Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[Warpoet]

Here's some more of Bosch Fawstin's brilliant, clearly well-intentioned artwork (sorry, "social commentary") about Islam:









Nope, clearly nothing racist or bigoted about this guy's motivations.

So like I said, please, keep posting his work and giving him more and more publicity.

 

[Trausti]

Nope, clearly nothing racist or bigoted about this guy's motivations.

So like I said, please, keep posting his work and giving him more and more publicity.

What is racist about criticizing a religion? A religion is just a set of beliefs. Before Mohammad there was no Islam; no Muslims. Anyone can be a Muslim. I'd say it's racist to assume all people of this or that race or ethnicity is of a certain religion. If there isn't already a classification in the DSM for people unable to distinguish between a religion and a race, there ought to be.

But there's still a double standard at play here. You waive off an extraordinarily mean-spirited cartoon insulting Christianity as atheist masturbation, but then hyperventilate over a cartoon of Mohammad with an obvious political statement because of "motivation." As if the motivation of depicting Jesus as the bloody anal-birth hatchling of the Easter Bunny is to open a dialogue of understanding.

Plus there's this weird veneration you have for Islam. That it should be above reproach to criticism. Why? It's a religion that presently denies Evolution, thinks sperm is created in the spine, requires a female rape victim to produce four witnesses, and espouses the benefits of drinking camel urine. Such beliefs are not deserving of veneration but ridicule.

Christian practice used to be to persecute and torture heretics and blasphemers. Now Christians shrug their shoulders. It got that way because brave people did not cower in criticizing the religion and its symbols. As an atheist, I hope that someday the same could be said of Islam's adherents.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTHNEqAcy0Q[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Warpoet]

What is racist about criticizing a religion?

His problem isn't with Islam as a set of beliefs, it's with Muslims as a group. The text I lifted from his blog and the pictures I posted allow for no other conclusion. Here's some more for you:

But there's still a double standard at play here.

No there isn't. You just can't read for comprehension, that's all.

You waive off an extraordinarily mean-spirited cartoon insulting Christianity as atheist masturbation, but then hyperventilate over a cartoon of Mohammad with an obvious political statement because of "motivation."

Correct. One is likely motivated by a desire to ridicule Christianity and possibly piss off Christians, while the other is clearly motivated by deep seated hatred for Muslims. Quite an important distinction, and it's not my problem if you can't grasp it.

Plus there's this weird veneration you have for Islam. That it should be above reproach to criticism.

No. Again, learn how to read instead of ascribing positions to people that they don't actually hold.

 

[Nexus]

Take particular note of Muhammad's hairy, ape-like appearance. Plus, Hitler mustache.

Hitler never raped a nine year old child bride. Comparing Mohammad to Hitler is insulting to Hitler.

Correct. One is likely motivated by a desire to ridicule Christianity and possibly piss off Christians, while the other is clearly motivated by deep seated hatred for Muslims. Quite an important distinction, and it's not my problem if you can't grasp it.

Who could have guessed that white-knighting for Muslims granted psychic powers.

 

[Warpoet]

Who could have guessed that white-knighting for Muslims granted psychic powers.

Maybe someone who actually reads the words and views the "artwork" produced by the image's creator, something you obviously didn't do before deciding to open your mouth.

 

[Juma]

His problem isn't with Islam as a set of beliefs, it's with Muslims as a group.

And? Muslims are the followers of Islam. islam is what defines muslims.
Muslims are not a "racial" group. It is a religious group.

 

[Nexus]

Maybe someone who actually reads the words and views the "artwork" produced by the image's creator, something you obviously didn't do before deciding to open your mouth.

I guess your mind reading doesn't work on me. Because I have read the words of the Mohammad image creator. I was referring to your mind reading of the motivations of the anti-Christian artwork creator and how you knew it was simply non hateful ridicule.

And you didn't respond to Mohammad and his nine year old wife. It was odd you criticizing NAMBLA yet remaining silent about him. Is child-adult sex only a problem when the relationship is homosexual and unmarried? Would you be upset if someone drew a NAMBLA member with a Hitler mustache and ape face?

 

[Warpoet]

I guess your mind reading doesn't work on me. Because I have read the words of the Mohammad image creator. I was referring to your mind reading of the motivations of the anti-Christian artwork creator and how you knew it was simply non hateful ridicule.

So my original assessment was correct, then. You didn't read. I said it was likely intended as ridicule, which is a fair assumption, based on the content of the image itself, and the fact that generalized bigotry against Christians on par with what I posted from that douchebag's blog is exceedingly rare. The racist and hateful implications of Fawstin's drawing aren't that hard to spot at face value, are to be expected given the nature of the contest, and undeniable after reading his blog and viewing his other work.

And you didn't respond to Mohammad and his nine year old wife.

