The Mohammed Dance
February 8, 2006 10:33 PM   Subscribe

The Mohammed Dance! We all remember the Hampster Dance (more) and the Jesus Dance. Now, with the ongoing cartoon controversy, comes the Mohammed Dance.
posted by dagny (99 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
omg fatwa.
posted by exlotuseater at 10:35 PM on February 8, 2006


Enough, ok. Can't we let it go?
posted by arcticwoman at 10:38 PM on February 8, 2006


Let what go--the cartoon controversy, or that damned infernal dancing?
posted by slogger at 10:48 PM on February 8, 2006


It's almost like people want to provoke a Holy War.
posted by nightchrome at 10:55 PM on February 8, 2006


I think that site just burned down another embassy.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 11:05 PM on February 8, 2006


This is stupid.
posted by AwkwardPause at 11:05 PM on February 8, 2006


I think that site just burned down another embassy.
posted by Mijo Bijo at 2:05 AM EST on February 9 [!]


I was thinking the same thing.
posted by caddis at 11:08 PM on February 8, 2006


There's an embassy for the net? Christ on a bike!
posted by onegreeneye at 11:13 PM on February 8, 2006


I thought it was funny. good find.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 11:18 PM on February 8, 2006


Mijo Bijo wrote: I think that site just burned down another embassy.

I think that chain of causality is missing an important step.
posted by kid ichorous at 11:19 PM on February 8, 2006


That's just retarded. How dare the sacred dancing hamsters be so callously blasphemed. Shame on you.
posted by Skygazer at 11:25 PM on February 8, 2006


Is it my slow connection? What's the music?
posted by onegreeneye at 11:35 PM on February 8, 2006


Good thing nobody's made a dancing Flying Spaghetti Monster page, 'cause if they had, I'd have to call for a firebomb-and-marinara-sauce-strike on the ENTIRE INTERNETS.
posted by hattifattener at 11:36 PM on February 8, 2006


If ya'll don't mind, I'll now expose my own incredibly extensive ignorance. Okay? Cool.

If Muslims don't create (or tolerate) visual depictions of Mohammed, how are visual depictions of Mohammed now recognized as such? Is it really as simple as the whole, "Hello, I am the prophet Mohammed" meme that's floating around?

Also, it's my impression that depictions of living things in general are unkosher. Are depictions of Mohammed less kosher, and thus Disney has not been fatwaed?

Sorry about the Jewish terminology, but that's what vaulted into my head, and thus, I trust it.
posted by brundlefly at 11:50 PM on February 8, 2006


Technically it would be "less halal"... Ultimately, I am confused as to why some Muslims (who seem to be somewhat on the far end already) seem to be in an uproar over this being "depiction of Mohammed" vs the overall ban on "idolatry" (called "shirk" in arabic - associating something with al-Lah that is not him)...

I thought it was funny, even though I'm mostly annoyed by such things, but that hampster dance song is so damn catchy, it MUST be from Shaitan!!! Thus in this case, it's not the cartoon drawings of Mohammed, but the music that deems it kufr, and thus fatwas for beheadings should be issued. This of course, also is based on the fact that there is some background musical instrumentation which some schools of fiqh (jurisprudence) deem as haram (forbidden)
posted by symbioid at 12:00 AM on February 9, 2006


They kinda balled it up on the execution, huh? Maybe they should start working on a Mohammed Dance 2.0.
posted by furiousthought at 12:30 AM on February 9, 2006


1) funny- I would really have forgotten the hamster dance without this

2) I'm fascinated by people's need to forcibly represent Mohammed in ways that will be offensive to Muslims now. I really feel that the Media and the protestors are talking past one another. The Media is all bound up in asserting their right to freely print what they want. I don't really think that the protestors really take issue with freedom of the press as a principle. They're just offended by the content of the cartoon. Carrying it to ridiculous extremes to emphasize our "freedom" eventually just underlines "bad taste" on a huge scale.

Come on, yo. Don't bait the Muslims just to prove how free you are. For fuck's sake have a little taste.
posted by scarabic at 12:50 AM on February 9, 2006


that hampster dance song is so damn catchy, it MUST be from Shaitan!!!

