Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Archive 17

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Warning: Blasphemous content on most of these links

Direct link Varga Mila 14:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag Desecration

I was just reading the article on Flag desecration and noticed that Denmark has a law against desecrating "foreign symbols" becauses this "could be understood as a threat by other countries". It might be instresting to mention this some where in this article just to adress the laws in Denmark dealing with foreign symbols. --The_stuart 15:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarif: The Danish law only prohibits desecrating "national symbols of foreign nations". Not "foreign symbols" in general. (I have updated Flag desecration to reflect this). Rasmus (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Picture?

I was okay with the picture of the cartoons at the top of the article as they are relevant to the topic discussed in the article (i.e. the cartoon controversy). But why is there another picture of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)? And unveiled at that? The picture is minimally relevant to the section it is attached to and the article in general. And, yes it might offend some people. I'm not arguing for censorship here, but this image seems irrelevant to the article and thus unnecessarily offensive. It ought to be removed. joturner 00:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead, but I can't promise, that some disrespectful Wikipedian will put the image back in. Raphael1 01:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing images from Wikipedia for POV reasons. That can be considered vandalism. -ut-'Cyde Weys 01:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Uh... what? Please read what I said and address that; don't imply that I am a vandal and consistently remove images. I didn't remove the picture because it could be offensive; I removed it because it could be offensive but it was also irrelevant and unnecessary. joturner 01:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Varga said, that the image should underscore the claim of the BBC journalist, but I think it's nothing but another provocation of the "muslim enemy". Raphael1 01:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
If people believe that a picture of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) really is necessary (and I still believe that it is not), the least they can do is used a veiled picture of him. joturner 01:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
They could, but some of them are actively trying to drive away all muslims here, so they can undisturbed write the western version of this issue without the need to think about the view of the "enemy". Raphael1 02:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well... I'm not going to resort to saying that. I'm sure they have good intentions; I'm just afraid people are automatically reverting anyone that removes a picture of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) without assessing the rationale. Cyde's statement seems to indicate that. joturner 02:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, there are other Muslims in this world with a different view upon aniconism than yours. That is why the picture is there. Show some respect for their traditions, will you? MX44 02:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't explain the relevance of the picture to the article. I am not expressing my personal views about aniconism but instead am expressing the irrelevance of and lack of necessity for the image. In fact, I uploaded a picture of the Prophet Muhammad today (see w:Image:Muhammad-supcourt.jpg) and added it to the Depiction of Muhammad article (until User:Zora removed it). joturner 03:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
(Your picture appears to be back now)
Anyway, this article states: Indeed a fatwa exists given by Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq, stating that it is permissible to make pictures of Muhammad, if done with the highest respect. This is (IMHO of course) one such picture. MX44 03:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider a fatwa given in an US occupied country as an independent muslim opinion. Raphael1 04:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Where are you located? MX44 05:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
MX44 do you think, that those other Muslims will be offended by not having an 700 year old persian image on that page? Raphael1 03:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
They can go to the market and buy a brand new if they prefer so. MX44 03:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me bring this back to the point I was trying to make in my original post. Is the picture necessary and relevant to the article? And, if you still think it is, can a veiled picture of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) serve the same (or similar) purpose? joturner 03:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the picture should stay. The whole discussion about the cartoons is that it is according some groups of muslims forbidden to depict Muhammad. However, they do not speak for all muslims as they claim. Making clear that there is an inherent contradiction in their claims is nessecary and an image made by muslims themselves is the best illustration. And because it has been made by muslims, there should not be an objection against displaying it. --KimvdLinde 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Relevant, yes, it illustrates that there is a tradition since ages back of depicting Muhammad. It also shows a historical event, not unlike what Kåre Blutgein originally was trying to accomplish. An example of a veiling picture is already shown in Depiction of Muhammad, so that would be reptitive, unless you have a suggestion other than what is in Siyer-i Nebi
MX44 04:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


700 years ago?!?! If there are so many muslims making pictures of Mohammed, I'm sure you can find new ones. Raphael1 04:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
New lamps for old? :D MX44 04:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I prefer old masters. --KimvdLinde 04:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
A 700 years old picture cannot prove there are presently muslims, who feel right about makeing pictures of Mohammed, can it? Raphael1 04:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
But a 700 years old picture can prove there are presently muslims who have forgotten where they came from MX44 04:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it doesn't say anything about "their" history knowledge. But if you can't find any newer image, it proves that "they" have changed. Raphael1 04:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
The discussion focusses that it is forbidden by the Quran, which was interpreted differently at different times and places. --KimvdLinde 04:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
And that is enough justification for another provocation? Or is it necessary to pressure the two muslim newcomers away, so they won't disturbe your plan to write a western view of the whole issue? Raphael1 05:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, you accuse me? --KimvdLinde 05:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Who are the two newcomers? MX44 05:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Raphael1, no one is pressuring anyone away... there is no 'great conspiracy' to 'get the muslims' here. What is occuring is that editors are doing their best to ensure that this topic isn't treated in an exceptional way, in a way any different than any other article on WikiPedia. Netscott 05:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Second--KimvdLinde 05:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'd love to hear the details of Raphael1's master plan to write the article a certain way. Valtam 15:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "get the muslims here"? Don't you rather mean "get the muslims away"? Raphael1 05:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "to 'get' the muslims" refers to the expression "out to get" and corresponds to definition 13f. Netscott 05:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean "To take revenge on, especially to kill in revenge for a wrong."? That really scares me, because I didn't think about that at all. Raphael1 05:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
No need to be be scared. Netscott just said: ... there is NO 'great conspiracy' to 'get the muslims'. Think about your blood preasure! MX44 06:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually you're right, in this case the 13f definition doesn't correspond as well as the 13b definition. Netscott 05:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What does the other Picture has to do with it?

I can see that the cartoons have been displayed, but i don't see what the other picture of the bottom of the article (the one with the black stone), that picture should be removed because it has nothing to do with the article, thank you.
Muhaidib 03:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC) See above--KimvdLinde 03:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant because it's an example of a Muslim depiction of Mohammed from over 700 years ago, showing that depictions of Mohammed aren't so "sacrilegious" or whatever as some would have us believe. --Cyde Weys 05:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Don't you rather mean "depictions of Mohammed haven't been so sacrilegious"? Raphael1 05:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/ - which is linked from the article, by the way - includes some contemporary images made by contemporary Muslims depicting the Prophet. Whether depicting the Prophet per se is blasphemous is a contentious issue among present-day Muslims. Derogatory depictions however are a different matter. That they are blasphemous is a widely held opinion among present-day Muslims. The viewpoint that respectful depictions of Muhammad are blasphemous is not a universally held notion in Islam today. —Gabbe 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do you say, that derogatory depictions of the prophet Muhammed are blasphemous is a widely held opinion among present-day Muslims? Derogatory depictions of sacred "things" are disrespectful for all people, even if different "things" are sacred for different people. Derogatory depictions of any "prophet" (Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Buddha, ...) are blasphemous by definition. It's a widely held opinion among present-day Muslims that even respectful depictions of Muhammed are not wanted. Raphael1 15:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia reports on widely-held opinions, it doesn't bow to them. We are NPOV here. There are lots of things on Wikipedia that we must report on neutrally and not simply cover up because some may be offended. And derogatory depictions of "sacred" things are not disrespectful for all people. For instance, some Fundamentalist Christians get a kick out of burning The Book of Mormon. And atheists don't particularly care one way or the other about any "sacred things" because nothing is religiously sacred to them, by definition! And there is no such thing as blasphemous by definition. Blasphemy is all a point of view. Most westerners don't consider mere images of Mohammed as blasphemy. Blasphemy has a close relation to state religions: when a state is free from that, there is no such thing as blasphemy. Wikipedia is hosted in the United States, by the way, where, by definition and as a corollary from separation of church and state, blasphemy does not exist. --Cyde Weys 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is no blasphemy for atheists. But what is blasphemous definetly can be defined. One such definition would be "disrespectful of sacred things". A blasphemy law doesn't have to be limited to one religion. I live in a secular country, where (just like in Denmark) blasphemy is forbidden against all religions. Raphael1 19:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

