Everyone Draw Mohammed Day!

[Crazed Rabbit]

From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day#Cartoonist_and_Facebook_page_creator_end_involvement):

Everybody Draw Mohammed Day is a protest against Islamists who threaten violence against individuals that attempt to depict Muhammad. It originally began as a protest against censorship of South Park episode "201" by Comedy Central in response to death threats from radical Islamists. It started with a drawing posted on the Internet on April 20, 2010, the suggestion in it that everybody create a drawing representing Muhammad, a prophet of Islam, on May 20, 2010, as a protest against efforts to limit freedom of speech, and the movement in support of that protest.

U.S. cartoonist Molly Norris of Seattle, Washington, created the artwork in reaction to Internet death threats that had been made against cartoonists Trey Parker and Matt Stone for depicting Muhammad in an episode of South Park. Depictions of Muhammad are explicitly forbidden by a few hadith (Islamic texts), though not by the Qur'an.[1] Postings on RevolutionMuslim.com had said that Parker and Stone could wind up like Theo van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker who was brutally murdered and mutilated by a Muslim extremist. The individuals running the website later denied that the postings were actual threats, although they were widely perceived as such.

Norris said that if millions of people draw pictures of Muhammad, Islamist terrorists would not be able to murder them all, and threats to do so would become unrealistic. Within a week, Norris' idea became popular on Facebook, was supported by numerous bloggers, and generated coverage on the blog websites of major U.S. newspapers. As the publicity mounted, Norris and the man who created the first Facebook page promoting the May 20 event disassociated themselves from it. Nonetheless, planning for the protest continued with others taking "up the cause".[2]

The almost 100,000 supporters facebook group:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day/121369914543425?v=photos#!/pages/Everybody-Draw-Mohammed-Day/121369914543425

My own image of Mohammed:
https://img690.imageshack.us/img690/9765/mohammedimage.gif

I think this is a great chance to stand up for freedom of expression against those who would use intimidation and force to silence speech.

CR

[Kadagar_AV]

Pakistan and Turkey is banning Facebook and Youtube as of now, reason: you can access pics of muhammed there.

Muhammed Cartoon (https://img398.imageshack.us/i/muhammedsweddingip8.jpg/)

One of the worst pictures I have seen. A clear provocation - making fun of Muhammed and his (was it third?) wife. They got married when we was six, but consumated the marriage when she was 9 (yuck!!). Reminding muslims that their prophet was a pedo is a sure way to set them off.

The fact that her teddy is a piglet just adds extra fuel to the fire I assume.



I am not overly impressed by the people who go out of their way to insult Islam, but it is their right to do so, and that I support.

[Beskar]

https://img15.imageshack.us/img15/7435/mohammedcr.jpg

[Lemur]

This is a nice way to give a collective middle finger to the Salafist/Wahhabist jerks. Has a nice Anonymous-style feel to it.

I still can't believe that the only group stupid and crazy enough to threaten South Park was a couple of Brooklynites (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/26/opinion/26douthat.html).

I'm tempted to post a completely meaningless piece of abstract art and declare that it represents the "idea" of Mohammed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Oh Beskar, Beskar, Beskar. I like how I look like Black Rabbit of Inlé, and I love how there's a bag of money next to my ghostly figure.

The point of this is not to insult Islam. It's to stand up for free expression, to show that threats of violence cannot silence people. Will some people be offended? It would seem so; but it needs to be clear that violence is not the answer to being offended.

CR

[Kadagar_AV]

Muslims are not the problem... (http://moronail.net/img/2039_muslims_are_not_the_problem)

[Beskar]

Oh Beskar, Beskar, Beskar. I like how I look like Black Rabbit of Inlé, and I love how there's a bag of money next to my ghostly figure.

I am proud of that black rabbit.

[Fragony]

I tried. My pencil, it just vanished. It's gone.

[Vladimir]

I am proud of that black rabbit.

Agreed.

This is a great idea!

[Louis VI the Fat]

https://img91.imageshack.us/img91/8393/facho.jpg






The image is from a French school textbook. The face of Mohammed has been pixelled (http://atheisme.org/belin.html) out of it in 2005, so as not to offend schoolchildren. The picture is seven centuries old, rather telling of the glory of Mediaeval Islamic civilisation.
Thirteenth century Persian schoolschildren could watch it. 21st century French schoolchildren can not. Some progress.

Also, without wanting to derail the threat with pet peeves, what disgrace the world's most secular education, the French, should suddenly bend over backwards to suit some private cult. I demand education stops discriminating Islam and gives it equal treatment to Christianity! :deal2:


A picture of Hitler was chosen because that offends less Islam, but is considered the gravest insult by the people behind the blotting out: the self-censoring lefty multicultural tralalalists (thanks, Fragony, for providing me with the proper terminology)




~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~



You are genuinely talented, CR! :balloon2:

[Komutan]

Pakistan and Turkey is banning Facebook and Youtube as of now, reason: you can access pics of muhammed there.



Turkey is not banning Facebook as far as I know. Youtube is indeed banned, but not because of Muhammed.

[Rhyfelwyr]

IMO this is unecessary, it will offend the 99.9999% of Muslims that didn't threaten anybody. Though of course I very much defend your right to do it.

But what if we had a crap all over the American flag day? Or indeed the French flag, since someone in another thread said such symbols should not be allowed to be disrespected.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Who has been threatened with death for defacing the american or french flags?

[Lemur]

IMO this is unecessary, it will offend the 99.9999% of Muslims that didn't threaten anybody.
I question the assumption behind this statement. The prohibition on graven images of Mohammed is meant to prevent worshipping him. Parody, satire and free speech were not the targets, and the vast majority of Musilms understand this. It's only a small, humorless, pathetic fundamentalist subculture that gets worked up about these drawings. I don't see why anyone should modify their behavior to accomodate this fringe.

[Louis VI the Fat]

IMO this is unecessary, it will offend the 99.9999% of Muslims that didn't threaten anybody. Though of course I very much defend your right to do it.

But what if we had a crap all over the American flag day? Or indeed the French flag, since someone in another thread said such symbols should not be allowed to be disrespected.I'm fairly certain the overwhelming amount of Catholics are not involved in some papist plot to ensure global domination for the whore of Babylon.


As for myself - I'm an equal treatment guy. Considering even what yours truly alone has written about Catholicism in recent months, I am not sure this thread qualifies as the most painful to religious feelings.


https://img408.imageshack.us/img408/7026/franceflag.jpg



Funny? Nah. Insulting? 200.000 men died fighting in June 1940, while the world stood by as the last democratic bastion in Europe fell.

Will I issue death threats and demand you censor your school books? Nope. I'll rather post it myself.

(A few guys who burned a French flag had to appear before court though, two months ago. With which I disagree. I think you get a fine for it or some such nonsense.)

[drone]

When this disappears or is defaced, we are truly in trouble.
https://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j9/cfibackup/North-Wall.jpg

[Kadagar_AV]

When this disappears or is defaced, we are truly in trouble.
https://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j9/cfibackup/North-Wall.jpg

Care to elaborate?

[Meneldil]

The image is from a French school textbook. The face of Mohammed has been pixelled (http://atheisme.org/belin.html) out of it in 2005, so as not to offend schoolchildren. The picture is seven centuries old, rather telling of the glory of Mediaeval Islamic civilisation.
Thirteenth century Persian schoolschildren could watch it. 21st century French schoolchildren can not. Some progress.


Thanks for finaly proving that Muhammad has been represented countless times during the Middle Ages. I was pretty sure I saw his face in high school, and some of my muslim friends would go "ZOMG no way in hell dude, that's blasphemy" when I told them. Bollox.

[PanzerJaeger]

This is great! Freedom of expression is a core Western value that they should adapt to, not the other way around.


May I ask if our moderating staff agrees, as I have created my own Muhammad artwork?

[CountArach]

May I ask if our moderating staff agrees, as I have created my own Muhammad artwork?
If you PM it to me first that would be much appreciated.

EDIT: I completely forgot about this... I really did intend to go through with it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Who has been threatened with death for defacing the american or french flags?

Some people want to lock them up for it. Same principle, different degree.


I question the assumption behind this statement. The prohibition on graven images of Mohammed is meant to prevent worshipping him. Parody, satire and free speech were not the targets, and the vast majority of Musilms understand this. It's only a small, humorless, pathetic fundamentalist subculture that gets worked up about these drawings. I don't see why anyone should modify their behavior to accomodate this fringe.

For the bolded bit, that is, ironically, exactly what they are doing. Would you be drawing Muhammad if it wasn't because this whole issue had arisen?


I'm fairly certain the overwhelming amount of Catholics are not involved in some papist plot to ensure global domination for the whore of Babylon.

As for myself - I'm an equal treatment guy. Considering even what yours truly alone has written about Catholicism in recent months, I am not sure this thread qualifies as the most painful to religious feelings.

Well the difference is I was trying to discuss the matter, and it's not like my beliefs haven't been similarly attacked by Catholics or atheists/whoever. But that's what its all about, being able to talk about things even when it will offend people, if it means hearing the different views etc...

On the other hand, people seem to be drawing Muhammad purely to annoy people.

[Fragony]

people seem to be drawing Muhammad purely to annoy people.

Act rediculously and people will make fun of you.

