here are loads of drawings of the Prophet Mohammed

[Mari333]

whats the big deal???






http://zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/book_illos/

[Deep13]

1. The most fundamental Muslims think it is idolatry to depict Mohammed.

For some reason, they think they have a right to make everyone else comply with that standard too.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. It's rude.

:shrug:

[Dr. Strange]

3. Wait, are you complaining about it being rude?

[Shell Beau]

4. lol!!

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Let me clarify...

It's rude to people who aren't dicks that don't have it coming.

:shrug:

[Dr. Strange]

8. Wait, are you complaining about it being rude to people who aren't dicks that don't have it coming?

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Yup.

People should only be rude to dicks that have it coming.

I know I am.

[tekisui]

19. .

:spray:

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Its more than rude that they expect us to live by their rules and expectations

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. No, it's not.

Are people just going around innocently drawing images of Mohammed? No, it's a purposeful attempt to insult Muslims because of the knowledge that images of Mohammed are offensive.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. Muslims decry free speech if it is in the least bit critical of islam

They try to get blasphemy or defamation of religion laws enacted or enforced in an attempt to trump free speech, a basic human right and one of the underpinnings of a free society. They cry bigotry and cultural insensitivity when our society declines to support their world view. They get positively incensed when they get mocked, satirized, or just not taken seriously. Their violence is the highest form of the hecklers veto. One of the Danish cartoons was about as clear a statement on that as I have seen:
The artist is looking over his shoulder since he know the wrath of islam will come down upon him for what appears to be an innocuous illustration. That is a bad thing, anywhere in the world.

You may play the history card about xtian violence is you wish, but its history, not happening daily in many parts of the world.


Finally there is no right not to be offended or not be treated rudely. Most of us don't take the xtain fundies any more seriously than I treat muslims. The former ignores it the latter squeals like stuck pigs. How apropos.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Some muslims do, some muslims don't.

Some non-muslims making bigoted broad brush statements against muslims, some don't.

"The artist is looking over his shoulder since he know the wrath of islam will come down upon him for what appears to be an innocuous illustration. That is a bad thing, anywhere in the world."

The "artist" was a bigot who was purposefully looking to offend muslims, and he got it. No crocidile tears for him.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. And you know the artist being depicted is a bigot because?

Drawing historical figures is not inherently bigoted.

Massive protests where people are killed because several artists draw pictures that your religion considers blasphemous is not bigotry?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. Because he depicted muslims as terrorists.

He drew Mohammed with a big bomb on his head, even though bombs wouldn't be invented for many hundreds of years after Mohammed's death. It was a clear and obvious link between modern islamic terrorists, and Mohammed, and all modern Muslims.

And it was obviously bigoted in the same way that Nazi cartoons of Jews being depicted as money-grubbing rats were bigoted, and KKK cartoons of blacks having big lips and eating watermelons were bigoted.

And frankly, I can't take seriously any adult who pretends it wasn't bigoted.

"Massive protests where people are killed because several artists draw pictures that your religion considers blasphemous is not bigotry?"

There are often race riots in the U.S. because of bigotry. Does that excuse the KKK? No.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

57. You do realize that each cartoon was done by a different artist?

So the artist in the cartoon I posted is bigoted why?

[leftynyc]

46. Tough

People use words like bitch and c**t all the time knowing it's offensive. I suck it up.

[Shell Beau]

48. South Park had images of Jesus fighting with Santa Claus.

I am sure some people pitched fits, but it is nothing like what you see here. Family Guy does offensive things all of the time about Jesus, but you don't hear about it like this.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Is there anything in Christian canon about not depicted Jesus fighting Santa?

No. Should we expect any reasonable Christian to be offended by Jesus fighting Santa? No. Is a depiction of Jesus fighting Santa intended to insult reasonable Christians? No.

[Shell Beau]

115. Oh ok. Whatever you say.

What about Jesus getting drunk in a bar and having a gal on each side of him? I guess that is reasonable too, but having Mohammed's face revealed is beyond belief. So offensive. I see there is no reasoning with you.

[Shell Beau]

5. It really pisses them off I do know that.

I worry about the creators of South Park. They have gotten death threats, and there is no reason to not take them seriously. We've seen it happen before for the same thing.

[Lucian]

7. One thing that kind of boggles my mind is that there's freedom of speech...

when it comes to bashing Christianity or depicting Jesus doing things Jesus wouldn't usually be depicted doing (ie watching porn), but when it comes to bashing Islam, that's a no-no? Why?

For the record, I'm not a Christian. But I think if we're going to allow bashing one, we should allow bashing all.

[Shell Beau]

10. I am Christian, and I can find the humor in shows like South Park

and Family Guy. Both show Jesus in unflaterring ways, but they are meant to be humorous. No biggie,

[ZeitgeistObserver]

11. And Christians complain about it, and the items

get removed.

Here is just one of many examples:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11669242/

[paulsby]

12. complaining is part of free speech

every possible group from gay advocacy to stuttering groups (fish called wanda) have criticized, etc.

radical muslims are unique in making death threats and carrying them out

scorcese didn't go in hiding. rushdie did

protest is GOOD. violence is not

hth

[ZeitgeistObserver]

13. Then be happy when Muslims complain about it.

Christians have also been known to make death threats, AND carry them out.

[paulsby]

15. spare me your crap

we've seen crucifixes dipped in urine, virgin marys smeared with cow dung, last temptation of christ, etc

and NOTHING HAPPENED

when it comes to mohammed, it's another story

murders, riots, etc.

file under false equivalence

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Last Temptation of Christ, you say?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Temptation_of_Christ_%28film%29

On October 22, 1988, a French Christian fundamentalist group launched molotov cocktails inside the Parisian Saint Michel movie theater to protest against the film. This attack injured thirteen people, four of whom were severely burned.



Er. Um. Er. What?



***

How about this as a blanket rule: keep your imaginary friends inside your own fucking head, and stop trying to make those of us who AREN'T in your head with them, play by their imaginary fucking rules. That applies to Mohammed as it applies to Jesus. Okay?

[Ignis]

108. An inconvenient counter-example wins you crickets.

Pity.

[paulsby]

112. not really

i already acknowledged in another post i hadn't heard about the firebombing incident, and i stand corrected on that.

i'll say it again. there WAS violence in re last temptation contrary to what i claimed

[Ignis]

113. Well, that does you credit.

:thumbsup:

[paulsby]

114. thanks. i have no problem admitting when i am wrong

it means i learned something, too

and more importantly, to paraphrase will rogers, it's not the things we don't know, it's the things we "know" that aint so

i only wish others in DU would do the same

unfortunately, as anybody familiar with this board knows, most people would rather eat glass than admit "oh noes. i was wrong"

it gets old

[Warren DeMontague]

122. You get points for acknowledging that, and quickly.

Seriously. When I'm wrong I try to cop to it, too.

FWIW, I agree with you on the larger point-- I don't believe in personally going out of my way to step on anyone's toes, but I also don't think anyone is entitled to expect the entire world conform itself to their standards of religious decorum. That's a baaaaaad precedent.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

20. All complained about and withdrawn.

So if you're going to be anti-free speech with Christians, you'll have to extend the same courtesy to Muslims.

[paulsby]

34. personally, i am pro free speech

that's why i rail against canada, france, UK, etc. and their "hate speech" laws which severely restrict same

otoh, i have NO problem with those who feel insulted, from saying so
that's part of free speech

south park should be free to ridicule mohammed, and call him a war mongering child molesting fuckstick

and people can grumble

but violence is not an acceptable response for being insulted

america is one of the few countries where dunking a koran in da toilet as a public display is legal

[ZeitgeistObserver]

35. Well, that's nice.

But you don't run the world, nor are you in charge of other people's values.

[paulsby]

39. but just as people feel free to criticize the US for many of our laws

and values, we feel free to criticize others.

do you feel free to criticize homophobia, racism, sexism, antisemitism, etc?

those are values

so are the values that prize censorship as a good thing

i criticize them all

hth

i'm not in charge of other's values. neither are you. but we can criticize them. i am sure you do.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

40. I don't think many people do that.

Most people ignore what goes on in other countries, including the US.

[paulsby]

41. they don't do that here

i'm here. so are you.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

43. Well, it's a chat site, so people chat.

I don't recall having denounced Americans or American values though. Or insisted others follow my value system.

