Some Muhammad cartoons

[dissentient]

?w=443&h=324

[Fred Sanders]

1. Only two are "Muhammad" cartoons.

[jberryhill]

2. Anything with a beard and turban will do

[Fred Sanders]

3. Like the Hebdo cover image of a man that to me is simply racist, an Arab caricature holding a sign.

Then you see the headline "All is Forgiven"

Wierd. Then you get confused. Then you realize that was the purpose of the entire cover.

[NYC_SKP]

6. Yup, to a Western bigot cartoonist, they all look alike. It's sickening though to see it here.

Shame on us.

[alphafemale]

34. One of the things I've wondered.

Last edited Sat Jan 17, 2015, 05:23 AM - Edit history (2)

If no one knows what he looked like how would you know it is him?

Pretty much left to the imagination.

Just like Jesus.

[nomorenomore08]

48. ...

[ND-Dem]

68. "Kenny Loggins" lol.

[Rhinodawg]

4. Is it possible this may offend our muslim brothers ?

[NYC_SKP]

5. Maybe it's just gross and disgusting bigotry unbecoming a Progressive discussion board.

I can't get into the mind of the member who posted it.

I'd prefer that GD hosts block it and send it to the Religion group.

[Rhinodawg]

7. Apparently its ok.

On Fri Jan 16, 2015, 01:39 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Some Muhammad cartoons
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026093453

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

YOUR COMMENTS

just want to know ...is this free speech ( which is ok) or cartoons of islam unacceptable ?

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jan 16, 2015, 01:53 PM, and voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: we had enough thin skinned ones around here to keep 100 juries busy
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Posting someone's else's work with no comment is absolutely acceptable. Thanks for wasting our time.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This is the dumbest alert I have ever seen!!!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If cartoons like these are unacceptable on DU, that is a decision for the administrators to make, not a 7-person jury. So this is an easy call. Leave it alone.
Most of these look to be mainstream western editorial cartoons anyway.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Its commentary on a broader discussion going on now. I don't think any of them are hideworthy
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[NYC_SKP]

14. It's OK if it's mainstream Western and the targets are furriners.

That's my take.

[jberryhill]

45. Unless they are racist

Remember the Obamacare 'witch doctor' stuff?

Not okay, and neither is the one I posted downthread.

[randys1]

11. U a Christian? How did you feel about "Life of Brian" ? would you censor that?

[jberryhill]

17. The discussions seem to be crossing each other

I would not ban a damned thing.

That does not mean that I *endorse* anything that anyone says.

How do you feel about the KKK newsletter? Would you censor that? No. Does that mean we should expect to see it re-published on DU each week?

Pissing people off for the sake of pissing people off is a perfectly legal thing to do. I didn't think that doing so gratuitously was a Progressive value.

[greyl]

55. I think the intention is to entertain and inspire

those who champion things like human rights, satire, intellectual curiosity, free speech, free thought, education, and the healing power of humor - stuff like that.

Just so happens that some people become pissed off.

I do believe that it might not be a good idea to enter threads one expects to become religiously offended by. It's not like the topic is someone shoving print outs of these into real faces.

The cartoons are only words, images, and ideas.

[ND-Dem]

69. publishing insulting cartoons is intended to inspire those who champion human rights?

things have changed since I was a lass. I was inspired by marches, protests, solidarity. not divisiveness for the sake of divisiveness, and ridicule for the sake of ridicule.

[greyl]

72. No, creating cartoons lampooning those who abuse human rights is. nt

[ND-Dem]

73. Which cartoons are those?

[robbob]

20. IIRC

Didn't the Catholic church try to censor Life of Brian? Or at least staged protests and tried to organize a boycott. At least no one was killed....

[Surya Gayatri]

24. "Always look on the bright side of life..."

Couldn't resist this classic...Bwaahaaa!

[sabrina 1]

27. White people mocking themselves is not the same as White people mocking poor, disenfranchized

people of color.

[hifiguy]

30. I nearly always agree with you sabrina

but I have a different opinion here. Scratch any Sunni extremist over the last 30+ years and the Saudi money and backing immediately shows itself. The lunatic fringe of Wahhabism is purely a creature and creation of the Saudi monarchy, who are neither poor nor disenfranchised. The gun-toting bomb-throwers are nothing more than Saudi footsoldiers.

[sabrina 1]

31. I don't think we do disagree. I KNOW Saudi money is behind many these 'jihadists' most likely with

approval of our War Machine.

But do you really think most people are informed enough to understand that? The anger being generated doesn't affect them, it targets innocent people who have nothing to do with any of it.

And it gives the war machine a reason to keep their wars going.

IF we had an actual news media, those distinctions would be made, but we do not. So ALL Muslims are the 'bad guys' in our Western society.

[hifiguy]

32. The "news" media a/k/a the propaganda machine

definitely has a lot to do with US perceptions, and the ginning up of terr'izm fear is a part and parcel of their marching orders. But I do tend to side with Sam Harris in his argument that there is something different about Islam as it exists in the world than other religions. I think the craziest of the fundies in the US are capable of these kinds of atrocities, but they haven't arrived at that point yet. Some Muslims have and many seem to support these barbaric actions.

And a religion is not a race, which is a trope I am sick to death of seeing around here. Religion is always chosen at some level. It can always be abandoned. Race is forever.

[jberryhill]

38. "but they haven't arrived at that point yet"

Well, let's all help give them a big push to get there.

[jberryhill]

47. That's funny

Because this is one of the only topics where I think Sabrina may have the better view of things.

If you are looking at recent extremism, then you make a good point.

If you look at "The world since WWI", then I'm not sure. Yes, certain monarchs have benefited greatly from Western support. It's not like the Saudi royals get that money from nowhere. But it's a good bet that the gun-toting bomb-throwers don't really know whose water they are carrying.

[ND-Dem]

71. the association between wahhabism and the sauds was there before the sauds were rich though.

The Saud Family and Wahhabi Islam, 1500-1818

The Al Saud originated in Ad Diriyah, in the center of Najd, close to the modern capital of Riyadh. Around 1500 ancestors of Saud ibn Muhammad took over some date groves, one of the few forms of agriculture the region could support, and settled there. Over time the area developed into a small town, and the clan that would become the Al Saud came to be recognized as its leaders.

The rise of Al Saud is closely linked with Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab (died 1792), a Muslim scholar whose ideas form the basis of the Wahhabi movement. He grew up in Uyaynah, an oasis in southern Najd, where he studied with his grandfather Hanbali Islamic law, one of the strictest Muslim legal schools. While still a young man, he left Uyaynah to study with other teachers, the usual way to pursue higher education in the Islamic world. He studied in Medina and then went to Iraq and to Iran.

To understand the significance of Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab's ideas, they must be considered in the context of Islamic practice. There was a difference between the established rituals clearly defined in religious texts that all Muslims perform and popular Islam. The latter refers to local practice that is not universal.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/loc/sa/saud_wahhabi.htm

[alphafemale]

33. Jesus was white? nt

[jberryhill]

39. And Santa...

[hifiguy]

42. Hey, Santa died for our sins

and rose on the third day as the Easter Bunny! Or something.

[jberryhill]

44. No...

On the third day he comes out of the tomb.

And if he sees his shadow, there are four more weeks of winter.

[alphafemale]

56. Easter or Eostre has even more Pagan roots than Christmas.

The first Sunday after the first---full moon---following the----Spring Equinox.

And what connection do those fertility signs of eggs and rabbits have to a flesh eating, blood drinking zombie god?

[sabrina 1]

59. No, he wasn't. What does that have to do with my comment though? Many Christians,

especially the fundamentalists, don't think about that, he is a Western God as opposed to an Eastern God in their view.

[alphafemale]

62. Well, they are idiots. And should be mocked.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. So we can mock the shit out of fat cat saud thugs and their fucked up religious beliefs?

