GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=Fenix]Forgive my ignorence pwease, but I read somewhere that Jesus was an important recognized and revered prophet in Islam, so why do these protestors not get angry when theres caricatures of Jesus everywhere?[/QUOTE]

Simple he is not our prophet. He is an extremely important Prophet just like Moses or Abraham. But he is not the seal. You can not make any pictures or drawings of any prophets or of god.

God is drawn in every cartoon and was shown to be a woman in whatever movie it was (the one with alanis morrisette, chris rock et al and the two stoneheads). That wasn't complained about either. That is not an issue for us (muslims).

Pictures of the Holy Prophet (SAW) are.

Secondly Karembeu i see no proof of this. No single European media outlet (in english mind you) has stated this. I haven't read this in any Muslim media outlet.

There was no violence for 5 months. None whatsoever. What you however did have for 5 months was the muslim governments trying to discuss the matter peacefully.

Secondly that quote by the Irani national is illogical. Iran was an Islamic Empire until the 1870s. When the Shah took that changed. Secondly he mentions 1970. That implies he is a Shah support. Read up on the history of Iran and how the Shah and his cronies looted billions of dollars worth of gold, jewels and other items from the country before they were expelled. Read about Mossadiq (Spelling?) and the revolution in the 1950s which the Brits and the Americans surpressed by blood and violence.

The story of iran is more complicated than the Middle East Peace Process.

I however still put the question to all who have posted that there is nothing wrong with the pictures:

Why should European morals be used to define what muslims should take offense to or not take offense too?

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>

There was no violence for 5 months. None whatsoever. What you however did have for 5 months was the muslim governments trying to discuss the matter peacefully.
<snip>[/QUOTE]

Wrong and Wrong. Read my previous post as to why.
Death threats where issued, 15 days after the drawings had been published, forcing the cartonist to go underground. That is an act violence.
Muslim governments might discuss matters peacefull by making demands which can not be granted. "We" do not. We discuss peaceful by actually talking about a subject.

Mossadeq (in the Latinized script). This is a brief but very useful summary of the important part of his career, with mention made of the way the US arranged (for the UK and its oil firms) the expulsion of Iran's democratically elected government, and the return of the repressive, spendthrift Peacock Throne.

[QUOTE=Xandax]Wrong and Wrong. Read my previous post as to why.
Death threats where issued forcing the cartonist to go underground. That is violence.
Muslim governments might discuss matters peacefull by making demands which can not be granted. "We" do not. We discuss peaceful by actually talking about a subject.[/QUOTE]

There were no talks. Your govt said no. The Danish govt didn't do anything for 5 months. If you discuss items peacefully wouldn't that mean granting the ambassadors an audience with the relevant govt?

You hide behind the word demand. But then again you don't discuss the subject. Since the muslim countries "demand" something we won't meet with them. But hey if they came begging we might?

I am honestly hearing about these death threats for the first time (ie sept) - well there were numerous after the second printing. During the first can you provide a link? I will look it up on BBC anyway but you have any links off the top of your head?

Now you placed 4 questions to me. Yet did not answer mine. Care too?

I was right. Denmark refused to hold a meeting with the Muslim Ambassadors.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4676930.stm

The Danish prime minister told a gathering of the diplomatic corps that he had gone as far as the Danish government could go in explaining Denmark's position regarding freedom of speech and expression, and why his government was constitutionally unable to censure the media.

Now, he said, it was a question of diplomacy. He said he was pleased that the Jyllands-Posten newspaper had apologised for the distress it had caused in the Muslim world, and he appealed to the ambassadors to take part in "endeavours to re-establish relations between the various cultures involved".

It is not yet clear how Muslim ambassadors received the prime minister's speech.

Certainly the group that asked the prime minister for a meeting last October to discuss the issue but were denied a meeting, may feel that it's too little too late.

They may feel that the issue has now escalated from being solely a Danish issue - that could have been resolved locally - to an international clash of cultures.

This is the entire section on denmark. Read the part in bold.

CM wrote:There were no talks. Your govt said no. The Danish govt didn't do anything for 5 months. If you discuss items peacefully wouldn't that mean granting the ambassadors an audience with the relevant govt?

You hide behind the word demand. But then again you don't discuss the subject. Since the muslim countries "demand" something we won't meet with them. But hey if they came begging we might?
<snip>

The refusal to meet with them was given with the reply that he (being the PM) could do nothing about this incidents.
So I might hide behind the word demand, but you keep interjecting the words "peaceful" and "talks" where none exsited. Secondly - the BBC coverage of this started later then the actual incidences, so their coverage of the "refusal" is mostly made up of statements such as that one in bold, whereas we have had much more coverage of it in our national medias.

