheney and ask him for my overseas phone-call transcript to
various oil sheikhs, one good American to another.
On the more sinister side however, are people like Michelle Malkin,
Daniel Pipes, etc. Those are famous people in those circles, but of
course there are others like them but just regular folks. Those
types of Westerners do not like Islam, or Muslims. They taint the
names of Arabs and Muslims for a living. Not just individuals - but
all of them. They stereotype us, making other Westerners fear us.
There is a strong correlation between people who randomly ask me
'Why I hate them', and them watching Fox News, Sean Hannity,
Michelle Malkins, etc. This correlation is no accident. This is the
fruit of the seeds that those bigots spew.
iih|8.28.07 @ 12:24PM|#
You claim that you are a practicing Muslim, and that you
were not offended by the cartoons. In my opinion, you are on the
other side of the bell curve, in that, 95% of all Muslim
friends/relatives I talked to since, have found those cartoons to
be hands down offensive. I have lived in the Middle East for 20
years, and in the West for 8. This is why I am confident you are
more of an exception than the rule, regarding this particular
matter.
yep, you are right. I think I would be considered a "liberal"
Muslim. But such reformists or liberal Muslims are not a minority,
eventhough most Muslims would be offended by depictions of Muhammad
in general (on theological-bases, not dogmatic/superstitious
bases). When it comes to the cartoons, I did not find the Opus
cartoons offensive with the possible exception mentioned above. The
original Danish cartoons were not offensive until they were
repeatedly published just to cause further offense to Muslims. I
originally thought it was partly ignorant of Muslim sensibilities,
but an honest and unconventional way of sparking debate.
More to the point, most Muslims do not like that the prophet
Mohammad is being put on such a negative spotlight by the
West.
Agreed.
One may argue that current violent events by other Muslims
disgrace Islam more than cartoons. I counter that those events are
done in a political vein, with a religious veneer. Westerners
believe its the opposite: Religious fundamentalism, masquarading as
political griefs.
Oh, yes. Muslims' irrational responses and violence extremely
stupid, reactionary, and does no good. I argue, unlike those
Westerners you mention in this paragraph, that they are doing this
despite of Islamic teachings as opposed to
because of these teachings. I.e., they are
ignorant of their own faith. Or may be, I have a very different
view of the faith than these ignorant Muslims (let alone
fundamentalists) do, which was point that Muslims come in all sorts
of shapes and backgrounds, and are not monolithic.
I pretty much agree about the remainder of your comment.
I was myself welcomed on H&R a few months ago. I like it when
people discuss matters rationally and objectively, as opposed to
the nutjobs who often times show up (a few examples can be found in
this very thread). Overall, this is an excellent forum, especially
if you are libertarian, or have libertarian tendencies. I am a
Muslim with strong Libertarian leanings. And am still learning!
|8.28.07 @ 12:25PM|#
I have come across two types of people, whom I have roughly
classified.
"Ignorant" and "malevolent." That's interesting.
Your religion is clearly malevolent. And ludicrous.
iih|8.28.07 @ 12:30PM|#
Monsieur F. Le Mur (est que vous etes français ou
Canadien?):
You missed the phrase in bold. Not all
Westerners:
In my dealings with Westerners who mis-understand
this, I have come across two types of people, whom I have roughly
classified.
iih|8.28.07 @ 12:31PM|#
Mr. F. Le Mur:
Your religion is clearly malevolent. And ludicrous.
And how a great way to start a civilized discussion!
|8.28.07 @ 1:52PM|#
"They taint the names of Arabs and Muslims for a living. Not
just individuals - but all of them."
OTOH, they have not cut off anyone's head nor blown up any children
on purpose. They don't seem to incite riots or arson either.
It's all "SUBMIT OR DIE", even with the so-called moderate
Muslims.
iih|8.28.07 @ 2:11PM|#
KenK:
OTOH, they have not cut off anyone's head nor blown up any
children on purpose. They don't seem to incite riots or arson
either.
True, and? What is your point? Does being Muslim immediately imply
all the stuff you describe above?
It's all "SUBMIT OR DIE", even with the so-called moderate
Muslims.
Thanks for making the very point that "An Arab" was alluding to
above.
I do not know what you do for a living, but are you actually aware
that there are many Muslims in this country who are serving the US
on many fronts in the most loyal and fruitful ways? Are you aware
that there are Muslims in the US army in Iraq and Afghanistan today
risking their lives for the US just like everyone else in the army?
Here, they are teachers, doctors, firefighters, just name it. And
they are Muslim. Are they all for your "SUBMIT OR DIE" accusations?
Your ignorance is in itself insulting.
iih|8.28.07 @ 2:32PM|#
I've known a number of American Muslims. None have used
violence on me so far.