:) someone here actually got that
posted by scarabic at 12:51 AM on February 9, 2006


I think that chain of causality is missing an important step.

1. Create Mohammed Dance website.
2. ???
3. Embassy burns to Ground
4. Prophet!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:21 AM on February 9, 2006


I'm fascinated by people's need to forcibly represent Mohammed in ways that will be offensive to Muslims now . . . Don't bait the Muslims just to prove how free you are. For fuck's sake have a little taste.

Fuck, this bullshit. Religion, all religion, needs to be mocked in a free society, for the embarrassment it is. Religion deserves freedom, but it doesn't deserve "respect", quite the opposite. And the more backwards and insane the adherents of any religion are, the more they demand that unbelievers have to respect their tiresome idiot beliefs, the more those beliefs deserve to be mocked. This just isn't for Muslims, the more Jerry Falwell, George Bush, etc. demand we all pay lip service to their ugly superstitions, the more necessary it becomes that South Park and Kevin Smith and Andres Serrano and Marilyn Manson and Richard Dawkins, etc, etc, step up their campaigns to mock and denigrate these outdated beliefs.

It's really too bad that the US and Europe are taking the opposite lesson they should from this whole ordeal. If I had a place in Hollywood I would make a 9 hour Mohammedpalooza telethon just to tweak the savages. Learn to live with it guys, because as an atheist I hate and despise your beliefs and if you want to share space with me, know that I'm going to use every ounce of my freedom to express that opinion (without diminishing your own freedoms). Maybe then your children, who you thought you could brainwash, will be too embarrassed to face me and others like me when they leave your protective hold. Too ashamed to look us in the face and try to justify their ghosts and fairies with logic and science. So embarrassed that they'll drop those beliefs all together.

And that's what they really fear. Logic doesn't demand totalitarianism and violence to support itself. Only superstitions demand this handicap, and the medieval assholes tacitly know this.
posted by dgaicun at 1:35 AM on February 9, 2006


I don't really think that the protestors really take issue with freedom of the press as a principle.

Right.

That's why they were carrying those signs reading things like 'Freedom go to hell' and 'Behead those who insult Islam'.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:45 AM on February 9, 2006


Case in point:
The study, based on a 14 years of data from 10,500 households, found that parents played a powerful role in the transmission of religious belief. But even if both parents held strong beliefs, there was only a 50-50 chance that their children would carry on believing.

In houses where only one parent had strong feelings about faith, children were much less likely to believe. On the other hand, two non-religious parents had no trouble passing on their lack of faith.
Welcome to the West. Enjoy the freedom. Sorry that it allows all that troublesome dissent to spoil the illusionary "specialness" of your arbitrary and nonsensical "beliefs".
posted by dgaicun at 1:47 AM on February 9, 2006


PeterMcDermott, I bow to you.

Yeah, what dgaicun said.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:50 AM on February 9, 2006


dgaicun:
There is a huge gap between mocking (eg Jesus in South Park or the cartoon with Mohammed saying to the suicide bombers 'Stop Stop we have run out of virgins'), and being deliberatly offensive.
Some of the cartoons being circulated in the middle-east -- which were attributed to, but NOT actually published by the Danish paper -- portayed mohammed as a pig, and muslims getting soddomised by a dog while praying: 'why do mulisms kneel to pray' I believe was the caption).

The cartoon from the danish paper prortaying mohammed as the stereotypical black-bearded big nosed Arab with a turban/bomb with the name of God on it was simply offensive (and I am a non-arab non-muslim!).

There are a lot of people in the world (both the neocon/PNAC-types -- who the editor of the danish paper has been linked to -- and the extremist Mullahs) who actually want a clash-of-civilisations situation, because war and fear gives them more power and control. Giving these people more excuses to create their fear helps noone.
posted by nielm at 2:04 AM on February 9, 2006


how lame
posted by borq at 2:12 AM on February 9, 2006


Anyone that can use this post as the springboard for a serious conversation needs to raise the bar a bit....

what borq said.. lame, overdone, uninteresting, and a waste of time for all involved...

now i'm gonna get some coffee....