I am honestly hearing about these death threats for the first time (ie sept) - well there were numerous after the second printing. During the first can you provide a link? I will look it up on BBC anyway but you have any links off the top of your head?
<snip>

Well - I can give links do danish medias, but that'd do little. I suspect not much internatinal exists at this time because this incident was still just local.

However, a few glimts of the timeline is that the 14/10 the cartoonists went underground by recommendation from the PET (police intelligence agaency) due to death threats.

The 19/10 the embassedors want to meet to get the PM, which he refused because he couldn't give them what they want.

The 2/12 Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan has placed a reward on the cartoonists head.

cm] Yet did not answer mine. Care too?[/quote] Cetainly wrote: Yes he refused to meet them. There was not just one call for meetings. There were a series of calls for meetings. With the PM. With all the OIC countries and the PMs. With the Govt. You think the Ambassadors would just meet one person? Of course not. The danish govt is bigger than one person.

The danish government is bigger then one indeed. But the PM is the one which such addresses as this goes through.
We can easily agree on the fact that it wasn't the smartest thing to avoid meeting with these delegations, however, the outcome would have been pretty much the same, as he'd only be able to tell them in person what he told them via the reply letters.
That he can't interveene in what the papers showed. He couldn't appologize, he couldn't punish them ... the paper is 100% outside govermental control (save legislations).
He refused to meet with demands. You might call it "peaceful talks", but I still only see demands for appologizes and punishments of the paper.

CM wrote: When did they apologise? Look at the BBC time line. It was only after Denmark started to lose millions of dollars due to a boycott. It wasn't because they cared. It was because they weren't getting money.

Don't get to hung up on the "million of dollars". I have no excat figures to give at the moment, but the numbers I do hear/read about, then the amount of export Denmark have to the middle east is not large enough to cribble the country.
The reason they reacted after the boycut is that the countries are part of WTO and as such aren't allowed to make govermental approved boycuts.
So it isn't the loss of money or jobs which caused the "reactions", as the actual action of the boycut.

CM] After all for 5 months he couldn't apologise. Now he has a change of heart? [/quote] You'd noticed that he appologized for the fact that so many people got offended by the drawings. But not for the fact that they were published wrote: This is rich Xandax. If i recall correctly Europe prides itself on tolerance yet shows none. This matter was started 5 months ago. You heard nothing violent from muslims for 5 months.

Now all of sudden you are up in arms because your newspapers added fuel to the fire again? Not just once. But twice. That is an example of tolerance.

Indeed it is rich. We live in a country where we are able to debate issues unlike so many other places in the world which only must accept issues ... either because some dictators run the show or because it is written in some random book deemed to be holy. We have been in the latter situation hundred of years ago, and now we are no more. Thus we enjoy our liberties to be able to debate whether religon is one thing or the other.
We have many muslims in this country which are tried to be integrated into the population. They get much aid to do so (to much in some views), they are getting their own burial grounds and so on. At the same time Denmark is amongst the top foreign aid donaters in the world per capita.
Lately we have had debates in this country about the actual integration process and why it is failing and one of the issues is clash of religon vs. the danish society. Not just islam, however islam being the example of it.
These drawings were another example of this .... why was people affraid in the free Denmark to draw illustrations of the "prophet Muhammed" for a childrens book. Because of (many) fanatical forces existing within Islam both here and in the "big world". This was indeed not something which started as freedom of speech issue, but which started as a "how far can we allow Islam to dictate our lifes when we aren't even followers of Islam".
You talk to me about tolerance once you accept that other people live their lifes differently and do not want to force your religon upon others.
If you are offended by these drawings, then dont view them - don't read the newspaper, it is a free choice for you. However, being subjugated to a ruleset from some random religon which have no power over others is not a free choice for the victims.
So I say again - tolerance hah. Expecting tolerance when showing such incredible bias and intolerance towards other people as is shown from the masses of protesters that it is ridicules.
Behead all who insult Islam, protesters are saying...Tolerance? Burn down embassies,.... tolerance? Boycut an entier country of 5.2 million where some 300.000 is muslims, for the actions of what ... less then 30 people....
Yes do please speak to me of tolerance. But practice what you preach intstead of using tried phrases.

And funny thing though - the editor of the newspaper appologized for the offence on 29/1 on Al Jazeera ... however the appology was not translated into arabic. And why is that you suppose.....
Tolerance. Yeah - good one....


And the latest one - the danish consulate in Beirut is now reported to be burning.

