The ... the bastards ... they burned cheese!

TomJoe · #1 02-03-2006, 07:30 PM

In Iraq, both Shiite and Sunni preachers spoke out against the drawings during Friday prayers, with many calling for a boycott of Danish goods. In Baghdad’s Sunni Arab stronghold of Azamiyah, about 600 protesters outside a mosque burned a Danish flag and boxes of Danish cheese.

That'll show the Danes! Burn their cheese! Nevermind those folks had probably just bought the damn stuff, only to make grilled cheese on the streets. Dipshits.

Leesifer · #2 02-03-2006, 07:45 PM

Has anybody here actually seen these cartoons. I've been trying to find them but can't.

TomJoe · #3 02-03-2006, 07:45 PM

Nope, I haven't.

godfry n. glad · #4 02-03-2006, 07:50 PM

That flag the demonstrators are burning is certainly cheezy.

The white bars of the cross of Mr. George are too narrow.

:denmark:

It'll probably be a while before those streets are regular again, too.

Sock Puppet · #5 02-03-2006, 07:58 PM

Is it just me, or do the flag-burners in that pic look rather cheerful for the amount of outrage they supposedly feel? Or maybe they just enjoy the outrage, which is a suspicion I've held for quite awhile about a large number of righteously indignant displays.

Adam · #6 02-03-2006, 08:00 PM

cartoons can be seen here

As a non-Muslim, I don't think most of them are very offensive at all, but I probably lack the cultural context to understand why they're offensive.

Dingfod · #7 02-03-2006, 08:05 PM

Do any of them actually look like Muhammed?

Leesifer · #8 02-03-2006, 08:07 PM

Thanks Adam.

I totally agree. To be honest, I don't see anything that contentious in any of them. Only a couple of them made me laugh anyway. But, as you say, I definitely lack the cultural context to find them offensive.

So far as I understand it, it is blasphemous to even portray Mohammed, so I think that's the offence right there.

godfry n. glad · #9 02-03-2006, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

cartoons can be seen here

As a non-Muslim, I don't think most of them are very offensive at all, but I probably lack the cultural context to understand why they're offensive.

Um... yeah.

I keep hearing that it was a Islamic reaction to "offensive portrayals of Muhammed."

Now... How does anyone, particularly a Dane, know what Muhammed looks like? I mean really. They look to me like caricatures of stereotypic Islamic types, rather than "Muhammed". Of course, I can't read Danish, either, so I guess it could be labelled as such. But, I don't see it.

So, I guess it's just fine for protesters in the Islamic world to gather together and call westerners "the Great Satan", burn effigies, and urge death upon us all, but if we do it, it's an offense to Islam.

godfry n. glad · #10 02-03-2006, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leesifer

So far as I understand it, it is blasphemous to even portray Mohammed, so I think that's the offence right there.

In some fundamentalist Islamic quarters it's blasphemous to portray any living being. It varies throughout the Islamic world.

Leesifer · #11 02-03-2006, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

In some fundamentalist Islamic quarters it's blasphemous to portray any living being. It varies throughout the Islamic world.

Really? Good godfry, that's ridiculous.

godfry n. glad · #12 02-03-2006, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leesifer

Quote:

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

In some fundamentalist Islamic quarters it's blasphemous to portray any living being. It varies throughout the Islamic world.

Really? Good godfry, that's ridiculous.

Yeah, I quite agree. Yet, it was the source of inspiration for all of the absolutely gorgeous geometrical designs for which the Islamic world is rightfully known. It's why I was so surprised to find a rather nice large mural depicting women and a peacock on the side of four story building near the center of Samarkand. Then, I realized that even one of the tile facades of the madrassahs which make up the Samarkand Registan complex has tigers and human faces....and they are from the 15th century.

The Persian influence (which is largely Shi'ite, rather than Sunni) has evidently been something of a counterbalance to this stricture in their part of Islam. That has overflowed into the traditions of the oases of Turkic central Asia.

Adam · #13 02-03-2006, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warren

Do any of them actually look like Muhammed?

I've never actually seen a photograph of the guy, so I can't say.

As for their apparent offensiveness, I dunno. The first on in that page I linked, with the face inside the green star and crescent, was shown on CNN with a mosaic blur over it, so I suppose it's offensive in some way, but I don't get it. I get the impression (as has already been mentioned) that the blasphemy in question may be the depiction of the Prophet at all, but I'm still kind of confused...I wasn't aware that the restriction also applied to non-Muslims portraying the Prophet. Again, though, I'm missing out on the cultural context.

erimir · #14 02-03-2006, 09:56 PM

It is against their religion to make depictions of Allah or Mohammed... I think this may also apply to other Muslim prophets, so it would also apply to Jesus, for example.

