Muslim newspaper ran cartoons 4 months ago!

No outrage when Egyptian publication headlined drawings on Ramadan cover

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

While Muslims across the world have rioted in the past week against countries whose newspapers have published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, there was no uproar when the same caricatures were prominently displayed in an Islamic newspaper four months ago.

The images originating in Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten in September were reportedly featured on the cover and inside pages of Egypt’s al-Fagr (the Dawn) in October, during the holy month of Ramadan.

According to the Freedom for Egyptians blog, al-Fagr included the cartoons on the front cover and page 17 of its edition dated Oct. 17. The headline, when translated, is said to read: “Continued Boldness. Mocking the Prophet and his wife by Caricature.”


Hypocritical or orchestrated riots?

[quote=Semper Fi]No outrage when Egyptian publication headlined drawings on Ramadan cover

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

While Muslims across the world have rioted in the past week against countries whose newspapers have published cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, there was no uproar when the same caricatures were prominently displayed in an Islamic newspaper four months ago.

The images originating in Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten in September were reportedly featured on the cover and inside pages of Egypt’s al-Fagr (the Dawn) in October, during the holy month of Ramadan.

According to the Freedom for Egyptians blog, al-Fagr included the cartoons on the front cover and page 17 of its edition dated Oct. 17. The headline, when translated, is said to read: “Continued Boldness. Mocking the Prophet and his wife by Caricature.”


Hypocritical or orchestrated riots?
[/quote]

Hypocritical? No, however you look at it, at least one of these “cartoons” was deeply offensive to even moderate muslims.

Orchestrated? Of course it’s orchestrated, you give your enemies a loaded gun and lots and lots of amunition, and then don’t expect him to use it?

It strikes me as being a very novel way to try and win the hearts and minds of moderate muslims, insult the prophet who they claim was sent to them by God, and then assert it’s acceptable under the human rules of free speech in a Christian world. Hypocritical maybe?

[quote=walstan]Hypocritical? No, however you look at it, at least one of these “cartoons” was deeply offensive to even moderate muslims.

Orchestrated? Of course it’s orchestrated, you give your enemies a loaded gun and lots and lots of amunition, and then don’t expect him to use it?

It strikes me as being a very novel way to try and win the hearts and minds of moderate muslims, insult the prophet who they claim was sent to them by God, and then assert it’s acceptable under the human rules of free speech in a Christian world. Hypocritical maybe?
[/quote]

I answered you in another post, but I will here too… The cartoons are only offensive if you have not read the article as originally published along with the pictures.

[quote=Semper Fi]I answered you in another post, but I will here too… The cartoons are only offensive if you have not read the article as originally published along with the pictures.
[/quote]

Brilliant, has nobody realised the majority of those rioting can’t even READ, let alone read Danish!!!

They are what’s coloquialy referred to as TCN’s (Third Country Nationals) that means many of them are from very lowly backgrounds with very little if any formal education, a very limited understanding of the world and a deep unmoving belief in Islam and God. Now look back in history at the majority of the “foot” soldiers in the Crusades, they were “**from very lowly backgrounds with very little if any formal education, a very limited understanding of the world and a deep unmoving belief in God.” **(the only difference is no Islam)

Spotted any similarities?

As far as understanding the context of the cartoons, haven’t you noticed only small demonstrations have been held in the developed countries around the world, those are the ones with a majority of an educated population, the major demonstrations turning into riots are in the countries with very little or no formal education. Now that should tell us something.

[quote=walstan]Brilliant, has nobody realised the majority of those rioting can’t even READ, let alone read Danish!!!
[/quote]

All I am pointing out is that the culpability of this rests on the hands of the Danish Jihadist Imam who went around propagandizing this, not the cartoonists nor the editors of the newspaper (as many in the MSM have claimed).

[quote=walstan]Hypocritical? No, however you look at it, at least one of these “cartoons” was deeply offensive to even moderate muslims.

Orchestrated? Of course it’s orchestrated, you give your enemies a loaded gun and lots and lots of amunition, and then don’t expect him to use it?

It strikes me as being a very novel way to try and win the hearts and minds of moderate muslims, insult the prophet who they claim was sent to them by God, and then assert it’s acceptable under the human rules of free speech in a Christian world. Hypocritical maybe?
[/quote]

A cartoon no matter how deeply offensive, shouldnt be the cause of 10 deaths, they have no excuse for that. Whos hearts and minds are we trying to win? i couldnt care less if moderate muslims liked the west or not. Yes we are assrting that its acceptable in a christian world because it is, especially because muhhamad was also a policitcal figure.

