Difference between revisions of "Muhammad/cartoon riots"
(test) |
m (Reverted edit of 220.245.179.134, changed back to last version by Woozle) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[Category:News Events]]A caricature of the Prophet Muhammed sparks riots and leads to the burning of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in [[Wikipedia:Damascus|Damascus]] (Syria), the Danish consulate in [[Wikipedia:Beirut|Beirut]] (Lebanon), and much uproar in the Muslim world. | [[Category:News Events]]A caricature of the Prophet Muhammed sparks riots and leads to the burning of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in [[Wikipedia:Damascus|Damascus]] (Syria), the Danish consulate in [[Wikipedia:Beirut|Beirut]] (Lebanon), and much uproar in the Muslim world. | ||
==Comments== | ==Comments== | ||
| − | This is where two key modern ideals & | + | This is where two key modern ideals – [[freedom of speech]] and [[religious tolerance]] – run headlong into each other, and it's not immediately clear where a reasonable answer lies. |
==Reference== | ==Reference== | ||
* {{Wikipedia|Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy}} | * {{Wikipedia|Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy}} | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
First, it seems clear to me that the outrage was manufactured. There have been countless depictions of Muhammed throughout history, including many within the past couple of decades (not to mention the bas relief in DC), with no kind of furor whatsoever. The pamphlet which apparently incited the riots contained three additional, crudely photocopied images almost calculated to be insulting to Moslems (and which had nothing to do with the original 12 cartoons). The supply of Danish and Norwegian flags, as one observer has pointed out [http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view399.html#cartoons], was suspiciously ample on such short notice. (...although this may have been partly free-market forces at work [http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06153755.htm]) | First, it seems clear to me that the outrage was manufactured. There have been countless depictions of Muhammed throughout history, including many within the past couple of decades (not to mention the bas relief in DC), with no kind of furor whatsoever. The pamphlet which apparently incited the riots contained three additional, crudely photocopied images almost calculated to be insulting to Moslems (and which had nothing to do with the original 12 cartoons). The supply of Danish and Norwegian flags, as one observer has pointed out [http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view399.html#cartoons], was suspiciously ample on such short notice. (...although this may have been partly free-market forces at work [http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L06153755.htm]) | ||
| − | Second, it also seems clear that if we apply the filter of symmetricality to this situation, the protestors are in the wrong. How many American flags have been burned by angry Moslems, with no threat of retribution from America? A little anger in response, perhaps & | + | Second, it also seems clear that if we apply the filter of symmetricality to this situation, the protestors are in the wrong. How many American flags have been burned by angry Moslems, with no threat of retribution from America? A little anger in response, perhaps – but surely burning a country's flag is ''calculated'' to achieve just that response. By behaving like spoiled children with dangerous weapons, the rioters who burned the Danish and Norwegian embassies (severe material damage, in exchange for ''what damage done to them?'') have given up any weight their opinions might have carried. |
Standing by itself, the suggestion that freedom of speech should be overridden by a religious law is, at least, an ''arguable'' point of view. However, I think it goes directly against all the political progress we've made in the past couple of centuries toward replacing the "strongman" form of government with something accountable and resposive to the will of the governed, and basically points us back to before [[Wikipedia:the Enlightenment|the Enlightenment]], when religious hierarchies were the only [[Power Structure|game]] in town. I don't know who might want to do that, I don't know of anyone who does, and I ''definitely'' don't want it. | Standing by itself, the suggestion that freedom of speech should be overridden by a religious law is, at least, an ''arguable'' point of view. However, I think it goes directly against all the political progress we've made in the past couple of centuries toward replacing the "strongman" form of government with something accountable and resposive to the will of the governed, and basically points us back to before [[Wikipedia:the Enlightenment|the Enlightenment]], when religious hierarchies were the only [[Power Structure|game]] in town. I don't know who might want to do that, I don't know of anyone who does, and I ''definitely'' don't want it. | ||
| − | Anyone should have the right to publish a depiction of anyone's religious figures. Any further discussion should be just that & | + | Anyone should have the right to publish a depiction of anyone's religious figures. Any further discussion should be just that – ''discussion''. Riots and fires are not an appropriate way to express your opinion. If they have an issue with the west's idea of freedom of speech, then they need to openly war against it – not attack the individuals and institutions who lawfully excercise it. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 20:31, 7 Feb 2006 (CST) |
* '''2006-02-16''' [http://www.participate.net/node/1212 another opinion] | * '''2006-02-16''' [http://www.participate.net/node/1212 another opinion] | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
* [http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ Face of Muhammed] blog: includes the original images | * [http://face-of-muhammed.blogspot.com/ Face of Muhammed] blog: includes the original images | ||
* [http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History] (2/7: site is currently slow, probably due to overload) | * [http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History] (2/7: site is currently slow, probably due to overload) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 12:01, 8 March 2006
A caricature of the Prophet Muhammed sparks riots and leads to the burning of the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus (Syria), the Danish consulate in Beirut (Lebanon), and much uproar in the Muslim world.
Comments
This is where two key modern ideals – freedom of speech and religious tolerance – run headlong into each other, and it's not immediately clear where a reasonable answer lies.
Reference
Timeline
- 2005-09-30 Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten publishes "12 different cartoonists' idea of what the Prophet Mohammed might have looked like." The paper's editor later characterises these depictions as "sober" and "not intended to be offensive". Other papers reprint the images and their accompanying story.
- 2005-12-15 (approx.) a delegation from several Danish Muslim organizations went on a tour in several Middle-Eastern and Arabic countries, reportedly to gain sympathy for their point of view (see Wikinews)
- 2006-01-23 (approx.) two European newspapers Die Welt in Berlin, France Soir in Paris, and two small weekly Jordanian newspapers, Shihan and Al-Mehwar, reprinted the cartoons and characterized the publications as a matter of free speech.
- 2006-01-26 a massive boycott of dairy produce from Denmark-based Arla Foods starts in Saudi Arabia (see Wikinews) and spreads to Kuwait
- 2006-01-30 Jyllands-Posten explains and apologizes for the original publication
- 2006-02-03 (Friday) Pakistan's government unanimously passed a resolution condemning the cartoons [1]. About 800 people protested in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad, chanting "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France," "Death to America". Another rally in the southern city of Karachi drew 1,200 people, but only about 20 protesters showed up for a rally in the eastern city of Lahore.
- 2006-02-04 (Saturday) Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono said his "government condemns the publication" of the drawings, but he urged his citizens to remain calm. According to Jordan's Petra News Agency, arrest warrants were issued for the editors-in-chief of the Jordanian newspapers (Shihan and Al-Mehwar). Shihan's editor, Jihad Momeni, who is a former member of the Jordanian Senate, was fired after publishing the cartoons.
- 2006-02-05 (Sunday) Danish embassy in Beirut torched [2]
Opinion
- 2006-02-07 Woozle's opinion:
First, it seems clear to me that the outrage was manufactured. There have been countless depictions of Muhammed throughout history, including many within the past couple of decades (not to mention the bas relief in DC), with no kind of furor whatsoever. The pamphlet which apparently incited the riots contained three additional, crudely photocopied images almost calculated to be insulting to Moslems (and which had nothing to do with the original 12 cartoons). The supply of Danish and Norwegian flags, as one observer has pointed out [3], was suspiciously ample on such short notice. (...although this may have been partly free-market forces at work [4])
Second, it also seems clear that if we apply the filter of symmetricality to this situation, the protestors are in the wrong. How many American flags have been burned by angry Moslems, with no threat of retribution from America? A little anger in response, perhaps – but surely burning a country's flag is calculated to achieve just that response. By behaving like spoiled children with dangerous weapons, the rioters who burned the Danish and Norwegian embassies (severe material damage, in exchange for what damage done to them?) have given up any weight their opinions might have carried.
Standing by itself, the suggestion that freedom of speech should be overridden by a religious law is, at least, an arguable point of view. However, I think it goes directly against all the political progress we've made in the past couple of centuries toward replacing the "strongman" form of government with something accountable and resposive to the will of the governed, and basically points us back to before the Enlightenment, when religious hierarchies were the only game in town. I don't know who might want to do that, I don't know of anyone who does, and I definitely don't want it.
Anyone should have the right to publish a depiction of anyone's religious figures. Any further discussion should be just that – discussion. Riots and fires are not an appropriate way to express your opinion. If they have an issue with the west's idea of freedom of speech, then they need to openly war against it – not attack the individuals and institutions who lawfully excercise it. --Woozle 20:31, 7 Feb 2006 (CST)
- 2006-02-16 another opinion
News
- 2006-02-05
- 2006-02-04 Danish and Norwegian embassies set on fire
- 2006-02-03:
- 2006-01-30 Honourable Fellow Citizens of the Muslim World: the Danish paper explains and apologizes
- 2006-01-26 Saudis boycott Danish dairy produce
Links
- Face of Muhammed blog: includes the original images
- Depictions of Mohammed Throughout History (2/7: site is currently slow, probably due to overload)