Support NeoGAF

[AVclub]

So should I remove my address from Facebook's profile if I intend to join the group? Or should I just stock up on weapons and ammunition? :lol

In all seriousness, have a look at this:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html

Are Pictures of Muhammad Really Forbidden In Islam?

While some Muslims were outraged by a magazine printing cartoon pictures of Muhammad, we have to step back and calmly ask, are pictures of Muhammad really forbidden in Islam? – the answer might surprise you.

Numerous passages in the Qur’an prohibit idolatry, and worshipping statues or pictures, but there is not even single verse in the Qur’an that explicitly or implicitly says not to have any pictures of Muhammad. This bears repeating: There is not a single verse in the Qur’an that prohibits making or having pictures of Muhammad or people or animals or trees. In fact, there are some verses in the Qur’an which mention images in a positive context and which therefore presuppose that some statues or images were approved by God, see the article Muhammad and Images.

However, the vast majority of Muslims are Sunni Muslims, who regard six authorized collections of hadiths as the highest written authority in Islam after the Qur’an. The hadiths are records, often very detailed, of what Muhammad taught and did. We give multiple quotations to show that these teachings are not confined to just one writer/collector, but are spread throughout the different hadith collections.

Where multiple trustworthy hadiths agree, Sunni Muslims will take this as binding. In other words, people today are kicked out of Islam, or even killed based on the hadiths.

Pictures of Muhammad are "not exactly" forbidden in the hadiths either. The hadiths do not single out Muhammad’s picture. Rather, in the hadith we find the prohibition of all pictures of people or animals, which would include pictures from a camera.

For example, Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.5268 (p.1160) says, "Ibn ‘Umar reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) having said: Those who paint pictures would be punished on the Day of Resurrection and it would be said to them: Breathe soul into what you have created.2519"

Notice that the prohibition was not just against idolators who made pictures, or even Muslims who made pictures for other reasons, but for anyone who made pictures.

Sahih Muslim vol.3 no.5271 (p.1161) gives a little more detail: "This hadith has been reported on the authority of Abu Mu’awiya though another chain of transmitters (and the words are): ‘Verily the most grievously tormented people amongst the denizens [inhabitants] of Hell on the Day of Resurrection would be the painters of pictures.2520..."

"Narrated ‘Aisha: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘The painter of these pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and it will be said to them, Make alive what you have created.’" Bukhari vol.9 book 93 no.646 p.487. no.647 p.487 is the same except it is narrated by Ibn ‘Umar.

No pictures of people or animals according to Bukhari vol.4 book 54 no.447-450 p.297-299.

Conclusion: It is clear that the hadiths prohibit pictures of animals or people, especially in homes. There is no focus on pictures of Muhammad per se. All pictures of people and animals are forbidden. It is a completely general prohibition.

 

[mantidor]

I had to give up at page 2, but I hope somebody already explained that carving swastikas into Jewish kids desks isn't wrong because it's "offensive." The Jewish kid doesn't see that and go "garsh darn it, my beliefs have been insulted!" It's wrong because it carries the underlying message of a threat. A Jewish kid sees a swastika on his desk and thinks "somebody wants to fuck me up."

A Muslim who sees an insulting depiction of Mohammed (in the context of Draw Mohammed day) doesn't think "somebody wants to beat me up! I am in physical harm!" He just thinks "my beliefs have been insulted."

The two situations are not equivalent. The psychology it creates on the viewer are completely different. In America, we (at least, most of us) believe people have to deal with being offended, but not with reasonably believing they are being put under the threat of harm.

I couldn't agree more, which I guess has been talked in other posts but the thread has grown exponentially.

Yes, freedom of expression doesn't give you the right to say anything, but we are talking here about a dumb drawing of a historical figure. The line in freedom of speech can be a tricky and blurry one, but when you receive death threats from just a drawing the line has clearly been crossed.

However I do think this would go better if there wasn't any offensive drawings, just plain drawings of Mohammed, which would make more obvious how stupid is to get offended by this, but banning offensive drawings from this would be contradicting with the original purpose.

I think that there is a double standard that needs to be addressed.

When South Park depicts Jesus slicing the Pope in half, that must be horribly offensive to devout Christians, let alone devout Catholics, and yet no one is threatened and everyone agrees that it's within the show's rights to do that.

But when Mohammed is portrayed on the show (not extraordinarily I might add, without demonizing him or deifying him) in an episode that's critiquing the double standard, Comedy Central decides that it's best to censor him out. Why?

Satire is one of the strongest forms of free speech, and if visual depictions (re:cartoons) is an effective vehicle for satire, then we lose something when we're threatened into compliance with a religious world-view that deserves satirical treatment just as much as any other religion does. With that in mind, I say draw away. **** it if people think it's offensive. Free speech isn't for the people you agree with.

What I love about this episode is that it fulfilled its purpose. The censoring of a depiction that was censored to begin with is ironic and hilarious. Mohammed isn't shown doing anything close to what Jesus or Buddah does, we can't even see him because he's in a suit, and it still got censored. CC just reinforced the message the episode was trying to show across.

 

[Karram]

I don't see how would drawing a picture be offensive to any Muslim unless it's like Muhammed is holding a bomb, a bloody sword Or something like that.
Also is there anyway to post a picture other than having a Facebook account ?

 

[jaxword]

First?

What - before we start being polite we have to get rid of every murderous intent?

I don't understand - that sounds like impossible madness to me.

I guess what you must mean is that someone who expresses murderous intent forfeits their right to politeness - which I can sort of see. But that doesn't in turn give anyone the right to at the same time gratuitously offend something like a billion other people who don't have any murderous intent.

(And I don't think I ever claimed that murderous intent and impoliteness were comparable, beyond them both being wrong - which I would have thought was fairly obvious.)

There are two factors here. One is the fact that you are attacking the impolite. Which I said is fair, but wouldn't a more destructive, murderous group be a better source for you to expend your energies on? Unless you are arguing that it is "impossible madness" to stop murderous people, in which case you're advocating living in fear.


Secondly, offending people should not be treated as a crime. You're going to offend someone, somewhere, no matter what you do. You can choose to respect that, or choose not to--BOTH of which are your rights. I personally do not like rude people, and they should be chastised for it, but not MURDERED. It is complete madness to be forced to change your behavior because someone doesn't like LOOKING at the way you act. Or, in this case, draw.


Let me put it another way. At one point in American society, showing ANKLES would get you arrested because it was offensive. What? THAT is "impossible madness." What is offensive changes as society changes. If you refuse to change, if you refuse to look at your rules and realize they need to evolve, if you refuse to grow and become a better person, then you stagnate, and are an anchor on progress.

Getting mad over a cartoon? That is ridiculous and undefendable. No one is FORCING the angry Muslims to look at these. They CHOSE to, and then they CHOSE to anger themselves. If they ignored it, nothing would happen. Why should the world be held hostage for someone deliberately offending themselves? THAT is immature behavior. "I knew someone was going to offend me, so I went and looked at it! And now they must pay for offending me!"

Let me ask you this: If a group said that Crosses were offensive, would you support removing every cross from churches in America?

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

Do you respect other people's beliefs?

Often I do not. I respect their right to have jackass beliefs, but that doesn't mean I respect those jackass beliefs.

 

[Parallax Scroll]

I don't see how would drawing a picture be offensive to any Muslim unless it's like Muhammed is holding a bomb, a bloody sword Or something like that.
Also is there anyway to post a picture other than having a Facebook account ?

There are a few sites you can submit pictures to. Check the links I posted a page or two back.