/note to self: never post before coffee..
posted by HuronBob at 2:25 AM on February 9, 2006


The cartoon from the danish paper prortaying mohammed as the stereotypical black-bearded big nosed Arab with a turban/bomb with the name of God on it was simply offensive

This cartoon was a caracature of a particular notorious Danish imam, a fact which has not been widely publicized.
posted by dydecker at 2:40 AM on February 9, 2006


pretty sure t-shirts like this
aren't going to help any.
posted by jaksoul at 4:37 AM on February 9, 2006


This cartoon was a caracature of a particular notorious Danish imam, a fact which has not been widely publicized.

Interesting! Who, exactly? Better yet, can we have a side by side comparison?
posted by IndigoJones at 4:38 AM on February 9, 2006


what nielm said
posted by moonbird at 4:41 AM on February 9, 2006


sadly nielm and moonbird completely miss the point.

Cartoons don't break the law, people do.

Please understand that what we are seeing here is, on the one hand, the public criticism of religion which is essential to a free society, and on the other hand, the lawless violence essential to a Fascist state.

This is not about anyone being offended, or anyone's religion being insulted. This is about the rule of law. The West is being shown, clear as day, that there is no way to negotiate with individuals, societies, cultures or countries who are willing to use violence to silence dissent.

And don't get me started on Iraq. Details aside, violence to stop violence is perfectly acceptable.
posted by ewkpates at 5:12 AM on February 9, 2006


I prefer to get my sacrilegious hamsters from the Satanic Hamster Dance page.
posted by Otis at 5:15 AM on February 9, 2006


Come on, yo. Don't bait the Muslims just to prove how free you are. For fuck's sake have a little taste.

Taste? Is that where we're setting the bar now for ALL of Metafilter, from now on?
posted by Witty at 5:52 AM on February 9, 2006


If the site's going for totally offensive, shouldn't there be some bacon or spicy pork rinds involved?
posted by unreason at 6:01 AM on February 9, 2006


The cartoon from the danish paper prortaying mohammed as the stereotypical black-bearded big nosed Arab with a turban/bomb with the name of God on it was simply offensive (and I am a non-arab non-muslim!).

I thought the image was brilliant. It's provocative, apt, timely, stylish and concise. A+. I also didn't assume it was Mo. And I don't know why anyone would.

Now, all this "free speech is not a license to offend" bullshit is seriously offensive.
posted by effwerd at 6:14 AM on February 9, 2006


It's almost like people want to provoke a Holy War.
posted by nightchrome at 1:55 AM EST on February 9 [!]


Well, we had a referendum on that matter in 2004, and we chose not to avoid one, thank you very much.

I just like that it took this ludicrous (and choppy?) page to show me my first glance at the cartoon. talk about raising expectations...

I was really hoping that Bush uncharacteristically stepped up to the plate on this issue. He should have avoided the stiff 'condemn all violence' soundbites, and instead just made an 'off-the-cuff' joke about having to accept freedom of speech. (something like he wasn't always happy with how he's represented in the cartoons, either). That would've been Reagan's play.
posted by Busithoth at 6:17 AM on February 9, 2006


I love dgaicun. Dgaicun mind-melded with me.
posted by MaxVonCretin at 6:39 AM on February 9, 2006


> > that hampster dance song is so damn catchy, it MUST be from Shaitan!!!
>
> :) someone here actually got that

I think lots of us did, we just chose to ignore it. Mixing of worldviews and all.
posted by spincycle at 6:46 AM on February 9, 2006


I just want to state for the record that a Mohammed Dance site was the FIRST thing I thought of when this thing first hit the Internet. I'm surprised it took that long for someone to make it.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:50 AM on February 9, 2006


I don't really think that the protestors really take issue with freedom of the press as a principle.

