<$BlogRSDURL$>

2008-04-17

A 500 years old Mohammed cartoon:
Mohammed asleep while drunk

Do you remember two years ago, when Western media cowardly refused to show their audience the "terrible" cartoons, so the audience could form their own opinion? One of the most hypocritical papers was the N.Y.Times, who refused to show the cartoons they were describing (out of "respect"), but instead illustrated their article with a picture of the Virgin Mary made out of elephant dung - out of "respect" for whom?

But there was a time when the N.Y.Times were free of censorship. A 100 years ago, in November 1908 (PDF-file) the paper featured an almost full-size picture of a print by Lucas von Leyden illustrating the sad story of Mohammed's friend getting murdered and the drunken Mohammed getting the blame. From the article:

The famous print of the year, 1508, is an illustration of the story of the Prophet Mohammed and the Monk Sergius. Mohammed, when in company with his friend Sergius, drank too much wine and fell asleep. Before he awakened a soldier killed Sergius and placed the sword in Mohammed's hand. When the prophet wakened the soldier and his companions told him that while drunk he had slain the monk. Therefore Mohammed forbade the drinking of wine by his followers.

While Mohammed sleeps, the murderer places a sword in his hand.

It's a sad story indeed. According to the N.Y.Times, Mohammed was a drunkard, who didn't even know whether he had killed his good friend.

The N.Y.Times even informs us that parts of the Holy Quran were made up by Mohammed. Wine, we're told, is forbidden in the Quran, not because Allah wills it, but because of Mohammed's moral hangover.

It's a sad story indeed that the N. Y. Times were less fettered by censorship a hundred years ago than today.

The picture in the article isn't very clear, so click at the one to the left instead.

Comments:
This is a real gem, great work. This should get passed around Canada with all the crazy stuff up there with Warman and the HRC and Mark Steyn, Ezra Levant all those Canadian bloggers getting sued.

draw not Muhammad -
Islamic law can only
apply to Muslims...

Muslims not bound by Buddhist
Christian or Jewish doctrine
.
 
Dear friend,
Sorry for this intrusion. Below is the news about my arrest in prophet cartoon publication case. I read a news on AFP that a court of your country has dismissed a similar kind of case. I have been charge sheeted after two and half year and the case comes for hearing next month-in July.

I was wondering if I may get the text of this judgment. It will help me in my case and finding the justice for my democratic right of freedom of expression. Friend, I am fighting not only a case but with system and your help would give me a lasting support. If English translation of judgment may be made available and if it involves money, I am willing to pay the translator's fee.
I am banking on your support. If you ever need my journalistic help, please feel free to call/write to me.
Regards
Alok Tomar
NEW DELHI
aloktomar@hotmail.com

+9811222998


PAGE ONE


Magazine editor held in Delhi over Prophet cartoons

Express News Service

New Delhi, February 22:1 THE editor of a magazine being published under the banner of a news channel has been arrested for reprinting the controversial cartoons of Prophet Mohammad. The cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper last September, have caused outrage among Muslims and led to violent protests in many countries.
However, Vijay Dixit, group chairman of Senior Media Ltd, said the cartoons were merely part of an article by Senior India editor Alok Tomar which set out to criticise the Danish cartoons.





The February 28 edition of Senior India had already reached Delhi newsstands and police had to rush to seize copies of the magazine today before matters got out of hand. Senior officers have told police in other states to seize copies of the magazine.



Dixit said: “Our purpose was not to publish the cartoons to make fun of the Prophet. Alok Tomar had written an article denouncing the publishing of the cartoon strip. His only fault was that he published the controversial cartoon strip too.”



Delhi Police carried out a raid to verify if the magazine had published the cartoons after receiving a tip-off. Senior policemen questioned Senior India employees at their Defence Colony office.



The police team found several copies of the latest edition in the office. They registered a case and picked up Tomar for questioning. “Hundreds of magazines were seized from stands. We have registered a case and arrested Tomar,” a senior police officer said.



Police said they had seen the cartoons and would check if they were the same ones that appeared in Denmark last September.
 
That depends on what you mean by "similar case". Two years ago, the court threw out a suit, where Danish Muslims tried to take Jyllands-Posten to court for blasphemy and racism.

You can read all about the state attorney's reasoning in this PDF document.

That was 2 years ago. The recent case was about defaming character (the bomb in the turban as an insult to Mohammed and Muslims). But satirizing terror is allowed and Jyllands-Posten won the case.

As the court ruled (my translation): "it is a fact that acts of terror has been perpetrated in the name of Islam, and that it isn't illegal to make this condition an object of satirical representation."

==>> Fixed the link
 
Great website and very interesting post!! Keep up the good work!!
 
As to the attack on the Sweedish cartoonist today, May 12, 2010; What rules should the entire world use when “NOT” depicting images of Mohammed? What if I drew a single dot on a piece of paper, and some Islamic extremist said he saw it as an image of Mohammed? Would that single dot then be considered against Islam? If so then all printing, painting or transfer of any image to electronic or printed media should be considered a sin and punishable under Islamic law. So if not a “DOT”, at what level does an image become offensive to those of Islam? Crude drawings, detailed drawings, exact drawings? And by the way, what exactly did Mohammed look like? If my photographic history is correct, there were no photographs taken, videos were not invented, and the only recording might have been a drawing or painting (Maybe the sleeping Mohammed published in the NY Times many years ago). But if it is against the Islamic faith to reproduce an image of Mohammed, then if any images exist, they are themselves illegal and against Islam and likely should be destroyed. So if we today are not sure what Mohammed looked like, then can any image truly be that of Mohammed? So, I guess all is left to the eye of the beholder…. AND if the viewer of any image thinks that she/he is seeing Mohammed (even if the image is a cartoon of a duck, picture of Jesus, or any other image), the image is therefore against Islam and whoever constructed it is in BIG trouble. So the question I have is “How Can NON-Islamic People make images that cannot be missconstrued with Mohammed? Especially, since no one knows what he actually looked like. What are the RULES the rest of the world needs to OBEY to keep the Isalmic world happy?
Dave
 
Denne kommentar er fjernet af en blogadministrator.
 
Send en kommentar


Links to this post:

Opret et link

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?