Should the Prophet Muhammad be depicted even the though Muslims find it offensive? I think the answer is yes and I also think its a good idea to learn more about the prophet Muhammad because his life story shows you the deepest corruption and depravity a human being is capable of when given ultimate power through a mandate of heaven.
That's why I blasphemously depicted the story of his life.
To Catch a Prophet - An animated documentary on the prophet Muhammad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f9HHrCv5IU
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Why provoke outrage? Why give radicals any excuse to recruit more radicals?
Why provoke outrage ? Good point!
Let's not eat fornicate so we don't provoke Jewish people. (Noahite laws)
Let's not squash mosquitoes to protect the whims of the Jain.
No eating beef brisket to protect the psyches of Hindus.
Let's not mock the Pope : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sph8Qu8wLAk
Do not portray Jesus and a Muhammed Body Double(Not Muhammed) to mock Islam and Christianity: http://www.jesusandmo.net/
Do not watch George Carlin mock Christianity. We might provoke a Baptist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
Don't mock Trump or you might trigger a white supremacist.
chimp3,
That was hilarious!
"Why provoke outrage? Why give radicals any excuse to recruit more radicals?"
I'd have to say because freedom of expression is the cornerstone of all free societies, and without it democracy is non-existent. Whereas people can choose to be offended or not, and they can choose what to do with that offence. If you give in to bullying theocratic fascism then they'll be emboldened and your rights will start to be eroded more and more.
Also no idea or belief should be beyond criticism, let alone beyond comment. I reserve the right to tell anyone who voices a belief publicly that it's nonsense. How weak must a belief be that it has to threaten violence to silence criticism of it?
I think its important to mock ideas that are bad because its proven that the more people laugh at absurd claims the less and people will take them seriously. Islam is huge right now but the more its foundation is chipped away at the less Muslims there will be and thus the less radicals of Islam.
We should refrain from eating vegetables to avoid upsetting cannibals.
Surely cannibals would be offended by us eating cows, not vegetables. I'm sure they enjoy a salad appetizer with their human brisket.
Hindi get pissed when people eat cows.
The interesting thing about Mohammed is that he is the only character in the Bible, the Koran and hadiths, or the Book of Mormon who is physically described so we have a fairly good idea of what he looked like.
He was a white guy who had head lice in his hair that he dyed red. He had a large mole on his back between his shoulders
http://islamcomicbook.com/20.htm
http://islamcomicbook.com/14.htm
http://islamcomicbook.com/21.htm
http://islamcomicbook.com/05.htm
http://islamcomicbook.com/06.htm
“I'm sure they enjoy a salad appetizer with their human brisket.”
Nope, fava beans and a nice Chianti.
Of course. I am under no obligation to honor their religious tenets and dogma. Their rules apply to them not to me. Please consider this below to be an image of mohammed
XX
((()))
XX
Does anyone here disagree that I have every right to make images of Mo???
your expression of the Prophet is truly beautiful in its enchanting simplicity!
I think it all comes down to the question whether freedom of expression should be absolute or conditional.
I sort of agree with mykcob4.
Ideally freedom of expression should be unbounded.I think most of us would agree on that.But at the same time we have to realise that none of us live in an ideal society.There are people who are radicalized to such an extent that violence is not beyond the bounds of possibility, especially considering that these people sincerely equate 'insults to their religious beliefs' to someone killing or raping one of their family members.Yes, these people do exist.
Now, I know the radicalization of people is not your fault, but you are still faced with a responsibility to exploit your freedom of expression such that it will not have devastating consequences.
I think that the zealotry in Islam today is the same as the zealotry of Christianity hundreds of years ago. Islam went largely unchallenged. Huge areas of the world were its echo chambers but now there is globalism and there are no more echo chambers. Weather people like it or not information is easily accessible for almost all with the internet. The radicals we are seeing is the natural reaction of zealots being pushed out of their echo chambers just like when the flat earth was challenged, christian radicals protected their echo chamber and committed unsavory acts. However it takes time, generations before the ideas win the people. Radicals have to be challenged.
I think we should depict him 'cause it's a question of freedom of speech at the end. Why should countries which fight for freedom of speech elsewhere, shouldn't defend freedom of speech in their own countries? And Chimp3 made an excellent point.
And I understand what you're saying @Mohammad Ali, but my question is... then, as a woman, shouldn't I wear neckline because the million muslim people who live in my country could get offended? Am I not aware that I could be raped because of my clothes, because it may give some radical males the perfect excuse to do that?
I respect believers as any other group of human beings, but wrong ideas are wrong ideas, no matter where or who they come from.
All I was suggesting that we should be careful if we know beforehand that the consequences might be devastating.
I personally don't give a shit if someone draws a picture of Muhammad or calls him a pedophile.I agree that freedom of expression is ultimate.I also feel the need to express my opinions which are every bit against the dogma of religion, but realising that in doing so I could get my whole family and even friends killed, I can't help but supress my freedom of expression.Thats the whole point I was trying to make.
Je suis Charlie.
I'm deeply offended by the notion of appeasing theocratic fascists. I'm so offended I've gifted myself the right to disregard the rights of anyone advocating this vile and offensive idea, this includes but is not limited to indiscriminate murder.
I trust this is the last we'll hear of this nonsense of appeasement? Unless it's towards to me when I take offence of course, that goes without saying.
Sheldon
I am not advocating appeasement of the 'theocratic fascists'.I just don't think it is worth endangering lives of innocent people.What you are basically saying is "I have freedom of expression so I'll draw a picture of Muhammad and I don't care if innocent people are killed".I assume you live in a democratic western society where you never had to deal with such fundamentalist ideology.But where I'm from, these religious fucktards burn down schools in response to something similar.
I understand your views about freedom of expression.I agree that it should be unconditional without having to face any violence.But that is not the case.Should that change?Absolutely..But you want it to change overnight.That's not going to happen.Change has to come but it will be slow and gradual.
Or if you just really don't give a shit about the consequences and all you care about is your freedom of expression, knock yourself out.
Mohammad Ali "I am not advocating appeasement of the 'theocratic fascists'.I just don't think it is worth endangering lives of innocent people."
>>It's the theocratic fascists that are endangering innocent people, take it up with them, or appease them if you wish, but that won't negate the risk, as such people by definition can never be appeased. They're also constitutionally incapable of change, the idea itself must be fought and extirpated, as was done with European fascism. The problem is how to do it, and I'd say the best way to challenge a bad idea is with a contrary good one, so critical dialogue of the beliefs that engender such an idea are essential.
-------------------------------------=====
Mohammad Ali "I have freedom of expression so I'll draw a picture of Muhammad and I don't care if innocent people are killed".
>>You see you're dishonestly blaming those who denounce murder and violence for the very murders that theocratic fascists commit? Your answer seems to be don't provoke them, just keep quiet, this won't work.
----------------------------------------------
Mohammad Ali "these religious fucktards burn down schools in response to something similar.
I understand your views about freedom of expression.I agree that it should be unconditional without having to face any violence."
>>That's simply not true. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/693421/Terror-attacks-timeline-Franc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
---------------------------------------
Mohammad Ali "I understand your views about freedom of expression.I agree that it should be unconditional without having to face any violence.But that is not the case.Should that change?Absolutely..But you want it to change overnight.That's not going to happen.Change has to come but it will be slow and gradual."
>> A straw man argument sorry as I never claimed there was a quick fix. Where we disagree is that you think you can use reasoned dialogue to appease these theocratic fascists, or "fucktards" as you call them. That will only embolden them, as it always has with fascists who have no regard for the rights of others.
--------------------------------------
Mohammad Ali "Or if you just really don't give a shit about the consequences and all you care about is your freedom of expression, knock yourself out."
>> I'm trying too be patient with your BS but if you insist on throwing these unfounded and erroneous accusations at me, then the urge to tell you to fuck off might reach a point where I can't avoid it any longer. You don't know what I care about unless I tell you, so try and rein the rhetoric in a little there's a good chap.
Theocratic fascists don't care who they murder, I care and want to challenge the idea, and burying my head in the sand in case they get annoyed is not an option I see working, short or long term. It's that simple. However what do you suggest we use to fight them? I'd also point out that there are levels of extremism, and there are plenty of ordinary Muslims who don't usually resort to violence who hold pernicious beliefs, and these also must be challenged.
First of all I think we both should calm down.I got a little carried away in my last post.I did not mean to accuse you of anything.My apologies.
Now coming to the topic of discussion I think we both agree that it is important to criticize and satirize all kinds of religious beliefs and all ideologies in general.Where we differ in our opinion is the methods that should be employed.
What do you think should be done?
Mohammad Ali "these religious fucktards burn down schools in response to something similar.
I understand your views about freedom of expression.I agree that it should be unconditional without having to face any violence."
">>That's simply not true."
What do you mean by its not true.
My own school where I had studied for ten years was burned down to ashes by a furious mob.They were protesting the burning of Quran in 2010 if i remember it correctly.
"First of all I think we both should calm down.I got a little carried away in my last post.I did not mean to accuse you of anything.My apologies."
>>In that case I accept your apology, thank you.
"Now coming to the topic of discussion I think we both agree that it is important to criticize and satirize all kinds of religious beliefs and all ideologies in general.Where we differ in our opinion is the methods that should be employed. What do you think should be done?"
>>I agree, and it's perhaps worthwhile to acknowledge we are ostensibly on the same side. As I said the best way to fight a bad or immoral idea is with a contrary and more moral idea. The problem is that I believe our morality must encompass the concept of universal human rights, and the rights of the individual and our obligations to each other must supersede personal beliefs. This is not an easy thing to bring about given the majority of the earths 7+ billion population is almost exclusively religious, with most of them being theist. However an essential start is to defend the secular rights of individuals to free expression, this is not a frivolous or capricious idea either, as it is central to the idea that the rights of the individual supersede personal belief. And yes I agree it's a going to take time, and will involve violence sadly. Flawed evolved primates like humans show little inclination to relinquishing superstitions they have been indoctrinated in from birth.
"What do you mean by its not true.
My own school where I had studied for ten years was burned down to ashes by a furious mob.They were protesting the burning of Quran in 2010 if i remember it correctly."
>>I wasn't denying that claim specifically, but rather the notion that people in the free west don't themselves face the consequences of resisting theocratic fascism. I am happy to accept that Islam poses the largest threat to those who live in countries that are exclusively Muslim, and of course that Muslims by implication face the largest threat to their rights from Islam. More should be done to promote the rights of the individuals in such countries, even where this threatens national interests. Sadly western powers like America and the UK have failed historically in this duty, though they're not alone of course.
So if Allah is real why doesn't he show up and do his own dirty work?
Who said Allah is real???
"I have freedom of expression so I'll draw a picture of Muhammad and I don't care if innocent people are killed".
The cartoons are an excuse. They were published in an Egyptian newspaper and many other places on many occasions. They are still published today..
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
We are all concerned about the violence of extremist killers, but blaming the innocent and trying to appease (or submit to) their crimes isn't the way to stop it. There would always be a pretext they could use. They act out of fear that something they have decided to hold as sacred is complete nonsense.
Je suis Charlie.
I'll try to address this issue one last time.
I have nothing against drawing a picture of Muhammad or mocking and satirizing religious beliefs in general.I think that is a fundamental right everyone should have.It certainly isn't wrong in principle.All I'm saying is that in doing so if you know beforehand that innocent people are going to be killed, it is just not worth it.And it's not going to stop radicalization of people at all.Do you even agree with that?
So what's the point.I think we have to devise a tactful method which can neutralize religious fundamentalists without any bloodshed.Thats all I'm saying.
MA "All I'm saying is that in doing so if you know beforehand that innocent people are going to be killed, it is just not worth it.And it's not going to stop radicalization of people at all.Do you even agree with that?"
I don't agree no, firstly though I suspect people will use the actions of others to try and excuse their theocratic fascism and become violent, they are entirely culpable for that action, no one else. It's like claiming, and some people tried of course, that we shouldn't provoke Hitler because it'll cause violence and bloodshed. The problem is that their vile claims must be challenged, and one of the most pernicious ideas they espouse is the idea that their beliefs and by extension the actions that result from those beliefs should be ring-fenced from criticism, and you seem to be again suggesting that to not allow this makes those protesting against it culpable for the actions of those who CHOOSE TO TAKE OFFENCE.
"So what's the point.I think we have to devise a tactful method which can neutralize religious fundamentalists without any bloodshed.Thats all I'm saying."
Religious fascists don't respond to tact, fascists tend to ignore polite discourse. For the record I don't think it's possible to avoid bloodshed, and this should be axiomatically true since Islamic terrorists are enacting atrocities entirely unprovoked throughout western democracies. No depictions of Mohamed were required. Have you read the ISIS mission statement? Bloodshed is precisely what they're after, and on a global scale.
"For the record I don't think it's possible to avoid bloodshed, and this should be axiomatically true since Islamic terrorists are enacting atrocities entirely unprovoked throughout western democracies."
So you agree with me that violence from their side is inevitable and INNOCENT people will be killed.Then it all boils down to the question, what do we intend to achieve by exercising our freedom of expression in that way and is it worth all the damage to life and property that will follow.
I admit that I might be wrong entirely, since no one seems to agree with me here .But i also think that our disagreement might be a result of our lack of exposure and first hand experience of each other's societies.
MA "So you agree with me that violence from their side is inevitable and INNOCENT people will be killed.Then it all boils down to the question, what do we intend to achieve by exercising our freedom of expression in that way and is it worth all the damage to life and property that will follow."
>>Not quite what I said, they're already prepared to and are using violence. The freedom of expression you wonder if we should exercise is one of the fundamental rights that violence is trying to remove. We simply help them by not using it. The idea we can limit their use of violence by remaining quiet is simply wrong.
"I admit that I might be wrong entirely, since no one seems to agree with me here .But i also think that our disagreement might be a result of our lack of exposure and first hand experience of each other's societies."
I can certainly see why you might think we are less at risk in free western societies, but that would make our silence less acceptable, and the idea most westerners fear Islamic extremism and their threats so much they're not prepared to fight is wrong. In the developed west our freedoms were bought with blood, most people I suspect would rather die than surrender them to another type of fascists.
In the documentary at https://youtu.be/7f9HHrCv5IU 52:44 I say "There are those who will accuse me after seeing this documentary of inciting violence because I depicted the image of Muhammad. But it is not I who incite violence it is the words of the Prophet Muhammad." I think this is the absolute best response.
People who make unreasonable demands are not to be negotiated with, generally. If a person is willing to kill because their feelings have been hurt, that is their fault, not yours.
Pages