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

In Lincoln Catherdral there is a rather nice statue of 'Little St Hugh'

The horrid thing is that this child was found dead, the local jewish community accused of killing him, and a pogrom happened. Horrid. Awful.

Back to the subject of weeing on the book. I tend to agree that weeing anywhere except in a WC is pretty anti-social, unless you are still potty training or there are extenuating circumstances, like you're camping. But what about doing something else to a book in order to demonstrate a lack of respect for its ideas, like tearing it up on stage, or burning it? To some extent I must agree with Rhubarb, the fetishisation of the actual book is a bit odd nowadays. I guess this deep respect for the medium itself, as opposed to the ideas it transmits, is a hangover from the days when books were actually rare and precious and very few people had the tools (ie: literacy) to access them.

And otoh I can see PD's pov on the distaste of doing something like that in public to a book in order to demonstrate contempt for the ideas of the book. Because for me, the sight of anyone burning books whose ideas they don't like, is as disturbing and frightening as the sight of an attention seeker peeing on the bible or the koran might be to someone religious.

thank you Rhubarb, although I think that we Muslims have had our share of the persecution in the past, I have already pointed out that other minorities have suffered the same or similar accusations and consequences.

If you want to repeat history, it is not your fault, it is ingrained in humanity to repeat its follies.

Peacedove - Probably should be a new thread, but I am interested in your take on the shrine in Iraq which was blown up today? I think it was a Shi'ite shrine blown up by Sunnis'?

If "I" want to repeat history? Am I personally to blame for the said persecution of Muslims then? Or people of any faith? It really gets to me when you assume that us westeners as a whole are responsible and agree with every persecution every happened!

PD you have implied that the West treats Muslims as an exception, as a sub-human species. I point out that the West has persecuted itself and indeed Irish Catholics have been treated as a sub-human species too. Therefore your other implications that us westerners know nothing of what you speak is also untrue, we do know how it feels to be bombed, to be persecuted, to be hounded and taunted, to be discriminated against.

Also, my other point was that Muslims are not the innocent victims either. You can say that the West persecute and threaten and invade, but so do the East, and if they had the power that the West has, make no mistake that they would use it just as much!

As for the Jewish people, why is there this divide between the Jews and the Muslims? Please tell me that this or this is not correct. Who is being persecuted here?

Rhubarb, not that long ago he asked me when 'I' was going to invade North Korea

I was busy that day, fetching my kids from school

Honestly some people are such slackers. I've invaded four countries today, in between mumsnetting, lunch and paid work.

Pinkly - i think your point is interesting.

pd, or fuzzywuzzy -I had it explained to me a long time ago (BCF - Before Cartoon Furore) that in Islam it is not acceptable to make any figurative representations of any living being bellieved to have been created by God /Allah, and that such a representation in some sense re-creates the process of creation, and is therefore presumptious for humans.

Am I correct in this understanding? That it is not jjust drawings of prophets, but of all living beings, that are frowned upon, and hence the prevelance of pattern in Islamic art?

If this is the case, I think this may well be one of the very difficult sticking points between those who hold absolute religious beliefs, and those who are either prepared to be 'contextual' in their interpreation of doctrine, or those of agnostic or non-religious belief. These sticking points are politely negotiuated around, but often cannot really be solved. Good manners, good sense, openess and some mutual respect might protect us from that being a major problem in many cases.

Rhubarb and MB: In this context, when I say you, it doesn?t mean you personally, it means that mindset which is being demonstrated by those who want to support the intolerant Danes by supporting their economy.

Banu Quraitha and the other Jewish tribes were either exiled or treated with the killing of their able-bodied men, in response to their continued scheming and support of the enemies of the State of Madina, breaking of the allegiance which they had sworn to the State, betrayal and breaking of the pacts they had signed with the other Madinites. And this was strictly in accordance with the punishments prescribed in their holy books, and the judge was nominated by them.

This is not and was not a Muslim vs. Jewish thing; else the Jews would have been persecuted throughout the Islamic world, and throughout history.

The killing of Jews is Mandatory is a stupid piece. Again if that were the case, why would the Prophet (saw) Companions of the prophet allow the Jews to live. It is the Crusaders who killed all infidels, including the heretical (in their mind) Christians.

Muslim minorities are not exceptions if one examines history, but I asked if the West wants to repeat history. If that is so, let us stop this pretense of having become enlightened.

Don?t you see points of similarity in intolerance and oppression/suppression today and in the past?

Blu It is true that pictures of humans or animals are not allowed in Islam, but there are exceptions, like for education. However, drawings of God or the prophets (pbut) do not fall into this exemption.

I agree with you that ?Good manners, good sense, openness and some mutual respect might protect us from that being a major problem in many cases?. But reading on this site and on many, freedom of expression by pissing of any holy book is a far more cherished value than good manners.

