# Draw Muhammad Day, May 20th



## Raregolddragon (May 2, 2010)

I just want to know if anyone here will be doing there own drawing of Muhammad on the 20th of May?

I see it as a step for free speech and after seeing the 201 episode of South Park being censored and bleeped out, it was testament how fear can control us. 

So I don't draw theses images out of hate or bigotry I draw them at making fun a religion. We all like to make fun of other religions I have seen a lot of stuff with the pope so I really don't see the big deal.  

So See you all on the 20th.


----------



## Holsety (May 2, 2010)

Raregolddragon said:


> *I don't draw theses images out of hate or bigotry* I draw them at making fun a religion.


You're hilarious.


----------



## Mulefa Zalif (May 2, 2010)

There used to be a drawing on VCL (maybe it's still there) of Allah as a saluki. Yes, Allah, the deity of Islam, not Mohammed (pbuh).
Unfortunately, I can't find it anymore. It would create quite a lot of drama and death threats from the peace-loving Muslims of the world.

OP:
You forgot the obligatory "pbuh" after Mohammed. Therefore, every bounty hunter in the galaxy will now be after you.


----------



## Captain Howdy (May 2, 2010)

The difference between the Pope & Catholics, and Muhammad & Islam & Muslims is that the Pope exists, and Catholics aren't nearly as numerous when it comes to violence.


----------



## Aden (May 2, 2010)

Your avatar is horrifying and this is in the wrong section.

\Cool idea though


----------



## TashkentFox (May 2, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The difference between the Pope & Catholics, and Muhammad & Islam & Muslims is that the Pope exists, and Catholics aren't nearly as numerous when it comes to violence.



Most Historians are of the opinion that Mohammed was actually a real person (as is the case with Jesus) though it's highly improbable that he had a direct hotline to Allah.


----------



## TashkentFox (May 2, 2010)

Aden said:


> Your avatar is horrifying



Isn't it Nikola Tesla with some weird bits drawn on?


----------



## Captain Howdy (May 2, 2010)

TashkentFox said:


> Most Historians are of the opinion that Mohammed was actually a real person (as is the case with Jesus) though it's highly improbable that he had a direct hotline to Allah.



I rarely know what I'm talking about, but it's great when I learn things!


----------



## Ilayas (May 2, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The difference between the Pope & Catholics, and Muhammad & Islam & Muslims is that the Pope exists, and Catholics aren't nearly as numerous when it comes to violence.



for some reason I'm reminded of this comic http://www.biggercheese.com/index.php?comic=312


----------



## Tewin Follow (May 2, 2010)

Yeah, you go right on ahead.
We'll catch up with our drawings a little later on. We have... piano lessons on the 20th.


----------



## Attaman (May 2, 2010)

Question:  Isn't drawing Mohammed supposed to be akin to Muslims what defaming a cross is to Christians (specifically:  Disrespecting the religion, in this case by applying an appearance to one who must not be given such)?  Not the exact same, no, but pretty similar?

I'm all for proper debates against religion and the like (I've participated in a few, I think even one or two on FAF), but unless there also happens to be a "Melt a Menorah" day or a "Snap a cross" day, I'm pretty certain that it's basically a one-sided attempt at saying "Neener neener neener" to Muslims. 


Oh, and very off topic but slightly holiday related question:  Would anyone be pissed off if on "Talk Like a Pirate Day" I spoke like a Somali?


----------



## Aden (May 2, 2010)

Attaman said:


> I'm all for proper debates against religion and the like (I've participated in a few, I think even one or two on FAF), but unless there also happens to be a "Melt a Menorah" day or a "Snap a cross" day, I'm pretty certain that it's basically a one-sided attempt at saying "Neener neener neener" to Muslims.



Well no shit.

They're being singled out by these people because they're asking to be singled out in other areas.


----------



## Vriska (May 2, 2010)

Yeah I'm just going to draw a shitty stick figure with paint and put a beard on him.