Yeah, because that has fuck all to do with anything, and because I'm not obligated to respond to every random, meaningless sentence you or anyone else posts.

Would you be upset if someone drew a NAMBLA member with a Hitler mustache and ape face?

No, because NAMBLA isn't representative of a billion and a half people who have done nothing wrong. But Muhammad is pretty clearly being used by the artist as a representation of all Muslims - an ape-like, violent Nazi. So fuck him and his drawing.

 

[Nexus]

So my original assessment was correct, then. You didn't read. I said it was likely intended as ridicule, which is a fair assumption, based on the content of the image itself, and the fact that generalized bigotry against Christians on par with what I posted from that douchebag's blog is exceedingly rare.

Wrong again. I did read your use of the word likely however I disagree that you have the power of reading the artist's mind. A picture shitting out eggs of Jesus is fairly vile and just as likely to be motivated by hate. You claim to know of course so you can maintain your double standards for criticism against Islam and Christianity.

Yeah, because that has fuck all to do with anything, and because I'm not obligated to respond to every random, meaningless sentence you or anyone else posts.

You just can't bring yourself to criticized the precious Mohammad blessed be his name. Most decent people would have no problem denouncing a man that had sex with a nine year old girl.

But Muhammad is pretty clearly being used by the artist as a representation of all Muslims - an ape-like, violent Nazi. So fuck him and his drawing.

Muhammad was an ape-like violent Nazi killer in addition to being a pedophile. If Muslims don't want him to represent themselves they should stop venerating him so highly.

 

[Warpoet]

Wrong again. I did read your use of the word likely however I disagree that you have the power of reading the artist's mind. A picture shitting out eggs of Jesus is fairly vile and just as likely to be motivated by hate.

No, it really isn't. It's probably just meant to be humorous, like Zombie Jesus or Raptor Jesus. And while certainly offensive, there's nothing that even remotely suggests it's trying to paint all Christians, everywhere, as violent, ape-like Nazis.

You just can't bring yourself to criticized the precious Mohammad blessed be his name. Most decent people would have no problem denouncing a man that had sex with a nine year old girl.

Most decent people also manage to refrain from sticking their noses into conversations that they can't keep up with, or in which they cannot refrain from tossing out fucking irrelevant strawmen, and then chastising others for not commenting on said fucking irrelevant strawmen.

Muhammad was an ape-like violent Nazi killer in addition to being a pedophile. If Muslims don't want him to represent themselves they should stop venerating him so highly.

Your entire post should be a flyer or a handout that elementary school teachers can show to students who want to know why reading comprehension skills are important.

 

[Juma]

Muhammad was an ape-like violent Nazi killer in addition to being a pedophile. If Muslims don't want him to represent themselves they should stop venerating him so highly.

Your entire post should be a flyer or a handout that elementary school teachers can show to students who want to know why reading comprehension skills are important.

Intresting that you dont argue against nexus actual point here. Is it because you realize nexus is right.

 

[Warpoet]

Intresting that you dont argue against nexus actual point here. Is it because you realize nexus is right.

Seriously, am I the only person who actually reads anything that's being posted or what?

It doesn't matter what Muhammad did; only a fucking ignoramus would argue that that makes it OK to portray Muslims generally as violent, ape-like Nazis. Which is exactly what the artist has done many times in the past, and is almost certainly doing on some level here.

 

[arkirk]

Intresting that you dont argue against nexus actual point here. Is it because you realize nexus is right.

Seriously, am I the only person who actually reads anything that's being posted or what?

It doesn't matter what Muhammad did; only a fucking ignoramus would argue that that makes it OK to portray all Muslims, everywhere, as violent, ape-like Nazis.

The turd Jesus eggs were okay with me. I live in the society and culture that would be offended by it. So did the artist. It would be fair to say that Islam is a religion that has existed in mostly colonized countries around the world for a long time. The Muhammed cartoons on the other hand were pure hate messages aimed to alienate our culture from any Muslims we might encounter. There is a wide range of Islam in the world. Some of it is actually rather tame. When this sort of hate cartoon escapes the intended audience (us) and arrives in a Muslim environment, anybody who has his own view of Muhammed receives an insult and what they may consider insulting lies against their prophet. Unfortunately, in the Muslim world, there is a lot of modern ordinance incoming, randomly killing quite a few of them, totally unconnected to the political machinery of their country. This shit (both the incoming bullets and the cartoons) tend to drive the uncommitted Muslims into the arms of the Jihadis.The cartoons do not educate them as to the fallacy of their religion. Neither do the hellfire missiles. Neither do the destruction of their homes and the killing of neighbors they know and trust. All this stuff does is foment hatred.

