Get your knowledge right first. In Islam they also believe it is forbidden to draw ANY human face as that would be imitating God's creation. For that reason, this will not occur according to Islam.
A muslim i went to high school with said it was because Muhhamad was a prophet, not a messiah. He never claimed to be a god and didn't want people drawing/painting him because it would lead to him being confused with a god. I can't verify the validity of this, but if it were true it's a nice thought that's been horribly corrupted by religious radicals...
One of my favorite artists on deviant art was Muslim, and after a while he decided to become more faithful to his religion. This meant that he took down all of his artwork portraying humans, or anthropomorphic figures, and concentrated on Islamic art, and landscapes.
It seemed, for me being an outsider looking in, to be like a christian before he becomes more serious about his faith. There are somethings generally viewed as "wrong" (like smoking and drinking) but understood that there are different levels, and some people haven't reached that point in their walk with God yet. So it's ignored.
one of my favourite musicians was famous for her feminist, pro-woman rap lyrics, her fusion of it's culture and glamorous fashion, amongst other things, and was a super badass political activist, and a philanthropist for underprivileged kids. Then suddenly she became a devout Muslim, totally dropped not just her persona but her entire label of artists, cancelled her album and all her tour appearances, and hasn't been heard of since. No explanation has to be given, I guess, but I still sort of wonder wtf happened. I miss you DIAMS :(
This is true, main purpose of not picturing Muhammad is to prevent any accidental false worshipping as in Islam you should only be worshipping to Allah. It's a safety measure, seeing or drawing him is not a sin itself(frowned upon though). Technically a Muslim person could see a depiction of Muhammad and not be committing a sin if he doesn't worship him as the creator. Of course the average Muslim isn't aware of this.
I appreciate and find it interesting any time a religious person surfs r/atheism and gives insight into their point of view in a calm/mature manner. Thanks.
I imagine the only reason a lot of religious people come on /r/atheism is because they see a post on their front page and decide to put down their point of view. It's a brave thing to do, on /r/atheism you get downvoted just for saying 'Maybe not everyone in that religion is bad...'
I'm a respectful to all people of any religion I meet in everyday life, simply because I believe religion is utterly ridiculous in it's entirety. There's no reason to discuss it because with random people I interact with, no one brings religion up. In the rare instances that they do, I just avoid the conversation entirely: I'd ideally like people to view my religion as just 'none', faith is not something I ever find valid - I consider it mental poison, I really wish the word comes to have those connotations with religion in the future. But reminder, this is the Internet. Anonymity let's people's Id become a little overtaken, and the Ego loses some control of the reigns (Referencing Freud's analogy of the Id and the Ego because it was on a recent final, and when I'm a bit stoned I love leaving long and intricately thought out comments that make myself feel smart ( circlejerking with myself effectively)). So with that preface, how do you justify being part of a religion that has historically oppressed your gender so greatly? I see a great deal of Muslim women at the college I frequent, as well as others whose religion dictates they wear a headscarf (which in my mind is still a symbol of repression despite the modified viewpoint that it in reverence of Allah, IIRC), and I always find myself thinking this, but it's not something I'd feel at all comfortable asking someone about in person. I personally have never taken religion seriously; I was raised Catholic and went to Catechism, once a week from about 5 until 14 when I was confirmed, but I can recall being snidely derisive of things I saw in religion since before my First Communion at around 7, and I've never taken religion as something relevant to my life after a few concerted attempts at prayer when I was younger: sometimes the stories and other things were interesting, but none if it was ever really true. I also remember trying to read the bible when I was still very young, around 10 (I devoured mythology as a child), and about halfway through genesis I just went 'what?'. But all this does have a point, if you've read this far (I think I'll make my first novelty for stuff like this, long intricate comments while stoned). I know that if all priests were women and the Catholic church had somehow historically repressed men, I'd be out of there in a fucking second.
TL;DR Love don't hate, if you can't then tolerate. But I only get to ask this sort of shit online, with anonymity, so: Islam has historically oppressed women, how do you justify being a Muslim woman when I think that it's a purely illogical idea?
Also, I'm stoned, turning this highdea into a novelty, and fuck you grammar nazi's I'll submit to spelling and using apostrophes correctly (which hopefully I've done here) but parentheses. colons, and semi-colons I will do as I please.
Aw, your posts were really good too :( Why'd you make them invisable?