----------



## laofmoonster (May 3, 2010)

I don't see what this has to do with FAU.
That being said, my facebook profile picture is now a brown stick figure.


----------



## Lobar (May 3, 2010)

Wrongest forum section ever.

In any case, this Facebook Draw Muhammad Day thing follows a similar event at the University of Illinois done by their Atheists, Agnostics & Freethinkers student group.

Their reasons:



			
				U of I AAF said:
			
		

> AAF has wrestled with its collective conscience. It has weighed the dangers, it has been assaulted by the wielders of white guilt, and in the end it has decided that standing up against the enemies of freedom is worth the discomfort of a few who are innocent and our friends. Silencing anyone, including Matt Stone and Trey Parker, via threats and aggression is intolerable; and it will never stop until all of us agree that no one's sacred cow unwrites basic human rights. You can cater to the whims of fundamentalists, or you can cater to fundamental rights, but you can't do both. And Muslim Student Association of U of I, you do cater to the fundamentalists in at least one respect. You talk all day long about peaceful means, condemn threats, fostering discussion, and mutual respect, but at the end of the day your position will still be "those extremists are evil and insane, now do everything they asked because they're totally right about the issue." They aren't right. No one has the special luxury in our society of not being offended. When that principle is threatened, all people of conscience, no matter their religion or politics, must oppose it in whatever ways are available. That's why we risk so much that is precious to us to do what we did. The prospect of your friendship is precious to us. I hope some day you can join us, AAF, and the entire community of religious groups who know that we can coexist only as peers for whom the same rules, not special rules, apply.



Also to CannonFodder if you're reading this thread, note that this is an example of atheists standing up to Islam and that it's nothing new.


----------



## Taren Fox (May 3, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> The difference between the Pope & Catholics, and Muhammad & Islam & Muslims is that the Pope exists, and *Catholics aren't nearly as numerous when it comes to violence.*


Nobody can compete with them for the child molesting title.


----------



## Ilayas (May 3, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Nobody can compete with them for the child molesting title.



They are like international champions!


----------



## Aden (May 3, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Catholics aren't nearly as numerous when it comes to violence.



What time period are we talking here? :V


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 3, 2010)

I'll mark the 20th on the calendar:
"Draw a madman crawling into a cave, hallucinating, and running back into town TWICE as insane."
Now watch the PC Police's Special Appeasement Squad come in and lock this.


----------



## Taren Fox (May 3, 2010)

More people have died and have been killed in the name of the Christian God, than any other man-made cause.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (May 3, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> More people have died and have been killed in the name of the Christian God, than any other man-made cause.


 That's what my signature's for (and everything else they've killed).


----------



## Zydala (May 3, 2010)

Taren Fox said:


> Nobody can compete with them for the child molesting title.



it's funny because it's not true; it's just getting more media attention.

Anyway on topic, I don't know if I like this


----------



## Lobar (May 3, 2010)

Zydala said:


> it's funny because it's not true; it's just getting more media attention.
> 
> Anyway on topic, I don't know if I like this



It's funny because it is true, because nobody protects their pedos like the Papal Patriarchal Pedo-Priest Protection Partnership.

Anyone else touches a kid, he lands his ass in jail.  A priest does it, and he gets a coverup and a free ride to a new congregation to prey upon.


----------



## Zydala (May 3, 2010)

Lobar said:


> It's funny because it is true, because nobody protects their pedos like the Papal Patriarchal Pedo-Priest Protection Partnership.
> 
> Anyone else touches a kid, he lands his ass in jail.  A priest does it, and he gets a coverup and a free ride to a new congregation to prey upon.



I wasn't saying that the church isn't being stupid about it, just statistically there's just as many child molesters in the church as there is in the general population.

It's screwed up no matter which way you go about it, since in a perfect world there'd be a zip-amount of them and the catholic church would have gone the right way about all of this instead of covering their butts.


