No mohammed discussion?

[Teuthida]

Gotta agree with that. Humans are funny creatures. Different things are real to different people.

Curious to see what comes of this experiment. Just won't be participating myself.

[magus113]

The real way things should probably go is that it's not the collective religious community as a whole that determines what's blasphemous, but an individual in said religious community.

I mean, when I was practicing Catholicism in school I saw Buddy Christ and I thought it was pretty funny, but I'm sure someone found it offensive too (not just because of the movie he was being portrayed in). Someone has to be up in arms about those "Jesus is my Homeboy" t-shirts too.

[Dylflon]

Here's part of a presentation I did about Islam and the Image that might drop some knowledge bombs:

In his article Islam and the Image, Salah Stetie provides some foregrounding that helps explain Islam's mistrust of representational images and why Islam historically forbids pictorial representation of human beings and other living things. Of importance are the metaphysical ideas which Muslims use to understand time. Stetie explains that Muslims do not view time as sequential but rather as a succession of moments without shape or continuity. In addition, the shapes that we see are merely temporary combinations of atoms that will inevitably change or pass away. In Islam, the only permanent being is God. To create an image such as a painting goes against these basic principles as the artist that paints a human being, creates a figure whose permanence exceeds that of man and gains an unnatural longevity as well as potentially cements a moment in time. This attempt at permanence could be read as an affront to God.

Also problematic for orthodox Muslims is the act of creation inherent in artistic practices. In creating representational forms that could potentially go on to influence people to think or do certain things, artists put themselves on the same level as God, and moreover, in creating representational images, these artists are mimicking God's very creations.

The other issue of images for Islam is historical, since images were the chief tools of polytheists. Pagans worshipped idols and images that were representative of their various Gods, and it is this practice that explains Islam's aversion to such images and objects. As we saw in The Message, monotheism could not truly and finally take root until these idols were destroyed. In such a rudimentary society, it is not unreasonable to fear the power of the image especially with the pagan tradition as a testament to such power. In order to ensure that these created figures did not divert the faithful from prayer, idolatry had to be done away with.

Understandably, this has had a major and lasting impact on art in the Muslim world. Since most arts were originally inherited from idolatry, Islamic religions don't do much in the way of nurturing them. That of course is not to say that there is no Muslim art, as art was not outright prohibited. However, what art did exist conformed to Muslim principles and artists were forced to find ways of not arousing the ire of the Islamic community. For example, in order to emphasize that God is the only permanent thing in the universe, Muslim art places an emphasis on change. And as not to imitate the creator, the rule among much of art forbids representation of live figures. If artists wanted to draw or sculpt animals or people, they would have to do things like behead or maim them so that they were not representing something capable of life. Though it seems strange that painting a beheaded dog would be more acceptable than a painting of a normal one. In carpet weaving or on coats of arms, artists would adorn their art with made up creatures such as gryphons or phoenixes, since nobody could argue that these were actual living things. Another practice was to make animals resemble flowers which incidentally like other plant life were less contested when illustrated. This is most likely because as Ryder mentioned earlier, plants have less symbolic power than beings with living spirits.

However, bathhouses had the rare privilege of being allowed to house paintings with representational figures since “in the eyes of orthodox Muslims, that part of the house is too despicable for a painting to lend itself to the slightest equivocation, [or] the smallest spiritual danger”.

One is left to wonder though why this aversion to images continues despite the fact that monotheism has clearly prevailed over pagan faiths and the thought of worshipping a statue is not one that would readily enter one's mind.

Some believe that these rules come from the Koran. There is a saying of the Prophet to the effect that “on the day of resurrection, painters will be the men to suffer most.”
But this saying came about at a time when “painting was conceived only for the purposes of entertainment or adoration” and was most likely aimed entirely at idolatry and not our current conceptions of artistic practice. In fact, according to Stetie, the Koran says nothing definitive on the subject. The most likely reason why this condemnation of representational art continued was because of the literal interpretation of certain Koran passages by spiritual leaders or through those leaders' own imposed rules.