[quote=Semper Fi]All I am pointing out is that the culpability of this rests on the hands of the Danish Jihadist Imam who went around propagandizing this, not the cartoonists nor the editors of the newspaper (as many in the MSM have claimed).
[/quote]

If you do or say something inflammatory, and someone else goes and does something illegal as a direct result, it’s both of you that end up in court. Free speech is no defence.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but the ‘cartoons’ should not have been published in the first place.

Mike

[quote=MikeWM]If you do or say something inflammatory, and someone else goes and does something illegal as a direct result, it’s both of you that end up in court. Free speech is no defence.

There is plenty of blame to go around, but the ‘cartoons’ should not have been published in the first place.

Mike
[/quote]

Yes but only one party will be charged guilty. The cartoons that were published were legal the acts of violence muslims commit are not. Regardless of whether you think the cartoons should have been published or not doesnt really matter.

[quote=melbourne_guy]Yes but only one party will be charged guilty. The cartoons that were published were legal the acts of violence muslims commit are not. Regardless of whether you think the cartoons should have been published or not doesnt really matter.
[/quote]

In the case of the law in this case, you are correct. Nevertheless, there is plenty of blame to fall on both the violent Muslims and the people responsible for the cartoons. Even if your inflammatory conduct is on the right side of the law, it doesn’t excuse it.

Mike

I just read the article. Looks like they are looking for any readon to riot and murder.

PF

[quote=MikeWM]In the case of the law in this case, you are correct. Nevertheless, there is plenty of blame to fall on both the violent Muslims and the people responsible for the cartoons. Even if your inflammatory conduct is on the right side of the law, it doesn’t excuse it.

Mike
[/quote]

If your suggesting we put some of the blame on the cartoonists, then what should they be prosecuted for? excercising their democratic right to freedom of speech within the boundaries of the law?

Do you all suppose that maybe Muslim clerics the world over have a lot of personal political problems… and to keep their “jobs” they need to do something dramatic.

So, there are these orchestrated riots… … aimed at maximizing media attention and to gain tolerance for Islam in the oh-so understanding secular West… which demonstrates over and over that the West has lost its soul.

[quote=melbourne_guy]If your suggesting we put some of the blame on the cartoonists, then what should they be prosecuted for? excercising their democratic right to freedom of speech within the boundaries of the law?
[/quote]

:confused: You can blame someone or say someone is doing something wrong whether they are technically breaking the law or not. You appear to be suggesting, for example, that someone is ok having an abortion if it happens to be legal in their country. Of course that isn’t the case.

Mike

[quote=melbourne_guy]If your suggesting we put some of the blame on the cartoonists, then what should they be prosecuted for? excercising their democratic right to freedom of speech within the boundaries of the law?
[/quote]

I find it disturbing that on a Catholic forum we seem to be defenders of the legality of an action but not the morals? Did the cartoonist have the MORAL right to publish these cartoons?

A cartoon no matter how deeply offensive, shouldnt be the cause of 10 deaths, they have no excuse for that.

Hear, hear!! Excelent point!

If you do or say something inflammatory, and someone else goes and does something illegal as a direct result, it’s both of you that end up in court. Free speech is no defence.

Oh Mike, again I find myself in disagreement with you. I have to go with the Aussie here. The behavior of those who are rioting in the Muslim world is reprehensible and politically transparent. Although the cartoons may be in poor taste (I really can’t speak to them, haven’t really paid that much attention to them and really could care less), these cartoonists live, work, and are citizens of Denmark…not Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. The “rules” of the Islamic world do not apply in Denmark. As an American, I do stand up for *anyone’s *right to free speech. Not to mention (something you’re tactfully avoiding), *it took this ‘Danish’ Muslim cleric **6 months (!!!) **to get the pot stirred.*Come on! Surely you’re savvy enough to see through a politically motivated con job.

Oh, as to your quote…not in the US, thank God! If someone says something ugly, shame on them. If someone else reacts violently to their statement and commits a crime, the second person should be charged and sentenced appropriately for the crime. There is no right to react violently to others’ statements, no matter how provacative the statements may be! Ignorance, stupidity, and poor manners should be ignored.

It’s a good thing that Catholics don’t riot every time the press says something negative about the Pope…we’d have a full time job on our hands! :slight_smile:

Lisa

Did the cartoonist have the MORAL right to publish these cartoons?

