Those cartoons...anyone want to read why they were published?

[hunkermunker]

Am wary of posting this, but am posting all the same - I think it's very interesting

Something I simply don't know, can anyone fill in the gaps? As I understand it, a (white danish) writer was writing a book for children about the life of mohammed - and couldn't find anyone to illustrate it. Was that because he asked Muslim illustrators, who declined because of their own beliefs, or because he asked illustrators in general - who declined because they knew about the Islamic taboo against figurative representation of Mohammed, or illustrators who said they were afraid of the consequences?

It has struck me as slightly odd that someone who was attempting to write a book aimed at the wider understanding between Muslim and christian children then went on to want to illustrate it in a way which would immmediately cause discomfort for one half.

(And who knows what Mohammed looked like anyway? Obviously we know what Christ looked like, and he has been illustrated accurately in mny a school bible...blonde flowing hair, blue robes...)

But it is a really interesting article - with some aspects which I hadn't thought about before, or recognised. But clearly some of the cartoonists more complex points weren't necessarily unpackable from the work.

And modernity and the modern world aren't the same thing. Modernity is another western concept - the modernist project (which was a political project as much as a cultural one) occurred in Europe and then the States.

MT, but muslims are quick to point out that Islam was faster to grant rights to women when it was first founded.

They can have it both ways. You either can, or you can't make a comparison.

I don't know MB. But that's a different issue to what this blokes arguing, isn't it?

Religion is historically only one of the institutions whereby a ruling elite controls the masses. All women, regardless of faith or colour have been limited by their biology and men at every level have been able to exploit and control them because of it. If society, technology or politics broke down we'd be in exactly the same position Christian, Muslim or atheist, white, black or beige. Politics is progression via compromise, politics without compromise is ideology.

Arf, thank you so much. It really does make for very interesting reading.

Sorry to PP, but I just got round to reading the last half of the article and there are some very interesting things in it, especially the point about secular societies.

What I don't get is him saying 'it's not a "them" and "us," debate when he conflates the issue of being insulted and complaining with totalitarianism when surely that's a right in any democracy? Threatening and intimidating people is a totalitarian strategy and everyone is in agreement that the riots were caused by extremists, threats would have been made by either extremists and/or idiots and harm caused by plain psychopaths, aren't we?

And he uses the fact of a Islamic pressure group wanting more positive coverage of Islam as evidence of self-censorship, but there are pressure groups, and rightly so for all ethnic minorities in secular democracies, who's job is to put pressure on governments.

Israeli pressure groups are phenomenally busy in the media. They don't tolerate much either. I only say that because I remember a Scandinavian artwork being denounced by and Israeli 'diplomat' and Israel cutting cordial ties (or whatever they call it) from then on.

I can see both sides and sometimes the language in the media is transparent but other times its contradictory and, I dunno, it just makes me uneasy. I can't let go of the feeling something else is going on that none of us can see.

The puppet master is having his fun

Sorry, I posted these question in the wrong thread, but I have a couple of questions?

Why is denial of the Holocaust punishable by imprisonment?

Why did the same paper refuse to publish a cartoon of Jesus a couple of years back, citing displeasure by its readers?

It's an interesting, if contentious question PD. FWIW, I think the law on the Holocaust is a form of reparations (if I can use the word in this context) for the suffering of the Jews. A gesture enshrined in law. I can see the point of such a gesture and I agree with it. But I can also see that other cultures (and sexes) long abused by the west might demand something similar - positive discrimination is on that continuum - a form of knowing 'self-censorship' on a socio-political level.

On a very broad level Israel does seem to covet its role as chief 'victim' of history and beligerantly resists all claims of equivalence from other oppressed cultures, which (as a humanist) I find a bit problematic.

I didn't know the paper had refused to publish another cartoon. But all papers publish, retract and apologise for all knds of reasons after complints from pressure groups working behind the scenes.

I disagree with the holocaust denial laws. They were enacted at a time when there was a real and genuine fear of a resurgence of nazism after the war in Europe - there were masses of nazis still around, determined on forming the fourth reich and the allied governments were simply not going to risk another war. Nowadays, I think they're out of date and do present an enormous problem PD - I agree with the implication of your question, it is a double standard.

I think your second question was covered in "that" thread - there was a two year gap between the two sets of offensive material, and afaik there's no suggestion that the two incidents are linked in a sort of systematic discriminatory policy by the paper.

and remember there is no law on Holocaust denial in the UK.....there is in Germany and Austria for 'historical' reasons....born, I would imagine out of the considerable guilt and shame of the people who allowed the holocaust to happen.

David Irving shot him self in the foot by taking an academic who called him a holocaust denier to court for slander here though...and lost

ego he was found by law to be a holocaust denier. (just being clearer)

Yes, that was fun!

But under British law that only happened because he was a prize ass, who actualy belived in the utter nonsense he was spewing. What a nice surprise he had when he found out that sane and sensible people disagreed with him!

Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!

That was hilarious. Him getting all self-righteous. Like the pope complaining about being called a catholic.

THe other person was found not to have slandered him....he wasn't found guilty of being a holocaust denier...he was found to have denied the holocaust.

Rather as If you said , of me, 'she is a fat welsh woman' and I took you to court, your case would be upheld, as I am both fath, and Welsh. That doesn't make me guilty of being a fat welsh woman, simply that you said the truth. Being fat and Wesh doesn't break the law....but I cannot accuse you of slander if you simply state the truth!

Similary he wasn't found 'gulilty' of being a holocaust denier....since we have no laws to try him on that. The other person was found to have told the truth.

Yes, I see. LOL MB!

ooh, she can be a right pedant, that bishop

Martian Pedant Fatarse Bishop....to give me my full name

Blu- Dunno about the white danish writer wanting to write books on islam for kids.

But I do personally have a pre-school collection of Islamic stories all beautifully illustrated, we're currently reading through the story of the Prophet Abraham (pbuh), the book has really gorgeous illustrations (dd2 agrees and tries eating them), the illustrations however do not include pictures as such of the prophet's Abraham and Ishmael (pbut), rather the pictures are more of silhouettes, and the desert and stuff.

I don't think it was the fact that someone drew a picture of what they thought the Prophet (pbuh) looked like which angered so many, more that the picture itself was geared to be insulting. And at a time when Islam is considered to be full of terrorists, publishing a picture which shows the spiritual leader of Islam to be wearing a bomb for a turban wasn't really going to illicit comments of 'oooh how lovely, they even gave him a turban' type comment.

I find the article interesting, in that they insist that pieces of art were removed as one picture depicted a torn Quran alongside the Bible and Torah, I'd bet not many Jews would be terribly pleased to see that piece of 'art' either.
Nor do I find anything even slightly amusing about a man urinating on the bible.

Btw was Jesus(Pbuh) really blonde haired and blue eyed??? I always thought he'd look more ummmm mediterranean considering where he came from....???

He looked like Robert Powell, didn't he?

I once watched a very interesting TV program on this , years ago. prior to the date of the Turin shroud (IIRC) pictures of Christ varied a great deal, with many of them being of an obviously 'middle eastern' type of face. After the shroud 'time' you get a much more unified depiction of Christ.

Not that I am supporting the mriaculous nature of the shroud, you understand, simply that it became the iconic representation of Christ, which has been very persistant

A bit like Santa after coca-cola then?

So it would seem.

When we went to see Narnia, DS didn't recognise Father Christmas because he wasn't wearing red.