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

Shock horror, I actually agree with Peacedove! Anyone who wants to piss on any book as part of their act is an absolute arse imo. I don't think they should be sent to a correctional facility, but boy, should they be booed off the stage.

I feel the same about the blessed Jane Horrocks, who was oh so admired for pissing on stage as Lady Macbeth. FGS, get a grip all you attention-seeking boundary-pushing luvvies!

Who the f*k is going to clean it up? Some poor underpaid woman.

When did Jane piss on the stage? I missed that 'delight'. but then I do live a rather sheltered life.

I wouldn't choose to watch someone piss on anything, but I worry when PD says they should be sent to a 'correctional facility'. That worries me more than the pissing.

Maybe by correctional facility, he means Cod's potty training camp?

That would be amusing.

Somehow, I don;t think he means that.

Oh, I like the point about the clearing up, Cali.

there are corectional facilities and then there are some.

Something is very wrong with that person, and he should get a re-education, some sort of social service, some place where he learns that a lot of our wisdom is locked up in books, and wisdom is to be treated with respect.

Freedom to pee on a book is not freedom.

Maybe a society that considers this a freedom needs to have its head examined.

Suppose it were a uniquely antique book; only one copy, made of papyrus, disintegrating, any liquid in contact with it would have destroyed it. Supposed it contained recipes for cures, might even have a recipe for cancer; and suppose the person knew it.

pd, we are not talking about the concept of pissing on books as a whole. That person wanted only to piss on the Bible or Koran, not the Encyclopedia for Cancerous Diseases.

As others have said, the Bible is just a book, no matter how many times he pisses on it he cannot take away the ideas that are contained in there.

I speak as a book collector, as one who has rare editions in her possession. The quality of the book is not the issue, it is what is contained in the book that he is pissing on. Personally I would think, "whatever, if he needs that for attention then he's a saddo not worthy of my attention". Why can't other people just think of them in the same way? Don't give them the attention they so crave, just like you wouldn't with bullies. Ignore them and they'll go away.

and the encyclopedia of cancerous diseases would be a big book and would take a lot of piss!

Rhubarb gets it in one, as far as I can see. A book is a book but the ideas that a book contains are more important than the physical book itself. To piss over a Muslim would be an issue worth persuing (or christian, jew ot athiaist for that matter) but a book is just a book.

And I don't quite see why non muslims are in effect being comanded to follow an islamic injunction not to depict the prophet. What next? Is Rhubarb allowed to insist that I don't practice contraception because the pope says catholics shouldn't? Is a hindu allowed to ban us all eating beef?

Rhubarb true it is the ideas that are importatnt, but I would say that it is the history of ideas that is important, too!

Why are these ideas put inside books? So that they can be transmitted as they were written. Without these books the transmission through memory alone may carry mistakes and changes.

I do not accept that Bible or the Vedas or the holy books of other religions are just books; they contain the words of God.

Why should people not piss on books? Why should non-Muslims not depict any prophet (pbuh)?

I would think pissing on books or anywhere other than the WC is rather unsocial. If we are just animals, with a few memes thrown in, then why should we be shy of copulation in public? And if there are those who believe we are not animals, should society have a code of conduct that takes their sensitivities into account? Maybe good neighbourliness means you do not piss in public. Maybe it means a little respect.

I do not look upon books as just books - pieces of paper with print upon them. I see them as repositories of ideas.

And the written word has carried a sort of sanctity, because it was an invention that revlotionised the transmission of knowledge.

I fully accept that you will not depict the prophet, but why should that prohibition extend to those of us who do not belive? And where does it end?
Can I insist that you venerate the new christian saints that were ade by the pope today? Can I insist you don't eat beef?

Where does it end?

pd - a bigger person carries those words and ideas inside himself. As I said before, if someone wants to piss on the Catholic Catechism, let him, there are loads more anyway!

May I ask you the question I've been asking for ages now? Why are the Muslims so upset about these cartoons and not about cartoons poking fun of God? When the Last Temptation of Christ was showing at the cinemas, where were the angry mobs then? Why is Mohammed deemed to be more important than God himself to some Muslims?