Right, they just object when it's actually applied. Which makes the principle, you know, meaningless.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 6:57 AM on February 9, 2006


Some of the cartoons being circulated in the middle-east -- which were attributed to, but NOT actually published by the Danish paper -- portayed mohammed as a pig,

that one's a fake

the imams got that picture from the above ap story about a french pig-squealing contest, did a crappy copy of it and then put it in their flyer, claiming it was a depiction of mohammed
posted by pyramid termite at 7:03 AM on February 9, 2006


Wait, Imams would act unethically?
I keep coming back to the thought that jeez, guys, the way to dispell stereotypes about Arab Muslims being ignorant and violent is not to, you know, kill people over cartoons.
This really is stupid shit, and my Western ass sides totally with the Danish paper even while finding these somewhat offensive.
Watching the coverage, I was kinda disappointed to see Bill Clinton doing a tolerance dance and condemning the cartoons, but not surprised.
posted by klangklangston at 7:13 AM on February 9, 2006


Crap. I was hoping for something a little bit dancier.
posted by suckerpunch at 7:17 AM on February 9, 2006


I thought the image was brilliant. It's provocative, apt, timely, stylish and concise.

I didn't think that the Mohammed/Turban/Bomb cartoon was any of those things. I thought it was trite and obvious (though I would completely defend it's publication -- and subsequent republication.)

The cartoon of the two burka-wearing women straddling a Mohammed whose eyes had been blacked out to ensure anonymity, on the other hand, I thought was genuinely inspired and apposite to the issue that the cartoonists were being asked to address.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:22 AM on February 9, 2006


Yeah - all this "Free speech is is not a license to offend" bullshit is seriously offensive.

When Effwerd was sucking my dick last night, he kept licking his finger and putting it in his ass. He'd grunt, push it in there, and pull it out with a huge "POP!!" made me laugh like hell - almost couldn't come, but he whined like a dog and begged me.

I asked him if it was strange to have a micropenis, but he said it was OK, except when you have to pee really bad and have to hunt for thedamn thing blidfolded because your gut blocks the view. He then confided he sometimes just tinkles all over himself because he likes the bubbly warm feeling flowing down his things. Gives him a woody.

I love free speech.
posted by Perigee at 7:24 AM on February 9, 2006


I think its a rather obvious conclusion, the more the muslim population makes a ruckhus over the issue, the more folks in the Western societies are going to thumb their noses at 'em.

I'm expecting better and more elaborate jokes to emerge at the Prophet's expense.
posted by Atreides at 7:30 AM on February 9, 2006


I'm expecting better and more elaborate jokes to emerge at the Prophet's expense.
posted by Atreides at 10:30 AM EST on February 9 [!]


I think I see a premise for a sequel to "The Aristocrats"...
posted by unreason at 7:47 AM on February 9, 2006


Ok then try this series of Cartoons about the Mohammed cartoons (cagle.com / MSBNC). There's some good stuff there.

My current favourite, especially that fourth panel, "Apparently the CIA used great restraint at Abu Ghraib by not hiring PARTY CARICATURISTS".

If you think about it, that cartoons spurred bigger protests and political crisis with Arab countries than the Abu Ghraib scandal or Guantanamo...

Plus, Martin Rawson and Steve Bell from the Guardian.
posted by funambulist at 7:55 AM on February 9, 2006


It seems that the EU is giving in
posted by unreason at 7:55 AM on February 9, 2006


I also didn't assume it was Mo. And I don't know why anyone would.
Because it was labelled as being Mohammed. And because the whole set of cartoons portaying the prophet was commisionned and printed by the paper in order make a point about how people are taking too much care about offending muslim sensibilites.

They do have a point.
This was not the way to make it.

Salon article with link to original cartoons...
Flemming Rose, the paper's culture editor, decided last summer that he was fed up with what he described as the spreading "self-censorship" on matters related to Islam, so he solicited cartoonists for drawings of "how they saw the Prophet." On Sept. 30, 12 cartoons were published under the headline "Mohammed's Face."
...
This all would have been very well if the paper had a long tradition of standing up for fearless artistic expression. But it so happens that three years ago, Jyllands-Posten refused to publish cartoons portraying Jesus, on the grounds that they would offend readers.
ewkpates: It's not always back and white.
There are a lot of moderate mulsims who while respecting the right to free speech, wish to make a civil protest about what they consider to be offensive content some of these cartoons.
There are also a lot of moderate westeners who believe that some of these cartoons do go to far, and they should not have been published.

The problem now is that the moderate majority on are being drowned out by the screams of 'kill the infidels' and 'free speech means I can say ANYTHING no matter who it pisses off' from extremists on both sides.

Cartoons don't break the law, people do.
True. However people draw cartoons... and there is a long history of art being used to incite racial hatred.