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

I'm for this. If they can mock Jesus Chirst on TV, then Mohammed should be no different.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Some people want to lock them up for it. Same principle, different degree.



Yes. Just like "desecrating" the flag once in a while, and having a day dedicated to it is the same principle, different degree.

[al Roumi]

I would like to ask you guys whether you think that your societies or beliefs truely allow you complete freedom of expression. I would encourage you to check the laws of your country too, you may be surprised...

I know, for example, that the UK has legislation to ban "incitement of hatred and violence", which is clearly a gag or limit to the freedom of expression. Certain other European states include holocaust denial as an illegal matter for public discussion. This kind of legislation clearly denotes a belief that some things cannot or should not be said because they undermine social values or are potentialy harmful. I am aware that this kind of legislation is itself contentious, but it represents a rational decision made to limit free speech in order to preserve respect.

Muslims would add improper discussion of Mohamed, Jesus, Abraham and Moses to these existing items which western coutnries deem improper or nurgatory, because they believe in respect for these religious figures -as the laws of Germany and Austria respect the victims of the holocaust.

President Ahmadinejad's public statements and international congresses of Holocaust denial (edit: as Iraeli/Jewish & western baiting) could be considered an equivalent of the kind of Muslim baiting this thread represents. There are plenty of other ways to celebrate free speech than insulting people.

How people react to deliberate provocation through the debasement of things they hold dear is another matter.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yes. Just like "desecrating" the flag once in a while, and having a day dedicated to it is the same principle, different degree.

I like the US flag and what it represents! (http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/political%20satire/capitalism.jpg)

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I would like to ask you guys whether you think that your societies or beliefs truely allow you complete freedom of expression. I would encourage you to check the laws of your country too, you may be surprised...

Yes, the underlying assumption is that this is a form of expression that should not be illegal. It's underlying because we've had previous threads on the subject.


Certain other European states include holocaust denial as an illegal matter for public discussion.

And they are wrong to do so.



President Ahmadinejad's public statements and international congresses of Holocaust denial could be considered an equivalent of the kind of Muslim baiting this thread represents. There are plenty of other ways to celebrate free speech than insulting people.


Posting drawings of mohammed is the equivalent of Holocaust denial? :inquisitive:

I can't even recall the philosophical arguments for free speech exactly...but isn't the "incitement to violence" limitation about people urging violence on someone else that very same day or something like that?

[Tellos Athenaios]

I think a major point with the cartoons of Mohammed is: it is beyond belief that a narrow, fringe opinion comes to dominate the entire public discourse on Islam. Especially since the narrow, fringe opinion is wholly incompatible with a major body of literature, culture, and art produced by Muslims of the past. We do not accept a similar status quo to appease Catholics, Jews or Buddhists or Protestants, why should we do so for Muslims? The big difference with Holocaust denial, is, as I see it: that we have proof of the Holocaust happening; just like we have proof of the depictions of Mohammed before any Muslim today was even thought of.

Of course this is aside from the content of the cartoon, or the motivation. But a cartoon such as the one made by Zapiro (Mohammed lies on a couch at the psychiatrist complaining that other prophets do have followers with a sense of humour) is not merely needlessly offensive. It has a real substance; and it doesn't even seek to pour scorn on Mohammed or his teachings.

[al Roumi]

Well, ultimately you can be offended by people saying millions of people weren't gassed and you can be offended by people dissing Mohamed. I'm not sure there is very much rational about either: they are both things that some people respect greatley and get upset about others taking the :daisy: out of them.

I personaly am up for a discussion about anything, i don't think there is anything I personally believe shouldn't be debated. However, I also respect the fact that some people don't like everything to be questioned, lampooned or cross-referenced because it is important to them.

Muslim society tends to be more conservative than liberal western society, exactly as some christian societies can be (hello bible belt, hello catholic Italy).


I have to admit I don't actually know what it feels like to be Muslim and see Mohamed satirised, but I should imagine it's like telling you that your mother prefers to lay with dogs and horses than your father or something.

I don't have a problem with anyone drawing mohamed, it doesn't upset me in the slightest, i just think its a bit childish to pointedly goad someone with something you know will insult them.

[al Roumi]

Certain other European states include holocaust denial as an illegal matter for public discussion.

And they are wrong to do so.

In your liberal opinion.



Posting drawings of mohammed is the equivalent of Holocaust denial? :inquisitive:

In the sense of being upsetting to a large group of people, yes it is.


Tell me, what do you hold sacred? What do you respect and revere above all else? Be it a person, family member or deed done, how would you feel if it was insulted, grossely caricatured or besmirched?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In your liberal opinion.

It isn't a matter of opinion, but that seems to be another debate. In any case, offering up the example of holocaust denial being illegal is not an argument against draw mohammed day. It was just one of the pseudo arguments you used.


In the sense of being upsetting to a large group of people, yes it is.

So it isn't equivalent.


Tell me, what do you hold sacred? What do you respect and revere above all else? Be it a person, family member or deed done, how would you feel if it was insulted, grossely caricatured or besmirched?

A free society in which I can be insulted and the things I respect grossly caricatured.



I don't have a problem with anyone drawing mohamed, it doesn't upset me in the slightest, i just think its a bit childish to pointedly goad someone with something you know will insult them.

Change "pointedly" to "pointlessly" and I'd agree with you. But this has a point and a purpose that has nothing to do with insulting muslims.

[Meneldil]

Tell me, what do you hold sacred? What do you respect and revere above all else? Be it a person, family member or deed done, how would you feel if it was insulted, grossely caricatured or besmirched?

Cultural relativism as its highest.

The simple thought that "drawing Muhammad = denying the Holocaust = talking about your mum" is worthy of a double /facepalm.

It's kind of sad that all these people are ignorant about their own religion and go around crying for murder and what not. Meh.

[Kadagar_AV]

Cultural relativism as its highest.

The simple thought that "drawing Muhammad = denying the Holocaust = talking about your mum" is worthy of a double /facepalm.

It's kind of sad that all these people are ignorant about their own religion and go around crying for murder and what not. Meh.

To be fair, that is the idiocy of religion at large, not specified to islam.

The majority of the christians I know have not even read the whole bible, or the old testament.

[Lemur]

Let's just reiterate that the prohibition on images of Mohammed was intended to prevent idolization and worship of the prophet. It was an explicit attempt to avoid the Jesus-ification of Mohammed. So please don't draw Mohammed as part of a shrine to worship him.

The vast majority of Muslims are clear on this; it's only the Salafist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi)/Wahabbi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahabbi) jerk-holes who believe that any image of the prophet is haraam. And note that this "death to infidels who draw the prophet" thing is entirely Sunni in origin and execution. The Shia seem to be much more cosmopolitan about it.

Lastly a note to those arguing that this constitutes some sort of needless, pointless provocation: You are wrong. Freedom of expression is fundamental to western liberal democracy. Any attempt by a fringe group of humorless illiterates to carve out an exception for their heightened sensibilities should be met with mockery, derision and dismissal. Welcome to the western world, chumps. If you want to live in a medieval theocracy where criticism of religion brings a death sentence, you'd better leave.

[Andres]

"Everybody has the right to be ridiculized" - Urbanus, Belgian comedian.

I agree with that statement.

[Tellos Athenaios]

you want to live in a medieval 20th or 21st century theocracy where criticism of religion brings a death sentence, you'd better leave.
It pretty much is a 20th/21st century sensibility thing.

Fortunately that means you* know where to go: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran. Another clear benefit is that you can keep us posted on the Internet, provided it is not censored that day.

You being whomever would like to live in a theocracy with such views onto your personal freedom of expression.

To be fair though... similar reactions can be elicited in Alabama using “Nascar sucks”, “Manlove rules ok” and “Hillary for president” painted in hot pink on a pickup truck.

[Beskar]

"Everybody has the right to be ridiculized" - Urbanus, Belgian comedian.

I agree with that statement.

Though the ORG gives out warning points for it. :no:

[Rhyfelwyr]

To be fair though... similar reactions can be elicited in Alabama using “Nascar sucks”, “Manlove rules ok” and “Hillary for president” painted in hot pink on a pickup truck.

rofl, I remember that episode of Top Gear, when the woman at the garage called all her hillbilly sons and they came riding in on the back of the pickup. :laugh4:


Lastly a note to those arguing that this constitutes some sort of needless, pointless provocation: You are wrong. Freedom of expression is fundamental to western liberal democracy. Any attempt by a fringe group of humorless illiterates to carve out an exception for their heightened sensibilities should be met with mockery, derision and dismissal. Welcome to the western world, chumps. If you want to live in a medieval theocracy where criticism of religion brings a death sentence, you'd better leave.

I don't think this is all pointless, I can see why it is a fair reaction to the nutjobs and sticks it to them when they go about trying to terrorise people.

I'm just saying... remember the down side, that it will seriosuly offend a lot of people. And there's no need for the hyperbole about theocracies and death sentences, everyone on this thread has defended people's rights to draw Mohammed. The difference is, not everyone feels the need to legislate their morality into the system (as opposed to leftists and Frenchmen it seems), so I can point out that drawing Mohammad might not be a nice thing to do, but still approve of people being able to do it.

I think this issue is just about balance... the positive is defending free speech from nutjobs, the negative is causing serious offence to a lot of innocent people. While the former is much more important, it should be remembered this is all just a minor symbolic gesture, and there is no serious threat to our freedoms from radical Muslims (the liberal-left does much more in that respect).

[Hax]

Ironically, the entire most of the Muslim world relies on a misunderstanding when it comes to things like these. It is improper for Muslims to depict Muhammed in art (although, as it was pointed out, the Persians and Ottomans depicted Muhammed several times throughout history) as they would see it as a kind of idol. Seeing this, there should be no objection for non-Muslims to depict Muhammed, especially when it comes to educational matters. Both the radical anti-Islamists as well as the radical Islamists are unaware of this fact.

Depictions of Muhammed in a negative or hostile way (depicting him as a dog, or in bed with a 9-year old who is carrying a piglet doll or something) is pretty much useless save for the "use" of trying to offend (and really, offending) millions of people. What's the use of that? If you keep pulling a cat's tail, it'll scratch. Can you then condemn the cat for scratching just because you were exercising your "freedom of tail-pulling"? Well, you can. Should you be surprised? I don't really think so, unless you're an idiot.

But in this situation, both the extremist Muslims and the extreme anti-Muslims are at wrong. If there was a huge amount of protest due to the fact that Muhammed was depicted in a history class or whatever, sure, I could understand why non-Muslim people would get upset over such a reaction. But this behaviour, just trying to see just how far you can go, seems pretty much useless to me. Basically, it's childish to continuously tease something and then be surprised when it strikes back at you, in whatever way.


And note that this "death to infidels who draw the prophet" thing is entirely Sunni in origin and execution. The Shia seem to be much more cosmopolitan about it.

Not necessarily. The Persians (who are only Shi'ites since the 16th century) were often known for their...unorthodoxy. But you're right, Shi'ites didn't have too much beef about depicting Muhammed. Or drinking wine. Or using drugs. They're like Muslim hippies, man. You will notice that some of the most interesting developments in terms of liberalism within Islam comes from the Shi'ite side; Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (issuing a fatwa commanding women to vote), Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri (supporting the green movement in Iran), Mehdi Karroubi (presidential candidate in Iran in 2009, and famed supporter of women's and non-muslim's rights in Iran) are all Shi'ites. Even Ayatollah Khomeini, not exactly known for his liberalism (:clown:) accepted and allowed sex-changes for both sexes.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Though the ORG gives out warning points for it. :no:I'm afraid you missed the genius of that pinnacle of European civilisation, Belgium: 'Everybody has the right to be ridiculed'. The .org has never issued warning points for exercising this right.


Unlike, perhaps, the right to ridicule, which may not extent to everybody in all circumstances.

[Louis VI the Fat]

"Everybody has the right to be ridiculized" - Urbanus, Belgian comedian.

I agree with that statement.Speaking of which, Belgium, earlier today:


http://www.koreus.com/video/statue-brecht.html# :belgium:

[Beskar]

Speaking of which, Belgium, earlier today:


http://www.koreus.com/video/statue-brecht.html# :belgium:

Reminds me of the EU for some reason.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thanks for finaly proving that Muhammad has been represented countless times during the Middle Ages. I was pretty sure I saw his face in high school, and some of my muslim friends would go "ZOMG no way in hell dude, that's blasphemy" when I told them. Bollox.Yes, when you went to school you were still shown an image of Muhammed for history - geography. :shame:

Islamic civilisation has produced a great many images (http://schnellmann.org/essential_files/Pictures/Mohammed_Image_Archive.pdf) of Muhammed. Until a few years ago, French children were taught this Islamic heritage. Until 2005, you would see the poetic and visual refinement Islamic civilisation reached, unrivalled by virtually anything in Europe at this time.
Since 2005, the image of Islam that schoolchildren see is censorship, iconoclasm, terror, backwardness, repression.

Well done to the Islamofascists and their inadvert helpers in the West!

I might as well have posted this in your 'Am I the only one who thinks things are going downhill in Europe?'. In the past few years, it has suddenly become an insult to Islam to teach ancient Islamic literature - merely showing it will create a classroom intifada. (Or is perceived to do so?)



Islam is not a monolith, in neither time nor place. 13th century Persia was a refined culture. This aspect of the Islamic world has been replaced in classrooms by modern Arabic cultural nationalism, which is the current face of Islam in France.

I haven't yet posted an image of Muhammed himself in this thread, only the characteristic features of Hitler imposed on a pixelled out image of Muhammed. The subtlety of it was that Muhammed was not shown at all, never mind a cartoon of him.
But below, then, my image of Muhammed. Sure to cause offense so spoilered!! :



Muhammed as depicted in the mediaeval illumination of 'The Remaining Signs Of Past Centuries' by Abu Rayhan Biruni, Persia, tenth century, no longer shown in 21st century textbooks.



https://img337.imageshack.us/img337/4381/001hx.jpg


Remove this insult from the face of the earth! Pixel it out! Islam is terror, fundamentalism, superstition! Not timeless knowledge and poetry!





~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~


What has become of Panzer's cartoon? :curtain:

[Lemur]

Here's a really good roundup (http://globalvoicesonline.org/2010/05/19/facebook-is-blocked-in-pakistan-as-it-indulges-in-a-controversial-campaign/)of bloggers, editorials and other sources from Pakistan, reacting to the draw Mohamed day.

Below the spoil is my Mohamed cartoon.

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/jami_al-tawarikh_gabriel.jpg

I know, it looks a lot like a Persian 13th century depiction, but really it's the infidel disrespecting the prophet. If anyone wants to behead me, I'd be happy to give you my home address in PM.

[PanzerJaeger]

What has become of Panzer's cartoon? :curtain:

I thought better of it. While I'm quite proud to see my artistic vision celebrating freedom of expression come to life via Microsoft Paint, there is no point in needlessly offending Hax and any other Muslim members that may be reading when the real targets of my derision (radical Muslims) don't even visit the org. And trust me, it certainly would offend.. :evilgrin:

[Cute Wolf]

If i draw those pics, i could be killed here. Yes, only islamic religious nuts will take that as an insult, half of my muslim friends only laugh a bit and said that wasn't a problem, but another half who said it was insulting and the perpetator needs to be sentenced to death is currently the commanding leaders of muslim society, oh yeah, my facebook page was pretty ****** up now, as my university's muslim students start to doing their own campaign to deface christian imagery because of that uproar, and now they are at the streets to demand the closings of facebook and usa embassy. Stupid religious nuts? Yes! But they are the majority here.

[Fragony]

heh wasn't me http://loorschrijft.web-log.nl/photos/uncategorized/2009/08/20/aisha1.jpg

[Meneldil]

Just saw the news. Apparently, the page was taken down. Facebook owners claim they haven't done anything.

Edit : Just checked, can't see the page anymore. I'll wait for more infos about this, but it sounds like the Western World once again crapped in his pants after seeing a few bearded nutjobs making death threats in Lahore.

[Meneldil]

But in this situation, both the extremist Muslims and the extreme anti-Muslims are at wrong. If there was a huge amount of protest due to the fact that Muhammed was depicted in a history class or whatever, sure, I could understand why non-Muslim people would get upset over such a reaction. But this behaviour, just trying to see just how far you can go, seems pretty much useless to me. Basically, it's childish to continuously tease something and then be surprised when it strikes back at you, in whatever way.


Oh yeah... except that in this case, the whole issue started with the South Park affair. You know, when a bunch of muslim nutjobs made dead threats against the writers of South Park, which in turn led to the episode being censored. So yeah, it's not just a "let's offend muslims as much as we can" event. It's a "these morons are threatening freedom of speech even in the US, we have to react" one.

Edit : Sorry for the double post, thought I was editing the last one.

[Fragony]

Just saw the news. Apparently, the page was taken down. Facebook owners claim they haven't done anything.

Edit : Just checked, can't see the page anymore. I'll wait for more infos about this, but it sounds like the Western World once again crapped in his pants after seeing a few bearded nutjobs making death threats in Lahore.

She has gotten some serious threats from peaceful people. It was already closed down yesterday out of respect. Should be noted that not one but two mosks are build at ground-zero, Hax knows that it's mutual respect, but I am not 100% sure if that's the truth.

[Hax]

Should be noted that not one but two mosks are build at ground-zero, Hax knows that it's mutual respect, but I am not 100% sure if that's the truth.

...err, not necessarily. I think that the people who want to build those mosques at ground zero are probably complete idiots who have fairly little idea of the ideas that the right-wing have concerning Islam. It would've been better if they had just built a secular center with information on Islam, not a house of prayer.

Of course, as my father said, there's also the third possiblity, that they want to build a mosque to prevent further attacks (as it's not legal for Muslims to attack mosques. Or churches or synagogues for that matter, but they appear to've forgotten that). He was joking, though.

[al Roumi]

Cultural relativism as its highest.

The simple thought that "drawing Muhammad = denying the Holocaust = talking about your mum" is worthy of a double /facepalm.

It's kind of sad that all these people are ignorant about their own religion and go around crying for murder and what not. Meh.

Well if you can't see that this is how this kind of stunt goes down and are not interested in understanding why, I'd say there was nothing more ignorant or ethnocentric.