 

[effzee]

I actually read through this whole thread and while I find a lot of I agree with and disagree with, I am simply going to post my view on this as a practicing Muslims. Thought maybe people would be interested in more Muslim views on this:

I was raised to believe that you should never depict Mohammed (pbuh) because even during his time a lot of people hid idols and prayed to other deities and because there were even groups of people who claimed the Prophet to be God himself. There is a lot of emphasis in our teachings that while we respect him and love him, that he was a man and nothing more. So obviously there was a lot of emphasis by the Prophet himself to denounce idol worship and worship of himself.

But honestly it comes down to intention. For example I remember being younger and praying (in the direction of Mecca) but having say a family photo in front of me on a dresser or counter and being reprimanded for not removing the picture. I argued even then its all in my intention. I am not praying to the picture or idolizing mortals but that did not bother to remove the picture because it does not matter. So if I see a picture of the Prophet it does not illicit a negative reaction automatically. In fact the vast majority of Muslims I know would not even blink or give it a second thought. Now if its an offensive picture yes of-course its insulting just like if you insult my parents its going to hurt me too. Its just a figure we respect and love to the point that yes you have a emotional response to it. BUT THATS ONLY IF ITS OFFENSIVE. The original intent was to avoid idol worship in Islam's infant days. It is pretty much established now what Islam is (in terms of the principles and the different between God and his Prophet) so I do not think the rule applies across the board.

As for this specific situation I just worry that the intent will be confused by all sides. Idiot groups like that website that issued the threats will see it as more WEST HATES ISLAM and a select few who do practice in making these portraits will use this to mock Islam, the Prophet, and Muslims simply because they have a strong dislike for the people or the religion. I am not even sure who the target is. Should there not be anger towards Comedy Central for bowing to these threats? How about using legal action against this site and its owners or contributor? And why is this site allowed to be run anyway? I would assume making death threats would count as crossing the line?

 

[jaxword]

Often I do not. I respect their right to have jackass beliefs, but that doesn't mean I respect those jackass beliefs.

That's a good stance to take. However, I was talking about goukan, who is proving to have just been trolling and not making a point.

 

[Shanadeus]

Mohammed (pbuh)

Are you aware of that some scholars believe it's quite offensive to use pbuh in addition to Mohammed's name?

Many of Islamic scholars have instructed Muslims not to abbreviate sending the Salah on Muhammad. Shaykh Abd al-Aziz ibn Abd Allah ibn Baaz, the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia said regarding the issue:

"As it is prescribed to send blessings upon the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in prayer when saying the tashahhud, and it is prescribed when giving khutbahs, saying Du’a and praying for forgiveness, and after the Adhan, and when entering and exiting the mosque, and when mentioning him in other circumstances, so it is more important to do so when writing his name in a book, letter, article and so on. So it is prescribed to write the blessing in full so as to fulfil the command that Allah has given to Muslims, and so that the reader will remember to say the blessing when he reads it. So one should not write the blessing on the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in short form such as writing (S) or (SAWS) etc, or other forms that some writers use, because that is going against the command of Allah in His Book, where He says (interpretation of the meaning):

"Send your Salaah on (ask Allah to bless) him (Muhammad), and (you should) greet (salute) him with the Islamic way of greeting (salutation, i.e. As‑Salaamu ‘Alaykum)"[4]

And that (writing it in abbreviated form) does not serve that purpose and is devoid of the virtue of writing 'salla Allaahu ‘alayhi wa salaam (May Allah send blessings and peace upon him)' in full. Moreover the reader may not take notice of it and may not understand what is meant by it. It should also be noted that the symbol used for it is regarded as disapproved by the scholars, who warned against it."

 

[Jak140]

Are you aware of that some scholars believe it's quite offensive to use pbuh in addition to Mohammed's name?

I thought he made a pretty intelligent and informative post, and that's the part you single out? :lol Anyway, it just furthers the point that you can't live your life in fear of offending some random person.

 

[Shanadeus]

I thought he made a pretty intelligent and informative post, and that's the part you single out? :lol

Well that's precisely why I singled it out, as I found his post intelligent and his views reasonable
I thought it might be in his interest to be informed about the usage of (Plessed Be Upon Him) when you mention the prophet and that it might not be suitable to use it in a shortened form.

 

[Jak140]

Well that's precisely why, I found his post intelligent and his views reasonably sounding.
I thought it might be in his interest to be informed about the usage of (Plessed Be Upon Him) when you mention the prophet and that it might not be suitable to use it in a shortened form.

Ah, carry on then.

 

[Teknoman]

Didnt they already do this once awhile ago, when making fun of family guy?

 

[effzee]

Well that's precisely why, I found his post intelligent and his views reasonably sounding.
I thought it might be in his interest to be informed about the usage of (Plessed Be Upon Him) when you mention the prophet and that it might not be suitable to use it in a shortened form.

Thanks for the heads up. Did not know about that. You know I was raised Muslim and my dad has all the knowledge in the world but he does not pray regularly. My mom practices the most out of my household but none of them ever forced anything on me. I actually found myself gravitating towards Islam more after 9.11 and when I got into college. So a lot of what I know was through my own desire and knowledge I received from certain friends I trust. So I never take any input as offensive. I certainly do not know it all and thats why I only posted my own personal story in reference to idol worship and what I was taught.

 

[Jak140]

Didnt they already do this once awhile ago, when making fun of family guy?

Yeah, but that was censored by Comedy Central. They were trying to make the point that a double standard shouldn't exist for what they are allowed to show, just because some group threatens violence. I think they were hoping that enough of the fervor had died down by now that Comedy Central would be willing to show Muhammad, but I guess that random radical Muslim site's threat was enough to make CC chicken out and censor them.

 

[speculawyer]

The hadiths do not single out Muhammad’s picture. Rather, in the hadith we find the prohibition of all pictures of people or animals, which would include pictures from a camera.

Well . . . the way I read that, it would haraam for Muslims to play video games since they involve pictures of people and animals. I guess we won't be seeing any Muslims on GAF anymore.

Spoiler

That is some crazy-ass superstition.

 

[effzee]

Well . . . the way I read that, it would haraam for Muslims to play video games since they involve pictures of people and animals. I guess we won't be seeing any Muslims on GAF anymore.

Spoiler

That is some crazy-ass superstition.

Again all about intention. If that rule was held as true across the board even the extremists like Al Qaeda would dare not make videos of themselves and then broadcast it online. There would not be channels like Quran TV with great scholars and speakers both male and female. The intention of the prohibition was related to idol worship and that includes animals.

 

[AVclub]

Again all about intention. If that rule was held as true across the board even the extremists like Al Qaeda would dare not make videos of themselves and then broadcast it online. There would not be channels like Quran TV with great scholars and speakers both male and female. The intention of the prohibition was related to idol worship and that includes animals.

Okay then...so as a Muslim, you're standing up for Matt & Trey's right to make images of Mohammed as they see fit, as long as they don't intend to worship those images as false idols?

 

[Evlar]

Thanks for explaining your point of view here, effzee.

 

[Mike Works]

alright, i'm a Canadian in my mid-20's. i'm agnostic, in that i have no "faith", but i don't denounce or discredit religion either. i also know very little about Islam, the Qur’an, and Mohammed.

i've read through half of this thread so far, and aside from what's already been said, this is what i take issue with:

the whole reason for this "Draw Mohammed Day" and what it represents is NOT to "attack" Islam.

it is to DEFEND free speech. people did not wake up this morning and say to themselves, "Hey, why don't we figure out a way to really piss off over a billion Muslims for no reason."

now, I am FULLY aware that doing this- drawing Mohammed- WILL upset a great amount of Muslims. but there is a quantifiable difference between doing something just to piss those people off and pissing those people off as a byproduct for standing up for one of the most important institutions in (our) society.

i think this has become one of the biggest sore points, at least in this thread. i feel that some people are getting the impression that non-Muslims don't understand that this is upsetting to many.

again, I'm not a religious man, but I fully understand how and why they find this upsetting. that's not the issue here.

i'm sure that there are going to be a bunch of assholes and jackasses that will draw Mohammed just to piss people off. there are always idiots in the world that will do things just to upset others.

however, the REASON behind doing this, for most people, is to exercise our right to free speech. the right to draw a picture of a man if we want to.

that right has been taken away, at least partially, by the extremists and their death threats. south park is a perfect example of this.

i'm getting the sense that some people in this thread consider this Draw Mohammed Day as an attack on all Muslims, and it's not, it's simply not. it may upset some or all Muslims, but it is not an attack on them.

this is an attack on the extremists. they are the ones that are threatening free speech, and those who choose to draw Mohammed on this day, or any other day, are people who choose to defend it.

again, i'm fairly certain that most people involved in this argument fully comprehend that drawing a picture of Mohammed is offensive to those of the Muslim faith. i don't think there's any disconnect there.

the disconnect, i feel, stems from people who feel that drawing Mohammed is an attack on their faith. it is not a direct attack on your faith. it is a defense of free speech. and there's a huge difference between the two.

 

[blame space]

anyone requesting manners or calling anyone supporting this idea an asshole:

FUCK YOU

did that hurt your feelings? that's okay! my feelings have been hurt in the past, and i have somehow learned to persevere.

do you realize who the real assholes are? it's not muslims, it's not muhammad, and it certainly isn't anyone who would consider rendering muhammad's likeness on May 20th. no, the REAL assholes are the people who hold their religious beliefs with such certainty, with such violent vigor, that they would threaten physical harm on anyone who would draw their deity or speak out against their beliefs.

how's that for being an asshole? that is who these ideas are aimed at: the kind of people that place religious thought over reality, over someone's right to continue living without being harmed.

 

[effzee]

Okay then...so as a Muslim, you're standing up for Matt & Trey's right to make images of Mohammed as they see fit, as long as they don't intend to worship those images as false idols?

Well I am not standing up for anything. They have the right to depict the Prophet and I would be a hypocrite if I stood up against the show now since I love the show. At the same yes I as a Muslim would find it insulting but as a rational person I also know that I can not control everyone or what they think or want to do. Comedy is comedy. The worship and idol talk was in general regarding the question of why its now allowed in Islam or why Muslims get so uptight about it. So Matt and Trey can do whatever they want but as a Muslim if I find it offensive I'll just skip the episode but I am not going to become violent or send death threats. Thats just absurd.

As a Muslim I refrain from making jokes about the Prophet and God. Not just Mohammed but every religious figure. But thats me. And all of my Muslims friends, regardless of how religious they are, do the same. Just something we do not do but at the same time I do not expect non Muslims to follow the same rules or to be held to the same standards. If I find something offensive I just avoid it and focus on something I enjoy.

 

[effzee]

alright, i'm a Canadian in my mid-20's. i'm agnostic, in that i have no "faith", but i don't denounce or discredit religion either. i also know very little about Islam, the Qur’an, and Mohammed.

i've read through half of this thread so far, and aside from what's already been said, this is what i take issue with:

the whole reason for this "Draw Mohammed Day" and what it represents is NOT to "attack" Islam.

it is to DEFEND free speech. people did not wake up this morning and say to themselves, "Hey, why don't we figure out a way to really piss off over a billion Muslims for no reason."

now, I am FULLY aware that doing this- drawing Mohammed- WILL upset a great amount of Muslims. but there is a quantifiable difference between doing something just to piss those people off and pissing those people off as a byproduct for standing up for one of the most important institutions in (our) society.

i think this has become one of the biggest sore points, at least in this thread. i feel that some people are getting the impression that non-Muslims don't understand that this is upsetting to many.

again, I'm not a religious man, but I fully understand how and why they find this upsetting. that's not the issue here.

i'm sure that there are going to be a bunch of assholes and jackasses that will draw Mohammed just to piss people off. there are always idiots in the world that will do things just to upset others.

however, the REASON behind doing this, for most people, is to exercise our right to free speech. the right to draw a picture of a man if we want to.

that right has been taken away, at least partially, by the extremists and their death threats. south park is a perfect example of this.

i'm getting the sense that some people in this thread consider this Draw Mohammed Day as an attack on all Muslims, and it's not, it's simply not. it may upset some or all Muslims, but it is not an attack on them.

this is an attack on the extremists. they are the ones that are threatening free speech, and those who choose to draw Mohammed on this day, or any other day, are people who choose to defend it.

again, i'm fairly certain that most people involved in this argument fully comprehend that drawing a picture of Mohammed is offensive to those of the Muslim faith. i don't think there's any disconnect there.

the disconnect, i feel, stems from people who feel that drawing Mohammed is an attack on their faith. it is not a direct attack on your faith. it is a defense of free speech. and there's a huge difference between the two.

I understand that completely but I would ask who is this going to help the situation with Comedy Central? Where is the pressure on them to stop bowing down to these threats? Would it also not help by sending Comedy Central a message? It is ultimately they who gave in. The response seems very heavy handed towards the extremists. Where is the response to Comedy Central?

Why isn't the law force involved somehow in this? Receiving death threats is a serious crime and shouldn't the creators of this website be prosecuted?

 

[SnakeXs]

You don't need to be a complete motherfucking asshole about it either.

When did all this start? Do you remember? When a little cartoon was done. The retaliation was fires, death threats, and chaos. It was not done maliciously, even though it lacked tact. It was art, it was humor, and it was insulting and crass, but what returned was far worse.

This isn't about being an asshole, it's about the fact that things come before religion. It's a small world these days, and the majority of the world has the right to, more or less, say what they want, and they should. Nobody, then again an artist or comedian, should have to fear for their life for pushing boundaries. Muslims and the PC police need to get the fuck over it.

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that anyone opposed to this is Muslim or otherwise religious.

That's wrong as well.

Basic human politeness is enough.

Not at all. I know a few non-muslims, and non-religious people who think it's mean to step on muslims' collective toes. We simply disagree.

 

[Jak140]

Why isn't the law force involved somehow in this? Receiving death threats is a serious crime and shouldn't the creators of this website be prosecuted?

My understanding is that they worded the threat vaguely enough that it was implied, but difficult to prosecute. The irony being that the same free speech laws that protect them are being taken away from the people who's lives they threatened.

 

[Mike Works]

I understand that completely but I would ask who is this going to help the situation with Comedy Central? Where is the pressure on them to stop bowing down to these threats? Would it also not help by sending Comedy Central a message? It is ultimately they who gave in.

They gave in to death threats on their employees. I'm all for standing up for what you believe in, but at the same time, I can completely understand protecting the fucking lives of your employees.

If Comedy Central gave in due to corporate pressure (ie losing advertising revenues) or something along those lines, that's one thing.

But they chose not to air the image(s) because peoples lives were being threatened.

The response seems very heavy handed towards the extremists. Where is the response to Comedy Central?

I understand where you're coming from here from a technical standard- Comedy Central is also partially responsible for the censorship that occurred.

Now let's look at what happened in reality:

- Extremists threatened to murder people if a cartoon drawing of a man was shown on TV

- Network executives chose to censor a drawing of a cartoon man in order to protect their employees from potentially being murdered

Comedy Central does perhaps have some blame in this whole situation, but that level of blame is nowhere, and i mean nowhere near that of the people threatening to murder individuals for drawing a picture.

Why isn't the law force involved somehow in this? Receiving death threats is a serious crime and shouldn't the creators of this website be prosecuted?

This is a whole other issue involved with the laws involved with death threats.

I would argue that this is not the issue at hand. If it was the issue, and everyone banded together to reform laws on death threats, that would still not change the issue at hand regarding free speech.

 

[diunxx]

Awesome :lol gonna join the Facebook group.

 

[Dead Man]

There was a list made, I remember I read at one point, about the most important figures in history, Jesus came in at 2nd with Mohammed in at 1st because of his ability as a leader in so many different fields. Historical Mohammed was a fascinating figure, but unfortunately he's not been explored that much in the mainstream.

It's a bit hard when you can't depict him.

 

[MadraptorMan]

So should I remove my address from Facebook's profile if I intend to join the group? Or should I just stock up on weapons and ammunition? :lol

In all seriousness, have a look at this:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html

Isn't anyone going to respond to this? I'm not a Muslim and I haven't tried to check the validity of the quoted material, but it seems pretty insane.

 

[RustyNails]

It's a bit hard when you can't depict him.

The Message
Trailer

 

[Dead Man]

The Message
Trailer

Yep. And? 1976 is not 2010. Good luck with that. Even if you don't show him, some group will make threats.

 

[perfectchaos007]

the draw mohammed group i saw on facebook has only has 600 members. either im looking at the wrong one or 800 members "disappeared"

 

[GillianSeed79]

So should I remove my address from Facebook's profile if I intend to join the group? Or should I just stock up on weapons and ammunition? :lol

In all seriousness, have a look at this:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html

And on the day of resurrection, the scientist will say verily I grew this child in a test tube and I hath cloned this sheep. I can paint what I want.

On a serious note, banning ALL pictures is stupid. As a Catholic I kind of understand the desire not to have the prophet seen as an idol. I mean us Christians love us some statues, Mary and especially the cross despite that no graven images commandment. Can't they use common sense though? I'd say there's a big difference between Muhammed on South Park and say a cleric building a giant statue of him in a mosque. One would imply satire and the other would imply worship. I doubt anyone is going to worship the big M. if they see his image on South Park. Also, isn't it a little hypocritical. They may not worship him, but a lot them like to name drop him a lot.

I think the disconnect is Christians are so used to seeing Christ. Rednecks wear tacky Jesus t-shirts so often it seems like he's a driver in the NASCAR circuit. It's funny because in the west Jesus is still depicted as a long haired white Anglo Saxan. Maybe there are some things we can learn from Muslims.

 

[I AM JOHN!]

As a Catholic I kind of understand the desire not to have the prophet seen as an idol. I mean us Christians love us some statues, Mary and especially the cross despite that no graven images commandment. Can't they use common sense though? I'd say there's a big difference between Muhammed on South Park and say a cleric building a giant statue of him in a mosque. One would imply satire and the other would imply worship. I doubt anyone is going to worship the big M. if they see his image on South Park. Also, isn't it a little hypocritical. They may not worship him, but a lot them like to name drop him a lot.

I think the disconnect is Christians are so used to seeing Christ. Rednecks wear tacky Jesus t-shirts so often it seems like he's a driver in the NASCAR circuit. It's funny because in the west Jesus is still depicted as a long haired white Anglo Saxan. Maybe there are some things we can learn from Muslims.

I don't think the two are really comparable because to many sects of Christianity, Jesus and God are inseparable. After all, the idea of the Holy Trinity is that God exists in three forms: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Depictions of Jesus, therefore, are depictions of God in one of his forms.

With pictures of Mohammad, however, it's clearly an issue of "letter of the law" vs. "intent of the law." Even if we say that this law in the Quran exists (which as other posts have shown, it doesn't), the obvious intent of it is not to say "you cannot depict Mohammad in any way;" it's simply creating a distinction between the prophet and the divine. Mohammad is neither God nor divine, and in saying this, he is merely saying that wants to simply be seen, much like Abraham and Jesus are also seen in Islam, as a messenger of God, not a messiah. Depictions of his likeness, therefore, aren't outlawed so long as they aren't being used to promote him as a false idol.

But of course, uber-religious people are fucking idiots who don't understand things like common sense.

 

[Solid Moustache]

Nice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Squirt_and_the_Whale

http://i.imgur.com/uoDdf.jpg

Pic linked because it's a bit big.

 

[MCX]

 

[RustyNails]

Yep. And? 1976 is not 2010. Good luck with that. Even if you don't show him, some group will make threats.

The Last Prophet (2002)
Trailer

 

[Dead Man]

Nice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Squirt_and_the_Whale

http://i.imgur.com/uoDdf.jpg

Pic linked because it's a bit big.

Resized it for you.

The Last Prophet (2002)
Trailer

I haven't seen that, but from what I've heard it is more of a fable than an attempt to depict the historical man. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I don't think you find a single western film company that would consider a large scale production of the historical story of Mohammed as anything but dangerous.

 

[Buckethead]

Nice job Simpsons.

 

[RustyNails]

I haven't seen that, but from what I've heard it is more of a fable than an attempt to depict the historical man. I'd be happy to be wrong, but I don't think you find a single western film company that would consider a large scale production of the historical story of Mohammed as anything but dangerous.

Eh.
Will the PBS documentary-film Legacy of a Prophet do then? After all,

Over 100 major newspapers including the New York Times, The Washington Post, the San Francisco Chronicle, Reuters, and the Catholic News Service reviewed the film.

Its pretty much in the vein of The Message (first person perspective) when it wants to show Muhammad. I don't remember PBS getting firebombed.

 

[Dead Man]

Eh.
Will the PBS documentary-film Legacy of a Prophet do then? After all,

Its pretty much in the vein of The Message (first person perspective) when it wants to show Muhammad. I don't remember PBS getting firebombed.

Yep, that'll do. I stand corrected.

 

[RustyNails]

Yep, that'll do. I stand corrected.

I didn't link you the documentary. Shh.

 

[Dead Man]

I didn't link you the documentary. Shh.

Thanks. I'll check it out.

 

[BowieZ]

Here's my entry!

 

[Jak140]

All this talk about first person documentaries is making me think we need a Muhammad FPS. Just gotta make sure they don't put in any reflective surfaces.

 

[sneakypete]

Here's my entry!

Are those lines both wind lines from his flying carpet and stink lines from the toilet?

 

[I AM JOHN!]

All this talk about first person documentaries is making me think we need a Muhammad FPS. Just gotta make sure they don't put in any reflective surfaces.

It could be a Super Noah's Ark 3D total conversion!

 

[Solid Moustache]

This is getting weirder:

http://gawker.com/5523210/why-do-th...uth-park-also-hate-triscuits?skyline=true&s=i

:lol :lol

 

[BowieZ]

Are those lines both wind lines from his flying carpet and stink lines from the toilet?

You decide!

 

[jorma]

anyone requesting manners or calling anyone supporting this idea an asshole:

FUCK YOU

did that hurt your feelings? that's okay! my feelings have been hurt in the past, and i have somehow learned to persevere.

do you realize who the real assholes are? it's not muslims, it's not muhammad, and it certainly isn't anyone who would consider rendering muhammad's likeness on May 20th. no, the REAL assholes are the people who hold their religious beliefs with such certainty, with such violent vigor, that they would threaten physical harm on anyone who would draw their deity or speak out against their beliefs.

how's that for being an asshole? that is who these ideas are aimed at: the kind of people that place religious thought over reality, over someone's right to continue living without being harmed.

Will you be there for the "chariacture a jew day" or the "depict a gollywog day"? No? Hypocrite. You really think risking offending one billion moslims just to get at a few extremists is a good fucking idea? Dumbass.

Especially since anyone with a brain will realise that this day will just be highjacked by racists. Oh the BNP is loving this day, i'll tell you that.