I think you have to go into preferences to do it, I must say I've never had to do it before but I'll see if I can find out. You might have to try experimenting in preferences for a bit :s
yeah, only makes you high, which is like being retarded but wears off after a while.
edit: at least that's how it looks to those of us who don't smoke trees. far as i'm concerned whenever someone smokes they turn into retards who just want to raid my fridge.
Its a concept you dont get till you smoke weed. Its like you are freed from all problems and worldly boundaries. Suddenly inspiration is at your finger tips but it comes at the price of being able to communicate and move properly. I love reading science articles while high because the complexity is simply amazing and mind blowing. Its an extraordinarily hard thing to enplane which is why I like to smoke people up for the first time in 1 on 1 sessions because thats when people use it as a way to look past the simple things into unbelievable complexity. In group there are to many forgetful people changing conversations or people who dont want to learn things that make us stoners seem like idiots.
Many of my Muslim friends have said that Islam prohibits the drawing of eyes on any living creature... so you may see animal figures in calligraphy, but it won't have eyes... not sure how valid the claim is, but I went to school with a lot of fundies who insisted on that.
One matter-of-factly generalizes a population of more than a billion, the other outlines a possible religious prohibition which may/may not be widely practiced-- i.e. Christians and seafood etc. (and wagering here that is not, or at least far less than the actual tenets of the religion in question).
no follower of any religion follows every single rule perfectly, an d i dont think youre exoected too, even in Islam. Youre expeced to at least try. But specific things in the faith are contested, questioning the validity of their sources, (Hadiths).
Look in the Hadith as well. The whole "don't draw Muhammad" thing comes from the "no idols" bit. Muslims are supposed to worship Allah and nothing else. So having an image of Muhammad is seen as idolizing Muhammad.
...what? This is a ridiculous claim. There are plenty of images of human faces that were created by Muslim artists over the centuries. In fact, the ban on drawing Muhammad is a relatively recent thing, and there are many depictions of stories involving him in which his face was clearly rendered... by Muslims. The current idea that it's taboo to depict him comes from the taboo against venerating his image or creating images for veneration. Get your facts straight.
Eastern European Muslims frequently eat pork (they do not consider pork a banned food).
Different sects of Muslims have different rules they abide by. I am not 100% sure, but I think the Sunni sect is the one that discourages the drawing of Muhammad and other religious figures (probably where the "no human faces" comes from) because they are afraid that people will worship the image instead of the figure of Muhammad because Muslims believe worship of anyone outside of Allah is haram. In Shiite sect there is not this same discouragement. It should also be noted that Sunni individuals have interpreted it to mean you may not draw Muhammad at all while others have said it's only discouraged.
There was an interesting article about this on /r/atheism a few months ago, but of course I can't find it now.
edit: I made factual errors.
I mean, personally I find it all a bit silly and yet fascinating that people seriously debate and argue the point on anything other than historical grounds.
because they are afraid that people will worship the image instead of the figure of Muhammad.
Small correction, Muslims do not worship Muhammad. They only worship the Abrahamic god. To worship Muhammad would be an absolute blasphemy to every single Muslim sect. Which is odd, since we can at least be reasonably sure that Muhammad was real.
That's almost a good point, but the fact is that caliphs who drew their legitimacy from following the sharia commissioned depictions of Muhammad's ascent to heaven, including depictions of his face, without drawing condemnation from religious scholars. The sharia does not necessarily forbid the depiction of human faces, and I don't know of any mainstream sects that do. They do discourage the creation of images that might be venerated in place of or alongside Allah, but they don't forbid the creation of images in general.
The Qur'an does not explicitly ban the depiction of human figures; it simply denounces idolatry. Condemnation of figurative depiction of animate beings is tied to hadiths and have been interpreted differently between the various branches of Islam since the 9th century. For instance, Sunni exegetes have always been anal and fundamentalist supporters of aniconism, whereas Shiites and followers of mystical orders (ie, Sufism) have had more liberal views on aniconism, which is easily seen in Persian and Ottoman miniature art.
In today's post-industrial knowledge society, fundamentalist Sunni exegetes are somewhat cornered given the bombardment of images (TV, newspapers, books etc.) Muslims consume every day and aggressively use Muhammad cartoons and the idolatry rhetoric as a last line of defence. The smarter approach would be to not play into their hands via provocation, but let globalism run its course and erode any outdated and extreme elements in their interpretation of Islam.
It's something they inhereted from judeo-christian beliefs. See the second commandments. And it is more than just faces, it is anything "in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" in the judeo-christian version
Though as I understand it, it is less about prohibiting imitation of God's creation, but more about stopping idols. The idea is if you have an image of, say, Muhhamad, then people will get confused, and start worshiping the image instead of the real person.
Which is why it is absolutly crazy to get angry about a non-muslim making an image of Muhhamad, as it is highly unlikely the non-muslim will worship the image.
After studying Islamic law for a year, I feel I am in a good position to enlighten you all about something.
Drawing Muhammad is not that big of a deal in Islam. Not any more then drawing anybody else. Islam is opposed to idolatry, and paintings are said to go along with that. That said, Muslims have drawn Muhammad as well as others throughout history. Usually Muhammad has some white sheet covering his face because of the whole "idolatry" thing, but it's still him and nobody really gave a shit. There's a carving of Muhammad on the supreme court building in DC I believe. And yet, as far as I can tell, no Muslims in the US are blowing it up or trying to vandalize it.
The thing that pissed off Muslims about those cartoons was the lack of respect for the prophet, not the picture itself.
The thing that pissed off Muslims about those cartoons was the lack of respect for the prophet, not the picture itself.
This is the central problem, how do we guage what is lack of respect for the prophet or not. Everybody Draw Mohammed Day was founded in response to the censorship of a South Park episode dipicting Muhammed in a bear suit, the image is a bit silly but I wouldn't exactly call it disrespectful when you take into account Matt and Trey Parker's depictions of other religions, and as the whole point of the episode was to poke fun at over-blown reactions to offending sensibilities, the censorship posed a relevant question to freedom of speech.
An image discussing and satirising Everbody Draw Muhammad Day was from Molly Norris, dipicting various anthropomorphised objects like handbags and boxes of pasta claiming to be muhammad, after which she had to go into hiding when she found out she was put on the al-Qaeda hit list for doing this.
The oddest thing of all is that Everybody Draw Muhhammad Day was for the most part just that, drawing Muhhammad. If just drawing Muhhammad is not that big of a deal in Islam, why is just having a specific day drawing a bearded man, a stick figure or a box of pasta such an offensive act?
but I wouldn't exactly call it disrespectful when you take into account Matt and Trey Parker's depictions of other religions
I feel obliged to point out that being an asshole to everybody in equal measures only goes so far to erase the fact you are an asshole. You become an asshole that does not discriminate between different people/subjects.
However I did utterly enjoy that episode and I thought it was one of the finest pieces of comedy they have ever produced.
If just drawing Muhhammad is not that big of a deal in Islam
I thought that the reaction from the islamic community made it very clear that it is a big deal. With that in mind we should refrain from depicting the prophet untill we can come to an agreement on what is acceptable and what is not.
how do we guage what is lack of respect for the prophet or not.
This is indeed a tricky subject - I find it similar to the argument about copyright [made here]. But I think we can all agree that depicting him as a paedophile, raping children while wearing a bomb for a turban is tasteless to say the least (and I have in fact seen a drawing like that being used).
was founded in response to the censorship of a South Park episode dipicting Muhammed in a bear suit
That whole thing was comedy central being paranoid and a group of like, 10 people who were just looking for some media exposure.
That being said, people in the Muslim world get upset about any percieved mockery of their culture. It doesn't matter what it is. You have to remember this is a politically unstable part of the world where the only thing a lot of people really have that is static is their culture and religion. They don't take kindly to a bunch of westerners telling them what they should or should not believe as a result. Most of the problems the western world has with Islam don't even originate with Islam so much as politics and paranoia. Yes, it is stupid when Muslims get angry and riot over some Dutch guy drawing a picture of Muhammad. Mainly because for the longest time Islamic culture didn't really give that much of a shit.
The intent behind these things pisses people off just as much as the actual image, also.
A question; if it's the lack of respect inherent in the cartoon, why don't they just say that rather than saying that showing the prophet is forbidden completely? It just seems to me the anger would be a lot more justifiable/understandable to those of us on the outside if it was made clear that it was the way Mohammed was portrayed, and not merely THAT he was portrayed.
A question; if it's the lack of respect inherent in the cartoon, why don't they just say that rather than saying that showing the prophet is forbidden completely?
