SimpleDesign
Member
What do you mean start?iapetus said:
That depends on how much they like animals. I really don't see a problem with rounding up furries.iapetus said:
May 20 - Draw Mohammed Day
- Thread starter Roi
- Start date
- Status
Oh wow. Hmm. I don't think this equates with certain photos taking the piss out of the holocaust. Maybe something akin to racist pictures which are banned here on GAF. But even that seems a bit off. Because that offends most reasonable people.
However, painting a picture of the prophet does cause offense whether you understand it or not. And greatly so. This is the uglier side of freedom of speech in my opinion. Carry on parading for freedom of speech if you are passionate about that sort of thing.
Are there any Muslims here on gaf who think sending death threats to artists who draw the prophet is okay or righteous? Somehow I really doubt that. I guess that's how it will be for most muslims out there. So who exactly are the protesters targeting?
I do sincerely believe in the market of ideas and I think this is an ill judged one.
However, painting a picture of the prophet does cause offense whether you understand it or not. And greatly so. This is the uglier side of freedom of speech in my opinion. Carry on parading for freedom of speech if you are passionate about that sort of thing.
Are there any Muslims here on gaf who think sending death threats to artists who draw the prophet is okay or righteous? Somehow I really doubt that. I guess that's how it will be for most muslims out there. So who exactly are the protesters targeting?
I do sincerely believe in the market of ideas and I think this is an ill judged one.
iapetus said:
This is nonsensical on so many levels.
The swastika is associated with a genocide that killed millions of innocent people, that is what makes it offensive. The US also fought a war against Vietnam, as it did against Nazi Germany, yet wearing a shirt with a Vietnamese flag is not considered offensive in the US. And drawings of Mohammed are not associated with mass-murderers, they are associated with cartoonists who have killed zero people. What's hilarious about your analogy is that for this to be comparable, it would have to be non-Muslims who are offended by a depiction of Mohammed because he is responsible for so many people being killed throughout history via religious wars, forced conversions, and terrorism.
And as someone else has already pointed out, no one threatened to kill him for wearing it. If they had, he absolutely should have refused to change his shirt.
iapetus said:
What does praying for something matter, if someone prays for the destruction of all life on the planet, is that genocide? Do we lock people up for prayers? You don't see the difference between that and attacking/killing people who draw Mohammed?
kittoo said:
You said that your country has faced "only Muslim terrorists". I was providing a counter-example.
At this point in time, Islamic extremists are responsible for the majority of organized non-state violence, but it's not like they came up with the idea of terrorism. In the past, many political groups chose terrorism as their means to achieving political goals. The majority of those older groups no longer exist, but their influence is a large part of what made it possible for these newer Islamic groups to flourish.
Don't take my comment as a suggestion that radical Islamic terrorism doesn't occur frequently. It's a dangerous thing. That said, I think it takes things a bit far to associate a cluster of thousands as representative of a religion of billions. I wouldn't take radical Islamic terrorism to mean that there's something wrong with Islam as a whole, any more than I would take the IRA's violence to mean that there's something wrong with Ireland as a whole. The brand of Islam that those terrorists practice is messed up stuff, but it's certainly not what everyone does. Long ago, Islam went hundreds of years being a good deal more tolerant than a lot of its contemporaries that are now publicly accepted.
They're targeting the group that think sending death threats is ok, somewhat obviously. In an ideal world the other groups you have listed would understand the gesture and refrain from taking offense but I understand why that is unlikely.Ashes1396 said:
If nobody killed or attempted to kill people like Theo Van Gogh, Lars Vilks & Kurt Westergaard then we wouldn't need to be doing this. I hate to pull the 'they started it' card but well, they did. Nobody should face mortal danger for offending religious sensibilities.
My only problem with this sentiment is that it is rarely applied in the opposite direction. If someone says "Why offend a billion muslims with this?" people don't tend to point out that there is no homogenous 'ummah' that is taking offence. For all we know no more than 32 people will be offended by DMD.sonicmj1 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEUIEJzthiI&feature=relatedkittoo said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-jNKBswMQI&feature=player_embedded
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7739541.stm
http://www.dnaindia.com/opinion/comment_why-should-hindu-terrorism-be-a-surprise_1206758
I didn't feel like googeling since you could've been able to do that yourself.
Btw, I do not in anyway accept what these terrorist who fight in the name of Islam do. But seriously stop blaming the religion as a whole.
SimpleDesign
Member
That's a good argument for holding back any criticism or satire of the Catholic church. Wouldn't want to offend 1 billion people now would we?
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
SimpleDesign said:
It's like asking the whole world to deny Holocaust. Should be a fun day, though...
SimpleDesign
Member
Maybe in the sense that people will get offended and that you shouldn't go to jail for doing either.shagg_187 said:
However one is a cartoon the other is a lie about genocide. Can't say they're on the same level.
iapetus said:
What if one's beliefs and culture are being eroded by acts of terrorism? Fear - and fear alone - has altered the way we behave, and the things we deem acceptable in our media. Depictions of Mohammed created by non-Muslims in no way shapes or alters the way Muslims live their lives. I'd completely agree with you if this was 'Send Death Threats To Imams For Promoting Islam Day'. But this isn't eye-for-an-eye retaliation.
And why compare drawing Mohammed to putting animal rights activists in concentration camps? As far as I know, DMD day is not trying to eradicate Muslims - not even fanatical ones. It's merely about creating images which cause offence for the sake of breaking the taboo.
This has nothing to do with respect as far as I'm concerned; unless it's the right of people to be as disrespectful as they want towards the religions of their choice. I think its important to respect the cultures of others for the same reason it's important not to talk in a movie theater. These are attitudes I value. But these are ideals, and there are exceptions. Talking in a movie theater becomes acceptable if one sees another audience member drop a suspicious looking pill into his date's beverage when she isn't looking; even though creating a scene will negatively effect other audience members.
DMD isn't about forcing images of Mohammed down the throats of Muslims. Like any other offensive expression, it can be ignored. Its message is not aimed at Muslims, it's aimed at the west. It's about reshaping our culture, not Islamic culture. It's saying "Look - we're not afraid to be offensive to Muslims! We're supporting religious equality and demonstrating a will to defy the wishes of criminals! Stop being scared of terrorists, and allow people to treat Islam with the same irreverence they treat every other faith!"
Of course regular, good, moderate Muslims will be offended, and I am truly sorry for that. But no one is advocating printing these images out and nailing them to people's doors. I would be disgusted by such behaviour, and I don't think any Muslim should be encouraged to look at them. This will be a minor news story, easily ignored by those with no interest. That's how sensible people are supposed to deal with offensive content in our society. But hopefully Draw Mohammed Day will contribute in some small way to fighting the fear we see expressed in the media every time someone attempts to lampoon Islam. Death threats are not acceptable, and the more consistently people in our societies are cowed into submission, the easier it is for extremists to attack those who resist.
SmokyDave said:
Well I know this is wrong for one thing. Don't you remember the last time this happened? there were rallies and demonstrations all over the Muslim World. I'm guessing this must have just slipped your mind. Or are you implying that things may have changed since then? At any case, judging by this thread alone, a lot of Muslims are offended. But I guess from your standpoint they should put up and shut up.
TOM f'N CRUISE
Member
Fuzz Rez said:
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
SimpleDesign said:
Anything that offends a group of people is... well... offensive and when asking the whole world to do it, it's just a slap in their face. As I said, It should be a fun day.
They most definitely should put up & shut up. Absolutely. I'd hope they'd understand why as well. Extremists are more damaging to muslims than non-muslims in my opinion.Ashes1396 said:
I know more than 32 people will take offence, I was just using it as an example of why referring to muslims as a homogenous blob is not fair game just because you're 'on their side'. It's no better than those that proclaim all muslims are terrorists.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
I keep on getting "facebook invites" to join various "Celebrate Mohammad Day" or "Boycott Facebook for Draw Mohammad Day" or more. I rather mind my own business and let the firestarters be. What other extremists or artists do does not reflect what I am as a Muslim and as much as it'll be offensive, it's also a calming moment that this is all cause-and-effect for what certain group of Muslims did. I (or Muslims for that matter) should not throw a hissyfit over this just cause someone who doesn't respect our beliefs is trying to exercise their freedom of speech.
It's like when I make fun of a friend or two, the more they get pissed at my jokes, the more I'll make fun of them. If you let go of it and start ignoring it, it will not hurt your feelings and you will be a bigger man for making them look ridiculous and being attention whores.
The only problem is that some people are treating this as a cinematic hostage situation where one Steven Seagal in the crowd decides to take out the baddies and unite the rest in doing so as the baddies will run outta bullets. What is going to happen is that it is going to piss them off even more and instead of just sending bomb threats, they will deliver it. The only thing that'll make this a forgettable moment if all of the artists stay anonymous and news media ignores this.
It's like when I make fun of a friend or two, the more they get pissed at my jokes, the more I'll make fun of them. If you let go of it and start ignoring it, it will not hurt your feelings and you will be a bigger man for making them look ridiculous and being attention whores.
The only problem is that some people are treating this as a cinematic hostage situation where one Steven Seagal in the crowd decides to take out the baddies and unite the rest in doing so as the baddies will run outta bullets. What is going to happen is that it is going to piss them off even more and instead of just sending bomb threats, they will deliver it. The only thing that'll make this a forgettable moment if all of the artists stay anonymous and news media ignores this.
SimpleDesign
Member
People have the right to be offended and people have the right to mock their neighbors beliefs without fear of a disproportionate response.shagg_187 said:
Maybe they'll surprise you by showing some restraint and turning the other cheek.shagg_187 said:
It's funny you should say that...shagg_187 said:
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
SimpleDesign said:
1. Too bad there is no such thing as "mock their neighbors beliefs without fear of a disproportionate reaction".
2. I hope they do. It'll be a very good feeling.
3. As I said, both the extremists (I hate this word so much) and the artists are firestarters in their own way. Ofcourse, he took a gamble by representing the prophet as a dog.
SimpleDesign
Member
Sure, in the same way drawing Muhammad is the same as pissing on a holocaust victims grave.shagg_187 said:
People mock Catholics and the church without much in the way of mass violence and head butting. Same goes with political beliefs, which are mocked constantly in the West. If not Jon Stewart would be dead right now. So I have to say there is such a thing.shagg_187 said:
YYZ said:What's more offensive to Muslim eyes?
This:
or this:
Miss USA isn't a 'proper' muslim in the eyes of those that kill cartoonists. Check hxa155 in that thread for an example. She simply won't be recognised as a muslim. She'll just be explained away as a plant by the capitalist, imperialist pigs.
Either that or stoned to death for causing Earthquakes.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
SimpleDesign said:
1. I... uh... I didn't say that! :/
2. On second though, the pissing on a holocaust victims grave applies here very generously. You're right though and I agree with you. But then again: God, Jesus and all the other prophets also get mocked upon and Muslim believe in all of them but no one gets pissed at it. I guess it's more of whom they associate the being with more. Quite a debatable argument, this is and if matterswere solved via debating and not using the means of threatening or violence, the world would've been a much better place to live in.
All in all, people always need a reason to make life exciting or to fight for something.
Joel Was Right
Member
The "offence" in regards to depictions of the Muslim Prophet isn't based on their content, whether it be depicting him as a terrorist or a gardener. Muslims do not generally accept the depiction of people or those of Prophets. But the reason behind the latter is more interesting. It stems from a story of the Muslim Prophet coming across a man praying to an ornament. He realised he was a Pagan, and the Earth shook and the ornament fell onto the ground and shattered. He asked the man, "How can you pray to something which can't even protect itself?". It follows the theme of Moses reaction to Paganism, and Christs' reaction to the commerce being done on Temple grounds. One of the 10 commandments specifically forbids the partnering of God with another. In fact, in both Islam and Christianity, the only sin that can never be forgiven is that. Soon, it became Muslim tradition to forbid drawing images of any Prophet so there wouldn't be a repeat of people worshipping/praying e.g. statues or images. I've never understood why there were violent protests. It was a complete paradox to the reason behind why depictions were offensive in the first place. When the Trinity was understood in Christianity (e.g. seeing Christ as divine), it essentially underlined the main fundamental difference between the two faiths. Ironically, Muhammad and the Arabs justified Islam as the only true monotheistic faith, citing "Polytheistic" tendencies of Christianity. Till this day, it is the main argument used by Muslims to differentiate the two religions. Consequently, it meant the closest religion to Islam from a doctrinal perspective was Judaism - despite the troubles over the Holy Land
kittoo
Cretinously credulous
2San said:
ohhh..here comes 'Gujarat'. How about reading what started Gujarat riots? The riots started when Muslims burned a train that was carrying Hindu pilgrims back from holy city of Ayodhya. My point is, it was not Hindu terrorism, those werent Hindu 'terrorist' groups that did that. Those were Muslims who started those riots. It reminds me of a famous argument that extremists often use. They tell their people that the other (infidel or kufr or whatever you have) is going to kill them and hates them. After quite a few such sermons, there are bound to be some violence. And when that happens, he turns back and says- 'Didnt I tell ya?'
Recently, riots were started in Hyderabad by Muslims. A Hindu festival was coming. Hindus went to remove the green flags that were put up by Muslims for their festival that had passed one month ago, so that Hindus could put their flags then. But Muslims started violence. Was that justified? Or were the recent riots of Bareily justified, when Muslims attacked those Hindus who were opposing the release of a Muslim criminal?
I did not want to discuss riots here cause I believe, as I stated earlier, they are a different ballgame. But if you want to discuss them too into the fold of terrorism, I am all for it.
Coming to other articles posted. First of all, none of those charges are proved yet. So technically, not a single Hindu terrorist group is held absolutely responsible for anything.
And even if there are Hindu terrorist group, they are absolutely no match for the monstrosity that is Islamic terrorism. Also, even though I am not sure from which country you are, let me tell you that the problem is extremely complicated. A huge angle of the problem is that because Muslims in India vote in a block (mostly to Congress), there has been a lot of sucking up to them by the ruling government. Every single terrorist killing by police has been questioned as being fake and inquiries are being setup on those police officers, the dreaded terrorist who was one of the guys who attacked Indian parliament in 2002 has not been hanged even though the sentence was given 4 years ago, in gear that it will anger Muslim community, right has been give to Muslims in India that they can open Muslim only madarssas, a preacher named Zakir Naik who openly says that he will put his religion before his country and will defy Indian constitution, has been allowed to do whatever he wants, the refusal of Muslims to sing 'Vande Mataram', the Indian national song, hasn't gotten much reaction from government, there 20 million extra Muslim Bangladeshis in India but government does nothing about them because of votes, the media either doesnt reports riots or disruptions done by Muslims or obfuscates them (they say- 'Members of a community created the tension' WTH does that even mean? You cant even tell who did it. Why cant you just say that Muslim community did that?) and when anything is done by Hindus, it makes it a breaking news with 24 hour coverage, blowing it out of proportion (Sadhvi Pragya case for instance. She still hasnt been proved guilty, but the media has hanged her already, saying that she is the face of 'Hindu terrorism'), a Hindu temple in one of the holiest cities of Hinduism, Ayodhya, is not being allowed by the government for a rebuilding, which was destroyed by a Muslim barbarian centuries ago and a mosque was made on it...the list goes on. Such conditions create dissatisfaction in Hindus. I am sorry cause I dont know about western countries, but in India, their religion is still a very very important for Hindus. And its justified cause their country was partitioned in the name of Islam. So when they see their religion being suppressed once again, for some paltry votes, and when they see no democratic option (they bought the so called Hindu nationalist party BJP in power in 1998, but when it came to power, it became same like the others), there is bound to be some unwanted activity. So its a very very complicated issue and comparing Hindu terrorism (even if such a thing exists) to Islamic terrorism is absolutely absurd (especially in India's case, where Muslim terrorists from Pakistan kill innocents for no reason).
