No it is exactly the same. I am not a Muslim myself. My parents raised me Roman Catholic.
I grew up from my 12th till my 16th in a country called Surinam. In that country there are people from all major religions living together. In my class we had christians, buddhists, hindus, muslims and a jew and even a sikh. Offcourse also some non-religious people. Because of this mixture of children our school tought us the basics of ALL religions, and we got explained the differences and how we could enjoy eachothers company without insulting eachother. This is why I have learned some basics about Islam (I am not an expert).
One of the things I learned was that: It is considered a gross insult to depict the prophet Muhammed!
So by depicting him you are already insulting the Islam. which is just as heavy an insult to a Muslim as showing Blair's testicles is to some Brits. So these matters are exactly the same.
Any cartoon depicting Muhammed are designed for shock-value for a believing Muslim!
Waerth
On Dec 5, 2007 2:49 PM, Waerth waerth@asianet.co.th wrote:
Oh boy, this pisses me off.
Cartoons insulting Sharon must be removed and we are rolling over ourselves to get them away.
But the Cartoons insulting the prophet Mohammed are allowed on our projects: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-20...
Somehow I smell a christian-judeo double-standard/bias here
I would say that there is a slight difference between the two. The Mohammed cartoons don't show tony blair's exposed genitles, and don't show Mohammed being urinated on, or being sexually assaulted with a nightstick. Politically-sensitive cartoons are one thing, cartoons that are designed for shock-value are different entirely.
--Andrew Whitworth
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l