OPINION

Hamlet by Mohammad Jacques-Pierre

February 01, 2006
Gazelle


[in response to post + comments on blogcritics.org : Islam - Religion of Intolerance]

Great brawl, people - you've demonstrated how low you can get, and believe yourselves too - that you've preserved and delivered these great gems of excresence - here's mine. The latest is that the Danish Paper Jyllands-Posten has apologised to 'fellow muslim citizens', followed by a bomb scare - that may or may not have been someone just walking in, wearing a turban.

Actually they are all pedophiles, they love to slash throats, especially those that don't repeat what they are told to. They love violence, and suicide, even more. They are also perverts, and allow only one expression - come f--- me.

Need to know any more? Horror movies and true evil is great isn't it? Especially if you find someone to fit the code, you know what I mean.

It appears that this toon is in a series of 12 with text in the middle.

Artistic Expression: why people give a s--- ? because its a matter of 'taste' : they have a right to express their truest feelings about the artists work, (or in case they haven't seen the work then) the subject of the work (even if they overheard about it from their neighborhood training camp)).

Great life, Rushdie, I wish I could offend as many people, even if what you wrote was, uhm, nothing special - just east-west-india woven in - so people from one of these wouldn't know what the f--- the other two creatures lying in bed were doing!

Goofy Cartoons showing turbans which are actually bombs: i'm sure the sikhs, not so much as the fulani, are just as excited that their true nature is finally being revealed. Its a matter of sticking to your most obvious single identity, in a congealing glob-al sewer that respects only freedom of p-ss--g and s--tt--g. Ahh - modern life!

The bomb cartoon does look very South Asian indeed, especially like those orientalist sketches of the natives, em. A compliment to the fascinating Danish culture, several of the artists are very self-conscious about the subjects - either because the subject is so little known - to them or their audiences - or charged with pop public explosiveness [!]

Censorship: of the scarf, of speaking one's own language, and the outrage at the lack of censorship of the artists - who drew the toons at the insistence of the editor - may or may not have been a Rushdie-type belligerence - but is great publicity for Islam. Oh Prince of Denmark what have thine eyes seen?

Letter of Apology in the Jyllands-Posten - by the Danish newspaper's Editor-in-Chief

All Cartoons

Samizdata link to whole page

Link site to the 12 Cartoons

eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
01:52 PM

High time someone stood up and told these Westerners that they can shove these 'racist' toons up their arse.

Incidentally there are enough Americans who are quickly 'touchy' about their religion.



#2
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
02:05 PM

I read the thread and marvelled at the hypocracy. There was a show in America called 'The Book Of Daniel' which was pulled off the air as it did not get sponsors who were scared as the 'Christians' had taken offense that Christ was mentoring a priest who was addicted to drugs and had a gay son.

The script writer was a gay with Buddhist inclinations.

When the show was pulled off the air, the Christian right considered it a victory.

Now that the muslims are calling for the boycott of these cartoons, some BC commentors seem to be suffering from convienent amnesia

#3
Phillip Winn
URL
February 1, 2006
02:14 PM

It is interesting to note that you don't tend to see editorial cartoons with people waving Christian crosses as swords.

Is suppose the counter-argument is that Christianity's (using the possessive despite the arguability) days of bloodshed tend to be in the past, while Islam's (again, arguably) are more current.

I think that's a crap argument, though. People do things in the name of religions all the time; that doesn't make the religion responsible for the actions unless the actions are specifically part of the religion.

A turban is in no way intrinsically related to violence, and it's offensive to suggest it does. That's painting with *much* to wide of a brush.

#4
Phillip Winn
URL
February 1, 2006
02:15 PM

Careful, Deepti -- it may not be the same group. I, for one, tend to think that both the TV show and the cartoons should be left alone and ignored.

#5
Shanti
URL
February 1, 2006
02:17 PM

Actually, did you guys get as offended by the "Piss Christ" which was actually funded by tax-payer dollars in America?

#6
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
02:19 PM

Phillip, thanks for putting things in perspective. Its just that whenever I see the cliched turban and beard toon or being called 'diaper head' I see red.

#7
gazelle
URL
February 1, 2006
02:26 PM

i kept thinking of serrano's piss christ over and over, since the toons, and being extremely uneasy.

#8
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
02:32 PM

gazelle, freedom of speech and social responsibility should go hand in hand; 'piss christ' is as slanderous as poking fun at the Prophet.

I guess being an brought up in India where communal violence can be triggered over the smallest issues I am quite sensitized to religious satire getting out of hand.