[sabrina 1]

60. We can criticize them. We can criticize anyone, why mock people when it's just as easy to

criticize them like adults rather than two year olds who have learned not how to communicate effectively yet?

[Warren Stupidity]

61. Oh I don't know, how about over 2000 years of satire as an art form?

[sabrina 1]

63. How about a journalist reporting facts in the NYT? Should s/he be threatened with jail

for protecting his/her sources? Free speech is what we are demanding here, right?

Satire is fine as an art form. How about bombing people for their oil, is that a better form of free speech than walking around with protest signs?

[Warren Stupidity]

64. you seem to be changing the subject.

But yes I support the fuck out of free speech. No butts from me.

[sabrina 1]

65. Okay then that explains YOUR position. I consider bombing and killing people for

their resources to be provocation from which there are going to be consequences. And I'm amazed that anyone who supports it as free speech, or legitimate in any way, is now OUTRAGED when the predictable backlash and consequences begin.

So, to be clear. When WE exercise our right to our form of free speech and invade and torture and kill people, it is okay and when the victims of that free speech respond, not with nearly the same 'success' THAT is called terrorism.

Okay. And I disagree with you. I think violence against those who did nothing wrong is a crime. Marching off to a Muslim country yelling 'raghead' and 'camel jockey' and 'terrorist' is going to have some backlash.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. "provocation from which there are going to be consequences"

but these shitheads didn't kill anyone bombing or killing, they killed satirists.

You are engaged in the worst sort of apologetics, and you are defending islamic fundamentalists, not class warfare revolutionaries. It is crap Sabrina. The left has lost its mind on this issue. These fuckers want to put women in burkas. They want to execute gay people. The want to impose a 13th century legal code on all of the muslim nations and roll back the last 800 years. While busy defending rightwing religious reactionaries you all are losing the debate here. Again.

[ND-Dem]

70. +100

[lame54]

13. on the other hand...

I'm glad he posted it

[SCantiGOP]

15. I reacted more to the comments than the OP

caused me to scroll up and give the post a Rec

[NYC_SKP]

21. No context, no rec. Has too much the look of flamebait when there's no comment in the OP.

At least one of the cartoons is supportive of mainstream Muslims, so I'm not certain that any ill will is meant here.

I just feel that it's poor form to post provocative cartoons just, apparently, to see the reactions, not engage in discussion.

[jberryhill]

46. Well it's tough to engage in discussion these days

There are interesting arguments both ways in the "hate speech" department.

One traditional way of trying to make up one's mind is to question people who have made up their minds on a subject... "what about this, or what about that?"

But if you do that on DU these days, what you get hit with is the assumption that you HAVE made up your mind and are being disingenuous.

Take something simple, like "Would it harm society if we made it illegal to question whether Neil Armstrong landed on the moon."

I think that's a settled question and I don't see what we would lose by doing that, not that it matters. Others would say that chipping away at free expression by one iota would bring down freedom like a deck of cards.

I don't know, but I like to discuss it with people who think they do. (on edit: the speech thing, not the Neil Armstrong thing)

[Rhinodawg]

8. .

[leftynyc]

10. I find it unbelievably hard

to accept that the mere image of their prophet is enough to drive some followers to murder. It's so supremely fucked up and I can't imagine how one would begin to try and reason with anyone who feels that way.

[dissentient]

12. +1. It is incomprehensible that someone could become so fanatical to a religion

that they will murder innocent people over a cartoon. Not only incomprehensible, but insane.

[uppityperson]

18. Would you edit the thread title since there is only 1 or 2 of Muhammad, the remainder are

caricatures of Muslims. They are Islamic or Muslim cartoons. There is a difference. Thank you.

[smirkymonkey]

54. +1000

Yes *sigh*

[smirkymonkey]

57. I can't imagine that a sound faith would

be so shaken by something so trivial. I think there is a lot of insecurity in most of the "great religions" today. True faith should be quiet and humble.

[PatrickforO]

16. I'm going to weigh in on this because of the discussion on the thread.

If you think it through, since 9/11 we've given up an unacceptable amount of our freedom in order to be 'safe.' Now, we have a few insane fanatics killing cartoonists because they don't like the content???