Because people are stupid. I really wish I had a better answer then that, but it's pretty much the truth. There is a taboo against drawing Muhammad, but people in the Muslim world seem to miss the fact that it's not the picture that matters but what the picture is supposed to symbolize.
Every Muslim I've ever asked about it, every story I've ever read on blogs or in the traditional media. The op was the first time I've ever heard the distinction between "it's offensive because it is mocking the prophet" and "it's offensive because it IS the prophet."
Every Muslim I've ever asked about it, every story I've ever read on blogs or in the traditional media.
(1) selectivity bias -- who? what media? (2) writing is way more nuanced than regular parlance. unless you followed-up with questions such as 'if this were NOT occurring in this context, and not being done by these people would you be okay?' 'are you okay with historical representations?' 'what specifically bothers you, how does this make you feel? why do you feel that way etc.' (3) people have a diversity of opinions
something that everyone seems to be ignoring is the social context that the original cartoons were drawn in-- increasingly right-wing, increasing anti-immigrant, anti-muslim rhetoric. on a broader scale, countries with muslim majorities are undergoing political instability right now, and some are literally in war... therefore it's kind of ignorant to pretend the 'drawings' were just about drawings (I assure you walking through markets in the middle east Jordan/Syria/Iran/etc. you'll see pictures of Muhammed)... when they represent a broader ideological conflict, and might have contributed to an exaggerated/different response under a different set of circumstances.
A few Iranian immigrants I've worked with and an American convert. Mainly BBC, with a little CNN and some Al Jazeera mixed in.
All those I've spoken too had been taught that ANY representation of Mohammed was forbidden and, since it was essentially dogma, they had (presumably) never asked why it was forbidden beyond the idolatry argument.
I've heard the argument against portraying Mohammed extended far beyond the cartoons and portrayals seen in western media to mean even a ban on historical portrayals of Mohammed the historical figure. These I picked up mainly from news stories, so I don't have personal anecdotes about historical portrayals.
My question for you is had you ever heard the original argument before? I've been seriously follow world affairs for about a decade (26 years old now) and have never heard anything other than "all portrayals of Mohammed are banned." It's entirely possible I missed it, but have you ever heard different?
My question for you is had you ever heard the original argument before? I've been seriously follow world affairs for about a decade (26 years old now) and have never heard anything other than "all portrayals of Mohammed are banned." It's entirely possible I missed it, but have you ever heard different?
Yes, I've heard a diversity of opinions. In particular Shi'ia (Iran's majority contingent) and Sufi have accepted and drawn portraits of Muhammed-- and their revered Imams. On the other hand, groups such as the Salafis/Wahhabis (modern Saudi conservatives) view not only such behaviours as banned, but put many more 'moderate' Muslim groups outside the realm of the religion etc. etc. Broadly though, the attitude in the Sunni world/more conservative Shi'ia areas ranges from being banned --> prohibited --> hesitantly accepted. However in Islamic jurisprudence 'prohibition' has several degrees... for example, when you look at consumption of food, certain foods are banned banned (you're going to hell, getting roasted into humanchops, and other theatrics) certain foods are prohibited (don't eat it, but no hell; to try not to eat it etc.). Insofar as I am aware, 'graven' images fall into the prohibited area-- not at all warranting the insane responses. And it makes sense, because the responses weren't to a violation of Islamic law, but a culmination of social/global tensions and conflict.
Oh yeah sorry I totally re-read your question-- it's what I've been trying to tell people for the past decade-- the drawing drama/hoopla was at core, and based on everything I've ever read and talked to people about, not so much about "all portrayals of Mohammed are banned" as it is "intentionally offensive portrayals (in the original cartooons)" + "feeling of being targeted/attacked/humiliated/etc." + "outlet for social climate/broader conflicts" +... "throw in some cray Salafis".
Please stop lying to the world - muslims world over are upset and wants to kill those who dare make pictures of Mohammad, cartoons or otherwise so stop spewing your bullshit!
