cartoons of muhammad [Archive]

YKTMX

4th February 2006, 00:18

Either withdraw that comment and say sorry: or defend it please.

Haha, I'll glady defend it.

I found the "stop we ran out of virgins" funny!

The only way someone could find such a thing "funny" was if they accepted the myth whipped up in the Western Media that "virgins" are promised to Muslims in heaven, particuarly, as we know, martyrs. There is, in fact, much debate about this in Islamic theology.

See here (http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/fall2001/feldner.html?FORMAT=print). for a discussion of the matter beyond racist cartoons.

as a paper in jordan put it: what is more offensive/damaging is when "muslims" kidnap people and then film them cutting their heads off with a knife.

Who is "people"?

If 'people' includes imperialist soldiers and civilian "contractors" in occupied lands, I couldn't give a toss how they're dispatched with.

I find it strange how Western Liberals, like our friend James here, get so worked up about beheading. As I understand it, being shot, electrocuted, gassed or having a needle stuck in your arm, would be a far less pleasant experience that having your head chopped off.

Perhaps some can't help but submit to a clamour about "civilised" values. Notice the fact that we were discussing how "uncivilised" the Resistance were for chopping a few people's heads off, just after "we" had finished murdering 30,000 people in the name of profit.

It's the Islamaphobe's way of deflecting attention. "Yes, yes, yes, the war in Iraq was wrong, but look at this brutish brown man with his sword and funny language".

Nice.

I love the way that some scream "no this is wrong! islam is not like this!", and then violently storm a diplomatic building/or threaten to blow the artists up.

How else are you supposed to storm a diplomatic building but "violently"? Pretty stupid.

Also, note the implicit racism. The use of the word "some" acting "violently" and "threatening". Is James discussing a collection of conscious human agents or a pack of wild dogs, it'd be hard to tell.

If reactionary Westeners, like the proto-fascist cartoonists James is supporting, want to laugh at crazy Muslims and their "wicked faith", then I'm sorry, I'm not going to blub and quote Voltaire in their defence when it comes back on them.

People in the West, and particuarly parts of Europe, are too used to ridiculing the brown people without any consequences.

On balance, I think there's probably enough evidence, from this thread and others (the one on Palestine and Israel in particular. By the way, James' solution is "the Pals should renounce violence"), that you're a bit of a latent Islamophobe.

James

4th February 2006, 23:41

The only way someone could find such a thing "funny" was if they accepted the myth whipped up in the Western Media that "virgins" are promised to Muslims in heaven, particuarly, as we know, martyrs. There is, in fact, much debate about this in Islamic theology.

See here. for a discussion of the matter beyond racist cartoons.

Well it is clearly a play on that concept. Of course. this doesn't mean it to be true though.
Yes, i still find that one amusing.

Who is "people"?

If 'people' includes imperialist soldiers and civilian "contractors" in occupied lands, I couldn't give a toss how they're dispatched with.

Oh bloody hell, lets not start this one again!
But i feel i must reply: most soldiers are those who have no choice. They are workers. Nor must we think all those who have been murdered over there, were over there due to financial reasons. Several humanitarian workers have been murdered. Another is being threatened, and has been since christmas.

but anyway...

The point however was that the perception of a violent faith is propelled more by a "muslim" filming himself brutally beheading someone, than a poor taste cartoon saying "stop there are no more virgins".
It isn't a lie that people have blown themselves up in the name of islam.
Thus the cartoon isn't even groundless.

As i pointed out, this is a point that the jordan paper made.
Maybe you need to send an email to them telling them how in your opinion, you find them islamophobes.

I find it strange how Western Liberals, like our friend James here, get so worked up about beheading.

AS stated above. The fact is that murdering someone, and filming yourself do it, and then releasing the video - does more to suggest that islam has a violent side to it.

How else are you supposed to storm a diplomatic building but "violently"? Pretty stupid.

You are clearly a retard who struggles with his/her reading.

"as a paper in jordan put it: what is more offensive/damaging is when "muslims" kidnap people and then film them cutting their heads off with a knife. I love the way that some scream "no this is wrong! islam is not like this!", and then violently storm a diplomatic building/or threaten to blow the artists up."

Also, note the implicit racism. The use of the word "some" acting "violently" and "threatening". Is James discussing a collection of conscious human agents or a pack of wild dogs, it'd be hard to tell.

haha, i love to see the old che-lives tactics spring into action.
James is the enemy - look he supports imperialism. he is imperialist. He is racist! he eats children! BAN HIM! BURN HIM!

No. You are quite wrong old chum
"The use of the word "some" acting" means just that. Not all muslims have risen up. Some have. I was being careful with my words - i didn't mean to imply in anyway that i think this action "characteristic of islam" or "arabs".

You must take my post as one, and not disect it word for word, taking it all out of context. I was pointing out the irony that some people get upset that it depicts islam is violent - only to then proceed to act violently. Hence the "some".

If you had been a tiny bit more clever you could have attacked my point on the grounds that such individuals (oh look i'm calling "them" not one of "us". Its implicit nazism i tell you!) tend to be acting in such a manner on the grounds that scripture apprantly (because i'm not sure! i'm not going to say - scipture states this, as i'm aware that there is a degree of debate regarding it) states that it is not allowed to attempt to depict the prophet.

Thus you could have attacked the grounding of my irony.
But i have done that for you. So hows about we ban half of me!
or grow up a little...

If reactionary Westeners, like the proto-fascist cartoonists James is supporting,

wo wo wo, now just hold onto those horses!

They are proto-fascist?
Or anti-religious? So its "ok", indeed encouraged, to bash christianity (i invite you to look at religion forum - there is some incredibly appaling anti christian propaganda - one commonly held perception is that christians are violent :o) - but not islam?

Hows about we ban redstar for proto-fascism! Indeed, such an opinion, if followed to its full, demands the banning (on the grounds of fascism) of a significant proportion of che-livers!

Please expand upon this though...

Also, how am i "supporting" them?
On the grounds of "free speech"?
On the grounds of - i've posted them on here (aye - because alot of stuff is happening because of them. I personally was interested to see what the fuss was about).
On the grounds of i found one funny? (and, when taken in context, still is funny)

On balance, I think there's probably enough evidence, from this thread

As i'm sure the anyone with more than half a brain cell will tell you, "is there fuck".

and others (the one on Palestine and Israel in particular. By the way, James' solution is "the Pals should renounce violence")

Ah yes. A true sign of islamophobia!

that you're a bit of a latent Islamophobe.

And i think you, mr, are one paranoid-android. Perhpas high on crack! (for i can see no other reason for your claim. Or perhaps plain stupidity)

Janus

5th February 2006, 00:05

I think the problem with people's understanding of Islam is that they've mainly heard of the fundamentalists' interpretation of it. Some Islamic sects don't even support jihad at all. The point is that what the fundamentalists preach is what causes most people to generalize about Muslims and see them all as fanatics who want to force their religion upon everyone. I think that we should at least examine something before we hold it in total disgust as many people are apt to do. Now, I'm not supporting religion here, I think that religion is generally negative overall. By the way, is it true that the Quran states that followers should spread their religion everywhere, with force if necessary. Or is that just the fanatic's interpretation of it?

James

5th February 2006, 00:24

exactly.

The perception of "violent islam" isn't primarily caused by cartoons.
It is caused by some "muslims" being violent!

Just like with christianity.
The actions of some "christians" have given it its reputation.

(although of course, these cartoons certainly don't help islams image. Although then again, anyone who is swayed into thinking "that way" by a simple cartoon, is one brain cell short of having a brain cell).

ReD_ReBeL

5th February 2006, 01:35

Bloody hell what a fuss some Muslims have made over a stupid cartoon it is absolutely rediculous. They have a cheek to get offensive over a stupid cartoon, while SOME of them are blowning up thereselfs killing innocent people and taking hostages and cutting there heads off.
I do think the cartoon was un-nessasary exspecialy now since the tension between Muslims and the west is very tense. but they have took it far over the top!

Generalisation ayyy! they are chanted "death to denmark" why? did every1 in Denmark write this cartoon or approve of it ...no!, they are generalising aswell.

Tormented by Treachery

5th February 2006, 01:46

Originally posted by Eoin [email protected] 3 2006, 02:34 PM
(Shylock...erm.. a Shakespeare play? )
(This went unanswered, and yes, Shylock is a rich Jewish man who loans a Christian some money for "1 pound of flesh" in a Shakespeare play, "The Merchant of Venice." He gives the speech that includes the famous line, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?")

leftist resistance

5th February 2006, 05:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2006, 12:24 AM
I think the problem with people's understanding of Islam is that they've mainly heard of the fundamentalists' interpretation of it. Some Islamic sects don't even support jihad at all. The point is that what the fundamentalists preach is what causes most people to generalize about Muslims and see them all as fanatics who want to force their religion upon everyone. I think that we should at least examine something before we hold it in total disgust as many people are apt to do. Now, I'm not supporting religion here, I think that religion is generally negative overall. By the way, is it true that the Quran states that followers should spread their religion everywhere, with force if necessary. Or is that just the fanatic's interpretation of it?
I agree.this is certainly not fair to the moderate Muslims.just because Stalin was a dictator doesn't mean commies are like him.just because some white or black guys whack someone up doesn't mean they are all the same.and to your qn,no,thats not true.i can tell you if you want to know.

anyway,

Bloody hell what a fuss some Muslims have made over a stupid cartoon it is absolutely rediculous
the reasons why some Muslims have made a fuss about it is because it is offensive to them.hey,were the "anti-communist" comics in McCarthy's US funny to you?how about nazi comic books?they're all comics,aren't they?

La ComÃ©die Noire

5th February 2006, 06:24

the reasons why some Muslims have made a fuss about it is because it is offensive to them.hey,were the "anti-communist" comics in McCarthy's US funny to you?how about nazi comic books?they're all comics,aren't they?

So much is being wasted on supersititious nonsense, when it could go to something much more worthwhile, like a reveloution.

We know it offended them, we are not saying it didnt we are saying it is such a stupid thing to burn down two embassys over.

Of course the anti-communist comic strips where offesnive to us, but are we gonna do soemthing completley stupid and reactionary over it, no. <_<

Martin Blank

5th February 2006, 06:30

Let me ask the question: What is wrong with being anti-Islam?

Miles

La ComÃ©die Noire

5th February 2006, 06:32

What is wrong with being anti-Islam?

Absolutley nothing, when it comes from the loahting of all superstition.

James

5th February 2006, 09:54

Good to see some more rational posts.