the image is irrelevant. The rioters are not 16th century Ottomans. If anything, include a picture of a modern cheesy devotional shi'ite depiction of Muhammad. But even that wouldn't be to the point. Let it suffice to say that there are countless depictions of Muhammad, both abusive and devotional, that did'nt rise a stink. dab (ᛏ) 15:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I beg to differ, the image shows that there has been an Islamic tradition of pictorially representing Muhammad... there's further evidence of such a tradition in these images from Herat, Afghanistan dating to 1425  :

Muhammad's Call to Prophecy and the First Revelation; leaf from a copy of the Majmac al-tawarikh (Compendium of Histories), ca. 1425; Timurid. From Herat, Afghanistan. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Journey of the Prophet Muhammad; leaf from a copy of the Majmac al-tawarikh (Compendium of Histories), ca. 1425; Timurid. Herat, Afghanistan. In The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

Netscott 16:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

yes, of course? We have said so for ages on the Muhammad article (in the "veneration" section). We even have a Muslim veneration for Muhammad article, where this topic may be at home. If you want to discuss the (minority) currents of Islamic hagiography, the Jylland-Posten article is hardly the place for it. Do a separate Islamic hagiography or Depictions of Muhammad article, and link to it from here, from Muhammad and from Muslim veneration for Muhammad. dab (ᛏ) 09:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
doh, I created Islamic hagiography, unaware of the existing Depiction of Muhammad (link to it frm the article!); maybe they should be merged. dab (ᛏ) 09:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I do agree with what I believe you are saying dab, that this article is not the place to go in depth about previous traditions of depicting/venerating Muhammad however the inclusion of one image is hardly going in depth. And while it is true that the school of thought that it is ok to depict Muhammad is a minority view, it is significant enough to warrant the inclusion of this one image as it directly relates to Jyllands-Posten's cartoons controversy. Netscott 13:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I want to qoute for you all a paragraph from a Guardian article (July 26, 2003) by professor of anthropology Niloofar Haeri:
During a recent trip to Iran I went to a number of stores that specialise in images of the prophet and his companions. Most are posters, but one can also buy original oil paintings. I bought three different portraits of the prophet Mohammed. There are even a few depicting the prophet as an adolescent. The painters who specialise in these kinds of paintings view their work as a pious and religious act. To be sure, there are Iranians who do not like such images and view them as religious kitsch. But others buy them and put them up on their wall, on the windshield of their car, the dashboard of their taxi, or carry them in their wallet.
Please read the article if you haven't (http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,,1006209,00.html). It gives testimony to the fact, that even today the socalled blasfemous depiction of Muhammed is alive and well right in the middle of the muslim muslim world. (And Iran is not occupied by western forces yet, I think). Maybe joturner and Raphael are correct in stating that a recent depiction would be more relevant in an article like this (allthough an old one at least gives you the idea). I would therefore propose for you (or anybody interested) to email Haeri and ask her to provide a scan of one of the pictures she got, or maybe to point you to a iranian internetshop for the same purpose. You can find her information here. --Anjoe 19:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Isn't better using images whose copyright has already expired? DrJones 11:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sprotect

I have sprotected this page due to a rash of blankings by various sockpuppet accounts. As I'm sure the vandal will get tired and move on to something else, feel free to unprotect within 24 hours. If it is still sprotected this time tomorrow, someone please leave me a note on my talk page and I'll unprotect it. Essjay Talk • Contact 10:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2's done good, though. I'm liking that kid more and more. :) --Ashenai 14:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been a few hours; I'll go ahead and unprotect and see how it goes. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Bomb in turban image depicts Abu Laban ?

Not living in DK and not following the commentary there closely, I wonder whether the following is 'just another interpretation' or holds some credence ?

"One of the 12 cartoons has been widely reprinted. It depicts a man who has been taken to be Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, but the image has not been understood outside Denmark. The Prophet's face is that of Sheikh Abu Laban, a notorious Danish radical cleric who achieved world fame for showing the 12 cartoons (plus a few more for extra effect) to various religious and political authorities in Egypt. The cartoon could be interpreted as suggesting that Abu Laban likes to portray himself as the Prophet, rather than as a simple besmirchment of the Prophet." http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7363 Varga Mila 10:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

KW haven't mentioned anything more specific than the part of Islam, that provides the spiritual fuel for terrorists. It could look like Abu-Laban except that he has a gray beard and less bushy eyebrows. It could look like me also. (Note to self: Must shave!) MX44 12:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That was my thought too (save the part of it looking like me!). However, I was wondering whether there had been anything in the political debate that would substantiate KW's interpretation.Varga Mila 12:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
KW's interpretation? MX44 12:25, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That the image of was of Abu Laban. However, it is perhaps irrelevant, as the cartoonist's explanation (in the WP article) presumably contradicts that.Varga Mila 12:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it is safe to assume that it is intended to be a generic priest representing extremist views under cover of Islam, rather than the prophet Muhammad himself. To go even further and single out Abu-Laban is at the moment unverified. MX44 13:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My reversion of subtly POV edit

I reverted the following edit, by Raphael1: [1]. He voiced his disagreement on my talk page, so I'll put this to everyone else; what are your opinions?

Personally, I feel that Raphael1's edit shifted the focus from the intended thrust of the sentence (that the law is functionally obsolete), to subtly implying a connection between the Nazis and Jyllands-Posten. --Ashenai 16:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I was wondering why you reverted his addition... from a historical point of view I think so long as what he added was true then it was a fair addition. What I see moreso as the reason for his adding it was perhaps trying to demonstrate a 'double-standard' towards Jews by Denmark. But I don't think such a POV is valid because in 1938 the Holocaust wasn't a part of world history. Netscott 16:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to imply anything. I just want to report the historic execution of danish legislation. Raphael1 17:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how the historic execution of Danish legislation belongs in this article, though. It's long and convoluted enough as it is. --Ashenai 17:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
But it's not long enough to add another Mohammed image, isn't it? Raphael1 17:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, you've been given several arguments for why the Mohammed image is relevant to the article. On the other hand, I have not yet seen a convincing argument for why "the historic execution of Danish legislation" is relevant. --Ashenai 17:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, Ashenai... are you now changing your logic for reverting his addition? Honestly I don't really see a very distinct POV in the addition. Netscott 17:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you misunderstand. I believed that the addition was meant to link the old application of the law to the current situation, thus implying that the Nazis affected by the law last time were somehow similar to the Jyllands-Post. Raphael1 assured us that this was not the case; he merely wanted to document historic execution of Danish legislation. My reason against the addition would then be that simple documentation of Danish legislation is not germane to the article, since it has no significance to the current state of events. In other words, the addition was either weakly relevant to the article (which is what I believed), in which case it would be POV, or it was irrelevant, in which case it would be, well, irrelevant. --Ashenai 17:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes perhaps you have a point there... I'm curious to see what other editor's views are on the matter. Netscott 17:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, Raphael1, please don't remove the section that's already there. See WP:POINT. A mention of the fact that the law was last enforced in 1938 is relevant to the article, since it demonstrates that the law is functionally obsolete; not in everyday use. This makes its current invocation unusual. --Ashenai 17:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Raphael1, just out of curiosity, what is your view on the relevance of your adding that info to the article? Netscott 17:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Is the historic enforcement of Danish legislation relevant or not? If it is, then my addition is relevant as well. Raphael1 17:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In your view what is the relevance concerning the Nazi case in particular? Netscott 17:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've put forward specific arguments for why the current mention of the law last being enforced in 1938 is relevant, and why I believe your version isn't. I'm afraid I can't see that the two versions are equivalent at all. --Ashenai 17:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is obvious, that you want to censor a historic fact, because you fear it could imply "a connection between the Nazis and Jyllands-Posten" or "a double-standard towards Jews". Raphael1 18:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This question still remains: " In your view what is the relevance concerning the Nazi case in particular? " As a fellow editor, I've already shown a willingness to support your addition but please respond to this question. Netscott 18:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If you don't reject my statement, there's no point in answering your question. Raphael1 18:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

