Pakistan Bans Facebook Over "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"

[rokkolpo]

stupid teens had to do something like that again.

oh shi...i'm a stupid teen. (didn't do that though)

 

[chunkeymonke]

i think that the page should not be censored(i feel a bad burning sensation inside), however i find that everyone on that page is being a little bit of a dick. thy are simply doing this in order to piss people off without discretion. they dont care if they insult normal muslims or extremists ,they just want to insult muslims in general.


on a side note: alot of people here rag on religion, saying it is obsolete and we have the miracle of science to explain how the world works. Although i do somewhat agree with you ( as a muslim im saying this with clenched teeth). But people fail to realize that religion has brought alot of science into the world. we wouldn't have astronomy or even biology without religion for that matter. Yes during the earlier ages these sciences were basic but religion set the ground work for people to try and understand the world and universe around them. i wouldnt go so far as to say without religion we wouldnt have science without religion but religion did help ALOT to help sciences start. YES religion has attempted to stop science (like with evolution) but i think of it as the student surpassing the teacher, the teacher doesn't like it too much.

Religion may have "caused" the death of millions over the ages but it wasn't the religion it self that caused the death it was people reinterpreting their faith in order to further their political or personal goals. I think i'd like to use the NRA's slogan with this (although i dont like them either) in that religion dont kill people, people kill people. science is relatively new compared to other religions so it hasnt gone through this bastardization that religion has gone through. i mean i can think of one example were science has been used to negatively catagorize others. during the enlightenment(the time being when science began to gain popularity as the main tool in explaining the world) jews were labeled as an inferior species rather than a religion and that their death or segregation from society will benefit humanity as a whole. this is the best example of how science can also be the cause of violence, and death towards people.

so yes science has replaced religion as the main tool for explaining the world and that religion should be kept in ones home and not in politics, but it has done great things as well, like spreading morality and ethics towards each other and it is the extremists or the irrationals that choose to ignore such teachings. SO religion DOES deserve respect in my opinion event to athiests, they should at least respect religion similiar to that of a museum piece that has benefited humanity more than being a detriment to it.

really? remember the dark ages? hundreds of years with literally no scientific advancements because of religion? sorry i dont mean to sound like a dick but religion has not helped science

yes im not going to deny the dark ages was a dark time for religion (see what i did there?) but as i said in my earlier post, biology and astronomy were pretty much started because of religion. When kepler calculated that the planets rotated in an ellipse rather than a circle he was driven by a religious feeling that he would be closer to god by knowing more about the universe. Now that is an example of how religion has helped science. without religion driving kepler we wouldnt have been able to go to the moon or send satelites into space.

you know that religion made people think the earth was the center of the universe because god would make it that way?
relgion helps biology by saying it all just magically aperaerd

yes religion had its quarrels with religion, and is probably what most religious people think is a threat to religion. im not saying that science and religion go hand in hand in all paths but they have intertwined. for example carl lenaeus tha father of modern biological taxonomy was inspired to classify organisms on earth feeling that it was humanitys right to learn of gods creation.

one i would like to thank you for being fair and nice and not getting angry like sime people do. and i do understand that relgion has helped science in some ways but i think it has hurt it more

fair enough im not going to deny that religion has had a habit of makeing people fight change. im only just trying to point out that some of the most basic princibples of sciences have been brought about thanks to religion and that at least it deserves some respect in that regard rather than being dismissed completely.

i can agree with the fact that relgion has helped science but i think now that we are in the 21st century i think that the loss of it would be really not a big deal

 

[Superfly CJ]

I'd like to start by saying that I wasn't involved in the event personally (I only just found out about it) , but I feel that the people who did draw Muhammed had every right to do so.

Yeah, and the people who killed him should (were they? I don't know) be on trial for murder, like any other criminal.

I believe they were found and put on trial.

Take notice of what?

That the West intentionally riles up Muslims?

How was drawing a load of offensive images, 6 years after Theo Van Gogh and 5 after the Norwegian Cartoons (iirc) "standing up against extremism"? If it was a statement against extremism, it would have been made then. Not now.

'The West' hardly riles up Muslims- the type of insults levelled against Islam are no different from those against Christianity, or any other nationality/religion- it's the world map's equivalent of playful banter.

...and the images drawn in the paper were much different from those being drawn now. When the paper published those images, death threats were sent, people were assaulted and people were arrested and charged with attempted murder.
This new campaign, as I see it, is intended to reproduce images like those in the paper, but in such large quantities that no one individual publication or person can be singled out and targetted. Any threats that are made will be hollow- it's a breath of fresh air for any journalists or satirists who've been avoiding criticising Islam, fearing that they will be killed for their views.

Hell, the best statement against extremism was on 8/9th July in London, when everybody went back to work and travelled on public transport, and went on the news saying "No. We will not be threatened or intimidated. We survived the blitz, this is nothing. They can try, but they won't succeed".

That sends a far better message than insulting the entirety of Muslims, and affirming to moderates that the West is disrespectful of Islam, and that the extremists may have a bit of a point after all. That is all this "freedom of speech" campaign has done. Sure, you had a right to do it - but do you really think it is going to have been effective at countering extremism?

Yet here we are, years later, and people are still being killed for their protest. All of those people on the news, who made their daily commute, were brilliant in their defiancy- but we can hardly still expect to send a message just by getting on with our day to day lives- especially if we're still afraid to talk about Islam.

As for your last question, I actually DO feel that this will be effective. If no-one gets 'slaughtered' in the aftermath, then the point will be proven that we CAN act out against our fears- that we don't need to censor ourselves just to live.

No one is saying Islam should be exempt from criticism, nor that freedom of speech doesn't give you the right to criticise.

The point is, why criticise Islam as a whole (1/6 of the world's population) because of what a minority of that religion believes and acts upon? How was anything about this day targeted at extremism, as opposed to Islam as a whole?

Also, just because you have the right to be an arse to someone, doesn't mean you should express that right.

How is it that a show like Family Guy is free to portray a pot-smoking, gun-slinging Jesus, yet even the slightest mention of Mohammed is enough to warrant punishment? Perhaps if this small minority weren't so shortsighted, they'd realise that we're just as critical of our own traditions as we are of others. Religious tolerance is well-practiced in the West, you merely need to look at this thread to see that.

It's just there's merely no way that we can attack the dangerous religious fundamentalists without attacking the fundamentals of a religion. I believe most of the Islamic community will have enough tolerance and understanding of our culture to realise this.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Isnt Hindu the prominent religion in India?

It's Hinduism and I thought so too.

India and Pakistan hate each other. I'd assume Facebook did it to prevent any more tension.

 

[Superfly CJ]

I don't understand why people are so bothered by the fact that drawing Mohammed is bad in the Islam religion.

When in your daily life would you ever be actually hindered by the inability to draw him.

Just leave them be and respect their beliefs.

You've got it all wrong- we're not bothered by the fact that drawing Muhammed is forbidden in Islam, but rather, that a minority of Muslims are so aggressive in their beliefs, that drawing Muhammed is forbidden EVERYWHERE. We aren't hindered by our inability to draw him, but the foundations and beliefs of democracy (which people gave their lives to uphold) state that we should be able to if we so wish.

 

[chaos order]

i think that the page should not be censored(i feel a bad burning sensation inside), however i find that everyone on that page is being a little bit of a dick. thy are simply doing this in order to piss people off without discretion. they dont care if they insult normal muslims or extremists ,they just want to insult muslims in general.


on a side note: alot of people here rag on religion, saying it is obsolete and we have the miracle of science to explain how the world works. Although i do somewhat agree with you ( as a muslim im saying this with clenched teeth). But people fail to realize that religion has brought alot of science into the world. we wouldn't have astronomy or even biology without religion for that matter. Yes during the earlier ages these sciences were basic but religion set the ground work for people to try and understand the world and universe around them. i wouldnt go so far as to say without religion we wouldnt have science without religion but religion did help ALOT to help sciences start. YES religion has attempted to stop science (like with evolution) but i think of it as the student surpassing the teacher, the teacher doesn't like it too much.

Religion may have "caused" the death of millions over the ages but it wasn't the religion it self that caused the death it was people reinterpreting their faith in order to further their political or personal goals. I think i'd like to use the NRA's slogan with this (although i dont like them either) in that religion dont kill people, people kill people. science is relatively new compared to other religions so it hasnt gone through this bastardization that religion has gone through. i mean i can think of one example were science has been used to negatively catagorize others. during the enlightenment(the time being when science began to gain popularity as the main tool in explaining the world) jews were labeled as an inferior species rather than a religion and that their death or segregation from society will benefit humanity as a whole. this is the best example of how science can also be the cause of violence, and death towards people.

so yes science has replaced religion as the main tool for explaining the world and that religion should be kept in ones home and not in politics, but it has done great things as well, like spreading morality and ethics towards each other and it is the extremists or the irrationals that choose to ignore such teachings. SO religion DOES deserve respect in my opinion event to athiests, they should at least respect religion similiar to that of a museum piece that has benefited humanity more than being a detriment to it.

really? remember the dark ages? hundreds of years with literally no scientific advancements because of religion? sorry i dont mean to sound like a dick but religion has not helped science

yes im not going to deny the dark ages was a dark time for religion (see what i did there?) but as i said in my earlier post, biology and astronomy were pretty much started because of religion. When kepler calculated that the planets rotated in an ellipse rather than a circle he was driven by a religious feeling that he would be closer to god by knowing more about the universe. Now that is an example of how religion has helped science. without religion driving kepler we wouldnt have been able to go to the moon or send satelites into space.