[paulsby]

50. when various laws are passed or proposed in the US

a bulk, if not a majority of posts are made to CRITICIZE same a la the proposed law in arizona, DADT, etc. etc. etc.

i didn't realize only criticism of US laws, customs and values was appropriate.

not imo

if i can criticize DADT, and i do, i can criticize censorious laws in the UK, canada, france et al

we routinely denounce values we disagree with. female clitoral mutilation is a "value" in many countries. are we not supposed to denounce that?

cmon. get real
values routinely criticized: gun culture values, libertarian values, "pro-life" values, etc.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

56. Americans criticize Americans, yes.

Other countries usually don't. In fact they're not paying attention.

Since this site is mostly Americans, you all criticize each other.

I, however, wouldn't presume to tell you how to run your country, or what values to hold.

That would be rude.

[paulsby]

58. well, then you are in a select group

i have read metric assloads of posts from people in other countries (or at least claimed ot be) criticizing our policies vis a vis DADT, gay marriage, MJ prohibition, gun culture, etc.

i have no problem with that.

i have a problem with the reverse not being ok.

many even claim to be (lol) "citizens of the world " (get all gaia crunchy on me baybee).

[ZeitgeistObserver]

60. Oh I doubt that.

I'm sure there are rude people in other countries who criticize Americans, but most people don't.

Mostly you just seem to want to start a fight. If some group, like Muslims, don't want Mohammed depicted then you seem to go out of your way to promote it. It's a good way to get a fat lip, or start a war.

[paulsby]

64. sorry, i don't play the heckler's veto game

i respect free speech, satire, and open discourse

i will not cede to ANYBODY and that includes govt., let alone a bunch of fanatic fucksticks, the authority to tell me who i can or can't depict or make fun of.

period.

south park, fwiw, has satirized nearly everybody and everything. from mormons, to catholics, to atheists (their dawkin's satires were awesome, to college anti-corporatists, to clinton, bush, obama, streisand, tom cruise, scientologists, etc. etc.)

i'm not looking to start a fight, but i won't back down to scumbags who think THEIR precious symbols are beyond satire.

i will not let them determine the parameters of the debate by threatening (and using) violence.

i've spent the last 20 yrs of my life, protecting the rights of those who were victimized and bullied.

fuck bullies

[ZeitgeistObserver]

68. No, you just try to start fights.

And over other people's values.

This is, in fact, bullying.

[paulsby]

74. no, i respect satire and i have enjoyed south parks' skewering of EVERYBODY

fwiw, a lot of people here like south park as long as they are not skewering THEIR sacred cows

my point is i will not selectively NOT satirize or watch satire when the targets of THAT satire threaten violence

that creates perverse incentives. it benefits those who threaten violence. it REWARDS them.

that's bullshit. it goes against everything i stand for

for pete's sake, south park is a show that depicted chris reeves sucking on fetuses necks, depicted catholics (from other planets even) getting together to discuss how to better molest young children,that absolutely skewers EVERYBODY

my favorite hypocrisy was when isaac hayes (who played chef) quit after sp satirized scientology. he had no problem with their other satires, but SCIENTOLOGY

give me a fucking break

i'm not trying to START a fight. but i won't BACK down from one. there is a huge difference. but i will not selectively censor mytself because SOME people try to bully me or SP into silence

fuck them

or as jon stewart said to them "go fuck yourself " (not you, them)

[ZeitgeistObserver]

78. Again, that's nice.

I've never seen more that a couple of clips from South Park, and then turned it off, so I'm not impressed by your chest-thumping over a cartoon show.

I don't think anyone has a 'right' to be rude and offensive if the mood strikes them. They CAN do so, but that doesn't mean they SHOULD.

It usually leads to bloody lips and black eyes. It has also led to wars.

[paulsby]

81. whether it's lenny bruce, richard pryor, jon stewart, or south park

people DO (at least in the US) have a RIGHT (no quotes needed) to be rude and offensive

and when it is done as social satire, more power especially to them. few better ways to expose idiocy than through satire.

again, i don't believe in creating perverse incentives. i will not bow down to authoritarians, and i hope matt and trey never do

i love jon stewart and i love SP for this reason. fearless skewering.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

83. Being in-your-face is very popular in America.

Everyone has noticed that. Other cultures just find it puzzling.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. And blowing stuff up over a cartoon isn't "in your face"?

:shrug:

[ZeitgeistObserver]

94. Are you being forced into being Muslim?

Are you even being asked to believe in either Mohamed or Allah?

No, they just asked that you don't mock something with deep meaning to them.

So you do so, and claim the right to do so.

And are then surprised when they get angry about it.

It wasn't that long ago you know, that protestants smashed catholic statues of Jesus and Mary, claiming it was idolatry and their right to do so.

And we all know where that got us.

Would it kill you to be polite to others?

[proteus_lives]

125. Being on your knees and licking boot is very popular in Canada.

Everyone has noticed that. Other cultures just find it puzzling.

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. "They CAN do so, but that doesn't mean they SHOULD" - that is what a 'right' is

A 'right' isn't "the best thing to do", "what you should do"; that's a 'virtue'. A right is something you can do. If you're going to argue about rights, at least start from the same definitions that everyone else uses.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

104. Your rights end where the other guy's nose begins.

Because he too has rights.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. There's a reason it's "nose" in that phrase, and not "ears"

Because the nose is what gets typically hit in a fight. Your rights don't include actions that cause physical hurt. But they aren't affected by whether people are offended by what you say. Or draw.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

110. Ears are behind the nose.

And hurt is hurt, no matter what you hit.

[Warren DeMontague]

121. If you are broadly defining freedom as the freedom to not be offended by anything, ever

you have a seriously fucked up definition of freedom.

[Warren DeMontague]

118. Exactly. The thing is, the entire universe isn't the "other guy's nose".

People don't get to censor all of reality because of the shit inside their heads.

What if I say that peanuts are sacred to me, that there is no greater sin or insult than to harm a defenseless peanut? Does that mean that everyone in the world needs to bend over to accomodate my beliefs about peanuts? Should they figure they 'asked for it' if I start firebombing peanut butter factories?

[Warren DeMontague]

71. I agree with you about free speech.

But then spare me the bleating about "Christianity Bashing" and "The Last Temptation of Christ" and the idea that "Christians never cause violence". As I mentioned upthread, Christian fundies HAVE caused all manner of havoc when confronted with shit they don't like, from the firebombing at a showing of, yes, "Last Temptation" (it would be nice if you could acknowledge that you were wrong on that account), all the way to the shooting of abortion doctors, the bombing of gay bars, and Pat Buchanan as a young thug breaking the windows in adult bookstores.

The fact is, there are plenty of censorship-happy folks operating under the banner of Jesus, and more than a few violence-prone ones, too.

I do think that Fundamentalist Islam, as it stands in the world today, is worse. I'm not sure if that has so much to do with the tentets of the religion itself; my hunch is, there may be a natural cycle of age and mellowing with religions. Islam is about 1400 years old, or so, which puts them right around their Spanish Inquisition phase. :shrug:

[paulsby]

111. i wasn;'t aware of the last temptation firebombing thang

so i stand correcfted on that.

it is pretty telling that in a nation of scores of millions of christians, that piss christ, etc. can happen and it's largely PROTESTS

but again... would we EVER see a "piss koran"?
i'm still waiting for that one.

and you KNOW if it happened, there WOULD be violence.

[Warren DeMontague]

119. I think people rioting and blowing shit up over cartoons is fucking ludicrous.

I don't care if they dress it up as "religion"-- I think we should call it what it is; anyone so attached to their dogma that they feel compelled to blow things up, kill doctors, riot over a cartoon, etc. has some serious fucking mental illness.

[JonLP24]

126. What was blown up

and where was the rioting? Serious question. I'm aware of the death threats from a small group of radical Muslims which is dead wrong. Not acceptable. However I believe most if not all Muslims find depictions of Muhammed(whatever he looks like) offensive and majority of them are peaceful meaning they aren't involved in terrorism, like blowing things up.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. Re: Rioting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/02/08/cartoon.protests/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4684652.stm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-514789/Muslims-riot-Mohammed-cartoons-reprinted-Danish-newspapers.html





As for "blowing shit up"; a lot of crazy people- many of them motivated by religion- have blown shit up. In lots of places. In the name of lots of religions.


"Peaceful meaning" people who object to whatever-- cartoons, gay bars, abortion doctors--- yet don't get violent about it, weren't the subject of that post. Get it?

[Bluenorthwest]

67. Nothing happened? How self serving that is!

The artists were made into public objects of derision, funding was taken from not only them, but from the arts in general. Threats were made, slanders were placed. That crowd did long term harm to our culture, so calling that 'nothing' is disgusting. That crowd silenced brave artists who were making needed statements in our culture.
The stooges who whined about Mary with cow dung never have an answer to the questions about the very nature of the birth of her child, in a barn. Was the dung removed by angels? The story says they went to the barn and she gave birth there. That work of art gave me more understanding of the Catholic practice of veneration of Mary than I'd gained from 3 visits to the Vatican. Speaking as a Protestant by upbringing, that work of art made me understand the beauty of that story, the poetry of the dung stained labor of Mary struck me strongly. It also amazed me that any one would be offended at such at thing, as it was a love letter to the universal mother.
Yeah, nothing happened, except for all the harm done.

[paulsby]

92. first of all , there is a difference between publically funding an artist and "silencing " them

i didn't support their PUBLIC funding for what they did, and that holds true whether they are dipping a crucifix in urine, or dunking a koran (but of course 'artists' only do the former because it's safe yet still quasi-"edgy")

the crowd has every right to protest. i keep saying this... that's PART OF FREE SPEECH

none of those artists had to go into hiding a la rushdie. none were killed a la van goethe.

people who want to look at that stuff are FREE to privately fund it, just like south park is PRIVATELY funded by CC.

so, again, i stand by what i said.

protest is part of free speech.

violence is not

[Lucian]

21. Complaining and bashing are part of free speech.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

22. Then Christians should accept that.

[Lucian]

28. All religions should accept that.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

32. Why?

[Zhade]

66. Because no one is required to pay respect to anyone's beliefs.

Respect the person's right to their beliefs, yes. But religion is so not exempt from criticism and, yes, even bashing.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

70. So if you were talking to an Orthodox Jew

you would go out of your way to write the name of their deity in full, instead of as G_D, just to annoy them?

[muriel_volestrangler]

106. Do you mean "if you were having an internet conversation with ..."

If I was actually talking with them, I wouldn't write it down at all. But when I have had internet-based conversations with Jews who write 'G_d' ,yes, I write 'God' (or 'god') when I need to communicate. Not to annoy them, but because it's the normal way of writing it in English, it's more convenient to type (the 'o' is more natural for a practicsed typist than the '_'), and I don't hold to such superstitions. It's not 'out of my way', though, nor would it be "just to annoy them".

[ZeitgeistObserver]

107. Yes, that's what I mean.

And since it would upset them, I'd think it was to annoy if I was an Orthodox Jew.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

24. There is a major difference between complaints and death threats

Xtians do not issue fatwas as a routing course of going about their religion.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

27. Actually they shoot doctors.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. Not nearly as often as people are stoned to death, women tortured, etc

Rates matter when you try to make comparisons.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

31. They've toned it down some from the last 2000 years,

but they still do it.

I notice torture has made a comeback. And molesting. And rape.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. As the law of the land? Remember that a basic tenet of islam is that the sharia should be the law

for all of us.

This was sent to me this AM, have not had time to research it, its from the UAE media:
http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100422/NATIONAL/704219848/1133/foreign

Imagine what they would have done if they had caught some gays...

[ZeitgeistObserver]

38. There are many varieties of Muslims,

same as there are many varieties of Christians. There are Christian groups that want Biblical law brought back, which involves stoning, amputation and so on.

As to gays...Matthew Shepard.

And torture has already been declared legal.

[leftynyc]

54. You're making the same

moronic mistake that many do using this argument. The murderer of Matthew Sheppard is in jail. The people stoning adulters and gays ARE THE GOVERNMENT.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

59. Your govt is stoning gays and adulters?

I doubt that, but the Dominionists would LIKE to be your govt, and then you would have the problem.

It may interest you to know that western countries used far worse methods to kill people for most of our history. The rack, the stake and so on. We even went in for beheading.

We just moved on. Islamic countries will do so in time.

[leftynyc]

89. I see you have trouble

with reading comprehension. My government kills only using lethal injection, electric chair, gas chamber and, apparently in Utah, firing squad - for murder with special circumstances. You want to hang onto our past and use it against us, knock yourself out. Just how long should we sit by and be silent while gays are hanged and rape victims are imprisoned or stoned to death in Islamic countries? How many women have to die before you'll think it's okay to speak out?

[ZeitgeistObserver]

95. Is it your country to decide on?

No.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Again, look at the rates and the role of the state

The killers of Matthew Shepard were tried and convicted and short of executive intervention at least one is never getting out of jail. Gays in nations with the sharia law as civil code can and sometimes are stoned to death. The executioners feted afterward.

No xtian nation (are they really any?) legally supports the killing of gays, some muslims governments do.

To try to equate the xtian fundies and their impact on others to those of muslims is specious at best.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

61. I suggest you investigate some history.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

65. I have, and in the modern age, my statements are correct

[ZeitgeistObserver]

73. Well they aren't in the 'modern age'

when it comes to judicial punishments.

And I guess the 'modern age' would include these things?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8203123

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8203151

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. Why does their religion induced backwardness impose any obligation upon the rest of us to accommodat...

it at the cost of our basic freedoms?

[ZeitgeistObserver]

80. Most people call it being polite.

Is your whole nation really in danger because of this?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

84. The demands are far more that politeness

I have seen that first hand.

Still waiting why you think the cartoonist that I linked to is a bigot

[ZeitgeistObserver]

96. You're replying to the wrong person.

I said nothing about the cartoonists or bigotry.

However, 'please don't make a mockery of something I believe in,' is a polite request.

It will, of course, become less polite if you continue to do so. That's human nature everywhere.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. No, it's not human nature. Plenty of people are capable of tolerating speech they find offensive

without resorting to or responding with violence.

I grew up not so far from Skokie, in the 1970s. In a Jewish family. I can remember -vividly- when the Nazis marched. As noxious, as deeply offensive as their message was, I understand why it was necessary for them -even them- to have the 1st Amendment freedom to do it.

I understand why people -say, vets- get pissed off when flags get burned. I understand the deep symbolism attached. But grownups in a free, diverse society understand that sometimes they have to put up with speech that offends them to the core of their being.

Without assaulting people, without rioting, without blowing shit up.

[leftynyc]

52. You compare what's happening

now to 2000 freeking years ago? Do we have to wait 2000 years before militant Muslims get a fucking clue? And in the meantime just cluck our tongues at violence for drawing cartoons? That's laughable.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

63. Nothing is happening now that we didn't do ourselves.

Not 2000 years AGO, but FOR 2000 years.

We aren't all on the same timeline you know.

[leftynyc]

85. 2000 years is 2000 years

We don't all use the same calendar but that much is true. And sorry, I refuse to take any responsibility for the fact that shariah governments are hanging gays and stoning adulterers (often rape victims). That's all on the vermin that make those laws.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

97. And for all that time we've had christian violence.

No one asked you to take responsibility for any govt but your own.

[Shell Beau]

49. I have never seen Family Guy or South Park remove any

images about Jesus.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

102. In a free country, both have the same freedom. But Muslims react more violently. Know why?

Because THEIR religion ran rampant without the shackles of progress, enlightenment, and secularization.

What you see there is what the West would be if the Pat Robertsons of life ran the place.

[JuniperLea]

9. Some sects of Fundamentalist Christians don't keep pictures of Jesus either...

No graven images allowed.

But they don't pitch fits and issue death threats if someone else has pictures of Jesus!

The key word is "extremists" and we need to keep using it and pointing it out. There are surely extremists in every religion/cult. We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Taverner]

14. During one of the Caliphates that was Persian ruled, there were HUNDREDS of murals of Mohammed

Many of them are priceless works of art today, on par with Da Vinci's Last Supper and Michaelangelo's David.

The "no pictures of Mohammed" is a fairly recent development

Here is exactly what I am talking about:

[maxsolomon]

23. sorry, NOT 'on par with DaVinci's Last Supper'

priceless, sure. not 'on par'. especially with the David:

[Xithras]

30. Islamic art is an interesting thing.

The ancient Islamic peoples created stunning works of art, in the areas of architecture, pottery, rugs, and even writing. I would even go so far as to say that the Muslim world surpassed the western world in architecture, as there are few western buildings that can match the sheer beauty of the Taj Mahal, or the stunning tilework of the Selimiye Mosque.

Islamic art never really moved into the realms of painting (landscapes, people, etc), and no great sculptors on the scale of Donatello or Bernini ever arose. They had art, of a quality that matched and even surpassed that seen in Christendom, but those two areas never developed as fully as they did in the west.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

33. That's because depictions of humans are banned.

So they are geometrically beautiful and unique.

[madamesilverspurs]

82. Michelangelo's David is superb,

even if the sculptor failed to realize that David was Jewish. . .


-

[TK421]

116. Why is he on fire? and WTF is that horse-lady thingy he's riding in pic#3?

[LiberalFighter]

16. 2 points...

If they have a problem with depiction of their prophet then they should not be living in the USA.

Their prophet is only a prophet. Not a god.

[Mari333]

98. first amendment and all.

and this is not a theocracy. yep.

[foxfeet]

37. My understanding is that this prohibition is not universally held to be truth among all Muslims.

Particularly the Shia, some of whom often carry small depictions of Mohammed as devotional tools, like prayer cards for some Christians.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

42. I don't know how interested you are,

but here's an explanation.

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

[foxfeet]

62. Thanks! Interesting stuff.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. My guess is, it started as an exhortation not to confuse the image of something w/ the thing itself

as people, language and symbol-users, are wont to do-- confuse the menu with the meal, as it were.

The analogy in Buddhism is to not get distracted by the finger pointing at the moon, to think of the moon itself.

Yet, unfortunately, as also seems to happen with religion, people misinterpret the message and get WAAAAAAAAY fucking carried away, rather than trying to understand the central idea. It's like if the guru tells a joke one Wednesday about finding cheese between his toes, 1000 years later there is some sacred dictum about how you MUST wear cheese on your feet on Wednesday, or you'll be burned at the stake.

[Mari333]

93. 'dont concretize the symbols' Joseph Campbell...nt

[Warren DeMontague]

120. Right. But no one is watching Joe Campbell on DVD and then rioting.

Again, people get the levels confused, and people like dogma. That something may be a speed bump on the path to increased awareness doesn't make it a "sin". Whatever that is.

[The Straight Story]

69. I note that you did not post any actual pics ;) (nt)

[Mari333]

72. I was being lazy

thats all

I will draw Mohamed or Jesus or any other deity anytime I want and if someone doesnt like it, I will tell them to kiss my first amendment behind.

he looks kind of like Joe Mantegna in the pics

[The Straight Story]

76. I wonder why no one seems him in toast and such? Only Jesus and Mary make the toast rounds (nt)

[Dreamer Tatum]

77. Would you refer to Jesus on DU as the "Lord Jesus?"

Didn't think so. So why is he the "Prophet Mohammed" and not just "Mohammed?"

[Mari333]

86. who cares

whats the diff..lord, prophet, whatever...all mythology to me

[Soylent Brice]

87. am i late?

http://www.file83.com.nyud.net:8090/DU_Flame_Suit.jpg

[ZeitgeistObserver]

99. No, polite discussion so far.

Love the outfit though!

[Soylent Brice]

117. i always try to show up prepared. n/t

[NaturalHigh]

88. Not a big deal that I can see...

except for some crazed fanatics who threaten to kill anyone who does or says something they don't like.

[Liberation Angel]

90. Pretty Fly for a white guy

just had to say it

most of these images look like Europeans

maybe that is what pisses folks off

like a blonde Jesus (yeah right)

But isn't there some judeo-Christian Commandment about such things?

But also isn't murder prohibited too?

So murder for imaging seems a bit harsh.

But then some kill for infidelity (another commandment broken) and think its alright

oh well

Carry on

[ZeitgeistObserver]

100. No graven images is Judeo-Christian.

So is the prohibition about murder. Killing for adultery is in the Bible too.

[Mari333]

101. luckily I dont live in a theocracy where any laws are forced on me from any book

no matter what religion it is.

[JCMach1]

105. Sad fact is that the KSA brand of Islam has won out

In one of the world's little ironies, it was originally the British Empire in the 19th and early 20th century that bolstered Wahhabism as a an alternative to the rebellions perpetrated by Sufis in their colonial possessions.

When the Saudis came into oil money, they have continuously promoted their fundamentalist version of Islam across the world. The Saudis secretly (and not so secretly) control many mosques in Europe and North America by keeping them afloat with donations. With the donations come the faxed sermons to follow for Friday prayers.

It was perfectly okay in some Muslim traditions to show the Prophet (PBUH).

[Mojeoux]

124. Thanks Man, I'm glad to see this cool old art.

I deplore the evil game of blocking images of the face of a Prophet.

I think it is a waste of time, there is so much good work that can be done.