'Trolling alert. Everyone, take a deep breath please.Varga Mila 18:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Well I'm not a big fan of the term 'troll' but it does seem applicable here. Raphael1 are you familiar with the concept of Circular reasoning? That's what you've relied upon to try to justify your addition... it's too bad because you seem like an earnest person who probably has the capacity to make fruitful additions to this article, but perhaps you let emotion play too big a role in your editorial decisions? Netscott 21:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Old article

I no longer read this talk, so I apologize if this is not a relevant article, but I thought it was interesting and relates to a slightly similar event in that there was protest to images.http://www.guardian.co.uk/editor/story/0,,1006209,00.html DanielDemaret 20:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting observations this guy makes, but I'm not sure if we can apply it to this article with enough relevance to justify it. Anyone want to make a case for where this might fit in the article, if anywhere? RichardRB 20:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
"This guy" being Demaret or the female author of the article ? : ) Varga Mila 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, relax. We are all members of mankind. >;->= MX44 10:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Not in my native language (human=menneske, man=mand, woman=kvinde) nor in its germanic origin (Mensch, Mann, Frau). Maybe there's a clear cultural explanation for its form in the English. Completely off the topic though :-) Varga Mila 11:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree about the interesting observations, but I'm not excited about including it in this article, either. --Ashenai 21:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I was not really thinking about including this article directly into the main article. I was thinking of including it into this discussion, since much of this discussion revolves around differences between views among muslims, and since professor Niloofar Haeri is something of an authority in the area of different outlooks among muslims due to both her personal and academic background. I venture to guess that the professor would appreciate the pronoun "guy" since it can denote a very young female person. DanielDemaret 12:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The article makes it very clear, that pious depiction of Muhammad in ex. Iran is quite mainstream, which really settled something for me. I have quoted the paragraph under the subject What does the other Picture has to do with it? above. --Anjoe 19:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Muslim aniconism section

Someone has been working it over, removing all refs to Islamists and Salafis, adding clumsily phrased explanations of why any pictorial representation is wrong, and changing text to read that all Muslims believe that pictures are wrong. Rulers who commissioned pictures are described as "less religious". Someone with an agenda, determined to claim that all Muslims support him/her. Restored older section. Zora 09:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Your text is overrepresenting the 10% of worlds Shi'a muslims. Please read the discussion here. Raphael1 13:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Your text is overrepresenting the 0.1% of the worlds extreme Islamists MX44 13:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't write anything about the condemnation of pictorial representations of any kind. Raphael1 13:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Never? >;-> MX44 13:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This line (which is an edited version originally added by Raphael1) :
It's a widely held opinion among the majority of present-day Muslims[citations needed] that any depictions of any of the Islamic prophets are 'haraam' (forbidden), because such images could potentially be worshipped, which can lead to idolatry.
Would make more sense if it didn't talk about opinion but what present-day Muslim imams/religious authorities (who the world's majority of Muslims follow) actually say. Raphael1, can you edit that line and move away from 'opinion'? Netscott 14:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A fatwa from the Shi'a has been cited that permits depictions of Muhammad... can we cite an opposing Sunni fatwa? Netscott 14:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The german text linked by Raffael says:

as Bilderverbot ist in erster Linie dahingehend zu verstehen, dass diese Bilder/Statuen nicht angebetet werden dürfen (anstelle Gottes).

My rough translation, not corrected for grammar differences between languages: The image ban is in the first place to be understod, that these images are not worshipped. The risk of these cartoons to be worshipped by muslims is zero, as as such, discutable whether falling within the prohibition to display the prophet.--KimvdLinde 18:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's how the text starts: Im Islam dürfen weder Engel, noch Propheten noch Gott abgebildet werden. Bei den Engeln und Gott/Allah wissen wir nicht genau, wie sie aussehen, außerdem können wir Allah nicht auf eine primitive Zeichnung reduzieren, wir können Gott nicht begreifen. Propheten dürfen wegen der Gefahr der Anbetung und übertriebenen Verehrung nicht dargestellt werden, weil dies zu Irritationen im Glauben an Allah führen kann. Das wichtigste Gebot im Islam ist: Es gibt keine Gottheit außer Gott, im arabischen: "La (Keine) illaha (Gottheit) illallah (außer Gott)." Das Bilderverbot ist in erster Linie dahingehend zu verstehen, dass diese Bilder/Statuen nicht angebetet werden dürfen (anstelle Gottes).
It translates to: In Islam neither angels nor prophets nor god are allowed to be pictured. With angels and god we don't know how they look like, besides we can't reduce Allah to a primitiv image, we cannot comprehend god. It is not allowed to picture prophets, because it bears the risk of worship or overdone adoration, which can lead to irritations in the belief in god. The most important law in Islam is: There is no deity beside god, in arabic: "La (no) illaha (deity) illallah (beside god)." The image ban is in the first instance to be understood, that these images/statues are not allowed to be worshipped (instead of god).
I regard your comment whether the cartoons risk to be worshipped as too cynical for an answer. Anyway - we are talking about the Islamic aniconistic tradition and I just want to quote the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, to give the readers an insight to the views of european muslim authorities. If you wish, I can put the whole quote in. Raphael1 19:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why are only talking of the "aniconistic traditon", rather than the more important understanding that you simply do not insult the Prophet?--Irishpunktom\talk 21:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think you are right. It should be obvious, that one shouldn't insult anything, that is sacred for 1.5 billion people. But the disrespectful postings here show, that freedom of religion is in real danger. Raphael1 21:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Correction: Freedom of Fascism is in real danger. MX44 23:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope it is. Raphael1 04:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Freedom of religion is alive and well in the west, unless a particular religion cannot exist without opressing non-believers opinions. By the way, now that you are arguing on a wikipedia talk-page, you can easily go read Status of religious freedom in Iran, Status of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia or Status of religious freedom in Sudan or try some other mainly islamic country. It's nice to keep informed. --Anjoe 22:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to point your finger to other countries, I know it can be worse. But before you start to opress anyones opinion, first take a look at the Bill of Rights instead, which reads
"Article the third....Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
And now tell me: If the US congress is not allowed to prohibit the free exercice of any religion, do you think it is the right of Wikipedians to insult those who exercise their right? Raphael1 23:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, so why are you trying to suppress our freedom of speach? --KimvdLinde 23:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think, that the US supreme court "suppressed" freedom of speech in this and that case? Raphael1 23:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
They shouldn't? You are now supporting the views of The Ku Klux Klan which I find a bit odd (and I am pretty sure they are surprised as well.) MX44 00:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
"They [The Supreme Court] found cross burning to be not fighting words but a "viewpoint" in the "free market of ideas" protected by the first amendment." - I don't get your example (maybe it's just me). How was freedom of speech suppressed in this case? --Anjoe 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)