[Fragony]

...err, not necessarily. I think that the people who want to build those mosques at ground zero are probably complete idiots who have fairly little idea of the ideas that the right-wing have concerning Islam. It would've been better if they had just built a secular center with information on Islam, not a house of prayer.


Hmmmm that doesn't sound one bit like 'hoisting the flag of Allah in Manhattan', their words not mine. How obvious do you want it.

edit: two houses of celebr- I mean prayer. We all understand what is going to happen, these mosks will be vandalised, that is their very purpose. And peaceful people will be flabbergasted by such grave intolerance, innocence lost boohoohoo. It's going to be a place of pelgrimage to celebrate 9/11, USA know what you welcomed in.

[Hax]

Hmmmm that doesn't sound one bit like 'hoisting the flag of Allah in Manhattan', their words not mine. How obvious do you want it.

edit: two houses of celebr- I mean prayer

Well yeah, that's pretty ridiculous.

[Strike For The South]

The only thing I hold sacred is the right to say and do whatever I want to your sacred stuff

Now I wont because Im a nice guy and it wouldnt be very chritstian of me and momma wouldn't like it

BUT DONT THINK I WONT

[Meneldil]

Well if you can't see that this is how this kind of stunt goes down and are not interested in understanding why, I'd say there was nothing more ignorant or ethnocentric.

So what? For what reason should I hold respect for medieval values and mindsets? I'm perfectly aware of what "these people" think, when they're not beating women and burning down flags. Don't mean I understand them or care about their outdated, backward, reactionnary and racist point of view.

Where do you draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not? Should we not say a word about the sad state of human rights in China, because you know, that's cultural? Should we let ETA terrorists blow people up because you know, they think they're fighting for freedom and man, they opposed Franco? Should we tolerate female genital cutting because that's an African tradition?

[LittleGrizzly]

On the one hand I do wonder why people in general let words and pictures get to them, not just muslims but people in general, I have a fairly high tolerance for insult, should any of these sensitive souls be protected ?

On the other hand theres so many of these sensitive souls maybe the largest most insulting ones should be censored partially, denying historical genocide, comparing police officers to farmyard animals, using offensive labels carried over from slavery days, drawing the god of a people (some anyway) who really don't want him drawn (and alot of them will be just flat out mockery)

Me I think we should be allowed to do all of them, but I certainly won't join a day dedicated to doing it to prove how free we are by doing one of these, it will cause pointless insult and just give extremists (admittedly only a very little) a bit more pull.

In conclusion we should be free to do this but having this day will just cause pointless insult to many people..

And whether or not Mohammed's face should be drawn or not according to Islam is kind of beside the point, a decent portion seem to believe that thier religion prohibits his drawing, being rational is a mistake when discussing matters of faith.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The word "ethnocentric" is anti-thought. It is the equivalent of responding to everything with "that's your opinion" (it is saying: "that's your culture's opinion").


being rational is a mistake when discussing matters of faith.

:stare:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I've painted another Mohammed picture!!

I call it: 'Peace be upon Malevich':

https://img16.imageshack.us/img16/8360/605pxmalevichblacksquar.jpg




Yes, I know it's abstract, but trust me it represents Mohammed.
I demand a death threat by some fascist (or his denying the Holocaust in retaliation) or I'll be grossly insulted by the discrimination of my religiously felt conviction that abstract art is the true expression of modern Western thought.


Surely figurative art can't be the only art worthy of slitting throats for?
I, for one, would not want to accuse the excitable flag-burning masses of not being educated enough to understand abstract art's power to convey ideas, so they can PM me for my home adress for any ritual killing.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why is it even relevant if Muslims depicted in the past? Who are we to say how Muslims should understand their own religion?

As for school textbooks, the should show Mohammad if the education authorities want them to. And if Muslims don't like it, they should be just not attend state schools.*

*Wait, they have to on the continent I think? The joys of collectivism.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Not over here they don't. Schools can be based on religion, or other grounds; as long as the curriculum, staff & premises meet some criteria (exams, degrees and health&safety regulations respectively).

[al Roumi]

The word "ethnocentric" is anti-thought. It is the equivalent of responding to everything with "that's your opinion" (it is saying: "that's your culture's opinion")

Precisely, this is not a world of absolutes.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Precisely, this is not a world of absolutes.

That sounded like an absolute statement.

[A Nerd]

Islam is so medieval in some cases. It's a shame religion is not allowed to evolve.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That sounded like an absolute statement.

In your logic-centric opinion.

[Reenk Roink]

I liked this quote from the president of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists:


something like that can be too easily co-opted by interest groups who, I suspect, have an agenda that goes beyond a simple defense of free expression

And if we're honest with ourselves here that's what is going on with a large group of the promoters (not Orgahs perhaps but the world at large)... It's like non-black people "upholding free speech" by saying the N-word around black people.


That sounded like an absolute statement.

It was, but be a bit charitable here. I took that statement to be a meta-statement regarding ethnocentrism, so it remains outside of its own critique of absoluteness in a specific framework. Of course I guess if you wanted to you could try to smuggle that statement within an cultural framework or even apply the critique of absoluteness to that statement itself, but I don't think that's what he was getting at (besides even if the statement was self defeating, the point is not defeated, nor is any kind of absoluteness vindicated).


The word "ethnocentric" is anti-thought. It is the equivalent of responding to everything with "that's your opinion" (it is saying: "that's your culture's opinion").

It is their opinion... Just because someone may think/say that something isn't a matter of opinion does not stop it from being it a matter of opinion. :juggle2: He was being polite by phrasing it like that, I'd have just said you were wrong. :shrug:

[Sasaki Kojiro]

It is their opinion... Just because someone may think/say that something isn't a matter of opinion does not stop it from being it a matter of opinion. :juggle2: He was being polite by phrasing it like that, I'd have just said you were wrong. :shrug:

Two people having different opinions on something doesn't make it a matter of opinion. "Matter of opinion" is used in a "your guess is as good as mine/different strokes for different folks" sort of way. And, you know, when someone says that something is "ethnocentric" they mean that it is wrong (usually), and so it seems like they don't think it's a matter of opinion.

The question is about free speech vs unnecessary persecution. What does saying "that's your opinion" to one side or the other really do? Does it really say anything about free speech etc?

[Reenk Roink]

Two people having different opinions on something doesn't make it a matter of opinion. "Matter of opinion" is used in a "your guess is as good as mine/different strokes for different folks" sort of way. And, you know, when someone says that something is "ethnocentric" they mean that it is wrong (usually), and so it seems like they don't think it's a matter of opinion.

The question is about free speech vs unnecessary persecution. What does saying "that's your opinion" to one side or the other really do? Does it really say anything about free speech etc?

Well that's one shade of it, but in this case, I think alh_p was getting at something different. When someone says, "...in your opinion" it is usually a way of politely expressing disagreement/saying one's assertion is wrong. Which he did when you stated it was wrong for governments to limit free speech.

I think he made his point pretty clear on what he thinks about the free speech vs. offending matter pretty nicely by pointing out his difference of opinion from those who see it as simply a matter of upholding free speech and seem to hold a view of freedom speech even when offensive, and then he brought ethnocentrism on top of it to explain the other side and why he doesn't agree.

[Meneldil]

And if we're honest with ourselves here that's what is going on with a large group of the promoters (not Orgahs perhaps but the world at large)... It's like non-black people "upholding free speech" by saying the N-word around black people.


Yes, that's precisely what is happening. And the result is just what I expected: after SouthPark, Facebook crapped his pants and removed the page. Once again, militant islam wins over freedom of speech. A few flag-burning ugly bearded idiots protesting in Lahore and Islamabad forced one of the biggest companies of the day to go against its users agreement.
Something that an European State could hardly dream of doing.

By doing so, they're probably creating even more outrage against Islam in the US and Europe, which will lead to even more bitterness between the communities. Well done everyone *two thumbs up*

[Moros]

Yes, that's precisely what is happening. And the result is just what I expected: after SouthPark, Facebook crapped his pants and removed the page. Once again, militant islam wins over freedom of speech. A few flag-burning ugly bearded idiots protesting in Lahore and Islamabad forced one of the biggest companies of the day to go against its users agreement.
Something that an European State could hardly dream of doing.

By doing so, they're probably creating even more outrage against Islam in the US and Europe, which will lead to even more bitterness between the communities. Well done everyone *two thumbs up*
It's back...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well that's one shade of it, but in this case, I think alh_p was getting at something different. When someone says, "...in your opinion" it is usually a way of politely expressing disagreement/saying one's assertion is wrong. Which he did when you stated it was wrong for governments to limit free speech.

I think he made his point pretty clear on what he thinks about the free speech vs. offending matter pretty nicely by pointing out his difference of opinion from those who see it as simply a matter of upholding free speech and seem to hold a view of freedom speech even when offensive, and then he brought ethnocentrism on top of it to explain the other side and why he doesn't agree.

Nah...he said:

I bet you guys had no idea that there are limitations on free speech in your countries
Holocaust denial is banned in some countries
The muslim baiting in this thread is the equivalent of holocaust denial
That the purpose of this is to childishly goad muslims
and
If you disagree with the above, it's your ignorant ethnocentric opinion

How is that polite disagreement or actually looking at the issue?