Anyway. I now look forward to the FPP of the hamster dance with Goatse and TubGirl...
posted by nielm at 8:06 AM on February 9, 2006


Correction, current favourite is this one
posted by funambulist at 8:06 AM on February 9, 2006


Correction, current favourite is this one
posted by funambulist at 11:06 AM EST on February 9 [!]


Heh. So do agnostics get angry when you draw a question mark?
posted by unreason at 8:18 AM on February 9, 2006


There is a huge HUGE difference between saying something that some might find offensive and inciting hate.

I think it would be a difficult case to make that any criticism of Muslims at this point could be considered hate speech. Perhaps you think this is extreme, nielm. Perhaps you aren't up on current events - what muslims are doing to their own women and children is as bad as what they are doing to the rest of the world.

Perhaps you don't like it when I lump all Muslims together. Well, I would appreciate it if cartoons weren't more of a cause for protest then, well, are you up on current events?

Boondocks sums up the sentiment.
posted by ewkpates at 8:47 AM on February 9, 2006


dgaicun, kudos. Religion deserves to be mocked. Hopefully it is a step towards eradication. Now where is my Fuck-the-skull-of-baby-Mohammed t-shirt?
posted by umberto at 8:54 AM on February 9, 2006


free speech means I can say ANYTHING no matter who it pisses off

Well, provided what you say remains within the law, then that's precisely what it does mean.

It's easy to defend speech that nobody disagrees with. It's defending the right to the stuff that the majority finds obnoxious or obscene that ensures that speech actually *is* free.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:05 AM on February 9, 2006


Finally, a jihad I can get behind. Death to _______dance!
posted by I Love Tacos at 9:18 AM on February 9, 2006


unreason: nah! you forgot atheists have a Prophet too...

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

The Holy Professor (Peace Be Upon Him), as mocked by some Danish reactionary provocateurs.

As a devoted agnostic, I am extremely offended. I will now go and kill the live ferments in my Danish yoghurt and build an embassy with Lego™ blocks so I can bomb it with a firecracker.

And if you believe in aliens, don't look at this.
posted by funambulist at 9:24 AM on February 9, 2006


"I am a Muslim who fully supports Jyllands-Posten's right to publish the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed, as I defend the rights of Muslims to be offended. But I find the daily human rights violations by our dictators to be more offensive to the memory of the prophet's life than a few cartoons ever could be." [in IHT today].
posted by AwkwardPause at 9:24 AM on February 9, 2006


"What if it's not really a picture of Mohammed," says me, "just a picture of a picture of Mohammed?"
"Metablasphemy!" says Giblets. "It is sacrilegious and pretentious!"
posted by furiousthought at 9:34 AM on February 9, 2006



posted by fandango_matt at 10:04 AM on February 9, 2006


posted by umberto Now where is my fuck-the-skull-of-baby-Mohammed t-shirt?

I'll try to have something for you by the end of the week.
posted by fandango_matt at 10:08 AM on February 9, 2006


Let me be the first to welcome our new Islamo-Fascist-Mob-Rule-By-Riot overlords!

This crisis was not caused or triggered by the Danish paper running the cartoons. It was deliberately fomented by a cadre of Islamist demagogues who set out, using lies and concocted cartoons, to foment riots among the masses, whose ignorance and screwed-up priorities have been carefully cultivated by Islamist leaders for generations.

It is not possible to make marks on a paper that justify the actions taken by these ignorant, violent mobs. To hell with the embassy burners, to hell with the calls for violent reprisal, to hell with the Imams who lied to start this whole mess, and to hell with ANYONE who fails to condemn that whole conspiracy in the harshest possible terms.
posted by BigLankyBastard at 10:18 AM on February 9, 2006


Why have I not yet seen a picture of Mohammed balancing a pancake on his head?

These internets suck.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:23 AM on February 9, 2006


Some of the cartoons being circulated in the middle-east -- which were attributed to, but NOT actually published by the Danish paper -- portayed mohammed as a pig, and muslims getting soddomised by a dog while praying: 'why do mulisms kneel to pray' I believe was the caption).

