So how exactly...

[swarm]

Why are these cartoons so offensive to islamists?

Sure you are told to be offended and must fall in place, but are these really offensive? I find them tepid at best. You could pick any person I revere and put them in Mohammad's place and I wouldn't be offended in the least.

 

[swarm]

So no islamists have any explanation?

 

[Lori_7]

I'm not islamic but I do know that many religious people in general do tend to be easily offended.

Seems they have more faith in their religion than in god sometimes.

 

[786]

I would like to say that in Islam there is strong discouragement of making pictures of the prophets. Specifically they don't want Muslims to start making images like Christians did of Jesus and then start praying to them.

This long tradition of "no pictures" being violated by a "third party" is offensive to Muslims. Secondly making the association with bombs is offensive to begin with. Thirdly there is a deep connection of Muslims with their prophet- the issue is too sensitive- it is like someone insulting the person you loved the most right in front of you- Also considering that most Muslims believe that terrorism is not reflective of their religion and then see that association in the mass media isn't helpful either. Journalists should try to educate people more and have more discussions rather than create pictures which stick in peoples brains that helps build more stereotypes, as if there is a shortage of them.

Lastly you could have asked the question without posting pictures almost everyone would be aware of what you were asking even if you didn't post the picture- don't try to be a smartass- - Maybe the question should be why people purposefully do things to aggravate others as you so tried to do using a smartass method.

Peace be unto you

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Why are these cartoons so offensive to islamists?

Because they feel as if their lives are being threatened.

Many theists integrate religion into their identities (often as a flawless part) and they interpret the cartoons as attacks on their identities. When a person's identity is attacked, they often feel as if it is an attack on their life.

 

[swarm]

I would like to say that in Islam there is strong discouragement of making pictures of the prophets. Specifically they don't want Muslims to start making images like Christians did of Jesus and then start praying to them.

These aren't muslims making pictures nor would anybody ever worship them so what's the big deal?

This long tradition of "no pictures" being violated by a "third party" is offensive to Muslims.

So? I find a lot about islam offensive what of it?

Secondly making the association with bombs is offensive to begin with.

So police your worshipers instead of being the #1 suicide bomber religion.

Thirdly there is a deep connection of Muslims with their prophet

I don't see how that is relevant. Do you care about my deep connections?

Journalists should ...

These are cartoonists.

Lastly you could have asked the question without posting pictures almost everyone would be aware of what you were asking even if you didn't post the picture

The impact wouldn't be the same. People could imagine something offensive had been drawn like the misrepresentations passed around by the islamists who worked the faithful up into a froth.

Danish Imams tour the Middle East
Main article: Akkari-Laban dossier

Two imams who had been granted sanctuary in Denmark, dissatisfied with the reaction of the Danish Government and Jyllands-Posten, created a forty-three-page document entitled "Dossier about championing the prophet Muhammad peace be upon him."[29] This consisted of several letters from Muslim organisations explaining their case including allegations of the mistreatment of Danish Muslims, citing the Jyllands-Posten cartoons (including the false claim that said publication was a government-run newspaper) and also supplementing the following causes of "pain and torment" for the authors:

1. Pictures from another Danish newspaper, Weekendavisen, which they called "even more offending" (than the original twelve cartoons);
2. Hate-mail pictures and letters that the dossier's authors alleged were sent to Muslims in Denmark, said to be indicative of the rejection of Muslims by the Danish;
3. A televised interview discussing Islam with Dutch member of parliament and Islam critic Hirsi Ali, who had received the Freedom Prize "for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women" from the Danish Liberal Party represented by Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

Appended to the dossier were multiple clippings from Jyllands-Posten, multiple clippings from Weekendavisen, some clippings from Arabic-language papers and three additional images which also had no connection with Denmark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllan...controversy#Danish_Imams_tour_the_Middle_East

don't try to be a smartass

Don't be a dumbass.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

They would find these offensive in the same way a African American would find a Black face cartoon offensive or a Fried Chicken and water melon cartoon offensive. Or any other minority depicted in a degrading manor. They would find them offensive because they are to that group of people others not in that group could find them funny but then that could be looked at as racsist.

 

[swarm]

They would find these offensive in the same way a African American would find a Black face cartoon offensive or a Fried Chicken and water melon cartoon offensive. Or any other minority depicted in a degrading manor. They would find them offensive because they are to that group of people others not in that group could find them funny but then that could be looked at as racsist.

Well except the dialog surrounding them wasn't concerned with if they were racist or not. They were religiously objectionable. Also, while they range from the mundane #1 to the more inflammatory #11, they are addressing issues of concern for many people, suicide bombing, treatment of women, persecution of freethinkers and the suppression of free speech.

The irony is these really aren't pictures of that Mohammad. There are no surviving likenesses of Mohammad to use. These are just drawings of generic guys that are being labeled "Mohammad," one of the most common names around.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Well except the dialog surrounding them wasn't concerned with if they were racist or not. They were religiously objectionable. Also, while they range from the mundane #1 to the more inflammatory #11, they are addressing issues of concern for many people, suicide bombing, treatment of women, persecution of freethinkers and the suppression of free speech.

The irony is these really aren't pictures of that Mohammad. There are no surviving likenesses of Mohammad to use. These are just drawings of generic guys that are being labeled "Mohammad," one of the most common names around.

Well yes I see your point here but now insert any other religion that is now taken action against the Muslims and inset that culture religious Icons and have a Muslim draw this cartoon with similes captions is that now offensive to said Culture I would think so. The problem is not weather the cartoon if Funny or offensive the problem is that the cartoon is offensive to a particular faith group and that is the deeper issue. And no I am not Muslim or religious in any way for any religion so I am not some Religious Zealot trying to make a point all I am doing is stating why I think the cartoon is offensive and it Can be perceived as being offensive.

 

[swarm]

Well yes I see your point here but now insert any other religion that is now taken action against the Muslims and inset that culture religious Icons and have a Muslim draw this cartoon

Do they have to be muslims?

You mean like Piss Christ?

Or Chris Ofili's Virgin Mary?

I would consider both these way higher on the offensive scale for the religious, but they barely made a stir in comparison. What would "Piss Mohammad" result in?

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Yes just like them. obviously you found them offensive as you posted them as examples or at least you felt they were reprisentative samples of offensive material toward religious people. You see I am not a religous person so I dont find any of the cartoons offensive just funny. Do you see my point. It is not really the cartoon or what it represents to all, but to a single person and or group.

 

[swarm]

Yes just like them. obviously you found them offensive

No, I actually don't find them offensive. I tend to be offended by things like this:

at least you felt they were reprisentative samples of offensive material toward religious people.

While I don't personally find them offensive, I can understand where a religious person might be offended having their icons covered in excrement.

It is not really the cartoon or what it represents to all, but to a single person and or group.

Yes, but I'm interested in seeing if there is an underlying reason that I'm missing or not.

I can understand the excrement being offensive, but Mohammad just standing there? That seems wholly irrational. Particularly since they are trying to censor non islamists.

How far does it go?

How about this:

 

[Grim_Reaper]

Well it was said earlier on that in Islam it is discouraged to have pictures of their Prophets. Others may not see why it is offensive to Islam to have a picture of a Prophet displayed in any fashion let alone in a caricature of a Prophet. Take some sects of Amish for example they believe that if their picture is taken then part of their soul is then trapped in that picture. Is this reasonable to the outsider not likely but it is there ingrained belief that this is true so they request to not have their picture taken, it is the same with the offensiveness of the above pictures. It is a point of perception as to what may or may not be offensive.

 

[swarm]

It is also a point that there are limits to how far another's being offended must be catered to. If islamist don't want to make pictures of Mohammad then fine and if one was visiting their home it would be courteous to not pullout your Mohammad portfolio. But acting like the entire world must cater to their wishes, rioting and threatening to kill artists in foreign counties is over the line.

 

[Grim_Reaper]

It is also a point that there are limits to how far another's being offended must be catered to. If islamist don't want to make pictures of Mohammad then fine and if one was visiting their home it would be courteous to not pullout your Mohammad portfolio. But acting like the entire world must cater to their wishes, rioting and threatening to kill artists in foreign counties is over the line.

I did not say that it was right for them to threaten the artists I was just explaining why it would be offensive to them as I see it any way what ever that is worth. Personally I dont find any of the pictures posted in this thread offsnsicve in any way some ar funny some are gross and sick but none of them offend me personally.

 

[swarm]

I'm not sure I understand being offended merely because I "supposed to be" like that.

 

[(Q)]

I would like to say that in Islam there is strong discouragement of making pictures of the prophets. Specifically they don't want Muslims to start making images like Christians did of Jesus and then start praying to them.

Muslims are free to follow their own ridiculous superstitions, unfortunately.

This long tradition of "no pictures" being violated by a "third party" is offensive to Muslims.

Many things that Muslims do are offensive to others, yet they do them despite this fact.

Secondly making the association with bombs is offensive to begin with.

Muslims using bombs is a fact despite your offense to it. Maybe you should do something about those people who use bombs so that people won't associate it.

Thirdly there is a deep connection of Muslims with their prophet- the issue is too sensitive- it is like someone insulting the person you loved the most right in front of you-

Why should we care about your "sensitivities" when Muslims don't care about anyone else's sensitivities? Muslims will do what they want whenever they want.

Also considering that most Muslims believe that terrorism is not reflective of their religion

It is reflective of your religion. The history of Islam is full of terrorist acts dating right back to Muhammad, the worst of the lot.

Journalists should try to educate people more and have more discussions rather than create pictures which stick in peoples brains that helps build more stereotypes, as if there is a shortage of them.

Muslim journalists don't seem to have a problem making cartoons that offend others, why should other journalists care about pictures of Muhammad? Muslims are obviously selfish bastards.

Lastly you could have asked the question without posting pictures almost everyone would be aware of what you were asking even if you didn't post the picture- don't try to be a smartass- - Maybe the question should be why people purposefully do things to aggravate others as you so tried to do using a smartass method.

We need to evidence and Swarm provided it. What's the problem with that?

Peace be unto you

Screw you, jerk.