The pro is freedom of speech, the con is people being insulted. One seeks to weigh how important the threat to free speech is--weighing things like death threats and preventative self censorship, and the fact that freely discussing the issues of islam is important in a number of huge policy decisions being made in a number of countries--and think about whether those who are offended are justified in being offended. Merely framing the debate by pointing out that there are limitations on free speech, and pointing out the con, is a very basic step, and one that I think has been established previously.

[Louis VI the Fat]

There are A) equal limitations to freedom of speech for insulting Muslims and Jews alike. There are B) equal limitations for insulting Islamic and Jewish Gods alike. This is what the 'Holocaust denial retribution' overlooks. It fails to distinguish between both sets of limitations.

If they wanted to show Western hypocrisy, they should've drawn cartoons of Jewish, or preferably Christian, Gods and prophets.



Of course, they know full well that there is not going to be any flag burning in front of embassies of Islamic countries in the West over some Jesus cartoons, so they had to pick Holocaust to cause some offense. That, and the easily excitable masses who love their daily anti-Semitic outrage, what with the Jews/Zionists being the root of their misery.

[Louis VI the Fat]

https://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8393/facho.jpg

[Rhyfelwyr]

Remember, the debate here isn't just about whether they should legally be allowed to have free speech when it causes offence.

There is also the issue of whether or not exercising free speech in such a manner is a good thing to do.

IMO it should definitely be allowed, but I think it's pointless because Akhmed al-Nutjob does not really pose a threat to free speech. IMO the real threat is liberal westerners who think free speech only applies when you want to say something nice/they agree with.

But drawing Mohammed doesn't cause offence to these liberal westerners, just ordinary Muslims, that are not the real threat.

[LittleGrizzly]

Imagine the effect this would have on a muslim who is very passionate about his religion and believes (rightly or wrongly rationality isn't required for beliefs) that his prophet being drawn is a grave insult, this man could be someone who wants democracy and trial by a jury of your peers, womens rights and all kinds of good values, this person could be someone who regularly argues with the more extreme people he knows that the west isn't that bad and they have some good ideas. If we haven't turned this man away we have at the very least given his extreme friends some very good ammunition for thier argument and him some room to doubt himself.

[Reenk Roink]

Nah...he said:

I bet you guys had no idea that there are limitations on free speech in your countries
Holocaust denial is banned in some countries
The muslim baiting in this thread is the equivalent of holocaust denial
That the purpose of this is to childishly goad muslims
and
If you disagree with the above, it's your ignorant ethnocentric opinion

How is that polite disagreement or actually looking at the issue?

The pro is freedom of speech, the con is people being insulted. One seeks to weigh how important the threat to free speech is--weighing things like death threats and preventative self censorship, and the fact that freely discussing the issues of islam is important in a number of huge policy decisions being made in a number of countries--and think about whether those who are offended are justified in being offended. Merely framing the debate by pointing out that there are limitations on free speech, and pointing out the con, is a very basic step, and one that I think has been established previously.

How is it not? He said "you're wrong" in a nicer way, but as yourself stated, not only did he talk about holocaust denial in an attempt to draw an analogy (pros and cons of such an analogy is another matter), but he keenly also pointed out that this movement might have some other agenda behind it than just upholding free speech, which is a pretty apt thing to add to the discussion.


By doing so, they're probably creating even more outrage against Islam in the US and Europe, which will lead to even more bitterness between the communities. Well done everyone *two thumbs up*

Exactly, and I expect this pattern to continue again and again. :no:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

https://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8393/facho.jpg

Louis:

Don't quit the day job.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Yes, I know it's abstract, but trust me it represents Mohammed.
I demand a death threat by some fascist (or his denying the Holocaust in retaliation) or I'll be grossly insulted by the discrimination of my religiously felt conviction that abstract art is the true expression of modern Western thought.


Surely figurative art can't be the only art worthy of slitting throats for?
I, for one, would not want to accuse the excitable flag-burning masses of not being educated enough to understand abstract art's power to convey ideas, so they can PM me for my home adress for any ritual killing.


:bow:

That's the cleverest position on this whole debate I have seen. Bravo!

Islamic art is based around the abstract to prevent idolatry (ie worship). Yet many examples of such art are awe-inspiring to the point of wonderment - thus perilously close to provoking worship.

[Fragony]

Imagine the effect this would have on a muslim who is very passionate about his religion and believes (rightly or wrongly rationality isn't required for beliefs) that his prophet being drawn is a grave insult, this man could be someone who wants democracy and trial by a jury of your peers, womens rights and all kinds of good values, this person could be someone who regularly argues with the more extreme people he knows that the west isn't that bad and they have some good ideas. If we haven't turned this man away we have at the very least given his extreme friends some very good ammunition for thier argument and him some room to doubt himself.

Screw him then, not my fault he and his friends don't belong here. Not moving an inch.

Can give him a route to the great mosk of Cordoba though, but it's a beauty hundreds of years old. It depicts the prophet.

[LittleGrizzly]

Screw him then, not my fault he and his friends don't belong here. Not moving an inch.

He isn't nessecarily living in the west, he lives in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia he lives in the front line fighting the opinion war, if we assume republicans to be anti terrorists and democrats to be terrorists (for this example) then you have just set back the republican cause and giving some great ammo to the democrat cause....

Or is are you one of the people who want to encourage this war... maybe thats you you don't want to reason with these people.. you would prefer for them to continue to be wound up and regress so you can point and say see i told you we couldn't trust these nutters!

Can give him a route to the great mosk of Cordoba though, but it's a beauty hundreds of years old. It depicts the prophet.

Sure and give the 6000 year old earthers the route to an archelogical dig site for dinosaur bones millions of years old... this is a matter of faith to these people, the rational of whether or not muslim law actually forbids it doesn't matter one jot, these people believe it is an insult to thier religion so it is an insult, you need to stop being rational on matters of faith.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

you need to stop being rational on matters of faith.

You've said this a few times...why??

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis:

Don't quit the day job.Gah, of course I won't! I am a sensible man, with a great career ahead of me.


So not until I can balance just a few more plates, including three on sticks I balance with my teeth, will I quit my dish washing day job and become a full time acrobat. :idea3:

[al Roumi]

How is it not? He said "you're wrong" in a nicer way, but as yourself stated, not only did he talk about holocaust denial in an attempt to draw an analogy (pros and cons of such an analogy is another matter), but he keenly also pointed out that this movement might have some other agenda behind it than just upholding free speech, which is a pretty apt thing to add to the discussion.

:bow:

[LittleGrizzly]

Because whether or not muslim law states that mohammed can be drawn or not, whether the whole muslim world used to have draw mohammed days doesn't matter (though they are rational points to make) the people who will be insulted believe (it would appear wrongly) that thier prophet being drawn is a great insult.

The rational man comes across and then says well were not insulting them because check out these few hundred year old statues/paintings these muslim guys made, thats all very well and good, this man is probably even right. But people believe that in thier faith the drawing of mohammed is wrong, so no matter if rational thinking tells you it should be an insult to no-one, its a matter of faith/belief.

[al Roumi]

You've said this a few times...why??

Because people don't have faith for rational reasons?

AFAIK the whole point of religious belief is not that greatness has been demonstrated and proved to you, rather you submit to it. I'm not religious at all so I may not be the best person to explain this -its also different for everyone.

If you start rationalising religion, its a bit like weighing god -you can't do it (let me know if i've been misled here...) and it's counter-intuitive to faith.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Because whether or not muslim law states that mohammed can be drawn or not, whether the whole muslim world used to have draw mohammed days doesn't matter (though they are rational points to make) the people who will be insulted believe (it would appear wrongly) that thier prophet being drawn is a great insult.

The rational man comes across and then says well were not insulting them because check out these few hundred year old statues/paintings these muslim guys made, thats all very well and good, this man is probably even right. But people believe that in thier faith the drawing of mohammed is wrong, so no matter if rational thinking tells you it should be an insult to no-one, its a matter of faith/belief.

No. What you mean is, people with strong belief will not listen to rational thinking. But that does not make it a matter of faith. You are describing what happens, and then making a leap and saying that this is how it should happen. But, for example, it is quite clear that people who's faith tells them to blow up buildings etc should listen to rational thinking.


Because people don't have faith for rational reasons?

AFAIK the whole point of religious belief is not that greatness has been demonstrated and proved to you, rather you submit to it. I'm not religious at all so I may not be the best person to explain this -its also different for everyone.

If you start rationalising religion, its a bit like weighing god -you can't do it (let me know if i've been misled here...) and it's counter-intuitive to faith.

Same as above.

[LittleGrizzly]

Hell all people of faith should listen to rational thinking as far as im concerned... but then im just a heathen...

I think I am mixing two seperate points into one big point though... one is alh_p's point that faith isn't supposed to rational, it is having faith without it being proved to you (at least most who don't claim two way contact with god) it could be said to be irrational to believe in some invisible guy watching over everyone who you have never seen, heard, or smelt. The only proof you have of him is that someone else told you he exsists, another who also has no personal proof, the whole thing isn't rational.

and then this second point

No. What you mean is, people with strong belief will not listen to rational thinking.