you know that religion made people think the earth was the center of the universe because god would make it that way?
relgion helps biology by saying it all just magically aperaerd

yes religion had its quarrels with religion, and is probably what most religious people think is a threat to religion. im not saying that science and religion go hand in hand in all paths but they have intertwined. for example carl lenaeus tha father of modern biological taxonomy was inspired to classify organisms on earth feeling that it was humanitys right to learn of gods creation.

one i would like to thank you for being fair and nice and not getting angry like sime people do. and i do understand that relgion has helped science in some ways but i think it has hurt it more

fair enough im not going to deny that religion has had a habit of makeing people fight change. im only just trying to point out that some of the most basic princibples of sciences have been brought about thanks to religion and that at least it deserves some respect in that regard rather than being dismissed completely.

i can agree with the fact that relgion has helped science but i think now that we are in the 21st century i think that the loss of it would be really not a big deal

i still think religion has a part to play in society, obviously not as big of one it did long ago, but still be part of peoples personal life if they so choose to have religion in it

 

[Plurralbles]

lol @ Pakistan, south park has drawn jesus and other religious figures without any christians or other people complaining.

the mainstream christians didn't, but I bet quite a bit did.

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

I don't understand why people are so bothered by the fact that drawing Mohammed is bad in the Islam religion.

When in your daily life would you ever be actually hindered by the inability to draw him.

Just leave them be and respect their beliefs.

You've got it all wrong- we're not bothered by the fact that drawing Muhammed is forbidden in Islam, but rather, that a minority of Muslims are so aggressive in their beliefs, that drawing Muhammed is forbidden EVERYWHERE. We aren't hindered by our inability to draw him, but the foundations and beliefs of democracy (which people gave their lives to uphold) state that we should be able to if we so wish.

Let us not forget the fatwa (basically a religious death warrant) placed upon Salman Rushdie. That kind of thing is way too overboard.

 

[chaos order]

I don't understand why people are so bothered by the fact that drawing Mohammed is bad in the Islam religion.

When in your daily life would you ever be actually hindered by the inability to draw him.

Just leave them be and respect their beliefs.

You've got it all wrong- we're not bothered by the fact that drawing Muhammed is forbidden in Islam, but rather, that a minority of Muslims are so aggressive in their beliefs, that drawing Muhammed is forbidden EVERYWHERE. We aren't hindered by our inability to draw him, but the foundations and beliefs of democracy (which people gave their lives to uphold) state that we should be able to if we so wish.

your assuming that only fundamentalists are going to take offense to the depiction of mohammad. I am muslim and i do take offense, although i did say that the page shouldn't be taken down, it is still an abuse of the freedom of speech right since its a bunch of pricks blatantly insulting islam. If this page was something different like draw osama having sex with a goat or what ever id laugh and probably join in (if i could draw). At least that would represent people hating fundamentalism and not muslims in general. In addition doing this instead of drawing mohammad would draw moderate muslims who feel the fundamentalists are bastardising their religion (like me) to take part. This would further the goal of over coming fear of fundamentalist by showing that even muslims hate extremism. With this page however your only attracting people who are ignorant of the muslim faith or are assholes. I think alot of people are looking to far into this draw mohammad page, it isnt something noble that people are doing to show extremists that they are not afraid but rather people pissed that south park was censored and they want to do something about it.

 

[chaos order]

I don't understand why people are so bothered by the fact that drawing Mohammed is bad in the Islam religion.

When in your daily life would you ever be actually hindered by the inability to draw him.

Just leave them be and respect their beliefs.

You've got it all wrong- we're not bothered by the fact that drawing Muhammed is forbidden in Islam, but rather, that a minority of Muslims are so aggressive in their beliefs, that drawing Muhammed is forbidden EVERYWHERE. We aren't hindered by our inability to draw him, but the foundations and beliefs of democracy (which people gave their lives to uphold) state that we should be able to if we so wish.

Let us not forget the fatwa (basically a religious death warrant) placed upon Salman Rushdie. That kind of thing is way too overboard.

a fatwa isnt necassarily a sentence to death, many muftis ( highly regarded islamic scholars) have made fatwas against islamic extremism

 

[Lord Mountbatten Reborn]

Let us not forget the fatwa (basically a religious death warrant) placed upon Salman Rushdie. That kind of thing is way too overboard.

a fatwa isnt necassarily a sentence to death many muftis ( highly regarded islamic scholars) have made fatwas against islamic extremism

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

The problem there though is that Salman Rushdie is an accessible and corporeal individual. Extremism is a little harder to combat. I appreciate the attempts to combat extremism (I'd consider that in mainstream Islam part of the greater jihad right?), but the extremism itself sadly generates far more attention.

 

[Superbeast]

'The West' hardly riles up Muslims- the type of insults levelled against Islam are no different from those against Christianity, or any other nationality/religion- it's the world map's equivalent of playful banter.