I'm out of this thread, this has become too fiery for my remaining.

I just think both sides are making a storm on a glass of water. I'd ask both sides at GB to take care, its a delicate situation anyway, not to be solved with rants.

Latest news in the "comic-affair"...

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4682560.stm"]Danish embassy in Beirut torched[/url]

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4680948.stm"]Two Jordan editors are arrested[/url]

[url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4682262.stm"]Tories condemn Muslim protesters[/url]

[QUOTE=fable]Surely you know the Palestinians they support are a specific government, while this was an insult offered to a religion? Let's say you're Methodist, and French. If someone speaks of "dirty, stinking Methodists," does that mean they've attacked France? To be sure, most Palestinians are followers of Islam. Now, how many of those Palestinians were involved in physical attacks on embassies? 5? 10? 100? Out of a population exceeding 10 million? Unless of course you're suggesting that great old Judeo-Christian recourse, a tooth-for-a-tooth, an eye-for-an-eye?[/QUOTE]

As far as I know it was only days ago that the Palestinian elections were concluded... And as I recall it Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) got own majority. I wonder whats on their agenda that would make so many people vote for them. And Im pretty sure they got more than 5? 10? or even 100? votes..

[QUOTE=Karembeu]As far as I know it was only days ago that the Palestinian elections were concluded... And as I recall it Hamas (Islamic Resistance Movement) got own majority. I wonder whats on their agenda that would make so many people vote for them. And Im pretty sure they got more than 5? 10? or even 100? votes..[/QUOTE]

Karembeu, I've asked you before to give facts backing your views. Instead, you're still resorting to ethnic slander based on assumptions, innuendo, and guilt by association. This is your final warning. And please see your PMs.

Damn this is hypocritical. First Xandax you say in Denmark you don't demand then you talk about matters. When it is obvious in denmark you don't meet withe the ambassadors to meet for anything. Not even talk.

Second you hypocritically go on about how Muslims should not impose their religious views on Denmark. But you don't answer the opposite when i ask why is denmark allowed to impose their views on muslims?

Xandax you have just flip-flopped over the place. I have no desire to continue this discussion when you have no desire to talk or listen.

You said originally that denmark met with the Ambassadors. They didn't. Now you hide behind the excuse that it was because they were "Demands".

At the end of the day you reap what you sow. Denmark started this. Denmark did nothing. Denmark shoudln't be surprised with what is happening in the middle east.

Plus if you don't like to see your embassies burn....don't read the news, don't think about the middle east.

You make pathetic and idiotic statements you get the same in return.

You want a link from BBC which says that Arla is losing 1 million dollars a day due to the Boycott? There is much more there.

Anyway i am done. You are obviously like your PM not willing to talk.

[QUOTE=CM]<snip>
Second you hypocritically go on about how Muslims should not impose their religious views on Denmark. But you don't answer the opposite when i ask why is denmark allowed to impose their views on muslims?
<snip>[/QUOTE]

Denmark has not imposed any views upon muslims.
Where have the paper - or this nation said that muslims can't worship their God, or live the way they see fit? No where. However ... Muslims and Islamic nations have continuedly said that we must conform to Islamic beliefs in this matter. A newspaper has offended musllims, but suprise... these few people doesn't make the nation.

How often have not the argument been presented when yet another terrorist action was performed (9/11, 7/7 and so on) by some muslim group in the name of Islam, that "we" should not judge the entier muslim community based on these fanatics....yet here you are making the same broad and general statements towards this country for the sake of a couple of people. And you dare to call other hypocrites. Look in the mirror before you start pointing your finger, because three more point back at you.

[QUOTE=Xandax]
It is clear you have no idea about why the drawings where created and shown, by that statement alone.[/QUOTE]

Do enlighten me.

Is this issue about the hatred towards Muslims in Denmark (not that I think that there is much of that...), or is it about the Middle-Eastern demands for the Danish government to curtail the freedom of speech of an independent newspaper?

Personally, I believe that unless the cartoon was breaking Danish law - the equivalent of Britain's 'Inciting religious hatred' (a crime which I believe the leader of the British Nationalist Party is currently on trial for) - then the cartoonists and/or the newspaper cannot be punished.

Look, I'm not taking sides on this because I just don't care that much: I believe in Freedom of Speech, but I also believe in being responsible in utilizing that freedom. So where do I draw the line? I don't know. I don't agree with what this man has done, but I mostly believe it's being blown out of proportion. Convoluted? Yes, but that's just me.

I'm Christian and I've watched Jesus be on the butt-end of jokes for years. Some make me feel uncomfortable at times, but I've never gotten this upset over them. In South Park I've seen my Savior get his ass kicked by Satan in a boxing match, for example. That seems like it might show a lack of respect, but it's just a cartoon. I get that. Fable's right that they've been used as propaganda material in the past, but you could use that evidence against any cartoons then. Denmark could've handled this better, that much is certain, but I believe this has been taken to drastic and unreasonable levels. The concept that these cartoons could possibly lead to terrorist acts... I'm sorry, that's just so unbelievably stupid. I can't even comprehend the logic there.

A "pre-emptive strike" on my part.

Take a breather, fellas. It's getting hot in here.

You're right...it is getting hot in here... Apologies all around for being way too fired up...

Here's a link to a Swedish newspaper that states that a Danish Imam lied about the drawings to arabian newspapers. One of the quotes from the newspaper is as follows: (translated from Swedish to English)

Pure lies have been spread by high ranking danish moslems in the middle-east concerning the danish Mohammed-drawings. One of them states that Mohammed was pictured as a pig. Another big issue stated by a Danish imam is that followers of Islam have been persecuted in Denmark. Another Danish Imam, Abu Bashar of Nyborg, showed drawings on BBC a couple of days ago where Mohammed was depicted as a pic, and claimed these pictures had been published by "Jyllands-posten". Other Danish muslims have appeared in Arabic media claiming that it is very common in Scandinavian countries to make fun of Mohammed both on TV and in newspapers.

This comes from an article in the Swedish newspaper "Göteborgs-posten".
The article in full can be found right here ---> http://www.gp.se/gp/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=130&a=256063

Maybe not instigating this whole mess....but sure adding fuel to the fire... Then again...I never saw the clip on BBC so I dont know what to believe... Maybe its just Swedish media trying to make us believe what we want to believe...

There is no doubt that the fake pictures/drawings shown by the Imams on their tour of the middle east have added much fuel to the fire - whatever the reason they had for doing so.
Eventhough some of them aren't even danish citizen they have lived and been allowed to practice/prech their religon for a long time. Many seem to think it borders treason however being a lier and spreading such information might be immoral, but it isn't a crime and thus ... they are still allowed to walk freely.
Strange isn't it. They enjoy the freedom to be able to travel and spread such lies about a nation in which they live, while at the same time wishing to limit it for the rest of us.

Other "misunderstandings" which have been used is that the Queen of Denmark (which many seems to have a hard time to understand is just a publicity figure withouth any real influence) have said that Danes and Denmark should oppose Islam. That is a misquote from an english translator - what she did say was that Denmark and Danes should be sparing parterns and provide response to in-country living muslims. However, the danish word for this is faultly translated into oppersition.
Also there have been rumors that the Koran (sp?) had been burned at demonstrations. No demonstrations in Denmark have been reported to have burned anything (let alone the Koran) - it was just a rumor...... Just FYI in this ridicolous situation.

@Denethorn:
[QUOTE=Denethorn]newspapers printing highly inflammatory materal with the very purpose of inflaming the Muslim community[/QUOTE]
That statement alone shows you do not know the reason as to why the drawings where created and later published. If you have a genuine interest in knowing why they were made and published then I have mentioned the context in some of my (more calm) posts here, otherwise ... well then just stick to your misinformed opinion.


EDIT: Seems the embassy in Iran has now been under attack from demonstrators - although this was a minor demonstration of some 400 people, firebombs thrown where at the building but the embassy still stands.

I know i would stay out of this but i have to comment. What Imams? I mean not a single arab/pakistan/malay or Indonesian media outlet that i have seen (I have lived in Indonesia/Malaysia so i know which newspapers are reliable and which aren't) But no where have i seen any mention of travelling imams.

In the Jakarta Post - there is no mention of a Pig picture (Indonesia)
In the Arab news - there is no such mention (Egypt, Saudi Arabia et al)
In the Khaleej times - there is no such mention (UAE, Oman and Yemen)
In the Dawn and the News - there is no such mention (Pakistan and Afghanistan)

I don't see any mention of a pig picture or travelling imams on BBC, CNN or even Fox news. I mean Fox news would have picked this up. If there had been a pig picture that would have gotten more noise than the bomb or the virgin issue.

As for these rumors i have not heard a single one of them in the Muslim media. In Pakistan nothing at all on the matter.

Can you provide links to where these rumors have been spread and who spread them? Secondly can you provided an english source for all of these. After all that has happened trusting Danish media would be like trusting Donald Rumsfeld on information for the Iraqi war effort.