Yes, thier beliefs are stronger than thier rational on the matter, so we can either step back and call them idiots for not knowing thier own religion*, which doesn't help the situation at all, or we can stop looking at it how it should be and start looking at it how it is. The fact is a decent portion of muslims have convinced themselves it is an insult, so that it has become an insult regardless of whether it should be or not....

*Unless you/we believe thier orgininal relgion to be the correct one and right in everyway when it started then what is a religion but what its followers think it is ?

But that does not make it a matter of faith.

They will listen to rational thinking on other matters, you tell them the path is harder one way up the mountain than the other and they will pick the easier route, but rational thinking at least partially goes out the window when it comes to faith.

But, for example, it is quite clear that people who's faith tells them to blow up buildings etc should listen to rational thinking.

I have never said they shouldn't listen to rational thinking, just that they won't and once someones convinced their faith tells them x is y then there is no point trying to have a rational discussion with them about why x is x, if you are to have a conversation (which both can understand) with them you need to work on the basis that x is y or that drawing mohammed is an insult. whether or not x is y or drawing mohammed isn't an insult is besides the point, its thier beliefs we have to work with not what actually is.

[al Roumi]

for example, it is quite clear that people who's faith tells them to blow up buildings etc should listen to rational thinking.

YES! It would be a lot easier if we all thought the same way, interpreted things the same way and arrived at the same conclusions, but we don't -and we all think we are right for doing/thinking it all our own way.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Talking about faith and reason as polar opposites is a pretty modern phenomenon from what I've seen. For some reason, people use the word faith today as if it just means blindly believing something with no evidence/reasoning behind it. In the past, it meant more just placing your trust in something/someone. In the Bible, even Paul argued that the existence of God was self-evident, and hence belief in him would require no 'faith' in the sense people are now using the word today.

As for reasoning behind religious beliefs, plently of logical arguments were given in support of the God's existence, going back to Aquinas and the cosmological argument with the prime mover etc. I like those arguments, because it seems to me that without something with all the properties of what we imagine to be God in the Abramahic tradition (but you could remove the personal aspects for such an idea of God, and the same argument would work for deists), nothing would exist.

Remember, you can become an atheist or a theist through reason, and you can also become an atheist or theist through completely blind faith.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

YES! It would be a lot easier if we all thought the same way, interpreted things the same way and arrived at the same conclusions, but we don't -and we all think we are right for doing/thinking it all our own way.

And some of us are wrong. But I hope we will try and figure it out as best we can, and not simply stop at the point where we realize people disagree with each other.


Hell all people of faith should listen to rational thinking as far as im concerned... but then im just a heathen...

Don't knock yourself.


one is alh_p's point that faith isn't supposed to rational, it is having faith without it being proved to you (at least most who don't claim two way contact with god)

Rhyfelwyr is right though. Not all faith is blind. And I don't see why you say "faith isn't supposed to be rational" when you just said that people of faith should listen to rational thinking. In other words, you don't think faith should be blind.


No. What you mean is, people with strong belief will not listen to rational thinking.

Yes, thier beliefs are stronger than thier rational on the matter, so we can either step back and call them idiots for not knowing thier own religion*, which doesn't help the situation at all, or we can stop looking at it how it should be and start looking at it how it is. The fact is a decent portion of muslims have convinced themselves it is an insult, so that it has become an insult regardless of whether it should be or not....

But I don't think the point of the day is to convince muslims that it is ok to depict mohammed.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Gah, of course I won't! I am a sensible man, with a great career ahead of me.


So not until I can balance just a few more plates, including three on sticks I balance with my teeth, will I quit my dish washing day job and become a full time acrobat. :idea3:

I recall seeing a lass balance a spinning plate on the end of a stick, held tightly in a way I am physically unable to replicate. I was impressed. Acrobats are interesting to watch.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I recall seeing a lass balance a spinning plate on the end of a stick, held tightly in a way I am physically unable to replicate. I was impressed. Acrobats are interesting to watch.Shame on you for watching this sort of show!


But just wait till you see what I can balance and spin a plate on...girls go wild.

[al Roumi]

And some of us are wrong. But I hope we will try and figure it out as best we can, and not simply stop at the point where we realize people disagree with each other.


Certain other European states include holocaust denial as an illegal matter for public discussion.

And they are wrong to do so.

If you'll excuse me, isn't this "and they are wrong" dissmissive without any attempt to "figure it out as best we can"?

I don't get upset when people draw mohamed, he means nothing to me. But, I try to understand why people do get upset at something so apparently trivial (to me).

I'm not convinced you've made any attempt to see this issue (or the wider ones linked to it) through any other perspective than your own. How can you hope to understand -let alone resolve- such issues when the personal perspective provided by a different set of values to your own is what causes the difference of opinion?

[Cute Wolf]

Okay people... I want to said that out there in front of my campus, the muslim students still hold the oration and I can't going home... looks like I should got instant noodles for dinner again, duh...

[Furunculus]

A jolly funny idea this draw mohammed day, which in principle I thoroughly support, although in practice I have ignored to date.

The only thing I have real intolerance for is other peoples intolerance, which is why I will always support the mockery of everything that people believe needs mocking even if others disagree, though I have little interest or regard for islam in much the same way I care little for any other religion.

If there are people who are willing to kill and imprison others for such as harmless act as depicting mohammed then I want millions of drawings of mohammed, everywhere, because I want any such intolerance mocked 'mercilessly'.

Does it matter that others perceive harm where I do not? Not in Britain it doesn't.

Do I particularly want such foolish notions challenged in Britain regardless of happens elsewhere? Yes, because this is my country and I have to live in it.

If I were to draw a picture of mohammed and post it publicly as part of this campaign of mockery it would be a nice happy cartoon picture of the big Mo' with a happy smiley sun and some pretty flowers, it would not have pictures of bombs or underage sex or dogs, because it is not in my nature to 'needlessly' offend the views of others.

Again, who defines 'needlessly'? I do, because I don't give a damn what others think.

[rory_20_uk]

I agree. Since every religion has an intolerance of all others, why should one have first dibs on throwing hissy fits?
If anything the UK is nominally Christian-Protestant and so mockery of these religions that sacked the Christian seats of learning in Alexandria and Constantinople should be almost compulsory.
What would "underage" be for Mohammed? He wed a 6 year old and I thought that was bad enough. Surely works of fiction that portray men doing this should be banned?

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

Again, who defines 'needlessly'? I do, because I don't give a damn what others think.

Surely you do give a damn what others think, otherwise you wouldn't care about public ridicule of something you disaprove of. Ultimately you do think people should agree with you, or your publicity would just be self agrandizement.

[Furunculus]

Surely you do give a damn what others think, otherwise you wouldn't care about public ridicule of something you disaprove of. Ultimately you do think people should agree with you, or your publicity would just be self agrandizement.

forgive the hyperbole, the intent was demonstrate that "I" decide what separates useful ridicule from needless bigotry, a view that is at odds with the Machperson Report statement that the reality of 'racist' intent is the judgement of the 'victim' rather than a matter of fact, to give but one example.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

If you'll excuse me, isn't this "and they are wrong" dissmissive without any attempt to "figure it out as best we can"?

Holocaust denial is off topic. I'd already said what needed to be said about it with regards to this issue. Although this thread is actually a very good argument in favor of holocaust denial being legal. When that issue was first discussed here we had some people saying "free speech, you take away one persons right to say something..." and the others saying "this is just one case, and letting people deny the holocaust is offensive, that's just a slippery slope argument...". But now we see people holding up the fact that holocaust denial is illegal as a supporting argument for further limiting free speech.


I don't get upset when people draw mohamed, he means nothing to me. But, I try to understand why people do get upset at something so apparently trivial (to me).

I'm not convinced you've made any attempt to see this issue (or the wider ones linked to it) through any other perspective than your own. How can you hope to understand -let alone resolve- such issues when the personal perspective provided by a different set of values to your own is what causes the difference of opinion?

But when I first heard about this (back a few years ago when the danish cartoon was drawn) I was completely on your side and came onto the org arguing it. I think it was Adrian wha gradually convinced me otherwise.

Understanding why people get upset, and feeling things from their point of view is an important thing to do. But it doesn't stop there.

-edit-

And ironically alh, I think where I went wrong in agreeing with your side back then was in seeing things through an american-centric view. I think you are from england? But as an american I had no idea there were issues with free speech and islam in europe. Do you understand the values behind strongly supporting free speech?

[Meneldil]

Surely you do give a damn what others think, otherwise you wouldn't care about public ridicule of something you disaprove of. Ultimately you do think people should agree with you, or your publicity would just be self agrandizement.

I don't really get your point there. At all. Would you mind stating it in a clear, simple way for a moron such as I?

My understanding is that, according to you, they have a reason to be pissed off and to burn flags and to stone people and make death threats. Yes. So then, what next?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Patrons:

Please keep it calm. Do not assume others are being snide or sarcastic -- not everyone here is posting or reading in their first language. Give the benefit of the doubt where possible and at least ask if they meant to be offensive.

When posting, remember that your reader may or may not be reading the "subtext" of your words clearly. Try to keep your message as clear and obvious as is reasonably possible.

Thanks!

[Beskar]

It is interesting people bring up the "Mohammed" is a paedophile out of context. Since during that same period, it was a common practise, even in the Christian world, even present in the wives of the Popes. (which shouldn't exist, but did.)

On the other-hand, Catholic Priests are still doing it in these modern times.

So as the proverb goes. May the one without Sin cast the first stone.

[PanzerJaeger]

It is interesting people bring up the "Mohammed" is a paedophile out of context. Since during that same period, it was a common practise, even in the Christian world, even present in the wives of the Popes. (which shouldn't exist, but did.)

On the other-hand, Catholic Priests are still doing it in these modern times.

So as the proverb goes. May the one without Sin cast the first stone.

And those of us who do not subscribe to either religion can cast an equal amount of stones at pedo-priests and pedo-prophets! :nice:

Really though, why does every critique of Islam have to be juxtaposed against Christianity? Interestingly, some of the more outwardly Christian members are the one’s defending the insane Muslim reaction to such trivialities.

[Crazed Rabbit]

There was a quote posted by the head of some cartoonist groups saying he wouldn't support this since some anti-Muslim types might use it to go beyond simply defending free speech.

Excuse me, but What the ****?

This protest was not about offending Muslims, but defending the right to free expression that some people get offended by. It is the duty of everyone who values free speech and expression to stand up for it.

To hesitate because some people may use their speech to offend does more than miss the point; protecting offensive and controversial speech is the most essential part of protecting free speech.

Remember the famous quote inspired by Voltaire; "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."? This cartoonist has decided that he may not agree with all that will be said, so he will not support their saying it.

This is not about 'celebrating' free speech by holding hands and singing kumbaya and thinking happy thoughts about world peace. It's about standing up in support of a fundamental value of the western world, against those who would use violence and terror to force their beliefs on us. They may be offended; so be it. If they are goaded by living in a land of freedom, let them be. And let the offensive writings and art be spread across the land until they no longer try to suppress free speech.

We have to show these violent people that free speech cannot be suppressed with violence or threats.

That means repeating and amplifying the speech which led to the threats. But it is not in any way needless provocation; it is essential to retaining freedom of speech. We can not let the scope of our freedoms be defined by violence by those who oppose free speech.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

And those of us who do not subscribe to either religion can cast an equal amount of stones at pedo-priests and pedo-prophets! :nice:

I'm sure the non-religious/pagans/whoever did the same. I suspect it was more cultural than a religious thing.


Really though, why does every critique of Islam have to be juxtaposed against Christianity? Interestingly, some of the more outwardly Christian members are the one’s defending the insane Muslim reaction to such trivialities.

Please don't take me as defending these Muslims, I don't like them and they don't like me. I just don't think they are significant, they don't really threaten free speech, and so given that this whole thing will cause pointless offence, why do it?

For example, in the Reformed tradition, we don't depict God/Jesus/crosses/anything in any sort of context that might even associate them with the faith. Yet I don't take issue with people displaying these things if it's part of their own faith. But if someone followed me round all day scrawling crosses all over the walls wherever I walk, well then I would say fine use your free speech, but I would also think they guy was a bit of a *******.

I'm very much for free speech, very much against PC things like anti-discrimination laws for employment etc, I just think it would be nice of people showed a bit of consideration with these things. But leave it up to the individual.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But if someone followed me round all day scrawling crosses all over the walls wherever I walk, well then I would say fine use your free speech, but I would also think they guy was a bit of a *******.


But that isn't what's happening here.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I


Please don't take me as defending these Muslims, I don't like them and they don't like me. I just don't think they are significant, they don't really threaten free speech, and so given that this whole thing will cause pointless offence, why do it?

The threats of one radical Muslim group in the USA led the Comedy Central network to censor the 'image' of Mohammed and a speech given by a character.

Few, if any, major newspapers printed the Danish cartoons several years ago.

That is self-imposed censorship through fear. That is a threat to free speech.

CR

[al Roumi]

Holocaust denial is off topic. I'd already said what needed to be said about it with regards to this issue. Although this thread is actually a very good argument in favor of holocaust denial being legal. When that issue was first discussed here we had some people saying "free speech, you take away one persons right to say something..." and the others saying "this is just one case, and letting people deny the holocaust is offensive, that's just a slippery slope argument...". But now we see people holding up the fact that holocaust denial is illegal as a supporting argument for further limiting free speech.

But when I first heard about this (back a few years ago when the danish cartoon was drawn) I was completely on your side and came onto the org arguing it. I think it was Adrian wha gradually convinced me otherwise.

Understanding why people get upset, and feeling things from their point of view is an important thing to do. But it doesn't stop there.

-edit-

And ironically alh, I think where I went wrong in agreeing with your side back then was in seeing things through an american-centric view. I think you are from england? But as an american I had no idea there were issues with free speech and islam in europe. Do you understand the values behind strongly supporting free speech?

Fair point, there is a risk that limiting freedom of speech on issues such as Holocaust denial and incitement to hatred and violence sets an uneasy precedent. Personally, I’d be happy for them not to be limited –but I do recognise that there is a precarious balance on such contentious issues.

I originally raised the two examples to illustrate that even in supposedly western liberal societies, there is a limit on what is considered acceptable as free speech. I hoped this would help demonstrate that in the same way as some Muslims might not be “terribly impressed” with ungenerous caricatures of their prophet, some westerners are not “terribly impressed” with denial of the holocaust. So, as some western societies have responded to the latter by banning such expression, it should follow that we appreciate how some Muslims might wish to similarly restrict “offensive” expression related to their prophet.

Of course, if you strongly believe in free speech in all situations and are willing to suffer the offence which is ultimately certain to be received when something you feel strongly about is lampooned or ungenerously targeted, then you will disagree with the imposition of limits –as you are, and honestly, I am too.

If however you hold something so dear as to be unable to withstand the offence of such challenges –or its possible consequences (lest we forget that banning holocaust denial is about preventing revisionism of Nazi policy), you are going to be more inclined to take or support measures to prevent the expression of these potential grievous and hurtful comments.

WRT my own beliefs and values, I am happy for them to be open to the worst ravages of free speech. However, I recognise that for some people, while they might support freedom of expression in most cases, there are some things that they simply cannot countenance being said. I don’t know what factor determines a person’s openness or not to complete free speech, be it sociological, psychological or ideological, but I recognise that their reason is due to respect for something they will not tolerate abuse of.

Unfortunately, however much is said to the contrary, this particular discussion (in this thread) is not just about free speech… It’s also about the reaction of some zealots and that which they stir up.

Remember that the whole hoohaa about drawing Mohamed came about after a Danish cartoon portrayed him as a terrorist (AFAIK –with a bomb hidden in his Turban). This crude satire was seen by many Muslims as abusive. I’d be very keen to hear from anyone who’d like to explain how it wasn’t abusive or shouldn’t have been interpreted as such.

What followed the cartoon as a reaction from across the world was even uglier, and highly manipulated. I will not defend those actions/events at all, but I do recognise that the cartoon was easily interpreted as abusive.

Possibly the worst aspect of the cartoons and the ensuing reactions is the amount of misunderstanding and manipulation on both sides. Many Muslims have been misled into believing the West as a whole is anti Muslim, and many Westerners now see all Muslims as psychotic terrorists. Both perceptions are equally wrong and unfortunately this latest facebook group is just one more brick in the wall dividing the two sides.

If people were really interested in furthering free speech in the west, such a discussion would be better served with a contentious topic less likely to be construed as abusive to a non western, non liberal group (who you would not expect to partake in the discussion) –and much more rooted in the internal strife of western society. In a way, this facebook group looks like people defending their right to insult and upset people around the world with different values. That’s not what I understood free speech to be, to my mind it is more about questioning our (as individuals and societies) own values and beliefs –not those of others.



I don't really get your point there. At all. Would you mind stating it in a clear, simple way for a moron such as I?

My understanding is that, according to you, they have a reason to be pissed off and to burn flags and to stone people and make death threats. Yes. So then, what next?

I hope the above is more explanatory, the comment you quoted was a very minor (pedantic) point I was making to Furunculus with no intended commentary on the rest of the discussion we’ve been having.

Sorry if I’ve offended you in any way, at no point did I mean to imply you were a moron.

[Furunculus]

Of course, if you strongly believe in free speech in all situations and are willing to suffer the offence which is ultimately certain to be received when something you feel strongly about is lampooned or ungenerously targeted, then you will disagree with the imposition of limits –as you are, and honestly, I am too.

Remember that the whole hoohaa about drawing Mohamed came about after a Danish cartoon portrayed him as a terrorist (AFAIK –with a bomb hidden in his Turban). This crude satire was seen by many Muslims as abusive. I’d be very keen to hear from anyone who’d like to explain how it wasn’t abusive or shouldn’t have been interpreted as such.

i do believe that strongly, everything short of an incitement to violence should be acceptable, including stuff that currently falls under the provision of incitement to xxxxx hatred.

some of those cartoons are abusive, but that's tough, they need to suck it up. we don't tolerate the Queen sending the Guards to string up abusive comedians who make crass jokes about her genitalia, nor do we tolerate catholics launching a crusade against those who mock the catholic church as a peadophile ring, in this country at least there is a strong tolerance of what is essentially a right to be offensive. tolerance doesn't mean support, it doesn't mean you shouldn't remonstrate against those who have shown poor judgment in verbally abusing others, it also doesn't mean that you shouldn't ostracise those who breach the limits on polite society, it simply means that breaking out the pitchforks and flaming brands is verboten (read kalishnikovs and suicide vests).