...and the images drawn in the paper were much different from those being drawn now. When the paper published those images, death threats were sent, people were assaulted and people were arrested and charged with attempted murder.
This new campaign, as I see it, is intended to reproduce images like those in the paper, but in such large quantities that no one individual publication or person can be singled out and targetted. Any threats that are made will be hollow- it's a breath of fresh air for any journalists or satirists who've been avoiding criticising Islam, fearing that they will be killed for their views.

Actually the West did, and does.

They're angry at America's dicking around in the Middle East, and see their promise of "democracy" as hollow - given that the last time there was a major democratic nation in the Middle East, Iran, America went in and overthrew it and installed the theocracy in the first place (for cheaper oil).

Islam can still be satirised, without causing commotion (any moreso than is got from extreme Christian groups about anything) - as long as you steer clear of Mohammed himself. It's what has been done in the past, and no-one has been killed, or even threatened that I am aware, over it.

Re-creating images that we already know from previous experience are deeply offensive and likely to cause international issues and incite anger and hatred in the majority of Muslims globally. Because of the actions of a small minority. Seems like a smart idea for such a "tolerant" group as us Westerners, eh?

Yet here we are, years later, and people are still being killed for their protest. All of those people on the news, who made their daily commute, were brilliant in their defiancy- but we can hardly still expect to send a message just by getting on with our day to day lives- especially if we're still afraid to talk about Islam.

No-one is being killed in the UK since, at any rate. There was an attempted repeat bombing, but it was foiled by the security services.

"Getting on with our daily lives" is pretty much exactly how to defeat extremism. The whole point of terrorism is to cause terror, via death, to make people bow to your point of view/demands. By showing that their acts have no effect on the public's morale, nor will to live as they are, and that we have the fortitude to continue without bending, defeats the very terror that terrorism is trying to achieve, thus making it effectively useless.

If terrorism proves to be ineffective for the extremists, they will be forced to find another way - as many of their supporters will get fed up after a while (how many people are likely to offer themselves up as suicide bombers if they see that it doesn't work to further their goals, and are damned by more moderate clerics). With falling support for radicalism comes an increase in moderate views, and likely a change to Middle Eastern culture.

As for your last question, I actually DO feel that this will be effective. If no-one gets 'slaughtered' in the aftermath, then the point will be proven that we CAN act out against our fears- that we don't need to censor ourselves just to live.

We aren't censoring ourselves, we're being polite. We still have the rights to draw what we like, when we like and say (pretty much) what we want to who we want. Deliberately not offending someone, you may see as "self-censorship", but I call being sensible and not being a dick just because you can.

In time Islam is going to modernise, and become more "relaxed" like Christianity and Judaism - it's a currently-held belief by many experts that Islam is going through a renaissance.

However events such as this are more likely to encourage the extremists and dig people into their ultra-conservative views, stymieing the renaissance and preventing the religion from changing, or at least slowing the change down. Therefore, as a method to counter extremism, it is self-defeating.

Plus given the amount of racist and islamophobic people that participated, whatever the original aims may have been, are hardly going to help international Muslims' perception of the West.

How is it that a show like Family Guy is free to portray a pot-smoking, gun-slinging Jesus, yet even the slightest mention of Mohammed is enough to warrant punishment? Perhaps if this small minority weren't so shortsighted, they'd realise that we're just as critical of our own traditions as we are of others. Religious tolerance is well-practiced in the West, you merely need to look at this thread to see that.

Perhaps because it is not offensive to Christians for Jesus to be depicted? When Muslims are insulted by the mere depiction of their prophet, it's a very different kettle of fish to Jesus, especially if you start taking the piss out of them equally. Jesus smoking weed is offensive to Christians, but Mohammed smoking weed is, to Muslims, going too far (as not only has Mohammed been depicted, but is also defamed at the same time) - and, such as in the case of South Park, is expressed on an international media with no warning of it's appearance, and so cannot "avoid seeing it", for example.

Mind you, I'm pretty much against all religious intolerance, favouring to let people have their own beliefs and only rib my good friends about it (who I know can take the joke). Trying to extrapolate that over an entire nation, or 1/6 of the world's population, is asking to fail. We may view it as a joke, but how many times have you(/seen someone) made a joke that one or two people laugh to yet no-one else around does? It's a similar principle. We may consider it par-for-the-course, but a different culture will not. Are we more right? No - both views are equally valid.

It's just there's merely no way that we can attack the dangerous religious fundamentalists without attacking the fundamentals of a religion. I believe most of the Islamic community will have enough tolerance and understanding of our culture to realise this.

There are plenty of other ways - blanketing the whole religion and angering everyone is only going to encourage extremism, not limit it. The "Islamic community" has a very different culture to our own, apart from those who have integrated in the West - different social values and hold religion as a more critical part of living a "good" life than we do.

The majority have not attacked unbelievers, Christians, or whatever else in any way whatsoever. A minority have. In response a large number of Western citizens draws something offensive to all Muslims, be they radical or not, and published it internationally (internet). They see this as an insult and an attack on their religious beliefs. Why should they respect our culture in exchange, when we have just disrespected theirs on mass scale?

 

[chaos order]

Let us not forget the fatwa (basically a religious death warrant) placed upon Salman Rushdie. That kind of thing is way too overboard.

a fatwa isnt necassarily a sentence to death many muftis ( highly regarded islamic scholars) have made fatwas against islamic extremism

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

The problem there though is that Salman Rushdie is an accessible and corporeal individual. Extremism is a little harder to combat. I appreciate the attempts to combat extremism (I'd consider that in mainstream Islam part of the greater jihad right?), but the extremism itself sadly generates far more attention.

well actually greater jihad is the internal fight against sinning itself. (so i guess ya it works against extremism seeing as extremists forget that killing innocents is a pretty big sin).

I'll agree but think about it, the extremists want attention thats y they do what they do, to put it simply terrorists ARE TROLLS. this draw mohammad page is simply riling up the equivalent of trolls and we all know what happens when trolls are riled up. I agree we cant deal with terrorists by ignoring them like a normal troll, but trolling back isnt gonna help.

 

[Spectre39]

Aw man. They started out strong but then they caved in to political pressure.

This censorship seems to happen all the time these days. What is it about Muslim backlash that is so persuasive? Do they all use Jedi mind tricks? Oh wait. It's that whole threat of violence thing.

Curious how they caved to India first. Is it because they asked nicely and they didn't want to piss off more people than they could afford to?

 

[Superfly CJ]

Actually the West did, and does.

They're angry at America's dicking around in the Middle East, and see their promise of "democracy" as hollow - given that the last time there was a major democratic nation in the Middle East, Iran, America went in and overthrew it and installed the theocracy in the first place (for cheaper oil).

Islam can still be satirised, without causing commotion (any moreso than is got from extreme Christian groups about anything) - as long as you steer clear of Mohammed himself. It's what has been done in the past, and no-one has been killed, or even threatened that I am aware, over it.

Actually, Islam is a dangerous topic to satirise/criticise in general, I draw your attention to figures such as Hashem Aghajari and Ehsan Jami- both of whom were believed to be under high threat of attack, merely for arguing against the unethical actions of certain Islamic groups. As for the West antagonising Islam- I think that's more to do with American foreign policy, and doesn't effect religions so much as it does countries.

Re-creating images that we already know from previous experience are deeply offensive and likely to cause international issues and incite anger and hatred in the majority of Muslims globally. Because of the actions of a small minority. Seems like a smart idea for such a "tolerant" group as us Westerners, eh?

As I said in a post above, if the vast majority recreate these images, the chance of militant action is low. I have no doubt that these images will offend some Muslims, and i'm sorry about that, but at the end of the day, I don't think it right that we concede to the ideology of terrorist groups out of fear. The depiction of Muhammed, and even the inclusion of Islam in the argument is irrelevant- at the end of the day, i'd like to think a vast proportion of the participants drew these images to prove that they COULD, not because they wanted to.

No-one is being killed in the UK since, at any rate. There was an attempted repeat bombing, but it was foiled by the security services.

"Getting on with our daily lives" is pretty much exactly how to defeat extremism. The whole point of terrorism is to cause terror, via death, to make people bow to your point of view/demands. By showing that their acts have no effect on the public's morale, nor will to live as they are, and that we have the fortitude to continue without bending, defeats the very terror that terrorism is trying to achieve, thus making it effectively useless.

...and the highlighted part is exactly my problem. We HAVE given in to the demands of the extremists, in mutually agreeing not to draw Muhammed. I would say that 99.9% of the population (including myself) would never want to draw Muhammed, out of respect for Islamic beliefs- yet what irks me is that the other .1% can't draw Muhammed without fear of punishment. Thousands have given their lives to allow people in this country to say, write and draw what they want, whether it be a scathing review of Rambo: Part Three, or a drawing of Muhammed. In threatening us with death, the extremists are removing this right, and I don't think that we should just sit back and say, 'Well, I was never going to draw Muhammed anyway, so I guess we shouldn't be able to'.

If terrorism proves to be ineffective for the extremists, they will be forced to find another way - as many of their supporters will get fed up after a while (how many people are likely to offer themselves up as suicide bombers if they see that it doesn't work to further their goals, and are damned by more moderate clerics). With falling support for radicalism comes an increase in moderate views, and likely a change to Middle Eastern culture.

It'll only be ineffective to the extremists when we stop limiting our rights according to their demands.

