Funny Cartoon sparks Islamic Jihad !
POSTED BY: JaynezTown
UPDATED: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 18:50
VIEWED: 48820
PAGE 2 of 26
I find it a bit amusing and ironic that the thing that really seems to offend these certain Muslims isn't that Mohammed is pictured with a bomb in his turban, but that MOHAMMED IS PICTURED at all! It's like they're okay with the whole bomb part of it, but not with having a depiction of Mohammed in the cartoon. I guess it says something basic about our core values and beliefs when one group of us is offended by a depiction of "our Prophet" - but not by his being depicted as a bomb-tossing terrorist.
We're dealing here with radical fundamentalist sects within an otherwise peaceful religion. Frankly, I don't find depictions of the Prophet Mohammed to be offensive, but I find anyone who believes in lobbing bombs at people who believe differently than they do to be offensive to a huge degree.
As for Islamic democracy... Be careful what you wish for. The Palestinians just had elections, which by all accounts I've seen are reputed to be fair and honest elections. And they voted for the more radical hate-Bush-hate-the-US-destroy-Israel side of the equation. The US isn't disputing the elections themselves, but now we don't want to have anything to do with those who were elected. So we want to give the power to the people, but when those people speak, we decide we don't like their answer, so we just won't talk to them. What is there that makes us think that a free and democratic Iraq won't do the same thing? Iran also had recent elections, and we in the West apparently aren't so crazy about their outcome, either. We *say* we want democracy in the Middle East, but what we really want is a "puppet democracy", a government led by those of our own choosing. That really hasn't worked out very well for us, historically speaking. It's led to things like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Moammar Qaddafi, Ferdinand Marcos, and Manuel Noriega, not to mention Fidel Castro. All of them were either installed by the US, supported by the US, or direct backlash results of US meddling.
So what's the solution? If you can find one, then you, my friend, are a smarter soul than I... I don't know what to do about terrorism, Iraq, Iran, or the Palestinian issue, but I do know that these are things we're going to have to deal with.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:
It's not the fact that it's a mildly amusing cartoon, it's the fact that it's a picture of the prophet Mohammed, which is a major no-no to their religion (on a level with defacing the Koran). Mohammed is not allowed to be pictured, due to rules about icons and worshipping graven images.
Not really. There's something mentioned in the Koran, but there isn't anything specific that explicitly forbids it. This is one of those cases where the religion based around the book takes something from the book and turns it around into something that wasn't necessarily in there, at least not to such an extent. It's a matter of interpretation, I guess, but definitely not on the level of defacing the Koran, but I guess it does deface Islamic tradition and what some people believe is in the book.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4674864.stm
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The early Islam was highly oppressive and forbade the painting of human beings, creatures, animals and people including the Prophets. The art and paintings are mainly abstract portraying geometric, Arabesque, and calligraphic designs and look like some kind of Carpet an Egyptian/Algerian might try and sell to a US/German tourist. Orthodox Muslims and hard Islamic sects still push this bullsh*t onto others. variety of substances are considered a sinful haraam or forbidden this includes pork, blood, animals slaughtered in the name of anyone but God, carnivorous animals and alcohol. Some of the Muslim community believe that fish which do not carry scales as well as lobsters and crabs are considered haraam. However Islamic law does not just apply to Islamics, a fatwa requiring Rushdie's execution was proclaimed on Radio Tehran by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran, calling his book "blasphemous against Islam." Salman Rushdie's name has become a household word symbolizing the victims of Islamist persecution. Islam does not prohibit women from working, but emphasizes the importance of housekeeping and caring for the families of both parents. Also Islamic law allows spouses to divorce at will, by clearly saying "I divorce you" three times in public, but in legal practice divorce is more involved than this and state proceedings vary.
However sometimes it quiet easy - for example, a Malaysian court recently ruled that, under Sharia law, a man may divorce his wife via text messaging as long as the message was clear and unequivocal. There is also the Islamic ban on any pictorial representation, and radical Muslim ban on paintings of birds/landscapes - the destruction of frescoes and the monumental statues of the Buddha at Bamiyan by the radical Muslim sects and nationalist group the Taliban in Afghanistan. Under the Taliban there was a ban on western music, foreign film and the strick dress uniform of the burka was obligatory.Saudi Arabia requires women to wear abaya in public; the niqab is optional. There is also the niqab, which is a veil which covers the face, worn by some Muslim women as a part of sartorial hijab. Salman Rushdie's name has become word name symbolizing the victims of Islamist persecution. Khomeini offered a U.S.$ 3 million bounty for the death of Rushdie, who was then forced to live for a time under British-financed security, and Rushdie's Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, was stabbed and killed in Tokyo. In Iran where the death penalty has been used against people participating in rude-movies, or pornographic films shot in the country. The victims of the Islamist book-banners, Muslim radicals that seek out Western sinners and blasphemy-avengers is is a very long list indeed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I don’t think that is true. We want democracy in the Middle East. The fallacy here is the notion that we must like every country that is a democracy. No one is suggesting that the people of Iraq must put a US friendly leader into office in order for democracy to work in the Middle East, or that democracy will necessarily lead to a US-friendly culture. Democracy will work in favor of US policy because democratic countries are more stable then quasi-feudal totalitarian theocratic or socialist states. A truly democratic Palestine, even if it results in putting Hamas in power, is a victory for the US. In the long run, a democratic Middle East will put the power into the majority of moderate Muslims and marginalize the radicals who hold the Middle East hostage through threats of violence and acts of mob rule.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
As for Islamic democracy... Be careful what you wish for. The Palestinians just had elections, which by all accounts I've seen are reputed to be fair and honest elections. And they voted for the more radical hate-Bush-hate-the-US-destroy-Israel side of the equation. The US isn't disputing the elections themselves, but now we don't want to have anything to do with those who were elected. So we want to give the power to the people, but when those people speak, we decide we don't like their answer, so we just won't talk to them. What is there that makes us think that a free and democratic Iraq won't do the same thing? Iran also had recent elections, and we in the West apparently aren't so crazy about their outcome, either. We *say* we want democracy in the Middle East, but what we really want is a "puppet democracy", a government led by those of our own choosing. That really hasn't worked out very well for us, historically speaking. It's led to things like Saddam Hussein, the Ayatollah Khomeini, Moammar Qaddafi, Ferdinand Marcos, and Manuel Noriega, not to mention Fidel Castro. All of them were either installed by the US, supported by the US, or direct backlash results of US meddling.
Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Not really.
Yes, really.
Quote:
It's a matter of interpretation, I guess, but definitely not on the level of defacing the Koran, but I guess it does deface Islamic tradition and what some people believe is in the book.
I'm not an Islamic scholar, so I won't qualify what is or is not a literal command in the Koran and Islam. My post was meant only to inform those that think this is a non-issue that there is a certain sub-group in the Arab world who consider this blasphemy of the highest degree.
As your linked article itself states,
Quote:
To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah. The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.
What sets this apart from us is this group doesn't just get offended and huffy at things that are blasphemous, they start burning things down. As with idiots in any major religion, interpretation lies at the heart of the problem.
As quoted by the AP,
Quote:
Islam considers any image of the prophet blasphemous.
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060202/afp/060202162437top.html
Therefore, to continue to print the thing in western papers trying to figure out what the problem is only makes it worse for this particular subset.
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SevenPercent:Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
Not really.
Yes, really.
No, still not really. What my "not really" was referring to was your statement that it defaces the Koran, which it doesn't, at least not directly. Depicting Muhammad is blasphemous according to how the Koran has been interpreted, and is not in direct conflict with what the Koran itself says. Sorry if this seems like a petty distinction, but I think it should be kept in mind that what people say is in a holy book and what's actually in it isn't always the same (the same holds for the Bible).
Quote:Quote:
It's a matter of interpretation, I guess, but definitely not on the level of defacing the Koran, but I guess it does deface Islamic tradition and what some people believe is in the book.
...
As your linked article itself states,Quote:
To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah. The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.
This doesn't contradict what I said, in fact it's basically the same. "The same is believed to apply to Muhammad" (my italics) was sort of the my point. The Koran doesn't explicitly say this, it's people's interpretation of it that says it.
Quote:
What sets this apart from us is this group doesn't just get offended and huffy at things that are blasphemous, they start burning things down. As with idiots in any major religion, interpretation lies at the heart of the problem.
Yes, exactly. So our opinions on the matter aren't that different, huh? Just wanted to point out the difference between offending the Koran itself and offending the belief built up around it, I wasn't disagreeing with your overall point.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Khyron:
No, still not really. What my "not really" was referring to was your statement that it defaces the Koran, which it doesn't, at least not directly.
I never said depicting Mohammed in the cartoon was defacing the Koran; look at my OP. I said some Islamists put it on the same level as defacing the Koran (ie, blasphemy against Islam). On this, it's still a 'yes, really,' otherwise they might have stayed indoors with the gas and matches this time.
Quote:
Yes, exactly. So our opinions on the matter aren't that different, huh?
Probably not. Just trying to clarify for those folks still thinking that this is a 'mountain out of a molehill,' which it may be to us, but certainly isn't to them.
Quote:
Just wanted to point out the difference between offending the Koran itself and offending the belief built up around it, I wasn't disagreeing with your overall point.
The picture of Mohammed thing has very little to do with the Koran, it has to do with the worship of graven images, something they consider sinful (extremely sinful). Even Islamic art often avoids representing people. I'm curious what the Danish response will be to this; they haven't really said very much yet (as far as I've heard, if someone else has heard a statement, please post it).
------------------------------------------
He looked bigger when I couldn't see him.
Anyone wanting to continue a discussion off board is welcome to email me - check bio for details.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I don’t think that is true. We want democracy in the Middle East. The fallacy here is the notion that we must like every country that is a democracy. No one is suggesting that the people of Iraq must put a US friendly leader into office in order for democracy to work in the Middle East, or that democracy will necessarily lead to a US-friendly culture. Democracy will work in favor of US policy because democratic countries are more stable then quasi-feudal totalitarian theocratic or socialist states. A truly democratic Palestine, even if it results in putting Hamas in power, is a victory for the US. In the long run, a democratic Middle East will put the power into the majority of moderate Muslims and marginalize the radicals who hold the Middle East hostage through threats of violence and acts of mob rule.
I'm not sure this is entirely true Finn. The US has precedent with disposing of democratically elected governments and installing dictators if those governments weren't the ones the US government wanted in power.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
The statistics on sanity are that one out of every four persons is suffering from some sort of mental illness. Think of your three best friends -- if they're okay, then it's you.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That’s debatable, but it also doesn’t makes what I said any less true. Democracy in the Middle East is in the US’s best interests.
Oh, he's so full of manure, that man! We could lay him in the dirt and grow another one just like him.
-- Ruby
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In my religion, cancelling a television show of truly high calibur is a sin, and my god frowns upon sin, so should I declare a jihad against Fox?
This talk of 'their culture' is senseless; when any claim the right to kill in the name of a religious belief, that belief sucks.
(Notice to terrorists, I said the belief sucks, not the religion, not lookin' to get blowed up any time soon...)
Culture-insensitive Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME