Muhammad (S.A.W.) cartoons and the boundaries of satire

[Red Herring]

So even your own definition notes a connection between the two.

Not mine but Merriam Webster's. And you took one adjective from a long and complex list to supposedöy disprove a point I never made since I explicitly said there was overlapping.

He's recognised as a leading Islamic scholar. He mainly speaks for the Traditionalist perspective within Islam, in constrast to both fundamentalists and modernists/progressives.

This might be a question of definition. He might not be a "fundamentalist" as that term is taken by much more radical people, but his equivalent in an other monotheistic religion would be labelled conservative, at the very least.

I'm sure you could. I mean I know plenty of Catholics who believe all sorts of absurd stuff too.

So one scholar is more representative of a group than several Joe Average run off the mill members of that group? I did not say these people had specific (according to you, absurd) views, I said they were moderate, democratic and modernist to varying degrees but all more so than him, so alternative views exist. Why do you call that claim absurd?

I'd like to hear your distinction between "making fun" and insulting, and how religious society somehow stiffle religious-based humour? Concerning Christian Europe at least, this notion is supposedly disputed by historian Michael W. George:

You misunderstood me. I was referring to your quote about the golden age of Islam and the connection between religiousn frameworks/establishments and science and the developement of new thought. The distinction between making fun and insulting is quite obvious. Tell one friend to make fun of you and another to insult you, I am sure you will know the difference.

Yes the typical intellectual impasse MacIntyre has written much about.

Have mercy, I am working while surfing the forum (i.e. can't consult many secondary sources right now) and you keep name droping and throwing quotes at me instead of giving me your own thoughts and analysis.

 

[Sniffles]

Not mine but Merriam Webster's. And you took one adjective from a long and complex list to supposedöy disprove a point I never made since I explicitly said there was overlapping.

Alright then - I don't see much point in continuing on this particular issue for the time being. In Islam as far as I understand it - the connection between culture and faith is more closely bonded than it is in Christianity for example.

This might be a question of definition. He might not be a "fundamentalist" as that term is taken by much more radical people, but his equivalent in an other monotheistic religion would be labelled conservative, at the very least.

There is a distinction between being traditionalist or "conservative" if you will and being a fundamentalist - this is true in Islam as well as Christianity - and I'm not just talking about radicalism here(although that has a role in it). I guess to give one example is that traditionalists are often more open to mysticism and value it as an important element of religious truth, while fundamentalists tend to look negatively upon it. This is true within Islam with Sufis being viewed with contempt by fundamentalists. Chronologically speaking too, fundamentalism is a more recent development(around the 17th-18th centuries) wheras Islamic traditionalism can be dated back to the earliest developments of Islamic teachings. Does this help clarify things? This parallels very much the situation in Christianity to an extent.

So one scholar is more representative of a group than several Joe Average run off the mill members of that group?

If we're trying to discern Islamic teachings here, then yeah it certainly can be. Just like with Catholicism, you're probably better off reading St. Thomas Aquinas to discern Catholic teachings than simply asking your Average Paddy, who may not necessarily have the competence to pronounce on such matters. Speaking from personal experience, some of the most stupidest shit I've ever heard about the faith have come from Catholics you meet everyday.

I did not say these people had specific (according to you, absurd) views, I said they were moderate, democratic and modernist to varying degrees but all more so than him, so alternative views exist.

Yes alternative views exist within Islam, even Nasr acknowledges this. However, that doesn't mean all competiting views are equal in truth.

Why do you call that claim absurd?

I was referring more towards average Catholics who believe all sorts of absurd shit, and how you shouldn't take that for official Catholic teachings. But since you ask, I think many of the modernist Muslims, like their Christian counterparts, are gravely mistaken in their view that modernity and their faith can actually coexist without degrading their vitality and validity of its teachings. We've seen within Christianity the mess this attempt has created(mostly noticeably within the Anglican community or even in American Catholicism), where the churches have tried to go along with the latest intellectual fads.

You misunderstood me. I was referring to your quote about the golden age of Islam and the connection between religiousn frameworks/establishments and science and the developement of new thought.

Alright then.

Have mercy, I am working while surfing the forum (i.e. can't consult many secondary sources right now) and you keep name droping and throwing quotes at me instead of giving me your own thoughts and analysis.

Let's say my thoughts on the matter parallel those of Nasr's, but since he's the Muslim I'm more than willing to let him do the talking. I'm not referring to your lack of secondary sources, but your comment about having to agree to disagree due to different starting points of discussion. That's grounds for an impasse in many intellectual discussions, and Alasdair MacIntyre has written much about this problem within philosophical discourse.

 

[Not_Me]

I believe it in inexcusable to mock something so many people find precious and sacred. It was also a pretty stupid move by the newspaper. They must have known that the cartoons would create a big reaction in the Middle East.

Should an angry mob in a foreign country be allowed to dictate what freedoms we must curtail? Rights will vanish if they are not exercised.

 

[FigerPuppet]

Silly Arabs. Are you turning into some kind of traditionalist?

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Silly Arabs. Are you turning into some kind of traditionalist?

So what if I am? The world is a bleak place without spirituality. As the state of the World deteriorates I find myself seeking comfort in my religion.

I am honestly shocked to see that so many TypoC members are so insensitive to what other people find precious.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

So what if I am? The world is a bleak place without spirituality. As the state of the World deteriorates I find myself seeking comfort in my religion.

I am honestly shocked to see that so many TypoC members are so insensitive to what other people find precious.

I'm honestly shocked that you think TypoC members are being insensitive for having different values than you. I value information, I value criticism of institutions, I value many things...but that doesn't make me insensitive. It just means that my values are more important to me than some weird fixation on an image of someone who's been dead for over a thousand years.

 

[Jaguar]

I am honestly shocked to see that so many TypoC members are so insensitive to what other people find precious.

Please . . .

 

[Not_Me]

Freedom is highly cherished by many.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

Freedom is highly cherished by many.

Libel is a legal offense. I believe you can extend the moral justification of those laws to include defamation of something that is spiritually cherished by many.

 

[The Outsider]

Freedom is highly cherished by many.

There are better ways to uphold the freedom of speech than simply inciting violent reactions from those that can bee seen to oppose it.

 

[Kaizer]

if I may please be allowed to take a jab at sorta trying to sorta kinda summarize this so called 'discussion' :

Silly Arabs....

I am honestly shocked ...

I'm honestly shocked ....

Please . . .

And the USA wins again!

EDIT : my apologies if I failed miserably at my so called 'attempt'. please be kind.

 

[Southern Kross]

I am a proponent for free speech but people often forget just because you're free to say something doesn't mean that its nice to say it. Besides, the cartoons seemed to me to have more to do with provoking a reaction from Muslims, and less to do with meaningful commentary.

As much as I defend Islam, I do think they should learn how to better cope when people question or undermine the religion. But we must remember, Christianity has had 200+ years to get used to criticism whereas most Muslims come from nations where it has long been forbidden to do so. Give them a bit of a break and some time to adjust.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm not sure if it's been said, but offense is taken from any visual portrayal of Muhammad, not just those that would make a mockery of him. Merely portraying the prophet of the Muslim faith is a punishable offense, which kinda nullifies your libel/defamation argument. (the South Park episode concerning his portrayal illustrates this nicely)

[YOUTUBE="QG0quz3Gu8g"]Muhammad[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Sniffles]

There was very little outcry when South Park first protrayed him in the Super Best Friends episode.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

^ Yep, it's funny things aren't such a big deal when people forget to be offended.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Why do so many people feel the need to treat violent Muslims as if they need to be handled with retarded-kid gloves? Are they retarded kids? Other than that, I can't think of any reason why people should be apologizing for a newspaper, editor or an individual expressing an opinion so that muslims won't get offended and burn shit down...

 

[A window to the soul]

Do you think it's okay to offend hundreds of millions of people in the name of satire, just for the sake of doing so?
I personally don't think so, and I was pretty mad during the abovementioned controversy. I believe it in inexcusable to mock something so many people find precious and sacred. It was also a pretty stupid move by the newspaper. They must have known that the cartoons would create a big reaction in the Middle East.

I am completely aligned with you on that. Sad times.

 

[Red Herring]

I'm not sure if it's been said, but offense is taken from any visual portrayal of Muhammad, not just those that would make a mockery of him. Merely portraying the prophet of the Muslim faith is a punishable offense, which kinda nullifies your libel/defamation argument. (the South Park episode concerning his portrayal illustrates this nicely)

[YOUTUBE="QG0quz3Gu8g"]Muhammad[/YOUTUBE]

Well, sort of.

The permissibility of depictions of Muhammad, the founder of Islam, has long been a concern in Islam's history. Oral and written descriptions are readily accepted by all traditions of Islam, but there is disagreement about visual depictions.[1][2]

The Qur'an does not explicitly forbid images of Muhammad, but there are a few hadith (supplemental teachings) which have explicitly prohibited Muslims from creating the visual depictions of figures. Most Sunni Muslims believe that visual depictions of all the prophets of Islam should be prohibited, and they are particularly averse to visual representations of Muhammad.[3] The key concern is that the use of images can encourage idolatry. In recent times, some Muslims have taken a more relaxed view. Most Shia scholars nowadays accept respectful depictions and use illustrations of Muhammad in books,[citation needed] though historically they were against such depictions.[4] Still, many Muslims who take a stricter view of the supplemental traditions, will sometimes challenge any depiction of Muhammad, including those created and published by non-Muslims.[5]

In Islamic art, depictions were never devotional images, but appear in illustrated books that are normally works of history or poetry; the Qu'ran is never illustrated: "context and intent are essential to understanding Islamic pictorial art. The Muslim artists creating images of Muhammad, and the public who beheld them, understood that the images were not objects of worship. Nor were the objects so decorated used as part of religious worship".[6] Most visual depictions only show Muhammad with his face veiled, or symbolically represent him as a flame; other images, notably from before about 1500, show him fully.[7] However, depictions of Muhammad were rare, never numerous in any community or era throughout Islamic history,[8] appearing almost entirely in the private medium of the Persian miniature book illustration, and those of other Islamic cultures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depictions_of_Muhammad

Here is an entire gallery: http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/islamic_mo_face_hidden/

And this is a fully fledged portrait of the prophet and the angel Gabriel:

the Sout Park video is funny though.

 

[Not_Me]

Libel is a legal offense. I believe you can extend the moral justification of those laws to include defamation of something that is spiritually cherished by many.

Defamation unfairly diminishes the victim's standing in society. The dishonesty is what makes it wrong. Intentionally angering or hurting someone's feelings might not be nice, but no dishonesty is involved. The two are not comparable.

 

[LEGERdeMAIN]

Obviously what we've got here is failure to communicate. Some muslims you just can't reach. So you get what we had here today, which is the way she wants it... well, she gets it. I don't like it any more than you.