Islam just can't stand images of Mohammed

[Juma]

Wether you want to identify with muhammed or not is YOUR choice. Wether you are afro american or not is not up to you.

Now bugger off in some insignificant corner of the internet and spill you fanatical beans there.

I'm more than happy to let people read the italicized bit of my post, and then read what you just posted. Pretty much illustrates my point perfectly.

Thanks, chief.

No it doesnt. But you are clueless as ever. Depicting muhammed as the villain he was is not depicting anyone calling himself a muslim a villain.
But if you identify yourself with that image, then it is your own problem that YOU brought on yourself.

 

[Warpoet]

No it doesnt. But you are clueless as ever. Depicting muhammed as the villain he was is not depicting anyone calling himself a muslim a villain.

Except, the artist thinks Muslims are villains, has said as much, and portrays them as such on a regular basis, just like he portrays Muhammad. Which means it's obvious the cartoon isn't just about Muhammad.

You sure as hell haven't given any reason to believe otherwise, contributed anything to the discussion, or said anything even remotely coherent or intelligent at all.

But if you identify yourself with that image, then it is your own problem that YOU brought on yourself.

Like I said, you think it's fine to portray all the world's Muslims as violent, ape-like Nazis, just because they're Muslims. And that fits perfectly with the summation I gave in the italicized paragraph you quoted.

Now take your own advice, and "bugger off."

 

[Juma]

Like I said, you think it's fine to portray all the world's Muslims as violent, ape-like Nazis, just because they're Muslims.

No, i dont think that, and neither the artist. It is your vile imagination and your wish that this image somehow must be immoral.

 

[Warpoet]

No, i dont think that, and neither the artist. It is your vile imagination and your wish that this image somehow must be immoral.

That, or just the inescapable conclusion of anyone who's read his blog, viewed his other "artwork," and has exercised some basic level of rational thought.

It appears you've failed to do all three.

Again, thanks, chief.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see you've shifted the goalposts away from the line you and Nexus were originally taking, which is that these broad-brush portrayals are somehow OK because they're targeting a religion, as if that suddenly makes smearing 1.5 billion people justified. And yes, that's obviously what's happening here. If it's an "interpretation," then it is the interpretation of any sane, rational person who spends even 10 seconds reviewing the "artwork" and hateful rhetoric from the artist, which I posted in detail.

Just like any sane, rational person would assume that when a known racist draws a picture of Obama as an ape, it isn't some purely political swipe aimed at Obama alone. It doesn't matter if one target group is an ethnicity and the other isn't; the artist perceives Muslims generally as ape-like, violent Nazis, which means what he's doing isn't any different.

This really isn't that hard to grasp, and there's no reason why I should need to keep spelling this out for you like we're in elementary school. So if you can't comprehend this by now I'm afraid I have no more fucks to give.

- - - Updated - - -

The cartoon refers only to Muhammad. You're allowed to draw other Muslims, this isn't a generalization to all Muslims.

See above. The last sentence in particular.

Some of his other artwork seems bigoted but this one is not. It's simply a bullseye.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It says he draws Mohammed because violent bloodthirsty Muslims, befitting the way he draws Mohammed here, tell him not to. It is about not bowing to violent threats, and not encouraging more of them by letting them change our behaviour.

No, it isn't. Just like Pamela Geller's farce of a "contest" had jack shit to do with free speech. That was a ruse and a cover for her own poisonous bigotry, and that of her followers. Which is why it doesn't deserve praise or promotion, and certainly not from people who have the balls to label themselves "progressive."

And the same goes for this drawing, and the piece of shit who drew it. Please, go look at his other artwork, which portrays Muslims generally in the exact same manner, and the blog quotes I lifted, which clearly equates them with Nazis, and tell me with a straight face that the drawing is just about Muhammad.

And then tell me with a straight face that this is something that liberals ought to be not just praising, but promoting, raising the artist's public profile. And then tell me with the straight face that we'd even be having this discussion if it were a drawing of a black man or a Jew, and the artist were a known anti-Semite or racist.

Sorry, but free speech is about protecting unpopular speech. Popular speech generally needs no protection.

Thus it most certainly is about protecting the likes of her contest.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If Muslims didn't want to be associated with the awful person they "(mostly) unanimously respect to some degree", isn't the onus on them to stop (mostly) unanimously respecting him to some degree? Or modify their opinion of him to the point where the cartoons no longer apply to them?

For fuck's sake.

