The treachery of images

[jurph]

The creation of images of Muhammad (pbuh) is against a subset of Islamic teachings from the Hadith, but is not a general prohibition. Sunnis, particularly fundamentalist Sunnis, believe that it is improper to create a physical representation of the prophet. You might compare this to fundamentalist evangelicals in the American South, who believe

Comments

[roninspoon]

I'm just glad to see other countries fucking up for a change.

[jibbsey]

because Europe has no history of previous conflict w/Islam

[jurph]

Why bother the Muslims in the first place? The original set of comics were to prove a point about freedom of the press, and Muslims who are offended by images of Muhammad were the butt of the joke.

Instead of burning buildings, Iran -- as batshit as they may be -- are saying, in effect, "we get the joke, now here's one for you." Like a black man in the South who says "that's mighty White of you" when someone is condescending to him, the president of Iran is giving as good as he gets. Turnabout is fair play.

And yeah, I think Art Spiegelman absolutely deserves to win first place in the Holocaust Cartoon contest.

[fergusmacairt]

It seems to me that there is a world of difference between poking fun at a religion because of the actions of some of its followers (Christianity anyone?) and poking fun at the systematic mass murder (attempted genocide) of millions of followers of a particular religion. I'd have no problem with publishing the former. Publishing the latter would be just as tasteless as wearing a t-shirt with a swastica on it to the Holocaust Museum. You should be allowed to do it, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Also, this kinda sounds like, "You pissed me off, so I'm gonna shoot that guy who happens to be a mutual acquaintence who I don't like." Very mature.

It should also be noted that the original reason for posting the cartoons was in response to an author of a book (I believe about Islam) complaining that he couldn't find depictions of Muhammad anywhere. It doesn't sounds like it was a deliberate jab at Muslims. The subsequent reposting was more a statement about free speech/press than anything else too.

[jurph]

From Wikipedia's article on the topic, your read on the original situation sounds pretty accurate:Flemming Rose, the cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, commissioned twelve cartoonists for the project and published the cartoons to highlight the difficulty experienced by Danish writer Kåre Bluitgen in finding artists to illustrate his children's book about Muhammad. Cartoonists previously approached by Bluitgen were reportedly unwilling to work with him for fear of violent attacks by extremist Muslims.

...and you make a solid point above. Our particular brand of free speech says that it's okay to draw public figures (including religious figures) as caricatures, and that satire is protected, especially from religious interference. Hate speech -- for example, praising or denying the Holocaust -- is also still legal here, but in many European countries, it's actually illegal to deny the Holocaust in public.1 Given their position on the subject is from the moral high ground of "Free Speech", Iran is really putting the screws to them.

[fergusmacairt]

I don't really see a problem with the State Department response other than that it does not condemn the violence in strong enough terms for my liking.

I would expect the western press to respond with something to the effect of what you said:
"I think that Iran's provocative contest is belligerent, mean-spirited, spiteful, and lots of other adjectives; it's in poor taste, especially now that the overreaction of many Muslims has caused so much damage."

Holocaust Cartoons, YES ...

[anonymous]

Go for it, Iran.

The B'nai Brith and the Jewish Anti-Defamation League
will probably complain, maybe even threaten to sue somebody.

There might even be some small protests.

You know how many embassies will be burned?
None.
How many people killed?
None.

Because people in the West really do understand &
value freedom of expression.

How many Buddhists rioted & killed people when the
Taliban blew up the collosal Buddha images in
Afghanistan? None.

[mantis_tobogan]

yo. check this out. i found it linked in this.

Printing Holocaust Cartoons

[mantis_tobogan]

Why would Europeans publish the Holocaust cartoons? Europeans only ask that Muslims accept the freedom of Europeans to publish the Muhammad cartoons; they are not demanding that Muslims publish them.

The best analogy here for the Iranians would be to ask Europeans to remain calm while Muslims publish antisemitic cartoons: and in fact this happens all the time. Muslim countries publish that stuff constantly, and Europeans barely notice. Test passed.

Re: Printing Holocaust Cartoons

[jurph]

Good call - you're absolutely right.

Re: Printing Holocaust Cartoons

[mantis_tobogan]

that's framing the whole issue as a "how do you react to this?" kinda thing. while that's a valid point, the paper that published the the cartoons stated that wasn't its purpose.

the purpose of the cartoons published in the danish paper were to challenge european self-censorship. i think it's completely valid to challenge european taboos on speech as well as the taboos of other cultures.

while iran is totally off-base in where it's coming from on this, especially in light of the fact that the cartoons it's requesting are common in the arab world... the do highlight a valid point. if you're going to challenge some self-censorship... all self-censorship is up for challenge.

even more troubling to me is the further revelation that to publish blasphemy is aparently illegal in denmark. that, and the public denial of the holocaust. while i may not agree with things, i don't think those two speech issues should be legislated.