We aren't censoring ourselves, we're being polite. We still have the rights to draw what we like, when we like and say (pretty much) what we want to who we want. Deliberately not offending someone, you may see as "self-censorship", but I call being sensible and not being a dick just because you can.

You're not censoring yourself, i'm not censoring myself, sure- but as is made clear by the whole fiasco with Comedy Central, there definitely are people out there who are censoring themselves.

In time Islam is going to modernise, and become more "relaxed" like Christianity and Judaism - it's a currently-held belief by many experts that Islam is going through a renaissance.

However events such as this are more likely to encourage the extremists and dig people into their ultra-conservative views, stymieing the renaissance and preventing the religion from changing, or at least slowing the change down. Therefore, as a method to counter extremism, it is self-defeating.

Plus given the amount of racist and islamophobic people that participated, whatever the original aims may have been, are hardly going to help international Muslims' perception of the West.

I'll admit that Facebook wasn't the best vehicle for this protest (let's face it, there were a lot of morons who just wanted an excuse to bash Islam), but I can appreciate the original sentiment, and what it stood (and stands) for.

...and as said, I don't think the Islamic issue should play into this as much as that of freedom of expression. It could be M.C.Hammer threatening Western civilization not to depict parachute pants, at fear of death, and we would be drawing parachute pants right now. It's not out of disrespect for the individual, it's out of respect for our own rights- unfortunately, to express these rights, we have to upset a few peple along the way, whether it be a washed up hip-hop artist, or a major world religion.

Perhaps because it is not offensive to Christians for Jesus to be depicted? When Muslims are insulted by the mere depiction of their prophet, it's a very different kettle of fish to Jesus, especially if you start taking the piss out of them equally. Jesus smoking weed is offensive to Christians, but Mohammed smoking weed is, to Muslims, going too far (as not only has Mohammed been depicted, but is also defamed at the same time) - and, such as in the case of South Park, is expressed on an international media with no warning of it's appearance, and so cannot "avoid seeing it", for example.

I hardly think we should pander to all the aspects of our society like this- after all, there are millions of people with differing beliefs out there- yet most learn to tolerate criticism. If Islam is ever to truly acclimatise to Western civilization, it must learn to accept our traditions in tandem with their own.

Mind you, I'm pretty much against all religious intolerance, favouring to let people have their own beliefs and only rib my good friends about it (who I know can take the joke). Trying to extrapolate that over an entire nation, or 1/6 of the world's population, is asking to fail. We may view it as a joke, but how many times have you(/seen someone) made a joke that one or two people laugh to yet no-one else around does? It's a similar principle. We may consider it par-for-the-course, but a different culture will not. Are we more right? No - both views are equally valid.

It's fortunate that the images are being drawn and ditributed amongst our own culture and citizenship, then. Why should we have to control the actions of our society according to the culture of others? Some cultures hold chickens in high regard, but KFC still exists, the same concept can apply to the depictions of Muhammed.

There are plenty of other ways - blanketing the whole religion and angering everyone is only going to encourage extremism, not limit it. The "Islamic community" has a very different culture to our own, apart from those who have integrated in the West - different social values and hold religion as a more critical part of living a "good" life than we do.

The majority have not attacked unbelievers, Christians, or whatever else in any way whatsoever. A minority have. In response a large number of Western citizens draws something offensive to all Muslims, be they radical or not, and published it internationally (internet). They see this as an insult and an attack on their religious beliefs. Why should they respect our culture in exchange, when we have just disrespected theirs on mass scale?

I think you'll be hard pressed to find an intelligent person who isn't against religious intolerance, to be honest. What I think is worse, however, is cultural intolerance.

It's not a case of respecting our culture, it's a case of tolerating it. This was never meant to be a step in either direction with regards to Islamic attitudes towards the west, merely a step towards restoring what many felt to be a breach in civil liberties. It's not about minorities of majorities- it's about expressing ourselves according to the laws of our country, in the face of those who say we can't.

 

[Dan B]

I'd like to point out there's no such thing as an extremist muslim, unless you mean someone who is very devoted to his faith, muslims are no different to anyone from any other religion, well except christians who eat whatever they want regardless of their holy book (look up Leviticus) anyone who threatens violence against others doesn't follow Islam and therefore is just a tool looking for an excuse.

 

[Superbeast]

Actually, Islam is a dangerous topic to satirise/criticise in general, I draw your attention to figures such as Hashem Aghajari and Ehsan Jami- both of whom were believed to be under high threat of attack, merely for arguing against the unethical actions of certain Islamic groups. As for the West antagonising Islam- I think that's more to do with American foreign policy, and doesn't effect religions so much as it does countries.

As I said in a post above, if the vast majority recreate these images, the chance of militant action is low. I have no doubt that these images will offend some Muslims, and i'm sorry about that, but at the end of the day, I don't think it right that we concede to the ideology of terrorist groups out of fear. The depiction of Muhammed, and even the inclusion of Islam in the argument is irrelevant- at the end of the day, i'd like to think a vast proportion of the participants drew these images to prove that they COULD, not because they wanted to.