The dog one is fake too. And I second brundlefly's question… how do they even know the guy in the bomb-turban is supposed to be Mohammed, if there is no standard representation of Mohammed? Does it say "Mohammed" in Arabic or something? A legitimate question; particularly since they seem to think that a stock photograph of a French pig-squealer is a depiction of Mohammed.
posted by designbot at 10:25 AM on February 9, 2006


BigLankyBastard - Word!
posted by Witty at 10:37 AM on February 9, 2006


The eradication of religion isn't the key. The eradication of dogma, fundamentalism, and the human desire to hold power over others and be pricks about is what's actually needed.
posted by illiad at 10:43 AM on February 9, 2006


When Effwerd was sucking my dick last night, he kept licking his finger and putting it in his ass. He'd grunt, push it in there, and pull it out with a huge "POP!!" made me laugh like hell - almost couldn't come, but he whined like a dog and begged me.

I asked him if it was strange to have a micropenis, but he said it was OK, except when you have to pee really bad and have to hunt for thedamn thing blidfolded because your gut blocks the view. He then confided he sometimes just tinkles all over himself because he likes the bubbly warm feeling flowing down his things. Gives him a woody.

I love free speech.


You could've just told me that last night.
posted by effwerd at 10:44 AM on February 9, 2006


It's easy to defend speech that nobody disagrees with. It's defending the right to the stuff that the majority finds obnoxious or obscene that ensures that speech actually *is* free.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:05 AM PST on February 9 [!]


Peter McDermott, I want to have your baby.
posted by onegreeneye at 10:46 AM on February 9, 2006


Domain name: mohammeddance.com

Administrative Contact:
Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.
Whois Agent (dmcdskgbtq@whoisprivacyprotect.com)
+1.4252740657
Fax: +1.4256960234
PMB 368, 14150 NE 20th St - F1
C/O mohammeddance.com
Bellevue, WA 98007
US

Good thinking.
posted by uosuaq at 10:50 AM on February 9, 2006


how do they even know the guy in the bomb-turban is supposed to be Mohammed, if there is no standard representation of Mohammed? Does it say "Mohammed" in Arabic or something?

Come on now, the turban, the weapons, the middle-eastern angry look on his face? Who else would it be? Certainly not Jesus or Buddha (pbut) ...

That, and the 48pt letters saying "Faces of Mohammed" in Danish at the top of the page.
posted by sour cream at 11:39 AM on February 9, 2006


This just in:
Rioting mob of ignorant poor people manipulated by their leaders. Film at 11.

In other news:
A pretty blonde woman is missing somewhere in America.

But first:
Is Ryan Seacrest... dare we say it... gay?!


Sleep.
posted by C.Batt at 11:53 AM on February 9, 2006


Religion is evil.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:31 PM on February 9, 2006


Religion is evil.

I dunno.
Say what you want about the tenets of radical Islam, at least it's an ethos.
posted by sour cream at 1:13 PM on February 9, 2006


I see the Brand New Day is going well.
posted by moonbird at 1:16 PM on February 9, 2006


Who else would it be?

If there had been a bycicle, it could have been Mullah Omar making his legendary escape from American bombs.

Then, Muslims would have been proud of this tribute to mullahish ingenuity, and it would have been the Pentagon to protest at the offense, via a scathing euro-bashing column on National Review.
posted by funambulist at 1:46 PM on February 9, 2006


Peter McDermott nailed it. Thank you for putting it so well and so succinctly.

If Islam can't handle a bit of mockery, how strong is it, really? If it's the be-all-end-all Truth, then it should be able to withstand unbelievers going "Nyah nyah!" at it, surely.
posted by beth at 4:18 PM on February 9, 2006


Peter McDermott, I want to have your baby.

I'm very tempted, onegreeneye, but after reading Perigee's extraordinarily hot review of their night of passion, I'm actually looking to pursue a relationship with effword.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:15 PM on February 9, 2006


There are also a lot of moderate westeners who believe that some of these cartoons do go to far, and they should not have been published.

