News

Abarmard please Explain

Abarmard states:

"As mentioned earlier, in the US it is illegal to draw a Jewish person with a big nose."

Can you please prove with a citation that there is such a law in the US?

Thanks. 

Gavazn

1)To me it is acceptable to use whatever word you want including c***. I don't use it myself but Idon't care if someone else did.

2) The prophet is your prophet not that of some Swedish guy. So you don't have to either address your prophet as a pauper or insult him. To the Swedish guy he is just another man. Therefore the Swedish guy will say whatever he wants. Is Muslims don't want they don't have to read it. They don't have to go to Sweden. The don't have to buy the paper. Muslims have been very fond of making fun of other religions. Now they get a taste of their own medicine.

How about the "bot shekans". They went to people's temples and broke thier most holy symbols. These bot shekans are praised by Christians and Muslims. What about their feelings? Or do Muslims feelings matter more than other people? Is the Muslim prophet somehow more sacred than the Hindu deities? It is total arrogance.

People should stop thinking they are so much more important than others.  That includes Muslims and Westerners.

Pespective

What I don't understand is why Good Muslims deeds are never recognized in the corporate media. Did you know that it was the heroic act of Senegalese muslim who saved New Yorkers lives.

From Juan cole:

"So the snarky question was a stupid and uninformed question. But it looks even stupider in the light of the revelation that it was a Senegalese Muslim, Alioune Niass, who discovered the smoking SUV in Times Square and urged a friend to call 911. That is, New Yorkers were saved from that bombing by a Muslim. See this MPAC article. (MPAC is a really great group and non-Muslims worried about bigotry against Muslims really should join it (membership link here).

Niass was interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!, which noted that he got no recognition for his heroism

//www.juancole.com/2010/05/good-muslim-bad-muslim-niass-shahzad.html#comments

Abarmard: Radical Muslim

Abarmard: Radical Muslim training should come with anger managment.

Some books have been rewritten because of N word

Not all free speeches are acceptable. The fact is that more democratic minds would argue that free speech is unlimited until it hits the border of hate. If you can't tell where to stop, as a democratic nation, you should listen to part of your population. Stopping what constitutes as insult is not a bad thing or against freedom of speech. Actually most undemocratic nations insult others based on norm and majority. In Iran, Persians have enjoyed similar thinking to promote to belittle other Iranian ethnic population. It is wrong. 

In the US books have been revised to take out the N word. After long debates, the side that this used to be OK and now is insulting, therefore not acceptable won. Rightly so. As mentioned earlier, in the US it is illegal to draw a Jewish person with a big nose. Bill Maher might disagree, but what some miss here is the concept of what hurts rather what it is. It's not based on religion, Islam is, African American is not. that's race. Jewish is a mixture of both along with culture. it's what hurts those people not what it is.

Freedom of speech comes with sensitivity analysis and training. It's not genetic.

VPK

Obviously it is not acceptable to say words like "c*nt" so why is it acceptable to dress a prophet as a pauper and present it as "free speech"? That is what I am talking about. What is that - it is just Hate Speech. Not constructive or a work of Art. I do not give a hoot about Mohammed but am against free speech being abused to show Hate.

Gavazn

Agreed. We disagree. I like the standards in the USA for free speech. For 200 years they allow people to say what they want and it has worked fine.

VPK

I do not agree that anything goes. Obviously there is a cut off point with swear words, so there is some sort of standards set in speech. So why is it OK to do the same with pictures?

I also think that people use the argument of "censorship" to be abusive . Such people try to get aways with abuse by crying foul and crying "censorship". I do not think that if things are presented in a non-constructive way they provide any value. Just providing doctored pictures of prophets, etc are abusive and provocative. It is a form of Hate Speech. I have seen this happen on this site, people pushing things as far as they can just because they know they will get away with it crying "censorship censorship".

 I just think we have to agree to disagree on that.

Gavazn

You obviously don't understand what free speech is. It is not possible to abuse free speech. It is free: anything goes! If you don't like it; don't read it. The alternative is censorship. With your speech being the first one to be censored. Think about it.

God does not need

to be defended by a bunch of violent radicals and is not afraid of a picture. If you do really beleive in an all powerful God then why be afraid? What is the big deal with someone making a picture. God is powerful enough to shrug it off. 

The problem is that people's idea of God is modeled after their HUMAN rulers. Since the rulers were vain they assume the same for God. Their rulers would chop your head off if you criticized them. So people figured that the same must be true of God. 

It is people projecting their own vanity and their leader's arrogance. Not God. Yes they feel powerless and get angry. But it is the people who are powerless not God. They should take their powerlessness and deal with it. But they blame it on God.

People need to see the difference. God is not just some super king.

VPK

"Muslims in the middle east

Here are this muslim painters painting of Hindu Godessess in the nude with the pure intent to mock nad humiliate Hindus.
"
//mfhusainpaintings.wordpress.com/

Those that abuse concept of free speech to abuse

I know I will be attacked for saying this, but I think many people tke advantage of the concept of free speech to abuse. This method of intimidation is set out to hurt, not to achieve anything positive.

And what about atheists ?

We are often verbally assaulted by prominent leaders of all religions.  Shall I smash the Pope's glasses next time I find his remarks offensive ? ;o)

Dear Vildemose

:-).

send them to assylum

for mental evaluation,hypocricy at its max. level;   IS where these peoples love the swedish free social welfares,good high paying jobs,free health insurance,specially the blonds when they get DRUNK.

BUT why they went to this guy's......face to face ?

they could be sitting in their mosques,swedish peoples paid for them to have 2 mosques in upsala that I know well about.           Maziar

Mehraban jan: that was an

Mehraban jan: that was an awesome link. thanks.

Abarmard jaan,

Please do me a favor and watch this video till the end it may be useful :-) if not at least funny.  Bahram had posted it not long ago.  Thanks Bahram

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUEaMA4gRIk&feature=player_embedded 

Ps. The link is not transferring as an active link so you have to copy and paste the link.  

Where do we stop with the freedom of speech/expression

How about the Ayatollahs, the Pop, the kings/queens and the list will accumulate quickly and the freedom of speech/expression will be just a thought in the books.  Furthermore, these people are OK if you insult God/prophets, but their blood boils if you mention Mohammad/Allah: HYPOCRITES. 

I am sure these people were required to read the summary of the constitution of Sweden, or where ever.  If they disagreed with the constitution, they were free to go back to their 7th century Islamic laws.

Abarmard: They need to

Abarmard: They need to learn to control their emotions and anger regardless of how hurt their feelings are. They achieve nothing by resorting to violence. I don't think even Mohammad would approve of this kind of behavior. They simply need to get a grip and channel their frustrations by non-violent means or move back to their respective countries.

Legal debate about Rights:

Violent acts are not acceptable in any case. However some of these people have grown up to believe in something special about their religion and their prophet. I would argue that most of these people would be fine to stay in their home countries if they promoted any sorts of "anti- Islamic" behavior. I believe that most of these people are truly religious in their own personal lives (only) as long as no one step in to their most sacred beliefs.
You can find exception to any rule in any societies.
They feel angry here because they feel helpless. Someone from outside of their beliefs, who seems to have little care or information about these people, is "attacking" them. They incorrectly respond. It's reactionary. Wrong, but reactionary to misunderstanding where the limits should be drawn.
I agree that if you look at this only from the religious perspective, then a Muslim is no different than any other, and if all are being made fun of, why not these guys. However there is a mistake in this scenario. These people do not make fun of any prophets, or draw the cartoons of any of the other faith. They find that sacred. They don't think this is just a religion and their prophet is only Muhammad. This is not a fanatic Muslim point of view, this is Muslim point of view. respect it or ignore it?
Assume that they are now citizens of that country, question is, do they have a right to hold their society responsive in regard to their sacred ways? If no, then you are correct, if yes then consider my point.

Abarmard

Moderator(s)There was nothing offensive in my post. But it was deleted.

This is about reactionary violence in a public place against  someone who has broken a so-called a particular cultural/religious taboo in a host country. It only reflect negatively on that culture/religion. 

I'm glad the Swedish police did not overreacted as the Islamists in that meeting had hoped. Kudos to Swedish police in handling it and not falling pery for the extremists tactics.

It's not about Jesus

It's about taboos. if Christians don't feel any issue about portraying their beliefs and their prophet is their business, as is Muslims. The point here is taboos and cultural respect. Take the point from what angers some ethnicities or nationalities in the world stage level. That's the issue. One can't compare the beliefs of one religion against another, but should look at it from conceptual point of view.

Think based on the examples that I have already mentioned. If those examples  don't clarify the point here then nothing will. In that kind of miscommunication I would agree that portraying African American's belief and Jewish sensitive historical issues along with Muslim's "holly" and "sacred" prophet Muhammad is fine, and we leave it at that.

I will never accept that, would never do such an act but would live with it. Please note that this is not a personal issue for me, but conceptually important.

These Islamists are hypocrites (Mohammad/Allah vs. Prophets/God)

Nevermind the sensitivity to portraying Mohammad and others, but every often, we see images of the personality of the God himself being mocked and ridiculed, but these Islamists are OK with that as long as the cartoonists/film-makers/writers do not touch Allah.  It is also OK to ridicule other prophets as long as they do not touch Mohammad.  It is people like this that prompt others to ask who our god is.

If these Islamists have come here to enjoy the freedoms of the west, they should bite their tongs and let it be.  Or, send them back to where they came from.  In their country of origin, I am sure they cannot touch Mohammad/Allah, but they will also cut their freaking heads off if they insult the dictator in charge.

The Family Guy's Jesus

It seems that there are many people on this thread who have never watched the Family Guy, have never heard about the Monthy Pythons' Life of Brian or Mel Brooks' History of the world, or have never seen a New Yorker cartoon!

//www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/16253/

//www.metacafe.com/watch/2137953/moses_ten_commandments_mel_brooks/ 

 Even The Simpsons have made fun of Jesus!

In the free world, all the "prophets" of all kind are being ridiculed every day, and these guys need to educate themselves about the free world, before asking for the status of a political refugee from these countries!!! 

About Rushdie: It is true that Rushdie is hard to read...so I'm not surprised that many haven't understood his greatness! But it really doesn't matter. Anyway...You like it or not, those who are qualified to judge a literary work, have already confirmed the originality and creativity of Rushdie's work, and he's going to be known as one of the greatest authors of our time. :-)

But the main issue is that these islamists feel they have the right of killing anyone who doesn't think like them, and they feel that they don't have to follow the rules of the societies they live in...(rule: Thou Shalt not kill!!) That's why they should be sent back to where they come from!

abarmard jan

your point about cultural taboos is a fair one. there is a little nuance here in that this was not one of those taboos in swedish culture. the muslims are bringing in - or have brought in - a new taboo. of course taboos are made and broken as needed. for the swedes to accept this new taboo - if they ever do - it would take some hard work and time. meanwhile, their sense of freedom of expression is being strongly challenged. it's a tough one to call.

but these disturbances are the wrong way to go.

with all the police there, seems they were expecting an angry reaction though. a bit of a set piece - an ideological battle.

Cut the crap Abarmard

We have the right to talk and raise our voices about the matter, no matter how stupid someone's opinion sounds. It's a simple factor of our democracy. We have the right to debate about it without getting the risk to be assaulted by a different opinion. Caricatures are constructive critics to think about the matters.

Those people don't tollerate free speech. They are fascists and fanatics, they'd try anything to supress any critic if it comes about their nationality or religion.

They proclaim "rascism" and "intollerance" but what do they do? Shit like this.If they really care about it, they should rather debate with the artists than to attack him!

south park has episodes

south park has episodes where feces is thrown at jesus, where the pope is mocked far beyond anything that was ever done to muhammad, Christians even the Fundamentlist ones did not resort to intimidation and reactionary violence or assaulting and battering people in public to voice their feelings of being disrespected.

cyclicforward and others

This is a simple matter. Freedom is not unlimited. Are you free to insult Jewish people? Every group of people have some sort of taboo subject that are either racial, religious, or national.

As mentioned before, the concept of freedom is to express yourself as long as you do not hurt or disturb others. To simplify, you may not enjoy your freedom by disrespecting others.

If Muslims feel that their prophet is sacret and should not be put in drawings, not to mention cartoons, then it is your responsibility to respect that.

If Jewish people feel that no one should draw them with big noses, then you should respect them.

If African American feel that they should not be drawn as comical big lips with ring around their noses, then you should respect that. Simply these scenarios are similar to Muslims requests that goes against racism.

it's simple. I believe if these Muslims sit quietly, then you will not be able to take note that they feel strongly about this subject. You may not care about it, they do, and that's the point here.

Finally, it's sad when you hear words such as "idiots", "these people should be sent back" comments. People move around the borders for different reasons and it is non of anyone's business to call them idiots or backwards so on for believing in something that these commenters don't. Those Muslims have not crossed the line of democratic mindset, I would argue that the cartoonist has by not recognizing the most important of all democratic concept, which is respecting the rights/belief of others. Most of you would have been disgusted if the cartoonist draw an African American in a derogatory way or Jewish with big noses etc. What's different here? If any it's racism related.

Hopefully this makes sense.

abarmard

considering your condition on what freedom of speech should be (not hurt or disturb others), then all the apologists on this site should be banned from freely posting their disturbing thoughts.

Even tho his cartoon is offensive to believers

... it's not against the law. Attacking someone physically is.