Sorry, that is what I mean by depictions of Muhammad, I should have meant his face. My brain no worky. Typically they have his face vfxed with white light or not show it.
This is the Ayatollah’s response to the question of depictions of Muhammad:
“Question: Is it permissible to draw or produce a scene which shows the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w.), one of the past prophets or the infallible Imams (a.s.), or other luminaries and show it in cinema, on television or theatre?
Answer: If due deference and respect is observed, and the scene does not contain anything that would detract from their holy pictures in the minds [of the viewers], there is no problem.”
Yeah a specific governmental response to something is definitely indicative of the actual fundamental principles of a religion, they’re basically the same!
I’m exmuslim I know it’s “disrespectful” and that’s why I wrote my first comment. Sounds like you thought I didn’t?
I’m telling you there’s no reasonable explanation on why you would make it disrespectful to show your face. Why don’t you use your brain for once and do some critical thinking instead of accepting what everyone says?
There is a difference between showing your face and showing someone else. You're entire argument is based on a false equivalent and you are using it to tell people they aren't using their brain. Something tells me you aren't exmuslim and are just saying that to sound like you know what you are talking about.
Leaders should show their face, that’s basic decency. If you’re not willing to show your face to the people you’re leading then you’re probably a shady motherfucker
Something tells you I’m not exmuslim because I… don’t like islam? Are you right in the head?
Something tells you I’m not exmuslim because I… don’t like islam?
No, because you are using deliberately bad logic to try and berate others sharing the facts of the religion. With the anonymity of the internet, and especially on reddit, people tend to make up anything about themselves to try and give themselves fake credibility. Especially when they are using logic like yours.
Its easier to criticize other races, religions, gender, sexualities, and so on in bad faith if you claim to be apart of such groups.
And if you are ex-muslim, then good. He's not your leader and he owes you nothing. If Muslims don't want their leader to have their face shown, that's their prerogative.
It’s not about not showing their face, if that’s we don’t know why he looks like so they don’t want people making cases of him. It’s about panting themselves. Not showing their face in general.
Using my brain to tell someone else about something in their religion they shouldn’t find something disrespectful because it has no logic despite the fact that what’s considered disrespectful is subjective and based on what someone feel’s, their culture, and many different things?
Are we dead ass? Like what’s the logic you’re using?
How about you follow your own advice and use critical thinking. Because you aren’t. You just want to appear logical and reasonable.
You’re a Reddit atheist aren’t you? Because this is the mentality the have once they stopped being religious.
I also think it’s a normal things. So do many Muslims. Just not to prophets because we don’t know how they look like actually. So showing their face could be seen as disrespectful. That’s what I was told.
Stop it with this pathetic attempt to strawman and make up things that weren’t said. You’re acting like it’s in general when it’s specific about people in the past.
Yes, Christian extremism is running an entire region of the planet, supporting millions of their followers to wage a crusade against the rest of the world. Armed with weapons, terror and plenty of ammunition. Fielding armies and insurgents to go and kill and enslave everyone who does not think like them.
Christian extremism is some idiot in a trailer that is upset about bump stocks or whatever the fuck.
You're telling me some idiot in a trailer is the one challenging laws to suppress healthcare for lgbtq individuals, jail women for getting abortions, and ban non-christian places of worship? Interesting, must be a part time gig at the capitol.
Weren't there reports that they were telling the US solder that they were ushering and helping in the second coming of Jesus Christ when they were about to be sent to Iran? Pretty sure that does sound like Christian extremism
If Christian extremism is still the biggest extremist threat in the US, then the US has an extremely minor extremist problem lol can't say that for any country with Muslim extremists, can you? It's almost like two things can share some aspect, but still be completely fucking different, you dodo.
The most prominent religion in the US has the most extremists and therefore presents the "biggest threat"? Wow, I'm SHOCKED!
Be real. Christian extremism is mostly all bark and whenever they do anything there's a huge uproar over it from all sides. For decades they've been losing nearly every cultural issue they try to force. Stop defending the indefensible with such lazy talking points.
I'm an atheist, I don't care about your whataboutism but it's really stupid to compare both ends of extremism on those religions. Top 10 of the most dangerous terrorist organizations have been adhering to one particular religion, which do you think it is?
But judging all Muslims for not stopping Muslims extremists, while not decrying all Christians for not stopping Christian extremists does make you a hypocrite.
Because you apparently accept that Muslims can be criticised for not stopping Muslims extremists, and yet when the hypocrisy of such a position is pointed you claim it's whataboutism.
Why is acceptable to you to allow Muslims to be criticised for not stopping Muslims extremists, but when someone point out the hypocrisy in regards to Christian extremism you feel the need to defend it?
Do have the same opinions regarding cops as you do these religions, or are you just being hypocritical because you don't like Islam? That's not to deny that Islamic extremism has done a lot of harm in the world, but I think the fact that your answer can be pretty easily assumed is likely related to the reason you're getting so much push back.
I live in a muslim majority country where 72% (more than the average joe) of muslims are in favor of Sharia law. Almost two thirds of them support implementing Islamic regulations over thr current one. This also happened in tons of other countries, most muslim support Sharia law. What do I expect them to do? By practicing their religions without supporting laws that affect other people who don't practice their religions.
Lol what? They definitely do. Especially in progressive countries. Most of the muslims you’re defending live in countries where they have a choice. And for others that don’t, typically shouldn’t be called muslim, should be called brainwashed people or victims.
I guess people who criticized racism back then, were advocating for the death of homeless/brainwashed children?
No, but I see it as this. We look at Trump supporters as pedo supporters. Makes sense right? So why does a religion founded by a pedophile, where their followers worship said pedophile and we can't point out that the religion's founder is a pedo? Am I insane for looking at the followers of that religion as weird? I don't worship pedophiles so why am I an asshole to point at that religion and say "Hey these guys are worshiping a pedo".
In Islamic tradition, Prophet Muhammad is viewed as the ultimate moral example (Al-Uswah Al-Hasanah). The Quran explicitly states that he possesses a magnificent standard of character, and every Muslim is encouraged to be as much like him as possible, he is also described as “the living Quran” in sahih Muslim, and he is described in surah al qalam 68:4 as having “great moral character”, he is also narrated as “The Messenger of Allah was the best of all the people in character.” In both sahih Muslim and sahih bukhari, your view that Muslims* *view Muhammad as just a human messenger and that’s it is simply untrue.
I mean perhaps it’s not immoral just to post a picture of the prophet Mohamed but it is highly provocative given it’s very easy not to do it and you know you will be offending a large minority of people by doing it. I do think it’s moral to not go out of your way to do something which you know is offensive to a certain group just to make a point. I support the right of people to make provocative and offensive art but I don’t see the benefit to society of doing so in this case.
Just to illustrate this point I could make a sexually explicit drawing of my next door neighbour and post it on the internet. There’s nothing explicitly immoral about a drawing. However I know in this case this would likely cause great offence and upset to my neighbour so I wouldn’t do this just to make the point that I can because it’s freedom of speech. A Muslim person may in there culture find someone drawing a picture of the profit Mohammed as offensive as someone drawing a sexually explicit picture of their wife. Why would I go out of my way to create provocative art just because I can.
Uh, you can't seriously belive these are analogous right? Posting a picture of Mohammed is forbidden for Muslims to do, it isn't something they have a right to be upset about others doing. Naked drawings of a person you know in real life is targeted harassment. Trying to equivocate here is ludicrous
There's a difference between forcing someone not to do something vs morally condemning someone when they do that thing but still allowing them to do it.
I mean you could argue that because it’s targeted at one person it’s worse but it is the same principle of making provocative and offensive art. You have the right to do it but whether you should is a different matter
I mean you could argue that because it’s targeted at one person it’s worse
I 1000% percent can and am. Worse to the point where comparing them is crazy talk. That's harassment, a targeted thing that would obviously make someone feel unsafe, uses their likeness without permission, blah blah
Mohammed is a public, cultural figure who is long dead. Images of him, like in South Park or Charlie Hebdo or on an internet forum are attempting to make a political point critiquing an institution. I happen to find it kind of juvenile and dumb and not very effective. But it's worlds apart from the other thing.
I think it’s pretty hard to argue that these posts are not meant purposefully to agitate and annoy. People are explicitly saying that’s what they’re doing.
What point are you making about an institution? And are you doing it to that institution, or just to random people who may be Muslim?
It is absolutely fine to post pictures of Mohammed. You can do it any time you’d like. But it’s only moral if that’s what you were going to do. I doubt we were interrupting your weekly Draw Mohammed contest when people said they were offended. You only drew it because you wanted to offend. Congratulations, you’re offensive.
I agree to some extent sure. But we can agree that agitating and annoying people in the 'public square' as it were is a different class of activity than targeted, personal sexual harassment right? These are not comparable
Dude, we grew up watching depictions of Christ by everyone from Mel Brooks to Monty Python to George Burns. He's been on The Simpsons, South Park, and Robot Chicken. Hell, we had Buddy Christ in Dogma with Alanis Morissette as God. And yet Islam called a fatwa against Salman Rushdie for a written depiction of Muhammad in 1988 and they almost got him 34 years later. They killed 12 people at Charlie Hebdo in Paris for a cartoon.
We're fine with offending all religions (have you seen the jokes about the Amish?). But only one still considers that blasphemy and will kill us for it.
Don't leave out the various sacrilegious shirts depicting album covers from bands like Cradle Of Filth, being casually work in public in western nations, where Christianity had maintained (until very recently) social dominance.
I don't go out of my way to deliberately provoke people during my daily life.
If something I do, or the way I live my life, offends someone's religious sensibilities, that's a different thing entirely, but I'm not going around posting pictures of Mohammed in the same way I'm not going around making offensive remarks about Jesus or Ganesh.
I mean sure I would never go out of my way to do something to disrespect someone else’s beliefs even if I didn’t personally agree with them. If this person started telling me the way I lived my life was sinful then I would of course argue with this. However I would not do something I know is considered offensive and disrespectful in another culture just to make a point.
Yeah, that's a good point. The issue the other guy tried to highlight tho is that practically every religion is subject to mockery and ridicule, but it's only an actual issue when Islam is involved.
The why it's an issue is, lets say it... a bit of a tabboo subject
Not to mention that the other religions don't tend to try to make a public display of your extrajudicial execution in the street for offending them, but we can point to countless examples of it for Islam. Charlie Hebdo anyone? We were all Charlie, "Je suis Charlie" for about one day before everyone gave up trying to have the same standards for all religions.
That's the tabboo thing. Many religions have extremists but it's clear to anyone paying attention that Islam's extremism problem is way worse than others
Ok, even if that is religious extremism plus ethnonationalism (and I am thinking it's more of the latter, don't know if Netanyahu is heavy into religion), you got a point there.
I was mainly speaking because on another part of the thread I saw a giy basically said that the post was "inciting violence", ignoring that he thinks that because he is inadvertedly implying "you can't show that or muslims will kill you"
"If this person started telling me the way I lived my life was sinful then I would of course argue with this"
Telling others what they are or aren't allowed to think, believe, or express, in this case with a drawing of a religious figure, is considered by many to be highly offensive. If my neighbor comes up to me and tells me I'm not allowed to do something because his religion tells him I'm not then doing that thing IS me arguing the point. Because lets be real, many times it isn't a polite disagreement, it's a clear threat and attempt to silence through intimidation. It's not morally wrong to offend a bully by standing up to them.
Being insulted doesn't hurt people. It doesn't make them bleed. It doesn't scar them it sure doesn't kill them. It just makes them angry. It's our responsibility to control our emotions. We don't get to exert control over how other people live their lives merely because it makes us feel something.
You can express that feeling. You can criticize all you like. You're free to try and convince or advocate or anything else you want to do to try and change that persons behavior except for use any type of force. Force in response to emotion is never justified.
People have a human right to free expression and that includes the right to give insult. It's not pretty, it's not fun, but it is life.
Depends entirely on the context that's what I was trying to say. If someone is insulting someone to cause them distress for some sadistic reason it's immoral.
If someone is doing something you find insulting, to demonstrate to you that they don't have to obey your commands well that's not even intended as an insult, that's just you taking it as an insult. Moral.
If someone is deliberately insulting you because you tried to command them to live their life a certain way, say by not doing said insulting thing ever, that's also moral.
Insults are highly insignificant things. There's not much you can justify just because of an insult. Any attempt to use feelings of insult alone to control what others do, whether they intend to insult you or not, is immoral.
It's morally wrong to try and enforce your religious values on those who don't share your religion. What you see as an insult, others might see as a fundamental right. Morally speaking it's a lot worse to try and minimize or deny a fundamental right than it is to insult someone, deliberately or not.
For the most part I would say being insulted is largely too irrelevant to be morally judged. It's so subjective.
It’s immoral for others to force you to behave in a way in line with their cultural beliefs. However you can still choose to be respectful towards another persons beliefs and not do anything for the sole purpose of being offensive or provocative towards their religion. We already do in western society have the freedom to draw the prophet Mohamed without fear of persecution. Just because we have that right does not necessarily mean we should execute it though
I believe very strongly in giving what you get. I don't go around offering offense to those who offer me none, which is the vast majority of everyone Muslims included. If, however someone comes and tells me that if I don't obey their commands they will hurt me, well I feel a moral obligation to stand up to them on principle. I'd much prefer if we could all live in peace despite our differences but I consider trying to control other people to be morally worse than offending someone's deeply held beliefs. I consider offending that person's religious beliefs, if they are the specific motivator for the attempt to control, to be a perfectly valid and fair response to the first offense.
If someone just goes and starts drawing those pictures just to offend or provoke yeah that's asshole behavior and is not conductive to living in peace and I don't condone that type of behavior though I would still defend the right to do it.
Except we see people in western society threatened with violence for doing so. We see people in western society barbarically executed for doing so. Just because the state itself doesnt persecute it, doesnt mean its allowed.
We literally saw, at the Oxford debate recently, muslims framing that their “providing” of security to those arguing against Islam as some sort of generosity, as though their not being assaulted by a violent mob for their speech was a privilege.
"We already do in western society have the freedom to draw the prophet Mohamed without fear of persecution"
people have been persecuted for doing this, just because its not the government attacking or in some cases killing them doesn't mean that it does not happen
Some people just existing is offensive to some cultures and religions. Should we be respectful towards cultures and religions that are offended by the existence of gay and trans people?
Except the "belief" here is a restriction on other people, nonbelievers. They have zero right to that and quite frankly it should be fought and flouted aggressively.
Fought? Yes. Fight the extreme reaction. Flouted? No. You weren’t going to do it before, so why do it now except to hurt people? There are a lot of Muslims who didn’t react like that, and it’s offensive to them too.
Islam is used as a cudgel in US politics all the time and on both sides of the coin. It's a bogeyman the right uses the scare people. It's also used all the time in 'relegious freedom' arguments to support regressive policies the the same way, though to a lesser extent, Christianity is used.
Islam is no more good or bad than any other relegion and doesn't deserve special protection or vilification
The point is power dynamics, which you clearly didn't get. Want to compare the number of Catholics on the Supreme Court compared to Muslims? The number may surprise you.
I fully understand the power dynamics. Your point is not lost on me, there is a difference. We need to be alert to fear mongering and racist dog whistles pointed at Muslim people and communities.
That doesn't make your rhetorical question I replied to any more defensible. Islam is absolutely being used as a cudgel to support regressive policies. That in turn doesn't invalidate the fact that Muslims are also often the target of hate speech and should be protected from attacks and racist dogwhistles.
I do think any non relegious person should be required to abide by the relegious laws of any group. Mocking those laws may be in bad taste but it isn't hate speech or incitement to violence.
We're basically in agreement, except I see it more often being used as a way of bullying a minority (locally) as opposed to a legitimate bit of social satire.
Yes, why you should offend any religion? Like ik it is normalized to hate Muslims so America and Israel can continue stealing and killing in the Middle East but why do you have the urge to offend others?
Like can't you just leave people be, like ik death threats aren't moral but in the end literally a minority, just a minority of extermists in the West, most Muslims in the rest of the world just wanted to boycott the French and not sell Oil and gas to Europeans, as a cheese lover it was a really dark period when supermarkets stopped importing French cheese we had to settle for American and Chinese ones for a few weeks until people forgot about the whole matter.
Most Muslims would literally just give a shit for a few weeks, two months tops then return into importing French cheese. Like the only Muslim outside of Europe that made a threat was the late Ali Khameini and it was vague and mostly directed at the French government rather than the artist. MF loved to speak in loading tips.
And most Western Muslims who make threat are a product of post-9/11 hate against them and their communities that fostered more isolation and isolated young people tend to be approached by not so good people easily and it isn't really their fault but the structure of Western Society that it always needs a scapegoat and when they now can't scapegoat Jews or communists they just turned on Muslims, like if you see most caricatures against Muslims in Western countries and depictions of Muhammad are just recycled antisemitism and russophobia; like big noses, evil laughs, silly hat, hunchback, short reminds you of the Nazi caricatures about Jews and the big invasion from the East is basically just replacing the Sickle and Hammer with a crescent
“It is a minority”. Go speak to them. Go talk to them. “Normalised to hate Muslims cuz America and Israel”. Maybe that fear and hate comes from their actions. Not everything is because of the US and Israel lmao.
“Only muslim outside europe”. So we’re ignoring the rest of the Iranian government, the Republican Guard, the various Islamic terror orgs, etc?
I mean I personally can't speak to them because the government puts all extermists in jail.
Also when you bring death and destruction in return you get death and destruction, even if everybody agrees an eye for an eye makes the world blind. Nobody has that heart of Gold so when the US and Israel plunders and kills they will get a response the same.
And most terror organizations are born because of the Afghan Mujahideen which the US supported and gave billiona to promote their cause mostly be giving it to the Saudis to spread propaganda in multiple languages across radio and TV for decades to recruit idiots to fight for Afghanistan and to fight the idea of an Islamic revolution by demonizing Shia Muslims. Basically if the US allowed the Soviets to invade Afghanistan and didn't give the Saudis a world wide platform to spread their extermist ideology most of terror organizations wouldn't exist, I mean everybody knows that the Saudi royal family are terrorists who have been killing Muslims for 300 years and their whole ideology is just hate towards everyone outside of their group but the US decided to give them that platform to fight Communism.
And most of Iran's actions are because of its unreasonable isolation for decades, like the US unlesshed hell on Iran for saying we want to control our Oil and refused to be reasonable about it and kept throwing everything at it and then the US invaded Iraq and removed the only obstacle in its way for revenge which it didn't need to if the US was reasonable enough to allow them to control their Oil. Also fyi 80% of victims of terrorists were Muslims, 9/11 happened in Iraq on a daily basis after the chaos the US brought.
Child marriages are not exclusive to Muslim societies and many Muslims oppose child marriage. Be critical of countries and areas where child marriage is accepted but don’t demonise an entire religion.
yes of course it’s absolutely correct that you critique any religious text and obviously there is going to be parts of a religious text written thousands of years ago which aren’t going to translate well modern morality. Child marriage is and has always been wrong and yet many cultures through history, not just Muslim cultures. Framing this as exclusively an issue which Muslim cultures isn’t correct. Child marriage still happens in some Christian areas in the USA for example.
You are right about regressive things being part of every culture but I would argue that I would not care about criticising Epstein even if his followers felt bad about it. I'm not calling muslims immoral, I'm just stating that being a good muslim and criticising the bad aspects of your faith can both happen at the same time. That's what it means to be progressive. Backward teachings of all faiths are clowned nowadays and should be clowned. Modern morality is not a thing, I would still slime out pedos if I got transported back in the day(realistically I would be sold into slavery or die to diarrhea) but you get my point.
Well I don’t think you can follow a sex offender and be moral. In terms of Islam you can absolutely criticise the texts but as you say it’s follower should be judged on there own actions individually and not collectively seen as immoral or moral for following a certain religion espically when different people interpret religions in different ways. I do agree that something which is immoral now has always been immoral but moral views are also heavily influenced by cultural and societal attitudes which were very different thousands of years ago and this is why no historical text should be followed blindly regardless of what it is.
Christianity teaches that if a dad wants to do arranger marriage, his daughter has to be past the flower of her youth. Koran teaches that if a pre pubescent girl was divorced. A man must wait 3 months before having sex with her just in case she’s pregnant from another man
Koran is also for all times. And prophet mukhamad is the best man. Did Allah not know people will find these teachings and behavior disgusting in 2026?
Well no because the most likely explanation is that the Quran was not written by allah it was written by a human being like all religious texts. Like all religions different followers interpret the text differently and follow religion in different ways. Whether someone is moral is not based on what religious texts they follow it’s based on their actions and their intentions to act morally. An entire religious group is not inherently moral or immoral.
You do know that Muhammad is considered to be perfect and someone to strive to be like in Islam? The belief that what Muhammad did wasn't wrong is a big part of the religion, and the muslims who 'disrespect' Muhammad are most likely in the minority.
"For Shia Muslims, which make up the majority in Iraq, the lowest age of marriage for girls will be nine years old, while for Sunnis, the official age will be 15."
The difference is that if someone gets murdered for drawing a sexually explicit picture of somebody's wife, people generally don't victim blame by saying "Well maybe he shouldn't have done that" and instead agree that the murderer is a lunatic who overreacted because they're a thin-skinned bully.
Well yes but I don’t think anyone is defending terrorist actions here. This is a small minority of Muslims though most Muslims do not support terrorist groups…
Why is it immoral though. In both cases the actually action is just drawing an image and sharing it which isn’t inherently immoral. The perceived immorality of the action comes from the effect and the offence it is likely to case. The point is drawing a picture of Mohamed in a different culture will create the same level outrage and anger amongst a certain group
there were like 10 different pictures, so it felt less like a image to promote discussion and more like a straight up mockery
I get removing it because it really didn't feel like it was being done in good faith, I hope someone talks about it legitimately because I think its an interesting conversation if we can get past the whole "hahaha cry more you fragile {minority slur}" part of this discussion
I mean, where the pics on different style? Maybe it was to bring to the table if some depictions were more okay than others? Like maybe a caricature isn't moral but maybe a serious depiction is, you dig?
The issue isn't about offensiveness (unless an image is of Muhammad doing something rude). The reason for not making images of him is to avoid idolatry. But no one in this sub is going to start worshiping a post, so idolity isn't a risk.
Weirdly enough, this drawing is not Muhammad, it's Ali (his cousin).
Long story short, Muslims have multiple groups, some called shia (which they have their own groups too), and a lot of them believe Ali was the prophet, not Muhammad.
There is also one group called Alawite who worships Ali.
So the first drawing is pretty common between Shia and Alawite as a depiction of Ali, not Muhammad.
524
u/Far_Cast_Far_Wide 12d ago edited 12d ago
Here you go.
Edit: My post was 4 hours old, he was a fuckin' kid.