#9
gazelle
URL
February 1, 2006
02:39 PM

I agree deepti, that's why the unease. and the t-shirts with the hindu gods that became popular some years ago ...a mixture of hippyculture gone pop...I wondered what people thought of those.

#10
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
02:50 PM

Well, gazelle, most of us, Hindus, find that to be pretty hip.

We are big on idol worship and try to make our gods and goddesses as beautiful as possible but I have yet to come across an Indian who would dare to make a 'piss Ganesha' and get away with it.

One of our famous artist- M.F Hussain's painting of Durga did cause a lot of controversy but again it could hardly compare to a slander of that proportion.

#11
Shanti
URL
February 1, 2006
02:57 PM

But I guess that is the point, Deepti - slanders happen to all religions. I remember teh controversy of Hindu images over toilet seats and slippers. Things happen and it is a little silly to assume everything is focused towards one religion or the other and if we support freedom of speech in one case, we should also support it in others.

#12
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
03:11 PM

Shanti,the law does not allow us to malign people, why then should freedom be granted to malign their gods? eg Tom Cruise objected to a particular episode of Family guy from being aired in Britain.

Paramount was too scared of being taken to court.

But as I said before freedom of Speech should go hand in hand with social responsibility and best way to protest is boycott. Ignoring the issue won't make the problem go away but cause it to fester and explode.

I'm all for freedom but only in the ideal world could we laugh over such matters, reality shows otherwise in the form of communal violence.








#13
Shanti
URL
February 1, 2006
03:48 PM

If you think that all religions should be free from being maligned, then you are well within your limits since you are applying the same standards to all. My point is that there isn't that much "hypocrisy" involved here since the Christian "Right" had to endure pictures of Mary covered in cow dung and Serran's Piss Christ and were told to shut up when they made a big deal about it.

You bring up the "Book of Daniel" - do you think if someone made a sitcom about a Muslim priest with a gay son there wouldn't be any Muslims protesting that? Would you be on their side? Is the Christian Right right or wrong in protesting the sitcom?

What did you think about Deepa Mehta changing the characters in her movie "Fire" from Muslim to Hindu?

#14
Jacques
February 1, 2006
03:59 PM

Why are the defenders of religion more sensitive than those who are generally irreligious? (Not picking on anyone, just asking.)

#15
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
04:04 PM

Shanti, there is a movie coming up called 'Punjabi Nikka' with a muslim marrying a hindu and unlike 'bombay' there hasn't been any fur flying over it in India.

Deepa Mehta's movie 'Water' was in troubled waters for the longest time.

Sure , Muslims would protest if a muslim replica was made of 'Book of Daniel' but I was saying it in response to the Christian 'Right' who were offended by that show but told the muslims to suck up and take it as it came.

America has been insular for most part of its young history, Europe on the other hand has faced enough bloodshed in the name of religion and the Danish know that.

When one knows that a certain act would cause communal tension and they still do it just to boost their sells or to gain recognition then it is called attention whoring.

In Rome do as the Roman's do.

#16
Shanti
URL
February 1, 2006
04:15 PM

Deepti - that was exactly my point. When Serrano exhibited his "Piss Christ", he knew exactly what he was doing and went ahead with that anyways. Even the movie, "The Last Temptation of Christ" comes to mind (thought I thought the movie was good).

"Book of Daniel" might have gotten dropped because the advertisers might not have wanted to associate with something so controversial. That is free market at work for you.

Deepa Mehta knew "Fire" was going to be a problem if she made the movie as it is with Muslim characters turning lesbian, so she changed them to Hindu. Why is she not afraid of offending one religion and scared of the other?

I strongly condemn anyone protesting anything - if a product is crappy, it will not sell. I find only mediocre artists try to create controversies to create a buzz around stuff that would normally not sell.

As for the hypocrisy claim again, not all of America is the Christian Right, so the guy who asked the Danish Muslims to suck it up might not have supported the Christian Right's protests. How does it make him a hypocrite?

Also, look at your first comment - if a Danish guy makes fun of Muhammad it is the damn Western racism - have you watched the cartoonish depictions of Westerners in Indian movies? Why are we always quick to jump on Westerners while trying to defend what we have always done and will always do?

#17
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
04:35 PM

Shanti, I have never stood for racism against our own or against Westerners. I have enough friends here who are liberals, democrats and even Republicans.

And if you see my second comment I corrected it to the 'right' as I did not want to give the impression that I thought that all Americans are over-religious then it would be as grievous as saying that so are all Muslims or hindus.

