To me the cartoons were really, really inoffensive. And I didn't know this, for instance.
"Islamic law, based on clerics’ interpretation of the Quran and the sayings of the prophet, forbids depictions of the Prophet Muhammad and other major religious figures — even positive ones — to prevent idolatry. Shiite Muslim clerics differ in that they allow images of their greatest saint, Ali, the prophet’s son-in-law, though not Muhammad."
Now as for the following:
"Critics say the drawings were particularly insulting because some appeared to ridicule Muhammad. One cartoon showed the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb."
Freedom of speech v. freedom of religion? I don't know. To me the cartoons meant nothing. Whose standards are operative? Probably theirs, in that if I do something I know is insulting, it probably is an insult. There may be an equivalent if a Muslim newspaper had a drawing of Jesus in a gay bar, with a "Jesus is a fag" caption.
I would imagine that fundamental Christians would be outraged.
It does seem to me that any depiction of Muslims sympathetically in the US draws fire from outraged Jewish leaders who threaten to boycott the depictor and sponsors. Been that way for as long as I can remember.
Anyway, knowing the above unboggles the mind a little. Lots of boggle left, though.
Arf
Making sense of the Muslim outrage over the cartoons.
The whole thread (73 posts)
- Making sense of the Muslim outrage over the cartoons.
- They do not understand "Freedom of the Press".
- The more I think about it.
- One Muslim's view:
- "Jesus in a gay bar, with a "Jesus is a fag" caption. I would imagine that fundamental Christians would be outraged."
- re: Da Vinci's Last Supper
- While it was in poor taste, Freedom of the Press permits it.
- I find this hilarious....
- No religion is truthful, and therefore should never trump freedom of expression
- I think they were offensive to Christians.
- Your ignorance of the story of Mohammed is astounding.
- re: Thanks for the information oh most Knowledgable One.
- In reply to the post by the smearer of Catholics, below:
- oh, so you're actually denying the massacre at Medina are you?
- there is some debate about Muhammed yes...but most sources agree he owned slaves, made war, ordered assasinations, and killed jews.
- quite correct
- You're welcome. It comes courtesy of a Hungarian refugee who served in the Hungarian foreign service in Turkey.
- In reply to the post by the smearer of Catholics, below:
- re: Thanks for the information oh most Knowledgable One.
- Your ignorance of the story of Mohammed is astounding.
- Thoughtul post, thanks