Rhubarb I am sorry again but what people carry inside themselves isn't always what the ideas were in the first place. With a book the words of which aren't changed we can always go back and check that the ideas haven't been modified with time.

Muslims are upset and do protest about the fun being made of God, and we are puzzled why the Christians have taken it lying down.

As for the prophets (all of them), we find it wrong to draw their pictures, and we protest about them, too. We are hurt and do protest if Jesus (pbuh) is depicted in a scandalous manner.

The difference between the Jews and the Christians is that of recognition of Jesus. The difference between Christians and Muslims is that recognition of Muhammad (saw) as a prophet (the last one, and of the status of Jesus (pbuh). The difference between Jews and Muslims is that of the status of Jesus and of Muhammad.

There is also a difference of the nature of prophets.

When the prophet is depicted with a bomb on his head, when he is depicted as guarding the entrance to paradise and saying that it has un out of vrgins, what does it prtray? What is the message?

The message in these charged times is for the non-Muslims to fear their Muslim neighbors, and for the Msulims to feel that they are being labelled as terrorists.

It isn't just going to Paradise yourself with your beliefs and with your good deeds, it is also about "spreading the Gospel", if I may use the phras from Christianity.

Do you want your children to have a certain code of behaviour? Do you want a certain beleif system or do you believe that all paths lead to salvation or to bliss on earth? Do you believe in certain politcs? etc.

If you do, do you want peaceful discussions about those beliefs, or do you think shouting and abuse will egt your point across?

MB I promise I will not draw pictures of any saints, Christian or Muslim, new or ancient. If I have done so in the past, I apologise.

As for beef, in India there have been riots against Muslims and Christians for this very reason. Sometimes ture, and sometimes on rumour alone.

If I invite a vegetarian who felt very strongly about the slaughter of animals, I will not insult him with putting meat on the table. For that particular meal, I will myself abstain from meat.

No, I think you are missing the point.

I fully accept that as a muslim you will not ever draw a picture of the prophet. As a memver of a multicultural society I will defent your right not to draw a picture of the prophet.

However, muslims are now saying that no-one has a right to draw a picture of the prophet.....you are probably going to say at this point that the cartoons are infamatory and you could well be right.....but as I inderstand it it is the representation that is forbidden. am I right?

So Muslims are now saying that non muslims have to follow islamic teaching....not repect it, or allow muslims to follow it, but to follow it themselves.

While I would not serve you pork, or any meat to a veggie, I would not expect you to say I can't eat meat.

So my question is this. If a muslim has the right to insist that I never depict the prohet, why do I not have the right to insist that you never again eat beef, or to insist that you attend mass at take holy communion?

The answer, to my mind , is that while you have the right to practice your religion, you do not have the right to insist that I do too.

Do you agree, or disagree?

What possible need would there be for drawings of the Prophet(pbuh)??
I can see why you'd want pictures of Jesus (pbuh), as it's an aid in Christian worship no?? But the last Prophet (pbuh), whom you don't even believe in, why would you want drawings of him??

But why sould I be forbidden from doing this? Why must I follow the teaching of your faith?

Now for the life of me I cannot think of a time in my life when I have wanted to do this

But my point is a serios=us one. Does any religios group have the right to insist that other people follow its teachings?

Because then Beef is prohibited. Working in the Sabath, contracpetion, pork is out, all women have to cover their heads, all men have to cover their heads, caste is prohibited, except where it is vital.....where does all this end?

In all repect, you have every right to follow the teachings of our faith, but you have no right to insist that I do too. And that holds for all faiths and also the athiests!

We have the right to freedom of religion, but not to impose it on others.

When we live in a non-Muslim country, in a very small minority, our voice is very little. All we ask for is not to create fear among the majority, not to make them xenophobic. So all we will strongly object to is slander.