And, on that basis, they are idiots. The cartoon should not have published because it sucks (low quality, unoriginal idea, poor execution)... not because some morons find it offensive. Everything is offensive to somebody.
posted by tkchrist at 5:24 PM on February 9, 2006


I'm actually looking to pursue a relationship with effword Yeah. Dang. Me too. Does he have the new sex bots I hear tell about?
posted by tkchrist at 5:25 PM on February 9, 2006


I'm very tempted, onegreeneye, but after reading Perigee's extraordinarily hot review of their night of passion, I'm actually looking to pursue a relationship with effword.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:15 PM PST on February 9


I'm hanging up my spurs, as I certainly can't compete with that.
posted by onegreeneye at 5:55 PM on February 9, 2006


On topic: BTW there are all sorts of artistic depictions of the Prophet in Iran. Albeit very "respectful" ones. Like murals of Mo helping kids across the street or Mo holding a scimitar over Uncle Sam. Teheran is FULL of them. Or at least used to be a few years back. So this prohibition against depicting the prophet is bullshit. At least in Iran.
posted by tkchrist at 6:23 PM on February 9, 2006


You go, dgaicun. Keep on mocking those who are different from you until the deep, secular tolerance at the center of your heart takes root in theirs, too.

You will save us all from ourselves. You and the creators of South Park.

I am not a religous person, but I find it pretty laughable how sacrosanct you will hold a TV show like South Park and how dismissive you can be of the belief system of billions. Really super pragmatic. Rage on, kiddo.
posted by scarabic at 10:14 PM on February 9, 2006


just because billions believe in utter nonsensical garbage doesn't mean it shouldn't be dismissed as utter nonsensical garbage.
posted by dydecker at 1:29 AM on February 10, 2006


The problem is not the belief system of billions. (Aside from the fact any religion or belief system with billion followers could still be wrong.) The problem is the fanaticism, the extremist violence, and the political arm of that fanatical religious extremism. It is a problem for those very billion followers too.

Yes there are people who are all too happy to be dismissive of if not outright racist against anyone who is a Muslim just for being a Muslim, and those people are idiots. Does that mean that even those who recognise the problem is with the extremism are being offensive towards all Muslims?

If I am a member of a political party, and a faction of this political party starts adopting violent means of action and embracing terrorism, should I be outraged if other parties take issue with that, or should I not rather be outraged with the extremists exploiting my party to do something that inevitably damages its whole credibility, until something is done about it? By the way, that is not a hypothetical, that really happened in Europe, in the 70's, with the extremist groups on the right wing and left wing.

This isn't just about the cartoons, it's short sighted to pretend that's the whole issue. Rushdie, who was a Muslim, wrote a novel which received much literary acclaim. Yet because he ventured into blasphemy he got the very same reaction. The problem is not the level of seriousness or artistic merit of the offending item, or where it comes from. Even those who wrote philosophical and political essays critical of Islam from within got their death threats. Even those who denounce the human rights issues in countries like Iran or Saudi cannot do so from within, they have to move to safer places and even there, they can be threatened and killed. When radical violent extremism takes over it tolerates no non-violent dissent. Even without the cartoons, that problem would still be there.

The cartoon affair has just proved, if proof was needed, that since the Rushdie affair the extremists and governments who appease them for fear of internal revolutions are even more powerful now, and capable of organising in even more efficient ways to transform any pretext into a statement of their power of intimidation, by dressing it up as a defense of Islam and concern for Muslims, those very Muslims they're ready to kill themselves if they step out of line. This is the wood that some people don't see because they're busy discussing how offensive a picture of a turbaned head with a bomb in it is.
posted by funambulist at 1:43 AM on February 10, 2006


'It's almost like people want to provoke a Holy War.'

No, it's almost like people want to demonstrate their [and everyones] right to create comics/cartoons without causing a Holy War. If we need a Holy War for that right to be preserved, so be it.
posted by Kino at 1:49 AM on February 10, 2006


need = need to deal with.
posted by Kino at 1:55 AM on February 10, 2006


You go, dgaicun. Keep on mocking those who are different from you

What muddle-headed, self-congratulating and hypocritical nonsense. Knee-jerk cultural relativism, of the dullest and unbelievably stereotypical sort - "those different than you"! I suppose I should just give in and accept creationists and their agenda, as they are "just different than me", and I'd hate to defend my principles and values, or suggest they are in any way important or superior, for fear scarabic, of all people, would fancy me a bigot. Of course you didn't hesitate a moment to mock and challenge me with this very comment when a conflict of beliefs were at stake did you scarabic? Are you a "bigot"? How convenient when only your values and opinions have any a priori legitimacy, and purity of motive, to contradict others.