:-) The fact that they haven't so far does not mean that
they will not in the future (clearly). But the fact they
have not so far does not mean that they will,
either. :-) Just being silly.
|8.28.07 @ 2:44PM|#
Sorry, it's a vice common to the legal profession to hedge
:)
I worked for Iranian expats in the early 80s. They were very nice
and gave me lots of pistachios and Russian vodka. Even though they
were in opposition to the Revolutionary government, they felt
compelled to identify themselves as "Persian", which always seemed
unfair to me (I was in high school at the time).
iih|8.28.07 @ 3:03PM|#
Sorry, it's a vice common to the legal profession to hedge
:)
:-) I was just really being silly.
|8.28.07 @ 4:02PM|#
This thread has the potential to get really nasty. I've seen
several semi-regulars go off the deep end on iih, which is baffling
to me. Not to mention the not-so-regular "bedwetters" (thanks,
joe).
Hopefully, this turns out more like that thread a week and a half
or so ago.
|8.28.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Every Muslim, without exception, wants me to submit to allah.
Just ask them.
Some few are willing to let me die of old age but most would at
best stand by while another Muslim mudered me even if they wouldn't
wield the knife. Maybe they would just make me a slave. You see I
am an atheist, and worse, an apostate christian. The koran clearly
calls for my death or complete subjugation . Just read it.
An Arab|8.28.07 @ 5:05PM|#
iih,
yep, you are right. I think I would be considered a "liberal"
Muslim.
Two points. It is very possible that Muslims with a liberal outlook
also be offended by such images. This is because the offensiveness
of the images has many aspects. (More on this below). In other
words, I realise that you call yourself a 'liberal Muslim', but
that doesnt explain why you are not offended by the images.
:)
Secondly, I prefer not to use terms such as 'liberal muslim' to
begin with. It implies that being just a 'muslim' is illiberal.
IMO, it is yet another Western concoction betraying the initial
assumption that to be Muslim, is to be a violent illiberal fanatic
to begin with. As such, I refuse to give credance to such a basis,
and oppose using that phrase. Muslim will do. How this Muslim acts
depends on his/her political leanings, character, etc.
When it comes to the cartoons, I did not find the Opus cartoons
offensive with the possible exception mentioned above. The original
Danish cartoons were not offensive until they were repeatedly
published just to cause further offense to Muslims.
Regarding the images, there are many elements associated with the
'offensiveness' of the articles. Primarily, those are:
1) The actual image.
2) The intention behind it.
Thus, even though the actual images may at times not be overtly
offensive as such, (for example, the artist has done a bad job),
the actual intention behind it is for the purpose of
disrespecting Muslims, their faith, and their prophet.
That is what makes it offensive.
Of course, it is possible to mistake and rush to conclude that an
otherwise docile image of say, Mohammed on a camel riding in the
desert is intended to be offensive, and that of course, is wrong.
In order to establish intent, it is necessary to probe the artist,
the paper publishing it, before one concludes that there is an
actual malevolent intent.
That being said however, it is clear from the actions of that
Danish paper, its artists, and others who published those cartoons,
that they are/were out to offend / disrespect Muslims in
general.
Muslims' irrational responses and violence extremely stupid,
reactionary, and does no good. I argue, unlike those Westerners you
mention in this paragraph, that they are doing this despite of
Islamic teachings as opposed to because of these teachings. I.e.,
they are ignorant of their own faith.
I see what you are saying, but I have a different take on it: First
off, remember that the 'Muslims violent responses' were very, very
localized. Out of a population of 1.1 billion Muslims, there were
tens and tens of protests against the cartoons. A couple became
violent. As I recall, molotov cocktails were thrown at a Western
embassy in Syria, and a nun was shot in Somalia. In Pakistan, 11
people or so died in a stampede.
Now, Westerners who chose to taint Islam because of those are not
simply ignorant of Muslims, but also of the laws of statistics. Out
of 1.1 billion people and only 15 or so fatalities in the most
backwards neighbourhoods of the world? I call that a success story.
15 out of 1 billion is better odds than dying in a plane
crash.
Couple that with the fact that an umpteen amount of non-violent
protests did in fact taken place across Egypt, the Gulf and the
Levant, and you're left with naked Western bigotry.
Overall, this is an excellent forum, especially if you are
libertarian, or have libertarian tendencies. I am a Muslim with
strong Libertarian leanings. And am still learning!
It took only 22 minutes before the first bigot Mr F le Fur decided
to post in reply to mine. A couple of minutes after that, another
one alluded that I want Westerners to 'submit or die'.
This is the current environment we as Muslims have to live in iih,
through no fault of our own. I very much doubt that rational
conversation and understanding is possible anymore with those types
of Westerners. 'We' took down the towers according to them, so its
only fair that they chastize 'us'.
My advice to you iih is not to waste you time responding to each
and every Western kook you come across. It really is a waste of
time, and you can spend your time doing things that are much more
productive.
You cant reason with those people. The best thing IMO is to make
use of the Second Ammendment, buy a gun or two and some ammo, and
prepare to defend yourself should any one of those Westerners
decide to pull a Japanese-Internment camp on us.
Paul|8.28.07 @ 6:07PM|#
The koran clearly calls for my death or complete subjugation
. Just read it.
Actually, KenK, don't they call for a "head tax"?
iih|8.28.07 @ 7:04PM|#
Timon19:
This thread has the potential to get really nasty.
