STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

Well, I don't know that much about this to be honest. And I don't really understand it. I don't get why these cartoons (although I get that they're considered sacreligious) are spurring such violence. I also don't get why the governments don't step in and try and stop the violence.

I think the issues must be complicated but to be perfectly honest, I just don't get it. Not one bit.

I'm totally fascinated by this and the press's coverage of it. I feel like the real issue of why this is happening is being brushed over, which is too bad because it's really important.

The reason this is such a big deal is partly because of the content, but mostly because any depiction of God's creation is considered extremely blasphemous. Ever wonder why Islamic art looks like this?

Because images of living things are believed to promote idol worship as well as imitate God's work when no one can compare to God.

People's views have eased up a little as we know from all too familiar images like this...


But to depict the prophet, particularly in any sort of negative manner is more offensive than anything Christianity can compare to. This is not the same as drawing a picture of Jesus with a bomb/turban, it goes a lot deeper than that. I really wish this was being stressed more in the press. Instead we're almost getting post scripts at the end of articles...
"The cartoons touched a raw nerve, partly because most Muslims forbid any illustration of the prophet for fear of idolatry and partly because several drawings portrayed Muhammad as a man of violence."
(though I also find this interesting as Mohamed was a man of violence and the people acting out about it obviously are too)

However, at the same time I think this issue is only marginally about the cartoons. The reason why people are actually rioting is more complicated and Syria's US ambassador hit the nail on the head...
"We believe that if somebody would tell Secretary Rice that Syria is not the party that occupies Iraq and is not the party that occupies the West Bank and Gaza, then probably she would know it is not Syria who is actually fueling anti-Western sentiments."

The current world climate between the West and Islam has been described as a "clash of civilizations," but I see it more as a clash of extremism. Muslim extremists are a ticking bomb waiting for something to happen. This is in no way the first time Mohamed has been depicted. In fact, here he is in a frieze in our Supreme Court building...


It's also not the first time he's appeared in a satirical way, he was portrated as a super hero on South Park a few years ago. Also, these cartoons were originally printed months ago. I think radical Muslims have just grabbed it and used the already existing anti-Western sentiment to rally people to violence.

Also, this is IN NO WAY all Muslims. It's interesting how different news sources have handled this. The American press refers to the rioters as "Muslims" whereas Europeans have been referring to them as "Muslim extremists," a term I think is more useful in understanding what is going on.

This is an article about an anti-cartoon, anti-rioting rally that is set to take place in the London...
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article343936.ece

Sorry, my response to this became really lengthy.

can't talk more about this cause it's bed time (but i will reread over the posts tomorrow cause this thing is really interesting to me and im not sure how i feel yet)....but here is an interesting website....which i also don't know how i feel about....

 

http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/

Bastet wrote:

---

Muslims have every right to be offended by the cartoons.  However, the extremists' reaction is disproportionate.  Offensive cartoons should not be retaliated against by rioting, setting buildings on fire, and killing people!  Their violence has already spread beyond the Danes.  They've attacked Norweigan and Austrian (just because the president of the EU is Austrian!) buildings, and I've seen pictures of extremists in London holding signs that say "behead anyone who insults Islam."  I think this is only tangentally related to the cartoons.  On the most basic level, the extremists hate Europeans, and the cartoons gave them the excuse to express their hatred.  I agree with Maddie that the term "extremists" should be employed here.  The people who are resorting to violence over the cartoons don't represent all Muslims, and the media really needs to express that.  Otherwise, people will generalize and continue to assume that all Muslims are extremists.  The extremists don't understand that they're shaming their religion with their actions.  Either that, or they don't give a damn and just want to spread their hate.  -- Edited by Bastet at 09:42, 2006-02-09

---

I agree with everything you wrote.

And Maddie, your point about Islamic art not depicting humans and animals is well-taken, however there have been a lot of deviations from that at different times and in different cultures throughout history. For example there were rich traditions in both Persian/Iranian culture and Moghul culture (which, more or less, is present-day Pakistan) of miniatures and illustrations depicting people. So it's not like the rule against depicating people is so sacred and so ironclad that it has never been breached--it is a major part of the artistic tradition in several major Islamic societies. So you've also got Islamic art that looks like this:

   

I think the big distinction is that when people were depicted, it was always in a secular context, so I think the really big problem is that it was Muhammed who was depicted.

Honestly, I think a lot of it is both sides having no grasp of the other side. The protesters don't have the faintest understanding of the concept of a political cartoon: that it is a form of media which exists for the single purpose of mocking, satirizing, and making fun of people and institutions. It's like people who get offended by South Park, when the entire point of South Park is total disrespect for everyone and everything. And, on the other side, the cartoonists and the publishers clearly didn't have the faintest understanding of how profoundly offensive the cartoons would be to many Muslims. Does that mean they shouldn't have published them? I honestly don't know.

And Maddie, you are right that the cartoons have been exploited by radical Muslims to inflame anti-European, anti-Western, whatever, sentiment. When the cartoons were first published no one paid any attention; it was only after some powerful imams got ahold of them and started circulating them and trying to stir up outrage that all the trouble started.

I just think it's been blown insanely out of proportion, which speaks to the fact that it's being used as fuel-on-the-fire by radical leaders. It's a couple of cartoons published in a random newspaper in Denmark. It was not the president of Denmark getting on TV and showing the cartoons and talking about how funny they were, which would be a deliberate insult from an office and a situation where people and their beliefs are entitled to respect. Also, I know this is a cultural difference, but it just seems insane to me to be so outraged by an insult from a media outlet which can only ever be expected to be deliberately insulting. Basically, what I'm trying to say is that I think people have a right to be offended or insulted, but to make such a huge deal out of it--to make it about Denmark insulting Muslims, or Europeans insulting Muslims--let alone to resort to violence--is preposterous. I think responsibility for the insult stops with the newspaper, and that is the only legitimate focus for people's anger.

-- Edited by sephorablue at 18:11, 2006-02-09