Supposedly the prohibition against drawing his image didn’t kick in until the 16th or 17th century. There is Islamic art from before then that has his likeness, or what an artist thought he looked like. Some of it was later altered to remove or cover facial features. Islamic Depictions of Mohammad in Full
Here’s the winning drawing of Mohammad from the contest at Reason.com.
Brilliant pictures! Thought-provoking, playful, and not obscene! Love it! 
Mick, that’s a silly analogy because you’ve got no emotional stake in the matter. For you, it’s an intellectual exercise. If you really want to have a go at it, think of something that really matters to you. Think of something that’s taboo. Then hand someone a rusty pin and invite them to have a go.[/quote]
I can’t think of any of my beliefs, the mockery of which would cause me to want the mocker dead or even injured.
Mick, that’s a silly analogy because you’ve got no emotional stake in the matter. For you, it’s an intellectual exercise. If you really want to have a go at it, think of something that really matters to you. Think of something that’s taboo. Then hand someone a rusty pin and invite them to have a go.[/quote]
I can’t think of any of my beliefs, the mockery of which would cause me to want the mocker dead or even injured.[/quote]
wait up the jaboney, many people do feel very strongly about animals, just check the preacher by day hunter by night thread! Mick posted a great example of the lunacy of the argument for restriction of freedom.
Europe did try to perform this balancing act with the Human Rights Act (freedom of speech, assembly and to opinion) with the Incite to Hate Act - interesting topic - http://www.coe.int/t/DC/Files/Source/FS_hate_en.doc
[quote]The Court has two ways for assessing if freedom of expression is competing with another right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights: applying Article 10, which it does most often, or Article 17, which excludes the expression from the protection of the convention, if it aims at the destruction of another right laid down in the Convention.
Article 17 aims at guaranteeing the preservation of the system of democratic values underpinning the convention notably by preventing totalitarian groups from exercising the rights set by the convention in a way to destroy the rights and liberties established by the convention itself. This article has been applied by the Court to statements conveying racial messages of racial hatred, defending national socialism or denying the Holocaust. The Court has, for instance, stated that freedom of expression may be restricted to avoid the dissemination of the denial of the holocaust, considering it is at the same time a denial of crimes against humanity and an incitement to hate towards the Jewish people.[/quote]
Case in point? 
[/quote]
What?
I am a Buddhist. You cannot hurt me, or any other Buddhist by drawing or posting cartoons or pictures, no matter how offensive. In fact, if you see Buddha on the road…
The whole thing is childish and has nothing to do with religion. If your religion is about looking around for someone to kill because they drew a picture, then your doing it wrong. This is not religion, this is madness. Religion is about working on yourself, not looking around for people to kill because they happen to perceive things a little differently.
These radical losers should not be coddled or catered to, they should be exposed for what they truly are and put away for any violence or terrorism they commit.
Wanting people dead for drawing a cartoon mocking their religion is completely wrong. I don’t think anyone has said otherwise, so I don’t understand why people here keep pointing this out.
Mocking other’s religion is, on the other hand, wrong. What the Swedish bloke, that some call “An artist”, did was wrong and only made to provoke.
Extreem Islamists killing others under the name of Allah is completely and utterly wrong and is not Islam. Catholic priest touching little boys is wrong as well, and is not that religion.
The issue I take is people provoking, disrespecting others for…free, for just saying, it’s my freedom of speech.
Why can’t we just respect each other. WHY? You want to exercise your freedom of speech? why don’t you go and do something constructive that will help society? Why mocking?
I am sorry, I just don’t get it.
[quote=“Homey”]I am a Buddhist. You cannot hurt me, or any other Buddhist by drawing or posting cartoons or pictures, no matter how offensive. In fact, if you see Buddha on the road…
The whole thing is childish and has nothing to do with religion. If your religion is about looking around for someone to kill because they drew a picture, then your doing it wrong. This is not religion, this is madness. Religion is about working on yourself, not looking around for people to kill because they happen to perceive things a little differently.
These radical losers should not be coddled or catered to, they should be exposed for what they truly are and put away for any violence or terrorism they commit.[/quote]
here here
When a religion starts forcing non-believers to follow their rules, then they have gone too far.
I just read that Pakistan has blocked Facebook and Youtube.
Facebook should be blocked world-wide. It’s a hideous abomination.
And nice link, lbksig, about the depictions of Mohammed. Very interesting stuff.lest everyone think I temped DD just for posting pictures of Mohammed, I did not. I temped him for just posting pictures of mohammed (and from IP too, where the standard is ‘somewhat lower’, shall we say).
there is a profound difference. In the right setting, posting cartoons that others have drawn of some religious bloke is valid enough, and look at the great thread it has given birth to!
in the wrong setting (i.e., posting JUST a set of pictures of mohammed with no text, no argument, no discussion), that is clearly trolling: posting stuff that he knows to be inflammatory merely to get a reaction.
and then crying when a mod calls him on his bad judgement: Great form! He’s still smarting from the day I called him a really funny guy.