Unfortunately it seems that it may lean that way. The last thread
you're mentioning was quite useful, but exhausting.
"An Arab":
Sometimes you have to take in some abuse and ignorance from people.
Conversation has worked in the past on H&R. Often seemingly
aggressive people turn out to have gentle and sincere core that
results in a good exchange.
I recommend that you check back in on weekends. As one of Reason's
editors once remarked, it seems that most poeple actually post
while they are at their jobs out of sheer boredom with what they
have to do to earn a living. If you want to get the serious,
responsible, respectful bunch, come back on weekends. These
discussions are usually more stimulating, and less a waste of
time.
grylliade|8.29.07 @ 1:01AM|#
Secondly, I prefer not to use terms such as 'liberal muslim' to begin with. It implies that being just a 'muslim' is illiberal. IMO, it is yet another Western concoction betraying the initial assumption that to be Muslim, is to be a violent illiberal fanatic to begin with. As such, I refuse to give credance to such a basis, and oppose using that phrase. Muslim will do. How this Muslim acts depends on his/her political leanings, character, etc.
It's a useful descriptor. I'm a liberal Christian; that doesn't
imply that being Christian is illiberal. It just means that, on the
spectrum of liberal to conservative Christians, I'm further on the
left.
Thus, even though the actual images may at times not be overtly offensive as such, (for example, the artist has done a bad job), the actual intention behind it is for the purpose of disrespecting Muslims, their faith, and their prophet. That is what makes it offensive.
Sorry, but this just bothers me. I still can't figure out why you
should have a right not to be offended. Of course, I can never
figure out why conservative Christians fly off the handle at
negative depictions of Christians or Jesus, either. People need to
be made fun of, as do their beliefs. If negative depictions of
Muslims, their faith, or Muhammad offend you, well, welcome to free
speech. You don't have to watch it.
Mainly, such negative depictions come in two flavors. One is the
person who's trying to be offensive for the sake of giving
offense. Complaining about the offensive content just fuels their
determination to be offensive, which means that the better course
of action is to ignore it. The second flavor is the person who's
trying to make a point, and either doesn't realize that what
they're doing is offensive or realizes it but thinks that the point
is important enough to do it anyways. This person needs to be
engaged in discussion, because they just might say
something worth listening to.
Basically, I think that taking offense at things is just a waste of
time. There are much more productive things to do than throw a
hissy fit because your sensibilities are offended.
And let me apologize for the Neanderthals upthread. Some posters
here have a stick up their ass about Islam (see also:
Donderooooooooooo!!!!111omgluvrudy!!!!). These people live in a
fantasy world where the West is locked in a struggle TO THE DEATH
with Islam. Two civilizations enter; only one can leave! Ignore
them; they aren't worth your time.
iih|8.29.07 @ 7:16AM|#
grylliade:
While I do not entirely agree, you make some very good points. Such
as this one:
Basically, I think that taking offense at things is just a
waste of time. There are much more productive things to do than
throw a hissy fit because your sensibilities are
offended.
It was waste of time and sometimes human lives. And I think "An
Arab" implicitly was implying this too. I think both of us were
trying to explain why these cartoons were offensive to Muslims (may
be more to him that it was to me -- at least for the
original Danish cartoon). Remember also that there are
theological prohibitions against depicting the Prophet. So
by merely drawing a cartoon of him, let alone drawing a cartoon of
him in a negative context, is in itself problematic to Muslims --
even if the drawing was for flattery or appreciation. And "An Arab"
got the rest of the explanation right on the mark vis-a-vis the
general Muslim population and their reaction.
Regarding
And let me apologize for the Neanderthals upthread. Some
posters here have a stick up their ass about Islam (see also:
Donderooooooooooo!!!!111omgluvrudy!!!!). These people live in a
fantasy world where the West is locked in a struggle TO THE DEATH
with Islam. Two civilizations enter; only one can leave! Ignore
them; they aren't worth your time.
You gave me hope again :-)
|8.29.07 @ 8:35AM|#
"trying to explain why these cartoons were offensive to
Muslims"
THAT is fairly obvious. Try explaining why said offended Muslins
riot, burn and murder while when "conservative Christians fly off
the handle" nobody is burned alive or hacked to death.
PS. The West is locked in a struggle TO THE DEATH with Islam, just
ask the leader of Persians, as he works on getting his atomic
weapons built.
Eric Dondero|8.29.07 @ 10:51AM|#
Glad you're finally catching on Joe.
Yes, there are Radical Islamists at the Washington Post. In fact, I
heard one report on Fox News last night, that the cartoon was
vetted by 3 Muslim WP staffers, and that's why it was pulled.
Rather chilling for the future of freedom of speech in
America.
And the Anti-War Libertarians after the Denmakr controversy said it
"can't happen here."
|8.31.07 @ 10:03AM|#
Maybe someone could introduce the "Mohammed Dog"
to Michael Vick and his posse?
|8.31.07 @ 8:58PM|#
as a Muslim i am not offended as i know that the enemy of Islam would have killed our prophet if got chance let alone make a dog pictures
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245