----------



## Lobar (May 5, 2010)

Okay, I'm bumping this, because this is too silly not to post.

So the Atheists, Humanists & Agnostics student group at the University of Wisconsin - Madison decided to follow the lead of their sister group at the U of I and had their own Draw Muhammad Day.  So as not to surprise them and to make their intentions clear, they emailed the head of the Muslim Student Alliance to tell them what they were planning.  They made clear that it was a statement of defending free speech, not hate.

The response was less than cordial.  The MSA stated their intent to contact the Dean to prevent the chalking of little stick figure Muhammads across campus.  So the AHA met with the Dean themselves and got the OK.  Defeated but not deterred, on the day of the chalking the MSA showed up where the AHA was meeting and stalked them all around campus as they chalked their Muhammads.

Why?

To write the word "Ali" after every instance of the word "Muhammad", and to draw little boxing gloves on each stick figure as they were completed.  You know, like Muhammad Ali.  The boxer.

Like this.

Over a hundred stick depictions of the prophet were produced, and all of them were quickly altered into the boxing legend instead.

Admittedly, it was a witty solution on the MSA's part.  But that they felt they needed to do this at all is astounding.  You'd think after lacing up the gloves on stick figure #70 or so they'd stop and say"...just what the hell are we _doing?_".  While I'm glad nobody resorted to violence (boy is that setting the bar low or what?), even this group of moderate Muslims with a sense of humor and everything felt compelled to go out and quash free speech,  Harmless free speech being made to make a point about free speech, which they were fully aware of, and they still could not abide it.  That's why events like this need to continue, until all those who oppose free speech can see the folly of their actions.


----------



## Zydala (May 5, 2010)

To us it's free speech, but to them it's a large group of people desecrating one of their most important religious symbols under the guise that they should be able to do it. To them it's the equivalent of walking down a street and seeing slurs against you chalked up all over the walls. It's not like they weren't practicing their own free speech skills by masking it up - I think it's a chance for them to express how important the act of keeping Muhammad sacred really is to them.

I don't really see the point in this drawing Muhammad thing anyway. We shouldn't have to feel like we can't perform an act out of fear, but it's not really proving anything that the Middle Eastern world and the Muslim population doesn't know already - that Americans are big, insensitive dicks that can't be bothered to think about anybody's feelings outside of their own backyard.

(that deleted message was me; I was logged into my gf's account oops)


----------



## Aden (May 5, 2010)

*Lobar*: Should have whipped out ladders at the last minute, drew Muhammed figures really high up on buildings, and then taken the ladders with them


----------



## Mayonnaise (May 5, 2010)

;_;

WHY?


----------



## Redregon (May 5, 2010)

Raregolddragon said:


> I just want to know if anyone here will be doing there own drawing of Muhammad on the 20th of May?
> 
> I see it as a step for free speech and after seeing the 201 episode of South Park being censored and bleeped out, it was testament how fear can control us.
> 
> ...



i might, going to try for something respectful to kinda balance out all the lulzy, trying-so-hard-to-be-offensive types that we both know is going to flood the net. 

not because i'm afraid of inciting the ire of any muslims that might see it, but because i just don't see the point of trying to draw him doing nasty shit. i may not agree with the actions of a select few that call themselves islamic, but that's not going to stop me from trying to pay my respects to their prophet.


----------



## HyenaIsSpider (May 5, 2010)

I will not be participating. 

There are better ways to enjoy freedom of speech.


----------



## Zydala (May 6, 2010)

HyenaIsSpider said:


> I will not be participating.
> 
> There are better ways to enjoy freedom of speech.



Much better ways that are beneficial to everyone!


----------



## Lobar (May 6, 2010)

Zydala said:


> To us it's free speech, but to them it's a large group of people desecrating one of their most important religious symbols under the guise that they should be able to do it. To them it's the equivalent of walking down a street and seeing slurs against you chalked up all over the walls.



It should be free speech to everyone.  Every effort was made to make the intent clear - that this was an act protesting censorship through fear.  There is no "guise", this was the earnest intent of the AHA and the AAF and there's no reason to assume otherwise.  There's no excuse here.  The MSA willfully chose to be enemies of free speech in this case.



Zydala said:


> It's not like they weren't practicing their own free speech skills by masking it up - I think it's a chance for them to express how important the act of keeping Muhammad sacred really is to them.



If they had put up something representing their own views alongside the AHA's drawings, that would have been practicing free speech.  But when they altered the work of others to change its meaning, that crossed the line and became an act of censorship.



Zydala said:


> I don't really see the point in this drawing Muhammad thing anyway. *We shouldn't have to feel like we can't perform an act out of fear*,



Answered your own question.  This follows a recent incident where death threats were sent to the creators of South Park to censor an episode of their show.  This is a message that we as Americans refuse to be intimidated into silence.

Going through life without ever offending anyone is not a virtue.  Ancient superstitions, magical thinking, and the institutions that promote them cause far more harm than simple butthurt.  Confrontation may be uncomfortable, but that doesn't make avoiding it a _moral_ action, particularly when it also avoids a larger moral issue.  We need to preserve our right to criticize them


----------



## Zydala (May 6, 2010)

How is saying "look, we're taking one of your most holy icons and desecrating it all over the school in a manner that is offensive to you, but IT'S TOTALLY JUST TO SHOW WE CAN IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE MEAN OKAY GUYS" justified in the slightest? They might have meant the best, I'm not saying they didn't, but I feel like they were being ignorant to their feelings, and also the road to hell etc. I'm just trying to point out, they're not just making a statement to the people they want to speak out to and criticize, like middle eastern terrorists - they're blanketing every practicing Muslim (who may have disliked the radicals and had no beef with anyone else in the first place) and offending them at the same time. It's not a great strategy.

Isn't not allowing the Muslim Association to take the images and edit them to make their own image and commentary on their values and reaction similar to censoring their own voice? They're allowed to say that they feel this act is wrong, aren't they? I feel like it's a pretty powerful commentary on how much it means to them. Maybe they could have found another way, sure, but so could the people drawing the stick figures in the first place.

And that's not what I meant at all when I said that I don't see the reason behind it. You SHOULDN'T have to let fear censor you, but there's a fine line between saying your own opinion and doing so to provoke. Offending people is going to happen no matter what, because this is a world with differing opinions. But more often than not if you put a little effort into it you can do so with grace and receive a mutually beneficial relationship. Sometimes contrast of opinions is good, especially when you can see both sides and it strengthens and modifies your own beliefs on the world. But having the gift of free speech is being able to know when to use it. The people who spout off their mouth and don't consider the people around them and make offensive statements because they can aren't going to be the popular kids, and it doesn't necessarily guarantee that their opinion is correct in the first place. They have the freedom to make an ass of themselves, though.

I understand the points you're making, though, Lobar. And I usually find something to agree with when you post in the other forums (though I'm not as active there). I know you have a strong feeling about the religious themes though, so I'm just trying to be devil's advocate here. It's not something we gotta agree on (and that's okay!).


----------



## Ozriel (May 6, 2010)

Lol double standards.

Nope, I will not participate in it.


----------



## Lobar (May 7, 2010)

Just a couple points:



Zydala said:


> they're blanketing every practicing Muslim (who may have disliked the radicals and had no beef with anyone else in the first place)



First off: Nobody is saying the MSA are radicals, or that they sympathize with terrorists, or are in any way equitable to extremists.  It is recognized that there is a huge difference between moderate Muslims and the Wahabbist radicals.

However, we do not see any benefit to any religion at all, not even in the most moderate form of any faith.  There is no point in putting forth extra effort and discarding good arguments to surgically target only the most flagrant offenders to reason, just for the sake of sparing that which, while not nearly as bad as the rest, is still not worth saving.



Zydala said:


> Isn't not allowing the Muslim Association to take the images and edit them to make their own image and commentary on their values and reaction similar to censoring their own voice? They're allowed to say that they feel this act is wrong, aren't they?



They're allowed to say whatever they want, provided they don't vandalize the expression of others to do it (and that's exactly what it was: vandalism). That's not free speech, that's an act of silencing others, by altering what they had to say (and since my last post, a lot of the "Muhammad" names have been rubbed out entirely).  That's censorship.  I have a hard time believing you can't see the difference, and I think your feelings are getting in the way of recognizing the MSA crossed the line with their reaction.

For everything else, I let Chris Calvey, president of the AHA at the U of W, speak for himself:



			
				Chris Calvey said:
			
		

> A common sentiment Iâ€™ve heard the past few days went a little something like this: â€œIâ€™m totally in favor of free speech and all, but what youâ€™re doing is needlessly offensive. Just because you can draw Muhammad doesnâ€™t mean that you should.â€ And my response was simple â€” we shall see if I can.
> 
> As it turns out, no, you cannot draw depictions of Muhammad in Madison. At least, not without having them immediately changed to pictures of Muhammad Ali, and not without having them censored the next day. Letâ€™s imagine an alternate universe. Letâ€™s say the drawings were never tampered with, but instead were met with nothing more than shrugged shoulders and public admonishment for our childish behavior. In this scenario the egg would be on our faces. Instead, suffice it to say that our point has been proven. The right to criticize religion and perform blasphemous acts needs to be defended more than ever.


----------



## Duality Jack (May 7, 2010)

lol the media and the fundie Muslums. 

The press was all "lets be controversial and get more attention by offending people" and then whine and cry about how when they offended people they lashed back. Hard. Its like the little brother who pokes the big brother over and over and over and cries when he gets punched. Both are wrong.


----------



## Lobar (May 7, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> lol the media and the fundie Muslums.
> 
> The press was all "lets be controversial and get more attention by offending people" and then whine and cry about how when they offended people they lashed back. Hard. Its like the little brother who pokes the big brother over and over and over and cries when he gets punched. Both are wrong.



I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.  Are you drunkposting?


----------



## Duality Jack (May 7, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I have no idea what the hell you're talking about.  Are you drunkposting?


No.

Media draws mohommid and causes riots
Media claims it did not expect the response. 

Media was retarded. 

BETTER>??  DURP


----------



## Lobar (May 7, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> No.
> 
> Media draws mohommid and causes riots
> Media claims it did not expect the response.
> ...



"Media" did not draw Mohammad.

Unless South Park is the media now, and I'm sure they expected some sort of response, if not the one they got specifically.


----------



## Duality Jack (May 7, 2010)

Lobar said:


> "Media" did not draw Mohammad.
> 
> Unless South Park is the media now, and I'm sure they expected some sort of response, if not the one they got specifically.


 lol look back at when someone made an editorial comic and it lead to mass riots and death threats.


----------



## Aden (May 7, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> lol look back at when someone made an editorial comic and it lead to mass riots and death threats.



And that's exactly the point of this day. They're saying "lighten up about cartoons of Muhammed, already". Someone shouldn't have to put their life in jeopardy for exercising their freedom of speech. It's a blunt way to go about it, sure, but sometimes that's just what you need.


----------



## Lobar (May 7, 2010)

The Drunken Ace said:


> lol look back at when someone made an editorial comic and it lead to mass riots and death threats.



That's old news and not what this thread is about.

Also, why is this thread in Palette Town?  It'd fit much better in Off-Topic.


----------



## Zydala (May 7, 2010)

Lobar said:


> That's old news and not what this thread is about.
> 
> Also, why is this thread in Palette Town?  It'd fit much better in Off-Topic.



I guess because it has to do with drawing and asking whose participating in the event, but I think it's slightly derailed now 9: I agree though, I think this probably doesn't -quite- fit here, haha


----------