I have never made jokes about foreigners or liked Sikh jokes for that matter. Bollywood has been stupid in their depiction of Westerners and I never found humor in their slapstick comedy even when I was growing up.

So, I would like to make it clear once and for all that I did not call all BC commentators the 'Right' but some that I do know through the comments they made on the thread...where one even in his passionate argument called the Prophet a peodephile.

And I have read his posts to know what his viewpoints are and so my assumptions may be a little off the mark but are not off base.

But, again since I do not know him outside the networld my assumptions are based on what an individual says or posts online.

BC is my favorite site and most of the commentators there have become good friends.

Does that answer your questions?

#18
Shanti
URL
February 1, 2006
04:46 PM

Definitely - I am just too used to being in midst of people who are quick to jump on others while ignoring the problem in their own selves - your awesome post about the "desi party" reminds me of a bunch of such I have been in. It was a relexive response - not meant to jump on you, if you know what I mean. Plus, it just establishes me as the contrarian at the parties, at least :)

#19
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
04:47 PM

oh! and 'Fire' got enough women and religious pundits trying to slam it down.

Why wasnt it made about a muslim woman? because the Lady lacked the balls to make it.

Did you know that Shabana Azmi had been delivered a fatwa for shaving her head for her role in 'Water'? But she still did the role.

There are enough Muslims standing up against the zealots its our perception that lies distorted due to the perception of media as does theirs of the by their own media

#20
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
04:49 PM

cool Shanti, disregard my latest comment....I just got a little mad initially and made a blind statement but this was a refreshing argument minus the regular bloodshed I, too, am used to on the net.

#21
Shanti
URL
February 1, 2006
04:54 PM

No problems, Deepti - I tried to sit through "Fire" because of all the controversy - the movie just grossed me out too much to watch in entirety. I was upset that the "Hindutva-types" went after it since I felt like the movie got way more publicity than it deserved just because of the stupid controversy. If you don't like it, don't watch it - bus, simple na?

As for Shabana, that lady has guts - she doesn't take crap from anyone and I admire her for it.

#22
deepti lamba
URL
February 1, 2006
05:16 PM

Shanti, I totally agree with you ;)

#23
Aaman
URL
February 1, 2006
05:51 PM

Glad the 'fire' got doused with cooling 'water':)

#24
Rohan Venkat
URL
February 2, 2006
10:43 AM

I've spent a while defending the reactions of Islamic countries to the cartoons at the BC post, in principle at least, though i personally think they over-reacted.

But I have to say, I would still defend Jyllands-Posten's right to print the pictures, even though i would subsequently view them with utter contempt.

Deepti, you say freedom of speech and social responsibility must go hand in hand. Unfortunately, social responsibility isn't set in stone, or measurable, and is thus completely subjective, and so Jyllands-posten's little apology itself might be their version of social responsibility. Heck, they didn't really have to apologise at all!

That they chose to, means that, either they're really scared now, or sincerely regret their choice. But however it is, that's teh beauty of free speech. They aren't directly hurting muslims, it's not a hate crime, unless it's a hate thoughtcrime, and those aren't crimes. Yet.

#25
Aaman
URL
February 2, 2006
11:50 AM

Most European newspapers have reprinted the cartoons now. Will the American and Asian countries, and even the Muslim countries' newspapers join them and stand fast, or will they continue to report on Pretty Ricky, KBC, Arab Idol, etc.?

#26
Shanti
URL
February 2, 2006
11:53 AM

Aaman, I don't think any American newspapers will do it. Just a gut feeling.

#27
Shanti
URL
February 2, 2006
12:11 PM

Here is some more interesting news on the cartoons - Were some cartoons fabricated?

"However, the Danish Muslim delegation showed much more than the 12 cartoons published by Jyllands Posten. In the booklet it presented during its tour of the Middle East, the delegation included other cartoons of Mohammed that were highly offensive, including one where the Prophet has a pig face. But these additional pictures were NOT published by the newspaper, but were completely fabricated by the delegation and inserted in the booklet (which has been obtained and made available to me by Danish newspaper Ekstra Bladet)."

#28
cynical nerd
URL
February 3, 2006
11:20 AM

Shanti/Deepti, good arguements.

Here is the thing: Mohammed drawing's have been published since 1400 years some of them even by Arab/Iranian artists. It has been published even in recent years without getting contraversy.

The Arabs thought they can bully a small European country, but now everyone is joinng. Will the corrupt Arab dictators now boycott Mercedes and Chanel. I don't think so.

#29
gazelle
URL
February 3, 2006
02:27 PM

cn:
yes there is massive overreaction, if you go by the content of the cartoon alone, and if you consider the violent side of things.

otoh, I think there is some deserved reaction if you consider that a minority in Europe is being lampooned as a group which is by nature 'irrational', just another one of those hippies or hare krishna - in fact playing on the worst stereotypes.

here are some pics from the 15-16th c

you can see the chinese and persian influences clearly. also notice that the face of muhammad - supposedly full of light - remains veiled in one of them! - or is it forbidden to depict it?

the real problems in muslim societies/communities are untouched.

shanti: idoubt if the additional cartoons were made by the delegation - i would think they appeared in the european press somewhere at other times, and were put together to make to point out that far from being an isolated incident, the ethnic/racist/religious caricature is more common.

best

#30
Rohan Venkat
URL
February 3, 2006
03:17 PM

Cynical Nerd, Corrupt Arab Dictators?

A number of Arab countries have established or are establishing constitutions, most have parliaments and therefore are semi-republican, and many work in the same way decisions are made in villages in India, with the friday mosque gatherings being the equivalent of panchayaats.

I live in one of these countries, and would never describe the Emir as a corrupt dictator, not out of fear, but because I really don't believe that to be true...

#31
Shanti
URL
February 3, 2006
03:42 PM

Gazelle, the point is that I doubt if even 5% of those who protested really understood which cartoons were published and which were just plain additions. People tend to get inflamed just based on hearsay (the Hindutva-types who just got pissed-off with the script of "Water" and the same ones who hated "Fire" without watching it).

Forget ordinary people - the BBC was reporting that one of the Danish cartoons had Muhammad with a pig's head when it was not true - that cartoon was one of the things included in the delegation's brochure and not published by the Danish paper. Furious people are not the most objective thinkers and the brochure with the extra offensive cartoons only tended to conflate issues, IMO.

#32
gazelle
URL
February 4, 2006
12:33 AM

Shanti:
You refer to Laban Tall's blog
who refers to the Biased-BBC blog
who refers to a BBC report (which has no mention of 3 toons)
and also Pub Philosopher blog
which refers to the Brussels Journal (a blog, not a news agency, tho it 'sounds' like one)
which refers to some report in the SBS-australia
and also the Thoughts on Politics, Life and God blog
which again refers to the brussels journal.

all of them (except the BBC) mention the same thing about the 3 additional cartoons, with no source attributed.

BBC does not mention this because there is no source for this . DO you have a source - an authoritative source - not just blogs refering to blogs - and spreading gossip and hate, without checking the original reporting? irresponsible. this bad blogging - not high journalism

Secondly, as i've mentioned before, those cartoons must have appeared in another publication in europe. and the story being made up is that the delegation is 'saying' that they were included in the Danish Paper JP - which no one is saying, except these self-referring blogs.

Please find an original source which is also authoritative, proper documentaion, instead of gossiping - for the 3 toons gossip, as well as who published them first. Before we see this, it is all fake.

best

#33
Aaman
URL
February 4, 2006
12:37 AM
#34
ali
February 19, 2006
09:26 AM

[Edited]

#35
truth will out
March 1, 2006
06:37 PM

yet within the middle east popular songs inciting the faithfull to kill all jews are played all day on the local radio stations, imans openly preach hatred of anything remotely western in culture, our women are whores and we should not allow them to dress as such when they leave their homes (I point out the allow them as if they are our property and not individual human beings with dreams wishes and desires of their own)I will end this rant with a reply to a protestor who marched through london 2 weeks after the publication of the cartoons, he stated on british television "there are 1.2billion muslims and the west has to wake up and realise we will not tolerate such attacks on our faith and eventually the west shall pay"
my reply "by my calculation that leaves 4.8billion non muslims, we outnumber you 4:1 bring it on!"

#36
Anil Menon
URL
March 1, 2006
09:07 PM

I don't know about Dutch law, but there's no such thing as unrestricted free speech in the U.S.

In Schenck vs United States (1919), Supreme court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Junior, wrote:


The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic.

His decision also introduced another famous term/test for limiting free speech, namely, the concept of "clear and present danger."

This was replaced in 1969 by the "imminent lawlessness" test, and the Holmes court's decision has been watered down over the decades, but the core precedence for restricting free speech is part and parcel of U.S. Law.

According to Wikipedia, "Under the imminent lawless action test, speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it is likely to cause violation of the law more quickly than an officer of the law can be reasonably summoned."

The toons are on the borderline, I think.

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/216)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!