The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights > Legal and Political

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 23, 2006, 01:38 PM   #1
Chris Phelps
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2005
Location: South China, Maine
Posts: 814
More about the danish cartoonists...

...

Quote:
Court issues fatwa on cartoonists

An Islamic court in India has issued a fatwa, or religious decree, condemning to death the 12 artists who drew the controversial images of the prophet Mohammed.

The decree was issued on behalf of the Idar-e-Sharia Darul Kaza Islamic court in northern Uttar Pradesh state by its religious head in the state capital, Lucknow.

"Death is the only penalty for the cartoonists who had drawn sacrilegious cartoons of the prophet," Maulana Mufti Abul Irfan, the religious head of the court, said overnight.

The court's ruling is binding on Muslims, but can be challenged under Indian law.

Mr Irfan said it was clearly written in the Muslim holy book, the Koran, that anyone who insulted the prophet deserved to be punished. He said the fatwa was applicable wherever Muslims live.

Jaffaryab Zilany, a member of the authoritative national body of Muslim clerics, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, said however that although the fatwa was legitimate under Islamic law, it had no legal binding in India.

The sentence comes days after a minister in the state government, Mohammed Yaqoob Qureshi, offered a reward of $US11.5 million ($15.6 million) for the beheading of any of the cartoonists.

The cartoons, drawn by 12 artists, were first published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September and later reprinted in other mainly European dailies. They have sparked protests worldwide, some of them deadly.

On Saturday, a cleric in Pakistan offered a $US1-million ($1.35 million) reward and a car for the death of any of the cartoonists responsible for the drawings, one of which portrayed the prophet with a bomb in his turban.

Muslims consider any depiction of the prophet to be blasphemous.

Muslims make up about 130 million of mainly Hindu India's billion-plus population. While there have been large demonstrations against the cartoons in India, they have been mainly peaceful.
__________________
Bushmaster Superlight AR-15 5.56mm / Custom 24" Heavy BBL Varmint AR-15 5.56mm / Ruger M77 .257 Roberts / Ruger MKI 22LR Pistol / EAA Witness 9mm Pistol / Daisy 2202 22LR / Remington Viper 522 22LR / Stevens 200 .223 / Savage 10FP 24" .308 / Mauser 98 Sporter 30-06
Chris Phelps is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 01:43 PM   #2
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
I read a similar report that put the bounty at around $15,000. An Iranian cleric did the same thing to Soloman Rushdie. He's still kicking last I heard. I'd be willing to donate to an offshore group that puts a price on the cleric's head who made this ruling. I mean, it's only fair; right? I'd draw a cartoon too, but my art skills are somewhat lacking.
fisherman66 is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 01:46 PM   #3
exar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 224
How can you call yourself a civilized culture when a court is able to condemn cartoonists to death? I don't think there is an image able to be drawn that is worth execution.
exar is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 01:48 PM   #4
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
Quote:
I don't think there is an image able to be drawn that is worth execution.
You don't spend much time in public restrooms, do you? Me neither.
fisherman66 is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 01:52 PM   #5
Chris Phelps
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2005
Location: South China, Maine
Posts: 814
Quote:
I don't think there is an image able to be drawn that is worth execution.
Perhaps a diagram (which has been proven to work) of a nuclear bomb big enough to detonate the entire world.

As far as what your average cartoonist can draw? No way.
__________________
Bushmaster Superlight AR-15 5.56mm / Custom 24" Heavy BBL Varmint AR-15 5.56mm / Ruger M77 .257 Roberts / Ruger MKI 22LR Pistol / EAA Witness 9mm Pistol / Daisy 2202 22LR / Remington Viper 522 22LR / Stevens 200 .223 / Savage 10FP 24" .308 / Mauser 98 Sporter 30-06
Chris Phelps is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 05:22 PM   #6
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,844
Re the "rewards" offered by a Pakistani cleric and an Indian state minister,see original post, I wonder as to the source of some of the money offered, which is to ask the following. How much of this cash might have originated in U.S. Taxpayer Provided Foreign Aid?

Mind, I do not know that any did, however I find the possibility worthy of thought.
alan is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 05:34 PM   #7
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
It is ridiculous to put out a reward for a cartoonist.

Having said that, it is very foolish to draw a cartoon that is so offensive to any religion. Anyone with "roadwalking sense" knows that the Muslims are probably going to go to extremes over such things, and as far as I am concerned the guy comes close to deserving what he gets. Notice the "comes close."

To think he could do that and not suffer some potentially bad results makes him pretty stupid. Too bad the results did not happen to him and not so many others.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13  ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 05:37 PM   #8
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
Quote:
I am concerned the guy comes close to deserving what he gets. Notice the "comes close."
While I acknowledge that this issue does not fall under the perview of our law, I see freedom of speech as an inalienable right. It seems you could perhaps see shades of gray.
fisherman66 is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 05:53 PM   #9
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
Freedon of speech, like all other "rights" is not without limitations. That has been proven in the courts of this nation.

To do as that cartoonist did, and knowing the liklihood of violent reactions makes him guilty to some degree for the damage, and deaths which resulted.

One might think he has the right to make a racist cartoon here, and have it published in major newspapers, but if it caused riots, and death he would be guilty.

Liberty must go hand-in-hand with responsibility. I have the liberty to do some things that might cause harm, but I also have the liberty not to do them. I don't feel the necessity to prove that I have liberty to the detriment of others, and to my nation.

Acting responsibly requires that I consider the consequences of my actions, and that is more important than proving that I can say or do as I please.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13  ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 06:59 PM   #10
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
Quote:
One might think he has the right to make a racist cartoon here, and have it published in major newspapers, but if it caused riots, and death he would be guilty.
You seem to absolve the rioters of guilt in this case. This is not an issue of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Apples to oranges.
fisherman66 is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 07:05 PM   #11
swmike
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 25, 2005
Location: Marysville, WA
Posts: 670
I wonder how many of these Islamic Protesters (over the Cartoons) have laughed at, or even created some of their own, anti-semitic "artwork". BTW, how much of the Arab world sided with Hitler (behind the scenes of course) during WWII?

Just curious.
__________________
My definition of Gun Control--- A steady grip and hitting your target.


"In God we trust, all others are suspects."

"If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying, either I won't need any more, or more won't be of any help".

____________________________________________
swmike is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 07:07 PM   #12
prime8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 13, 2006
Location: In a tent in Iowa
Posts: 434
Perhaps a diagram (which has been proven to work) of a nuclear bomb big enough to det

still not enough to kill someone over. Its no different than a Rifle diagram.. Now the morons who decide to use the bombs FOR SURE!!!!
prime8 is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 08:33 PM   #13
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
[You seem to absolve the rioters of guilt in this case. This is not an issue of yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Apples to oranges.]

No at all. The rioters are responsible for their actions whatever the provocation. However, I continue to be persuaded that one who is an instigator also is responsible. It is not too different from yelling "Fire."

If I do something that makes you angry at someone else, and you were to harm them, then I am also responsible. You are not excused from your own actions, and must suffer the consequences, but I am also guilty.

Some time ago someone wrote a book that stirred up the Muslims, and they put a price on his head, if I remember correctly. Is it not obvious that if you insult their religion in such a high profile way they are going to retaliate with violence? It is obvious to me. It is an action that has no good thing, and maybe some very bad things. No one should do such things just to prove he can. Sometimes it costs more than you want to pay.

In fact I do not think that anyone's religion should be made fun of. It is necessary sometimes to expose the error of a religion, and to say so, but that is not the same as making fun of it and its founder.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13  ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 08:48 PM   #14
garand_shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2006
Location: The Keystone State
Posts: 149
Quote:
If I do something that makes you angry at someone else, and you were to harm them, then I am also responsible.
Though you provide the stimulus, how I react to it is totally my choosing. There is no one responsible for my actions, other than myself.
garand_shooter is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 08:53 PM   #15
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
Quote:
If I do something that makes you angry at someone else, and you were to harm them, then I am also responsible. You are not excused from your own actions, and must suffer the consequences, but I am also guilty.
I disagree. Why would you accept responsibility for another person's actions?

Soloman Rushdie wrote a parody of the religion in the book The Satanic Verse. Are you suggesting that his death would "comes close" to what he deserves. Or is it because he knows he purposly "stirred the nest" with the book; and knew from the beginning they would call for his head on a platter? So pushing "buttons" in this case is criminal?

