What do you think about this story on Lars Vilks and his depiction of Mohammed?

Question

Here is the link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/10/16/artist.controversy/index.html

Basically I noticed that 1. it's NOT just moderate muslims who are foaming at the mouth and talking death and destruction. (From a wife and mother, no less! Wearing a burka, that shows she's free, hey?)

And 2. No other religion shows this kind of craziness over a percieved insult. When this guy showed Jesus as a pedophile, did anyone threaten his life? No. I'm thinking if he showed Rama or Krishna, nobody would care either.

What's your frank opinion?

Honey, no offense, but what universe do you live in? Muslims don't make offensive drawings of other religions? When is the last time you picked up an Islamic newspaper? Because last time I did, I saw jews portrayed as dogs, Christ portrayed as a donkey, ect ect ect! Freedom of speech does NOT mean that we cannot offend. Freedom of speech where one cannot offend defeats the purpose.

And as far as I can tell, christians love their God but their God is different from your allah because their God doesn't tell them to blow people up. But Allah clearly tells Muslims to be violent. It's in your Koran!

Answer 1

Lars irreverent depiction of Muhammad has no one upset except Muslims. Freedom for artistic expression will step on everyone's toes, sooner or later. It wasn't that long ago that Christianity came under attack with the likes of The DaVinci Code book and public display of "The Piss Christ."

Islam remains a volatile belief system based upon Muhammad's writings (though he was an illiterate).

If Lars wanted to evoke a response, he aimed at the correct target. I always remember the old addage:

"When you throw a stone into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit."

Answer 2

Hey.. Either Lars Vilks is out for a dying sentence, or effortlessly being snide. Artistic unfastened expression, and exercise democratic rights is inside limits. what this guy is doing, is browsing for a exact reaction to his artwork. "Vilks, who has been a debatable artist for greater than 3 a long time in Sweden, says his drawing used to be a calculated transfer, and he desired it to elicit a response." He wants to "elicit a response" any individual so silly as to take action, is effortlessly asking to be killed. It is not any marvel fundamentalist companies have threatened to kill him. No one of their proper brain is dull to ample to initiate a organization of suicidal and fanatical fundamentalists. If a organization within the center east behaves in a question, it's known as prejudice, to view the complete Islamic neighborhood as murderous and sizzling blooded. If blanket standpoint used to be carried out to many cultures on the planet, I'am certain most of the international locations could now not position or function as they do at present.

Answer 3

There are old Korans and middle ages art depicting Mohammed.
So, it's time to get over something that doesn't exist.
They sound like those right-wingers killing hippies in the 60s because they wore the American Flag as a shirt or jacket, when Country stars would do the same anti-flag-code thing on Children's TV.

Answer 4

The reason Christians don't react angrily when somebody depicts nasty pictures of their Jesus is because they don't truly care for him. Muslims are strong faithed passionate people. Vilks openly admitted that he wasn't expressing his freedom of expression, he just likes to provoke people-- he has not only targeted Islam, he has done it to Christianity as well. As far as freedom of expression goes, it is too overrated because freedom of anything should not insult anybody. I have never seen a Muslim drawing nasty pictures in relation to Christianity or any other religion for that matter. That is because as much as they respect their own faith, Qur'an teaches them to respect the faith of others too.
And in the past, when pictures of Mohammad (pbuh) were displayed, you forgot to mention that his face was never given any features. They made it blank. 2nd, the image of his figure, rather his face, were used only to tell a story of events that took place in his life time. But nobody drew obscene pictures of him. People who abuse their freedom of expression as a way to anger, insult, and disrespect others are not true artists, they're just nut cases and deserve no respect from anybody. An artist is supposed to inspire the viewer, not insult one. Personally, I wouldn't soil my hands with the blood of vilks. He's not worth it.