You see that depiction of any human form, particularly the prophets (pbut) is prohibited, yet we do not object to the statues (not just paintings) of Jesus or the Virgin. It is because we understand that Christians keep these statues. When Muslims marry Christian ladies who opt to stay in Christianity, Muslims do not throw out any statues they bring in, they do not stop them attending their Church.

Europe has had some paintings of the prophet (saw) in very adverse light, but that was a long time ago. That prejudice was presumed to have died with more balanced accounts of history, and more knowledge of the prophet's life. Yet these cartoons that are being talked of have brought back that vilification again.

Coming back to any picture of the prophet, yes it is any depiction that is forbidden for us Muslims, but living in a non-Muslim majority area, we can only request that this be not done. Should you chose to ignore our sentiment, we will suffer but will try to have the law changed through peaceful means to take our views into account.

Should you depict him or Muslims in general as, for example, the monsters who drink blood of young children (an accusation that many minorities have faced), we will conclude that the majority is going the way of the Nazis, and we will see what we can do to protect ourselves.

"Should you depict him or Muslims in general as, for example, the monsters who drink blood of young children (an accusation that many minorities have faced), we will conclude that the majority is going the way of the Nazis, and we will see what we can do to protect ourselves."

?????

pd, the catholics have also been where the Muslims are today. Catholics were condemned, priests tortured, churches burnt, mass was forbidden under order of death, in England catholicism was all but driven out. It's not that we don't take all this lying down, but we feel that there is nothing to be achieved by declaring Holy Wars, threatening people and violence. We have seen were this ends up in Northern Ireland, we have no particular wish to go down that road again.

Jews have also been persecuted, by almost every nation upon this earth! So it's not just the Muslims who are victimised, don't portray yourselves are being only victims here.

I realise that you are not an extreme Muslim and you would not incite violence against any one nation no matter what they have done. At least I hope you wouldn't. Why can't the Muslims see that God looks down upon this earth, he sees the barbarity, the people who mock his son, who murder and kill in his name, who rape children, who taunt him, yet he does not kill them all with a lightning blow. God is merciful and patient and kind. I just wish the extremists of any religion would follow suit.

Too true Rhubarb, and Amen to that.

I have been traveling quite a bit lately so didn't hear about the cartons until I saw this thread. Reading the reasons of the editor I thought her reasons were very valid and the experiment very well thought. However... when I get to read all that has happened because of them I could only thought that she should have foresighted that the times are not exactly the best to raise polemic. Obviously, people was ready to receive them in the country where they were published, but how could you expect they will travel that far and with disastrous consequences? obviously, once the cartons were changed form the context for which they were intended they became very incendiary. I'm sure that most people over there didn't get to know even why they were made.

I rememeber in a trip to India somebody mentioned that the worst mixture possible was religion and politics, most wars can be forgiven after a generation or two, holy wars damage several generations, even centuries after the war is finished. Those are unforgivable, a paradox if you consider that fogiveness is one of the central aspects of most religions.

Hello everyone. I am a new mmber, have lrked for a while and have follwed this discussion with great interst. Some interesting and imprtant poinbts have been raised. One thing I wanted to throw into the mix that does strike me about thse cartoons, as someone who has studied Orientalism at Uni is how much they do fit into that theory - appropriating the symbols and concepts of the "Other" and representing them according to the "West's" consciosness. And also demonising the "Other".

I appreciate that this whole thing is seen primarily as a debate on free-speech and how this is at odds with Islamic teaching, and while Moslems in the UK enjoy equality, freedom and respect this is not true throughout Europe where this kind of thing could be viewed as quite threatening to Muslims.

saw a bit on the news where Jews were portrayed as drinking the blood of young children in a dramatization in Saudi Arabia. And remember Rhubarb, Mary I wasn't called bloody Mary for nothing, so us Anglicans have had a bit of persecution too!

We all have ruty, that's why I don't like the Muslims shouting that they are the only ones who have ever been victimised. Every religious group has been victimised at some time or other. And I don't know any race that has been victimised as much as the Jews, including by Muslims.