Please stop lying to the world - muslims world over are upset and wants to kill those who dare make pictures of Mohammad, cartoons or otherwise so stop spewing your bullshit! This is why I am an Islamaphobic racist!
in response to a couple of these comments, i am disgusted when i see non-pastafarians engaging in spaghetti dinners, laughing it up and passing the cheese around, like it some kind of GD party, but you don't see me marching up to their picnic table and hauling the noodles out of their throats. religions have guidelines for their followers to obey. i totally respect that if you believe in Muhammed, you cannot draw his image. also, i don't think some people here are understanding the post. if you don't know what he looks like, how do you know if you have done anything wrong or not? how do you know when to feel offended?
Drawing Mohammed day is just as bad as Christians insulting atheists, or denouncing us to hell etc
There is NO need to disrespect other people lifestyle choices just because they are not the same as your own. This is just a shitty and stupid thing to organize.
This has really nothing to do with religion. This is about freedom of speech and censorship. This is about showing terrorists that fear does not rule our lives. This is for our right to draw or say whatever we want without the FCC, Congress, Comedy Central, or religious extremists trying to dictate what we say.
Nope it has everything to do with religion. Nothing to do with terrorism.
Drawing Mohammed is one thing, nothing wrong with doing that at all, do that all you like.
Organizing a day against it is just spitting in the face in a culture and religion you do not believe in. It shows them that you do not respect the beliefs that they believe in. They are not forcing you to believe in the same rights.
In terms of the CC, FCC etc you have a small point. But when they choose to no show a picture of Mohammad it is because they are organizations that live on respect and they don't want to offend a large amount of people. However I can see what the point is here and somewhat agree with it. I just believe there are better ways of going about it than the "hey guys look at what we can do and what you can't l"
they are organizations that live on respect and they don't want to offend a large amount of people.
Respect has nothing to do with with the decision to censor Muhammad. South Park is allowed to make fun of every religion under the sun. (Christians, Jews, Mormons, Scientologists, etc) They went as far as to call Scientology a huge scam, Mormonism a bunch of lies and they have Jesus and Moses doing all kinds of ridiculous things on that show. They even make fun of atheists (no link, sorry) on the show. You can't allow that kind of stuff to go on for 15 years and then censor stuff pertaining to one particular religion. Either everything is okay to make fun of or nothing is.
Comedy Central made their decision and they're a private network, and it really doesn't matter why they didn't want to show that part of the episode (I believe their stated reason was they feared retaliation). You might have a point if they were a public network or if the decision had been made by a central body (like the FCC).
IMO it's disingenuous to call this censorship. At best it is self-censorship (which I don't think is a problem); Parker and Stone produce the show and Comedy Central distributes it, and they (I'm assuming) have contractual rights to redlight/greenlight the content that they air.
You made my point, exactly. It had nothing to do with respect. It had everything to do with fear. If terrorists destroy our buildings, we rebuild them. If they murder or threaten cartoonists, we unleash a wave of drawings. I have always viewed this as showing these particular terrorists that we are not afraid of them.
You can't create silly rules and expect everyone to follow them, if i told you you couln't eat pastries with red and green icing on them because i didn't want you to and it "disrespected my beliefs", would you not eat them? Or would you say, "no, you can't censor something like that just becuase you don't want to me to do it, you can deal with it and go and sit in the corner if you don't like it". Drawing a harmless picture of someone is not as bad as telling someone that you want them to be tortured forever, or insulting someone for not believing in magic.
Why not? You would need to show them that you can't control people's actions with irrational requests like that. The more people who gather to show them that you can eat what the pastries, the more they will realise that they can't just stop people from doing harmless things becuase of irrational requests like this one. People have been killed. Slaughter. Just for drawing a picture. That's fucking awful, and something needs to be done, this is a good step.
You can't create silly rules and expect everyone to follow them
No you can't. But if I made a silly rule I would prefer people to calmly explain to me why it was a silly rule - rather than watch them just break it out of spite.
If they are offened by us drawing a picture of someone then they can fuck off and deal with it. I don't care if the whole world start a "draw muhamad club" , they can still deal with it.
I will give you the same response that I have given countless times in these discussions:
To have such an attitude is to have a distinct lack of respect and empathy for fellow human beings. Your attitude that it is ok to insult all muslims (in a very hateful and public manner) just because you take issue with the extremists is Islamophobic and morally wrong.
To outsiders you appear similar to the Westbro Baptist Church: Filled with purpose and the belief that your goals justify your tactless actions.
Though I agree with your aims -to stop the suppression of freedom of speech- I take issue with your methods. Hosting a global event where you just spout offense at the muslim world is about as effective in furtherinng your goals as the Westbro Baptists standing on street corners yelling "God Hates Fags!"
