[Fasces]

http://www.drawmuhammadday.com/

May 20th is apparently Draw Muhammed Day, to show solidarity with those whose artistic direction has been squashed by Islamic fundamentalism. Regardless of the beliefs of the silent majority of Muslims, the fact remains that radical fundamentalists remain vocal and active in the Western world. These beliefs are contrary to the humanist traditions practiced in the West, and while offending for the sake of offending is rarely productive, we live in a time where we must, as a people, declare openly and loudly that we will NOT allow Islamic fundamentalists to dictate our beliefs, to prohibit speech they find offensive, or to, in any other way, dissuade us from doing that which we would normally do without second thought or guilt. The campaign by fundamentalist Muslims in the Western world to censor speech and those speakers, be they Danish cartoonists, Swedish editors, or American animators must be combated.

This day is not an attack on Islam or its beliefs. It is an attack to the censorship being imposed on the Western world by an overly sensitive minority and those who would enable them to do so.

[Zyx]

I can't wait for "shout fire in a crowded theatre day" or "derogatory term day."

Bunch of bigots the West. You can't really feel sorry after a terrorist attack.

When a bully gets punched in the nose, I smile.

[Fasces]

You have no complaints about such artistic statements as a Jesus made of human urine or fecal matter, and yet stand by the Islamic radicals that openly and actively threaten and assault the men and women behind similarly offensive depictions of Muhammed - in their own country. If a Swedish newspaper publishes a Danish cartoon, I see no justification behind the massive protests seen across the Muslim world, and the assaults on the men who published and drew the cartoon in their homes or speeches. These men are not responding to an offensive comment; they are attempting to prevent and stifle any discussion at all.

[Zyx]

You have no complaints about such artistic statements as a Jesus made of human urine or fecal matter,

You'd have me all wrong if you figured me insensitive to the pious. All to this day, I tell my mother that I'm a Christian and I've near never supported the arts, let alone the blaspheming type you cite me to be without complaint.

More importantly, the Jesus urine project was complained over by many Christian groups. And of course some Christians wanted to kill over it. The Muslims simply respect the disrespectful less.

actively threaten and assault the men and women behind similarly offensive depictions of Muhammed - in their own country.

Of course, don't do stupid shit.

Why in the world should I protect someone's tomfooleries?

If a father tells his son to run in the streets, I object and reprimand the man, not respect his 'right' over 'his child.'

Go to China if you want freedom for stupidity:

[youtube]zgM4ar9J7xk[/youtube]

As to me, I don't see anything productive in protecting the unproductive.

I'd prefer not to be attacked over someone else's idiocy.

These men are not responding to an offensive comment; they are attempting to prevent and stifle any discussion at all.

And what of Holocaust denial? Or swastika wearing?

Would you wear a swastika outside? Would you stomp around in SS boots?

Do you stand beside those who would?

Should the man, waltzing in his White hooded sheet neither be accosted or harmed, good on him, but I'm not going to shed a tear if he were.

Stand against bigotry, not for the freedom to be bigoted.

[Fasces]

The liberty to express ideas cannot be limited from the ideas deemed distasteful without making a mockery of that liberty in the process. An attack on those who express ideas undermines the expression of ideas in the first place, and any society which deems it important to protect the right to express ideas, as our society has, must also protect those who would profess them from physical reprimand. If you disagree with an idea or statement, do not attack the man - attack the idea.

To do otherwise, or tolerate those who do otherwise, is primitive, brutish, and narrow-minded.

[Zyx]

Were this a debate, you've crowned me.

do not attack the man - attack the idea.

Which, in this drawing is being attacked, Muhammed or Islam?

tolerate those who do otherwise, is primitive, brutish, and narrow-minded.

QED.

[Fasces]

Neither of those two are being attacked. What is being attacked is the ability of fundamentalists to stifle any artistic statement contrary to their religion purely through threats of violence. It is an act of defiance against the imposition of self-censorship in the West due to fear, not of offending, but of the consequences of offending. Just as one cannot call a man who commits acts of charity only under the threat of death an altruist, neither can one consider those who only are inoffensive because of the threat of beheading tolerant.

Drawing Muhammed is an attack on the stranglehold that radical Islam has over the media. By representing Muhammed, the ideology of radical Islam is being rebuked.

[Zyx]

You misunderstand, Fasces.

Islam can be criticized. The prophet Muhammed simply can not be represented. That is all.

The only impingement that the Muslims request is in representing Muhammed. This slight on freedom of speech doesn't rile me in the least.

[Fasces]

I was suddenly struck with thoughts of Niemöller. Polemics aside, the needs of a minority should not override the liberties of the many. If Muslims find it blasphemous to see portrayals of Muhammed, they should stay in their own countries, where their government can make sure such images never show and offend them.

The fact remains that depicting Muhammed is not mentioned in the Quran as a blasphemous act. It is nothing more than a fundamentalist invention that must be opposed.

[Kman]

WOW.....western internet providers blocked cartoons of Muhammed.... what is this? Saudi Arabia?

[Zyx]

Polemics aside, the needs of a minority should not override the liberties of the many.

One liberty, Fasces. Just one. Don't represent the prophet Muhammad. It's not a liberty that any working, literate human need exercise.

It's only 4 chan and useless journalists who need to draw the prophet Muhammad. Neither of these do I defend.

The fact remains that depicting Muhammed is not mentioned in the Quran as a blasphemous act.

So a sect says don't do this through religious argumentation. Big deal.

You pretend as if religion doesn't go beyond the book.

If a respectable adult tells you about what powers her deity has, do you spit on her face and call her a fool? No.

So, if Muslims simply make a tiny request of you, something completely out of your way and reasonable, why do you support those who'd go out of their way to offend the Muslims?

Exercise your rights respectfully and responsibly.

Bear arms, but not to give them away or have poor safeties on them.

Speak freely, but not to offend, hurt or threaten others.

Exercise your rights respectfully and responsibly.

[Kman]

Zyx whether you realize it or not what your suggesting is tyranny by a thousand cuts.

How about we also start forcing western women to start wearing the veil? otherwise we might offend our muslim overlords.

[Fasces]

The Koran does not prohibit depictions of Muhammed and it is a purely fundamentalist tradition and demand, and preserving it is not an act in defense of Islam, but of the very fundamentalist nature of Islam that is responsible for much of the deadly terrorist acts of the last two decades.

I have no problem offending them, and am appalled any Westerner would ever seek to defend - but expect nothing less of individuals like yourself, who are too busy prostrating in defense of minority values they cannot see the sword ready to strike at the heart of Western society.

[Zyx]

How about we also start forcing western women to start wearing the veil?

That is completely different.

otherwise we might offend our muslim overlords.

I'm sure you know not to call Roosevelt a cripple.

The point is why antagonize Muslims over this small point?

Seriously, Kman, do you need to draw Muhammed? Does anyone need to? Why throw up a day to drawing Muhammed?

You don't see how this is just antagonizing?

Would a Jesus Urinating Day do you well?

but of the very fundamentalist nature of Islam that is responsible for much of the deadly terrorist acts of the last two decades.

Yes, either the Sunni or Shiite believe in this.

What's your point?

Do you know that Christianity has a few schools separating some two-thousand years ago?

Do you know that the Egyptian Coptic Church is older than protestantism, yet when the Protestants went to Egypt, they destroyed the symbolism of the Coptic tradition--one of which was there was one God and the trinity is nonsense.

This trinity thing, in fact, is just a fundamental tradition equivalent to this Muhammed depiction.

So my question to you is what does the Koran have to do with anything if religion clearly excels their holy books.

I have no problem offending them,

You've no reason to offend them.

Teasing a criminal is senseless.

they cannot see the sword ready to strike at the heart of Western society.

The sword folk like you push to lift.

--

If we were at a bank and a burglar came in, only you would get up after he said silence and say 'freedom of speech.'

[Ter]

If we were at a bank and a burglar came in, only you would get up after he said silence and say 'freedom of speech.'

You came up with so many rubbish analogies, it baffles the mind.

Equating Muslims with bank robbers ? WTF ?

And Zyxie, why do you feel you have to speak out for the Muslims ?

I noticed no sensibilities from you when you discussed other religions.

Shame on you.


Ter

<insert drawing of Mohammed here>

[Dagoth Ur]

The Koran does not prohibit depictions of Muhammed and it is a purely fundamentalist tradition and demand

Bro hadith. Its not as important as the qur'an but its still really important. It has nothing to do with fundamentalism. Banning all figurative depictions is fundamentalism.

and preserving it is not an act in defense of Islam, but of the very fundamentalist nature of Islam that is responsible for much of the deadly terrorist acts of the last two decades.

Yeah because there aren't any other groups of terrorists. Muslims are just the hot-button terrorists of the day. Go back 25 years and those same terrorists were 'freedom fighters'. Also it is in defense of Islam. We won't allow our faith to be muddied with idolatry like Christianity.

I have no problem offending them, and am appalled any Westerner would ever seek to defend - but expect nothing less of individuals like yourself, who are too busy prostrating in defense of minority values they cannot see the sword ready to strike at the heart of Western society.

I don't see why you feel it necessary to pour salt on an open wound. What's the value of this 'draw muhammad day' outside of fundie bating? So you can then go 'HEY LOOK HOW INTOLERANT MUSLIMS ARE I JUST DREW MUHAMMAD SHITTING ON HIS FACE AND THEN WROTE A STORY ABOUT HOW ISLAM IS EVIL. CLEARLY THIS IS BECAUSE ISLAM IS EVIL IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW'.

[Ter]

I received an email that is going round among Muslims.

Dear Muslims,

Assalamu Alaikum,

Please read all the hadiths on prohibition of drawing portraits and decide yourself whether to allow the drawing of portraits of our Dear Prophet Mohammad Sallullahu Alahaie Wassalam. Please boycott facebook and read the article below. Please pass on this message to others whom you know. May Allah reward you for this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100519/ap_ ... n_facebook

Prohibition of Drawing Portraits

1678. Ibn `Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "Those who draw pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection; and it will be said to them: `Breathe soul into what you have created.'[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: We learn from this Hadith that drawing pictures of humans, animals and all those things that have a soul in them is a great sin and is liable to heavy punishment. However, one will not be taken to task for such pictures which are made compulsory by the Government, i.e., identity cards, passports, domicile certificates etc., because one cannot exercise his own will in such matters, but this exemption is subject to the condition that he does not exceed the compulsory requirement.

1679. `Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) visited me after returning from a journey, and I had a shelf with a thin cloth curtain hanging over it and on which there were portraits. When he saw it, the colour of his face changed (because of anger) and he said, "O `Aishah! the most grievous torment from Allah on the Day of Resurrection will be for those who imitate (Allah) in the act of His creation.'' Aishah said: We tore it into pieces and made a cushion or two cushions out of that.
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: This Hadith has already appeared earlier [Hadith No. 650]. We learn from it that the act of drawing (pictures of humans, animals and things that have a soul in them) or photography and hanging of pictures (of such things) for display or decoration in homes is a great sin. It is, however, permissible that sheets bearing such pictures are cut into pieces for making such things which are not sacred and people go on trampling them, as was done by `Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) that she made pillow covers of these pieces.

1680. Ibn `Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying, "Every painter will go to Hell, and for every portrait he has made, there will be appointed one who will chastise him in the Hell." Ibn `Abbas said: If you have to do it, draw pictures of trees and other inanimate things.
[Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: A painter will be punished for his paintings according to the number of his products. The greater the number of paintings he has produced, the more would be the punishment. Thus, there is a great warning for those who make films and photographs on marriages and functions because they make photographs of hundreds or thousands of persons at a time. If, in spite of knowing that this act is unlawful in Shari`ah, they do it on account of slackness on their part, they shall have to suffer heavy punishment for it in Hell. If they think that it is permissible in Islam, while it is forbidden, they would be regarded infidels and abide in Hell. It is absolutely wrong to think that this prohibition applies only to the painters or sculptors and that photographs taken by a camera is not a picture but a mere reflection and, therefore, one is exempted from their prohibition. Whether a picture is made by hand or camera or video, it is a picture and its maker is warned with Hell. May Allah save us from it. However, pictures of natural scenery which are lifeless are permissible.

1681. Ibn `Abbas (May Allah be pleased with them) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying, "Whosoever makes a picture, will be punished on the Day of Resurrection, and will be asked to infuse soul therein, whichhe will not be able to do.'' [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: One who makes a picture by any means, will be ordered to put life into it. This order will be in the nature of reproach and reproof because none can do it. Obviously one will not be able to do it and will thus be awarded stern punishment.

1682. Ibn Mas`ud (May Allah be pleased with him) said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) saying, "Those who will receive the most severe punishment from Allah on the Day of Resurrection will be painters (of living objects).'' [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

1683. Abu Hurairah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "The Almighty Allah said: `Who is more an oppressor than him who goes to create like My creation? Let him make an ant or a grain of corn or a grain of barley.''' [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: This Hadith has a stern warning for photographers and video-makers who try to imitate the Creative Attribute of Allah.

1684. Abu Talhah (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said, "The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a portrait.'' [Al-Bukhari and Muslim].

Commentary: Angels here means angels of mercy whose visit is a blessing for homes, because the angels who supervise us and record our deeds are with us all the time.

1685. Ibn `Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) said: Jibril (Gabriel) promised to visit the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) but delayed and this grieved him very much. When he came out of his house, Jibril met him. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) asked him about the reason of delay, and he replied: "We do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a portrait.'' [Al-Bukhari].

1686. `Aishah (May Allah be pleased with her) said: Jibril (Gabriel) (PBUH) made a promise with the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) to come at a definite hour; that hour came but he did not visit him. There was a staff in the hand of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH). He threw it from his hand and said, "Never does Allah back out of His Promise, nor do His messengers.'' Then he noticed a puppy under his bed and said, "O `Aishah, when did this dog enter?'' She said: "By Allah, I don't know.'' He then commanded that it should be turned out. No sooner than had they expelled it, Jibril came and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said to him, "You promised to visit me. I waited for you but you did not come.'' Whereupon he said: "The dog kept me from coming. We do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.'' [Muslim].

Commentary: This Hadith has an elaboration of the preceding Hadith and tells us that a puppy had entered the house of the Prophet (PBUH) and he did not know about it. The presence of the puppy in the house obstructed the visit of Jibril (Gabriel). It is a pity that now many Muslims keep dogs in their houses in imitation of the Europeans and also display in their showcases photographs of animals, or their own family members, or pictures of their deceased parents, or their mentor, or some saint for the sake of blessing, little knowing that such pictures deprive one of the Blessings of Allah rather than bestowing it upon them.

1687. Abul-Haiyaj Haiyan bin Husain said: `Ali bin Abu Talib (May Allah be pleased with him) said to me: "Shall I not send you to do a task that the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) had assigned to me? Spare no portrait unwiped out, and leave not a high grave unlevelled.'' [Muslim].

Commentary: Drawing pictures and raising graves over the height of a span are forbidden and their removal is the responsibility of Muslim rulers. An Islamic state neither allows pictures, nor does it permit permanent structures over graves, nor graves over a span's height.

"Leave not a high grave unlevelled'' does not mean levelling them to the ground. What it really means is that these should be reduced to the permissible height.

[Zyx]

Equating Muslims with bank robbers ? WTF ?

Oh hush. Don't you defend blocking Chomsky from Israel?

My comment was like yours, though more ethical, so to say freedom of speech has a time and place.

I simply say that baiting is high schoolish.

I noticed no sensibilities from you when you discussed other religions.

You could not notice this, for I do not discuss other religions.

I don't see why you feel it necessary to pour salt on an open wound. What's the value of this 'draw muhammad day' outside of fundie bating? So you can then go 'HEY LOOK HOW INTOLERANT MUSLIMS ARE I JUST DREW MUHAMMAD SHITTING ON HIS FACE AND THEN WROTE A STORY ABOUT HOW ISLAM IS EVIL. CLEARLY THIS IS BECAUSE ISLAM IS EVIL IT ALL MAKES SENSE NOW'.

QFT

I received an email that is going round among Muslims.

I must admit that the Hadith seems all the more silly if it's truly depending on those references that you quote.

[QatzelOk]

September 11th is being themed as "blow up an ugly modern tower full of little Eichmann's" day.

Oh wait. As if these are related.

In fact, the USA has been humiliating its colonies with crass and boorish humor for many decades.

[Ter]

You could not notice this, for I do not discuss other religions.

Your pant is on fire.

September 11th is being themed as "blow up an ugly modern tower full of little Eichmann's" day.

Qatzel, are you all right ?

In fact, the USA has been humiliating its colonies with crass and boorish humor for many decades.

You make little sense, I am afraid we lost you.


Ter