8 ms·

Today is Everybody Draw Mohammed Day

93 points by mapleoin 16y ago

maqr 16y ago
This is clearly a juvenile attempt to troll a religious group for their beliefs. Everyone who values free speech and reason should support it.
- mortenjorck 16y ago
  Because nothing supports the noble causes of free speech and reason, virtues that have inspired some of the most eloquent and passionate arguments throughout history, like juvenility and trolling. Locke was in it for the lulz, no doubt.
- cscotta 16y ago
  Pardon me, but I'd like to disagree. The murder of Theo van Gogh and subsequent threats against other artists, authors, etc. are terrible acts. No one should be killed for such expression. But I have to say - I find any "juvenile attempt to troll a religious group," well, juvenile and trollish. It is uncivil and rude. It promotes division and distrust, and actively destroys the work many have put into creating safe atmospheres of expression and mutual respect by ridiculing a religious community. I am not a Muslim. The closest affiliation I'd claim might be with some liberal emerging christianities. But I believe in respecting others enough not to make fun of deeply-held beliefs, which I myself do not hold and which do not impact my life but are absolutely central to the worldviews and spirituality of a very signification portion of the world's citizens. I'd suggest that "valuing free speech and reason" needn't involve encouraging socially destructive behavior intent on marginalizing a people group, self-selected or not.
  - jat850 16y ago
    Written much, much better than I could have phrased it - I was searching for a way to write what you just did. Thanks.
  - WestCoastJustin 16y ago
    I disagree with you. When I first watched the south park episode I was very confused.. then I watched the backlash unfold. I think this movement is needed to get this out into the open. What would you say if Skin Heads, KKK, or any other racist organization threaten violence and we bowed out.. stopped the presses and let them have their way. This is what we are doing by tip toeing around the issue in our country, censoring our media, and for what? We need exactly this movement because it is "uncivil and rude".
  - rdtsc 16y ago
    > It promotes division and distrust, and actively destroys the work many have put into creating safe atmospheres of expression and mutual respect by ridiculing a religious community. Nothing promotes more division and distrust like murdering someone for drawing an image or punching someone in the face for it. Yes, if you think about it as "trolling a religious group" it does sound juvenile. But you think about it as an act of solidarity with those who have been killed or punched in the face, then it makes more sense.
gexla 16y ago
Uh, oh, Pakistan is going to ban Wikipedia now.
mike_organon 16y ago
I'd love to see Google celebrate today with their logo. CNN sort of has a drawing on the front page.
- natrius 16y ago
  I don't know what you're talking about. That's clearly Muhammad Ali. It looks nothing like the prophet Muhammad.
dhyasama 16y ago
I can understand protesting against fundamentalists of any type. I was initially concerned this would offend and alienate moderate Muslims. But I have to wonder, would I be offended if someone protested extreme Christians that blow up abortion clinics? I don't think so, and in fact would support the protest. It's ok to protest the actions of a subset of a group. Level-headed people won't be offended.
- potatolicious 16y ago
  > "But I have to wonder, would I be offended if someone protested extreme Christians that blow up abortion clinics?" But this isn't what this is. This is, to use your analogy, someone protesting all Christians in response to some extreme ones that blow up abortion clinics. This is going to do very little good, but a whole lot of harm to inter-faith relations everywhere.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - parfe 16y ago
    The reason Muhammad is not supposed to be drawn/carved/painted etc is to avoid the temptation of worshiping an idol rather than the god itself. The fundamentalists have taken the concept to the extreme and believe he should never be drawn. It's generally accepted among the moderates I know that no one needs to worry about being fooled into watching South Park's drawing of Muhammad and fall to idolatry.
  - adbge 16y ago
    This is someone protesting Muslims that believe that they should be able to infringe upon your freedom of speech because of their religious beliefs. Your apologist attitude and fear of offending someone is, quite frankly, sickening.
  - theorique 16y ago
    But this isn't what this is. This is, to use your analogy, someone protesting all Christians in response to some extreme ones that blow up abortion clinics. It isn't really like protesting Christians per se. It's a bit more like using a symbol dear to Christians' hearts (say, Jesus himself) and then creating a political cartoon that shows Jesus operating as a terrorist and shooting doctors who perform abortions, or blowing up clinics. While depicting Jesus as a terrorist would be offensive to most or all Christians, this is a perfectly permissible political cartoon. [1] This "Draw Muhammad" exercise is a perfectly sensible way for those of us who don't wish to bow down to the threats of Islamic-inspired fascism to contribute our little part to a protest. To say "I live in a republic where the rule of law includes freedom of speech, and not a freedom not to be offended. If you don't like it, draw something that offends me right back." [1] Coincidentally, it would do a great job of contrasting the message of peace that Jesus preached, with the wanton violence perpetrated by some of his contemporary followers.
tzs 16y ago
I lack the artistic skill to draw Mohammed. If I had the skill, my drawing would be of him rubbing himself down with peanut butter. The title would be "Mohammed, peanut butter upon him".
- rdtsc 16y ago
  You can always photoshop something. Be creative. Find an existing Mohammed image on the web , open your favourite image editor, find some peanut butter texture images and collage them together. Use brushes with textures or whatever you feel like doing. The possibilities are limitless... I think some religious groups need to learn about the Streisend Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
- etravers 16y ago
  And what would be your reason for doing this? I really don't understand. I do not follow any religion, but that does not give me the right to ridicule things that others hold dear. It is _my_ opinion that anyone who participates in this is a sheep with a "me too" mentality.
  - cturner 16y ago
    I do not follow any religion, but that does not give me the right to ridicule things that others hold dear. That aspect doesn't give you the right, you have that right regardless.
  - maxharris 16y ago
    I don't think that you understand what a right is. You have the right to say whatever you want, so long as it does not violate the rights (as defined by the Bill of Rights) of another. You have to learn how to think in principle (and identify the correct principles - those that will advance and enhance your life), or your life will turn out to be a mess.
  - tzs 16y ago
    "Mohammed, peanut butter upon him" does not ridicule anything held dear by Muslims. It's just an amusing pun on a common convention of the Muslim world. It does not violate the teachings of the Koran.
potatolicious 16y ago
I think this whole thing is stupid. Don't get me wrong - I think we should have the freedom to draw whatever the hell we want and be free from threats of deadly force. I think all the people who threatened physical harm to the original cartoonist are despicable, but this way of going about it is frankly extremely damaging. Note: I am not Muslim, I am an atheist, and I want to apologize on behalf of atheists who have unfortunately chosen to participant in this disgusting farce. They do not speak for all of us. But, moving along... Most Muslims are against violent reprisal. Are they offended? Yes, but like every other controversial issue in the world, only the extremists would go to the end of harming someone. The internet community that has fueled the popularity of EDMD is ignorant of this, and their numbers are muddied by the many racists and bigots also in participation for the wrong reasons. It's like if the KKK showed up at your political protest - there goes your credibility. As organizers of a principled stand for your rights, you need to make sure that your group cannot be conflated with racists, bigots, and other nasty people. The community around EDMD has done an extremely poor job at it (IMHO mostly because a lot of the core people spreading this around are themselves racist). It is, frankly, juvenile, especially once you read some of the discussion by people who actually are participating in this. Imagine if a group of atheists firebombed a church for making fun of atheism, and the Christians' response is instituting a "mock atheism day". Does this solve any problems? Does it create more understanding? Does this help improve the view, from either side, that most people are actually reasonable, sane people? No, it simply promotes more polarizing viewpoints, more extremism, and eventually more violence from both sides. It is counterproductive and I'm embarrassed that so many atheists, who like to proclaim themselves freethinkers, have gotten on this bandwagon. This isn't a principled stand in response to extremist action - this is an indiscriminate melee of offensive content that is not targeted at the groups and people actually responsible for making threats against people's lives for their expression. Speaking to my Muslim friends, they are as appalled by the violence of extremists as we are - the correct course of action is to work with moderate and liberal Muslims to combat the actions of extremists, not to alienate and offend the allies we need most.
- orblivion 16y ago
  So what if they stuck to, say, "respectable" images of Mohammad? Something that says, "I'm sorry if this offends you, but I fear for my freedom of speech". Doing the same thing but making it clear that it's in self-defense, and that any offense taken is a side-effect?
icey 16y ago
Hacker News??
- pixelbath 16y ago
  I'm a hacker; this is relevant to my interests. I'm sorry that you don't feel the same, but I do support your right to question your beliefs on what this site should be.
  - cturner 16y ago
    How can you be 'sorry' that someone else doesn't feel the same as you? Their feelings are their business. But were you genuinely sorry for something you were doing to cause their ill feeling you wouldn't be apologising in the same breath that you did the thing you were apologising for.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - pixelbath 16y ago
      You're absolutely correct; I'm not sorry at all. I was attempting to be funny, but it's hard to read someone's tone across the Internet. For that, I truly, truly apologize.
    - kevinh 16y ago
      You can be sorry because you believe their viewpoint is inferior or destructive. Sorry doesn't necessarily mean that you are apologizing; it simply means that something is causing you sorrow, and I can certainly see how it could cause someone sorrow that someone else holds a viewpoint that you believe is inferior.
      - cturner 16y ago
        Thanks for respectful answer. I disagree. You wouldn't say 'but' after it. You might say, "I'm sorry, and" - explaining why, and indicating why you thought otherwise. But that's not what happened here. "I'm sorry, but" is trash-talk. It doesn't belong here.
maxharris 16y ago
The principle behind this must not be ignored. If you value your freedom of speech, please participate! Every individual has a right to speech, so long as they are speaking in public or on property that they have a legitimate right to use (either via ownership or by voluntary agreement with the owner). No one - no matter how offended they might be by an idea - has any right to employ force or the threat of force to silence another. When people threaten violent action against someone for offending their religious ideas, they must be challenged and stopped. Without the freedom to speak, we lose all hope of defending our rights by peaceful means.
hristov 16y ago
And when is everybody draw Yahweh day? Or do we defend our precious freedoms of speech by only insulting Muslims.
- tome 16y ago
  I think the point is we only respond when a response is necessary. Avoiding offence is important, but standing up for our rights is more important.
  - saikat 16y ago
    So why decide to insult one giant group of people who didn't threaten anyone (all the Muslims that didn't send out death threats) instead of another (all the Christians that didn't send out death threats)?
    - tome 16y ago
      The outcry is about censorship of a "depiction" of Mohammed on Comedy Central. In order to respond to this censorship we are drawing Mohammed. We're not targeting a particular group of people. Offence is a side-effect. The aim is to stand up against censorship.
      - saikat 16y ago
        That's great, but you are aiming very broadly. The vast majority of people won't know or care what was your aim and what was the side-effect. You are responding to censorship by Comedy Central caused by a subset of Muslims by doing something that offends many Muslims. My point was - if you are already broadening the people you intend to attack for the cause of defending freedom of speech, why limit it to only some that are innocent? You may not be aiming for every Muslim, but that's like me blowing up a building and claiming I was only aiming for one guy in the building that we can all agree was a bad guy.
        tome 16y ago
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
eob 16y ago
How is this relevant to HN?
jacquesm 16y ago
So, am I to conclude we now also have fundamentalist atheists? You don't advance a cause by being antagonistic like this. If you have a problem with Muslims committing violence because of insults to Mohammed (and you should have a problem with that, no matter what your creed) then you don't achieve much by insulting him some more. The better way would be to take it one-on-one with people that display such tendencies (and i'm thinking of moderate Muslims here) that can express in terms that both parties understand why this is not a big deal. Not in a group confrontation like this, mob intelligence is on the whole a lot lower than individual intelligence. The original cartoons were a provocation, this is raising the stakes. What is needed is de-escalation and less fundamentalism, by all parties. You will not change peoples minds by antagonizing them and polarizing the issue. Religious people (of all religions) will have to come to terms with the fact that their religious laws do not apply to those that do not share that religion. This will take another 1,000 years and a few more actions like this and it might take 2,000 years.
- tome 16y ago
  I admire the sentiment, but are you aware of the relative number of muslims and athiests on the planet?
  - jacquesm 16y ago
    Yes, what makes you think I'm not? If I walk up to an American and burn a flag chances are they'll get violent. What's the difference here ? Kick someones symbol on purpose and you kick the person behind it. If you do not wish to be kicked back you educate, not confront. Of course it is stupid, but this is no less stupid, and childish to boot.
    - tome 16y ago
      "The better way would be to take it one-on-one with people that display such tendencies" makes me think you're not. How could that plan possibly work given the numbers involved?
      - 16y ago
jk4930 16y ago
Good thing. We (in most of Europe and parts of the US) tamed much of the Christian violence, now comes the next one. If their "protest" means killing artists, bombing embassies and planes and discotheques, we have to fight back the way fanatics hate most: Laughing into their hateful faces. (If laughing won't help, we still have bombs, too.) And those who think that Muslim extremists aren't a threat to our freedoms (which includes the freedoms of the moderate/secular Muslims as well) should visit Western or Northern Europe and see for themselves. edit: That's what happens in Europe now. (A mild example.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIsC2_KbZfo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIsC2_KbZfo
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
dc2k08 16y ago
Recently during the British elections a photographer placed on his window looking out into the street a poster with a picture of the then candidate for prime minister David Cameron above the caption 'David Cameron Is A Wanker'. An elderly neighbour noticed the poster and alerted the police. A gaggle of bobbies arrived shortly there after, pushed there way into his home and told told the now handcuffed afacer that the poster had to be taken down. When he asked why, he was told that it caused offense. When he asked what the criteria was for that which is determined to be offensive, he was told "that which any reasonable person would find alarming, harassing or distressful" In a hilarious conversation with an inspector of the police some time later, he asked whether he might be allowed to use the word 'tosser' in place. 'No' came the answer. Masturbater?..still 'No'. He suggested onanist as a last resort which flumoxed the inspector. Full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-poster-police http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-poste... My point is that here is a case where freedom of speech is restricted by a government, but we don't see anybody rallying support for 'David Cameron is a Wanker day' not that many people wouldn't enjoy it. Similarly The European Union's Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia states that denying or grossly trivialising "crimes of genocide" should be made "punishable in all EU Member States" but we don't see anybody rallying for a '6 million jews didn't die in the holocast' day. Why is that? I think that although this 'everybody draw mohammed day' wants to wear the mask of 'supporting free speech' - it is at it's heart really just an excuse to bash religionists - an easy target. What's offensive to some, is not offensive to others. If we are to have restrictions in society on what we can and cannot say, do, write or draw then what exactly does and does not get restricted will often be because of some bias on behalf of the lawmaker. In this case the US law sides with the caricaturists, in another instance it might not.
- philwelch 16y ago
  Drawing Muhammed isn't taboo to Westerners, but denying the Holocaust is. So I don't think we should expect an "Everybody Deny the Holocaust Day", or even an "Everybody Wear A Swastika Armband Day" (though if gangs of anti-fascists started killing people for denying the Holocaust...). Europe has worrying levels of political censorship, of course, but they always have and always will. The difference is that no one actually killed anyone for saying "David Cameron Is A Wanker". "John Terry Is A Wanker" might get you bludgeoned to death with a wadded up newspaper, of course, but then football hooliganism is not nearly as tolerated as Islamic hooliganism. That's really the root of the problem here, isn't it?
jfager 16y ago
This whole thing is so lame. Anyone who wants to kill you for drawing a picture already wants to kill you for other reasons, they just haven't singled you out yet. If you're participating in this because you want to stand up to a violent threat, you fail. You're simply saying "I'm afraid of the boogieman, and I can't stand up to him without a herd to hide me". The censorship argument is equally ridiculous. The media censors all kinds of information that would piss of their advertisers and audiences, and a cartoon of a dead religious figure surely ranks among the least significant to anyone's daily life. If you want to get pissed about something, get pissed about the utterly insignificant bullshit that gets paraded around as news every day (hint: EDMD would be a good start).
ErrantX 16y ago
As echoed elsewhere... this is childish, proves nothing and solves nothing. The extremists will be delighted; they get to propagate fear and use this as propaganda. Moderate Muslims will probably consider it a bit childish (and may be offended, that's their right I suppose) Anti-westernism will be bolstered a little more in the Muslim states And people like myself just feel a bit embarrassed to be on the "same side" as these people. Now, if someone wants to sit down and discuss how we could perform a grown up show of strength and unity against extremism then I'm all for it. (I think the first point is the most important one; clearly this is going to backfire because it is the reaction the extremists where looking/hoping for. It's progressing to the point where they don't need to bother trying the actual terrorism any more - certain elements in Western society are scared to death and reacting to just words...)
- tome 16y ago
  Frankly I don't care if anyone is anti-western, so long as "anti-western" means "anti people who are harmlessly drawing pictures". If someone is "anti-western" because of exploitative child labour, pillaging natural resources of the third world, etc. then great, let's sit down and talk. But harmlessly drawing pictures? Come on.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Frankly I don't care if anyone is anti-western, so long as "anti-western" means "anti people who are harmlessly drawing pictures". What I'm trying to say is that the profile of the US (the general symbol of Westernism in Islamic states) is already extremely low. A lot of people consider the US rude and intolerant; that's just the image that has unfortunately developed. Ordinary people in those states are probably looking at this and thinking "well this just proves it doesn't it". I'm not sure alienating people further is a clever idea (us vs. them is one reason why extremism is fostered on both sides). It's not even really about causing offence (as already pointed out, everyone is offended by someone) but about "proving" to people in those states we don't really understand the problem... This is pitched as sticking a finger up to extremists; a sentiment I utterly agree with. What it actually is is feeding them ammunition, and potentially causing more resentment in Mulsim countries. I can't help feeling there is a better way to stick that finger up :) Also; this stinks of fear to me.
OmarIsmail 16y ago
What do people honestly expect to come from this? Anybody that would have been against drawing the Prophet (pbuh) before, will be even moreso now. This day will only 'prove' their assertions that Islam and the West are 'against' one another. And for rational people that just let things slide... well they're not going to be affected by this either. So what is really happening here? I can tell you that as a Muslim I do feel attacked and provoked. Pretty much every one of my regular community sites has a discussion/thread on this topic, so it's difficult for me to avoid it without changing my regular Internet routine for the day. Now, I know that the stupidness of this day isn't directed at me. I'm entirely cognizant that this is a natural reaction by certain groups of people that feel strongly about censorship. So as a Muslim I'm not offended. But I am annoyed. I'm annoyed with the people promoting and enacting this day. I'm annoyed with the extremists that caused the violence that triggered this reaction. I'm annoyed with the oppressive history that helped create these extremists. I'm annoyed with the corrupt politicians and self-seeking 'religious' folk that manipulate people into doing evil acts. Essentially this stupid day is just reminding me that there are a lot of stupid and annoying people out there. Most days I can ignore that and focus on the great things that people do (like here on HN). So what this day did is just made me feel annoyed. I also know that I'm pretty reasonable and rational. If someone like me feels annoyed I know there are other people out there that are going to find even more reason and justification to fuel their violent acts. And that's just going to escalate the situation with an escalated response. All of which will annoy me. Ahh screw this. I'm going outside. ---- without my iPhone.
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Thank you. As an atheist I'm exactly as annoyed by this, and for exactly the same reasons. It really serves no purpose and only causes minds 'close' to be 'closed' a little harder, and for people that are moderate to be upset for no good reason at all.
- tome 16y ago
  You're annoyed, free speech has been defended. I'm sorry if you're upset about that but it sounds like a net win to me, and frankly very little if any harm has been done to you at all. You may not understand this, but censoring South Park was a huge harm to liberal principles.
itistoday 16y ago
I feel like this is something Anonymous would be all over. Any activity/response from "them"?
poppysan 16y ago
OK, I think that legally anyone can make fun of anything, but there should be a limit morally or socially. Why do people feel that because they disagree with someone they must be rude and hurt their feelings. This is a really bad example of protest in my opinion...
Mistone 16y ago
Muslims should be offended by both the South Park episode and this continued effort to offend Muslims by drawing offensive pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), precisely because its extremely offensive. Are death threats by rogue terrorist groups or chat room nerds (who knows) wrong, yes, quite simple everyone gets it. However that does not make dragging this out and going to extremes to further offend a group of people ok. I am Muslim myself, though not devout and lived my my entire life in America (luckily traveled a lot as well). My father converted to Islam so we also don't have a long ancestral/cultural tradition around Islam. I find South Park utterly offensive and choose not to watch it, whether they are making fun of Jews, or Jesus, or whatever. The big difference here is that Jesus has been depicted in pictures for thousands of years, in churches and everywhere, so a stupid tee shirt with Jesus drinking a beer has somehow become not so terribly offensive in 2010. In Islam it is Haram(not advised) to create depictions of the Prophet Mohammed (pboh). There are no pictures of any Prophets in Mosques, and just because people of other religions or no religion don't find it offensive does not make it so. Muslims have a very bad image right now so there is an feeling of antagonism in these types of situations. Its all a bit weird, but intelligent people should just respect other peoples differences rather then dictating how and what is viewed as offensive.
aagha 16y ago
There's an excellent response to this day by Nihad Awad: CAIR: A Muslim Response to 'Draw Muhammad Day' http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-a-muslim-response-to-draw-muhammad-day-94333684.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-a-muslim-respon...
gokhan 16y ago
If you want to fight extremism, try aiming what's fueling it, not the end result.
jokermatt999 16y ago
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/05/20/the-new-free-speech-movement/ http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/05/20/the-new-free-speec... This article basically sums up my thoughts on it. Yes, it's not nice to unfairly antagonize people. However, when it comes down to freedom of speech and being too worried about offending someone on their ridiculous standards, something has to be done. I'm all for living in peace and harmony with people, but I'll be damned if I'm going to censor myself like that or be threatened for drawing a picture. I'm fine if you want to follow whatever rules you feel your god or prophet would like you to uphold (as long as they don't lead you to harming someone else) and as long as you don't try to impose them on others. That's when a line is crossed.

93 points by mapleoin 16y ago

maqr 16y ago

This is clearly a juvenile attempt to troll a religious group for their beliefs. Everyone who values free speech and reason should support it.

mortenjorck 16y ago
Because nothing supports the noble causes of free speech and reason, virtues that have inspired some of the most eloquent and passionate arguments throughout history, like juvenility and trolling. Locke was in it for the lulz, no doubt.
cscotta 16y ago
Pardon me, but I'd like to disagree. The murder of Theo van Gogh and subsequent threats against other artists, authors, etc. are terrible acts. No one should be killed for such expression. But I have to say - I find any "juvenile attempt to troll a religious group," well, juvenile and trollish. It is uncivil and rude. It promotes division and distrust, and actively destroys the work many have put into creating safe atmospheres of expression and mutual respect by ridiculing a religious community. I am not a Muslim. The closest affiliation I'd claim might be with some liberal emerging christianities. But I believe in respecting others enough not to make fun of deeply-held beliefs, which I myself do not hold and which do not impact my life but are absolutely central to the worldviews and spirituality of a very signification portion of the world's citizens. I'd suggest that "valuing free speech and reason" needn't involve encouraging socially destructive behavior intent on marginalizing a people group, self-selected or not.
- jat850 16y ago
  Written much, much better than I could have phrased it - I was searching for a way to write what you just did. Thanks.
- WestCoastJustin 16y ago
  I disagree with you. When I first watched the south park episode I was very confused.. then I watched the backlash unfold. I think this movement is needed to get this out into the open. What would you say if Skin Heads, KKK, or any other racist organization threaten violence and we bowed out.. stopped the presses and let them have their way. This is what we are doing by tip toeing around the issue in our country, censoring our media, and for what? We need exactly this movement because it is "uncivil and rude".
- rdtsc 16y ago
  > It promotes division and distrust, and actively destroys the work many have put into creating safe atmospheres of expression and mutual respect by ridiculing a religious community. Nothing promotes more division and distrust like murdering someone for drawing an image or punching someone in the face for it. Yes, if you think about it as "trolling a religious group" it does sound juvenile. But you think about it as an act of solidarity with those who have been killed or punched in the face, then it makes more sense.

gexla 16y ago

Uh, oh, Pakistan is going to ban Wikipedia now.

mike_organon 16y ago

I'd love to see Google celebrate today with their logo. CNN sort of has a drawing on the front page.

natrius 16y ago
I don't know what you're talking about. That's clearly Muhammad Ali. It looks nothing like the prophet Muhammad.

dhyasama 16y ago

I can understand protesting against fundamentalists of any type. I was initially concerned this would offend and alienate moderate Muslims. But I have to wonder, would I be offended if someone protested extreme Christians that blow up abortion clinics? I don't think so, and in fact would support the protest. It's ok to protest the actions of a subset of a group. Level-headed people won't be offended.

potatolicious 16y ago
> "But I have to wonder, would I be offended if someone protested extreme Christians that blow up abortion clinics?" But this isn't what this is. This is, to use your analogy, someone protesting all Christians in response to some extreme ones that blow up abortion clinics. This is going to do very little good, but a whole lot of harm to inter-faith relations everywhere.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- parfe 16y ago
  The reason Muhammad is not supposed to be drawn/carved/painted etc is to avoid the temptation of worshiping an idol rather than the god itself. The fundamentalists have taken the concept to the extreme and believe he should never be drawn. It's generally accepted among the moderates I know that no one needs to worry about being fooled into watching South Park's drawing of Muhammad and fall to idolatry.
- adbge 16y ago
  This is someone protesting Muslims that believe that they should be able to infringe upon your freedom of speech because of their religious beliefs. Your apologist attitude and fear of offending someone is, quite frankly, sickening.
- theorique 16y ago
  But this isn't what this is. This is, to use your analogy, someone protesting all Christians in response to some extreme ones that blow up abortion clinics. It isn't really like protesting Christians per se. It's a bit more like using a symbol dear to Christians' hearts (say, Jesus himself) and then creating a political cartoon that shows Jesus operating as a terrorist and shooting doctors who perform abortions, or blowing up clinics. While depicting Jesus as a terrorist would be offensive to most or all Christians, this is a perfectly permissible political cartoon. [1] This "Draw Muhammad" exercise is a perfectly sensible way for those of us who don't wish to bow down to the threats of Islamic-inspired fascism to contribute our little part to a protest. To say "I live in a republic where the rule of law includes freedom of speech, and not a freedom not to be offended. If you don't like it, draw something that offends me right back." [1] Coincidentally, it would do a great job of contrasting the message of peace that Jesus preached, with the wanton violence perpetrated by some of his contemporary followers.

tzs 16y ago

I lack the artistic skill to draw Mohammed. If I had the skill, my drawing would be of him rubbing himself down with peanut butter. The title would be "Mohammed, peanut butter upon him".

rdtsc 16y ago
You can always photoshop something. Be creative. Find an existing Mohammed image on the web , open your favourite image editor, find some peanut butter texture images and collage them together. Use brushes with textures or whatever you feel like doing. The possibilities are limitless... I think some religious groups need to learn about the Streisend Effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
etravers 16y ago
And what would be your reason for doing this? I really don't understand. I do not follow any religion, but that does not give me the right to ridicule things that others hold dear. It is _my_ opinion that anyone who participates in this is a sheep with a "me too" mentality.
- cturner 16y ago
  I do not follow any religion, but that does not give me the right to ridicule things that others hold dear. That aspect doesn't give you the right, you have that right regardless.
- maxharris 16y ago
  I don't think that you understand what a right is. You have the right to say whatever you want, so long as it does not violate the rights (as defined by the Bill of Rights) of another. You have to learn how to think in principle (and identify the correct principles - those that will advance and enhance your life), or your life will turn out to be a mess.
- tzs 16y ago
  "Mohammed, peanut butter upon him" does not ridicule anything held dear by Muslims. It's just an amusing pun on a common convention of the Muslim world. It does not violate the teachings of the Koran.

potatolicious 16y ago

I think this whole thing is stupid. Don't get me wrong - I think we should have the freedom to draw whatever the hell we want and be free from threats of deadly force. I think all the people who threatened physical harm to the original cartoonist are despicable, but this way of going about it is frankly extremely damaging. Note: I am not Muslim, I am an atheist, and I want to apologize on behalf of atheists who have unfortunately chosen to participant in this disgusting farce. They do not speak for all of us. But, moving along... Most Muslims are against violent reprisal. Are they offended? Yes, but like every other controversial issue in the world, only the extremists would go to the end of harming someone. The internet community that has fueled the popularity of EDMD is ignorant of this, and their numbers are muddied by the many racists and bigots also in participation for the wrong reasons. It's like if the KKK showed up at your political protest - there goes your credibility. As organizers of a principled stand for your rights, you need to make sure that your group cannot be conflated with racists, bigots, and other nasty people. The community around EDMD has done an extremely poor job at it (IMHO mostly because a lot of the core people spreading this around are themselves racist). It is, frankly, juvenile, especially once you read some of the discussion by people who actually are participating in this. Imagine if a group of atheists firebombed a church for making fun of atheism, and the Christians' response is instituting a "mock atheism day". Does this solve any problems? Does it create more understanding? Does this help improve the view, from either side, that most people are actually reasonable, sane people? No, it simply promotes more polarizing viewpoints, more extremism, and eventually more violence from both sides. It is counterproductive and I'm embarrassed that so many atheists, who like to proclaim themselves freethinkers, have gotten on this bandwagon. This isn't a principled stand in response to extremist action - this is an indiscriminate melee of offensive content that is not targeted at the groups and people actually responsible for making threats against people's lives for their expression. Speaking to my Muslim friends, they are as appalled by the violence of extremists as we are - the correct course of action is to work with moderate and liberal Muslims to combat the actions of extremists, not to alienate and offend the allies we need most.

orblivion 16y ago
So what if they stuck to, say, "respectable" images of Mohammad? Something that says, "I'm sorry if this offends you, but I fear for my freedom of speech". Doing the same thing but making it clear that it's in self-defense, and that any offense taken is a side-effect?

icey 16y ago

Hacker News??

pixelbath 16y ago
I'm a hacker; this is relevant to my interests. I'm sorry that you don't feel the same, but I do support your right to question your beliefs on what this site should be.
- cturner 16y ago
  How can you be 'sorry' that someone else doesn't feel the same as you? Their feelings are their business. But were you genuinely sorry for something you were doing to cause their ill feeling you wouldn't be apologising in the same breath that you did the thing you were apologising for.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - pixelbath 16y ago
    You're absolutely correct; I'm not sorry at all. I was attempting to be funny, but it's hard to read someone's tone across the Internet. For that, I truly, truly apologize.
  - kevinh 16y ago
    You can be sorry because you believe their viewpoint is inferior or destructive. Sorry doesn't necessarily mean that you are apologizing; it simply means that something is causing you sorrow, and I can certainly see how it could cause someone sorrow that someone else holds a viewpoint that you believe is inferior.
    - cturner 16y ago
      Thanks for respectful answer. I disagree. You wouldn't say 'but' after it. You might say, "I'm sorry, and" - explaining why, and indicating why you thought otherwise. But that's not what happened here. "I'm sorry, but" is trash-talk. It doesn't belong here.

maxharris 16y ago

The principle behind this must not be ignored. If you value your freedom of speech, please participate! Every individual has a right to speech, so long as they are speaking in public or on property that they have a legitimate right to use (either via ownership or by voluntary agreement with the owner). No one - no matter how offended they might be by an idea - has any right to employ force or the threat of force to silence another. When people threaten violent action against someone for offending their religious ideas, they must be challenged and stopped. Without the freedom to speak, we lose all hope of defending our rights by peaceful means.

hristov 16y ago

And when is everybody draw Yahweh day? Or do we defend our precious freedoms of speech by only insulting Muslims.

tome 16y ago
I think the point is we only respond when a response is necessary. Avoiding offence is important, but standing up for our rights is more important.
- saikat 16y ago
  So why decide to insult one giant group of people who didn't threaten anyone (all the Muslims that didn't send out death threats) instead of another (all the Christians that didn't send out death threats)?
  - tome 16y ago
    The outcry is about censorship of a "depiction" of Mohammed on Comedy Central. In order to respond to this censorship we are drawing Mohammed. We're not targeting a particular group of people. Offence is a side-effect. The aim is to stand up against censorship.
    - saikat 16y ago
      That's great, but you are aiming very broadly. The vast majority of people won't know or care what was your aim and what was the side-effect. You are responding to censorship by Comedy Central caused by a subset of Muslims by doing something that offends many Muslims. My point was - if you are already broadening the people you intend to attack for the cause of defending freedom of speech, why limit it to only some that are innocent? You may not be aiming for every Muslim, but that's like me blowing up a building and claiming I was only aiming for one guy in the building that we can all agree was a bad guy.
      - tome 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

eob 16y ago

How is this relevant to HN?

jacquesm 16y ago

So, am I to conclude we now also have fundamentalist atheists? You don't advance a cause by being antagonistic like this. If you have a problem with Muslims committing violence because of insults to Mohammed (and you should have a problem with that, no matter what your creed) then you don't achieve much by insulting him some more. The better way would be to take it one-on-one with people that display such tendencies (and i'm thinking of moderate Muslims here) that can express in terms that both parties understand why this is not a big deal. Not in a group confrontation like this, mob intelligence is on the whole a lot lower than individual intelligence. The original cartoons were a provocation, this is raising the stakes. What is needed is de-escalation and less fundamentalism, by all parties. You will not change peoples minds by antagonizing them and polarizing the issue. Religious people (of all religions) will have to come to terms with the fact that their religious laws do not apply to those that do not share that religion. This will take another 1,000 years and a few more actions like this and it might take 2,000 years.

tome 16y ago
I admire the sentiment, but are you aware of the relative number of muslims and athiests on the planet?
- jacquesm 16y ago
  Yes, what makes you think I'm not? If I walk up to an American and burn a flag chances are they'll get violent. What's the difference here ? Kick someones symbol on purpose and you kick the person behind it. If you do not wish to be kicked back you educate, not confront. Of course it is stupid, but this is no less stupid, and childish to boot.
  - tome 16y ago
    "The better way would be to take it one-on-one with people that display such tendencies" makes me think you're not. How could that plan possibly work given the numbers involved?
    - 16y ago

jk4930 16y ago

Good thing. We (in most of Europe and parts of the US) tamed much of the Christian violence, now comes the next one. If their "protest" means killing artists, bombing embassies and planes and discotheques, we have to fight back the way fanatics hate most: Laughing into their hateful faces. (If laughing won't help, we still have bombs, too.) And those who think that Muslim extremists aren't a threat to our freedoms (which includes the freedoms of the moderate/secular Muslims as well) should visit Western or Northern Europe and see for themselves. edit: That's what happens in Europe now. (A mild example.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIsC2_KbZfo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIsC2_KbZfo

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

dc2k08 16y ago

Recently during the British elections a photographer placed on his window looking out into the street a poster with a picture of the then candidate for prime minister David Cameron above the caption 'David Cameron Is A Wanker'. An elderly neighbour noticed the poster and alerted the police. A gaggle of bobbies arrived shortly there after, pushed there way into his home and told told the now handcuffed afacer that the poster had to be taken down. When he asked why, he was told that it caused offense. When he asked what the criteria was for that which is determined to be offensive, he was told "that which any reasonable person would find alarming, harassing or distressful" In a hilarious conversation with an inspector of the police some time later, he asked whether he might be allowed to use the word 'tosser' in place. 'No' came the answer. Masturbater?..still 'No'. He suggested onanist as a last resort which flumoxed the inspector. Full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-poster-police http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/11/david-cameron-poste... My point is that here is a case where freedom of speech is restricted by a government, but we don't see anybody rallying support for 'David Cameron is a Wanker day' not that many people wouldn't enjoy it. Similarly The European Union's Framework decision on Racism and Xenophobia states that denying or grossly trivialising "crimes of genocide" should be made "punishable in all EU Member States" but we don't see anybody rallying for a '6 million jews didn't die in the holocast' day. Why is that? I think that although this 'everybody draw mohammed day' wants to wear the mask of 'supporting free speech' - it is at it's heart really just an excuse to bash religionists - an easy target. What's offensive to some, is not offensive to others. If we are to have restrictions in society on what we can and cannot say, do, write or draw then what exactly does and does not get restricted will often be because of some bias on behalf of the lawmaker. In this case the US law sides with the caricaturists, in another instance it might not.

philwelch 16y ago
Drawing Muhammed isn't taboo to Westerners, but denying the Holocaust is. So I don't think we should expect an "Everybody Deny the Holocaust Day", or even an "Everybody Wear A Swastika Armband Day" (though if gangs of anti-fascists started killing people for denying the Holocaust...). Europe has worrying levels of political censorship, of course, but they always have and always will. The difference is that no one actually killed anyone for saying "David Cameron Is A Wanker". "John Terry Is A Wanker" might get you bludgeoned to death with a wadded up newspaper, of course, but then football hooliganism is not nearly as tolerated as Islamic hooliganism. That's really the root of the problem here, isn't it?

jfager 16y ago

This whole thing is so lame. Anyone who wants to kill you for drawing a picture already wants to kill you for other reasons, they just haven't singled you out yet. If you're participating in this because you want to stand up to a violent threat, you fail. You're simply saying "I'm afraid of the boogieman, and I can't stand up to him without a herd to hide me". The censorship argument is equally ridiculous. The media censors all kinds of information that would piss of their advertisers and audiences, and a cartoon of a dead religious figure surely ranks among the least significant to anyone's daily life. If you want to get pissed about something, get pissed about the utterly insignificant bullshit that gets paraded around as news every day (hint: EDMD would be a good start).

ErrantX 16y ago

As echoed elsewhere... this is childish, proves nothing and solves nothing. The extremists will be delighted; they get to propagate fear and use this as propaganda. Moderate Muslims will probably consider it a bit childish (and may be offended, that's their right I suppose) Anti-westernism will be bolstered a little more in the Muslim states And people like myself just feel a bit embarrassed to be on the "same side" as these people. Now, if someone wants to sit down and discuss how we could perform a grown up show of strength and unity against extremism then I'm all for it. (I think the first point is the most important one; clearly this is going to backfire because it is the reaction the extremists where looking/hoping for. It's progressing to the point where they don't need to bother trying the actual terrorism any more - certain elements in Western society are scared to death and reacting to just words...)

tome 16y ago
Frankly I don't care if anyone is anti-western, so long as "anti-western" means "anti people who are harmlessly drawing pictures". If someone is "anti-western" because of exploitative child labour, pillaging natural resources of the third world, etc. then great, let's sit down and talk. But harmlessly drawing pictures? Come on.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  Frankly I don't care if anyone is anti-western, so long as "anti-western" means "anti people who are harmlessly drawing pictures". What I'm trying to say is that the profile of the US (the general symbol of Westernism in Islamic states) is already extremely low. A lot of people consider the US rude and intolerant; that's just the image that has unfortunately developed. Ordinary people in those states are probably looking at this and thinking "well this just proves it doesn't it". I'm not sure alienating people further is a clever idea (us vs. them is one reason why extremism is fostered on both sides). It's not even really about causing offence (as already pointed out, everyone is offended by someone) but about "proving" to people in those states we don't really understand the problem... This is pitched as sticking a finger up to extremists; a sentiment I utterly agree with. What it actually is is feeding them ammunition, and potentially causing more resentment in Mulsim countries. I can't help feeling there is a better way to stick that finger up :) Also; this stinks of fear to me.

OmarIsmail 16y ago

What do people honestly expect to come from this? Anybody that would have been against drawing the Prophet (pbuh) before, will be even moreso now. This day will only 'prove' their assertions that Islam and the West are 'against' one another. And for rational people that just let things slide... well they're not going to be affected by this either. So what is really happening here? I can tell you that as a Muslim I do feel attacked and provoked. Pretty much every one of my regular community sites has a discussion/thread on this topic, so it's difficult for me to avoid it without changing my regular Internet routine for the day. Now, I know that the stupidness of this day isn't directed at me. I'm entirely cognizant that this is a natural reaction by certain groups of people that feel strongly about censorship. So as a Muslim I'm not offended. But I am annoyed. I'm annoyed with the people promoting and enacting this day. I'm annoyed with the extremists that caused the violence that triggered this reaction. I'm annoyed with the oppressive history that helped create these extremists. I'm annoyed with the corrupt politicians and self-seeking 'religious' folk that manipulate people into doing evil acts. Essentially this stupid day is just reminding me that there are a lot of stupid and annoying people out there. Most days I can ignore that and focus on the great things that people do (like here on HN). So what this day did is just made me feel annoyed. I also know that I'm pretty reasonable and rational. If someone like me feels annoyed I know there are other people out there that are going to find even more reason and justification to fuel their violent acts. And that's just going to escalate the situation with an escalated response. All of which will annoy me. Ahh screw this. I'm going outside. ---- without my iPhone.

jacquesm 16y ago
Thank you. As an atheist I'm exactly as annoyed by this, and for exactly the same reasons. It really serves no purpose and only causes minds 'close' to be 'closed' a little harder, and for people that are moderate to be upset for no good reason at all.
tome 16y ago
You're annoyed, free speech has been defended. I'm sorry if you're upset about that but it sounds like a net win to me, and frankly very little if any harm has been done to you at all. You may not understand this, but censoring South Park was a huge harm to liberal principles.

itistoday 16y ago

I feel like this is something Anonymous would be all over. Any activity/response from "them"?

poppysan 16y ago

OK, I think that legally anyone can make fun of anything, but there should be a limit morally or socially. Why do people feel that because they disagree with someone they must be rude and hurt their feelings. This is a really bad example of protest in my opinion...

Mistone 16y ago

Muslims should be offended by both the South Park episode and this continued effort to offend Muslims by drawing offensive pictures of the Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him), precisely because its extremely offensive. Are death threats by rogue terrorist groups or chat room nerds (who knows) wrong, yes, quite simple everyone gets it. However that does not make dragging this out and going to extremes to further offend a group of people ok. I am Muslim myself, though not devout and lived my my entire life in America (luckily traveled a lot as well). My father converted to Islam so we also don't have a long ancestral/cultural tradition around Islam. I find South Park utterly offensive and choose not to watch it, whether they are making fun of Jews, or Jesus, or whatever. The big difference here is that Jesus has been depicted in pictures for thousands of years, in churches and everywhere, so a stupid tee shirt with Jesus drinking a beer has somehow become not so terribly offensive in 2010. In Islam it is Haram(not advised) to create depictions of the Prophet Mohammed (pboh). There are no pictures of any Prophets in Mosques, and just because people of other religions or no religion don't find it offensive does not make it so. Muslims have a very bad image right now so there is an feeling of antagonism in these types of situations. Its all a bit weird, but intelligent people should just respect other peoples differences rather then dictating how and what is viewed as offensive.

aagha 16y ago

There's an excellent response to this day by Nihad Awad: CAIR: A Muslim Response to 'Draw Muhammad Day' http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-a-muslim-response-to-draw-muhammad-day-94333684.html http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cair-a-muslim-respon...

gokhan 16y ago

If you want to fight extremism, try aiming what's fueling it, not the end result.

jokermatt999 16y ago

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/05/20/the-new-free-speech-movement/ http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/05/20/the-new-free-speec... This article basically sums up my thoughts on it. Yes, it's not nice to unfairly antagonize people. However, when it comes down to freedom of speech and being too worried about offending someone on their ridiculous standards, something has to be done. I'm all for living in peace and harmony with people, but I'll be damned if I'm going to censor myself like that or be threatened for drawing a picture. I'm fine if you want to follow whatever rules you feel your god or prophet would like you to uphold (as long as they don't lead you to harming someone else) and as long as you don't try to impose them on others. That's when a line is crossed.