Quizzes & Puzzles61 mins ago
Mohammed cartoons again
Answers
No best answer has yet been selected by LeedsRhinos. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Just the same reason Kilroy -Silk lost his job on TV because of comments he re-iterated in his column in a paper (havent googled-from memory) which he had had first printed about a year before with no furore.Someone else will recall the exact details.The time was just right!!!
P.S for the rogerthomases of AB - I purposely duplicated had as that is proper grammar:)
PPS - I'm not fond of Kilroy-Silk either - but he was hung.drawn and quartered for an old comment.
My copy of the Koran says nothing about pictures of the Prophet, just as it says nothing about women keeping their heads covered. It also says nothing about bullying non-Moslems into keeping to Moslem rules. One of the many things it does say is about treating non-believers with respect.
As has been said, this is a prime case of rabble rousing.
If those are his true feelings then he got what was coming to him even if there was a delay.
As an aside, the news has reported that any graphical representation of Mohammed is forbidden by the religion. Grunty here says otherwise.
Any more bids on that?
Then, European newspapers re-published the cartoons, citing freedom of speech, and starting a further round of protests. It's likely that it was at this point that the whole thing became a cause celebre, who felt that not only had their faith been insulted, but once they had made their displeasure known, the further publications could only (in their eyes) be seen as deliberate mocking of their faith. And then it's got worse from there with more extreme elements and people with ulterior motives getting involved in the protests.
The cartoons were first published 30 September 05.
A group of Danish Islamic clerics did not get the response that they demanded from the newspaper and from the Danish governmentr and decided to create a GLOBAL furor to put pressure on the Danish government to bow to Islamic demands to punish the free speech of the Danish newspaper and the cartoonist.
Abu-Laban, the danish cleric at the forefront of the campaign, prepared a dossier of the catroons and sent delegations to the Middle East to incite tempers against Denmark.
The dossier was in excess of 30 pages and contained additional insulting pictures not published by the Danish newspaper and are now thought to have been added by Mr. Abu-Laban himself so that Arab feelings would be FURTHER incited to violence. This addidtional material in the dossier I believe shows that the Isamic cleric Mr. Abu-Ladan was determined to make up stories to incite people to violence.
Protests everywhere are being fanned by both Islamists and secular forces eager to prove their "Islamic purity" and to prove that Islamics have the power to make Europe bow to their demands.
I think that Europe WILL bow to the demands of the Islamics and Europe will see this kind pressure increase.
Very sad.
If freedom of speech constitutes the right to make fun of a religious leader, so be it. If freedom of speech reserves the right to make a cartoon out of a religious person, so be it. If freedom of speech gives the speaker the right to intrude into the private lives of others who do not share the beliefs and principles that the speakers do not live by, so be it.
But why let a simple phrase as 'freedom of speech' make us ignore the fact that we should be tolerant of one another, of the differences of cultures and religions and of the necessity to accept the differences of people everywhere in this world? It is just a phrase, at most.. a belief. But it has let the press walk over a religion, a system of beliefs practised by millions of ppl in the world. Which side do you think is going to win?
I am a free thinker but I believe there is a God and I believe in the power of religion. I am against acts of terror and war but there is a thin line between acts of terrorism and acts of retaliation. Fights don't start out of the blue. Someone has to start it.