Cartoons?

[truehobbit]

Well, the subject was brought up, evolving directly from the topic at hand, and needed some clarification - i.e. a number of posts.
It is still connected to the topic at hand: namely the question whether violence is sanctioned in a) Islam b) Christianity c) both d) neither

So, I would advise not to split off any posts!

Discussions evolve from one topic to another. I think we've dealt with the question of what we think about the cartoons themselves, we've then (I think) discussed how much criticism people should be expected to handle, and we are now discussing the potential for violence in Islam. Jewel argued that violence is sanctioned in the OT, too, thus establishing a parallel between Islam and Christianity (or rather the Koran and the Bible - which leaves us with the question whether Islam is the Koran (Imp says it's not) and whether Christianity is the Bible, and if so, which part of it), to which I replied that an OT-parallel doesn't say much, because OT doesn't really define my religion. I wasn't very clear about it, so we needed a bit of discussion. Goodness, this is complicated!
Admittedly the whole thing is not the first topic of the thread, but still connected to our bafflement with the reactions about the cartoons.

I'm not sure the subject of the relationship between OT and NT would warrant a whole thread, but if you're interested, I think you should start one!

hal - absolutely! That's what I meant!

[Cerin]

hobby, I don't think Voronwë was saying he would split posts from this thread, but that if anyone wishes to comment further on the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament, unrelated to the topic of the cartoons, perhaps they could start a new thread in Tol Eressëa to continue that aspect of this discussion.

[Impenitent]

This article, from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, was posted on TOB by aninkling. I've taken the liberty of posting here as it's very interesting. aninkling bolded a few things, since it's a long article.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial ... =110007934

Bonfire of the Pieties
Islam prohibits neither images of Muhammad nor jokes about religion.


BY AMIR TAHERI
Wednesday, February 8, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

"The Muslim Fury," one newspaper headline screamed. "The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe," said another. "The clash of civilizations is coming," warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly--though not exclusively--in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged.

But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The "rage machine" was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood--a political, not a religious, organization--called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood's rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party's 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut.

The Muslim Brotherhood's position, put by one of its younger militants, Tariq Ramadan--who is, strangely enough, also an adviser to the British home secretary--can be summed up as follows: It is against Islamic principles to represent by imagery not only Muhammad but all the prophets of Islam; and the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. Both claims, however, are false.

There is no Quranic injunction against images, whether of Muhammad or anyone else. When it spread into the Levant, Islam came into contact with a version of Christianity that was militantly iconoclastic. As a result some Muslim theologians, at a time when Islam still had an organic theology, issued "fatwas" against any depiction of the Godhead. That position was further buttressed by the fact that Islam acknowledges the Jewish Ten Commandments--which include a ban on depicting God--as part of its heritage. The issue has never been decided one way or another, and the claim that a ban on images is "an absolute principle of Islam" is purely political. Islam has only one absolute principle: the Oneness of God. Trying to invent other absolutes is, from the point of view of Islamic theology, nothing but sherk, i.e., the bestowal on the Many of the attributes of the One.

The claim that the ban on depicting Muhammad and other prophets is an absolute principle of Islam is also refuted by history. Many portraits of Muhammad have been drawn by Muslim artists, often commissioned by Muslim rulers. There is no space here to provide an exhaustive list, but these are some of the most famous:

A miniature by Sultan Muhammad-Nur Bokharai, showing Muhammad riding Buraq, a horse with the face of a beautiful woman, on his way to Jerusalem for his M'eraj or nocturnal journey to Heavens (16th century); a painting showing Archangel Gabriel guiding Muhammad into Medina, the prophet's capital after he fled from Mecca (16th century); a portrait of Muhammad, his face covered with a mask, on a pulpit in Medina (16th century); an Isfahan miniature depicting the prophet with his favorite kitten, Hurairah (17th century); Kamaleddin Behzad's miniature showing Muhammad contemplating a rose produced by a drop of sweat that fell from his face (19th century); a painting, "Massacre of the Family of the Prophet," showing Muhammad watching as his grandson Hussain is put to death by the Umayyads in Karbala (19th century); a painting showing Muhammad and seven of his first followers (18th century); and Kamal ul-Mulk's portrait of Muhammad showing the prophet holding the Quran in one hand while with the index finger of the other hand he points to the Oneness of God (19th century).