Edit: Upon looking at your links in detail, I found some intriguing things.
Your youtube links claim that Hindus are killing not only Muslims, but Sikhs and others too. Whoa! When were Sikhs last killed? In whole of India's history, there has been only a single time when Sikh-Hindu riots happened. That was in 1984, when Sikh terrorists killed Indira gandhi. Never again have Hindus and Sikhs rioted.
And the link says that Muslims were 20% in India and now they are 13.4%. When were they 20%? In every census their percentage has been increasing and in 2001 it reached 13.4%. In none of the census were they 20% in India.
Another of your link has an interview of a JNU prof. That university my dear, is a hotbed of anti-India activities. It has made so many terrorists and naxalites and leaders. You might want to read a recent news article that how India's home minister was opposed by the students of that university cause he allowed a military push for terrorists who killed 76 Indian military personnel.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Meus Renaissance said:
Well said. Good read.
crazy monkey
Banned
I avoided this thread and will do in future just wanted to say this will create more trouble rather than solving anything
Instigator
Banned
Meus Renaissance said:
Too bad they fail to see the irony of the black stone. That rock couldn't protect itself either.
I doubt the rock is even essential to the pilgrimage, from what I know it's just a big "magical" rock.Instigator said:
Isn't it the site itself that matters?
Anyway Mecca is a distasteful piece of shit, so much for humbleness and humility.
It looks more like dubai than a holy site.
kittoo said:
Honestly if you come from India you should know the tension between Hindu's and Muslims stem from a long time back. It was never an one sided afair. The problem with India you can never get proper stats from them especially on violence against Muslims. Do get anything cleared up we have to rely on U.S. State Department. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18311.htm
Who knows what else is covered up. Not that I am saying that the Muslim extremists haven't done anything, but this is hardly a one sided thing.
crazy monkey
Banned
kittoo do you live in Gujarat? I grew up there. The environment there was poisoning. Bajrang dal and VHP people do you know how much trouble they make? Every year there is a problem. Of course being Indian you know most likely that back home there is a reaction, it is either from this side or other.
When we were in school, we did sit on different benches, we were refereed to as miyabhai and assumed that we will be no good gundas anyways. I am from juhapura. If i tell any one in Gujarat that I am from juhapura instantly I am the worse night mare imaginable for them. Hell the first thing modi said was he wish he can bomb the hell out of juhapura.
Problem regarding ayodhya is not simple. 13% of the population can not control the vote bank even if the wanted to.
When we were in school, we did sit on different benches, we were refereed to as miyabhai and assumed that we will be no good gundas anyways. I am from juhapura. If i tell any one in Gujarat that I am from juhapura instantly I am the worse night mare imaginable for them. Hell the first thing modi said was he wish he can bomb the hell out of juhapura.
Problem regarding ayodhya is not simple. 13% of the population can not control the vote bank even if the wanted to.
BobTheFork
Member
What I found surprising is that he kind of looks like Kato Kalin-viper- said:
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Baki said:
Holocaust denial (not mocking, as far as I know) is illegal in some European countries. I disagree with it on principle, but it is understandable. These countries have a long tradition of discrimination and outright pogroms. Within the living memory of citizens, these countries either participated or collaborated in the industrialized killing of Jews. Denying it happened serves no legitimate purpose. In an ideal situation they could let the marketplace of ideas sort them out as idiots, but the history is too raw for these countries to leave it to some degree of chance.
And regrettably the marketplace of ideas in Eastern Europe is not robust after 45 years of Marxism destroyed people's ability to think for themselves. And hell, your faith in the marketplace of ideas in the West will be shaken by a visit to the 9/11 conspiracy thread.
I can't believe people are comparing Holocaust deniers with this.
What really gets me personally, and I think a lot of people is the irrationality of it. I'm not condoning death threats, which are absurd by themselves, but one gets something like Jesus in urine or Mohammed with bomb might hurt sensibilities and some people might react violently, but in the South Park cartoon Mohammed didn't do anything, he wasn't even show because he was in a costume. The fact that the mere drawing of the prophet, hell, not even drawing, just the mention of him, offends enough to recieve death threats it's what makes people react how they are reacting, is because is stupid and way too extreme.
What really gets me personally, and I think a lot of people is the irrationality of it. I'm not condoning death threats, which are absurd by themselves, but one gets something like Jesus in urine or Mohammed with bomb might hurt sensibilities and some people might react violently, but in the South Park cartoon Mohammed didn't do anything, he wasn't even show because he was in a costume. The fact that the mere drawing of the prophet, hell, not even drawing, just the mention of him, offends enough to recieve death threats it's what makes people react how they are reacting, is because is stupid and way too extreme.
Count Dookkake
Member
crazy monkey said:
No, it will just create art. Some good, some bad, some funny, some mean, etc.
You're making this too black and white.iapetus said:
Respecting other people's beliefs/cultures is important. Freedom of speech is more important. If you classify that as "Cyan thinks his culture is more important than others"... then fine, my culture is more important.
So while as a general rule it's better to be polite and respectful to other people (thus not wearing swastikas or not drawing Mohammed or whatever it is), one should still be able to be impolite and disrespectful, without having to fear for one's life.
As for mere complaints about drawing Mohammed, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that. I mean, I'll disagree with the people who complain, but that's what free speech is about.
BattleMonkey
Member
Can we have an abolish religion day?
No, sorry, fuck this moral relativism.iapetus said:
Not all positions are created equal.
For (an inflammatory) example -
Desegregation pissed a whole lot of people.
But desegregation "was fine" and opposing it wasn't.
Why?
Because not every issue in the world has two equal points of views.
And by the way, I'm still not sure how I personally feel about the Draw Muhammad Day (though I'm pretty sure I'm not going to participate in it), but my dilemma stems from the practical aspects of such day, on a philosophical level, exercising freedom of expression and limiting it are not two equal sides of the same coin.
soul creator
Member
I don't know about you, but I wish for the abolition of the modern Republican Party every day. It's a horrible, irrational set of political views that has done a ton of damage to this country :lol
protip: it's ok to wish for bad ideas to die out, which the Republican Party is full of right now.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Chichikov, re: segregation. I think the more apt comparison would be the famous interracial kiss between Kirk and Uhura on Star Trek circa 1967. No doubt this infuriated segregationists and almost certainly caused death threats to NBC. If NBC had decided not to air it out of fear and artists vowed to create images of interracial romance in protest, how would you react? Would you tell them not to do it because it will piss off all the racists in Mississippi and make things worse? I look forward to the argument that convinces me there is a substantial difference.
Count Dookkake
Member
Jexhius said:
This day won't cause any trouble.
Morons reacting to it might.
RustyNails
Member
I'm sorry, but there is no evidence to suggest that the train fire was an act of deliberate violence. All the inquiries, including one conducted by Railway ministry point to fact that the train fire was an accident.kittoo said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4770718.stm
I'll give you the Hyderabad riots though. The Old city is ruled by uneducated MIM hoodlums who live in a perpetual state of us vs them mentality. MIM also keeps poor Muslims poor and uneducated. Chaiwalla kids from 10 years ago are still working the Chai's, inspite of what MIM says. It was MIM's job to remove the flags after the Muharram or whatever they were celebrating. Old city belongs to everyone, not just Muslims, and MIM should realize this.
- Status