He! Would you (plural) please stop getting into this all-encompassing platitude sprouting contest? And could sombody please explain to me which part of the section's wording is of "disputed neutrality" or, alternatively, which additional wording may be employed to make it undisputed? Azate 00:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

As long as Anjoe thinks about the limits and responsibility of "freedom of speech", I suggest to quote the following part of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany:
It is not allowed to picture prophets, because it bears the risk of worship or overdone adoration, which can lead to irritations in the belief in god. The most important law in Islam is: "There is no deity beside god." [...] The image ban primarily means, that these images/statues are not allowed to be worshipped.
Please tell me, if you think this is Quote mining or you don't like the language or translation.
I think, that this would add to the "Islamic aniconistic tradition" section, because right now there is no muslim view in that section at all. Raphael1 03:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


This would be my suggestion for that section. I'm just putting it out there:

Islamic Scripture

The Qur'an, much like the Bible and Torah, condemns idolatry and considers it blasphemous.

Shi'a Muslims, generally, are open to pictorial representation of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Indeed, a fatwa exists given by Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq, stating that it is permissible to make pictures of Muhammad, if done with the highest respect. [1] Sunni Muslims, who represent 90% of the world's Muslim community[2], consider any pictorial representation of Muhammad blasphemous. Some further consider other Muslims, or indeed anyone, who depicts Muhammad as apostates. Ironically, the Sunni Ottomans, the last dynasty to claim the caliphate, were not only open to pictorial representations but even patrons of miniaturist art, some of which depicted Muhammad. These depictions usually show Muhammad's face covered with a veil or as a featureless void emanating light (depicted as flames). Pictorial surveys of Muhammad can be found on the internet.[3][4][5]

Some Salafi and Islamist interpretations of Sunni Islam are aniconistic and condemn pictorial representations of any kind[citation needed] .

According to the BBC, rather than idolatry, "It is the satirical intent of the cartoonists, and the association of the Prophet with terrorism, that is so offensive to the vast majority of Muslims."[6]

See also Depiction of Muhammad.

(Yes I realize some citations are still needed, and yes I realize it is not perfect.)--Ben 04:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the apostate story (anyone can prove that?) and I wonder about your irony. Besides I wouldn't be surprised, if all Ottomans pictures didn't show Muhammads face. At least all that are on WP don't show his face. Raphael1 04:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was working with what is in the section currently. Clearly Islamist extremists have the apostate view, so I think something should be mentioned about apostasy. And the irony part, well, yeah that's POV. I was going to change it then forgot, then I saw it there and thought 'ah just see whta the responses are.' It should probably be something like "Conversely, during the Ottoman Empire Sunni Ottomans were not only open to pictorial representations..." That stuff about the caliphate is probably unnecessary too. Regarding your source problem there, well, there's quite a few pictures of Muhammad with His face not hidden. There's a link to about 30 more from the site that the current picture in the section came from. Maybe you have a different concern? I suppose it could be better sourced in general, and provide some more info about these artists--whether they were sanctioned by the King or Imams or whatnot, whether this was a acceptance (the vast majority didn't mind) or just tolerance (people grumbled about it, but accepted it) or even if it was shunned altogether (though I don't think that's the case). And Islamic art needs to be expanded anyway. --Ben 05:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)



Here is a short statement from The Council of American-Islamic Relation


Friday, February 03, 2006
Islam Declares Depictions of Prophets a Sin
Reason: Quran forbids any hint of idolatry
Source: Associated Press


The spreading Muslim protests against newspapers that reprinted cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad stem from the deepest religious roots.
Islam forbids visual depictions of the prophet and regards violations by Muslims as highly sinful and by non-Muslims as the ultimate insult.
The prohibition is in part an application of the Quran's strict opposition to idolatry, the worship of a physical object as a god, including any hint of such devotion toward the faith's revered human prophet.
In the Quran, "shirk" (Arabic for "partnering" or "associating" anything with God) is the one unforgivable sin: "God does not forgive the joining of partners with him. … Anyone who joins partners with God is lying and committing a tremendous sin" (4:48).
The Quran does not specifically address artistic depiction of Muhammad, and through history a few Muslims have painted him. But the ban has been virtually universal in all branches of the faith from its earliest days.
The rule extends to artwork showing others regarded as prophets by Islam, including Jesus, even though Christians have often visualized their divine savior in paintings, statues and films.


CAIR is the organisation demanding the removal of Muhammad from The Supreme Courts Great Lawgivers

MX44 12:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, back in 1955 the ambassadors from Indonesia, Pakistan and Egypt have been successful in demanding a removal of a 8-foot-tall Muhammed statue on the roof of the State Appellate Division courthouse on Madison Square. If you have a NYTimes account, you can read about that here. Raphael1 15:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Apparently it saved the City a bundle in renovation costs ... MX44 17:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no time to go though all your most recent changes to this section, Raphael (nor am I probably qualified to do so), but I do find it unreasonable to make substantial changes to this section, when your exclusion and inclusion of certain points are disputed by what seems to be the majority of qualified editors. Varga Mila 15:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I tried to take the views of the other editors into account. Raphael1 15:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
By cherrypicking a single statement, you made CAIR look like a bunch of clumpsy morones. That was IMHO not nice MX44 17:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
By calling those, who regard the depictions of the prophet Mohammed either sinful or insulting, a bunch of clumpsy morones you are violating WP:NPA. Raphael1 18:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I'm beginning to doubt my previous estimation of your character Raphael1... clearly MX44 hasn't called anyone anything.. I realize that English is probably not your first language but in order to effectively contribute to an English article it would help to be able to understand it better. Netscott 18:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So does anyone think my version up there is good? I'll just go ahead and edit it in if noone has any problems with it (I will fix Raphael1's concerns, who is the only one who responded so far). I'm sure someone will find problems with it obviously, but we can't fix the problems without discussing solutions.--Ben 05:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I object to your version, which is based on an inadequate knowledge of Islam. We've started an article on Depiction of Muhammad which goes into the matter in more depth, and has involved a number of the more active editors in the Islam-related articles. You might want to check that before you change this article.
What do you object to? You forgot to say. I'm not an Islamic scholar so please tell me what the problem is, don't just berate my "inadequate knowledge of Islam." --Ben 11:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
You can't just say that all Sunnis disapprove of depictions of Muhammad. There are millions of Sunnis, many of them highly cultured people, who aren't at all upset by pictures of Muhammad. I'm not sure that they would MAKE pictures of Muhammad -- I've been looking for modern works in that vein and drawn a blank -- but they don't seem to be upset by the ones that exist. There are also Islamic institutions that own the old books with miniatures, and they aren't burning the books. It's been fun looking for pictures, however -- I've decided I like the work of Shazia Sikander, an artist from Pakistan who paints in the miniature tradition, but subversively. She's the sort of person who WOULD picture Muhamad, but I wasn't able to find any images of her work with Muhammad in them. Zora 12:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you suggest be said about Sunni beliefs instead? Is it fair to say there are fundamentalist Sunnis as well as more liberal Sunnis? Perhaps we need to differentiate more between the Sunni doctrine (which states it is blasphemous) and Sunnis generally (who may have their own views). It's like, I know people who are Catholic, and call themselves Catholic, but either don't agree with, or don't follow, the Catholic view on contraception. So saying "Catholics do not use contraception" would be wrong. Would saying "Catholics believe contraception is sinful" be wrong too? That's getting into a grey area. This is quite a difficult problem. Any ideas? In looking at Christian views on contraception they say "Catholic Church" rather than "Catholics." Is there an equivalent way of saying that for Islam?--Ben 05:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
This is getting way too indented -- I'm going to start a new section. Zora 06:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It is extremely difficult to keep track of changes to just this one section of the cartoon article, because the article morphs so often. I try to check it once a day, but I'm not always going to catch the changes.
You guys seem to me to be listening to some Muslims who are NOT representative of all Muslims. Frex, the deference to CAIR -- it's only one of many Islamic organizations in the United States, and it's the one that seems to be the most heavily influenced by Wahabi/Salafi ideas. Taking their pronouncements as representative of all Muslims is a mistake. There IS nobody who can speak for all Muslims -- or even for all Sunnis -- or even for all Salafis. All statements about Islam have to be so heavily qualified as to be almost useless! Zora 08:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the CAIR press-release better and would prefer to work from there. Afterall that is an official Muslim view MX44 08:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I would say it is a notable Muslim view (which is probably what you meant). If by "work from there" you mean adopt the general style and tone of it, I have to disagree. It seems to me to be use quite strong language and ends up being very antagonistic towards Muslims who have different interpretations of the Qu'ran (see Depiction of Muhammad). "Islam declares," more like "CAIR declares." It is like a sermon. There is some information in there, but we already have that information and the sources to go with it. --Ben 10:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

