"Internet collages threatening Denmark and daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten with death and retribution have begun circulating on the internet after the newspaper published caricatures of Muslim prophet Mohammed"
Another isolated incident I guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Muhammad's mom is a slut.
Jesus' mom is a slut.
Moses' mom is a slut.
Which of these comments can get me killed? How about these:
Muhammad is a fag.
Jesus is a fag.
Moses is a fag.
First of all, many Islamic fundamentalists believe that "graven images" of any kind should not be created of people. Many not so extremist Muslims refuse to have photographs, paintings or any other type of artwork depicting people in their homes.
Second, the source of this belief is from a hadith that is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad that expressly forbade the creation of any images of him. He reportedly did not want to be worshiped as an idol as Jesus is.
Third, for the newspaper to ignore the first two points and then publish cartoons that made fun of a prophet who is revered by millions of people, some of whom are known to be prone to violence, is clearly a provocative act.
I'm not defending terrorist threats, but if you stand in a ring and wave a red cape at a bull who has spears stuck in his side, he is going to attack you. The newspaper was asking for it.
Is it silly for them to be upset because of these images? It doesn't matter. They will be highly offended, and the reality is that those who created the cartoons may suffer the consequences, when they could have avoided all this by listening to the artists who didn't want to provoke this kind of anger in the first place.
Wow, Nadir, you are saying that artists should cowtow to violent bigots who want to dictate what words, sounds, and images that you create or consume. What if I form a religion that considers your hairstyle or the topics of your songs to be blasphemous, and that all True Believes must kill those who violate my edict. Are you "provoking" my acolytes?
Nadir, you most certainly *are* defending terrorist acts. Civilized societies must, and do, have laws that permit people to stand in the ring of public discourse and wave all sorts of red flags, and they just as manditorialy have laws that forbid fellow humans from stabbing the flag-wavers.
I consider it an obligation of artists to loadly proclaim out loud whatever ideas that such superstitious ignoramouses would use violence to suppress. Shame on you for sympathizing with them. You compared those people to animals, though, and they certainly are.
Mohammad is a fag! He sucks dicks! Just like his whore mother!
I am not defending terrorist threats and I am not saying that artists shouldn't create such material. I am saying that IF an artist does create a work that may be offensive to a person or group, they should understand and expect the consequences.
Just like when I performed my song "Guantanamo" in Budapest, Hungary, I was approached by a group of people who identified themselves as "members of the U.S. State Department", and asked a lot of questions. I expected something like that, and frankly expected more.
I write, perform and record material that is critical of the government knowing full well the potential consequences. If (and when) the government retaliates, it won't be because I don't think they wouldn't or shouldn't.
You think that it's OK for the State Department to harrass you because you sang a song critical of the US? I don't believe that you think that, Nadir! *I* certainly don't think that.
Do you have the same view towards the islamic fuckwads who want to kill Mohammad blasphemers as you do towards the KKKers who beat (and attempted to kill) those damned, meddling Freedom Riders in '64 (circa)? I do: They are both reprehensible tyrants who free people have an obligation to offend and defy.
Shame on that paper's news report for covering Mohammad's fag face, in order to appease those midevil, ignorant brutes.
Just because I understand and expect that the State Dept. would harrass me for singing a song critical of the U.S. doesn't mean that it is ok... just like it is not okay for angry Muslims to threaten Danish newspapers for publishing offensive cartoons.
It isn't okay. But the consequences were expected. I didn't know when it would happen, but I knew it would happen eventually. Just like that Danish paper didn't know when they would receive threats, the artists knew they would eventually. That's why they didn't want to do it.
As for the cartoonists who refused to make a picture of Muhammad out of fear, score one for the murderous bigots, the true Bull Conners of today. May they all step into empty elevator shafts. Their moms are whores.
Nadir, your comments are confusing me. Do you have similar comments for, say, the Emmit Till, who should have known not to whistle at a honkey girl? Do you place his murders any higher on the moral order than Theo Van Gogh's?
There is no conclusive evidence that Emmitt Till whistled at that woman. He was accused of it, but historians are not sure that it even happened.
Given his age, his background and the era in which he lived, he should have known that whistling at a white woman could illicit some form of retaliation. Even if he did whistle at that woman, which he probably didn't, he should not have been murdered.
Theo Van Gogh was murdered because he had a long history of being offensive to some people. According to Wikipedia, "He caused widespread resentment in the Muslim community by consistently referring to them as geitenneukers (goat-fuckers), which he justified by reference to alleged remarks on the permissibility of bestiality in a book on Islamic law by the Ayatollah Khomeini (although it is not clear whether Van Gogh actually coined the term geitenneukers, he certainly popularized it)."
After he created his final film, he received death threats, which he chose to ignore. He should have heeded those threats. Should he have been murdered? No.
But you ask about "moral order". I personally believe that it is "more wrong" to consistently call the adherents of an entire religion "goat-fuckers" than it is to express interest in or flirt with a pretty girl. That doesn't mean Van Gogh's death was justified, however, any more than Till's was.
But if you want to know whether I believe that St. Peter will look more kindly on Emmitt Till or Theo Van Gogh when they both stand before the judgement, I think Van Gogh's hurtful comments will be a negative mark. Till's admonition would be more like, "Boy, you should have known better."
I don't have to ask your opinion, though. I know you think telling a girl you want to make love to her is the same as accusing her father of making love to a goat. It's a wonder you get any play at all.
Nadir, you're a very compelling proponent of free speach.
Post a Comment