Hacker News Reader

I fully agree with you kloncks, these fanatics just prove that the correctness of what everybody thinks about them by acting this way. However, there's a common perception in the West that these "fanatics" or "fringe groups" are a tiny minority. I don't think so. Try doing such a gravely offensive thing is Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and you will go to prison or worse. Those are unstable or backward countries you say? How about Egypt or Malaysia?

Some clarifications on the "portrayal issue": (1) Muhammad has been portrayed in many Islamic miniature paintings, always with a veil, though. (2) The tradition in Islam that no likeness of him can be created is coming from his words reported by ahadith, not from the Koran (e.g. see here http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html). This was most probably a reaction to Greek-Orthodox Christianity with their heavy use of icons. (3) The fact that Islam forbids pictures is not totally correct, Shia muslims usually have the picture of Ali displayed at a prominent place in their homes.

Interesting. I would most definitely disagree with you there. They are most definitely a fringe group. I will maybe assume that the people in the group are either radical believers or brainwashed ignorant people, though.

I'm originally Egyptian myself, and while it's more Muslim-society and religious conservatism is higher, there are a number of freedoms there since it's a very touristy country. Sure, these things are taboo and people will not take them lightly, but you can say them. Just like you can insult the Catholic faith in the Vatican or the Mormon faith in Utah - it's just simply not the place to do it :P

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan I feel are a very special case. Saudi Arabia is such a staunch conservative country and I don't agree with many of their policies so I mostly agree with you there.

--------

Regarding the portrayal. Yea, Muhammad when he was portrayed always either has his face covered by a veil or by light. Things that come from the Hadith can't be taken lightly - it's not as powerful as the Qur'an, yes, but it is the second most powerful Islamic text and all Muslims follow it (with the exception of some Shia).

On 3, I wasn't aware of that and I'm Sunni but it might make sense. Usually, Muslims will also not portray Prophet's companions but the rule is mostly for the Prophets, Angels, and God. Also, keep in mind that Shia muslims are a minority, roughly accounting for about 10-15%.

Define "fringe".

I'm sure you don't agree with them, and you may not even know many people who do, but given that there are (and if my understanding is wrong, feel free to correct me) several Muslim countries/polities where you'd be mobbed in the street within seconds for wearing a t-shirt with one of the Danish cartoons on it, or thrown in jail if found by the police, all of it condoned by the government...I don't know if the radical movement really meets the standard definition of "fringe group".

You give the examples of the Vatican and Utah. Be offensive in the Vatican and you may be escorted out by security; in Utah, I'm pretty sure the worst you'll get is ignored (I've met a lot of Mormons and they're the friendliest people in the world). Not really comparable to offending radical Muslims.

You'd be mobbed in the street here in Uruguay if wearing the wrong t-shirt too... I'd be mobbed in Gualeguaychu, Argentina if I wore a "viva Botnia!" T-shirt, for example(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_mill_dispute_between_Argen... )

As a Muslim, myself, I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take.

The RevolutionMuslim guy explains it in great detail here, http://revolutionmuslimdaily.blogspot.com/2010/04/clarifying...

I have to say, from the POV of a true Muslim he makes a pretty airtight case. If you can't make yourself agree with the idea that Trey and Parker have to be killed maybe it's time that you start questioning your beliefs in this religion.

That's a rather interesting mix of good points and religious crazy talk. I think the most pertinent point is that the U.S. has in fact acted in an imperialist way over the past half century or so, and has killed a very large number of people in the process, many of which happen to be Muslim. I don't agree with the theory that this results from a lack of values on the part of Westerners, but I can see how Muslims might feel like they are being attacked on all fronts---both militaristically and culturally.

From that perspective, the idea of refraining from unnecessarily insulting their most important religious leader makes sense to me. In context, it sends very much the wrong message, and is counterproductive. Of course, death threats over the matter are stupid and counterproductive, too, as it only feeds into the jihadist stereotype.

> I think the most pertinent point is that the U.S. has in fact acted in an imperialist way over the past half century or so, and has killed a very large number of people in the process, many of which happen to be Muslim.

I'm not seeing the relevance.

Precisely how does what the US has done explain threatening the South Park guys?

It doesn't excuse it of course, but I think it does explain it a bit. Imagine somebody kills one of your children, then comes back and insults your wife. It's adding insult to injury.

It's kind of like kicking someone when they're down. People in the Islamic world are sensitive as of late, and considering what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan lately, I think it's pretty understandable. The prudent, friendly thing is show a little respect.

Suppose that an orange person raped my sister, would you "explain" if I issued death threats when orange people made fun of my pants?

Of course not.

> People in the Islamic world are sensitive as of late, and considering what's happened in Iraq and Afghanistan lately,

Umm, what happened is that we kicked out their govt, which was killing them, and we kill people who attack us (and them). Meanwhile, we build schools and the like.

All they have to do to get us to leave is lie low for a while. Then they can go back to killing each other. (However, since that's what they're going to do, I'm not that excited about them being killed by us. Dead is dead.)

If you're looking for "brutal occupation", the US isn't in the same league as France and Germany.

Wow... Pretty airtight if you're a non-scientific lunatic that can't tell the difference between physical assault and non-violent political satire.

>I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take

Suppose for a minute the leaders of these groups are motivated by personal power/glory rather than religious purity.

By stirring up this sort of trouble you get exposure, name on TV - fame and glory.

Then if you stir up enough trouble there starts to be a backlash. People start to associate your ethnic group with trouble and react to that. So you can start saying to impressionable young idiots - see you can never integrate into the society of 'wherever', they hate you. We must fight them, come and join my group. The bigger your group the more trouble you can cause, the more backlash, the more downtrodden followers.

Works for gangs in LA and kids in Northern Ireland today, worked for a certain mustachioed politician in Europe 80years ago. And was probably working for a bunch of idol worshipers in Ur 6000years ago.

The whole issue is a tempest in a teacup, IMHO. I've never heard of the nut cases (from NY I believe) prior to this incident. Jackasses making veiled threats and TV networks obliging the jackasses by censorship.

There may have been a slight issue if South Park was singling out Islam, but they have not. They have gone after everyone and everything, many times in bad taste, but that is their appeal and that is why I sometimes watch the show.

> Jackasses making veiled threats and TV networks obliging the jackasses by censorship.

Yeah, well: it's all fun and games until someone gets knifed on the street, as happened to Theo Van Gogh. I'm sure the guy who did that was a jackass, too.

My point is that we shouldn't equivocate or relativize on the jackassery of the various parties. What the TV networks did was lamentable but, in light of recent events, comprehensible. What 'jackasses' making veiled threats and those that carry them out do is utterly reprehensible and doesn't merit the lightness of the word you chose. The two types of jackasses you mention are totally different. Ass-covering is surely not so big a sin as killing or threatening to.

Could you please from your perspective explain the reason why a culture which has never historically had any rules about drawing pictures of historical characters should not continue to allow drawing pictures of historical characters?

It's drawing pictures for goodness sake. Who on earth can it hurt?

Drawing pictures, and indeed riduculing and condenming is something very important in a free society.

It's not simply about drawing pictures. In Islam, certain people are considered holy and revered.

Before Islam, notable people in society would be drawn or portrayed after they die, and that would sometimes lead people to worship them or raise their level to holy, which is not right.

Thus, Islam has a very firm policy against depicting anyone who is important in our religious tradition. That will include God, Muhammad, the Angels (Gabriel, etc). Interestingly, portrayal of the people we consider were prophets before Muhammed - Jesus, Moses, Abraham, Noah, Adam, etc - is also very strictly prohibited.

That being said, since Islam's base of followers is oh so diverse, certain cultures (some in India and some in Turkey) have at some points drawn picture stories of Muhammad and other prophets but to the base of the religion that was considered taboo.

It's more or less a huge sign of respect...

Probably an unfair question to you, since you're not one who riots, but if it's strictly prohibited in Islam to draw Jesus and the others you mention, why are there not riots, death threats and killings in response to their portrayals?

Same reason that killing a little kid will bring a lot more legal heat than killing a gangbanger — just because two things are strictly prohibited doesn't mean people respond to them equally.

chc makes a lot of sense and brings up a nice point (see below or above?)

another thing I can think of is this. portrayals of muhammad to this day, compared with those of jesus and others, have been fairly limited. there are cathedrals, paintings, murals, etc of jesus depicted with every skin color and body features. muhammad, on the other hand, isn't that much. but the concept of a drawn jesus, to most of the world, isn't a new thing at all.

so if i were picking a fight...wouldn't i pick one where i don't automatically lose?

The line of thinking is that pictures/drawings can lead to idolatry (i.e. person kneeling before an image of a prophet/saint and asking for this and that).

> As a Muslim, myself, I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take.

The key is that they are "fringe groups". There is no belief so wacky, stupid or nasty that someone, somewhere won't believe it. And with the internet, they can broadcast their nonsense to the whole world.

I don't understand the stances these fringe groups take

I think you understand, but you don't agree. Big difference. As soon as you disagree, you lose, because you'll never challenge the extremists the way they challenge you to be more like them, because they'll win. Hence you merely say you don't understand, which in this respect, is a lie.

From another viewpoint, it only seems to give events more exposure if you deal it with it this way.

Take the Cartoons incident. It was a fairly small newspaper that wouldn't have been seen by tens of millions. In protesting over the Cartoons, the people that were against the cartoons helped show them to tens of millions of more people.

It wasn't about cartoons though was it. It's a power play, can muslims begin to establish sharia law by claiming they are discriminated against - and it seems they can.

> the people that were against the cartoons helped show them to tens of millions of more people.

And let me tell you, it was a good thing. Many of them were very, very funny.