neutrality dispute

Islamists and Salafis are not the only ones who disapprove of images of living creatures, and to suggest they are is seriously flawed Original research. --Irishpunktom\talk 20:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
You mean it's about "only Salafis and islamists"? And that there may be additional sects who reject pictures altogether? Ok, this may be so (but I can't think of any spontaneously) but this hardly qualifies as a neutrality dispute. Or is the objection toward "only" that it could be read a a sort of belittlement? I don't get it. Azate 01:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Honestly, it was Irishpunktom who added the neutrality disclaimer and that is the only thing that I can find that he added to the talk page that might correspond to his adding the notice. Irishpunktom has been a seriously heavy POV pusher on this article and due to that fact I'm not surprised to see his having done that. Netscott 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I see. His objection is that the section "(is) only talking of the "aniconistic traditon", rather than the more important understanding that you simply do not insult the Prophet (Irishpunktom)". As I see it, the section deals with a)aniconism in Islam in general b)as pertains to Mohammad in particular c)as pertains to offensive cartoons of Mohammad. None of the statements strike me as POV. I think to nominate the section as "of disputed neutrality" on the reasons he gives is just frivolous. I vote for removal of the tag. Azate 01:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I vote against it. The sentence "Pictures of Muhammad are a different case — if they are offensive or satirical they are widely considered blasphemous or sacrilegious." is complete nonsense. As I said before: Derogatory depictions of any "prophet" (Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, Buddha, ...) are blasphemous by definition. This is the meaning of the word blasphemous. Raphael1 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
If we are talking about conflicting traditions, then the "Tradition" that you do not insult the Prophet must be taken into account. Insulting the prophet led to the deaths of many of the martyrs of Cordoba, it is a grave offence taken as an insult against Islam and Muslims, and is herein being ignored. The aniconism is only half the story here, when it comes to traditions. Further, as it stands it whitewashes over Muslim history, and disparges against the traditionalists. It is not only salafis and so-called islamists who disapprove of living Images. There is, for just one example, a community of over two thousand in Birmingham who would be considered Sufi who have no images in the Mosque nor images in their homes, and that extends to no television nor photographs. The way it stands, the article would allow the belief that only extremist salafis and Islamists are offended by this, which is clearly wrong. Further, some of the most violent, even extreme, salafis, the house of saud, allow living Images (though not images of the Prophet). Further, kindly don't attempt to whitewash my opinions because I happen to be Muslim.--Irishpunktom\talk 18:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You have made a valid point here. I support your effort to change the text accordingly. Raphael1 19:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I attempt to whitewash your opinions because you happen to be a Muslim? 1) Where's any whitewash here? Maybe you mixed up your verbs? 2) How would I be supposed to know you're Muslim? It ain't exactly obvious from your username. 3) As for substance: THe "pure aniconism" position is a tiny minority opinion among Muslims, 2000 additional guys in Birmingham nonwithstanding. I hope we agree so far. This is what the section said a while back. Along came sombody who said "who are they?" So sombody added the salafi and the islamists. 4) Your claim that the casual reader of the article may conlude that only Salafis and Islamists object to the JP cartoons is a bit overanxious, I think. Everybody who didn't spent the last months under a rock (or, alternatively, read the article) got as much. Azate 21:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Confused

Although Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display was created to be used as location for debate on pictures, I still see a lot of discussion on this page. Does that mean we no longer use the subpage?Holland Nomen Nescio 13:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No, for this reason, "Please divert comments having to do with any aspect of displaying the cartoon images to Talk:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy/Arguments/Image-Display. Comments about the images posted here will be moved."... any discussion relative to the cartoons should be moved though. Netscott 13:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This law has not been enforced since 1938

"This law has not been enforced since 1938." This means people in Denmark were not compelled to abide by this law during that period of time. This is unsourced and/or original research. The footnote simply says the law was not used since 1938. This simply means noone has been brought to the court on charges. Over that period of time, Danish police/judges found that noone disobeyed the law. The footnote is not a source which says that Danish police/judges allowed people to disobey the law without prosecution.