My answer?

MORE CARTOONS!!!!

Let's not give up any more of our precious freedom of speech, please.

[jberryhill]

19. More Cartoons!

Okay.

Here's one criticizing Obama for not making a break with the war stances of the previous administration:

[Rhinodawg]

22. .

[philosslayer]

25. And... the jury votes 2-5 to keep it

So I guess Islamophobia AND racism are now par for the course on DU. The times, they are a changin'.

[benz380]

26. Can you post the jury comments? Thanks.

[philosslayer]

28. I can't see the comments

Someone alerted before I did.

[jberryhill]

40. Why the alert?

Because something intended to criticize one person is also insulting to a larger group of people?

[philosslayer]

41. I was alerting the cartoon showing our President as a shoe shine boy.

I don't know about you, but where I come from, thats a disgusting racial stereotype. But I guess, in DU these days, thats okay.

[jberryhill]

43. I posted it BECAUSE it is a disgusting racial stereotype

It is from a left wing site that intended to criticize what they perceive as President Obama's continuation of Bush Administration war policies.

The entire POINT is that the cartoon which is intended to convey a legitimate political point goes overboard in ALSO conveying an insult to an entire class of people.

YES it is a disgusting racial stereotype, and in addition to the "shoe shine boy" thing it also trots out the "Uncle Tom" slur.

We need not endorse cartoons which use them EVEN if we agree with some other point being made in the cartoon.

I do hope the alerter posts the jury comments. I figured the odds were high that it would be hidden.

[PatrickforO]

35. As offensive as this cartoon is, that you posted in reply,

I must still respect your right to free speech in posting it. And, you'll be happy to know, I don't have any plans to exact 'revenge' against the cartoonist.

As an aside, I have indeed been dismayed that Obama did NOT break with the war stances of the previous administration, as you put it. In addition, I believe the stepped up drone attacks do nothing but create ten or more terrorists for each one killed, and the NSA has grown past all legitimate need. For many years, I have felt that we really could be a shining light for the world if only we would stop worshipping war and its attendant profits, and begin putting policies in place that promote social, economic and environmental justice.

Anyway, regards to you. I do not apologize for feeling the extremists that killed the cartoonists are insane freaks, but I do not blame the entire Muslim community for the horrible actions of a few.

[jberryhill]

37. The murderers ARE insane freaks

Last edited Fri Jan 16, 2015, 10:57 PM - Edit history (1)

That's exactly what they are.

No one needs to apologize for them.

But one's contempt for them need extend no further.

[Rhinodawg]

74. +1

[840high]

52. +1

[lexington filly]

23. I'm glad these cartoons were posted here and on other sites.

To me it undermines what the terrorists were trying to accomplish by killing the French cartoonists. Because they have a belief their prophet is not to be pictured in any form (etc.), they're trying to enforce through murder and sensationalism their religious practice on the whole world and by reading the cartoons we're saying, "Oh no you can't!" Here in our own country many of us are struggling against religious groups forcing their beliefs on everyone else concerning birth control and rights to our own reproductive freedoms. So I regard the cartoons as about freedom from having to live according to the dictates other others' personal religious beliefs as much as about freedom of speech.

[840high]

53. xctly - u can have your

religion - I'll have mine. Don't push your religion on me and I won't push my religion on you. That was we'll be friends.

[ismnotwasm]

29. This one

[jberryhill]

36. That seems to be the dynamic the criminals are after

That's a good one.

[jtuck004]

49. Exactly. Thank you. n/t

[Jeffersons Ghost]

50. I think someone could get sued over this online article.

This kind of irresponsible online material inflames terrorist groups that kill people. I reported the unbelievably irresponsible cartoon on 1/16/14; and a Democratic Underground.com "Jury" had already decided the cartoons were acceptable, according to a response website administrators sent to my Democratic Underground Inbox.

[bluestateguy]

51. #DoubleDown

nt

[Rhinodawg]

67. kickity