Trouble is, the extremists argue that American foreign policy is representative of the West as a whole, and that it's used to insult and oppress Muslims. By having this as a national "day", especially with such racist/islamophobic notions behind a good degree of the participants, it reaffirms that notion in the minds of the moderates who begin to side with the extremists, instead of calling them out on their bullshit.

No-one is being killed in the UK since, at any rate. There was an attempted repeat bombing, but it was foiled by the security services.

...and the highlighted part is exactly my problem. We HAVE given in to the demands of the extremists, in mutually agreeing not to draw Muhammed. I would say that 99.9% of the population (including myself) would never want to draw Muhammed, out of respect for Islamic beliefs- yet what irks me is that the other .1% can't draw Muhammed without fear of punishment. Thousands have given their lives to allow people in this country to say, write and draw what they want, whether it be a scathing review of Rambo: Part Three, or a drawing of Muhammed. In threatening us with death, the extremists are removing this right, and I don't think that we should just sit back and say, 'Well, I was never going to draw Muhammed anyway, so I guess we shouldn't be able to'.

No, we haven't given in by mutually not agreeing to - we're respecting their culture and not unnecessarily antagonising them.

Had any sort of law been past by a Western nation that did, indeed, ban images of Mohammed *then* we would have given in to their demands. But we didn't. We are free to make these drawings if we want to - I'm just pointing out that the day was hijacked, if it really never was the main intention which I find difficult to believe (see later re: Comedy Central), and is detrimental to actually trying to combat extremism.

It'll only be ineffective to the extremists when we stop limiting our rights according to their demands.

What right had been limited?

Could we draw Mohammed?

Yes - Free Speech was not under threat. There was no law being considered by a Western nation to agree.

You're not censoring yourself, i'm not censoring myself, sure- but as is made clear by the whole fiasco with Comedy Central, there definitely are people out there who are censoring themselves.

Comedy Central is a network, one that is viewed by a wide diaspora of people.

As a network it has the legal right to censor any material that could be construed as "offensive" and be detrimental to their business and profits.

That is not "clamping down on free speech" - networks limit things like porn, and don't show the hard-line speeches of *any* religion for similar reasons.

This is a legal right, and not an infringement of the rights of the South Park creators to have drawn what they liked (for example it'll probably still be available on DVD, and were they to create their own network/channel could show it to their hearts content). Or have gone to a different network.

Was this day *really* against the "erosion of free speech" then it should have been aimed at Comedy Central, not Muslims - after all it is they, for business decisions, that removed the content - as they have a legal charter to allow them to do. Or all censorship in general. And not at offending *all* Muslims for the sake of the extreme minority.

...and as said, I don't think the Islamic issue should play into this as much as that of freedom of expression. It could be M.C.Hammer threatening Western civilization not to depict parachute pants, at fear of death, and we would be drawing parachute pants right now. It's not out of disrespect for the individual, it's out of respect for our own rights- unfortunately, to express these rights, we have to upset a few peple along the way, whether it be a washed up hip-hop artist, or a major world religion.

Here's the thing: you'd still have a legal right to do so. If someone threatened your life then you have the legal right to go to the authorities and get them punished.

But unless a law was made in a Western country (which was never on the cards) then free speech was not under threat in any way.

It's like my (old but poor) example of being extremely racist to a black fellow. I'm sure I *legally* can, but I'd expect to get beaten up for doing so. Is that an erosion of free speech? If not, why is no-one up in arms about that too, as it probably occurs to certain segments of the population *far* more often than wanting to draw Mohammed.

I hardly think we should pander to all the aspects of our society like this- after all, there are millions of people with differing beliefs out there- yet most learn to tolerate criticism. If Islam is ever to truly acclimatise to Western civilization, it must learn to accept our traditions in tandem with their own.

And I think it will.

But creating things such as this, which actually pander to the extremists instead of counter-acting them, it's only going to make them less accepting of Western cultures rather than more. It's self-defeating.

It's fortunate that the images are being drawn and ditributed amongst our own culture and citizenship, then. Why should we have to control the actions of our society according to the culture of others? Some cultures hold chickens in high regard, but KFC still exists, the same concept can apply to the depictions of Muhammed.

The internet is international - it runs through all cultures and citizenships. So it wasn't just distributed through our culture/citizenship. Plus it's offensive to "domestic" Muslims too, even those who are "culturally" integrated.

We do have the same concepts - we are allowed to make the drawings even though they are not. However I doubt there would have been such an adverse reaction had *all* the images been respectful (likely some radical rantings, but the majority would have viewed it as cultural difference). However because of the amount of racist imagery that was used it's going to be seen as a deliberate attack or insult.

 

[Geekmaster]

how are religious people misguided? according to you? just because we have faith in a being that we cannot prove doesnt make us stupid or misguided. look at some of the theories in physics especially when you talk about black holes or electrons. There are theories of matter appearing in space from nothing, one is made of positive mass while the other is made of negative mass then they cancel each other out. this matter come from nowhere according to physacists, there isnt any "real" proof of it yet many physascists accept it because its convenient, because it explains things well. well to a religious person having faith gives them reason, gives the goals by which to live by, and it gives explains things conveniantly to them. (pls keep in mind im not a expert in physics i just watch ALOT of science television so my claims on pysics may not be put the most eloquently)

Theories in physics. You practically said it yourself.

Thing wonderful thing about science is that there are no absolutes. Just working theories that get revised when proven wrong.

Religion however. The only viable reason to believe in any of them is to have actually witnessed evidence of (or evidence implying) it's existence. Untill then it's merely belief.

As such it should not be taken seriously and it's perfectly ok, to have no respect whatsoever for it. Would you respect someone worshipping aliens?

There's not a single person in the world who can shot a shred of evidence of any kind of God.

I dare you people. Please show me a proper theory of why any religion is true.

We believe in gravity because the THEORY of it works when imposed onto our reality.

Gravity started as an idea, was tested and turned out to work.

Can anyone think of just a single situation where the evidence at hand implies that any religion is factual truth?

It's a simple question really.. Why do you think there is a god? Is there anything implying that there is one? Because there's a lot of things in this world of ours that imply one of three things:

1: There is no such thing as a god.

2: God is completely indifferent to us and as such should not be factored into anything involving us.

And the scary one: There IS indeed a god but he's a sadistic twat of a fuckwitted prick and most definitely the enemy of mankind. He's obviously toying with the naivety of human beings and must enjoy our suffering since he let's us commit so many atrocities in his name. We should, for the sake of humankind, send a really big nuke his/her/it's way the second we discover said entity's location.

Really, someone give me a GOOD reason to believe in god. Not an an emotional one.

And I don't care what you believe in. If you think violance is a proper response to an offensive picture, you're a sick fuck and deserve to be put down. Not because I'll take any pleasure in your demise but because you're simply too dangerous to leave alive.

 

[chaos order]

how are religious people misguided? according to you? just because we have faith in a being that we cannot prove doesnt make us stupid or misguided. look at some of the theories in physics especially when you talk about black holes or electrons. There are theories of matter appearing in space from nothing, one is made of positive mass while the other is made of negative mass then they cancel each other out. this matter come from nowhere according to physacists, there isnt any "real" proof of it yet many physascists accept it because its convenient, because it explains things well. well to a religious person having faith gives them reason, gives the goals by which to live by, and it gives explains things conveniantly to them. (pls keep in mind im not a expert in physics i just watch ALOT of science television so my claims on pysics may not be put the most eloquently)

Theories in physics. You practically said it yourself.

Thing wonderful thing about science is that there are no absolutes. Just working theories that get revised when proven wrong.

Religion however. The only viable reason to believe in any of them is to have actually witnessed evidence of (or evidence implying) it's existence. Untill then it's merely belief.

As such it should not be taken seriously and it's perfectly ok, to have no respect whatsoever for it. Would you respect someone worshipping aliens?

There's not a single person in the world who can shot a shred of evidence of any kind of God.

I dare you people. Please show me a proper theory of why any religion is true.

We believe in gravity because the THEORY of it works when imposed onto our reality.

Gravity started as an idea, was tested and turned out to work.

Can anyone think of just a single situation where the evidence at hand implies that any religion is factual truth?

It's a simple question really.. Why do you think there is a god? Is there anything implying that there is one? Because there's a lot of things in this world of ours that imply one of three things:

1: There is no such thing as a god.

2: God is completely indifferent to us and as such should not be factored into anything involving us.

And the scary one: There IS indeed a god but he's a sadistic twat of a fuckwitted prick and most definitely the enemy of mankind. He's obviously toying with the naivety of human beings and must enjoy our suffering since he let's us commit so many atrocities in his name. We should, for the sake of humankind, send a really big nuke his/her/it's way the second we discover said entity's location.

Really, someone give me a GOOD reason to believe in god. Not an an emotional one.

And I don't care what you believe in. If you think violance is a proper response to an offensive picture, you're a sick fuck and deserve to be put down. Not because I'll take any pleasure in your demise but because you're simply too dangerous to leave alive.

when did i say violence is the best response to an offensive picture?

Also im not saying you should believe in god or have any religion for that matter. All im trying to convey is that relhion does deserve some respect. and my physics example wasnt to prove there is a god just that scientists accept or "believe" in a theory that hasnt been proven but is just convenient to what they perceive is going on in space. Religion is what people BELIEVE in, and it gives them an explanation as to the meaning of existence.