Muhammad did plenty of horrendous shit, Muslims tend to overlook this in their veneration of him, but that does NOT mean they approve of all of his misdeeds, it does NOT make them his moral equivalent, and it certainly does NOT justify portraying all the world's 1.5 billion Muslims as violent, ape-like Nazis.

Honestly. Does this really need to be fucking explained to grown men and women, on a supposedly liberal forum dedicated to rational thought?

What, we agree on something?


I suppose now dogs and cats are going to sing kumbaya.

- - - Updated - - -

View attachment 2908

He sure does look evil. The question is, when you look at this do you see him as being all muslims, or being the ones saying "YOU CAN'T DRAW ME" and raising a sword over it? I suppose you see the former. I see the latter.

It makes no sense for it to be all Muslims because there's no rule against drawing other Muslims. The only person this can apply to is Muhammad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Except, the artist thinks Muslims are villains, has said as much, and portrays them as such on a regular basis, just like he portrays Muhammad. Which means it's obvious the cartoon isn't just about Muhammad.

You can't tar this piece of artwork based on the other stuff the artist has done.

Evaluate it on it's own--and it's brilliant.

 

[arkirk]

Except, the artist thinks Muslims are villains, has said as much, and portrays them as such on a regular basis, just like he portrays Muhammad. Which means it's obvious the cartoon isn't just about Muhammad.

You can't tar this piece of artwork based on the other stuff the artist has done.

Evaluate it on it's own--and it's brilliant.

I think this so-called artist has pretty much defined himself with a long standing stream of anti Muslim hate cartoons. His past does count when his present matches up with his past. He has not stopped making hate literature.

 

[Jayjay]

Except, the artist thinks Muslims are villains, has said as much, and portrays them as such on a regular basis, just like he portrays Muhammad. Which means it's obvious the cartoon isn't just about Muhammad.

The guy wrote a few years back the following answering exactly the same question:

For those who want to make this about Muslims and not Islam, here are some of my thoughts on that:

First, my name is Bosch and I’m a recovered Muslim, so I have some insight into this, coupled with the fact that I studied Islam as if my life depended on it after 9/11.

There is Islam and there are Muslims. Muslims who take Islam seriously are at war with us and Muslims who don’t aren’t. But that doesn’t mean we should consider these reluctant Muslims allies against Jihad. I’ve been around Muslims my entire life and most of them truly don’t care about Islam. The problem I have with many of these essentially non-Muslim Muslims, especially in the middle of this war being waged on us by their more consistent co-religionists, is that they give the enemy cover. They force us to play a game of Muslim Roulette since we can’t tell which Muslim is going to blow himself up until he does. And their indifference about the evil being committed in the name of their religion is a big reason why their reputation is where it is.

So while I understand that most Muslims are not at war with us, they’ve proven in their silence and inaction against jihad that they’re not on our side either, and there’s nothing we can say or do to change that. We just have to finally accept it and stop expecting them to come around, while doing our best to kill those who are trying to kill us.

While he's clearly not liberal by any stretch of imagination, and does consider that we are waging a war against Islam, he's clearly making a distinction between muslims who in his view follow Islam, and ones who don't. The cartoon caricature of savage Mohammed with hitler moustache represents the former. Details like "excessive body hair" is hardly the same as crooked noses for Jews or ape-like features and thick lips for African Americans... it's more like drawing a Jew with sidelocks or a kippah.

So, like folks here are saying, the interpretatin that the Mohammed in his cartoon is all muslims is clearly not founded in his own words. It's in your own head. Of course you don't have to agree with his dim view of Islam or his warmongering (arkirk made a good point a few pages back that despite what we think of Islam, provocation is not going to be a very efficient method of combating it), but there is basically no difference between him expressing his opinion of Mohammed and his followers, and your expressing yours about Geller and her followers.

 

[Jayjay]

You can't tar this piece of artwork based on the other stuff the artist has done.

Evaluate it on it's own--and it's brilliant.

I think this so-called artist has pretty much defined himself with a long standing stream of anti Muslim hate cartoons. His past does count when his present matches up with his past. He has not stopped making hate literature.

He's clearly a fan of Frank Miller, but unlike Miller who used to be one of the world's foremost respected comic book artists, and has since gone off the deep end (look up "Holy Terror" if you want to know what I mean), Fawstin started out in the deep end and is now banging his head against the side of the pool.

I think personally, we shouldn't judge pieces of art based on beliefs or politics of their authors. Some of the best works of art have been created by batshit insane people.