And which gov’t agency do you wish to have control the morality of things published in the press? There are lots of things published everyday in many different publications that I find morally offensive or offensive to my religious beliefs. I don’t want the gov’t to decide this for me though. I exercise the freedom allowed for by the Constitution not to buy or support those publications through usage of any kind.

My question for you is do you really want a gov’t like the one in Iran? That is a theocracy, and they do control all things moral. Besides, morality isn’t a ‘right’. Things are either moral or they are not.

Lisa

[quote=Lischou]Oh Mike, again I find myself in disagreement with you.
[/quote]

That’s ok, it’s Catholic Answers Forums, it’s hardly an unexpected occurrence :wink:

I have to go with the Aussie here. The behavior of those who are rioting in the Muslim world is reprehensible and politically transparent. Although the cartoons may be in poor taste (I really can’t speak to them, haven’t really paid that much attention to them and really could care less), these cartoonists live, work, and are citizens of Denmark…not Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. The “rules” of the Islamic world do not apply in Denmark. As an American, I do stand up for *anyone’s *right to free speech. Not to mention (something you’re tactfully avoiding), *it took this ‘Danish’ Muslim cleric **6 months (!!!) ***to get the pot stirred.Come on! Surely you’re savvy enough to see through a politically motivated con job.

I agree, the behaviour of the rioters is reprehensible. There may well be a lot of politicially motivated ‘stirring of the pot’. I also stand up for free speech, and if forced to, I say that the newspapers certainly must have the right to publish such cartoons. But rights come with responsibilities, and the reasons for publishing these cartoons seem trivial at best. No-one should be rioting, but no-one should be offending people for no good reason, either.

Oh, as to your quote…not in the US, thank God! If someone says something ugly, shame on them. If someone else reacts violently to their statement and commits a crime, the second person should be charged and sentenced appropriately for the crime. There is no right to react violently to others’ statements, no matter how provacative the statements may be! Ignorance, stupidity, and poor manners should be ignored.

But if someone’s speech is designed to produce imminent violent action, that is a crime, first amendment nonewithstanding. See Brandenburg v Ohio. I’m not suggesting these cartoons fit that bill for a moment, because they clearly don’t - but there are still some limits on free speech.

It’s a good thing that Catholics don’t riot every time the press says something negative about the Pope…we’d have a full time job on our hands! :slight_smile:

And all the better that we don’t.

Mike

Oh my God, we agree, it’s a miracle!! :slight_smile:

Lisa

[quote=melbourne_guy]Yes but only one party will be charged guilty. The cartoons that were published were legal the acts of violence muslims commit are not. Regardless of whether you think the cartoons should have been published or not doesnt really matter.
[/quote]

If laws of defamation and libel apply, the publishing of the cartoons may not be legal. If the commentary of the US government applies, then the publishing of the cartoons may have been incitement and may also not be legal.

The acts of violence which some Muslims committed are also not legal.

[quote=Lischou]And which gov’t agency do you wish to have control the morality of things published in the press?
[/quote]

Murder is immoral. Do you not have a law which prohibits murder? Stealing is immoral. Do you not have a law which prohibits stealing?

[quote=Lischou]There are lots of things published everyday in many different publications that I find morally offensive or offensive to my religious beliefs.
[/quote]

Offending is not – in itself – illegal, nor do I believe it should be. Where that offence causes harm, however, it is illegal and I believe it should be illegal. Examples of laws which prohibit harm resulting from speech: laws addressing defamation, libel, slander, hate propaganda, death threats, blackmail, false witness (perjury), fraud.

[quote=Lischou]I don’t want the gov’t to decide this for me though.
[/quote]

Agreed. Why should the gov’t control what merely offends you? Are you suggesting that gov’t should not control defamation, libel, slander, hate propaganda, death threats, blackmail, perjury, fraud?

[quote=Lischou]I exercise the freedom allowed for by the Constitution not to buy or support those publications through usage of any kind.
[/quote]

Are boycotts of murders, blackmailers, and so on particularly effective in minimizing harm caused by the perpetrators of those crimes?

[quote=Lischou]My question for you is do you really want a gov’t like the one in Iran?
[/quote]

False dichotomy. Just because I want a government which recognizes harm caused by certain forms of speech does not mean I also want a government like the one in Iran.

[quote=Lischou]That is a theocracy, and they do control all things moral.
[/quote]

As I have pointed out, the American government also controls things moral. Not all things, but those things which have to do with causing harm: murder, theft, (perjury), defamation, slander, libel, blackmail, death threats, driving while intoxicated, trafficking in drugs, fraud, and so on.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.