Cartoon Clash of Civilizations

Re: # 36 Well, thanks to google and technology, you know and I know that for each hundred testimonies you bring up to support all your above claims i can produce a hundred and one to counter these, but I am not indulging into that, as then i`d be accused of straying off topic. Your calling Mohammed (SAW) `a lecherous and delusional human being` would make no difference to him and his sanctity in the eyes his followers. That`s indeed your personal point of view and on a par with the issue at hand, ala `freedom of expression`, which includes cotorting a phrase to serve one`s own intended meaning.

For now, all i would humbly request you to briefly expound on are the qualities that should serve to make someone a shining example for all times and worlds` in your eyes?

regards

An article that I thought made sense from the Sunday times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2025511,00.html

An article that I thought made sense from the Sunday times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2088-2025511,00.html

Nice article from faithfreedom.org

...............Muslims use Western standards of behavior against Westerners while also holding Westerners to Islamic standards of behavior; while at the same time never accepting Western standards of behavior. When Saudi Arabia is criticized for the lies and hate taught in its schools against Jews they demand we not hold them to our standards. When a Danish cartoonist mocks Muhammad, we are of course held to their standard..................

Raw_Dust

One problem is that pre-Islamic Arabs have been so demonized and defamed that in comparison almost anything or anybody would appear manifestly divine.

Still, we shouldn`t judge the Prophet of Islam any more harshly than we would judge another human being. Among his contemporaries, it could be fairly common for old men to marry 9 yr/13 yr old girls, or wed women previously married to their adopted children.

this is kind of off-topic and irrelevant to this article.

RE#19

i consider Mohammad as a lecherous and delusional human being. Based on:

1-
His marriage to a 9 year old kid
His marriage to a woman previously married to his adopted son.


2-
His claim that Devil dictated now-annulled verses to him.
His suspicions that he was being cast under some sort of evil spell. The context behind the revelation of Sura-e-Falaq and Sura-e-Naas.

scrutinizing his weird claims and practices sans Maududian summersaults: plausible explainations only make him to be someone far from being a shining example for all times and worlds.

Hence the direct threat of Eternal Damnation as very articulately pointed out by Naqshbandi Sahib in #26.

you can look it up the debate on these issues from both sides and relevant historical sources.

regards.

DM ji:
i agree with the overall focus of your post. My experience in the usa is mostly of a campus town @ northeast where my first name is as good an identity as any and i am fortunate to have close friends from diverse backgrounds.

in any case, here is Ibn-e-Warraq`s powerful case for supporting Danes.

``On the world stage, should we really apologize for Dante, Shakespeare, and Goethe? Mozart, Beethoven and Bach? Rembrandt, Vermeer, Van Gogh, Breughel, Ter Borch? Galileo, Huygens, Copernicus, Newton and
Darwin? Penicillin and computers? The Olympic Games and Football? Human rights and parliamentary democracy? The west is the source of the liberating ideas of individual liberty, political democracy, the rule of law, human rights and cultural freedom. It is the west that has raised the status of women, fought against slavery, defended freedom of enquiry, expression and conscience. No, the west needs no lectures on the superior virtue of societies who keep their women in subjection, cut off their clitorises, stone them to death for alleged adultery, throw acid on their faces, or deny the human rights of those considered to belong to lower castes.``

link: http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,398853,00.html

i would think its natural to ridicule hindu icons if bjp/ss/bd etc swear by hindu icons to create mayhem. e.g. i have seen many a cartoons with trishuls (a symbol of shiva) in them.

Sadna loves steak as long as the cow is Paki. :)

#31 Sadna {``Pat Robertson goes to India and addresses a huge crowd calling Hindus devil or Satan worshippers. Ridicule of Hinduism has been political ideology of at least 3 major political parties in India, the 2 Dravida parties and Mayawati`s BSP. ``}

Sadna,
Mullah Robertson and Sister Mayawati are hardly representatives of Muslim action or thought. But, maybe the Dravida parties and BSP are offshoots of Jaish-e-Mohammed (PBUH). :)

Are you really for free speech, or are you just for free speech as long as your holy cow isn`t being slaughtered - a selective vegetarian?

`` Muslims have the right to draw cartoons, trash deities, ridicule, and insult everything about Hinduism``

It has already been done, and without any threats of violence from Hindus. When Saraswati was drawn naked it was called art. Pat Robertson goes to India and addresses a huge crowd calling Hindus devil or Satan worshippers. Ridicule of Hinduism has been political ideology of at least 3 major political parties in India, the 2 Dravida parties and Mayawati`s BSP.


And if Hindus kill in the name of any Hindu deity, you bet people have the right to ridicule that deity.

sadna #23 {`` ...If one is under threat of being killed by suicide bombers invoking Islam then one has every right to draw cartoons of anything in Islam one well pleases before one is killed. No point in trying to have it both ways.``}

Sadna,
This is a very stupid statement - asinine and irrational even by your standards. So, if anyone, including BJP/RSS/JS/SP/SS/BD criminals threaten Muslim lives while invoking Hinduism, then Muslims have the right to draw cartoons, trash deities, ridicule, and insult everything about Hinduism. I think you get the point, lady. :)

In our circle we are doing everything we can to support the danes and danish products.

There is a long history of violence and murder having to do with anyone who offers an opinion on islamic culture. As an indian I am familiar with the howling mobs pouring out the mosques on friday afternoon and burning down a newspaper office, goverment building etc. The ``provocation`` usually turns out to be some minor innocuous reference to Mohammed (the prophet guy) name or life or something else. There was a famous case in Bangalore in the 80s in which a newspaper office was burned down because a cartoon was published with a reference to a dog/animal named ahmed.

The painter MF Husain has painted hindu gods and goddesses engaged in sex. He has been targetted by Shiv Sainiks and hindu extremists. Naturally, I dont support them. I support their right to have an opinion but not their extreme expression.

Similarly I dont support the fascist Shiv Sena-like behaviour and despicable words of islamic *GOVERMENTS* and *INSTITUTIONS* threatening newspapers and editors.
What a bunch of no-good hypocrites!! Jews are routinely caricatured in the most despicable ways in the middle-east. Hindus are described in the most disgusting way possible in Pakistan!

And these authoritarian fascists dare tell us what is ``right`` or ``wrong``?

I am off to the grocery store. Next up is Danish furniture.

Raw_Dust#17:

I have a somewhat different take on this issue. I think that the West, especially its liberal elite, are largely responsible for their woes. I firmly believe that when one comes to a a new society, unless as a conqueror, one enters into a social contract with it, which is that the newcomer will partake in the benefits of that society and at the same time abide by the rules of the host society. This should be as true of a Hindu or Christian who goes to Saudi Arabia knowing fully well that he or she will not be allowed to practise his/her socio-religious-cultural practices there as it should be of us desis coming to vilayat or dur-vilayat, i.e, North America for those who cannot fathom potohari.

This is exactly how those of us who came here in the 60s and early 70s behaved, as Nasah bhaijaan could tell you. We did not demand special holidays for Diwali or Eid, we did not ask for special prayer rooms, we did not ask them to change their textbooks, we did not want to wear hijabs or kirpans; heck we did not even insist on wearing beards or unshorn hair. We were even careful in our cooking so that the smell of our spices did not offend our neighbours. We were just happy that we were allowed to earn a living and allowed to live like everyone else. But then the lefty liberals came up with this notion of diversity, multiculturalim and the freedom to live our lives anyway we wanted. The logical culmination of this process has been that we have created our own little Indias, Pakistans, Palestines and Somalias. We forgot that there is the other side of this bargain, too, which is that we would live by the Western values of tolerance, freedom of expression including the freedom to blaspheme. The West, especially the Europeans, came to their senses only after the episodes like the Theo Van Gogh. But they are, in reality, harvesting what they seeded.

Naqshbandi#26:
I have always respected you for your complete devotion to your faith. But also because you have this ability to take off your religious hat and think out of the box when discussing secular subjects. I would request you to do precisely that when reading the following:

Yesterday, at least two rather sedate listeners to our sedate CBC radio contrasted the response to the offensive cartoons with that to the Tabliban`s destruction of the Bamyan Buddhas a few years ago. I understand that from your perspective the Bamyan Buddhas` destruction could be justifiable because they were not even a place of worship. But from a non-muslim perspective, which happens to be the perspective of the 4/5ths of humanity, they were a priceless human heritage and their destruction was far more offensive than a mere cartoon in an obscure newspaper. And yet, there was hardly any protest from Muslims when those statues were demolished and most of the criticism that took place was in the context of how it gave a bad image to Muslims and not that a heinous crime had not only been committed but was justified in the name of Islam. More importantly, while there are nearly as many Buddhists as Muslims in this world, there were no burnings, violence or threats of bombings by Bddhists anywhere in the world. This contrast perhaps explains why Islam gets such poor PR in the West today.

Good article, Bina. The end part contains some sensible advice.

(I am glad to see that you are still around and not swallowed alive by fire-breathing lady dragons, for example.)

The sad reality is that newspapers, radio,TV, and other media always take jibes on individuals, institutions, and icons all the time until the cost of doing so exceeds its benefits (in terms of publicity). This web site itself is probably one of the most egregious offenders, in my view, but the world carries on anyway!

All those who insult the Beloved Prophet in any way or find fault with him (alayhisalatu wa salam) are infidels and destined for Hell and any Muslim who agrees with it becomes an apostate and the Shariah punishment for this is death. (Applicable in Islamic countries only).

In the West we are obliged by Islam to respect the laws of the land we live in and so protests and economic boycotts are the best solution forward in such circumstances...