Indeed, far from me being a supporter of 'proto-fascism', i think this would count as "islamio-proto-fascism". My stance on religion is that i'm fine with it as long as you don't try and make another follower your way (like with life in general - hence why i oppose some forms/methods of "socialism").

For muslims (as far as i'm aware), the koran says you can't try and depict the prophet: fair enough. The problem is when some attempt to ENFORCE this "rulling" onto others. Especially onto non-muslims.
This is proto-fascism (not drawing some cartoons).

Nor does such action help the "image of islam" which some feel has been tarnished.

James

5th February 2006, 15:52

LONDON (Reuters) - Politicians and mainstream Muslims called on Sunday for police to act against militant protesters who urged violence against Westerners over the publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammad.

The country's main Muslim group said placards at a London rally with slogans such as "Massacre those who insult Islam" were disgraceful and not typical of Muslim opinion. Police should look to prosecute those responsible, it said.
Uproar over the cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper and were then reprinted in other European countries, has swept across the Muslim world. One showed the Prophet Mohammad with a turban resembling a bomb.

Lebanese demonstrators set fire to the Danish consulate in Beirut on Sunday and Syrians set the Danish and Norwegian embassies ablaze on Saturday in Damascus.

David Davis, home affairs spokesman for Britain's main opposition Conservative party, said slogans at Friday's rally outside the Danish embassy in London amounted to incitements to serious criminal offences.

"Clearly some of these placards are incitement to violence and, indeed, incitement to murder -- an extremely serious offence which the police must deal with and deal with quickly," Davis told the Sunday Telegraph.

COUNCIL CONDEMNS PLACARDS

Hundreds of people took part in Friday's protest. Their placards also included slogans such as "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 will come" and "Butcher those who mock Islam". Some protesters burnt a Danish flag.

"The placards that were on display were quite disgraceful and in our opinion seemed to constitute a clear incitement to violence, even murder," said Inayat Bunglawala, spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain umbrella group.

"We hope that the police are examining the footage of that particular demonstration and gathering evidence with a view to prosecuting those extremist elements who took part," he said.

The council and other Muslim leaders say the rally was hijacked by officially disbanded radical group al Muhajiroun.

Responding to the Conservatives, cabinet minister Peter Hain said politicians should not second-guess the police.

"The police monitored the situation, they're investigating it," said Northern Ireland Minister Hain.

"Those offences should be judged by the police on operational matters, not cabinet ministers, let alone shadow cabinet ministers," he told Sky News television.

London's Metropolitan Police said it was investigating a number of complaints related to the protest.

"We have stated that arrests if necessary will be made at the most appropriate time," a police spokeswoman said.

Protesters rallied again outside the Danish embassy on Saturday using more moderate slogans, although several newspapers carried a picture of one man they said was wearing the type of vest used by suicide bombers.

"Specialist officers were deployed on both days' demonstrations to record any potential evidence should it be needed at any time in the future," the police spokeswoman said.

(Additional reporting by Michael Holden)

http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=a...ae=windows-1252 (http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=adimarticle&f=uk_-_olgbtopnews&t=4023&id=2279454&d=20060205&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252)

Embassies ablaze as Muslim anger spreads

· Damascus crowds attack Danish target
· Police probe London 'hate' protesters
...
Metropolitan police sources told The Observer that arrests could follow this week after investigations of the behaviour on Friday of some protesters who demanded the 'massacre' of 'those who insult Islam'. They may have breached laws against inciting hatred or terrorism.

· Groups representing British Muslims appealed for calm, saying the demonstrations and violence had gone too far.

· In Iran, the President told his commerce minister to consider cancelling trade contracts with European countries whose newspapers used the cartoons.

· The Hamas leader, Dr Mahmoud Zahar, told the Italian daily Il Giornale that the cartoons were an offence that should be punished by death.

...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story...1702682,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1702682,00.html)

YKTMX

5th February 2006, 16:07

They are proto-fascist?
Or anti-religious? So its "ok", indeed encouraged, to bash christianity (i invite you to look at religion forum - there is some incredibly appaling anti christian propaganda - one commonly held perception is that christians are violent ) - but not islam?

No, sorry, you obviously haven't followed this story.

These cartoons were published by a far-right Danish newspaper, which is known for it's disgusting attacks on Muslim immigrants in an atmosphere of increasing racism in Danish society.

The people who published these cartoons weren't "anti-religion" as you stupidly assert, they were good old fashioned racists.

AS stated above. The fact is that murdering someone, and filming yourself do it, and then releasing the video - does more to suggest that islam has a violent side to it.

Whatever, Bush and Blair pray to the Christian god before they murder people, what's your point?

You are clearly a retard who struggles with his/her reading.

I was going to warn you for that, but I won't bother. You're quite clearly not worth it.

Andy Bowden

5th February 2006, 16:19

There is nothing wrong with criticising religion, but I dont think thats what these cartoons represented.

The cartoons depicted Muhammed as a terrorist - now fair enough, he was a pretty shady character by any Marxist analysis. But the reasons these cartoons are being drawn is not for some great secular leap forward, it is part of a culture which condemns the entire Arab world as fundamentalist maniacs.

Right-wing writers like Daniel Pipes, Ann Coulter etc have wrote of the War on Terror as being a Christian crusade against a religion of evil - the truth is however not rooted in superstition of course, the Religous element is just a cover for what are very real economic reasons.

James

5th February 2006, 16:22

Well well, if that isn't a half-arsed reply, i don't know what is!

No, sorry, you obviously haven't followed this story.

These cartoons were published by a far-right Danish newspaper, which is known for it's disgusting attacks on Muslim immigrants in an atmosphere of increasing racism in Danish society.

The people who published these cartoons weren't "anti-religion" as you stupidly assert, they were good old fashioned racists.

"Jan Lund, the Jyllands-Posten's foreign editor, said there was little discussion when the decision to run the cartoons was taken. 'I don't remember anyone raising any objections. The idea seemed good. The intention was to provoke a debate about the extent to which we self-censor in our coverage of Muslim issues.'."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story...1702538,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/focus/story/0,,1702538,00.html)
Maybe the guardian is islamophobic too. Wow we are everywhere!
Or you are paranoid...

I think all are aware that you refuse to answer my post completely (i asked how i'm supporting them for example).

Whatever, Bush and Blair pray to the Christian god before they murder people, what's your point?

What do you mean, "what is your point". Did you not bother reading my reply to you?
"AS stated above. The fact is that murdering someone, and filming yourself do it, and then releasing the video - does more to suggest that islam has a violent side to it."

Not cartoons. As i said: this point isn't even mine in origin. A jordan paper made it. Have you, by the way, sent them your email yet?
Got to keep on top of those damn islamaphobes. Especially those crazy self hating muslims!

Also, by your logic, i should throw my toys out of the pram because you are being nasty to christians. Indeed, you are being racist! Ban you!

Or hows about we grow the hell up and stop being silly.

I was going to warn you for that, but I won't bother. You're quite clearly not worth it.

Howcome? I suggest you re-read what you wrote, and then re-read my reply. I'm sure you shall come to the same conclusion that i did: your point was retarded. You could have only come to such a conclusion if you struggle with your reading.
Warn me if you wan. Indeed please do if it will make you feel a little better cupcake.
Anyone who reads the thread can see that this is the case though.

I like the way that you call me islamaphobic:
... then pathetically attempt to support your argument:
... and then simply refuse to answer my reply properly, ending with a (pathetic) threat and a really sad "i'm not playing anymore".

Andy Bowden

5th February 2006, 16:29

Comrade, I think you are ignoring the pretext to these cartoons, they aren't done form an all religion is bad perspective, theyre done form an Islam is worse than any other religion perspective. Which its bollocks, as all religion is bad - and how bad it gets is dependent on the material situations concerning the followers of such religion.

Its like equating a Rangers fan who hates the Pope with a Communist who hates the Pope.

bolshevik butcher

5th February 2006, 16:38

I think that while being thoroughly reactionary these cartoons should be allowed to be published. I think that the message they send is wrong but on the otherhand I' not for censorship, we all know the left would be the first to suffer from it.

YKTMX

5th February 2006, 16:40

The intention was to provoke a debate about the extent to which we self-censor in our coverage of Muslim issues.'."

I don't believe him, he's lying. His intention was to ridicule the Muslim faith in the general spirit of anti-immigrant racism in Western Europe and post-9/11 Islamaphobia more generally.

A bit like these (http://www.bnp.org.uk/) people.

The paper is wellknown in Denmark for being a right wing rag and sympathetic towards the policies of the Danish People's Party, the Fascist grouping.

What do you mean, "what is your point". Did you not bother reading my reply to you?
"AS stated above. The fact is that murdering someone, and filming yourself do it, and then releasing the video - does more to suggest that islam has a violent side to it."

I never responded because it's facile beyond belief. I ask you, does the fact that the PM and the President pray to the Christian god and then slaughter tens of thousands of innocent civilians prove that "christianity" has a "violent side".

The answer is no. Warfare and imperialism has a "violent side". And so does, therefore, anti-imperialism, such as that of the Resistance in Iraq and elsewhere.

Got to keep on top of those damn islamaphobes. Especially those crazy self hating muslims

Obviously the paper in Jordan has reprinted the cartoons for their own reasons. I don't see how one Middle Eastern newspaper reprinting them to sell more copies automatically means the cartoons aren't racist, but perhaps you could explain that to me.

Also, by your logic, i should throw my toys out of the pram because you are being nasty to christians. Indeed, you are being racist! Ban you!

Two things. Firstly, why are you shouting? Calm down a little - breath, breath.

Secondly, where did I suggest you deserved to be banned, or any action taken against you at all. I mean, seriously, where?

Point me out one instance?

Or hows about we grow the hell up and stop being silly.

I'm not being silly. You're an Islamophobe. What this means in the context of Revleft, I couldn't care.

I'm sure you shall come to the same conclusion that i did: your point was retarded.

AHHH :lol: So now my point was retarded, rather than what you initially said, which was that I'm retarded?

Remember to look behind you when you're backtracking, you wouldn't want to fall over.

Idiot. :)

James

5th February 2006, 17:32

i don't believe him, he's lying

Well at best your argument regarding why they were published is a suspicion. One that can not be proved. The paper says why they did it. It is a credible reason: indeed i'm surprised that you havn't attacked the reason that they give. Either way though, and this is what i wondered before, how does this link to me?
I form no attachement to them beyond posting them here (i also posted a story on the BNP - doesn't mean that i'm a BNP supporter), and finding one funny (and i've explained how i found it funny. And i still find it funny).
I don't dislike islam. I don't think it to be violent. To tell you the truth, I don't nothing it. I did ask you how i'm attached to them though: how i'm supporting them. I asked you why you didn't reply to this part of my earlier response, to which you reply:

I never responded because it's facile beyond belief.
This amounts to you not supporting your claim that i'm islamophobic.

therefore, your claim that i am such, is unproven. This reflects badly on you.

I ask you, does the fact that the PM and the President pray to the Christian god and then slaughter tens of thousands of innocent civilians prove that "christianity" has a "violent side".

The answer is no. Warfare and imperialism has a "violent side". And so does, therefore, anti-imperialism, such as that of the Resistance in Iraq and elsewhere.

May i ask the relevence? As my post just above shows, i think it is utter bollocks to think that bush is an indicator of the nature of christianity. The same applies with those who film themselves murdering people being an indicator of the nature of islam. And the same applies to cartoons. However, killing someone in the name of islam certainly does suggest such a negative perception of islam. More so than a set of silly cartoons.

You seem to struggle with this point. I have made it over and over again. you seem to struggle to comprehend basic sentences. Again i ask you, are you a retard, because you are saying things that sugges you are mentally retarded.

Obviously the paper in Jordan has reprinted the cartoons for their own reasons.

I havn't posted in regards to the purpose of these cartoons (beyond in reply to your claim regarding the first paper to publish them. Simply because your claim is at odds with their claim). So this is irrelevent.

Indeed, my second post in this thread stated:
as a paper in jordan put it: what is more offensive/damaging is when "muslims" kidnap people and then film them cutting their heads off with a knife.

I don't see how one Middle Eastern newspaper reprinting them to sell more copies automatically means the cartoons aren't racist, but perhaps you could explain that to me.

Well how is a "religion" a "race"?
Please clarify, am i supposedly racist or anti-islam? Or both :S
Or are you a retard?

The cartoons are certainly based on a prejudiced view of islam: but as i have stated time and time again, such an assumption is not groundless. People claiming to be muslim do act in a manner which suggests the nature of islam to be as the cartoons depicted (indeed some of the reactions to the cartoons justify the validity of them). I think you need to remember too that the cartoons were purposely silly: they were meant to cause debate. True one can debate the responsibility of such action... but it seems clear from this that the cartoonists don't actually think such a thing. Did you read the guardian article in full? The cartoons were reactionary to a certain situation that the paper percieved.

Two things. Firstly, why are you shouting? Calm down a little - breath, breath.

Secondly, where did I suggest you deserved to be banned, or any action taken against you at all. I mean, seriously, where?

Point me out one instance?

Two things:
1) i wasn't shouting. To shout online, one uses CAPS.
2) I didn't. I merely suggested you were using the classic che-live method of discredit (which, it is true, can lead to banning, restriction, warning points). Also, you did suggest action should be taken against me. You see again, you seem to suggest that you are a retard. Or at least very forgetful (you threatened to "warn" me). Which, by the way, did make me poo myself lots of time. Please don't throw your mod weight around again, it makes me cry
:*(

I'm not being silly. You're an Islamophobe. What this means in the context of Revleft, I couldn't care.

A claim that is groundless.
If you don't support this ridiculous claim then i'm afraid you are either a retard, or posting something that is "knowingly false". This goes against board policy.

AHHH So now my point was retarded, rather than what you initially said, which was that I'm retarded?

Well actually i said: "I'm sure you shall come to the same conclusion that i did: your point was retarded. You could have only come to such a conclusion if you struggle with your reading." Meaning your inability to read and understand comes from a mental problem. Yes, you have implied that you a retard, on more than one occasion.

YKTMX

5th February 2006, 18:07

I form no attachement to them beyond posting them here

No, sorry, you specifically suggested that the reason they published the cartoons was because they were some kind of secularist force trying to be "anti-religion". I pointed out that they are in fact an anti-Isalmic paper noted for their racism, and that's why the published them.

What's difficult about that?

You seem to struggle with this point. I have made it over and over again. you seem to struggle to comprehend basic sentences. Again i ask you, are you a retard, because you are saying things that sugges you are mentally retarded.

Listen, for one thing, please stop with this juvenile thing about mental retardation. It's offensive and stupid.

Secondly, given the standard of your own written English, I hardly think you're in a position to be questioning my intelligence.

As for the "point", it's silly and badly formulated, but I'll "try" and understand what you're trying to communicate.

You're saying that "Muslims" should be more concerned about beheadings in Iraq than the cartoons, because they portray a worse image of Islam to the West?

Is that right? If it is, say yes, and I'll respond to it.

Please clarify, am i supposedly racist or anti-islam? Or both :S
Or are you a retard?

Well, for instance, one of the cartoons shows Muhammad wearing a Turban, when in fact this is much more common among Sikhs. But, hey, they all look alike, eh, eh, know what I mean? ;)

You're definetly an Islamophobic bigot. The question of whether you're racist is an open one. I would probably suspect you are, yes.

On this matter, if the content and language of your posts suggests to right-thinking observers that you're a racist, then simply flapping and squealing "no I'm not" doesn't prove anything.

The cartoons are certainly based on a prejudiced view of islam: but as i have stated time and time again, such an assumption is not groundless.

So prejudice is acceptable? Make up your mind please, one minute you're saying the cartoons are unfair, the next you're saying they're not.

Well actually i said

What is it about Christians that they can't open their mouth without lying?

The phrase you used was "You are clearly a retard who struggles with his/her reading.
.

This explicity states

a) I was mentally defective of some sort
b) This caused me to be unable to read/write properly

Your an idiot, James, a real asshole.

James

5th February 2006, 18:08

Instead of showing how i'm islamophobic, "youknowtheymurderedx" opted for:

Hi,

I'm not going to listen to you make insulting points about mental retardation. I've increased your warning points.
And has given me a warning point for, and i quote, "being a fucking idiot".

Nice argument. Sure showed me.

EDIT: Oh, posted when i posted. Will reply ASAP.

James

5th February 2006, 18:29

No, sorry, you specifically suggested that the reason they published the cartoons was because they were some kind of secularist force trying to be "anti-religion".
Where?

i pointed out that they are in fact an anti-Isalmic paper noted for their racism, and that's why the published them.

What's difficult about that?

That may well be true. My question to you was how do i support them (you said that i do).

Listen, for one thing, please stop with this juvenile thing about mental retardation. It's offensive and stupid.

Okay: i'm sorry, I take back what i said. You are not a retard. Your posts do however show that you have a very poor ability to understand the painfully basic points that i have made.

You're saying that "Muslims" should be more concerned about beheadings in Iraq than the cartoons, because they portray a worse image of Islam to the West?

Is that right? If it is, say yes, and I'll respond to it.

I said in my second post: "as a paper in jordan put it: what is more offensive/damaging is when "muslims" kidnap people and then film them cutting their heads off with a knife."

Well, for instance, one of the cartoons shows Muhammad wearing a Turban, when in fact this is much more common among Sikhs. But, hey, they all look alike, eh, eh, know what I mean?

You're definetly an Islamophobic bigot. The question of whether you're racist is an open one. I would probably suspect you are, yes.

On this matter, if the content and language of your posts suggests to right-thinking observers that you're a racist, then simply flapping and squealing "no I'm not" doesn't prove anything.

Such an argument would hold emense amounts of water, if i had drawn the cartoons. Or supported them. You are yet to show how i'm islamophobic. You have merely claimed it; insulted me; and then used your power as a mod against me.

So prejudice is acceptable? Make up your mind please, one minute you're saying the cartoons are unfair, the next you're saying they're not.

I don't say the "cartoons are unfair", and then simply said that they are not. I said that they are based on an assumption which is supported by the actions of some who claim to be muslim.

A bit like your anti-christian comments.

the only difference between the two, is that i did not make the anti-islam comments. You on the other hand do make anti-christian comments.

Again i would like to stress that i am in no way responsible for the drawing, or publication, of these cartoons.

Again, this demonstrates how you struggle to comprehend simple points.

Also let me restate that i "nothing islam".

Was it about Christians that they can't open their mouth without lying?

I am not a christian. I have said that i am not a christian. What i'm really confused by is your contradictorary attitude toward the treatment of religion. You are against the depiction of muslims as violent, yet you are all for the depiction of christians as liars. An interesting stance on prejudice.

a) I was mentally defective of some sort
b) This caused me to be unable to read/write properly

Aye and i supported this. For example, you are still yet to prove how i'm islamophobic; you are prejudice; and you ignore points i make. So yes, you do appear to struggle to understand concepts and arguments. You also seem to be a bigot.

James

5th February 2006, 18:37

Due to yktmx's claim, my position may seem unclear. Let me restate it.

I posted the pictures because they are of current international interest (and they hard to come across in the UK).
I think it is silly that some muslims argue that they are nasty cartoons because they depict islam as violent, only to then act violently.

Of course the cartoons are based on prejudiced assumptions. Like most things to do with religion.

I am not anti-islam. I nothing islam (although i do have issues with those muslims who think that they have a right to tell others what to do, or not do, on the grounds of religion. Just as i have issues with christians who think they can enforce their beliefs on others. Just as i have issues with anyone of any belief who thinks they have right to enforce their perception of the "good life" onto another).

ReD_ReBeL

5th February 2006, 19:02

Whats funny is some of you people are against people being anti-islam, where Islam is an enemy of the socialist people. Look at countries with islamic laws like Saudi Arabia, woman are not aloud to drive cars, they don't have as many job opportunities, they have to go out side being completely covered up, you can't buy alcohol and usualy tends to be illegal to be homosexual. Tell me why should someone be ashamed to be anti-islam?

Abood

5th February 2006, 19:08

As a person from a muslim family, i am shocked at how the world views islam. terrorists from all around the world, such as bin laden, misunderstand it and change it, plus, the US media makes it sound terrorist, for example, in palestine, when a suicide bomber kills himself/herself they say that they killed 10 israeli civilians or so. I am not saying that killing civilians is right, what i'm saying is that israelis kill much more civilians than palestinians do.
I am also shocked at how the muslim world reacted to the cartoon, by burning embassies and such. Don't they realize that they are only proving the Danish right by showing them that they ARE terrorist?! People should only punish the wrong-doers, not the whole nation of that person who did something wrong!
I am appauled at how religions came to be. They have caused loads of wars and loads of civialian deaths and loads of miseries.

PS: eventhough i am from a muslim family, i am not a very muslim person, so please don't argue about islam and how it is sexist and homophobic, 'cause i'm against that.

James

5th February 2006, 21:54

I am also shocked at how the muslim world reacted to the cartoon, by burning embassies and such. Don't they realize that they are only proving the Danish right by showing them that they ARE terrorist?!

That is exactly the point the jordan paper made: and the one that i relayed.

Of course this makes us all islamophobics.
:rolleyes:

norwegian commie

6th February 2006, 00:36

My comrades, the entire conflict is terrible!
this does nothing but strengthen all the extremist organisations.

everything from fundamentslistic islamists to nazis.
NAzis, and rightists now got something to hate the arabs, muslims for.

someone in my school said: sandniggers your time will come"
this shows what effect the conflict has on racist groups.
Religion is bullshit, this only shows us how much.

The burning of the embasys in syria is terrible, and will not make it any better for the arbian people. The exstremist is strenghtend, they recruits new members.
Upkeeping hidjab and burka, pluss the barbaric penalties for stealing and alsoe getting raped! look at iran, if you get raped, you get stoned to death.

But i fear these events may leed to wich hunts on muslims.
I see the same things now as you did before the death camps.

soon peopl may start wondering what to doo with the muslims in their country.
deport them mabye?
ruin their lives?
kill them?

be critical of the society now growing!

James

6th February 2006, 08:59

Arrest extremist marchers, police told

· Muslim organisations blame rogue factions
· Mock suicide bomber defends protest costume

Owen Bowcott
Monday February 6, 2006
The Guardian

Protesters in London who carried placards threatening suicide bombings and massacres in revenge for the Danish cartoons satirising the prophet Muhammad are to be investigated by Scotland Yard and could face arrest.

Metropolitan police are considering the options after the demonstrations at the end of last week. A flurry of cross-party calls by MPs came at the weekend to pursue those responsible on the grounds that the threats were an incitement to murder.

The slogans, written in the same style and in similar black felt-tip pen ink, urged Muslims to use violence. A protester was also photographed wearing a garment resembling a suicide bomber's jacket. The man, Omar Khayam from Bedford, said he had no regrets about his style of dress, telling the Daily Express: "I didn't go there to cause anyone any harm. I went along just to attend a protest. Yet I have been branded a suicide bomber overnight. Did I say, 'Kill Jews?' No. Did I have racist signs on me? No. So why this reaction?" He went on: "Yes, I would do it again to make a point. I could have gone along and held up banners or something, but this made the point better."

Most of the placards appeared on Friday, running through permutations on several themes. They read: "Butcher those who mock Islam", "Slay those who insult Islam", "Behead those who insult Islam", and "Kill those who insult Islam". Some evoked previous al-Qaida suicide bombings: "Europe you will pay, your 9/11 is on the way", or "7/7 is on its way", "Europe you will pay, fantastic 4 are on their way", and "Europe you will pay, Bin Laden is on his way". As well as the rhyming "Europe you'll come crawling, when the Mujahideen come roaring", there were splenetic varieties: "Freedom go to hell", "Liberalism go to hell", and "Freedom of expression go to hell".

The only arrests were of two people carrying copies of the Danish cartoons which triggered the protests. They were escorted away by officers and released without charge.
...
Most Muslim organisations condemned the placard slogans as the work of unrepresentative, extremist factions. The general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, blamed "agents provocateurs".

Hizb ut-Tahrir, which organised Saturday's protest, agreed. Its spokesman, Taji Mustafa, said yesterday: "We condemn those [placards], those are not acceptable. Many Muslim groups have condemned the Friday protests and the images that were used then ... we must not at this time stoop to the level of those who want to resort to insulting the prophet of Islam as a terrorist."

complete article at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1703181,00.html

Khader confronts fundamentalists
By The Copenhagen Post
MP Naser Khader spearheads a network of Muslims trying to create a moderate counterweight to extremist groups

Naser Khader's patience with extremist Muslims has expired. The time has come for moderate Muslims to confront extremist groups, the Palesinian-born MP told weekly newspaper Søndagsavisen.
'To be a practicing Muslim is not the same as being an extremist. I'll fight the people who think they can tell me and others how to be a good Muslim. That is a matter between Allah and individual Muslims,' he said.

Together with 120 other Muslims, Khader recently announcd the creation of the Alternative Muslim Network, a group that seeks to provide a voice for moderate Muslims.

Khader hoped the group could provide a historic turning point for a tolerant form of Islam that demonstrated that it is possible to be Muslim, democratic, and Danish.

As one of the country's most prominent Muslims, Khader has found himself in the line of fire from many sides over the years. He is often asked by journalists to act as a spokesperson for the country's 200,000 Muslims, but fundamentalist Muslims have also turned on Khader for what they consider his secular ways.

Despite their criticism, Khader maintains that its possible to be both modern and Muslim.

'The difference between me and the fundamentalists is that I am a Muslim in a dynamic way. Islam should be interpreted based on the contemporary times we live in,' said Khader. 'Fundamentalists say that what is written in the Koran is the truth for all time. That is an opinion we moderate Muslims want to challenge.'

http://www.jp.dk/english_news/artikel:aid=3528542/

James

6th February 2006, 12:24

BBC defends cartoon coverage

John Plunkett
Monday February 6, 2006

BBC News executives have apologised for any offence they caused by showing the controversial Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad - but said the corporation had stopped short of using "excessively offensive" images.
UK national newspapers decided not to publish the cartoons, which were originally printed in a Danish newspaper and sparked angry protests by Muslims in London, the Middle East and Asia over the weekend.

The corporation used video featuring European newspapers that have published the cartoons on its news bulletins, News 24 and the BBC News website.

"Obviously the BBC does not want to give offence to anyone on either side of this debate," said Peter Horrocks, the BBC's editor of TV News.

"So if people - whichever side of the argument they fall within - have taken offence, I am obviously concerned and I apologise for that.

"In reporting the story, we ourselves had to make a decision about whether we published the pictures in any form and inevitably that's made us part of the controversy.

"[The BBC has] taken the view that still images that focus and linger on the offending cartoons would be excessively offensive so we haven't used those in our television news pieces.

"We've used moving pictures of the newspapers where they've appeared to show people the context in which they've appeared and to give them some flavour of the type of imagery but without focusing closely on them."

The BBC faced criticism from both British Muslims, who said the images were "disrespectful", and from viewers who said not shown enough of the cartoons were shown.

"You cannot report a news subject relating to a visual matter without showing that matter," said Lawrie May, one of the complainants.

"It appears that you are scared of the reaction from Muslims, while you were not concerned about the offending Christians when you screened Jerry Springer - the Opera," said Peter Arnold. "This is a case of double standards."

But Mr Horrocks said it was incorrect to make a direct comparison with the Springer broadcast, which prompted more than 60,000 complaints when it was shown on BBC2 last year.

"The BBC is not the primary publisher of these cartoons so to some extent it's different from Jerry Springer where the BBC was responsible for commissioning the programme," he told the BBC's Newswatch website.

Mr Horrocks denied accusations of censorship by the BBC.

"I think if you compare the BBC's position to the whole of the UK printed press, where there hasn't been any publication whatsoever, we've clearly gone further ...

"But we've taken a decision not to go further than that in order not to gratuitously offend the significant number of Muslims in Britain but also - because we make decisions for our pieces to be broadcast internationally - the very significant numbers of Muslim viewers of BBC World television."

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,...c=ticker-103704 (http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1703379,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704)

Abood

6th February 2006, 12:58

look at iran, if you get raped, you get stoned to death.
if u get raped its not ur fault! maybe the person who rapes get stoned, eventhough i'm against that too! a rapist would have psychological problems and needs rehabilitation instead of death!!

Abood

6th February 2006, 13:07

I think it is silly that some muslims argue that they are nasty cartoons because they depict islam as violent, only to then act violently.
i totally agree comrade. that's what ive been telling everyone! if muslims think theyre not terrorist, then prove it!! u dont go killing people saying tht ur not a terrorist.. thts the biggest contradiction ever!!!

Of course the cartoons are based on prejudiced assumptions. Like most things to do with religion.

I am not anti-islam. I nothing islam (although i do have issues with those muslims who think that they have a right to tell others what to do, or not do, on the grounds of religion. Just as i have issues with christians who think they can enforce their beliefs on others. Just as i have issues with anyone of any belief who thinks they have right to enforce their perception of the "good life" onto another).

Once again, i agree..
a good philosophy is "live and let live"
not everyone believes ur right, and obviously, u dont believe everyone is right..
so let everyone follow his own damn beliefs or it will be taken from U!

James

6th February 2006, 13:37

well i don't think anyone need prove that they arn't violent. Such a thing is proven by not being violent.
Indeed most mainstream UK muslims groups have condemed the london protest ("death to those who insult islam"), whilst also voicing (credible) disgust at the cartoons.

Abood

6th February 2006, 13:54

Muslims can prove that islam is not a violent religion by punishing terrrorists - such as bin laden and many many others. this is to prove that those people are not truly muslim and have in fact damaged the reputation of islam. if they do not do anything about those people, then its like theyre saying: "nah, that's ok, innocents deserve to die just because theyre not muslim."

peaccenicked

6th February 2006, 14:43

I would like to say something here but bangs to right. This is the most sensible thing on the net about it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...&articleId=1870 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PET20060202&articleId=1870)

Glasgow

6th February 2006, 16:05

I agree that Islam is being targeted. Look at Ian Paisley as a exsample of extremist christian behavour and he is talking about other christians :huh:

James

6th February 2006, 16:47

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,...c=ticker-103704 (http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1703500,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704)

Danish paper rejected Jesus cartoons

Gwladys Fouché and agencies
Monday February 6, 2006

Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that first published the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad that have caused a storm of protest throughout the Islamic world, refused to run drawings lampooning Jesus Christ, it has emerged today.
The Danish daily turned down the cartoons of Christ three years ago, on the grounds that they could be offensive to readers and were not funny.

In April 2003, Danish illustrator Christoffer Zieler submitted a series of unsolicited cartoons dealing with the resurrection of Christ to Jyllands-Posten.

Zieler received an email back from the paper's Sunday editor, Jens Kaiser, which said: "I don't think Jyllands-Posten's readers will enjoy the drawings. As a matter of fact, I think that they will provoke an outcry. Therefore, I will not use them."

The illustrator told the Norwegian daily Dagbladet, which saw the email: "I see the cartoons as an innocent joke, of the type that my Christian grandfather would enjoy."

"I showed them to a few pastors and they thought they were funny."

He said that he felt Jyllands-Posten rated the feelings of its Christian readers higher than that of its Muslim readers.

But the Jyllands-Posten editor in question, Mr Kaiser, told MediaGuardian.co.uk that the case was "ridiculous to bring forward now. It has nothing to do with the Muhammad cartoons.

"In the Muhammad drawings case, we asked the illustrators to do it. I did not ask for these cartoons. That's the difference," he said.

"The illustrator thought his cartoons were funny. I did not think so. It would offend some readers, not much but some."

The decision smacks of "double-standards", said Ahmed Akkari, spokesman for the Danish-based European Committee for Prophet Honouring, the umbrella group that represents 27 Muslim organisations that are campaigning for a full apology from Jyllands-Posten.

"How can Jyllands-Posten distinguish the two cases? Surely they must understand," Mr Akkari added.

Meanwhile, the editor of a Malaysian newspaper resigned over the weekend after printing one of the Muhammad cartoons that have unleashed a storm of protest across the Islamic world.

Malaysia's Sunday Tribune, based in the remote state of Sarawak, on Borneo island, ran one of the Danish cartoons on Saturday. It is unclear which one of the 12 drawings was reprinted.

Printed on page 12 of the paper, the cartoon illustrated an article about the lack of impact of the controversy in Malaysia, a country with a majority Muslim population.

The newspaper apologised and expressed "profound regret over the unauthorised publication", in a front page statement on Sunday.

"Our internal inquiry revealed that the editor on duty, who was responsible for the same publication, had done it all alone by himself without authority in compliance with the prescribed procedures as required for such news," the statement said.

The editor, who has not been named, regretted his mistake, apologised and tendered his resignation, according to the statement.

bolshevik butcher

6th February 2006, 17:05

Is this really suprsing, the owners of the mass media are racist and part of the ruling class who'd have thought it!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I think this is a sad use of ree speech but tehy sitll ahve hte right to pbulsih these cartoons.

commiecrusader

6th February 2006, 17:23

I think that the cartoons were in bad taste but the response is just ridiculous. They should get over themselves. Their religion probably is based on fiction anyway. Plus, imagine what they would do if a film was made about Islam in a similar vein to Monty Python's Life of Brian? They should get over themselves, at the end of the day it's a few pages of lines. Complain, but do it proportionately to what your complaining about.

Example:
exploitation of >90% of the population: appropriate response = revolution
tasteless cartoon of religious leader: written complaints

If only we could get people as angry about capitalist exploitation as Islamic people are about a cartoon.

Abood

6th February 2006, 17:37

If they refused to publish cartoons of Jesus, then why did they publish cartoons of Muhammad?! That is just racist and needs to be punished. But punishment should be made to those responsible, not all of Denmark and Europe and their governments, since they have nothing to do with it.
There was also a 12-minute movie, called "Submission (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/60minutes/main679609.shtml)" made in Denmark about a muslim lady being raped during her prayer. It was produced by an ex-muslim. I find it really appauling that they ONLY target islam and claim that it's freedom of speech. if it is truly freedom of speech, then why don't they target other religions - not that i want them to.

Intifada

6th February 2006, 17:49

The article linked by peaccenicked conveys what I feel about this issue.

Wanted Man

6th February 2006, 18:29

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 6 2006, 06:02 PM
There was also a 12-minute movie, called "Submission (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/11/60minutes/main679609.shtml)" made in Denmark about a muslim lady being raped during her prayer. It was produced by an ex-muslim. I find it really appauling that they ONLY target islam and claim that it's freedom of speech. if it is truly freedom of speech, then why don't they target other religions - not that i want them to.
That's a Dutch movie, made by muslim-gone-neo-liberal Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the "tragically" deceased Theo van Gogh, a movie maker and proponent of "free speech" who consistently referred to muslims as "goatfuckers".

Atlas Swallowed

6th February 2006, 19:09

Newspaper that reprinted cartoons is owned by a Zionist.

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/1344/33/

What nation gains by a clash of Islam vs the west?

By way of deception thou shalt wage war.

Dark Exodus

6th February 2006, 20:35

Originally posted by Atlas [email protected] 6 2006, 07:34 PM
Newspaper that reprinted cartoons is owned by a Zionist.

http://www.mpacuk.org/content/view/1344/33/

What nation gains by a clash of Islam vs the west?

By way of deception thou shalt wage war.
Interestingly the Iranians now have a cartoon contest about the holocaust.

Got to love the effects of nationalism and religion eh?

norwegian commie

6th February 2006, 20:54

if u get raped its not ur fault! maybe the person who rapes get stoned, eventhough i'm against that too! a rapist would have psychological problems and needs rehabilitation instead of death!!

i agree with you comrade.
But after the muslim revelotion in Iran (it was a co-op with socialists, commies and muslims then the muslims couped the revolt and it was a muslim revolution)
the regime there have been totalitarian and extremist.
if you steal you loose your hand and so on and so forth.

So beeing raped is dishonorable and can get you killed or rejected by the society.

Religion is sick, islam is oriogianlly an tribe religion.

In islam there is no room for questioning, wich means the religion doesent get reffined.

The sexist and dark parts of the religion remains.
In the cristian west you had reforms and things in the religion.
Making it so that whimen can be priests and opening for gay people.
not exactly golden these days but...
lots of cristians accept homo sexuality now.

Religio is opium for the people!!

Hegemonicretribution

6th February 2006, 20:54

I was actually debating this today in a philosophy class. It was basically applying Mill's liberty principle to this to see what it came out as. Anyway I actually learnt a few things today, and appologies if I merely repeat something here, but I did partially skim the thread.

Apparently with Islamic art it is forbidden to make certain images, especially of faces, and especially about Mohamed. The art tends to be geometric in response to this, but essentially this is why the cartoons are extra offensive. Westerners may not realise this, but remember, as irrational as this may seem to be (and is) it is a value like some of our own that was undermined on more than one level.

James

6th February 2006, 22:49

did anyone watch newsnight tonight? They were debating the issue.

What was your conclusion regarding Mill's harm principle?
Did you debate the recent protests in london using the same principle?

James

6th February 2006, 22:55

Interestingly the Iranians now have a cartoon contest about the holocaust.

Got to love the effects of nationalism and religion eh?

Is this the Anne Frank cartoon?
They showed that on newsnight: its basically anne frank in bed with hitler, and hitler saying something along the lines of "put that in your diary".
The idea of the cartoon, according the publishers, was to show how freedom of speech has its limits, and europeans have taboo subjects.

La ComÃ©die Noire

6th February 2006, 23:13

Apparently with Islamic art it is forbidden to make certain images, especially of faces, and especially about Mohamed. The art tends to be geometric in response to this, but essentially this is why the cartoons are extra offensive. Westerners may not realise this, but remember, as irrational as this may seem to be (and is) it is a value like some of our own that was undermined on more than one level.

So it would be the equivelent of drawing jesus riding a bicycle and masturbating on a path to hell.

James

6th February 2006, 23:32

not really. Because the gospels and following books don't say you can't do so.

James

7th February 2006, 07:52

"Interestingly the Iranians now have a cartoon contest about the holocaust."

Ah i was wrong. This is a seperate incident.

Iranian paper to run Holocaust cartoons

Robert Tait inTehran, Declan Walsh in Islamabad and Owen Bowcott
Tuesday February 7, 2006
The Guardian

Muslim protesters infuriated by cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad raised the diplomatic stakes last night as Iran's best-selling newspaper announced it would retaliate by running images satirising the Holocaust.
The decision by the rightwing Hamshari daily to launch an international competition to find the most suitable caricatures came as demonstrators hurled firebombs and stones at the Danish embassy in Tehran and the Iranian government imposed a formal trade ban on Danish imports. Last night mobs were attempting to storm the Danish compound.

In London, the home secretary, Charles Clarke, branded the activities of Islamist protesters outside the Danish embassy last week as "unacceptable". He told MPs he was pleased the response to the publication of the Danish cartoons had "in general been respectful and restrained in the best traditions of British tolerance". But he added: "If the police conclude there have been breaches of the law and decide to take any action, we would, of course, support them."
Scotland Yard has set up a special squad to investigate the demonstrations and the placards on display which called for the death of those who "insult Islam". The inquiry will examine everything from video recordings made by officers to photographs published in newspapers.

One protester, who was photographed apparently dressed like a suicide bomber, apologised "wholeheartedly" yesterday. Omar Khayam, 22, appeared outside his house in Bedford accompanied by the chairman of his local mosque and his local MP. He said he had not intended to cause offence to the victims of the July 7 London bombings or their relatives but added that his protest remained valid because of the hurt caused to Muslims by the publication of the Danish cartoons.

"I felt the Danish newspaper had been provocative and controversial, deeply offensive and insensitive. But by me dressing the way I did, I did just that, exactly the same as the Danish newspaper, if not worse. My method of protest has offended many people, especially the families of the victims of the July bombings. This was not my intention."

Fresh protests raged across the Muslim world throughout the day, claiming four lives in Afghanistan and one in Somalia, but the involvement of the Iranian authorities added a further twist to the diplomatic tensions between western governments and Tehran.

Hamshari is owned by Tehran city council and its plan follows a string of anti-Zionist statements by Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has dismissed the killing of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in the second world war as a "myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map".

Farid Mortazavi, the paper's graphics editor, said the cartoons would be published to test the argument of western newspapers which have cited freedom of expression in printing the prophet Muhammad images.

"The western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons," Mr Mortazavi said.

There were attacks earlier in the day on the Austrian embassy in Tehran. Iran's trade with Denmark is worth around £160m a year.

In Afghanistan, police opened fire on 2,000 protesters as they tried to break into the main US base in Bagram, north of Kabul, killing two and wounding five, said local chief Kabir Ahmed. No US soldiers were involved. Another two demonstrators died in the central town of Mehtarlam, after police fired live rounds into a crowd of demonstrators burning tyres and hurling rocks. A shot from within the crowd provoked the police into shooting, officials said.

An Austrian newspaper, Kleine Zeitung, became the latest European publication to print the controversial cartoons. The paper admitted several of its Muslim distributors had refused to sell the day's issue and said some had torn the offending caricatures out.

Several European countries, including Austria, have now warned citizens not to travel to the Middle East. The cartoons have been published in virtually every major country across Europe - except Britain. Ukrainian papers published the cartoons yesterday, joining Denmark, Norway, France, Ireland, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Poland.

Speaking from Beirut, Omar Bakri Mohammad, the leader of the Islamist group al-Muhajiroun which is banned in Britain, called for those who "blasphemed" against the prophet to be executed.

"In Islam, God said, and the messenger Muhammad said, whoever insults a prophet, he must be punished and executed," he told BBC radio.

Political and religious leaders in Lebanon attempted to calm sectarian tensions a day after Islamic extremists torched the building housing the Danish embassy and rampaged through a Christian quarter of Beirut. Lebanon's interior minister, Hassan Sabei, who resigned on Sunday, blamed a hardcore of infiltrators.

The protests spread even further across the Muslim world. There were fresh disturbances in India, Indonesia, Palestine and Thailand. In Somalia, a 14-year-old boy died during clashes with police in the port city of Bosasso after protesters hurled stones at offices used by international aid agencies.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/...1703925,00.html (http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoonprotests/story/0,,1703925,00.html)

Severian

7th February 2006, 07:59

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 6 2006, 05:38 PM

Apparently with Islamic art it is forbidden to make certain images, especially of faces, and especially about Mohamed. The art tends to be geometric in response to this, but essentially this is why the cartoons are extra offensive. Westerners may not realise this, but remember, as irrational as this may seem to be (and is) it is a value like some of our own that was undermined on more than one level.

So it would be the equivelent of drawing jesus riding a bicycle and masturbating on a path to hell.
No. Any representation of Mohammed is forbidden, even positive ones...because it could lead to idolatry.

'Course idolatry doesn't seem much of a danger with these cartoons.

IMO this stuff is bigoted ridicule of someone else's religion, especially the bomb in the turban cartoon which seems to equate Islam with terrorism. And it's deliberately provoking Muslims to get a publicity-producing reaction. They have no merit that makes 'em deserve publication.

But of course the Danish and other papers have a free-press right to print 'em if they choose.

James

7th February 2006, 12:13

thats a point that was made on news night.
In itself, there is no "clash of civilisations". But there are those on both sides who seem to want one, and are without a doubt working towards causing one.
As such it is becoming a self fullfilling prophecy.

James

7th February 2006, 16:25

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45975

interesting discussion on islamophobia.

Abood

7th February 2006, 16:37

That's a Dutch movie
sorry, my bad.

who consistently referred to muslims as "goatfuckers".
dont u think thats judgemental?! maybe there are fundamentalist terrorist muslims, just like other religions, but there are people who dont go killing civialians for the fun of it.

Hegemonicretribution

7th February 2006, 18:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2006, 11:14 PM
What was your conclusion regarding Mill's harm principle?
Did you debate the recent protests in london using the same principle?
Yes we debated both. The conclussion was (according only to mine, and eventually everyone's understanding of Mill) that he would not have minded the cartoons, but that Intervention in the protests might well have been justified as it acted as incitenent towards violence.

Of course he would have approved of the protests as well, if it was not for the nature of them, and the climate they were conducted in.

praxis1966

7th February 2006, 22:57

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranian premier: ""The West condemns any denial of the Jewish Holocaust, but it permits the insult of Islamic sanctities."

Not that I agree with him in his denial of the Holocaust, but I understand the sentiment. It is pretty hypocritical of the West to show support for this sort of thing. And, FYI, it's not just the mockery of Muhammed the Muslims are pissed about. It's a long held tenent of Islam that any visual depiction of the Prophet can lead to idolatry and are therefore forbidden.

BuyOurEverything

7th February 2006, 23:01

I love how people who are offended by a cartoon that depicts their religion as violent respond by burning an embassy. I agree that the picture of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban was fairly ignorant, but for fucks sakes, rioting over an offensive cartoon? Printed in a foreign country? These people should be shot.

Not that I agree with him in his denial of the Holocaust, but I understand the sentiment. It is pretty hypocritical of the West to show support for this sort of thing.

Hypocritical coming from some place like the US maybe, because they're so religious themselves. But this has nothing to do with holocaust denial. The holocaust was a genocide, this was a prophet. Making fun of someone's religion and making fun of a systematic mass murder and genocide are not even remotely comparable. I'm surprised you'd suggest they were.

Severian

7th February 2006, 23:08

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 06:38 AM
thats a point that was made on news night.
In itself, there is no "clash of civilisations". But there are those on both sides who seem to want one, and are without a doubt working towards causing one.
As such it is becoming a self fullfilling prophecy.
The Washington Post had an editorial to that effect.

In part, we're seeing one of European imperialism's many weaknesses compared to U.S. imperialism play out here. The U.S. ruling class and government has an easier time hiding or suppressing its own Islamophobia.

James

7th February 2006, 23:15

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/martin_rowson/2006/02/06/rowson512.jpg

James

7th February 2006, 23:21

And, FYI, it's not just the mockery of Muhammed the Muslims are pissed about. It's a long held tenent of Islam that any visual depiction of the Prophet can lead to idolatry and are therefore forbidden.

Exactly.
The genocide, whilst testing freedom of speech, is completely different.

One is a case of something going against what one religious book says (it is implied by many that all should be bound by this rule - which is utter bullshit - the suggestion of such is what irritates me). The other, genocide cartoon, is simply taking the piss out of mass murder.

- The first is "objectionable" because it goes against muslim rules.

- The second is "objectionable" because it, in RESPONSE to the above, mocks genocide and suffering.

praxis1966

8th February 2006, 04:42

Hypocritical coming from some place like the US maybe, because they're so religious themselves. But this has nothing to do with holocaust denial. The holocaust was a genocide, this was a prophet. Making fun of someone's religion and making fun of a systematic mass murder and genocide are not even remotely comparable. I'm surprised you'd suggest they were.

You must have somehow missed the quote that I used. According to Khameni, it does. I wasn't saying it was an accurate comparison, further I said I didn't agree with him. I only said I could understand where he might be coming from. And yeah, many of the major Western heads of state have personally called Prime Minister of Denmark Rasmussen pledging support. Although, I suppose that last fact is a red herring. Rasmussen had nothing to do with the cartoon in the first place (except that the protestors are calling for him to be hanged).

BuyOurEverything

8th February 2006, 06:04

Perhaps I misinterpereted you. I thought you said that you disagreed with him that the holocaust didn't happened, but agreed with his comparison of the anger towards these cartoons and the anger towards holocaust denial. Either way, it's a completely invalid comparison.

Martin Blank

8th February 2006, 06:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 03:24 AM
No. Any representation of Mohammed is forbidden, even positive ones...because it could lead to idolatry.
Actually, it depends on the sect of Islam. Ottoman Sunnis (mostly in Turkey and northern Syria), for example, have embraced imagery of Muhammad, albeit with his face obscured. Shi'a Muslims are generally tolerant of similar imagery; Sunnis are not so tolerant. Salafi (Wa'habi) Muslims are violently opposed to any kind of human imagery, sacred or not.

The thing is, though, that the images that mock Muhammad are considered blasphemous, and are fueling the riots.

Miles

Atlas Swallowed

8th February 2006, 13:32

Brought to you by this Zionist hypocrite.

http://mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=508448

Reuben

8th February 2006, 14:54

that is a really dodgy article - anyone farmiliar with the 'third positionist' right will know what i am on about

Severian

8th February 2006, 21:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 11:07 PM
You must have somehow missed the quote that I used. According to Khameni, it does. I wasn't saying it was an accurate comparison, further I said I didn't agree with him. I only said I could understand where he might be coming from.
He has a point to the degree that it shows free speech is not an absolute for any of these European governments.

But of course it's coming from a government whose president has engaged in Holocaust denial himself....

Che PFLP

10th February 2006, 07:04

here is some thoughts from left arabian group about the cartoons ,

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46059

Nothing Human Is Alien

10th February 2006, 07:16

European media publish anti-Muslim cartoons: An ugly and calculated provocation (http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/cart-f04.shtml)

Afghanistan: anti-Muslim cartoons provide focus for hostility to US-led occupation (http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/afgh-f10.shtml)

Denmark and Jyllands-Posten: The background to a provocation (http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/denm-f10.shtml)

Bush condemns protests against anti-Muslim cartoons (http://wsws.org/articles/2006/feb2006/bush-f10.shtml)

Atlas Swallowed

10th February 2006, 10:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 03:19 PM
that is a really dodgy article - anyone farmiliar with the 'third positionist' right will know what i am on about
What is so dodgy about it? elaborate

Mathba.net, yeah they are a bastion of right wing idealogy :unsure:

Reuben

10th February 2006, 11:18

The sanitized way in wich in talks about holocaust deniers (or holocaust revisionists), it reference to the 'global planners' behind the clash of civilisations, placing 'zionist neo cons' at the centre of the planning. None of tese things are explicitally wrong but together these seem to be the hall marks of third positionist conspiracy theory

Atlas Swallowed

10th February 2006, 11:43

I do not buty the holocasust denial but I do not believe that they should not be jailed either. If you research something in history regardless of the subject you should not be jailed. If thier theories are just bunk(which they most likely are) it will be obvious to all. I have read before that the Zionists did deal with the Nazis maybe that is what they fear being uncovered after all birds of a feather flock together.

Zionists were at the center of the palnning see PNAC see the Bush administration see Wolfowitz and Pearl. Where is the conspiracy theory, it is fact placed in black and white by the aforementioned. They have an agenda which they were kind enough to let the whole world see. Why bring up conspiracies? It is all out in the open all you have to do is look for it. The Zionist and Zionist sympathizers in power actions and words makes this all too clear.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

RNK

10th February 2006, 12:13

Don't forget, some newspapers re-printed the cartoons just to spite Muslim outcry and further instigate them.

Reuben

10th February 2006, 13:21

i did not bring out the idea of conspiracy theory. The article - with =its talk of glbobal planners and co-ordination 'by a hidden hand' - which it chooses to connect to paris based editor Aunaud Levy - does that

Atlas Swallowed

10th February 2006, 14:25

My apologies for the misunderstanding, sometimes you have to sift through shit to get information. The mainstream media is a perfect example of this. Why they bother with the hidden hand crap is beyond me, the hand is out in the open and slapping at the Moslem and oil-rich nations.

deak

11th February 2006, 05:27

i dunno... it seems to me that this really has very little to do with some cartoons, and alll to do with people just being pissed off at the Western subjugation. granted, it is possibly attacking the wrong causes, but quite frankly, i am begining believe that west will be happy to blame pretty much any such uprising on something as unrelated as some cartoons. it's a fairly convenient cop out to me. i dunno, i guess i'm just seeing the "those crazy muslims" who are violent over some cartoons idea as a very convenient way of demonizing them, and taking away from the fact that they actually have pleanty of WONDERFUL reasons for burning down some Western embassies. i wonder how long we can milk this, and maybe blame the entire iraqi insugency from here on out on silly muslims being pissed over cartoons. i don't buy it.

praxis1966

11th February 2006, 05:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2006, 04:12 PM
But of course it's coming from a government whose president has engaged in Holocaust denial himself....
To whom are you referring, Khameni or Rasmussen? If it's Khameni, I have heard that. And, even if I hadn't, it still wouldn't surprise me. The guy's a whackjob. But Rasmussen? That'd be a new one on me.

anomaly

11th February 2006, 05:41

Did anyone else hear that the newspaper in which these cartoons were published refused to publish a cartoon from the same cartoonist which satirized Christianity? It is a rumor I heard, not sure if its true, but it would be rather telling.

piet11111

11th February 2006, 06:48

hmm how to make money and enrage the muslims more ??? i know T-shirts !!!!!! (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/2/inktomi343238.php)

i dont have a problem with bashing religion but cant they just go messing with less dangerous poeple instead ?
if i absolutely have to be slaughtered over something i would prefer it being over something that matters instead of some cartoons.

BattleOfTheCowshed

11th February 2006, 06:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:06 AM
Did anyone else hear that the newspaper in which these cartoons were published refused to publish a cartoon from the same cartoonist which satirized Christianity? It is a rumor I heard, not sure if its true, but it would be rather telling.
Yes they did. The article is here: http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2...article04.shtml (http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2006-02/09/article04.shtml)

It's really very pathetic to see supposed "communists" supporting these cartoons. A right-wing newspaper publishes cartoons lampooning Muslims, who are at the moment one of the most opressed groups of human beings, who must face subjugation, death, oppression, and a lack of democratic rights at the hands of the Imperialist US and its corporate partners on a daily basis, and these Muslims fight back to defend their rights. And somehow the Muslims are 'overreacting'? or we should somehow condemn them, because, ah, they hold a religious value, they have committed an inviolable communist sin which automatically trumps and obscures the material conditions and struggle of the situation? Pshhh, what a bunch of tools and bourgeois fools.

Eoin Dubh

11th February 2006, 07:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 07:16 AM

It's really very pathetic to see supposed "communists" supporting these cartoons. A right-wing newspaper publishes cartoons lampooning Muslims, who are at the moment one of the most opressed groups of human beings, who must face subjugation, death, oppression, and a lack of democratic rights at the hands of the Imperialist US and its corporate partners on a daily basis, and these Muslims fight back to defend their rights. And somehow the Muslims are 'overreacting'? or we should somehow condemn them, because, ah, they hold a religious value, they have committed an inviolable communist sin which automatically trumps and obscures the material conditions and struggle of the situation? Pshhh, what a bunch of tools and bourgeois fools.
"This tool and bourgeois fool" is happy to revel in opposition to crazed lunatics who follow a 6th century child molesting murderer.....I.E. Muhammad

I wonder how the family of comrade Maitham Najah feels about Islam??

http://www.socialismnow.org/html/party031105.htm

Yeah Iran is such a swell place, certainly no oppressed human beings facing subjugation, death, oppression and a lack of democratic rights on a daily basis.

Oh wait a sec...? Why are our likeminded comrades from Iran in exile????
see their website for answers: http://www.wpiran.org/

Severian

11th February 2006, 07:30

Originally posted by praxis1966+Feb 10 2006, 11:57 PM--> (praxis1966 @ Feb 10 2006, 11:57 PM)
[email protected] 8 2006, 04:12 PM
But of course it's coming from a government whose president has engaged in Holocaust denial himself....
To whom are you referring, Khameni or Rasmussen? If it's Khameni, I have heard that. [/b]
Ahmadinejad. The bourgeois media made a big deal over it.

BattleOfTheCowshed

11th February 2006, 08:12

Originally posted by Eoin Dubh+Feb 11 2006, 07:54 AM--> (Eoin Dubh @ Feb 11 2006, 07:54 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 07:16 AM

It's really very pathetic to see supposed "communists" supporting these cartoons. A right-wing newspaper publishes cartoons lampooning Muslims, who are at the moment one of the most opressed groups of human beings, who must face subjugation, death, oppression, and a lack of democratic rights at the hands of the Imperialist US and its corporate partners on a daily basis, and these Muslims fight back to defend their rights. And somehow the Muslims are 'overreacting'? or we should somehow condemn them, because, ah, they hold a religious value, they have committed an inviolable communist sin which automatically trumps and obscures the material conditions and struggle of the situation? Pshhh, what a bunch of tools and bourgeois fools.
"This tool and bourgeois fool" is happy to revel in opposition to crazed lunatics who follow a 6th century child molesting murderer.....I.E. Muhammad

I wonder how the family of comrade Maitham Najah feels about Islam??

http://www.socialismnow.org/html/party031105.htm

Yeah Iran is such a swell place, certainly no oppressed human beings facing subjugation, death, oppression and a lack of democratic rights on a daily basis.

Oh wait a sec...? Why are our likeminded comrades from Iran in exile????
see their website for answers: http://www.wpiran.org/ [/b]
(sarcasm) Oh, so some religious fundamentalists attacked a socialist? Well by god, if thats not justification for the US to bomb the fuck out of working class Arab families and denigrate their culture, I don't know what is! (/sarcasm)

Excuse me for a second, if I refuse to look at the world in such an infantile and abstract manner as you. There are certain facts of reality that we can not avoid, one of these is that the vast majority of the world's workers consider themselves religious or adhere to some religion. This goes for the West with Christianity, and Islam, Buddhism etc. in the East. Does this mean religion is good, or should be accepted? Obviously not, it prevents individuals from seeing the world and their place in it, for what it is. However, as Hegel, Marx and their philosophical successors have all demonstrated, historically workers will only shed their chains (both physical and mental) through struggle. Saying that a certain segment of workers of the world deserve to be the victim of racist denigration, and in many countries, the victims of physical violence at the hands of the right wing press of an Imperialist Capitalist country because they do not abide to a philosophical conclusion that is alien to their life experience and material surroundings is one of the most backwards, racist statements I have heard and displays a completely bourgeois attitute. Your arguments about Iran are also very petty and are similar to arguments that the pro-war American right wing makes. Oh, so Iran sucks? Well then, of course the solution is to ally ourselves with the racist, right wing of imperialist countries!

James

11th February 2006, 09:30

Thousands join anti-cartoons demo
Press Association
Saturday February 11, 2006 9:23 AM

Thousands of Muslims are to gather in London to protest at the publication of controversial cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Muhammad.

Christian groups are also joining the United Against Incitement and Islamophobia rally in Trafalgar Square to present a united front.

But there are fears that football thugs and extremists may try to hijack the mass event.

Protesters are expected to gather in Trafalgar Square at 1pm and the Metropolitan Police will be monitoring the event closely.

The day is being organised by a coalition of moderate Muslim groups including the Muslim Association of Britain, the UK Islamic Mission and the Islamic Society of Britain.

Mayor of London Ken Livingstone and the Muslim Council of Britain are also supporting the protest.

A spokesman for all the organisations taking part said: "The first message we want to send to the country is that of the legitimate voice of the Muslim community as opposed to those that hijacked last week's demonstration outside the Danish embassy.

On Thursday, London Mayor Ken Livingstone warned that a subversive element might try to take part in the rally.

"There is, as we have known for years, a small number of people who have one foot in a football club and the other in the BNP," he said.

"These people are known by the police and they will make sure that any attempt to disrupt this demonstration will be dealt with."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0...c=ticker-103704 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-5610330,00.html?gusrc=ticker-103704)

Eoin Dubh

11th February 2006, 10:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 08:39 AM

(sarcasm) Oh, so some religious fundamentalists attacked a socialist? Well by god, if thats not justification for the US to bomb the fuck out of working class Arab families and denigrate their culture, I don't know what is! (/sarcasm)

Excuse me for a second, if I refuse to look at the world in such an infantile and abstract manner as you. Saying that a certain segment of workers of the world deserve to be the victim of racist denigration, and in many countries, the victims of physical violence at the hands of the right wing press of an Imperialist Capitalist country because they do not abide to a philosophical conclusion that is alien to their life experience and material surroundings is one of the most backwards, racist statements I have heard and displays a completely bourgeois attitute. Your arguments about Iran are also very petty and are similar to arguments that the pro-war American right wing makes. Oh, so Iran sucks? Well then, of course the solution is to ally ourselves with the racist, right wing of imperialist countries!
Why must a discussion degenerate into a cyber fist fight?

1)The tiresome allegations of racism are Really getting old fast. (See #5)

2)They didn't attack the comrade--- they KILLED him for being a Commie! Don't smear me with attacking allegations of support for "physical violence towards workers"and "support for the US to bomb workers". I can hate Islamists all I want without one iota of support for the Evil Empire.

3)Yes Iran sucks as does Islam.

4) Ally with the other bad guys? Why do that? Islam is just as much the enemy as Bush . Get over it. Go share your solidarity with the poor oppressed Islamists and enjoy having your head cut off for being a Commie.

5)Pay attention now...here it comes...:Islam is Multicultural AND Multiracial!
It's rather difficult to be racist against muslims when the religion is multiracial. Arabs make up only 20% of muslims.

6) Don't think for a second that the rock throwing, molotov chucking mobs of MEN ( Gee, no women wonder why?) would not waste you and me and all members of this forum, if given the opportunity.

BattleOfTheCowshed

11th February 2006, 21:40

Why must a discussion degenerate into a cyber fist fight?

1)The tiresome allegations of racism are Really getting old fast. (See #5)

I stand by my comments. I do not see any reasoning behind the cartoons other than racist reasoning. These were not reasoned left-wing attacks on theocracy or religion, these were racist, Islamophobic attacks meant to denigrate a populace.

2)They didn't attack the comrade--- they KILLED him for being a Commie! Don't smear me with attacking allegations of support for "physical violence towards workers"and "support for the US to bomb workers". I can hate Islamists all I want without one iota of support for the Evil Empire.

So your reasoning goes like something like this: a gang of Islamic fundamentalists kills a comrade, and thus the entire Muslim religion is to blame, and must be degraded in a the right-wing press?

3)Yes Iran sucks as does Islam.

Yes it does suck...and apparently to you if a worker has not gone above and beyond his material environment, and does not have the radical knowledge that can only be learned through struggle, well then he deserves to be the victim of attacks because hes not a real comrade right?

4) Ally with the other bad guys? Why do that? Islam is just as much the enemy as Bush . Get over it. Go share your solidarity with the poor oppressed Islamists and enjoy having your head cut off for being a Commie.

Who said I made any kind of philosophical alliance with Islam? Eventually Islam, like all religions, will be destroyed. I dont see Islam being anywhere near as big a threat to the world as the United States in a Marxist framework. In the world, I see a country, the United States being the biggest purveyor of capitalism, and as a part of this they have engaged in a massive imperialist project in the middle east, one of economic exploitation, the destruction of democratic processes. The masses of the populace in these countries are fighting back. They often fight under the banner of religion, yet if you look at many of these groups, their platforms are usually focused around issues bearing interest to the working class specifically - economic development, corruption, the threat of neo-liberalism. Yet apparently according to you because these groups of populace have not shed one aspect of their oppression under capitalism - religion - they are deserving of all these attacks. Some Marxist. I'm not sure I would get my head chopped off, unlike you I know enough about working class struggle that I wouldn't be stupid enough to go and tell a group of the most oppressed people on earth that they deserve to be degraded because they happen to follow a religion, the origins of which lie in their oppression. You have a very distorted perception of the world and of working class struggle.

5)Pay attention now...here it comes...:Islam is Multicultural AND Multiracial!
It's rather difficult to be racist against muslims when the religion is multiracial. Arabs make up only 20% of muslims.

How is it difficult to be racist against Muslims because the religion is multiracial? So now people are only allowed to harbor racist sentiment against on ethnicity at a time or something? The fact of the matter is, the majority of Muslims are non-white, and the stereotypical image of a Muslim in the West is that of a N. African/Middle Eastern Semite, and much of the anti-Islamic sentiment in the world at the moment, including in my opinion the Danish cartoons, is the result of racism over this divide.

6) Don't think for a second that the rock throwing, molotov chucking mobs of MEN ( Gee, no women wonder why?) would not waste you and me and all members of this forum, if given the opportunity.

Ah yes, those damn rock throwing, molotov chucking mobs of people, how dare they try to fight back against oppression! Why no women? Because the struggle for human liberation in Islamic nations is weak and the level of oppression is high. The women's liberation movement is simply very weak and has not made the gains in Islamic countries that it has in the West, the United States was in the same exact place 100 years ago with Christianity and women, our Middle Eastern comrades have not made the achievements. Apparently to you that justifies attacks on them by the right-wing.

11th February 2006, 21:46

Martin Blank

11th February 2006, 22:47

Originally posted by Lazar+Feb 11 2006, 05:13 PM--> (Lazar @ Feb 11 2006, 05:13 PM)What you're failing to realize is that you can't be racist against a religion. When you are discrimanatory against a religion, it isn't racism. You can't call anyone racist here for being anti-Islam. Trying to connect anti-religious sentiments to racism doesn't work here.[/b]

I agree with this statement completely, for as far as it goes, and I'll take it a step farther. It is itself racist to equate Arabs and Muslims, and to use the two interchangably. It is a stereotype and caricature of Arabs. It automatically excludes all the various Arab Christians, for starters, as if they are not "real" Arabs.

At the same time, there is an obviously racist thread that runs through those cartoons -- because they too equate Muslims and Arabs, and play off the worst stereotypes and caricatures.

The cartoons, when placed in the context of the ongoing occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Palestine, are an obvious provocation, meant to cause an upswell of anger and outrage. The problem is that this outrage was taken over by the Salafi Muslim fundamentalists in Syria, Egypt and other countries -- which led to what became, in effect, a self-fulfilling prophecy by the Danish provocateurs.

[email protected] 11 2006, 05:13 PM

Why no women? Because the struggle for human liberation in Islamic nations is weak and the level of oppression is high.

And that level of oppression is high because of Islam.

Islam, like any other religion that is an established part of the ruling class' ideology, is one tool of social control. If it did not exist, some other tool would be used to bring about the same result.

Miles

12th February 2006, 00:00

Islam, like any other religion that is an established part of the ruling class' ideology, is one tool of social control. If it did not exist, some other tool would be used to bring about the same result.

It could have been anything; but it is Islam.

Rakshas

12th February 2006, 04:14

February 11, 2006 Saturday Muharram 12, 1427

By Irfan Husain

OVER the last week, as the demonstrations against the blasphemous cartoons originally published by a Danish daily have increased in tempo and in violence, every kind of opinion on the subject has appeared in print and on the electronic media.

For me, the most trenchant comment came in the form of a cartoon sent by an American reader. In the first panel, a bearded man clad in the cartoonist’s version of shalwar-kameez is frothing at the mouth, shouting “Blasphemy! Death to cartoonists!”, while behind him a wall bears the legend: “Outrage over some cartoons”. In the next panel, the graffiti in the background says: “Outrage over the treatment of women, hostage beheadings, suicide bombings, honour killings.” Our bearded hero is shown here looking at his watch and mumbling: “Oops... Getting late. Gotta go.”

This just about sums up the attitude of a vast majority of Muslims: we get worked up over trivia, while pushing the real problems facing us under the carpet. Take this current furore over the Danish cartoons as an example. Firstly, most people forget that the stricture against depicting Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) in an illustration applies only to Muslims. Forbidding non-Muslims to do so would be tantamount to telling them to live under Shariah laws that are applicable to Muslims.

Secondly, the offending (and offensive) cartoons first appeared in September without provoking a reaction except for some mild protests. Indeed, hardly any of those marching today in the streets of the Muslim world, setting fire to embassies and dying in violent demonstrations, have actually seen the cartoons in question. Those manipulating the protesters are using them to lash out at the West.

It goes without saying that the publication of the cartoons was gratuitously provocative. Worse, it was in poor taste. And once they had been printed in Denmark, why should editors in other countries wish to compound the offence by reprinting them? Clearly, there are people who want to use their freedom of expression to provoke Muslims, while increasing their newspaper circulation at the same time.

But we need to ask why we get so easily provoked. After all, how does the publication of some odious cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper affect those Muslims venting their anger and outrage across the world? In all probability, many of them have barely heard of Denmark. For their part, even sympathetic westerners are now viewing Muslims as hysterical and violent. As embassies go up in flames, who can blame them?

In all this heated talk of boycotts and bigotry, we are in danger of losing sight of the underlying reason for this reaction. Clearly, it is not just the publication of some insensitive and offensive cartoons in a small newspaper that is the only cause of the rage that is boiling over today. The entire incident has tapped into a deep reservoir of anger and subliminal hatred. Muslims are using this provocation to express their fury over centuries of real and imagined wrongs. In their eyes, they have been the victims of western aggression and arrogance over centuries, starting with the Crusades. With the mindset of the classic victims, they see any provocative act, whether deliberate or not, as yet another link in a long chain of dispossession and defeat.

Apart from history, culture and social customs distance the Islamic world from the West. Perhaps the single most divisive issue is the emancipation of women: while westerners see gender equality as something that is now a fundamental pillar of their society, Muslims have deeply ambivalent feelings on the subject. By basing male domination on one-sided interpretations of the scriptures, men have perpetuated centuries-old tribal customs long after they have ceased to exist elsewhere. Muslims are now deeply suspicious of attempts to promote women’s rights. In western hands, this is another stick to beat Muslims and Islam with.

These are some of the attitudes that underlie the tension between the two civilizations. The on-going protests over the Danish cartoons are just another manifestation of the millennium-old conflict. Since it is now unfashionable to say we hate each other because of religion, we tend to vent specific incidents and differences as excuses to indulge our prejudices.

Even highly educated and sophisticated Muslims I have talked to perceive some dark motive behind the publication of the cartoons in Denmark and elsewhere. For myself, I can see only crassness and poor taste. The defence based on the freedom of speech misses the central point that this freedom is never absolute. Even in the most liberated society, it is circumscribed by the laws of libel, contempt and confidentiality. For instance, would any western paper caricaturize a Jewish rabbi in an offensive political cartoon? Loud charges of anti-Semitism would be heard far and wide if an editor were to dare print such an image.

As somebody who has been writing for many years in different newspapers, I would be the first to defend the right to the free expression of one’s views. But I try not to offend individuals or groups gratuitously. Occasionally, things are written (or drawn) to provoke and make readers sit up and think. However, there is a narrow line between provocation and insult, and the editors of the newspapers carrying the offending cartoons certainly have crossed this line.

But surely, poor taste is not (yet) a crime that attracts the death penalty. This is what many of the protesting Muslims are calling for. The editor of the newspaper and the government of Denmark have apologized. Why not accept these expressions of regret and move on? What is to be gained by the continuing violence and hysteria?

In this space a fortnight ago, I had argued that Muslim clerics are ill-equipped to discuss and address the real problems facing their community. In order to divert attention from their lack of education, they constantly raise non-issues in their unceasing attempt to drag us back to the mediaeval era. To me, the current hue and cry over the wretched Danish cartoons smacks of these tried and tested tactics employed by our mullahs.

Mercifully, the reaction has been more muted in Pakistan than in other Muslim countries. People certainly have the right to voice their anger in the media and in the streets. But attacking buildings, threatening Scandinavians, and dying over the offensive contains strikes me as gross overreaction.

****************************************
Emphasis have been added by the editor of this post.

BattleOfTheCowshed

13th February 2006, 00:59

How is it difficult to be racist against Muslims because the religion is multiracial? So now people are only allowed to harbor racist sentiment against on ethnicity at a time or something? The fact of the matter is, the majority of Muslims are non-white, and the stereotypical image of a Muslim in the West is that of a N. African/Middle Eastern Semite, and much of the anti-Islamic sentiment in the world at the moment, including in my opinion the Danish cartoons, is the result of racism over this divide.

What you're failing to realize is that you can't be racist against a religion. When you are discrimanatory against a religion, it isn't racism. You can't call anyone racist here for being anti-Islam. Trying to connect anti-religious sentiments to racism doesn't work here.

I think what you're failing to realize is that anti-religious and racist sentiments often go hand in hand. I was not referring to Islam as being represented by a unitary ethnicity. I was stating that in my opinion, the roots of Islamophobia often lie in racism against non-white individuals who make up the majority of the Muslim community and specifically against Arabs, who despite only being a portion of the Muslim population are often 'the face of Islam' to many Westerners.

Ah yes, those damn rock throwing, molotov chucking mobs of people, how dare they try to fight back against oppression!

Yes, because cartoons are so oppressive!

Wow, have you been living under a rock the past few years? If the cartoons were simply some random abstract event that had happened in a vacuum, you might be right. How can you look at "the war on terror", the war against Iraq, the anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hate in the United States, the calls for the destruction of Islam and Palestine from the right-wing that have been happening since 9/11 and not see these cartoons as part of the continuum of events. These cartoons are highly tied to the real physical oppression that Muslims have been enduring the past few years at the hand of imperialism. I sense that the fighting-back of these individuals has far more to do with frustration at these events than mere religious disagreement.

Why no women? Because the struggle for human liberation in Islamic nations is weak and the level of oppression is high.

And that level of oppression is high because of Islam.

So a ruling-class tool of control is enforced upon the working class of a population, and that justifies acts of violence and degradation against the working class? Wow, way to view the world as some static, philosophical struggle. The very notion that because a group of individuals is religious, that they will somehow always be that way, or that it is their fault, or that they are 'counter-revolutionary' because they have not yet engaged in as much working class struggle as other populaces flies in the face of materialist analysis of history, of reality and will get you no where.