Some of these can be seen in museums within the Muslim world, including the Topkapi in Istanbul, and in Bokhara and Samarkand, Uzbekistan, and Haroun-Walat, Iran (a suburb of Isfahan). Visitors to other museums, including some in Europe, would find miniatures and book illuminations depicting Muhammad, at times wearing his Meccan burqa (cover) or his Medinan niqab (mask). There have been few statues of Muhammad, although several Iranian and Arab contemporary sculptors have produced busts of the prophet. One statue of Muhammad can be seen at the building of the U.S. Supreme Court, where the prophet is honored as one of the great "lawgivers" of mankind.

There has been other imagery: the Janissaries--the elite of the Ottoman army--carried a medallion stamped with the prophet's head (sabz qaba). Their Persian Qizilbash rivals had their own icon, depicting the head of Ali, the prophet's son-in-law and the first Imam of Shiism. As for images of other prophets, they run into millions. Perhaps the most popular is Joseph, who is presented by the Quran as the most beautiful human being created by God.

Now to the second claim, that the Muslim world is not used to laughing at religion. That is true if we restrict the Muslim world to the Brotherhood and its siblings in the Salafist movement, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda. But these are all political organizations masquerading as religious ones. They are not the sole representatives of Islam, just as the Nazi Party was not the sole representative of German culture. Their attempt at portraying Islam as a sullen culture that lacks a sense of humor is part of the same discourse that claims "suicide martyrdom" as the highest goal for all true believers.

The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa'adi's eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the "dry pious ones." And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.

Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.

Mr. Taheri is the author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).

[/quote]

[truehobbit]

That's a fascinating article, Imp!

I was just going to point out with respect to the text Wilma quoted that in there, too, the main cause of offense seemed to be the depiction of Mohammed. Not Mohammed with a bomb in his turban or Mohammed shown disrespectfully - just Mohammed shown, period.

And earlier tonight I saw a report on TV, about blasphemy and religions, which had interviews with publishers of satire-magazines, general publishers, social studies scholars, an archbishop (to comment on satire against Christianity) and the head of Muslim-organisation (not sure of his title, but it was a very worldly looking guy, not an ayatollah, or so) - not to bore you with what everybody said, but the Muslim representative said that depicting the prophet was offensive to Muslims, and that he could not understand how there seemed to be "nothing holy" to people in the West, that it was a decadent society without values.
While I don't entirely disagree with the "nothing holy" criticism, I was taken aback by how naturally he called our society "decadent" - as if that was the most normal adjective to use - and that, again, the mere depiction, not the disrespectful depiction was the problem.

I think your article is interesting, but it contradicts what just about every Muslim I've heard so far says!

[Pearly Di]

British Muslims are calling for a change in the Race Relations Act to stop images of the Prophet Mohammed being published.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4694090.stm

They are planning a protest march in London on 18 February, which is expected to attract 20,000 to 50,000 people.

I am really worried about this. Not about the demo, I hasten to add ... London has loads of demos. But about the campaign behind it.

I'm a Christian and I would not dream of causing deliberate offence to a Muslim. But I can't help feeling that Islam in the West is now pushing for special privileges for itself, and I just can't countenance that.

I feel like saying to these Muslims: 'You feel like a religious minority? Well, so are we Christians. We all live in a liberal, secular democracy. The price we weird religious types pay for freedom of worship is freedom of expression. I don't condone offence to the Prophet being caused, but really, why should he be given special license over any other revered religious figure?'

HUH?????

And I might add a P.S.: 'You have freedom to protest in Britain. I will happily defend your right to do so. But you might spare a thought for the Christians in Muslim theocracies who do NOT have the freedom to worship - let alone protest.'

I applaud the moderate Muslims who are speaking out against the fanatics, and I want to make it clear that I do NOT regard all Muslims as a homogenous bunch ... I am well aware of the cultural diversity within the Muslim world.

I also accept that a moderate but deeply devout Muslim would be understandably offended by ANY images of the Prophet, let alone satirical ones. A Muslim poster on another board I visit has stated politely but unequivocally that in her religion no image is allowed of Mohammed, Jesus, Moses, et al. She said that it would be considered a form of idolatry and 'it is just not done.'

I understand that. Something in me admires that purity of devotion as compared with the "go ahead and insult Jesus, we really don't mind" attitude that can sometimes characterise the British churches.

But, even so. However many offensive things are said about Jesus Christ every day in our culture, I don't see Christians taking to the streets with 'Behead the enemies of Christ' banners. (I would be deeply disturbed if I did.)

I'm sorry, guys. You live in a liberal, secular, post-Christian democracy which does NOT believe that your religion is the way, the truth and the life. Please deal with it.

I guess I should look into the current blasphemy law in the UK as it applies to Christianity. I really am rather clueless about this ... looks sheepish.

[vison]

Very excellent post, Pearl.

If I was a praying woman, I would be praying that the British government doesn't cave in and pass such a law.

Centuries of pain and suffering to get to this point and to throw it all away? No bloody way, guys. Get over yourselves.

[Pearly Di]

Thanks, vision.

If I was a praying woman, I would be praying that the British government doesn't cave in and pass such a law.

Amen, sister.

I really can't believe that even the Straw Men in Blair's administration will bend to this ... but my sister (who has voted Labour all her life) was of the opinion that the pernicious Incitement Against Religious Hatred Bill - which got defeated, thankfully - was a sop thrown to the British Muslim community as a sort of apology for Iraq.



I just don't understand the mentality. As long as people of faith have the freedom to worship their God without fear of interference, discrimination or persecution from the powers that be, then what is the problem?????

The freedom to worship is precious indeed. It's a freedom other people don't have.

In this country our comedians can make satirical comments about the Royal Family, Tony Blair, or the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Long may that continue.

And if a programme which offends my sense of propriety/decency or which misrepresents my faith comes on the TV, I can do various things. I can phone or email the BBC to register my disapproval. Or I can simply refuse to watch the thing. Or I can write a letter to my newspaper/magazine of choice. Whatever.

But the point is ... I can do that.

[nerdanel]

Pearl,

But I can't help feeling that Islam in the West is now pushing for special privileges for itself, and I just can't countenance that.

This is the first time I've seen any variant of the "special privilege" argument, and been sympathetic to it. I thought your post was very good.

Just one caveat on the "special privilege" point, though - I think there is a difference, broadly speaking, between the majority receiving protections and a minority receiving protections. That protections may not exist for a majority in a given circumstance, and that others may act offensively towards that majority does not mean, in my opinion, that protections are automatically not needed for a minority also confronted with the offensive words and actions of others. The balance of power may be such that the minority nonetheless requires greater protection.

That said, as concerns religion or lack of religious belief, I think that words vs. actions = the relevant distinction; everyone, majority and minority alike, should be able to deal with the offensive words of others about their religious, atheist, or agnostic views - but no one should have to face public sector discrimination, or physical harm, due to their views.

[Pearly Di]

Thanks, tp.

That protections may not exist for a majority in a given circumstance, and that others may act offensively towards that majority does not mean, in my opinion, that protections are automatically not needed for a minority also confronted with the offensive words and actions of others. The balance of power may be such that the minority nonetheless requires greater protection.

I see your point, and I think I would agree with you ... were this not a particular, what seems to me a very pushy and aggressive brand of Islam.

Indeed the point might have applied even more pertinently at a time when Britain WAS predominantly Christian, and when religious minorities, like Jews and Baptists (and other non-Anglicans), needed protection. After all, in the 19th century, Catholics, Baptists and Jews were barred from entering Oxford and Cambridge Universities because they were not baptised Anglicans!!! - which is why Catholics, Baptists and Jews started their own excellent centres of education. (Catholic schools are still regarded, justifiably, as among the best in Britain.)

But I do have to wonder, who is the majority these days, in post-Christian Britain? (We are a lot less religious than the US, don't forget.) Evangelical Christians would well qualify here as a religious minority.

So who among the minority groups is going to clamour for special protection?

We're all free citizens. We can all vote. Nobody is stopping us worshipping. Why then the clamour for special attention? (I'm not saying that it's not a legitimate request, btw.)

I have often scoffed in the past at the Neoconservative paranoia which prophesies all of Europe coming under Sharia law in a few years' time. I still don't think that is a serious worry - I am not about to convert to the Neocon agenda any time soon and if evangelistic Islam wants a cultural war, then I think it underestimates secular Europe and the West in general - but I must confess that I think a line is starting to be crossed ... and it concerns me.

I am thinking out loud here, as usual, rather than arguing very sharply.

[Impenitent]

http://smh.com.au/news/world/holocaust- ... 43662.html

(the link may require you to register, so I'm also posting it here)

Aussie submits first entry in Holocaust cartoon contest
February 14, 2006 - 1:26AM


Renowned Australian cartoonist Michael Leunig has submitted the first entry in a controversial contest for cartoons of the Holocaust launched in Iran today in a tit-for-tat move over the caricatures of the prophet Mohammed that have enraged Muslims worldwide.

"As a show of solidarity with the Muslim world, and an exercise in free speech, I would like to submit a cartoon to you on the theme of the Holocaust," Leunig was quoted as saying on Irancartoons.com, the website organising the competition with Iran's biggest selling newspaper Hamshahri, triggering outrage in the US and Germany in particular.

Hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has already prompted international anger by dismissing the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as a "myth" used to justify the creation of Israel.

The first of the Melbourne-based Leunig's two cartoons on the website show a poor man with a Star of David on his back walking towards the Auschwitz death camp in 1945 with the words "Work Brings Freedom" over the entrance.

The second shows the same scene but depicting "Israel 2002" with the slogan "War Brings Peace" over the entrance and the same man walking towards it bearing a rifle.

"I have had some difficulty getting this work published in my own country, and I believe it would help highlight the hypocrisy of the West's attitude to free speech if you were to publish it," Leunig was quoted as saying.

Hamshahri, which is published by Tehran's conservative municipality, said the contest was officially launched today with the title, What is the limit on freedom of expression in the West?

Its graphics editor, Farid Mortazavi, said earlier this month the aim was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression.

Anger over cartoons of the prophet Mohammed, first published in Denmark in September, has boiled over into violent demonstrations across much of the Muslim world.

"Freedom of expression has always been a pretext for Westerners... to insult the beliefs of Muslims," Hamshahri charged in its advertisement for the contest.

"This assault is taking place while criticising many issues such as the crimes of the United States and Israel as well as historical events like the Holocaust are seen as an unforgivable crime all over the West."

Iran's fiercely anti-Israeli regime is supportive of so-called Holocaust revisionist historians, who maintain the systematic slaughter by the Nazis of mainland Europe's Jews as well as other groups during World War II has been either invented or exaggerated.

The newspaper said the contest was open until May 5. It did not announce what the prize would be but said each artist would receive a book of the cartoons submitted.

Leunig is one of our most respected cartoonists. This is very disappointing.

[Túrin Turambar]

Leuning? I never saw evidence of extremism in his cartoons before. He might simply be making a point about freedom of speech, but there must be a better way he can do it. I hope Israelis don't start burning Australian flags and embassies...

Edit: Looks like it might be a set up.

[Impenitent]

His political judgement is sometimes a little skewed, but I'm relieved that this appears not to have been the quantum leap to insanity it seemed.

[Jnyusa]

Part of the problem might be that any picture of Mohammed was drawn at all. Making images of the prophet is considered idolatry in Islam, even favorable images. You will not see pictures of Mohammed in a Moslem country.

So it's hard to compare to an unfavorable picture of Jesus ... the issue is more severe for them, and not really a freedom of speech issue, just as shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre is not really a freedom of speech issue for us. It is repulsive at a different level than unacceptable content would be.

Just btw, I do not think it is appropriate for the media to deliberately create images that they know will violate a primary commandment of some religion, just to see what will happen. There are other ways to poke fun at the foibles of Islam.

Jn

[Erunáme]

Part of the problem might be that any picture of Mohammed was drawn at all. Making images of the prophet is considered idolatry in Islam, even favorable images. You will not see pictures of Mohammed in a Moslem country.

That's not entirely correct. You will not see pictures of Mohammed in today's Moslem societies. They've definately been around in the past:


http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_imag ... c_mo_full/

[Whistler]

Yes, my impression is that the current controversy is a largely manufactured one stemming more from militant Islam than from real Islamic tradition. As Eru demonstrates, Islam has historically been rather lax in enforcing this prohibition.

Ironically, ancient Judaism was much more strict about such depictions from its beginnings, and on beyond the time of Christ. The ancient Jews regarded artistic depictions of any living thing (with the exception of vegetation) as an invitation to idolatry and a violation of the law against "graven images." And in their case the prohibition was spelled out pretty explicitly in scripture, not vaguely as in the Koran. (The reason there were moneychangers in the temple was that Roman coins, which bore the image of Caesar, were considered idolatrous and therefore unfit for offerings to God.)

It's even more ironic that Christianity, which emerged from Judaism, has so enthusiastically embraced religious imagery!

[IdylleSeethes]

Iranians and Pakistanis are now protesting a German cartoon superficially linking terrorism to the Iranian football team. No image of the Prophet is in the cartoon. The artist claims it is a comment on the use of the German military for internal security and not pointed towards Muslims.

There has also been an admission by a Pakistani leader of the protests that, at least in Pakistan, this is really an opportunity to protest against the current pro-western government and not just a simple protest of the cartoons.

The BBC is reporting that the core of the protest in several countries is Palestinian, not domestic.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

What I find interesting is that this is an example of the common human reaction that people will be offended if it is expected of them. This is by no way limited to Muslims.

[nerdanel]

What I find interesting is that this is an example of the common human reaction that people will be offended if it is expected of them. This is by no way limited to Muslims.

Isn't that simply tied to the fact that there is an additional element of outrage in someone doing something (1) that you believe they should know is offensive to you? (2) that they ARE aware is offensive to you, and it is doubly infuriating that they were either indifferent to that, or did it with the very intention of offending you and seeing your reaction?

Of course, the very best response is, "Nope, not going to show you any offense. Hah! You thought you could get us, but you didn't!" But all of us being human, sometimes that's not possible.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

No, I mean that it is remarkably easy to drum up offence and organised groups do it all the while. There are so many examples I hardly know where to begin but campaigns against Harry Potter or The Last Temptation of Christ will do. Ask any campaigner against these works and you will discover genuine offence but I doubt if any were offended until prompted. Modern politics, especially in the US but elsewhere too depends on the science of arousing offence at some statement or another. A brief browse through Manwë will demonstrate the technique.

[nerdanel]

How much of any showing of offense is genuine (spontaneous?) and how much is generated by organized groups who have finessed the playing of the identity politics card, is always an important question.

In this case, I find it difficult to separate out the kernels of "genuine offense" at the specific cartoon in question, from the Middle East's anger at Western (US) support of Israel, from the Middle East's anger at other US/Western military action in the Gulf and elsewhere, from the Middle East's anger at Western Europe's perceived or real marginalization of its Muslim citizens, from the Middle East's anger that all of us dare to embrace democracy, religious pluralism, gender equality, and other such heinous concepts. Whether spontaneous or initially contrived, there's no doubt that the protestors are angry - but more to the point, I wonder if those who are protesting are able to separate out exactly what it is they are angry about. Also, although the Western world has certainly provided legitimate causes for anger, I can't help but wonder about the extent to which their anger is based on the wildly inaccurate (mis)information that their state controlled "news"papers provide.