For advertisement

Sample

2/03/2006

islam tested in europe

the current rift in denmark over the caricature of the prophet mohammed is gearing up for an ugly fight. according to islam, no image of the prophet is allowed. this is banned. and the danish paper made caricatures of the prophet is a violation of islamic laws. this is now a boiling issue and could become nasty as the muslims felt very offended. the european papers' position is that it is freedom of the press to write or present whatever to the readers. and they defended themselves by asking whether islamic law applies to non muslims. if it is banned by islam, does it mean that it is banned to non muslim as well. now this is a little tricky. islam bans the eating of pork. when non muslims eat pork does it offend the muslims? obviously it does. but does it allow the muslims to demand the non muslim not to eat pork? where is the line drawn? it is reported in the press that a cleric said the danish paper's caricature was not done for press freedom but to offend muslim. does this distinction means that if it is done not to offend but say for a genuinely decent purpose like the teaching of islam, would it then be ok for non muslims to use images of the prophet? when does the sensitivity of muslims stops and why should non muslims be subject to the same restrictions as muslims?

4 comments:

Matilah_Singapura said...

It's not that Islam itself was tested in Europe.

FREEDOM of the speech, and therefore the press was tested in Europe.

Another thing that was tested in Europe were people of Islamic faith's tolerance to the freedoms that they so enjoy (and now used as "humour" where their religious institutions are the brunt of the joke).

... and sorry to say, the Muslims are failing!

redbean said...

the level of humour, what can be jested, is very different in the west compare to the muslims when religious icons are concerned. i think the west did jest over symbols of christianity and god.

i looked at some of the caricatures and some are a little offensive.

what i am more concern is that what is forbidden by them should only be forbidden to the believers and shall not be applied to non believers. and non believers shall not ridicule their icons.

i dread the day if a believer tells me that my eating a hamburger is offending him and i shall cease eating hamburger. just like in kelantan where nightclubs and social centres are now allowed or placed under restriction. and in arabia, i cannot drink, you don't drink.

then it will be trouble.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Freedom of speech, is unrestrained freedom of speech.

If you are offended by someone else's opinion, there are other options one can take which do not involve the use of force.

And how about this: what the fuck is WRONG with laughing at your fellow man?

Afterall, we are all here to ENTERTAIN each other! :-)

redbean said...

among friends it is ok to have some vulgar or dark humour. the intention is important.

the danish cartoon is a bit hard to believe it was done on the ground of freedom of speech. between two unfriendly parties, the act is always seen as unfriendly. and freedom of speech in that sense must be moderated unless one intents to incite or throw a challenge.

its the intention, my friend.