Draw Muhammad day

[robo]

The thread seems to have heated up...I have not got a chance to see earlier responses....but I will say this.

That Muslims are OK with atheists [I hope so] who deny the very existence of Allah but are willing to cause violence if someone draws a picture of Mohammed, though, suggests that Muslims worship Mohammed more than Allah.

That is plain and simply idol worship and shirk [polytheism], for which Allah has promised them eternal hellfire.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That Muslims are OK with atheists [I hope so] who deny the very existence of Allah but are willing to cause violence if someone draws a picture of Mohammed, though, suggests that Muslims worship Mohammed more than Allah.

That was an exceedingly dumb statement. You may wish to rethink it.

 

[robo]

That was an exceedingly dumb statement. You may wish to rethink it.

You may wish to provide reasonings to back up very many of your very emotional assertions on RF.

 

[839311]

Jesus gets made fun of all the time and not many muslims seem to care, even though Jesus is an important figure in Islam. Why don't we see riots about that? Why do muslims care so much if another prophet, Mohammad, is made fun of? It seems like Muhammad is somehow raised almost to the level of demi-god or something, almost like an idol. Have muslims raised Muhammad higher than Allah would like?

 

[A Troubled Man]

In my opinion, neither open threarts nor bigoted provocation is acceptable behavior.

What bigoted provocation do you refer?

To strive to incite only to wax indignant when you succeed is rank hypocrisy at best.

Are you saying that some are allowed free speech while others are not, and that those who strive for equality of free speech are hypocrites?

How is that inciting?

It would be nice if you could actually explain your accusations as opposed to just tossing them out and disappearing.

 

[Quiddity]

**MOD ADVISORY**
Please stay on point and be mindful of forum rules that keep this place civil and educational.​

 

[Sunstone]

Drawing pictures of Muhammad for no better reason than to provoke Muslims seems pretty childish, but responding to such provocations with riots and murders seems unlikely to stop anyone. In fact, it probably encourages some of them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Drawing pictures of Muhammad for no better reason than to provoke Muslims seems pretty childish, but responding to such provocations with riots and murders seems unlikely to stop anyone. In fact, it probably encourages some of them.

Absolutely correct. The problem, however, is that, while the contemptible violence is the act of a small minority of Muslims, the provocation is an act of intentional disrepect towards Islam as a whole. It is a callous, arrogant, and fundamentally bigoted act of gross intentional rudeness toward some 1.6 billion Muslims while posturing as defenders of civil rights. Does that make them as 'bad' as the rioters. Absolutely not. But it does make them enthusiastically part of the problem, dispicably and irresponsibly complicit in exacerbating religious and ethnic hatred, and, as such, effectively no different than Terry Jones and his disgusting band of Qur'an burners.

 

[Sunstone]

Absolutely correct. The problem, however, is that, while the contemptible violence is the act of a small minority of Muslims, while the provocation is an act of intentional disrepect towards Islam as a whole. It is a callous, arrogant, and fundamentally bigoted act of gross intentional rudeness toward some 1.6 billion Muslims while posturing as defenders of civil rights. Does that make them as 'bad' as the rioters. Absolutely not. But it does make them enthusiastically part of the problem, dispicably and irresponsibly complicit in exacerbating religious and ethnic hatred, and, as such, effectively no different than Terry Jones and his disgusting band of Qur'an burners,

Agree. And well said! I could see drawing a picture of Muhammad if there were no other way of expressing a point -- That is, some point other than merely to provoke Muslims. But there are other and more effective ways to defend civil rights than to draw a picture of Muhammad. And, so far as I can see, no one's quality of life has in any way been lessened by their not having drawn a picture of Muhammad.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So, let's draw a line here:

Intentionally and knowingly offending people of religious faith for no purpose other than to cause offence: bad.

Incidentally causing offence as a result of the practice of your beliefs or your right to exercise freedom of speech: not bad.

Am I correct here?

 

[robo]

Intentionally and knowingly offending people of religious faith for no purpose other than to cause offence: bad.

No. IMHO, you are inverting cause and effect.

The reason why "intentionally and knowingly" people offend a particular faith is because that particular faith in question is screwed up.

How many people do you find who "intentionally and knowingly" offend Buddhists? My guess is very few to none. Why? Buddhists did not go around killing Muslims when the Taliban destroyed Afghani Buddhist statues.

Can we agree that Muslims are more violent than Buddhists [when it comes to matters of religion] and perhaps that may be the cause for who people "intentionally and knowingly" offend Muslims?

 

[beenie]

No. IMHO, you are inverting cause and effect.

The reason why "intentionally and knowingly" people offend a particular faith is because that particular faith in question is screwed up.

How many people do you find who "intentionally and knowingly" offend Buddhists? My guess is very few to none. Why? Buddhists did not go around killing Muslims when the Taliban destroyed Afghani Buddhist statues.

Can we agree that Muslims are more violent than Buddhists [when it comes to matters of religion] and perhaps that may be the cause for who people "intentionally and knowingly" offend Muslims?

Geez, generalize much?
Clearly because a few off-balanced Muslims act out violently that must mean they're more violent as a whole!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Intentionally and knowingly offending people of religious faith for no purpose other than to cause offence: bad.

Incidentally causing offence as a result of the practice of your beliefs or your right to exercise freedom of speech: not bad.

What a lovely example of juvenile sophistry ...

 

[robo]

Geez, generalize much?
Clearly because a few off-balanced Muslims act out violently that must mean they're more violent as a whole!

I will change my mind when non-Muslims get equal rights in Muslim lands and I see churches, synagogues, temples, universities teaching evolution and interest-rate based finance theories spring up in Saudi Arabia.

Until then, I think I have enough evidence to back my position.

 

[robo]

Clearly because a few off-balanced Muslims act out violently that must mean they're more violent as a whole!

Where are the "moderate" in-balanced Muslims? What are they doing to counter the negative image these "few off-balanced Muslims" are giving to the Religion of Peace by killing those who depict Mohammed in an image?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

..., I think I have enough evidence to back my position.

No. You simply have enough arrogance and ignorance to ossify it.

 

[Sunstone]

So, let's draw a line here:

Intentionally and knowingly offending people of religious faith for no purpose other than to cause offence: bad.

Incidentally causing offence as a result of the practice of your beliefs or your right to exercise freedom of speech: not bad.

Am I correct here?

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.

 

[robo]

No. You simply have enough arrogance and ignorance to ossify it.

More assertion without evidence.

In any case, would you agree with the following underlined?

I will change my mind when non-Muslims get equal rights in Muslim lands and I see churches, synagogues, temples, universities teaching evolution and interest-rate based finance theories spring up in Saudi Arabia.

 

[robo]

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.

People make fun/make a caricature of other religious figures - Jesus, Buddha, multi-armed Hindu goddesses, etc. How much death are caused by these instances?

 

[Sunstone]

People make fun/make a caricature of other religious figures - Jesus, Buddha, multi-armed Hindu goddesses, etc. How much death are caused by these instances?

And why is that an issue? Are you saying that you feel your quality of life is somehow lessened because you can draw a picture of Shiva without causing offense, but cannot draw a picture of Muhammad without causing offense? If so, precisely how is your quality of life diminished? I myself have never once woken up in the morning thinking, "Gee! My life will be wasted if I don't draw Muhammad today". What about you?