 

[credoconsolans]

While I condemn the idea of harming anyone who merely tries to depict this person from history. I also condemn idiots who go out of their way to provoke destructive emotion. And can imagine a life without the desire to provoke others in this way or ever see a cartoon depiction of some person who's stories I don't believe. The sane thing to do is to remove the very claims of religious believers from your mind and live a life free from their mental pollution. The insane thing to do is to be so obsessed with the claims of others you try to provoke the worst of them to attempt violence.

The above isn't possible if you live in a society that values free speech.

My thoughts too.

The news quoted members of the local Muslim community saying that the would-be terrorists got what they had coming to them.

 

[Unbeatable]

Many people know that Muslims have a particular sensitivity to drawings of Mohammed.

The vast majority aren't going to do anything, but a tiny minority may.

And provoking them into action makes it easier to identify and dispose of them.

 

[Jayjay]

Many people know that Muslims have a particular sensitivity to drawings of Mohammed.

The vast majority aren't going to do anything, but a tiny minority may.

And provoking them into action makes it easier to identify and dispose of them.

That's an important point... I don't think it's likely that the two nutters who tried to crash the "art exhibit" would have been completely harmless even without the provokation. They'd just found some other target, either in the US or abroad. I also hope that the investigation into their activities prior to the attack will help the authorities to the propagandists who brainwashed them.

 

[untermensche]

Many people know that Muslims have a particular sensitivity to drawings of Mohammed.

The vast majority aren't going to do anything, but a tiny minority may.

And provoking them into action makes it easier to identify and dispose of them.

Some.

And some will be provoked to kill and won't be stopped.

And many will use it as recruitment of people who eventually will carry out acts of violence.

The world is not as clean as the TV you watch.

 

[Arctish]

Because the artist is saying that Muslims in general are just like Muhammad: violent, ape-like Nazis. Which makes him a bigoted piece of shit.

Seriously, how many fucking times does this need to be explained? Do people seriously have this much trouble comprehending why this isn't OK, and why liberals shouldn't be supporting it?

If Muslims didn't want to be associated with the awful person they "(mostly) unanimously respect to some degree", isn't the onus on them to stop (mostly) unanimously respecting him to some degree? Or modify their opinion of him to the point where the cartoons no longer apply to them?

Moses was a murderous, ruthless invader who instructed his followers to kill babies and enslave the little virgin girls. Does that mean it okay to depict Jews as murderous baby-killers who rape little girls, seeing as how they respect Moses so much?

If not, why not? And why does that not apply to Muslims who respect Mohammed?

 

[Arctish]

that does NOT mean they approve of all of his misdeeds, it does NOT make them his moral equivalent, and it certainly does NOT justify portraying all the world's 1.5 billion Muslims as violent, ape-like Nazis.

Which this cartoon doesn't do on the face of it. That you have to point to other works of the author to try to make it so, only shows that it isn't.

I mostly agree, but with a bit of a quibble.

That cartoon made a valid and valuable point about censorship, threats of violence, and taking a stand for freedom of expression. Where I think the cartoonist transgressed into genuine anti-Muslim bigotry was the Hitler moustache. It wasn't needed for making the point about free speech, but it is a component of demonizing people (by comparing them with the gold standard of evil in modern Western culture), as this artist is wont to do to Muslims. So I think this cartoon actually embodies both points being made here - that freedom of expression should be upheld and defended, and that this artist uses his art to demonize a group of people, something that should be discouraged and rejected.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The above isn't possible if you live in a society that values free speech.

My thoughts too.

The news quoted members of the local Muslim community saying that the would-be terrorists got what they had coming to them.

CAIR determined that Geller's "speech" is "unhelpful" but should be protected:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...ms-defend-anti-islam-hate-groups-right-speak/

 

[Unbeatable]

And provoking them into action makes it easier to identify and dispose of them.

Some.

Too few?

And some will be provoked to kill and won't be stopped

So? Doesn't this already happen?

And many will use it as recruitment of people who eventually will carry out acts of violence.

So? Doesn't this already happen?

The world is not as clean as the TV you watch.

The world is clean enough. It's humans who are filth. But sooner or later, all will return to the soil.

 

[dismal]

If Muslims didn't want to be associated with the awful person they "(mostly) unanimously respect to some degree", isn't the onus on them to stop (mostly) unanimously respecting him to some degree? Or modify their opinion of him to the point where the cartoons no longer apply to them?

Moses was a murderous, ruthless invader who instructed his followers to kill babies and enslave the little virgin girls. Does that mean it okay to depict Jews as murderous baby-killers who rape little girls, seeing as how they respect Moses so much?

If not, why not? And why does that not apply to Muslims who respect Mohammed?

Give it your best shot. I promise not to kill you over your Moses cartoons.