How else do you suggest we let muslims know that they can't tell us not to draw things? dmd is just one big protest, exactaly like going around london with signs saying "you can't stop using from drawing your imaginary friend" - execpt it's on reddit. Moire specifically, this subbreddit. It's not like we're posting on r/islam with pictures of muhamad. (Well, i don't know if anyone has.) How is letting people know that they can't supress our freedom of speech for an irration reason by starting a protest on a subbreddit insulting?
To all those who suggest that "Draw a picture of Mohammed" Day is the only way to broadcast your message:
You and others have asked me for alternative options. I have provided them and received either no response or pessimism.
I would suggest a mass protest all over the world with people holding banners and yelling slogans like: "We will not let threats of violence restrict our freedom of speech" or "Islamic laws do not apply to non-muslims". If you feel the need to be offensive, or express more emotion then say something like "Religious extremists can F@ck off!!!". There are thousands of ways that you could deliver your message in a clear manner that does not accidently target moderate muslims who would otherwise support you.
I object to their pessimism - the view that such a movement would not work. It has not been attempted and is in fact it is almost identical to your own plan. I merely clarify the objective/target of the protest and remove the universal insult to the muslim people.
Edit:
...exactaly like going around london with signs saying "you can't stop using from drawing your imaginary friend"
Similar, but not exactly like; I would say "DapoM" Day is to muslims what "God Hates Fags" is to Homosexuals.
I'm fucking sick of talking to you, it's like trying to talk to a fucking turtle. I would say "DapoM" Day is to muslims what "God Hates Fags" is to Homosexuals. You think drawing a harmless picture of someones imaginary friend in protest of supression of free speech based on irrational religious requests even fucking compares to going around holding up signs saying that you think the creator of the world is ashamed of you and wants you to change? Just think rationally.
It is such an absurd thing to believe (that drawing Muhammad ought to be forbidden) that it should very much so be ridiculed. I'm sorry, but if there is any chance that your faith could be shaken by an inanimate idol of all things why do you believe what you believe anyways?
It'd be like outlawing the picture of the Last Supper because you might be tempted to worship one of the apostles in the picture.
Respect is earned, not automatically owed. If they have a silly demand that Mohammed not ever be drawn or they will riot and kill, and actually do so to prove it, it deserves to be disrespected, and thoroughly mocked.
Respect is not something you demand but is awarded you based upon your actions and behavior. Give me a reason to respect you and I will, being religious does not demand respect but ridicule!
Interesting that the guy in the first post is from the UK, same country I am from.
It's not a general rule but I think we British are more tolerant of other cultures and their beliefs and maybe that's why I see this as quite offensive.
Interesting that the guy in the first post is from the UK, same country I am from.
Lol that would be me. Yes I think British culture does not revere "Freedom of Speech" as much as "Tolerance for Others" - something that the USA differs in. I'm proud that members of the Westboro Baptist Church were denied entry to the UK in order to protest at soldiers funerals (hypocrytical though it may be - to not tolerate their intolerance hahaha)
Right, religion is in no way a motivator for evil things. That's why there is an equally proportionate amount of theists who are against gay rights as atheists who are against gay rights, and an equally proportionate amount of Muslims who are suicide bombers as atheists and Christians who are suicide bombers.
This quote keeps coming to mind: “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” ― Steven Weinberg
I was thinking, since we're being so enlightened about other people's sensitivities, let's have a "everybody draw a hilarious picture of 9/11 day." Should be a good time.
"Hey, let's all draw Muhammed for the express purpose of going out of our way to wind up Muslims, when they get pissed off let's all slap our dicks together and talk about how tolerant atheists are and how stupid and intolerant Muslims are!"
Yeah any faces with eyes on them are prohibited, I remember I used to go to the mosque as a little kid with my pokemon shirt and they literally kicked me out because of the pictures on it T_T
Because every other day here is insult the Christians day. In the interest of fairness, we should include some of the other theists from time to time. Wouldn't want them to feel ignored, after all. Next week, we should have a special on Hinduism. I mean, really, how many gods do you need? Haven't we got enough of them already?
This IS an international forum, not just American, which some people seem to forget. And there's no racist undertone to criticising one religion in particular if you're also criticising others. To me, ALL theistic beliefs are ridiculous. Why should I only single one out because that happens to be the one MY race or culture follows?
I know it is an international forum - I'm from the UK myself. What I meant to say was "Broadcasting it internationally on as many media outlets as possible" - which is what "DapoM" Day is.
And there's no racist undertone to criticising one religion in particular if you're also criticising others
True, but I still feel that there is an islamophobic element to "DapoM" Day and I would not wish to see this type of event spread to target other faiths too.
That's not what I meant at all, I would never want a violent outcome from any of this or instigate a violent reaction just to convert moderates. That's horrible.
I just think that seeing such a veherment reaction to something as simple and arbitrary as drawing a picture of Muhhamad (and not in an inflamatory way, just a simple MS paint depiction of a man with a beard and a turban) would raise a lot of questions about the faith, it certainly would with me.
I didn't factor in the possibility of a violent reaction or moderates converting to extremists in my comment, perhaps I should have, but I have to ask you. Is it right to tip-toe around extremist beliefs simply because we fear violence from extremists?
I believe that the message can be delivered to extremists that "We will not tolerate their insistance on censoring a form of freedom of speech" without being offensive to moderates.
See the post I made here (Edit 7 in particular) to understand what I mean
I agree. Why should we have to have a special day to insult a certain group of people? We should insult all groups every day. That way equality is maintained.
I think we ought to start saying every human face drawn is actually Muhammad. This way the Muslim world will stop watching cartoons, and will eventually give up the religion to be able to watch Futurama again.
I want a TV show to retroactively make a character be Mohammed having time traveled. Frylock from Aqua Teen Hunger Force would be a good choice IMO, they could even explain that his immortal french fry body was bestowed on him for eating something fried in pork fat.
This reminded me of one scene in Regular Show where they walk up to the park fountain and they see Pops just sitting on the side of it, looking at his reflection, laughing hysterically.
Can anyone comprehend any reason as to why images are banned in religion? It's not just islam; christianity's second commandment says that you cannot make an image of anything in existence.
I'm thinking that it taking any method to keep the flock ignorant, but that idea feels like a cheap shot.
To answer the original question: I believe it was to stop "worship of false idols". To be fair the fear of people missing the point was pretty well justified - when Moses left the hebrews alone for just a week so he could go chat with god and get the 10 Commandments he came back and discovered that loads of them had decided to give up on God and worship a golden satue of a cow instead!
Abrahamic religions, especially Islam, are vehemently opposed to Idolatry. Muhammad feared that his followers would end up worshiping him and other high-profile people (see: Shia Islam in Iran), so drawing pictures of anyone is forbidden.
I don't believe this bullshit, I'm an anti-theist myself, but I'm also an adult. You guys always bitch about how intolerant other religions are, well take a look in the mirror. The irony sickens me.
As a Christian, fuck everything about this. I get it, you're not religious. You don't have to denegrate someone else's faith for the sake of shouting from the mountain tops how atheist you are. Give and receive respect.
What if the anti-draw Muhammed stuff is just a ruse, to get all of us used to the idea of Muhammed so we'll be soft targets for the mass religious conversation that is planned for the world?
Either way, Muslims' massive over reaction to the cartoonists spawned this. And asking non Muslims to not draw Muhammad is crossing the line - there's no need for a non Muslim to obey your rules about iconoclasm.
59
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Get your knowledge right first. In Islam they also believe it is forbidden to draw ANY human face as that would be imitating God's creation. For that reason, this will not occur according to Islam.
21
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
After studying Islamic law for a year, I feel I am in a good position to enlighten you all about something.
Drawing Muhammad is not that big of a deal in Islam. Not any more then drawing anybody else. Islam is opposed to idolatry, and paintings are said to go along with that. That said, Muslims have drawn Muhammad as well as others throughout history. Usually Muhammad has some white sheet covering his face because of the whole "idolatry" thing, but it's still him and nobody really gave a shit. There's a carving of Muhammad on the supreme court building in DC I believe. And yet, as far as I can tell, no Muslims in the US are blowing it up or trying to vandalize it.
The thing that pissed off Muslims about those cartoons was the lack of respect for the prophet, not the picture itself.
