Today is the day! Draw your picture(s) of Muhammad and post em here, on youtube, your blog, facebook, wherever you prefer, and please let us know where we can see them. I'm still debating whether to do a photoshopped version or a freehand version, either will look amateur lol.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tp2DS_oXgIE"]YouTube - ‪Everybody Draw Mohammed Day 2011 Trailer‬‏[/ame]
Distinction: idolatry vs acknowledgment. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f9mHDYXAsM"]YouTube - ‪Draw Muhammad Day (Follow Up)‬‏[/ame]
Whilst I think Draw Mohammad Day is a good idea, I don't think people should do it just too (*)(*)(*)(*) people off. I might draw a picture now and post it - but I'd do so, for general discussion of Mohammad himself, and indeed to reverently depict the man rather than insight rage and anger in Muslims who find it offensive.
But you do admit that people have the right to draw muhammad even if other are going to get pissed off. There is always someone getting pissed off because of the action of others, that is human nature. Should we stop doing things to make a point because we may step on the sensibility of others? That is a slippery slope right there.
Oh hell yes. No, my point was I, personally, I extremely aggravated by people who, quite seriously, want violence to break out. Those Danish cartoons weren't just pictures of Mohammad, they were pictures of Mohammad as a rapist, pedophile and terrorists. Now yes I agree they can do that if they want, but (*)(*)(*)(*) dont be surprised that there's a right near a Danish embassy in Pakistan because of it. Its not like its restricted to Muslims either. In English a cartoon with the Pope with a condom on his sparked rights in London streets. My point is, whilst the latter reaction is never justifiable, the kind of deeds that seek out these (sometimes) violence protests should not be supported. Tolerated yes, but not much else.
Free speech includes the right to blaspheme. No religion can place limits on the exercise of my right to free speech.
The pretzel logic the apologists use in defending the indefensible is, per usual, both amusing and nauseating. The predictable reaction from the Muslim world to this is, also per usual, merely nauseating.
Well, he was a rapist, a pedophile and a terrorist... So I say these picture depict reality more than any percieved insult.
Who did he rape? Which child did he ogle? Who did he terrorize? Sorry you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. I would very much like you to prove that assertion.
No, they weren't. Not one of the original drawings depicted any of that. The drawing that most people took offense to was the one of Mohammed with a bomb in the turban and that wasn't a depiction of Mohammed as a terrorist but simply a commentary on terrorism in the name of Mohammed. Please do not make the same mistake as the Danish Muslims who toured the Arabic countries trying to whip up a storm with a picture of a participant in a French pig squeeling contest by spreading the lie that this completely unrelated photo was made specifically to depict Mohammed and offend Muslims.
1- Aisha 2- Aisha 3- The pagans... I would like for you to get your head out of your ass but that won't happen anytime soon won't it?
No the original ones only depicted him as a terrorist that is true - but it doesn't change my point. Yeah, so a depiction of Mohammad as a terrorist. But you are right that the other ones I mention came out from other, groups and websites. I wasn't. The pictures were still directly intended to offend. 5 out of the twelve pictures you directly intended to provoke outrage.
How and when did he rape here? He married here in an arranged ceremony. Her dairy indicates she eventually consented to the relationship. As backward as that is, it isn't rape by any means. She could have been 20 when they had sex, but she was certainly 14-16. His marriage to her was purely political. Which ones? Its not terrorism to attack people you are at war with mate - especially when you didnt start it. Yeah because it isnt in my ass to begin with. You clearly dont have a clue what you're talking about, but I think you are smart enough to concede defeat when corrected, so we'll see how we go.
You mean 5 out of twelve picture were the artistic representation of what their creator felt about islam and muhammad... This is what artist do, use art to project what they feel about a subject. Are you saying that we should restict how we feel to be in line with some PC bull(*)(*)(*)(*) agenda?
I'm not out to change your point, only to correct errors. No, a depiction of a religious symbol being used in the name of terrorism. In other words, a depiction of terrorists using religion as a justification. It was misunderstood then and apparently still will be misunderstood. Sadly but expectedly. Actually, they weren't really intended to offend but to raise questions about censorship due to fear of offending religious people. Though the offended have a hard time seeing the difference, there is indeed a difference. Anyhow, that's been discussed several years ago already.
I never watch Fox News so stop making ridiculous assumptions to bolster your bloated ego. Anyone with an open eye and ears to match would have seen many Muslims in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 praising these fanatics. I remember very vividly listening to the BBC where a Muslim who had left Northern England and, on his return home, was amazed how many Muslims in that region rejoiced in that event. These were obviously Muslims who had left their homeland but were not shy in demanding social services from their very compliant new homelamd. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