If noone has any betters idea to rewrite it, I'll change it to "used since 1938." --Ben 22:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying that noone have been charged with violating the Blasphemy Law since 1938 is factual incorrect. In 1970 a Christian group filed a complaint against Danmarks Radio for violating that law. The case went to court and DR was acquitted. There is also another case from 1973 (or 1975...?) which never went before a court: A complaint was filed against the Danish artist Jens Jørgen Thorsen for releasing the manuscript to his erotic movie which was about Jesus. [2] [3] [4] --Hekatombe 00:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not simply say that "nobody was sentenced under the law since 1938" ? Azate 00:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me --Hekatombe 00:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
It needs some grammar tweaks, but it's basically good. Now the footnote is a problem though, because their statement that it "hasn't been used since 1938" is incorrect. --Ben 00:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I'm trying to nail down what the actual 1938 case was about and its result ... but not having much luck. Someone mentioned something about Nazis and anti-semitism before... but I never saw a supporting citation. Netscott 00:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It is mentioned in the Danish Wikipedia Blasfemi The case is about a group of Nazis misrepresentation Jewish scripteures. One of the DR cases is about van Goghs "Submission" but there have been other cases as well. MX44 02:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This is the sentence I would prefer most: "Since 1938, only ____ people have been charged under the law, none of whom were found guilty." Obviously, someone would need to fill in the blank. I think it raises questions, and does not emphasize one answer over another (as it is not Wikipedia's job to answer the questions it raises.) --Ben 01:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You will need to do an exhaustive search of all court-filings since 1938 to verify the precise number.
Continue? [Yes] [No] [Cancel]
Also, DR is an organisation, not a single person. MX44 02:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the laws in Denmark that well, but I'm pretty sure an organisation can't go to jail (yes I admit I considered whether organisations could be charged too before I realized this. It's the criminal code, not a by-law or civil law or anything). And yes, research is hard work, but I doubt there are very many considering the footnote that says it hasn't been "used" since 1938. Maybe the DR case is referring to other parts of the law, like Section 142, and the footnote is correct. That would make sense, plus it would make things a lot easier since we could just go back to the original footnote.
And if anyone has an English version of those sections can you give me a link? I think there should be more perspective surrounding the law. After all, this is a "breach of the peace" law, and is not the only hate propaganda law (i.e. 142, which is the other one I found). Maybe section 142 is used a lot more often than section 140, and in the context of the article, it's misrepresentative because it suggests it is the only one and that people are never charged with it.--Ben 02:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Correction, I just err.. "read" the article at the Danish Wikipedia you provided so it seems there has been at least one charge under 140 since 1938. So we are back to square one on that, though it has what seem to be 6 examples so we might be able to get away with saying "A small number" or something.--Ben 02:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Those 6 examples on the Danish "Blasfemi"-page, are only charges none of those examples (after 1971) didn't even go to court. --Hekatombe 03:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right, DR is an organisation and they were not charged in the 1970-1971 case, it was DR's program-manager (Program-chef) that were charged in that case. Further more, acording to Politiken ("Paragraf senest brugt i 1971" 07 februar 2006), that case against DR's program-manager, was the last time that that law was used in a court. --Hekatombe 02:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Another point of view (published 2004), this time from Berlingske Tidende MX44 03:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Jyllands-Posten also mentions the case in an opinion piece Alle må tåle ytringsfriheden MX44 03:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You can forget those opinion pieces now. Here is a sober link from [Mediejura] MX44 03:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Something like "a small number has gone to court" would be OK. The number of cases dismissed before trial or not even reaching a police investigation is near impossible to verify. MX44 03:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right (I was hoping it would just pop up on the Internet somewhere and it would turn out to be easy--you never know, maybe someone did a study on it or something-- but I can't find anything.) However, sadly, we also don't know if the "small number" were found guilty or not :/, so we would have to take the part that says they were all found not guilty out too.... unless we have a source which says "The only people ever found guilty of violating 140 were so-and-so."
  • Eh? Nobody was found guilty since 1938 so ... MX44 03:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, probably, but we don't have a source for that. --Ben 03:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Danmarks Radio: [Den glemte paragraf]. They actually go one bit further and says it is the onely case resulting in a sentence. MX44 04:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah great. I have to go, but it looks like we have our source. Also, what do you think about adding something about the DR case?--Ben 05:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
How about including the DR case instead of the "not used since 1938." I think it would be just as interesting. "The law was most recently used in 1971 when DR was charged with... etc." Since we have a source (Politiken) that says that there have been no 140 cases since then.--Ben 03:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, if we assume that the footnote is right except for the DR case, then I think it's solid enough. "Since 1938, the only time the law has been used was in 1971 against Danmarks Radio's program manager, who was found not guilty of the charges." And someone can grab the footnote on that from the Danish Wikipedia. --Ben 03:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
That statement is properly incorrect. According to this "Billag 1" page 7, §140 has been used three times where there was a conviction in 2 of these case (one in 1938 and one in 1946) --Hekatombe 14:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

New Archive

The page was getting too large. I've moved the top 75% or so to Archive 16. Azate 19:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

A question

Apologies if this question is irrelevant. However..while the cartoon publication (officially) set the ball rolling, the current issue seems to centre around the refusal to give the desired type of apology. Despite growing up in various Muslim countries, I am personally at loss when people, who through education or experience, are aware of the logical legal impossibility and vacuousness of a 'state apology' in this case, yet still demand one. Would it not be relevant to include information about cultural differences in perceptions and traditions of 'state (as well as personal) apologies' ? There seems to be semantic differences in the word 'apology' (beyond the distinction between apology and excuse), and the necessity for a such to be 'heartfelt' vs. 'simply uttered', or indeed, vise versa ? Varga Mila 19:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can find good verifiable sources to back this up, go for it. And I agree with you here ... Jyllands-Posten is an independent company that really has no connection to the government. I guess this is hard to understand from an Arabic perspective, where most media companies are owned, or at least strictly censored, by the theocracy. --Cyde Weys 20:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting a semantic difference in some Arabic words for apology, Mila? DanielDemaret 20:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes Demaret, as well as perhaps a cultural tradition.
As to you Cyde, a study (published today ??) indicates that 69 % of the Danish Muslims think that that Prime minister should give an unconditional apology for the cartoons (Danish, summary : http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2006/03/12/194556.htm). So, lack of knowledge cannot be the 'whole story' (unless of course they have queried only older or recently arrived immigrants, who feel more closely connected to their land of origin than DK. Varga Mila 20:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they request an apology, because the danish courts didn't apply §140 of their law. Raphael1 00:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
In Denmark, Raphael, there is a separation between the government and the court. People who live there should be aware of that Varga Mila 07:14, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
In most free countries, ever since Montesqieu suggested it, they are separate. MyPOV: South Africa is my ideal in this respect. It has three separate capitals. Cape Town (legislative), Pretoria (Administrative) and Bloemfontein (Judicial). Other countries should follow their example. DanielDemaret 17:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


Or perhaps they think it would help the Danish-Muslim relationship. That article doesn't say anything about why they think he should apologies --Hekatombe 00:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
There is a difference in how countries are run or perhaps a lack of understanding that the press (unlike the army) is not ruled by the government. The following extract is from an interview with Saudi cleric Sheik Muhsen Al-'Awaji, aired on Ein TV on February 26, 2006
Sheik Muhsen Al-'Awaji: When all this began, the people of Denmark insisted, in a premeditated and unprecedented way, on humiliating our Prophet.
[...]
Imagine that someone is beheaded, and then he is told: "Put it back on, while the blood is still flowing." But he behaves arrogantly and stubbornly, until the head decomposes - and only then does he want to put it back on. Similarly, an apology today - if it is even offered - is unacceptable, because the whole issue has begun to rot.
Incidently, the Americans did worse things than the Danish, but they were smarter. The British were also smarter. The Americans degraded the Holy Koran, the word of God.
Interviewer: In Guantanamo.
Sheik Muhsen Al-'Awaji: Yes, but their official spokesman came out immediately, and even if he used diplomatic language, he said: "We will investigate, and we will take action."
MX44 22:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Abu Laban has said much the same thing. "It is not about the cartoons". The role of the cartoons themselves in the initial events is over-rated. "Danish officials had brought the crisis on themselves by not responding to initial protests."
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=127201&region=3 I think Abu is absolutely correct. I think the big felt insult to them was to ignore their protests, thereby ignoring them as human beings. To ignore someone is a universal insult. DanielDemaret 17:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Their feelings , nor the persons were ignored. The prime minister had a meeting with all leading danish Imams, including Laban. Also in his new-years speach the prime-minister called for religious and ethnic respect. Furthermore, the danish muslims did not use the opportunity to put the matter forward to the Press Council. How can anyone feel ignored, when choosing (or out of ignorance) not to use the means available to be taken seriously ?.


If you look at the timeline, you'll see that they first went to the ambassadors (which didn't work out so well), then the to the police. This is the inverse of normal procedure. One could say they ignored the Danish juridical system and went directly for a diplomatic crisis. MX44 02:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Desperately needs adding

[5] and the other death threats against the cartoonists needs to be linked/mentioned from this page! BlatherAndBlatherscite 23:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The threat is mentioned in the Timeline, but I agree with you that they should be mentioned in the main article, as well as the fact that the cartoonists remain in hiding. I had thought those were both mentioned, but I can't find it in the main article. RichardRB 04:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • It is mentioned in the Overview section MX44 07:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
The references to the death threats ought to be linked Varga Mila 07:54, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the old links, ehr ... died? MX44 17:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Persistent claims that ALL Muslims oppose pictures

I edited the Muslim aniconism section again -- someone had again modified it to claim that all Sunnis forbade pictures, and added several cites claiming that "Islam forbids pictures". That is just not true, and the persistent attempts to claim that "all Muslims" are aniconists is a POV attempt to portray one current of Muslim opinion as the "real Islam". It's as if someone were to assert that "Christianity forbids homosexuality". A lot of people think it does, but there are also Christians who disagree. Zora 00:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

fwiiw, the Christian simile is too weak even, since homosexuality is explicitly denounced in the NT, while the Quran is less explicit regarding images. dab (ᛏ) 12:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Please read my last version again. It says: "Sunnis, who represent 90% of the worlds muslim community[75], consider any pictorial representation of Muhammad blasphemous." So I didn't say Sunnis are aniconists (no pictures of living creatures). Why did you remove the cite of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany? Is it because you don't like what they say? Raphael1 01:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
It is NOT TRUE that all Sunnis disapprove of pictorial representation of Muahmmad. I removed the Central Council cite because it seems to me that ONE cite from a Wahabi-influenced group is enough. The section was getting too long and dense, almost unreadable. Zora 01:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't like your sentence "Some contemporary Islamist interpretations of Islam, such as Wahhabism and Salafism, are aniconistic and condemn pictorial representations of any kind." for two reasons:
  • Please keep the term "Islamist" out. I think that the article is disputed enough. There's no need for another flame word. (I did accept, that the "fatwa from Ali al-Sistani, the Shi'a marja of Iraq" doesn't need to mention "US occupied Iraq" for the same reason.) Raphael1 01:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Islamist is argumentative, Wahhabism and Salafism is enough. I'll remove it. Zora 01:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why don't you want to mention, that there are also Sufis, who seem to be strict aniconists? Raphael1 01:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no reason to believe that. Sufism was an extremely popular form of religion in both the Safavid and Ottoman empires, where much of the pictorial art was made. I've seen lots of contemporary Sufi literature illustrated with such miniatures. Zora 01:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I think, that Irishpunktom made a very important point: Any link between a groups interpretation of Islam regarding images and its violence potential (islamism, extremism, terrorism, ...) is purely hypothetical. Raphael1 01:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I read up on some Sunni views. Here is what I found:
  1. Islam Q&A published by Saudi Sunnis say: "It is not permitted to draw anything that depicts animate beings except under compulsion of necessity (pictures of criminals, pictures for identity cards)"
  2. SunniPath pubished by a Bengali living in New Jersey says: "There are countless Hadiths strictly prohibit painting pictures of animate objects, for example: "Angels (of mercy) do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or a picture." (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5609)"
  3. Even the Progressive British Muslims say: "Although it is forbidden for Muslims to pictorially display the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), it should be remembered that living in a pluralistic and secular society Muslims cannot expect those who do not follow Islam to respect it's boundaries. However, we would hope that the media, which has a responsibility to the public, would be more articulate in its criticisms of Islam and Muslims and not resort to inappropriate stereotyping"
Besides the Central Council of Muslims in Germany is not a Wahabi-influenced group. Instead it's a central association of 17 umbrella organizations, who represent most Muslims in germany (incl. turkish, arabic, albanian, bosnian and persian). -- Raphael1 16:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Traditions

I renamed the section to Islamic Traditions, and sub-divided it to two of the pertinent traditions. It has since been renamed "Islamic traditions regarding Muhammad and depictions of beings". Personally I think it's a bit long winded, But, if there is consensus to keep that title, I won't object. --Irishpunktom\talk 11:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I changed the title and I tend to agree as well that it is a bit long winded... but the generic "Islamic Traditions" is too wide a scope when we're only covering traditions involving insults to Muhammad and Muslim aniconistic traditions. Netscott 12:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • How about Relevent Islamic traditions.. or something similar?--Irishpunktom\talk 12:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That to is too generic, remember this section is under the heading "Conflicting Traditions". Netscott 12:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've just changed it to "Islamic traditions about Muhammad and aniconism" but the word 'about' doesn't seem strong enough. Netscott 12:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I changed 'about' to 'involving' that seems a better fit. Netscott 12:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


The section is getting increasingly burdened with added detail and explanation. I believe some of it should go to Depictions of Muhammad and some be returned to the Talibans. Presenting this much information here is overkill (death by chocolate?) and distracts the reader from the issue at hand. Please? MX44 11:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • The issues covered in the "Conflicting traditions" section are complex ones that as an editor I feel merit being covered in depth. What may be a better solution would be to 'break off' that section as we've done with the other sections and give it it's own sub-page. Netscott 12:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmm ... Why is it that you insist on having the Islamic aniconistic references here, and oppose having them in Depictions of Muhammad? Afterall they are consistent with a description of the general case. (And yes, I realize you have put a lot of research into them ...) MX44 12:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Because aniconistic traditions directly relate to this issue. Additionally, if the Islamic aniconistic references are going to go anywhere besides a 'Conflicting traditions' sub-page, they should go in Aniconism and not Depiction of Muhammad as aniconism is not the 'thrust' of the Depiction article. Netscott 12:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Err

Where did it all go ? Its still in the history.. but.. its not there.. I'm perplexed.--Irishpunktom\talk 14:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

re-submit the current edit, I just had to do the same with Jesus. Homestarmy 16:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Insulting Muhammad - Definition of insult to a historic person

Given that an insult is the consequence of an interplay between something happening in the world, and the perceptions of the individual to whom it happens, I suspect that an insult to Muhammad is defined somewhat differently from an insult to an actual living human being ? Since the article describes the consequences of the insulting said <extant guy ~ sorry, I meant of course non living>, would it not be relevant to clarify what exactly constitutes an insult? And how exactly does one insult a non-existent individual, rather than simply the memory of them or the feelings of those who revere him? Perhaps something is lost in translation ? but to me, "insulting Jesus" makes no sense what so ever. Varga Mila 23:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

go for it--Irishpunktom\talk 23:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


It is my understanding that members of certain faiths believe that their holy figures are "extant", regardless of whether or not they are living. Thus, to say that Muhammad cannot be "insulted" because he is no longer living is to miss the point. Such would certainly be the case with Jesus, who was resurrected and then bodily assumed into Heaven without dying (as go the stories). --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
That does make sense, Dante, although I still wouldn't know how to interpret a sentence, such as "insulting Jesus" (nor have I heard or read it). It simply makes little semantic sense to me (although I may just be ignorant). Does Islam consider Muhammad "extant" ?
Extant? Yes. Heaven has always existed, and Mohammad is obviously there. There are 4 kinds of heaven, with 2 different levels of amneties (2 each for men and Jinns). The lower level is for good people, or those that died unter age 40 or so, the higher level is for those with special accomplishments. (Some sects may see this differently). Hell isn't operational yet: It will be opened on the day of judgement. Azate 00:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The specifics of what constitutes an insult would be a welcome addition to the article Varga Mila 23:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Insult does not mean the same thing as offend. Check out Dictionary.com insult and Dictionary.com offend. It sounds like you are mistaking 'insult' for 'offend'. Do you think insult is the same as krænke? If it helps you understand, insult does not mean krænke it means fornærme (and I hope my translation is correct).