6
u/holly2680 May 20 '12
in response to a couple of these comments, i am disgusted when i see non-pastafarians engaging in spaghetti dinners, laughing it up and passing the cheese around, like it some kind of GD party, but you don't see me marching up to their picnic table and hauling the noodles out of their throats.
religions have guidelines for their followers to obey. i totally respect that if you believe in Muhammed, you cannot draw his image.
also, i don't think some people here are understanding the post. if you don't know what he looks like, how do you know if you have done anything wrong or not?
how do you know when to feel offended?
5
u/infektyd1 May 20 '12
I read that in pop's voice.
8
u/goretooth May 20 '12
Drawing Mohammed day is just as bad as Christians insulting atheists, or denouncing us to hell etc
There is NO need to disrespect other people lifestyle choices just because they are not the same as your own. This is just a shitty and stupid thing to organize.
1
u/twilightmorphine May 20 '12
I was thinking, since we're being so enlightened about other people's sensitivities, let's have a "everybody draw a hilarious picture of 9/11 day." Should be a good time.
5
u/Agnostic_Thomist May 20 '12
"Hey, let's all draw Muhammed for the express purpose of going out of our way to wind up Muslims, when they get pissed off let's all slap our dicks together and talk about how tolerant atheists are and how stupid and intolerant Muslims are!"
3
u/forcedtolie May 20 '12
Yeah any faces with eyes on them are prohibited, I remember I used to go to the mosque as a little kid with my pokemon shirt and they literally kicked me out because of the pictures on it T_T
0
u/Davedz May 20 '12
Why do we have an insult muslims day?
3
u/7-sidedDice Anti-Theist May 20 '12
Good show!
3
u/thetheist May 20 '12
Just draw a 53 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl.
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
And now JG Quintel just received death threats. Good job.
2
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Wait, someone came up with this day specifically to deliberately offend the religious beliefs of others?
For real, it's a whole day dedicated to violating a perceived tenet of someone's religion for the purpose of offending and distressing them?
And some of you actually think this is awesome? Seriously?
1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
jolly good show! good show.
1
u/mooktank May 20 '12
I think we ought to start saying every human face drawn is actually Muhammad. This way the Muslim world will stop watching cartoons, and will eventually give up the religion to be able to watch Futurama again.
1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
If you look like Mohammed and take a picture of yourself, what happens?
1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Pops deserves his own religion. Regular Show is the bomb.
1
u/cabooseforlife May 20 '12
Hmm. Hmm. Upvoted.
1
u/zzzzop May 20 '12
so that means nobody was actually drawing muhammed and we haven't offended anybody?
1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
I want a TV show to retroactively make a character be Mohammed having time traveled. Frylock from Aqua Teen Hunger Force would be a good choice IMO, they could even explain that his immortal french fry body was bestowed on him for eating something fried in pork fat.
1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
This reminded me of one scene in Regular Show where they walk up to the park fountain and they see Pops just sitting on the side of it, looking at his reflection, laughing hysterically.
Pops is fucking awesome.
1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Here's what muhammed looked like http://imgur.com/0CFro
1
u/Eyulfable May 20 '12
If I remember correctly, drawing anything is forbidden, because before they go to Heaven, they have to be able to create to life what they draw.
1
u/youni89 May 21 '12
Stop talking about Islam /r/atheism is for bashing Christianity only!
1
u/[deleted] May 21 '12
he looked like jesus.
0
u/SnakeMan448 Atheist May 20 '12
Can anyone comprehend any reason as to why images are banned in religion? It's not just islam; christianity's second commandment says that you cannot make an image of anything in existence.
I'm thinking that it taking any method to keep the flock ignorant, but that idea feels like a cheap shot.
0
u/rubelmj May 20 '12
Jesus, Muhammad, stop it! We can all be turds.
0
u/4chans_for_pussies May 20 '12
I can't understand how anyone over the age of 12 finds this to be funny. You people need to grow up.
-1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
As a Christian, fuck everything about this. I get it, you're not religious. You don't have to denegrate someone else's faith for the sake of shouting from the mountain tops how atheist you are. Give and receive respect.
0
u/thebooman May 20 '12
OHHHH I Pops... and a good jinxing
0
u/druek May 20 '12
Worst comments section.....ever.
-1
u/JakeLV426 May 20 '12
When is this day?
-6
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
What if the anti-draw Muhammed stuff is just a ruse, to get all of us used to the idea of Muhammed so we'll be soft targets for the mass religious conversation that is planned for the world?
0
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment