Draw Muhammad day

[Father Heathen]

People can engage in all manner of sophistry about free speech and expression, but most of these people would be appalled by the gratuitous use of intentionally racist and inflammatory speech directed against the Black community. The sole difference is that they are sensitive to racism yet insensitive to, if not supporting of, anti-Muslim bigotry.

Did you honestly just compare race to superstition? So criticizing silly notions is the same as expressing hatred toward specific genetic make up? It's not, actually.

 

[Father Heathen]

Only in how they decided to go about it, by including others who did not actually share in expressing that sentiment.

They're silly cartoons. They should just simply man up, ignore it and get over it. I see stuff that's an affront to my sensibilities everyday, but I just shake my head, shrug my shoulders and move on. What I don't do is collapse into the fetal position and lay in a pool of my own tears.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The words 'which shouldn't happen anyway' don't mean anything to you do they?

Because it genuinely doesn't mean anything. If you genuinely think that they should be doin it, then you shouldn't be making excuses for them or denigrating people who express their views instead of the people who react so violently to such expressions.

All you see in that statement is the word murder and so to you that justifies your distorted interpretation of my statements. Very well done.

You still have yet to explain in what way I have "distorted" your statements. Please explain.

 

[Gharib]

Because it genuinely doesn't mean anything. If you genuinely think that they should be doin it, then you shouldn't be making excuses for them or denigrating people who express their views instead of the people who react so violently to such expressions.


You still have yet to explain in what way I have "distorted" your statements. Please explain.

You keep accusing me of defending and justifying the actions of those who kill innocent people. I have not made such a claim. However you keep distorting my statements and accuse me of trying to justify their actions by condemning people like you for your actions. It's all a distortion, do you seriously believe that I am trying to justify the killing of innocent people by condemning your actions?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Gross and cynically intentional disrespect for an entire class of people is reprehensible, while suggesting that 'those people' have no right to feel purposely denigrated is patronizing in the extreme.

Where has anybody on here said or even suggested that anyone "has no right to feel personally denigrated"?

People can engage in all manner of sophistry about free speech and expression, but most of these people would be appalled by the gratuitous use of intentionally racist and inflammatory speech directed against the Black community. The sole difference is that they are sensitive to racism yet insensitive to, if not supporting of, anti-Muslim bigotry.

This is a ridiculous thing to say for multiple reasons:

1) You cannot compare racism - the act of willful predjudice against a group of people because of their ethnic race - to choosing to express a contrary view to a religion in a particular way.

2) Nobody here has said that people have no right to be offended. There's a difference between denigrating people on the basis of their being offended, and denigrating people on the basis of their offense being used as justification for clamping freedom of speech or acts of violence or brutality.

3) Drawing a picture of Muhammed is not "anti-Muslim bigotry". Just because Muslims have a belief that drawing Muhammed is an insult, does not mean I should share that belief or should limit my freedom of expression accordingly. They have the right to their beliefs, and I have the right not to practice them myself

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You keep accusing me of defending and justifying the actions of those who kill innocent people. I have not made such a claim.

Here, once again, are your attempts to legitimize their responses:

Here, you say it is essentially the person's fault by using the "tiger" analogy:

You'd expect a smart person not to enter a tigers cage after it bites him for the first time.

And you are making it sound as though those 'far right' people did nothing wrong and so 'little' that Muslims should not have done anything. A tiger bites you know. But I still disagree with killing an innocent person just because he is of the same nationality or even a blood related relative to the offender.

Saying that Muslims who attempt to silence people's freedom of speech are just "expressing their freedom of speech":

Oh so it's OK to get offended when Muslims express their freedom of speech but it's not OK for Muslims to get offended when, in your words, an 'evil infidel' does it to us?

Attempting to dismiss the "freedom of expression" argument:

So why are you against Muslims burning down embassies, that too is freedom of expression. Or do you mean to say that there is a line somewhere?

Here you clearly say that it is the fault of the person expressing their view that people die, and say that they should therefore not express their view:

By the tiger example I meant the fact that Muslims find these drawing offensive and we do react to them. Some go over board, however, we do take big offence by them. So if you don't like us burning buildings and killing innocent people, which shouldn't happen anyway, then stop insulting us. Get it?

So like I said, if you enter the cage and the tiger bites you then next time you know better not to enter it's cage. And in this case you know Muslims get offended so don't offend us.

However you keep distorting my statements and accuse me of trying to justify their actions by condemning people like you for your actions. It's all a distortion, do you seriously believe that I am trying to justify the killing of innocent people by condemning your actions?

Where have I ever said that you think it is justified to kill innocent people? I've said repeatedly that I don't think that's the case. My issue is with you defending those who do by saying that the fault lies with the people who express the views that cause such a rabid reaction and that by doing so you are attempting to legitimize their responses and point blame away from them and on to people who are critical of the Muslim faith.

Now, can you point to a single claim of yours that I have distorted? Where have I ever said that you believe killing innocent people is okay?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There's a difference between denigrating people on the basis of their being offended, and denigrating people on the basis of their offense being used as justification for clamping freedom of speech or acts of violence or brutality.

Let's make your statement a bit more clear:

There's a difference between denigrating people on the basis of their being offended, and denigrating all people on the basis of their offense being used by a minority of these people as justification for clamping freedom of speech or acts of violence or brutality.

That you rise eagerly to the defense of the latter says all that needs be said about you on this matter.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let's make your statement a bit more clear:That you rise eagerly to the defense of the latter says all that needs be said about you on this matter.

Would you care you provide an example of anybody denigrating all Muslim people? I am dealing with a specific group.

And no, "drawing a picture of Muhammed" is not an act of prejudice against all Muslim people - that's patently absurd. What they choose to interpret such an action as being is down to them.

Also, don't quote-mine me.

 

[A Troubled Man]

It's immigrated. Emigrated is moving out.

Yes, they emigrate "TO" the US, that's what I said.

Emigrate: the act of leaving ones country "TO" settle in another.

The law changes. One of the ways it changes is if people democratically vote for it. If many Muslims and many non-Muslims demand Islamic law be incorporated into the American legal system via voting, they'd be doing so in a perfectly American way.

That is the can of worms I referred in which a Muslim here said that if you don't like the rules of a country, don't live there.

In any case, many aspects of Islamic law are compatible with American laws.

I haven't heard that one before.

Since Muslims live under the aegis of Islamic law, Islamic law is being implemented everyday. Even in America.

Where exactly? What laws?

 

[Badran]

They're silly cartoons. They should just simply man up, ignore it and get over it. I see stuff that's an affront to my sensibilities everyday, but I just shake my head, shrug my shoulders and move on. What I don't do is collapse into the fetal position and lay in a pool of my own tears.

They are just silly cartoons, i agree. That doesn't change the fact that its also a negative sentiment towards all Muslims, which is something that could be worth more than just a shrug and passing it off as just silliness. Rather its something that could make the people targeted feel quite sad about, quite worried about, and/or quite offended by. Thats not to say that i think people should actually do anything about it besides shaking their heads and so forth, but to say that i think you're simplifying it too much in terms of what it means. Yes the whole thing is silly, but its also conveying something that is generally quite negative.

While we agree that in the end cartoons is not something to get all worked up about, what we disagree on however, is that people who made and support "Draw Muhammad day" could've used some maturity, in realizing and owning that their reaction while good intentioned at least by some, also generalized the sentiment against all Muslims rather than actually specifically aiming it at those who do and have tried to suppress their rights using violence or the threat of it.

Saying that such cartoons are silly while true has nothing to do with whether or not the generalization is appropriate. I'm not saying that this day was a disaster, or a black spot in human history.

Just that it wasn't a wise reaction to be made, and most certainly not a positive one in anyway.

 

[A Troubled Man]

That is fine and a noble cause, had it not been for the following. That its also a day where you are, whether you like it or not, and whether Muslims like it or not, sending a message to all Muslims. On one part due to its premise, that its a day devoted to doing something that bothers most Muslims (even if its not specifically the aim), and on another part due its nature; that it attracts a lot of people who abuse the idea, and instead of just drawing Muhammad as an act of expressing their support for freedom of speech, they use it to express their bigotry, through disrespectful and hateful images.

That works exactly the same way when Muslims (or any other religion) send messages to others and not just one day of the year, messages that bother many people, and those ideas also get used to express bigotry and hatred by other Muslims.

If you want the right to express Islam, then you have to give others who don't want to hear it the same rights.

Again, this is not about drawing a picture of Muhammad.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Good God, Badran, do you always have to be so smart?
Well thought out and well said.

Just another example of "just because you CAN doesn't mean you SHOULD".

Just because you can express Islam to others doesn't mean you should.

See how that works?

 

[A Troubled Man]

It isn't about whether or not you have the right to do it, it's about whether or not doing it is right.

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

Exactly the point, rights have to be shared equally on both sides of the coin.

 

[A Troubled Man]

I was saying that although one CAN draw a cartoon (legally), if it's going to upset millions of people, perhaps one SHOULDN'T.

Perhaps, expressing Islam or making demands based on Islam is going to upset millions of people, perhaps one SHOULDN'T.

Again, see how that works?

Should people have the right to upset people? Yes. The point is, it's not wise to do so. That's all.

Exactly, and that goes for both sides.

Both sides have responsibility in this; the person drawing the cartoon has to accept that he will upset a large portion of the Muslim community, and the Muslim community has a responsibility to respond without violence...which the vast majority already do.

Take it back one more step and you've got it nailed. The Muslim community has a responsibility to understand that spreading and making demands based on Islam is going to upset people. And, very much like the vast majority of Muslims, those people aren't going to respond with violence, but that doesn't mean they aren't upset.

Starting to get the big picture, here?

 

[Badran]

That works exactly the same way when Muslims (or any other religion) send messages to others and not just one day of the year, messages that bother many people, and those ideas also get used to express bigotry and hatred by other Muslims.

If you want the right to express Islam, then you have to give others who don't want to hear it the same rights.

I agree.

What gave you the impression that i'm talking about people not having a right to do any of this?

Merely talking about whether or not they should. I think they shouldn't, just like i think whatever those messages of bigotry you're talking about, if they are such, shouldn't be sent neither. I think the world could do quite well if people managed their bigotry a little better.

Again, this is not about drawing a picture of Muhammad.

What do you mean?

If you mean that its a matter of rights, then like i said, i wasn't actually speaking in such terms.

Just because you can express Islam to others doesn't mean you should.

See how that works?

So the bigotry you were talking about is the whole religion of Islam?

IOW, do you mean that specific things said by specific Muslims are bigoted things, or that the mere idea of expressing Islam in general (due to i guess its bigoted nature) is something people (Muslims) should refrain from doing?

If so, then the disagreement will be merely in regards to whether or not Islam as a whole is actually a message of bigotry.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Gross and cynically intentional disrespect for an entire class of people is reprehensible, while suggesting that 'those people' have no right to feel purposely denigrated is patronizing in the extreme.

That indeed does raise a good point and should be shared, acknowledged and action-ed on both sides of the argument.

People can engage in all manner of sophistry about free speech and expression, but most of these people would be appalled by the gratuitous use of intentionally racist and inflammatory speech directed against the Black community. The sole difference is that they are sensitive to racism yet insensitive to, if not supporting of, anti-Muslim bigotry.

Unfortunately, that strawman was way off the mark.

 

[A Troubled Man]

Merely talking about whether or not they should. I think they shouldn't, just like i think whatever those messages of bigotry you're talking about, if they are such, shouldn't be sent neither. I think the world could do quite well if people managed their bigotry a little better.

Agreed, but that isn't happening.

If you mean that its a matter of rights, then like i said, i wasn't actually speaking in such terms.

Exactly, each side should have equal opportunity to share the exact same rights without the other side seeking retribution or trying to take away the rights of the other side.

So the bigotry you were talking about is the whole religion of Islam?

IOW, do you mean that specific things said by specific Muslims are bigoted things, or that the mere idea of expressing Islam in general (due to i guess its bigoted nature) is something people (Muslims) should refrain from doing?

You know as well as I do that there are a lot of people who feel there is bigotry in Islam and they don't want to hear it. And, although they understand that secularism allows Muslims to express Islam and protects them from persecution, that doesn't mean Muslims should be expressing Islam or making demands based on Islam to those who don't want to hear it.

If so, then the disagreement will be merely in regards to whether or not Islam as a whole is actually a message of bigotry.

That is another debate. And, we see those debates crop up all over the worlds almost every day. Here on these forums, in fact.

 

[Badran]

Agreed, but that isn't happening.

It could if enough people adopted doing that instead of engaging in that endless loop.

Exactly, each side should have equal opportunity to share the exact same rights without the other side seeking retribution or trying to take away the rights of the other side.

I agree.

You know as well as I do that there are a lot of people who feel there is bigotry in Islam and they don't want to hear it. And, although they understand that secularism allows Muslims to express Islam and protects them from persecution, that doesn't mean Muslims should be expressing Islam

It makes a difference whether or not the people sending the message think and acknowledge that they're sending a message of bigotry, or are aware of that. Or refer to it as such in any other instance except instances when they're doing it, or when they do it in an emotionally charged situation. Rather than a situation where some think something qualifies as bigotry and others don't feel the same way. What i mean is, in this instance, and in some of the instances you have in mind, both parties generally acknowledge that such a thing is considered, or qualifies as bigotry according to its definition. Those instances are the same. However others might not be. The reason i'm saying this is because what you said is too general, so i had to break it down a bit.

or making demands based on Islam to those who don't want to hear it.

Thats a different issue so i quoted it alone. If you are referring to examples such as expecting or demanding that people do or follow something merely because its part of Islam, then of course i agree. I don't think however that most Muslims do that.

That is another debate. And, we see those debates crop up all over the worlds almost every day. Here on these forums, in fact.

I agree.

 

[A Troubled Man]

It makes a difference whether or not the people sending the message think and acknowledge that they're sending a message of bigotry, or are aware of that.

If they aren't aware of it, they eventually do get made aware but don't accept the charge of bigotry based on the fact they follow the religion and are devout to it. We see those debates and arguments here almost every day.

If you are referring to examples such as expecting or demanding that people do or follow something merely because its part of Islam, then of course i agree. I don't think however that most Muslims do that.

If something is considered bigotry in Islam by others, you will not find many Muslims who won't try to defend Islam and the charge of bigotry.

 

[Anonymouse]

Originally Posted by Sunstone
Drawing a picture of Muhammad just to exercise free speech -- and for no other purpose -- strikes me as just as meaningful (or meaningless) as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If you draw a picture of Muhammad, or yell fire in a crowded theater, you had best have something greater in mind than the mere exercise of free speech. It is true that free speech is the foundation of other liberties. But it is also true that those liberties do not vitally depend on your ability to yell fire in a crowded theater or to draw a picture of Muhammad.

When an artist depicts any expression, through any media, the artist is usually satisfying themselves first. The purpose of why an artist is drawing can very well be the celebration of their talent and the (true) freedom of expressing their imagination and the capability to realize it. Any other reasons, critiques, beliefs and emotions that anyone feels they must insert about this artist or his work and why it should or should not be depicted could/should be considered irrelevant.

In any matter deemed as art, the responsibility of emotions, insecurities and offense will always fall upon the viewer, not the artist. If thy eye offends thee-remove your eye, not the artist. If you can’t see the art, I guarantee you will not be offended by it.