(and, while insult does not mean offend here, the idea that deities can be offended is not uncommon. Think of something like "there is a drought because we have offended the rain Gods")--Ben 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Mmmm ... or think of cursing Christ in the wrong century. You would be burned as a witch! MX44 03:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I must have mixed up the definitions of offend and insult. Thanks for the links, Ben. Varga Mila 06:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually there can't be too much difference between "insult" and "offense", since dictionary.com says, that one meaning of "insult" is "to give offense" and the words "offend", "insult", "affront" and "outrage" are listed as synonyms. Raphael1 22:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

taliban destroyed Buddhas of Bamiyan

Please leave out that reference. It is contrary to Buddhist believes to fuel hatred with a reference to some old stones even if they depicted Buddha and have been destroyed by Muslims. Raphael1 23:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Raphael1, do not remove a very key bit of info that directly relates to one of the hadiths mentioned in that section. Irishpunktom is the one who added the reference to Taliban... and the fact that they destroyed statues is very pertinent to the brand of Muslim aniconism they subscribe to. I'm reverting the ref. now. Netscott 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I understood that the destruction of the stone Buddhas was in emulation of the Prophets destruction of the idiols in Mecca, rather than just aniconism... How long do you want to make this?--Irishpunktom\talk 23:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Well long enough to include a prime example of aniconism as regards (Sahih Muslim, Book 24 Verse 5250). You're the one who decided to include the Taliban... I'm just taking your inclusion to it's natural conclusion. What's the problem?? Netscott 23:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


I would have thought the Talibans like to keep that reference, no? MX44 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I suppose the fact that the Taliban destroyed an extremely valuable piece of world heritage might be a bit of an embarassment for some and would incline such folks to not want to include such a citation. I actually cried when I heard the news that they actually did the act. No kidding. Netscott 23:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I was twice in Kabul, thought I would go up to Banyan next time. Then started the war. So much for "next time." MX44 00:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Netscott, why are you lying? MX44, don't worry, you can see the big Buddha here. Raphael1 00:25, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Raphael1, you've previously demonstrated a penchant for making false accusations... but now you are flat out defaming me and I've half a mind to actually report you to have you blocked and/or banned from Wikipedia... I suggest you read carefully what I wrote previously and respond accordingly. Netscott 00:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Dear Raphael1. We know you take all of this to heart very much, and in fact I find your sympathy for Muslim causes quite touching. Yet, that may be not the ideal mindset to contribute to an encylopedia, and in fact, if I'd know you personally, I'd be worried about your wellbeing. Maybe you should just take a step back and relax. Neither Netscott nor MX44 or myself mean you ill personally, and this article will do well without you, too, I'm sure: There are no Nazis lurking here to pounce onto the world when you are not looking. I'm hesitant to say this, for the risk of being misunderstood, but it may be in your own best interest to focus on something else for a little while and, maybe, ask yourself with the help of sombody qualified if you aren't running into serious problems with yourself. Again, no offence indended. Azate 00:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Netscott you know perfectly well, that you tried to foist the addition of the Buddha story to Irishpunktom. (Btw. I never complained about the Taliban reference.) Raphael1 01:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Nah ... Irishpunktom invited the Talibans (no television) -> Netscott finishes the job with fireworks. Looks good to me. MX44 01:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It looks like a fact to me, (I think I read something like this in a news article once) what's the big deal? It happened because of this controversy as far as I know and when people start attacking Buudhists because of a bunch of cartoons, you know something is up. Homestarmy 01:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Eh? No they did not attack the buddha because of the cartoons ...It was the television MX44 01:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


  • Raphael1 you'd better respond to Azate's message to you on his talk page so that he'll know you've responded.. the only reason I haven't already tried to have you banned is because he wrote me.... Netscott 01:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you both. Raphael1 02:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
  • NO, you don't seem to understand, I am about to request your being banned.... unless you take proper steps. Netscott 02:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you want me to do after you ignored my initial plea? It seems, that you wanted me to misunderstand you and apparently I did. Raphael1 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Who can speak for all Muslims? all Sunni Muslims?

Benapgar wants to know what is the Sunni doctrine, as opposed to Sunni practice, and gives as an example Roman Catholic doctrine (often strict) and Roman Catholic practice (laity and parish priests may be much less strict). You can't really draw such a distinction for Sunni Islam because it isn't organized! Nobody speaks for all Sunnis, and there are many different schools of thought within Sunni Islam. Indeed, some Sunnis (Wahhabis, Islamists, Takfiris, etc.) have considered OTHER Sunnis heretics and thought it permissible to kill them. In some Muslim-majority countries, like Egypt, the government seized all the mosque properties (the foundations, the waqfs) and turned all the imams into government employees. They are supposed to preach the government line. Most of the Muslim autocracies have arrangements something like this, which is part of what is fueling the Islamist revolt. But even in the autocracies, it's up to the individual believer which mosque to attend, which imam or shaykh to follow, and what beliefs to hold. There are four legal schools, or maddhabs, and many currents of belief (Sufi, Salafi, modernist, etc.) and many strands within each current.

In the US, there are a number of national Muslim councils, and any local mosque has to decide which association to join. Again, some are Sufi, some are Salafist, etc.

Nobody can speak for all of Sunni Islam. Nobody. When spokesmen say "Islam says", what they mean is "This is what I believe and if you're a TRUE Muslim, you'll follow me". Zora 06:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please quote a Sunni authority, who says that the depiction of Muhammed is allowed. Raphael1 02:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Abu-Laban have stated that he have read Kåre Blutgeins book. He wouldn't recommend it but isn't condemning it either
Read this as well: http://www.khader.dk/flx/in_english/commentary_i_feel_insulted/
MX44 07:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We assume that there WERE authorities who allowed depictions, or such depictions would not exist, and would not have been sponsored by rulers who posed as defenders of the faith. As to what various authorities say now -- I wouldn't know. I don't how I should know, given that there are so many Sunni groups, and beyond that, so many Muslims who feel that they have the right to think for themselves. The latter Muslims, at least, have been quoted widely as saying that depictions don't offend them. Zora 08:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
We don't want an encyclopedia built on assumptions. Given there are so many Sunni groups, it must be rather easy to find a Sunni authority, that doesn't forbid the depiction of Mohammed. It has been rather easy for me to find that 3 sources that assert the opposite. Khader Naser doesn't count since he is a politician rather than a religious authority. Raphael1 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Naser counts because he is a Muslim and you persistently insist on insulting him. MX44 16:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't insult Naser, because democratic freedoms for the people in Saudi Arabia are as important to me as they are to him. Raphael1 16:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
And therefore we should not critisize chase teh wabbit? MX44 16:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Article is stupidly long

This article is way, way too long. I definitely think editors have been using the article space as a forum of debate, with arguments and counter-arguments. As a result, we have an article that is ostensibly ABOUT THE MOHAMMED CARTOON CONTROVERSY, talking about all sorts of vaguely-related crap that nobody will care about in six months' time.

I'm certainly not going to try to prune the article myself; can other editors weigh in, please? Taking a fresh look at the article, it should be obvious that it is absurdly top-heavy. --Ashenai 15:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

hear hear. Sometimes, Wikipedia is a discussion forum. dab (ᛏ) 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree, but pruning appears to result in edits with even more explanations MX44 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/y/l/Talk%7EJyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy_Archive_17_30b1.html"