However, one rule that seems to be undisputed amongst Muslims is that the prophet Muhammad is not to be depicted in any way, the central concern being that people would begin to worship Muhammad through images and focus less on God and his message. This is especially important given Muhammad's teachings which state that he is nothing more than a man chosen by God to spread his message and is not to be put above any other man. However, the relationship between how Muhammad wishes to be perceived and how he is portrayed creates an unintended issue. Or rather, I should say in the way he is not portrayed. It could become difficult to perceive Muhammad as simply a man when an entire religion insists that he nor his family members can never be depicted. Nobody can gain a sense of the things that made him like other men. If there were a picture depicting Muhammad as an old frail man (as he undoubtedly was before passing on), people would be able to gain an understanding of his mortality. However, in being unable to see him and hearing him referred to as a Prophet could easily cause people to perceive him not only as more than just a man, but also a man who is above other men. Although this train of thought may be irrelevant since there are a million pictures of Jesus looking like some hippy and much of the western world accepts him as God or at the very least as someone who has godly magic powers. These issues of representation become especially complex when one tries to make a film about Muhammad.

By and large, cinema has faced far less opposition than other art forms. Part of this must be because as it is an art form created in more contemporary and progressive times, a modern Muslim understands that films will not necessarily draw worship away from God. Additionally, films are incapable of fulfilling the role of the idol since as a simple object, the film reel has no inherent power. In contrast to all other image based art forms, film does not stop a static moment in time, and therefore does not contrast with the Muslim feelings about permanence. Film actually keeps in line with Islamic artistic practice which focuses on change. The image on the film screen is constantly changing, each frame flickering for a fraction of a second before disappearing. Films also showcase the fickleness of living beings and fate as in some films we see things and people deteriorate, thus highlighting the impermanence of man and object alike. To take it a step further, film itself even deteriorates, so what's not to like? Film also avoids the pitfall of artists putting themselves on the same level as God in terms of creation. The filmmaker is not creating their own representations of living things, but rather capturing the things that God has already created. For these reasons, cinema is a very useful artistic tool for Islam, especially since as Charkawi says in his article, “the cinema is the most readily understood and most persuasive of all idioms of art”. From there it's a short step to conclude that cinema would be the perfect tool to spread the story of Islam. Yet, this is difficult as even film is not exempt from the prohibition on images of Muhammad.

How does one even go about portraying a religion in film, that refuses the portrayal of most of the key figures in its foundation? For many years, one simply didn't. Several attempts at films about the life of the Prophet were made prior to the release of the message, but were met with swift and raucous opposition. In 1925, Wada Orfy, a Turkish writer, attempted to make a film about Muhammad that would depict the Prophet and was tried in court as a result. Italian and American companies attempted co-productions with Egypt to make religious films dealing with the life of the Prophet and despite willing to accept all conditions of censorship, were still denied. This opposition is understandable, since not only would a film that depicted Muhammad have to be dealt with very delicately, it would somehow have to not offend millions of Muslims who firmly believe that Muhammad is not to be depicted.

However, as we know, a very well-received film about the life of Muhammad was eventually made. The Message, released in 1976 was a successful Islamic religious film as director Moustapha Akkad, out of respect chose not to represent Muhammad or any of his wives, children, sons in law, or his Caliphs who are all also representationally off-limits. Akkad is able to lovingly craft the tale of Islam's birth, using powerful and beautiful images. The closest we come to a representation of any of these figures is the Caliph Ali's sword being swung about in a duel. Though, while this film does not seem to break any of the rules that would cause one to oppose it, issues in the representation of Muhammad still seem to arise. In any scene where Muhammad's presence is absolutely necessary, we see a shot from Muhammad's point of view. This is a great work-around since it avoids depiction of the Prophet, however, to react to Muhammad, the other characters look right into the camera making myself, Ryder, and possibly others keenly aware that the fourth wall is being broken and that we as the audience are sitting in place of the Prophet. Allow us to play these clips for you and see if you feel any of the unease that we felt.

This may seem like a nit-picky argument, however I feel that if one were to read into it, they could be just as offended if not more offended by putting someone in the place of Muhammad, than by representing him in a picture. We have another clip for you which highlights our other concern.

The other issue we uncovered is that of the non-present voice of Muhammad. Granted, portraying Muhammad's voice is also incredibly taboo, but putting the words of the Prophet into the mouths of other characters compounds a problem that stems from making a movie about a person you cannot see; a person who like God himself, and unlike man, is invisible. By erasing the key person of interest from the film and putting his words in other people's mouths, one runs the risk of turning those characters into the leads in the Prophet's story. However, as we've learned, there is no problem-free way to make a film or any other art about Muhammad. The best that can be done is try to tell the story of his life as honestly as possible and let the narrative overshadow the borderline-absurd exclusion of the protagonist. Despite these problems, The Message is a success, since we can learn about Islam and enjoy the glorious irony of a depiction of Islam doing away with depictions in the name of God.

How far has the image come since the founding of Islam and does it still require censorship within Muslim communities? The main reason for prohibition of certain images has not been an issue for a long time. In much of the world, monotheism has long since conquered Pagan idolatry and polytheism. Additionally, art means different things now than it did then and art is created for different reasons. In a time when art was made for only entertainment and worship, there are understandable desires to limit the power of the image. Now, however, the image is largely not for recreating God's creations that we see every day. We have abstract art, art we use to express ourselves, and to understand the world a little better. Children grow up completely surrounded by images. Representational art is everywhere. This normality must surely signify a decline in the power of the image. As Bergson tells us, the life of the image and therefore its power, is dictated by the audience that views it. When an image is exposed to a society that believes very firmly that certain images hold a lot of power, their thoughts and reactions will dictate the desire of that image and decide exactly how powerful the image is.


------



We also showed the famous Dutch picture of Muhammed and posed the theory that a pictorial representation of Muhammed only exists because you label it as a picture of Muhammed. If one were not to label it, it would only be a picture of an Arab man since there is no historical pictorial reference to base a Muhammed illustration on.

[KillerGremlin]

Man, Dylflon, after reading your post I can only conclude that Muslims are on the same wavelength of retarded as Scientologists. Seriously, even Christians aren't this batshit insane.

Again, what does trying to please a bunch of radical Muslims have to do with my right to free speech or my right to make a joke?

South Park has ripped on just about every other religion, that is what they do. I mean they feature Jesus packing heat! The fact is it is a comedy show and I don't consider it blasphemous at all. I think forfeiting our basic 1st Amendment rights to please others is against the spirit of what this country stands for. I realize Comedy Central is a TV Network and censorship is rampant on TV, but it is still a defeat.

So maybe it worked out for Matt and Trey, because either way they proved with this whole fiasco that radical Muslims are crazy.

[Typhoid]

Again, what does trying to please a bunch of radical Muslims have to do with my right to free speech or my right to make a joke?

Because it's against their religion, and you are not part of that religion.
It's like 'the n word', when anyone other than some black guy says it.

It's a culture difference.
You have to understand a few things first of all.
They do not really have Free Speech in all places. Free Speech isn't a Universal luxury, so that doesn't matter one single bit in this.
Secondly, it is against their religion to depict Mohammad at all. Is it silly? Sure. But is it their religion? Fuck yes it is.
They have an entirely different culture than we do in North America.
Imagine we are back a few hundred years, and someone is just hardcore slagging on Jesus, I'm pretty sure Zealots wouldn't just go "Muslims can say what they want about Jesus, Freedom of Speech". I'm pretty sure if that happened now Zealots wouldn't do that.
Some Muslims also are strict on other things pertaining to religion. Extremists whip and beat those who are beardless. Women who wear bras are also whipped and beaten.

The reason they take the blasphemy of Mohammad so serious is that in their ancient religious writings it clearly states that not only is depicting the Prophet Mohammad as blasphemous, But it says that The Prophet Mohammad calls for the killing of several people who were mocking him to be killed - and they were killed by an Angel.

And honestly, I actually agree with the ruling to an extent. While it can be funny (in situations like this), once Mohammad is depicted, and no verbal outcry happens, more shows/cartoons could depict Mohammad, which would ridiculously cheapen his image, and meaning to Islam. Not to mention Christianity seems to be AOK with blasphemy against their own prophet, but that doesn't mean every other religion should ease up and stick their leader on T-Shirts and bobble heads just to sell a few units. They've kept the integrity of their religion in tact (minus the extremists who kill in his name, but that's a much different topic, and happens in roughly every religion) and they don't want to lose that. I can not only understand where they are coming from with that, but somewhat agree.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Because it's against their religion, and you are not part of that religion.
It's like 'the n word', when anyone other than some black guy says it.

It's a culture difference.
You have to understand a few things first of all.
They do not really have Free Speech in all places. Free Speech isn't a Universal luxury, so that doesn't matter one single bit in this.
Secondly, it is against their religion to depict Mohammad at all. Is it silly? Sure. But is it their religion? Fuck yes it is.
They have an entirely different culture than we do in North America.
Imagine we are back a few hundred years, and someone is just hardcore slagging on Jesus, I'm pretty sure Zealots wouldn't just go "Muslims can say what they want about Jesus, Freedom of Speech". I'm pretty sure if that happened now Zealots wouldn't do that.
Some Muslims also are strict on other things pertaining to religion. Extremists whip and beat those who are beardless. Women who wear bras are also whipped and beaten.

