****** vs Images of Muhammed

Is being sensitive to the beliefs of Muslims and not publishing images of the prophet Muhammed materially different from being sensitive to black people and not using the term ****** (apart from the obvious difference that one is seen and the other heard)?

Discuss

****** (except when said by a black guy for whatever arbitrary reason) is an insult. A drawing of a guy is just a drawing of a guy, and if the honestly think there's no way you can draw a guy without insulting them then they're morons or oversensitive or something.

Also there's a world of difference between insulting a race and insulting a belief system.
 
we cannot let the voices of genius....be taken out by the darkness of ignorance and hate...at some point we must make a stand...the threatening and killing of artists...sounds like a good place to start....the muslims in amercia do need to speak out..

What makes you think they don't?
As a pagan do you feel a responsibility to speak out against pagans who do things you don't like? Are Catholics obliged to to condemn the Catholic Chuch over the child abuse scandals? As an atheist it's never once occurred to me to apologize for or scold Atheists that act like assholes. I feel I have no more in common with them than anyone else. I imagine most Muslims feel the same and would be perplexed to think they are expected to defend themselves for the actions of people many Muslims don't even consider to be Muslim.
 
I propose an empirical experiment to resolve this question.

Call Mohammed Ali a ******.

If he threatens to kill you then Islam is easier to offend, if he threatens to sting you like a bee then race is the more serious issue.

If he hugs and kisses you saying you 'thrilled him in Manila' then he is more punchy than we thought.
 
img_blog_naggers.jpg
 
Depends. To give a bit of background information, depictions of Muhammad (SAWS) by kuffar aren't inherently offensive. Muslims were forbidden from depicting the prophet so that Islam wouldn't become steeped in iconography and other forms of idolatry; worshiping or praying to Muhammad or anything other than God is polytheism, and religious paintings and icons tend to give rise to those sorts of things (see Catholicism.) Simply drawing Muhammad out of ignorance of this commandment isn't insulting unless defamation was the artist's intention.

BUY DANISH

Okay then, tell me something...........

Matt Stone and Trey Parker aren't Muslim, they are American and more than likely Christian. You stated that if you're not a Muslim, then depictions of Mo are okay.

So, why the death threats? Is the faith of your people so shaky that something like this can bring it down?

It's a fucking house of cards dude.
 
Matt Stone and Trey Parker aren't Muslim, they are American and more than likely Christian. You stated that if you're not a Muslim, then depictions of Mo are okay.
They're not okay, but they're excusable if the artist draws them out of ignorance. It's a different story if they're intended to ridicule.

So, why the death threats? Is the faith of your people so shaky that something like this can bring it down?
I can't speak for "Abu Talhah al-Amrikee" (Zachary A. Chesser.) You'd have to ask him yourself.

It's a fucking house of cards dude.
For some people, perhaps. Shaykh Abu Baseer al-Tartousi provided a pretty apt description of these kinds of people:

"They are known for their commotion, noise, ranting, lack of manners, bad character – all so that people would think that they are upon some knowledge and action...They utilize the methods of excitement, ranting, raising of voices, excessive zeal, and raising of the slogans of fighting and killing, in order to strike fear into the hearts of those who oppose them – all without any knowledge or insight, or consideration of the guidelines and goals of the Shari'ah. So, you see that they are unable to clearly see beyond their own noses, and this is because they do not wish to see past this!"

http://www.en.altartosi.com/fearfor.htm
 

Forum List

Back
Top