Quote:
In fact I do not think that anyone's religion should be made fun of. It is necessary sometimes to expose the error of a religion, and to say so, but that is not the same as making fun of it and its founder.
I agree, but stop short of saying it's criminal or "comes close" to warranting execution. In some rare cases I'd say it's even healthy.
fisherman66 is offline  
Old February 23, 2006, 11:58 PM   #16
alan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,844
Jerry M wrote in part:

Having said that, it is very foolish to draw a cartoon that is so offensive to any religion. Anyone with "roadwalking sense" knows that the Muslims are probably going to go to extremes over such things, and as far as I am concerned the guy comes close to deserving what he gets. Notice the "comes close."

----------------

Strikes me that if some people are so easily "offended" that they take to the streets, destroy property and place non-involved others at risk, seemingly at the drop of the proverbial hat, or turban, then perhaps they need to pull out that old mirror, and take a really close look at what they see looking back at themselves.

By the way, there are all manner of things that I might find "offensive". Most of them, I simply ignore, ala being approached by a small child, who in his or her childlike voice (squeaky), loudly announces that I'm ugly. Of course, they are entitled to their opinion, but why would I want to dignify it by reacting to it?

Re things that really annoy me, I might try to do something about them, however "doing something about them" has yet to include either rioting or burning down buildings, nor has it led to my threatening others.

Finally, having likely been offended by one thing or another, I do not offhand recall members of other religious groups being driven to violence as some Muslims are. Given this, could you perhaps explain why it is that you stated the following, Anyone with "roadwalking sense" knows that the Muslims are probably going to go to extremes over such things,... Are Muslims so delicately balanced? A couple that I've worked with did not seem so. Also, what is it about Muslims in partricular that would or should cause others to "walk on egg shells" so to speak.
alan is offline  
Old February 24, 2006, 01:01 PM   #17
JerryM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,884
Inciting a riot is a recognized crime at least in some places, although I cannot quote a specific law in a specific place.

I completely agree that each person is responsible for his actions and should suffer the consequences for them.

But, I can influence others, and if that influence causes harm, especially when it is predictable, then I have a degree of responsibility morally.
As the apostle Paul said, "If meat causes my brother to stumble, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth."

If one of you did something such as the cartoonist, and people died as a result, would you feel proud that you had the freedom to have drawn it even if people were killed as a result? Would you not feel some degree of responsibility for what happened?

I guess we will just have to disagree on this issue. I have the freedom to do many things that are not good, and which could cause harm. If it is something that is not critical I prefer no to do it.

Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13  ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
14  For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
JerryM is offline  
Old February 24, 2006, 02:38 PM   #18
NBT
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 31, 2006
Location: CA
Posts: 134
I'd like to see these "cartoons" to figure out why these people are so insanely Pissed Off.

I wish South Park would do an episode about their Prophet
NBT is offline  
Old February 24, 2006, 03:11 PM   #19
invention_45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Broward County
Posts: 972
JerryM/fisherman

Jerry seems to want to use indirect results of the spoken or written word to justify punish the speaker. We have laws to do exactly that. The crimes involved are slander, libel, and defamation. This gives the offended a way to fight back if he wants to WITHOUT resorting to rioting. In fact, the REASON the laws exist is to preserve public order and prevent rioting or other revenge against comments made.

So, the rioters COULD have taken the cartoonists to court either civilly or criminally. But I suspect that, since no actual damages could be shown, nobody had any standing to do that.

What this means is that this speech is properly protected. No actual person suffered an actual loss due to the cartoons. They were just mad.

When you yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and the crowd stampedes, and somebody is injured, you cause a loss. This creates a person or persons having standing to take legal action.

See the difference?

The blame for the rioting falls completely upon the rioters and upon anyone who directly instructed them do to so.

Religious leaders would be out of jobs if faith were to falter. They cannot tolerate criticism of their faith that might just catch on. So they incite riots and blame hurricanes on homosexuals. And then they expect everybody to just forget they did it because it's in the name of that sacred cow, religion.



Free Speech:

*Peaceful protesting - no person suffers a loss.
*Public cursing that you overhear - no person suffers a loss.
*Pornography not involving minors - no person suffers a loss.

Perhaps Not Free Speech:

*Slander, Libel, Defamation - see your state statutes - somebody suffers a loss.
*Fire in a crowded theater - likely to cause somebody to suffer a loss.
*Fighting words - lead to fights, likely to cause a loss.
*Public cursing directed at somebody - lead to fights, likely to cause a loss.
*Religious (or any respected) leaders, speaking to idiots who'll believe it, blaming hurricanes on homosexuals - lead to fights, likely to cause a loss.
*Religious (or any respected) leaders, speaking to idiots who'll believe it, issuing a fatwa against somebody who drew a cartoon - lead to fights/riots, likely to cause a loss.
invention_45 is offline  
Old February 24, 2006, 03:45 PM   #20
fisherman66
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 22, 2005
Location: Rhome, TX
Posts: 4,641
Quote:
So, the rioters COULD have taken the cartoonists to court either civilly or criminally. But I suspect that, since no actual damages could be shown, nobody had any standing to do that.
The long arm of our law is not quite that long.

The calling for our Danish cartoonist's "head on a platter" is within the law of a cleric run state. Within a religious "government" the arm of the law extends as far as the beliefs of the people.

When cultures collide...
fisherman66 is offline  
Old February 24, 2006, 03:58 PM   #21
invention_45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Broward County
Posts: 972
welllll..

Maybe. But I bet Danish law has something to say about defamation, so maybe legal action would have been possible and maybe not. But my point was they lacked damages, so they lacked standing, so in the end, the rioters could NOT take anybody to court. But for good reason. Their beef was silly.

While it might be within cleric law to ask for somebody's head on a platter, I'd be curious to know whether it's a violation of international law to actually put up a bounty on the cartoonists.

I'd be all for seeing the UN arresting the idiot.
invention_45 is offline  
Old February 24, 2006, 04:11 PM   #22
Baba Louie
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 23, 2001
Posts: 1,545
Never forget Dutch filmaker Theo Van Gogh and how he met his end at the hands of an offended, yet religious individual.
__________________
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." - George Washington, January 8, 1790, First State of the Union Address
Baba Louie is offline  
Old February 24, 2006, 04:18 PM   #23
invention_45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2006
Location: Broward County
Posts: 972
BabaLouie: I'm not familiar with the story, but the murderer should be practicing his religion on a death row somewhere.
invention_45 is offline  
Old February 24, 2006, 06:24 PM   #24
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
Maybe he should purchase his very own Infidel T Shirt..

put the phrase the path to paradise begins here with crosshairs
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old February 24, 2006, 06:29 PM   #25
samoand
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2005
Posts: 211
JerryM

Your reasoning is not without logic, in a bizzare kind of way. I can't help but seek analogy: if your neighbor gets robbed and beaten or killed in a bad part of town, would you be making case - and I'm talking about legal case rather than offline comment - that it's his own fault for instigating the assault by showing up there? If this analogy doesn't make sense to you, or seems to be taken out of context, or to be exaggerate, let me explain why it comes to mind.

See, it's all about double standards. Picturing a religious figure of the western world in grotesque way would - and did, including in muslim media - cause no stir; possibly few comments here and there if the cartoon originated in a well recognized source and were completely tasteless. That's what would be expected, that's what would've - and have - happened. Much like you wouldn't expect to be mugged going for a walk in a good neighborhood. Furthermore, you state yourself that the outcome of the Danish experiment was well predictable and that the riots among Muslim community were seen miles away well ahead of time. Agreed here as well, just like with a theoretical unarmed slender guy wearing glasses and business suit in projects who's "just asking for it".

There is, however, a little logical trick that mind might be playing on you. It equalizes, or at the very least brings closer together, concepts of "predictable" and "justified", thus making the whole picture well balanced and thus not requiring outside intervention. Well, they are not equivalent. They are not close. They have no common roots. They belong to completely different plains, and any attempt to even partially rationalize one with another is excersize in futility. A criminal is still a criminal, and "instigation" in both cases is just a convenient occasion to show the true face.

I personally admire Danish cartoonists even more if they realized what exactly they were doing. They sacrificed their own piece of mind, possibly for lifetime, to show the startling differences between the cultures. For many westerners, it took to see these riots to fully realize the magnitude of this "us" against "them" proposition. How did it go? "Islam is a religion of piece, behead those against it", or was it a different wording?

It's just about time to wake up.
samoand is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2017 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13206 seconds with 10 queries