[Meneldil]

I hope the above is more explanatory, the comment you quoted was a very minor (pedantic) point I was making to Furunculus with no intended commentary on the rest of the discussion we’ve been having.

Sorry if I’ve offended you in any way, at no point did I mean to imply you were a moron.

I wasn't being offended by any of your points. I was just questioning your arguments, because it now sounds like everyone is running in circle.

As I said, I completely understand why they are pissed off. They see Muhammad drawings as an insult to their culture, their religion and what not. For all I care, it's probably much more of a serious issue for them than Holocaust denial is for us.

However, that doesn't mean I respect their arguments and their point of view. Excuse the Godwin, but I'm certain fascists and nazis had good reasons to do what they do/did, at least according to their standards. These people think they have good reasons to protest and to claim that everyone who makes fun of Islam should be murdered, nice for them.

I on the other hand think they are islamo-fascists who do not deserve any kind of respect, and who need to be ridiculed and made fun of as often as possible. For all their flaws, western liberal societies are a much more succesful model than medieval chauvinist theocracies. So they can take their good reasons and shove them up their bottom.

I know that such argument is exactly the same as the ones they'd be using, but meh. I'm right, they're wrong.

[al Roumi]

As I said, I completely understand why they are pissed off.

I know that such argument is exactly the same as the ones they'd be using, but meh. I'm right, they're wrong.

As I respect the opinion of offended Muslims, I must respect yours.

I have to admit that I’m a little concerned by the impression your posts give that you consider all Muslims “Islamo-fascists”. I hope that’s just a mistake on my behalf.


i do believe that strongly, everything short of an incitement to violence should be acceptable, including stuff that currently falls under the provision of incitement to xxxxx hatred.

some of those cartoons are abusive, but that's tough, they need to suck it up. we don't tolerate the Queen sending the Guards to string up abusive comedians who make crass jokes about her genitalia, nor do we tolerate catholics launching a crusade against those who mock the catholic church as a peadophile ring, in this country at least there is a strong tolerance of what is essentially a right to be offensive. tolerance doesn't mean support, it doesn't mean you shouldn't remonstrate against those who have shown poor judgment in verbally abusing others, it also doesn't mean that you shouldn't ostracise those who breach the limits on polite society, it simply means that breaking out the pitchforks and flaming brands is verboten (read kalishnikovs and suicide vests).

…and that is now clearly discussing the reaction, not the right to free speech.

[Furunculus]

i do believe that strongly, everything short of an incitement to violence should be acceptable, including stuff that currently falls under the provision of incitement to xxxxx hatred.

see above.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Good post.


So, as some western societies have responded to the latter by banning such expression, it should follow that we appreciate how some Muslims might wish to similarly restrict “offensive” expression related to their prophet.

I still don't quite see the thrust of this. It is like saying "even priests like to have a drink now and then, so it should follow that us (implied less moral people) can drink now and then". You would never say that "because this muslim society passed a low, it follows that in western society...".

Regardless, western societies pass many faulty laws.



As I respect the opinion of offended Muslims, I must respect yours.

You respect peoples opinions on things that are matters of taste more than you respect them on things that aren't matters of taste, correct?



Unfortunately, however much is said to the contrary, this particular discussion (in this thread) is not just about free speech… It’s also about the reaction of some zealots and that which they stir up.

I think you have to be wary of guilt by association though. I mean, in the last democratic primary you were either on the side of the sexists or the racists, right? One has to separate criticism of the "I just hate muslims" people from the rest of the crowd.



If people were really interested in furthering free speech in the west, such a discussion would be better served with a contentious topic less likely to be construed as abusive to a non western, non liberal group (who you would not expect to partake in the discussion) –and much more rooted in the internal strife of western society. In a way, this facebook group looks like people defending their right to insult and upset people around the world with different values. That’s not what I understood free speech to be, to my mind it is more about questioning our (as individuals and societies) own values and beliefs –not those of others.


But people are interested in furthering free speech on the topic that they think is being censored. I don't see the argument for turning to a different issue in that case.

How can you question your societies beliefs without question the beliefs of others? There are multiple cultures within a society.

[Kadagar_AV]

"Everybody has the right to be ridiculized" - Urbanus, Belgian comedian.

I agree with that statement.

I seem to have got a fair number of infractions for that very reason.

[Kadagar_AV]

Screw him then, not my fault he and his friends don't belong here. Not moving an inch.

He isn't nessecarily living in the west, he lives in Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia he lives in the front line fighting the opinion war, if we assume republicans to be anti terrorists and democrats to be terrorists (for this example) then you have just set back the republican cause and giving some great ammo to the democrat cause....

Or is are you one of the people who want to encourage this war... maybe thats you you don't want to reason with these people.. you would prefer for them to continue to be wound up and regress so you can point and say see i told you we couldn't trust these nutters!

Can give him a route to the great mosk of Cordoba though, but it's a beauty hundreds of years old. It depicts the prophet.

Sure and give the 6000 year old earthers the route to an archelogical dig site for dinosaur bones millions of years old... this is a matter of faith to these people, the rational of whether or not muslim law actually forbids it doesn't matter one jot, these people believe it is an insult to thier religion so it is an insult, you need to stop being rational on matters of faith.


You've said this a few times...why??

Because anyone who is rational does not need "faith"?

[Furunculus]

I seem to have got a fair number of infractions for that very reason.
this is not neither a nation-state, nor real life, nor too a representative democracy.

[Kadagar_AV]

this is not neither a nation-state, nor real life, nor too a representative democracy.

I am aware of this forums severe limitations. Was just funny hearing it from a mod :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am aware of this forums severe limitations. Was just funny hearing it from a mod :laugh4:Like Beskar earlier, you miss the brilliance of Andres' quote. Plenty orgahs have received infractions for ridiculing, nobody has yet received an infraction for being ridiculed.


The quote is passive, not active. It doesn't say that everybody has the right to ridicule, but that everybody has the right to be ridiculed.


The more I think about it, the wiser the quote is. The court jester has been the wisest philosopher. When you are above or beneath being ridiculed, something is terrible wrong, far worse than the worst ridicule.

In the specific example of this thread - the worst funny cartoon of Mohammed would still be far better than no cartoon. If Muslims are deemed above ridicule, they are monsters, Islamofascist. Depending on their being dominant or not: opressors or terrorists.
If Muslims are deemed beneath ridicule, they are inferior, lesser, fools, not to be taken seriously, or worthy of consideration of any kind.

So ridicule is the least worst option. Not ridicule itself - the worth is not in the ridicule itself, but in the act of ridicule, the option of ridicule. This aspect has been noted by many in this thread: it is not about insult, but in establishing a right. This distinction has been understood by many, starting with post one, of CR's respectful drawing of Mohammed.

This right has been explored by most in this thread as an active right of the cartoonist. Andres' genius is that he managed to extend it as a passive right of the cartoonified.

[Fragony]

You really have to stop doing that, disagreement is what fuels me.

chapeau.

bag, pack & clone

[Moros]

Louis, that's an awesome post. Andres, that's a great quote. :bow:

[Beskar]

Like Beskar earlier, you miss the brilliance of Andres' quote. Plenty orgahs have received infractions for ridiculing, nobody has yet received an infraction for being ridiculed.

The quote is passive, not active. It doesn't say that everybody has the right to ridicule, but that everybody has the right to be ridiculed.

In the famous words from Princess Bribe "I do not think it means what you think it means".

It could have been an inaccurate translation, but what is said is different to what you are saying it says. "Everyone has the right to be rediculed", means that the person can be rediculed. But if you punish those that redicule, then people cannot actually be rediculed. The statement is on behalf of the person, not the target. So people recieving infractions because they were rediculed does not make sense in the context of the statement. In order for it to make sense, it would be "You are not allowed to be ridiculed", which means the opposite would be "You are allowed to be ridiculed". This is structed different to "People are allowed to be ridiculed", which is directed at the other.

'Everyone' has the focus on the other, along with yourself. So it would mean everyone can be ridiculed, including yourself. Which means you can ridicule others and they ridicule you.

if it was phrased as "You are allowed to be ridiculed." It means that is one-directional, as in, coming to you, not going from you as well.

While the original statement might have been intended to mean what you said it means, it isn't actually what the translation says, hence the "confusion".

Thus, it isn't the 'brilliance' of the quote, it is infact inaccuracy of it. As if the original quote was "You are allowed to be rediculed.", Kadgar_AV wouldn't be replying "I recieved numerous infractions for that", as he wouldn't have.

tl;dr version, the relational context is wrong.

[ajaxfetish]

You're thinking too hard about it Beskar. A universal passive right does not in itself universally grant the active right to make it possible.

Let's say everyone has the right to be tried by a jury of their peers. This does not mean everyone has the right to try others with a jury of their peers; that right is limited to the state. If everyone has the right to be ridiculed, it does not follow that everyone has the right to ridicule others. How exactly the ridicule is to be effected is left unclear in the statement of right, which is fine, but you're assuming this must be specified.

Kadagar saying he "received numerous infractions for that" must, at least by me, be interpreted as receiving numerous infractions for being made fun of, which would of course really suck.

Ajax