[quote=“urodacus”]lest everyone think I temped DD just for posting pictures of Mohammed, I did not. I temped him for just posting pictures of mohammed (and from IP too, where the standard is ‘somewhat lower’, shall we say).
there is a profound difference. In the right setting, posting cartoons that others have drawn of some religious bloke is valid enough, and look at the great thread it has given birth to!
in the wrong setting (i.e., posting JUST a set of pictures of mohammed with no text, no argument, no discussion), that is clearly trolling: posting stuff that he knows to be inflammatory merely to get a reaction.
and then crying when a mod calls him on his bad judgement: Great form! He’s still smarting from the day I called him a really funny guy.[/quote]
Yeah, but 7 pages here and 2 more in temp. DD ddrummed up good business with it. 
Isn’t that what online sites are all about really?
[quote=“hardball”][quote=“urodacus”]lest everyone think I temped DD just for posting pictures of Mohammed, I did not. I temped him for just posting pictures of mohammed (and from IP too, where the standard is ‘somewhat lower’, shall we say).
there is a profound difference. In the right setting, posting cartoons that others have drawn of some religious bloke is valid enough, and look at the great thread it has given birth to!
in the wrong setting (i.e., posting JUST a set of pictures of mohammed with no text, no argument, no discussion), that is clearly trolling: posting stuff that he knows to be inflammatory merely to get a reaction.
and then crying when a mod calls him on his bad judgement: Great form! He’s still smarting from the day I called him a really funny guy.[/quote]
Yeah, but 7 pages here and 2 more in temp. DD ddrummed up good business with it.
Isn’t that what online sites are all about really?[/quote]
If I could only get paid for this, hmmm… scratches chin and stares off to the left
I want my internet money!!!
Mick, that’s a silly analogy because you’ve got no emotional stake in the matter. For you, it’s an intellectual exercise. If you really want to have a go at it, think of something that really matters to you. Think of something that’s taboo. Then hand someone a rusty pin and invite them to have a go.[/quote]
I can’t think of any of my beliefs, the mockery of which would cause me to want the mocker dead or even injured.[/quote]
wait up the jaboney, many people do feel very strongly about animals, just check the preacher by day hunter by night thread! Mick posted a great example of the lunacy of the argument for restriction of freedom.[/quote][/quote]
Certainly, many people have strong feelings about animals. If Mick does, he may have a reasonable basis on which to test if tolerance of deliberate provocation.
Paogao, I believe that you can’t think of anything that would set you off, I do not believe that such strong commitments are absent. Our deepest commitments are usually not consciously held.
Fish are our friends.
I have no idea what that means.
Just for the sake of argument, someone please tell me: what’s the difference between the most provocative of these images, and the infamous Westborough Phelps church that pickets the funerals of gay soldiers?
[quote=“Jaboney”]I have no idea what that means.
Just for the sake of argument, someone please tell me: what’s the difference between the most provocative of these images, and the infamous Westborough Phelps church that pickets the funerals of gay soldiers?[/quote]
the cartoonists are motivated by the intimidation of past cartoonists from Muslim leaders. of course some people are going to jump on the bandwagon and be classless douche bags (they are in the minority), but I think the message that you can’t threaten to kill everyone who doesn’t share your beliefs is being heard.
lets not forget this all started from that South Park episode, which was inspired by the Danish cartoonist of a year or two ago.
do you really want to live in a world where someone with fucked up, archaic views can instruct others that it is OK to kill someone who draws a likeness of their prophet?
this was a resounding ‘fuck that!’ to all those threats.
if you think it is the same as a bunch of homophobic evangelicals who think US soldiers die because the US is too lenient towards gays then there really isn’t much to be said in any ‘argument’.
Not the same thing. I’m asking what the significant differences are between two ideologically committed groups asserting free speech rights in fairly abusive ways.
I think you all are missing the point(s). I am the arch-atheist. I am MILITANTLY against religion. In my opinion, it’s the greatest scourge to ever blight humanity.
That being said, deliberately making inflammatory and provocative posts/trolling is, again, IMO a :no-no:
To move on, Muslims REALLY don’t like their “prophet” being depicted in any way. What sort of expedience is to be gained from doing so? I think it’s stupid and pointless. You think it’s going to alter their beliefs? Going to marginalize them in some way? All it contributes to is polarization.
I suppose I’m going to get the “Oh, but they started” shit, or the “Oh our religion is so much cooler, we can laugh at ourselves” nonsense response.
Whatever. You want to change things? Talk to people. Express humanity, even if you think it’s not being expressed to you. Evolve.
“Everybody Draw Mohammed Day”: can someone actually tell me what this is going to achieve? Nothing but more hate.
A funeral is essentially a private event at a time of mourning, and should be allowed to proceed in peace. If the Whinging Whelps want to protest the policy of allowing gays in the military, there are plenty of public venues for expression of those opinions.
A more appropriate parallel would be to ask what’s the difference between a hate-filled ad placed in a newspaper or a hate-filled post on an internet forum or blog by the Whelps and a mocking cartoon of Jesus or Mohammed in the same venue. To which I would answer that free speech should be allowed in both latter cases as long as it did not conflict with the policies of that medium in the event that it is privately held. The policies of this medium, Forumosa, which is a privately owned website, are made fairly explicitly in the rules: [quote]When discussing race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion, please exercise the appropriate level of sensitivity toward others and take extra care to clearly express your point of view in a non-hateful manner.[/quote]
Sorry, DB, I love you and all, but what’s this continuing free speech motif on this thread? “Free speech” is a media construction (moneyed by the rich). It’s a myth, designed to perpetuate the lie of “democracy”. It’s not free, man. It’s damned expensive.