Posted on 02/11/2006 6:42:57 AM PST by XR7
The cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that have spurred worldwide protests, boycotts, burning of embassies and even deaths are being republished in The Stranger, a Seattle alternative newspaper.
The Stranger's editor, Dan Savage, said the decision to do so was so readers could make up their own minds about the legitimacy of the depictions, saying, "One man's blasphemy doesn't override other people's free-speech rights, their freedom to publish, freedom of thought."
But some local Muslims who consider the cartoons hurtful and offensive were frustrated.
Jamal Rahman, a Muslim and minister with Interfaith Community Church in Ballard, said republishing the cartoons is an "unnecessary provocation."
The cartoons were first published in September in Denmark's Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which challenged cartoonists to draw Muhammad as they saw him. The challenge was issued, the editor has said, because he thought artists were self-censoring because of fear of Islamic radicals.
Some of the cartoons seem relatively benign by U.S. standards. But most Muslims consider any depiction of the prophet to be prohibited because of concerns over idolatry and showing disrespect.
The Quran does not specifically prohibit depictions of Muhammad but does warn against idolatry. And the hadith — a collection of Muhammad's sayings and doings — discourages depictions of any living creature, saying it presumes that man has the same creative power as God.
And some of the other cartoons — especially one of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban and another in which the prophet is depicted wielding a dagger in front of two women in burqas — are clearly defamatory, some local Muslims say.
"I'm appalled by the cartoons," said Jawad Khaki, a software-company executive. "Not just as a Muslim but as a human being because I normally wouldn't do something to offend a large portion of the population in any way."
"To me, as a Muslim, Muhammad is someone I hold very dear," said Heather Siddiqui, a Mountlake Terrace High School student. "For them to take a person I hold as dear to me as that, and completely show him as a horrible, violent person, is just beyond words."
At the same time, many local Muslims said they find horrifying the violent demonstrations, in which seven people have died in the past two days.
"If it's the image of Islam they're trying to protect, they're doing exactly the opposite," said Jeff Siddiqui, Heather's father and a real-estate agent. "Some morons in the Middle East decide they want to burn some buildings — talk about walking into the arms of the enemies."
Still, they found it dismaying that The Stranger would be publishing four of the cartoons in this week's edition and on its Web site.
The cartoons accompany an article by Bruce Bawer, author of the books "While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam Is Destroying the West From Within" and "Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity."
"The article we're running is about how stupid it is to throw violent temper tantrums against freedom of speech," Stranger news editor Josh Feit said. "We thought it would've been stupid for us to do an article condemning those temper tantrums and not run the pictures themselves."
The Seattle Times has not published the caricatures. Managing Editor David Boardman said the newspaper's policy is to avoid publishing material that is hurtful or offensive to certain groups, except when that material is essential to readers' understanding. In this case, Boardman said, Times editors concluded that written descriptions of the cartoons were sufficient.
The same editors, however, decided to provide a link to a reproduction of the original Jyllands-Posten page on the seattletimes.com Web site, as part of a special online section on the controversy.
"This way, we've made it possible for our readers to seek out the cartoons if they want to, in their original context, but they won't be forced to encounter them," Boardman said.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer Managing Editor David McCumber said it also would not be publishing the cartoons, although there is a link to them on its Web site.
"We feel that just because we have the right to publish them does not mean we have the obligation to publish something that is patently offensive to a large group of people, especially in today's world when those images are so widely available on the Internet for people to see."
I don't think this is gutsy at all. This is dumb. The Europeans need to feel the heat of radical Islam if they are ever going to wake up. We should let them bear the full brunt of this. Hopefully it will be an epiphany to them and they'll finally join us wholeheartedly in the war against radical Islam.
It may be dumb but it seems to indicate the "alternative" world is uncomfortable with the islamo toon rage.
In the U.S., some of us haven't woken up. Pres. Bush refers to Islam as a religion of peace when it's not.
At least he can remain silent on that.
How does the ST editor decide which groups are the "certain groups" that will be offended?
This sounds a lot like the schoolyard bully who will only pick on schoolyard kids who won't fight back.
Find it intresting how certain Freepers have to twist every single thing into an excuse to whine about Bush. Here is a clue. Considering Bush is responsible for the death of more Muzzie terrorists then YOU will ever be. Perhaps YOU should remain silent and let him get on with the job.
IMO As we are still in Iraq, which is a country dominated by muslims, it is best to encourange peaceful interpretations of the religion rather than branding it as evil fullstop. It certainly can be a religion of peace depending on how it is interpreted.
We have Iraqi muslims in the government there, not to mention all the Iraqi Kurds who are prodominatly muslim too. If we can accept that most Iraqis want peace and freedom then we must realise that Islam is not necessarily violent. These people won't be interpreting it that way. Half the battle against terrorism will occur within islam itself - basically the peaceful interpretations have to win out over the terrorist interpretations. Bush clearly realisies this and is trying to isolate the extremist position from the peaceful one - in a bid to explain that such a distinction does really exist. If he branded Islam as an evil relgion fullstop then he would only help the extremists - and what kind of message would that be sending to the Iraqis?
This is a battle of ideas, too. If he is not going to tell the truth about Islam, at least he can remain silent on the issue. It is not accurate to call Islam a religion of peace or Condeleeza Rice calling it a religion of peace and love. Perhaps the truth doesn't matter to some in dealing with our enemies, but I think it does.
Maybe if the Islamics were criticized, they would get more defensive and ameliorate the many horrible aspects of their creed; e.g., Jews and Christians as dhimmis; the Dar al Islam (house of Islam) vs the Dar al Harb (house of war) -- everyone else; etc.
Too bad my subscription to the Stranger has expired.
What really ticked me off was this:
Seattle Post-Intelligencer Managing Editor David McCumber said it also would not be publishing the cartoons, although there is a link to them on its Web site.
"We feel that just because we have the right to publish them does not mean we have the obligation to publish something that is patently offensive to a large group of people, especially in today's world when those images are so widely available on the Internet for people to see."[my emphasis]
TRANSLATION: We're scared spitless that these loons will kill us so we will cloak ourselves in righteousness and abandon our responsibilities as newspapermen. If I have to go to a website to see the pictures, why in Hell should I buy their print edition for other info? And these bozos wonder why they are dying?
Oops!
The Times' managing editor (couldn't find P-Is): dboardman@seattletimes.com
The Stranger's editor: editor@thestranger.com
"Bush clearly realisies this and is trying to isolate the extremist position from the peaceful one - in a bid to explain that such a distinction does really exist. "
Doesn't it seem bizzare that it took at least 4 months to incite the violence we are seeing now, over disrespect for a religion? I think the "wolves" that are inciting the "sheep" are looking for other "rewards" than "respect". Still looking for the "sheepdogs"...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.