We can argue that free speech is a good thing and I strongly believe in it. So these clowns can keep pumping out this hate cartoonery. It simply is not the way to produce peace. I feel this stuff is a societal negative, whether or not it is protected. Warpoet characterizes it properly. Juma and Nexus seem taken with a desire to crusade in countries where this will not be possible, perhaps for generations. I agree, Islam and in fact all theistic religions are a gross societal negative and we could have lived better if we had never experienced them. But they are there for the foreseeable future. If one is interested in fighting the negatives of religion, one should not adopt the same Chauvanism that is the repulsive feature some attach to them.

 

[dismal]

The way to produce peace with respect to cartoons is to stop shooting at people over cartoons. Most humans are able to master this. Perhaps if we all stopped arguing as it were possible to have a valid reason to shoot people over cartoons the others would catch on.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Intresting that you dont argue against nexus actual point here. Is it because you realize nexus is right.

Seriously, am I the only person who actually reads anything that's being posted or what?

It doesn't matter what Muhammad did; only a fucking ignoramus would argue that that makes it OK to portray Muslims generally as violent, ape-like Nazis. Which is exactly what the artist has done many times in the past, and is almost certainly doing on some level here.

The figure in the cartoon is Muhammad, not Muslims in general.

He is portraying Muhammad as being violent and ape-like. The first part is certainly true. Muhammad was a bandit.

 

[Warpoet]

The figure in the cartoon is Muhammad, not Muslims in general.

And when unrepentant racists draw pictures of Obama as an ape, he may be the only person being illustrated, but obviously not the only person being smeared. Ditto this fucking prick, who, yes, despises Muslims in general, and routinely presents them writ large as violent, ape-like Nazis.

So fuck him and the attaboys and promotion he is getting from people who call themselves "progressives."

 

[Juma]

And when unrepentant racists draw pictures of Obama as an ape, he may be the only person being illustrated, but obviously not the only person being smeared.

You are obviously totally clueless in this. Drawing obama as an ape have racial connotations. Islam is a religion. Sigh....

 

[Arctish]

And when unrepentant racists draw pictures of Obama as an ape, he may be the only person being illustrated, but obviously not the only person being smeared.

You are obviously totally clueless in this. Drawing obama as an ape have racial connotations. Islam is a religion. Sigh....

^^ This is a distinction that makes no difference. Smearing a group of people by means of depicting members in an exaggerated and offensive manner has a long and ugly history. I'm sure we all can find offensive depictions of greedy Jews, AIDS-riddled gays, filthy Native Americans, brutal Africans, pedophile Catholics, and murderous Baptists if we look for them. I doubt there is a group, religious or otherwise, that hasn't been the target of someone's hateful, bigoted artistry. It isn't any better, nor any worse, when it's a religious group rather than a racial group being smeared.

Believing that free speech trumps sensitivity and good manners does not mean believing whatever hateful spew someone commits to paper deserves respect. Some of that dreck is just dreck for dreck's sake. I fully support the artist's right to produce it, but if it's hate-speech that dehumanizes other people, I'm going to call it that.

 

[Ford]

You are obviously totally clueless in this. Drawing obama as an ape have racial connotations. Islam is a religion. Sigh....

^^ This is a distinction that makes no difference. Smearing a group of people by means of depicting members in an exaggerated and offensive manner has a long and ugly history. I'm sure we all can find offensive depictions of greedy Jews, AIDS-riddled gays, filthy Native Americans, brutal Africans, pedophile Catholics, and murderous Baptists if we look for them. I doubt there is a group, religious or otherwise, that hasn't been the target of someone's hateful, bigoted artistry. It isn't any better, nor any worse, when it's a religious group rather than a racial group being smeared.

Believing that free speech trumps sensitivity and good manners does not mean believing whatever hateful spew someone commits to paper deserves respect. Some of that dreck is just dreck for dreck's sake. I fully support the artist's right to produce it, but if it's hate-speech that dehumanizes other people, I'm going to call it that.

Or as Larry Wilmore put it a couple nights ago, it is possible for two things to be wrong at the same time.

 

[Juma]

You are obviously totally clueless in this. Drawing obama as an ape have racial connotations. Islam is a religion. Sigh....

^^ This is a distinction that makes no difference. Smearing a group of people by means of depicting members in an exaggerated and offensive manner has a long and ugly history. I'm sure we all can find offensive depictions of greedy Jews, AIDS-riddled gays, filthy Native Americans, brutal Africans, pedophile Catholics, and murderous Baptists if we look for them. I doubt there is a group, religious or otherwise, that hasn't been the target of someone's hateful, bigoted artistry. It isn't any better, nor any worse, when it's a religious group rather than a racial group being smeared.

Of course it is! Racism is attacking people for what they have no responsibility whatever and something that really makes no differense.
Attacking religion is attacking peoples unbased opinions.
There is a helluva difference.