Actually nowhere did I indicate that I found South Park the least bit entertaining, much less "sacrosanct", but I will grant you that I think it, along with whatever the cheapest, seediest and low-brow Fox special starring Paris Hilton may be, is worthy of more respect than any religious "belief" [sic] system, no matter how many adherents it may boast. At least one of these things has no illusions about its status as pseudo-pornography.
posted by dgaicun at 2:10 AM on February 10, 2006


Anyone interested might want to listen to this debate on the Danish Cartoon Controversy on the Global Journalist radio programme, the panel also includes the editor of another Danish newspaper.
posted by funambulist at 2:39 AM on February 10, 2006


i'm glad [if it must happen] that this time it was simple cartoons.. a situation everyone can 'get'.. without needing to buy and read a book to know what provoked.. benefit of doubt has no oxygen.
posted by Kino at 3:15 AM on February 10, 2006


This says it all:

http://cagle.com/news/Muhammad/images/ofarrell.gif

Defend freedom of speech.
posted by thparkth at 6:49 AM on February 10, 2006


a reminder on a similar reaction from our own insane ranters whipping people into a frenzy not too long ago--...The Bush war propagandists proclaimed with deafening unanimity: "Newsweek is directly responsible for the rioting and the deaths that occurred in Afghanistan after its story appeared. Freedom of the press doesn't mean you can or should publish anything you think is a 'story.' We're at war! It is the war between civilization and barbarism! Newsweek hurt America and helped our enemies. They're on the other side! That's the evil leftwing media for you!" In terms of what follows, let's remember just two examples I noted in my first post about the Newsweek story: Drudge's huge headline: "THE NEWSWEEK RIOTS," and the phrase that, predictably, Michelle Malkin injected into every war propagandist's discussion: "NEWSWEEK LIED. PEOPLE DIED." ...
posted by amberglow at 7:23 AM on February 10, 2006


My mother told me that one of the cartoons that will be featured in the Iranian response (which will feature work on the Holocaust) is going to be Anne Frank in bed with Hitler, with Hitler saying, "Put that in your diary."
God help me, I laughed so hard.
posted by klangklangston at 8:47 AM on February 10, 2006


Dear Kitty,

In spite of everything everything, I still believe that people are basically sexy inside.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:38 AM on February 10, 2006


a reminder on a similar reaction from our own insane ranters whipping people into a frenzy not too long ago--

Yeah, and then they burned down the Newsweek offices. Oh yeah, that didn't happen. Huh. And anyway, who gives a shit, unless you're so self-centered that EVERYTHING THAT EVER HAPPENS IN THE WORLD MUST BE RELATED TO AMERICA AND ME ME ME BECAUSE GOD FORBID SOMETHING HAPPEN THAT DOSEN'T INVOLVE MY COUNTRY AND ME!
posted by Snyder at 10:47 AM on February 10, 2006


You go, scarabic.
posted by moonbird at 12:51 PM on February 10, 2006


a reminder on a similar reaction from our own insane ranters whipping people into a frenzy not too long ago... ...THE NEWSWEEK RIOTS

Holy hell, your evidence is an incident when a bunch of Muslims around the world went batshit crazy about a questionable report about a holy book being desecrated? I don't think there's a medical name for the kind of delusional fantasy you live in.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:56 PM on February 10, 2006


tcage: The ban on drawing the Prophet is mostly Sunni. Iran is majority-Shia; they dont mind seeing his depictions, as long as they show Mohammed before he was touched by the angel Gabriel, or something like that.
posted by the cydonian at 4:01 PM on February 10, 2006


Sorry, a caffeine-less morning. That was tkchrist, not tcage.
posted by the cydonian at 4:05 PM on February 10, 2006


And the weird part is that you can make an argument that it's more idolatrous to prohibit the depiction of the prophet than it is to show him.
posted by klangklangston at 4:08 PM on February 10, 2006


« Older Cryptome out???...  |  Was Gonzales truthful?... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments