Sometimes I try to understand other people, sometimes I give up. I don't know the context. http://ow.ly/i/1GoV
That's probably a protest against Western culture and Westernization.
Political Atheists Blog
Maybe it has something to do with certain Westerners wanting to depict and poke fun at Mohammed?
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
Vitor, you aren't really helping the discussion here.
I'm ok with free speech in the sense that I'm ok with racism; people can express themselves as the please, and associate with whom they want for whatever reason, but sometimes forms of these things may be detestable.
We're going to get some bad with the good, but should liberty be used to push people's buttons and piss them off? Is free speech based on the idea that we have a positive right to make people angry?
sticks and stones...
I think they are trying to prove discourse ethics... without knowing it.
Yo dawg, I didn't know making jokes of Xzibit hurts feelings.
And Mohammed looks handsome in the image I posted.
If freedom of expression is so bad why this woman doesn't take a cup of stfu? Her double-think delights me.
How old is this photo? I think I had seen it years ago.
The saddest thing is that the edict discouraging graphical depictions of Muhammad was intended to make sure that Islam did not fall prey to idolatry - the focus of veneration was to be on Allah alone, as Muhammad was just the messenger.
Now, the strong focus on non-depiction of Muhammad has caused his persona to become a holy, inviolable figure in reverse - an invisible idol. It used to be that smashing an idol would be taboo. In this case, creating one is. But the end result is the same - Muhammad has become a focus of religious passion in exactly the way he was NOT intended to be.
I think the irony of that is lost on most extremist muslims, unfortunately. It would be much more in line with the spirit of the edict to ignore what the infidels are doing, since them depicting Muhammad does not lead to idolatry.
Yo dawg, I didn't know making jokes of Xzibit hurts feelings. And Mohammed looks handsome in the image I posted. If freedom of expression is so bad why this woman doesn't take a cup of stfu? Her double-think delights me.
Why is it that people fail to see the point I make when it comes to this topic?
It would be much more in line with the spirit of the edict to ignore what the infidels are doing, since them depicting Muhammad does not lead to idolatry.
Completely agree.
"The saddest thing is that the edict discouraging graphical depictions of Muhammad was intended to make sure that Islam did not fall prey to idolatry - the focus of veneration was to be on Allah alone, as Muhammad was just the messenger.
I think the irony of that is lost on most extremist muslims, unfortunately. It would be much more in line with the spirit of the edict to ignore what the infidels are doing, since them depicting Muhammad does not lead to idolatry."
I once had the opportunity to talk with a muslim daily for a couple of months. They treat Muhammad like a demi-god, Muhammad was a genius, smart, wise, never did wrong. Ended up being less interesting than the hebrews patriachs whose malice and conflicts are exposed well.
Quote by Vitor:I once had the opportunity to talk with a muslim daily for a couple of months. They treat Muhammad like a demi-god, Muhammad was a genius, smart, wise, never did wrong. Ended up being less interesting than the hebrews patriachs whose malice and conflicts are exposed well."
Well you first said you had the opportunity to talk with A muslim(as in one) for a couple of months, then you say "They treat Muhammad" indicating you collectivized all of us from this one experience...so I feel compelled to respond as a Muslim myself.
. Muhammad is not to be treated like a demi-god and it is never the case that he never did any wrong. Quran itself tells you that Muhammad is a normal man like any other who makes mistakes and can't see the future or anything like that. His purpose is to deliver the message(which is Quran). Sometimes people treat him as a role-model yes, but that's not the same level of respect you just attributed to him(demi-god).
Its a habit for people to venerate Muhammad to that God-like status but that's exactly what Muslims are to avoid as was stated earlier. That was kind of the point of the Quran making the claim that Jesus was a prophet of God but he was not "God in human form" as some may believe. That God has no partners is a bit crucial to it all.
But really its not that people are mad just because there are bad images or bad things said about Muhammad(I find it funny that years ago when South Park did air an episode that showed Muhammad, no one in the whole world gave a shit. Now all of a sudden its an issue time and time again. Something seems off to me). If the western world had never intervened in any Muslim country, no one would give a damn. But since they constantly are doing so, every western insult hurts 10x more. Attacks on Muhammad are as attacks on THEM, on their way of life, on everything they do from when they wake up to when they go to sleep. So when US and other western bombs are dropping on their houses, and on top of that westerners are also making fun of whats important to them, of course they're gonna get mad.
How many Americans would get pissed off if Muslims were drawing all the founding fathers, as slave-trading rapists. Probably not any of the Americans on this website, but I'm sure there'd be plenty of unhappy people who are just as ready to find some "ragheads" working at a nearby gas station to beat their ass.
The image makes sense, considering that liberalism is largely a product of the enlightenment and this person is still living in the Iron Age.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
Or maybe that person isn't living in the iron age. And the protest is more regarding western imperialism which seeks to impose its own version of freedom. Those people don't just wake up one day and realize that they hate Western freedoms. You're probably being sarcastic or something because I don't see why you'd write something like that.
I honestly find that very unlikely. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the muslim backlash regarding what they view as blasphemy. Sure, US foreign policy and the political situation in the area is relevant but I think it is a marvelous work of religious apologetics to spin this as politically motivated when the very sign she is carrying speaks otherwise.
I'm very familiar with the whole "backlash" regarding what is viewed as blasphemy in Islam, I am Muslim, I know Muslims who protest US foreign policy and do it just like that woman does it(which I think is poor because it gives misunderstandings like the one you have, but you do come off talking like some high and mighty intellectual who's absolutely sure that the person in the image is a savage).But it really has nothing to do with the images of Muhammad being drawn and it has everything to do with "Western" foreign policy. Those images are seen as propaganda to further bring upon more misery to the Muslim world and entice more hatred. It has nothing to do with being a religious apologetic, its the truth. The images just drive the point further to them that yes indeed the West does want to impose its values and rules everywhere and will shit on whatever you think is important. Western foreign policy and the political situation is not just "relevant"- it is everything. I think its marvelous that even libertarians embrace collectivism.
Sorry if I sound like I took this a bit personally.
I'm sorry, freedom of expression is imposing Western values? If that is the case than I'm all for Western cultural imperialism. And just so there is no misunderstanding, when I spoke of living in the Iron Age I was referring to what I perhaps incorrectly assume to be her religious superstition; I did not mean to imply that the person was a savage for any reason other than that.
I still think you are being intentionally naive. There is plenty of evidence to be found online that this is largely a product of religious indoctrination.
The unacceptability of being offended in current times actually increases violence in the world. Think about all the gang violence that revolves around being "dissed," especially where shoes are damaged. Then there's schoolyard fights, family feuds (not involving Richard Dawson), and of course, the cartoon rage. Making offenses seem more "offensive" in an attempt to produce a sugar-coated society raises the bar for the level of response. No wonder "Afterthought: The unacceptability of being offended in current times actually increases violence in the world. Think about all the gang violence that revolves around being "dissed," especially where shoes are damaged. Then there's schoolyard fights, family feuds (not involving Richard Dawson), and of course, the cartoon rage. Making offenses seem more "offensive" in an attempt to produce a sugar-coated society raises the bar for the level of response. No wonder "anger management" is such a hot industry as society becomes more politically incorrect. We're merely lowering our threshhold of pain.
Afterthought: The unacceptability of being offended in current times actually increases violence in the world.
Think about all the gang violence that revolves around being "dissed," especially where shoes are damaged. Then there's schoolyard fights, family feuds (not involving Richard Dawson), and of course, the cartoon rage.
Making offenses seem more "offensive" in an attempt to produce a sugar-coated society raises the bar for the level of response.
No wonder "anger management" is such a hot industry as society becomes more politically incorrect. We're merely lowering our threshhold of pain.
Bingo.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
I think the sign is trying to say that blowing up stuff is muslim terrorism, but that drawing up pictures of Mohammed just to be a jerk is its western counterpart. I don't think it is likely that the persons holding this thinks freedom of expression = terrorism. I think what it is saying is that freedom of expression used just for the purpose to be a jerk and get a reaction from the muslims is bad.
I think this because Mohammed drawers defended themselves with this freedom of expression phrase so for this person it became synonymous with being a jerk towards muslims. Probably their english is not that good, and they are not on best of terms with some of this concepts. And terrorism is synonymous with bad everywhere.
But really this is just one picture and an old one at that. How long is it going to continue to be used to paint a huge number of people with a broad brush? Also I don't agree with the sign myself. I think western terrorism is not being a jerk, it is blowing up countries, muslim and otherwise.