But they know they can't bitch about depictions of Jesus cuz they would raise the ire of Christians who wouldn't stand for that shit.

I don't really give a shit if they think their rules apply to me. I'm not a Muslim, so I can draw whoever the fuck I want to.

I agree with the linked article that had the pictures. Europe should not apologize and instead should stand in solidarity with Denmark - freedom of speech means all speech, not just speech that conforms with Islamic law.

fragment · #15 02-03-2006, 10:17 PM

Political cartoonists aren't doing their jobs properly if they don't manage to inspire a bit of outrage now and then.

Adora · #16 02-03-2006, 11:39 PM

Overall, I think a lot of Muslims need a sense of humour. The cheese thing cracked me up, though.

Some dick on the Jim Lehrer newshour the other day was bitching about how Muslims respect all their prophets equally. Yeah? I don't see them burning flags over Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter (or Serial Rapist).

Sauron · #17 02-04-2006, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

cartoons can be seen here

As a non-Muslim, I don't think most of them are very offensive at all, but I probably lack the cultural context to understand why they're offensive.

Um... yeah.

I keep hearing that it was a Islamic reaction to "offensive portrayals of Muhammed."

Now... How does anyone, particularly a Dane, know what Muhammed looks like? I mean really. They look to me like caricatures of stereotypic Islamic types, rather than "Muhammed". Of course, I can't read Danish, either, so I guess it could be labelled as such. But, I don't see it.

So, I guess it's just fine for protesters in the Islamic world to gather together and call westerners "the Great Satan", burn effigies, and urge death upon us all, but if we do it, it's an offense to Islam.

1. The complaint - weak as it may be - is that the very act of depicting the Prophet in an image is offensive. This, of course, ignores the fact that some of the greatest Islamic art (especially from Iran, India and the Ottoman Empire) consists of tapestries that show the prophet in various events from the Quran. He is usually depicted dressed in a robe of all green and a veil over his face. But several such paintings show his actual face.

The general rule is that the farther you get geographically speaking) from Saudi Arabia, the less strict Muslims are about this. For a long time, the only art allowed in strict Islam was the art of geometry - exploring angles, diamonds, hexagons, etc. Depictions of anything on earth was forbidden (idolatry) and depicting anything in heaven was also forbidden (blasphemy), so all the creative energy got channeled into geometry. It produced some beautiful products:

but was ultimately destined to failure, because people's creativity demanded an outlet.

2. The offensive ones are the ones linking Muhammad to bombings. Make of it, whatever you wish. :doh:

BracesForImpact · #18 02-04-2006, 08:35 AM

Many of them seem angry over portraying Muslims as terrorists, then you get stuff like this:

Quote:

"Whoever defames our prophet should be executed," said Ismail Hassan, a tailor who marched in the pouring rain with hundreds of other Muslims in the West Bank city of Ramallah. "Bin Laden our beloved, Denmark must be blown up," the protesters chanted.

Quote:

"Strike, strike, Bin Laden," shouted some in a crowd of about 50,000 who filled a Khartoum square.

A backwards and primitive belief system which is morally corrupt. Sad, really.

Adora · #19 02-04-2006, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

The offensive ones are the ones linking Muhammad to bombings. Make of it, whatever you wish.

Actually, they're linking Mo's thoughts to stuff exploding. Which is pretty accurate, especially when even liberal Muslim apologists can't get the fuck over their beloved Qu'ran.

Sauron · #20 02-04-2006, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adora

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

The offensive ones are the ones linking Muhammad to bombings. Make of it, whatever you wish.

Actually, they're linking Mo's thoughts to stuff exploding. Which is pretty accurate,

Well, not really accurate.

Quote:

especially when even liberal Muslim apologists can't get the fuck over their beloved Qu'ran.

I've seen no evidence of that.

Adora · #21 02-04-2006, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

I've seen no evidence of that.

You need to open your eyes.

MonCapitan2002 · #22 02-05-2006, 01:25 AM

They need to get the fuck over themselves. It's just a bunch of caricatures of a mythical figure. Oh wait. They think their special prophet is real. The fucktards should shut the fuck up.