The reason they take the blasphemy of Mohammad so serious is that in their ancient religious writings it clearly states that not only is depicting the Prophet Mohammad as blasphemous, But it says that The Prophet Mohammad calls for the killing of several people who were mocking him to be killed - and they were killed by an Angel.

And honestly, I actually agree with the ruling to an extent. While it can be funny (in situations like this), once Mohammad is depicted, and no verbal outcry happens, more shows/cartoons could depict Mohammad, which would ridiculously cheapen his image, and meaning to Islam. Not to mention Christianity seems to be AOK with blasphemy against their own prophet, but that doesn't mean every other religion should ease up and stick their leader on T-Shirts and bobble heads just to sell a few units. They've kept the integrity of their religion in tact (minus the extremists who kill in his name, but that's a much different topic, and happens in roughly every religion) and they don't want to lose that. I can not only understand where they are coming from with that, but somewhat agree.

You do realize you are defending a religion based on a deity with no factual evidence to back it up? There is no proof, none, nada, zilch proving the existence of Allah. More so, the Jury is still up on whether Jesus existed and I assume the same goes for Mohammad.

If I started a religion believing in magical unicorns and told you not to draw pictures of them, you would feel obligated to respect my wishes? In fact, I'm starting a new religion called KillerGremlinism. I don't approve of depictions of Monkeys, because the great Gremlin Monkey Prophet is timeless. Therefore you need to remove your avatar from this forum because it falsely portrays my prophet. Also, if you don't change your avatar I'm flying a plane into your house!

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

You do realize you are defending a religion based on a deity with no factual evidence to back it up? There is no proof, none, nada, zilch proving the existence of Allah. More so, the Jury is still up on whether Jesus existed and I assume the same goes for Mohammad.

If I started a religion believing in magical unicorns and told you not to draw pictures of them, you would feel obligated to respect my wishes?

There's no proof of a God, either - and I'd defend that in this situation.
I'm not saying there is proof of Allah; therefore we're not allowed to make fun of Mohammad.

I'm saying 1.something billion people believe in the existence of Allah, and the Prophet Mohammad. Even more so there are extremists within that religion who take the depiction of Mohammad (much like it says in their religious scriptures) very seriously.

Religion has transcended proof, facts, and actual people existing. As long as enough people believe in it, it's real for them - and that's all that matters.

And just because Christianity, North America and the UK are alright with Buddy Christ, and putting Jesus on everything from a shirt to a sock to an apron, that doesn't mean every religion does.
When's the last time you saw a Buddha bobblehead giving someone a high five? (I'd love to see that, for the record).

The reason I'm defending Islam, is because A) Many, many people unjustly talk shit about it B) I believe in not insulting other people, nor their religions blatently. The problem here isn't Islam. Nor is the problem Muslims in general. The problem is the extremists. The Muslim equivalent of: Southerners when it comes to blacks, old Catholic ladies when it comes to Catholicism and Zealots.

Having Mohammad on South Park is alright. He's been on before. There was no uproar. He was just a dude.

But having Mohammad in a Bear Costume with a blue jersey that says "Bears" on it - you have to tell me that that wouldn't be a little blasphemous to someone who has no humour when it comes to his or her religion.

Also, "I don't think it's real" is pointless in this conversation. Why you'd say it is ridiculous.

Edit to your edit:

If I started a religion believing in magical unicorns and told you not to draw pictures of them, you would feel obligated to respect my wishes? In fact, I'm starting a new religion called KillerGremlinism. I don't approve of depictions of Monkeys, because the great Gremlin Monkey Prophet is timeless. Therefore you need to remove your avatar from this forum because it falsely portrays my prophet. Also, if you don't change your avatar I'm flying a plane into your house!

If you had a thousands of year old text depicting those magical unicorns spreading positive messages, and had billions of followers (maybe even if you had millions) - yes, I'd respect that. But since you're just some dude over the internet in the middle of what I assume to be the United States who wants to slag on Islam because a cartoon can't make fun of someone's religion and you just started caring about this situation a few days ago when you saw it on the internet, no - I wouldn't respect your religion.

[Typhoid]

I have a mission for you, Angels.
If you don't believe in the power of blasphemy, take some of these pictures, print them off - and hand them out at a Catholic or Christian church.








Are they funny? Sure, sort of. But shown to the wrong people I'm pretty sure you'd have a fun time.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

I'm saying 1.something billion people believe in the existence of Allah, and the Prophet Mohammad. Even more so there are extremists within that religion who take the depiction of Mohammad (much like it says in their religious scriptures) very seriously.

So what? If 1 billion people are wrong in their belief does that make it okay? If thousands of Christians genuinely believed the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe, would that belief be okay? What 1 billion wrong people believe has no implication on my right to free speech. Even if a part of those billion people live in the very country whose Constitution clearly states freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Religion has transcended proof, facts, and actual people existing. As long as enough people believe in it, it's real for them - and that's all that matters.

Again, that's total bullshit. See: world is flat.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

But having Mohammad in a Bear Costume with a blue jersey that says "Bears" on it - you have to tell me that that wouldn't be a little blasphemous to someone who has no humour when it comes to his or her religion.

Sure, it is blasphemous to the person who has no humor. So what? That's the point of freedom of Speech. To piss off people who have no humor, and to entertain people who do have humor.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Also, "I don't think it's real" is pointless in this conversation. Why you'd say it is ridiculous.

It is relevant to this conversation because you brought up the word Nigger. Let us not forget that not too long ago South Park had an episode about that Nigger guy. And it didn't offend anyone (or anyone I know). In fact, it was hilarious! Actually, I'm not sure how that ties with the real thing. I just wanted to mention that South Park had an episode on the N-word.

I think "realness" ties into my point below though, which is you walk a fine line when you defend someone's fictional* belief.

*fictional, or until proven otherwise

Originally Posted by Typhoid

If you had a thousands of year old text depicting those magical unicorns spreading positive messages, and had billions of followers (maybe even if you had millions) - yes, I'd respect that. But since you're just some dude over the internet in the middle of what I assume to be the United States who wants to slag on Islam because a cartoon can't make fun of someone's religion and you just started caring about this situation a few days ago when you saw it on the internet, no - I wouldn't respect your religion.

You're walking a fine line deciding whose beliefs are important. It's all or nothing buddy, especially in the spirit of the United States Constitution and the 1st Amendment (which is what this thread was kind of about). If we are going to defend the belief of some magical Muslim prophet guy because 1 million people have their religion, then you better be prepared to defend my belief in purple fairies or gay unicorns or whatever it is I want to believe in.


Also, I think you're missing the point. I'm not slagging on Islam. I'm slagging on Muslim extremists who are lashing out at people who want to parody religion. In case you missed the year 2010, every other person who practices every other religion besides Islam (with the exception of extremists and clergy) is okay with parody of religion. If they don't like it they don't watch it, or they have a sense of humor about it. I think the spirit of this thread has been that just because you are offended by something said, that does not give you the right to lash out with violent threats or violence. Why not make fun back? Or have a laugh? Or have a beer and sex? Oh wait...

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

When's the last time you saw a Buddha bobblehead giving someone a high five? (I'd love to see that, for the record).

Buddha says, high five!

[manasecret]

Typh, so your basis of what is a legitimate religion is how old it is and how many followers it has?

And again, so do you think it's ok to insult Tom Cruise and Scientology?

But why does someone somewhere considering something blasphemy make it ok to silence speech with threat of violence?

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

So what? If 1 billion people are wrong in their belief does that make it okay?

The fact they don't want Mohammad depicted is wrong? Who are you to dictate what another religion should deem good or bad?

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

If thousands of Christians genuinely believed the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe, would that belief be okay?

Hundreds of years ago, yes. That would be perfect.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

What 1 billion wrong people has no implication on my right to free speech. Even if a part of those billion people live in the very country whose Constitution clearly states freedom of speech.

Firs toff, I assume you're meaning there are Muslims in the US. There are. 0.2% of the world's population of Muslims live in the US.
Secondly, you have no right to say which religion is wrong, and which is right. In this case (The case of Mohammad not being depicted) technically, they are right. Mohammad isn't allowed to be depicted. It says so in their religion. So realistically, South Park, and those defending it are in the wrong.

Sure, it is blasphemous to the person who has no humor. So what? That's the point of freedom of Speech.

No it's not, it's equality. Not anger and hate.

It is relevant to this conversation because you brought up the word Nigger. Let us not forget that not too long ago South Park had an episode about that Nigger guy. And it didn't offend anyone (or anyone I know). In fact, it was hilarious!

I'm pretty sure you could find a handful of black people who didn't like the 'Nigger Guy' episode, which is the same as this. But I assume you'd try and tell those black people they're wrong for not wanting white people to say the word 'Nigger'.

You're walking a fine line deciding whose beliefs are important. It's all or nothing buddy

Everyone's. I'm saying EVERYONES beliefs are important (to that person). That DOES NOT give anyone else the right to poke fun (when they know damn well it won't be taken lightly) at any other religion. Slight jokes are great. If you don't think I'm about equality in religion, check out the Catholicism thread, because I was defending the shit out of that. Take a lifelong Italian Catholic, and stick them in a room with some 20-something Muslims who are depicting some dude giving it to Virgin Mary, and I don't think it would be a "OH, this is hilarious! I love your artwork" type of situation.

I'm slagging on Muslim extremists who are lashing out at people who want to parody religion. In case you missed the year 2010, every other person who practices every other religion besides Islam (with the exception of extremists and clergy) is okay with parody of religion.

Different Culture.

But why does someone somewhere considering something blasphemy make it ok to silence speech with threat of violence?

Mana, I never adressed the violence part of this, nor did I obviously agree with it.

I'm trying to get the point across that A) Freedom of Speech is not universal B) The Middle East in general has a VERY different culture - at least amongst the extremists. They aren't as relaxed as we are about shit like this.

Personally, I don't think it's good to make fun of anyone's religion. Or any religion for that matter. It's always going to be a serious topic, and it's always going to get the wrong person pissed off. And in the end, what does it accomplish? Answer me that. Did they want to depict Mohammad to get a point across, or to get news for their ever-failing popularity? My honest opinion is the latter.

Edit: Ahhh, KG, half points. It's not a bobblehead and he's not giving someone a high-five. He's just ready for the occasion.

[manasecret]

Typhoid, I'm beginning to wonder if you actually have a point in all this. It's beginning to sound like your typical inane circular logic.

[Typhoid]

Originally Posted by manasecret

Typhoid, I'm beginning to wonder if you actually have a point in all this. It's beginning to sound like your typical inane circular logic.

+ 5 Internet points.

Read my last post, you know - the one where I adressed you with my point.

Edit: Here, I'll do it for you.


"I'm trying to get the point across that A) Freedom of Speech is not universal B) The Middle East in general has a VERY different culture - at least amongst the extremists. They aren't as relaxed as we are about shit like this."

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Typhoid

The fact they don't want Mohammad depicted is wrong? Who are you to dictate what another religion should deem good or bad?

I'm not sure where this Good/Bad straw man came from, as I never said the religion was good or bad. I questioned the validity of the belief using a scientific and now legal approach.

Look, I'm speaking strictly in terms of United States law. I'm speaking in terms of law firmly now too, especially at this point in the discussion. In America the LAW, L-A-W, is freedom of speech. It really doesn't matter what anyone believes because the L-A-W states that I have a right to freedom of speech. That is who I am to dictate.

US Constitution (The Law) > rules of Muslim religion

So if 1 billion Muslims believe that Mohamed should not be depicted, and I believe I wanted to depict him, I would be right and they would be wrong. At least in a legal sense. In a philosophical sense we could certainly argue, but then I'd ask you to prove the existence of Allah.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Hundreds of years ago, yes. That would be perfect.

No, it wouldn't. In fact early Christians or whoever fucked a lot of good stuff up. Word in the history books is Alexander the Great had a library full of information that was burned to the ground by fundamentalists, information that was recently rediscovered as early as just a few hundred years ago. It wasn't until Copernicus got the wheels of science rolling again that people realized how bad the anti-science mentality from religion was. This is totally subjective, of course.

Originally Posted by Typhoid

Firs toff, I assume you're meaning there are Muslims in the US. There are. 0.2% of the world's population of Muslims live in the US.
Secondly, you have no right to say which religion is wrong, and which is right. In this case (The case of Mohammad not being depicted) technically, they are right. Mohammad isn't allowed to be depicted. It says so in their religion. So realistically, South Park, and those defending it are in the wrong.

Constitution > religious rules




I feel like there is very little I can add to this discussion with further arguing, so I'll let more qualified people jump in.