I'm sorry pd but you abide by a law which states that thieves can have their hands cut off, or adulters (largely women) can be beheaded. I cannot see the merciful and kindly God in that kind of law. And if there is no continuing war between Muslims and Jews, why then are the Muslims retailating over the cartoons by publishing cartoons mocking the Holocaust? Why do they deny that the Holocaust happened?

Yes there is a pattern in history of oppression and suppression, of all races and all religions. That's the world for you! Declaring a Holy War is hardly the answer though is it?

Rhubarb It is Europe and the US that have ben waging holy wars against the Muslims and against other third worlders for centuries under one pretext or another.

It was Trinitarian Crusades once (still in some very powerful minds); it was Scientific Socialism once (against the Muslims of Central Asia and the Caucasus); it is Secularism and Democracy and Freedom of Expression these days.

Bloodthirsty Crusades nevertheles!

And against those who resist these, there is an outcry from self-righteous followers of the Pope!

Scientific socilaism was agaist all forms of religion and did not discriminate between islam and christianity of judaeism. They had a good old go at everyone of faith. you can't claim that one just for islam.

And Islam has done its share of conversion by the sword as well, historicaly

First of all it isn't correct, but even if it were, does it justify the continuous wars against the third world, under one pretext or the other?

My understanding is that Islam was introduced into India during a time of conquest.

But either way , you are quite correct, one bad turn does not deserve another.

As a Muslim born in India, whose forefathers converted from Hinduism, and who is quite familiar with India history, the conquest of Sindh was a result of Raja Dahir abducting of Muslim women and children from the high seas, and refusing to return them or acknowledge their existence.

While there is considerable discussion about the time, I feel it unrealistic for you to sugest that islam has never been imposed under duress, be that physical or finacial. What ever started it, as you said only a few posts before.

There was considerable expansion inro India, wit Mahmud of Ghazni havibng 16 or was it 17 forays into India.

Argue the start all you like. But tere*was muslim iliatry expansion, however distaefil this seems now.

No, it isn't distasteful to me. It happened a long time ago, and Mahmud of Ghazni has been unfairly criticised. His main object was the Qaramtah, who had Multan and Sindh under their control, and who had been waging wars whereever they were strong enough. There was also a continual struggle between Mahmud and the Hindu Rajas and Maharajas, which latter would sign peace treaties, only to tear these up when Mahmud's back was turned. Mahmud just happened to come out successful. Still that was such a long time ago.

If Islam had spread by the sword, there would be majority of Muslims in the lands surrounding the Capital, Delhi. In fact, in the India under the control of the British, NWFP and the Punjab were Muslim majority provinces, but you had to cross the vast span of the United Provices (or Uttar Pradesh, now) and Bihar before coming to the largely Muslim Bengal.

There's a huge amount of manifest orientalism taking place in the debate as a whole, which is my biggest beef with it.

Rhubarb, where did you find little green footballs? It's a right wing hate site!

Is anyone still following this discussion? I think it's worth saying that it would help everyone of we wre able to look at the bigger picture, because it looks like to me that it is about more than just free speech.

We in the west feel that the Moslem response to these cartoons is an assault on our liberal society, while the Moslem world feels that the cartoons represent an assault on its Islamic society.

At this very delicate and scary point in history and West/Moslem relations it would have really helped if we had shown greater sensitivity, understaning and maturity. The attitude of some Eurpopean countries and minsters has merly confrmed to Moslems that the West regards their feelings and beliefs as insignificant. If the Danes had withdrwan the cartooms I believe it would have shown our greater liberalism, our ability to give rights and respect to othesr. We are currently in a poition of greater power and Muslims and the Middle East do not really threatn our freedom of speech. No-one's quality of life will be compromised by refraining from drawing pictures of Moslem prophets.

From our point of view, this issue is not a threat to us. As far as I can tell they just want us to not draw their prophet. They are not complaining about anything else. I think we can live with this and continue with upholding freedom of speech where it really counts.

If you do a search on 'Cartoons' you will see that this has had a lot of discussion over the last few weeks.

Not so say you can't start up another one

but this did get a lot of discussion

Yes thank you martianbishop. I did see all that and it was very polarised and hostile and I guess it did demonstrate in its own small way the battle that we and thw world at large face.

But we here on this site all have in common the fact that we are mothers, bringing up the next generation and many of these grwoing minds will be influenced by us and our attitudes to others. We really need to find some common ground I think.

Peacedove is a dad

I think that everyone agree on the need for common groud, we just disagree on where that ground should be.

mmmhhhmm well, I'll leave it then. Apologies to peacedove .

I agree with you Pinkly - you are not alone