Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Pictures of Mohammad
According to a report in The New York Times, there's yet another visual-representations-of-Mohammad flap a-brewin'. This time around activists are targeting Wikipedia, whose entry on the Muslim prophet contains two images from medieval Persian manuscripts:
In addition to numerous e-mail messages sent to Wikipedia.org, an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images of people. The petition has more than 80,000 "signatures," though many who submitted them toThePetitionSite.com, remained anonymous.
"We have been noticing a lot more similar sounding, similar looking e-mails beginning mid-January," said Jay Walsh, a spokesman for the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco, which administers the various online encyclopedias in more than 250 languages. A Frequently Asked Questions page explains the site's polite but firm refusal to remove the images: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of any particular group."
The notes left on the petition site come from all over the world. "It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's picture," Saadia Bukhari from Pakistan wrote in a message. "It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be removed immediately."
The site considered but rejected a compromise that would allow visitors to choose whether to view the page with images.
The Wiki entry is here (it's locked to further editing) and it now contains the following warning to readers of delicate disposition: "This article includes two images of artworks created by Persian Muslim artists which depict the uncovered face of Muhammad. The images are used respectfully in a historical context to illustrate two episodes from the life of Muhammad."
Katherine Mangu-Ward's profile of Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales is here. My interview with Flemming Rose, publisher of those infamous Mohammad cartoons, is here.
|2.6.08 @ 5:32PM|#
...an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images
of people.
I've heard this before. Is it true that some
interpretations prohibit all images of people?
Ali? A little help please.
|2.6.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Here's my depiction of Muhammed, that loser:
*
See? He's a squashed ant. Fucking "prophet" my ass. The only thing
he did that was noteworthy was take it in the ass from his fag
father.
C'mon and get me, Muslims.
|2.6.08 @ 5:36PM|#
I can't help but notice I still see Mohammad in reruns of the South Park "Super Best Friends" episode.
|2.6.08 @ 5:38PM|#
I've heard this before. Is it true that some interpretations
prohibit all images of people?
I'd explore this question but I don't give a fuck about a monkey
philosophy that would even cause someone to bring up the question
in the first place.
Nephilium|2.6.08 @ 5:49PM|#
John-David:
He's also in some of the old opening credits.
Which just adds some delicious irony to the whole Cartoon Wars
episodes that Cartoon Network censored.
Nephilium
Joel|2.6.08 @ 5:49PM|#
But how do you really feel? Sorta-kinda ambivalent on the whole Muslim thing?
Peter|2.6.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Wikipedia also has an illustration, actually a STOP-MOTION PHOTO
of a penis becoming erect on their entry for erection, if I'm not
mistaken. Now if they can show that, which I'm sure is insensitive
to some people who'd like not to see monster junk when researching
for sex ed, and we hear very little from sensitivity blowhards, I
think the Prophet is fair game.
Besides, why does anyone, devout enough of a muslim to be offended
by an image of Mohammad need to go to Wikipedia to find provisional
information about the Prophet? Wouldn't such people already have
like, say ... the KORAN at home!!!
|2.6.08 @ 5:54PM|#
"It's totally unacceptable to print the Prophet's
picture,"
No, it's totally inappropriate for *you* to print the Prophet's
picture.
So piss off and have a nice day.
Doctor Duck|2.6.08 @ 5:56PM|#
why does anyone ... need to go to Wikipedia to find
provisional information about the Prophet?
Note to self: move up action items for new WiKoPedia site
pronto!
Jennifer|2.6.08 @ 6:14PM|#
Somebody with Photoshop skills needs to put a Mohammed tattoo onto a sexy female model's bare ass.
Taktix®|2.6.08 @ 6:14PM|#
"Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal of
representing all topics from a neutral point of view, Wikipedia is
not censored for the benefit of any particular group."
I love it when the standard media, supposed keepers of free speech,
decry Wikipedia.
Fight on, Jimbo, fight on!
Taktix®|2.6.08 @ 6:16PM|#
If reason published it, I'll get Mohammad tattooed on my white, pimply male ass. Email may be reached by clicking my name...
|2.6.08 @ 6:18PM|#
"It shows insensitivity towards Muslim feelings and should be
removed immediately."
Well ok this is annoying...but it is also a light years worth of
improvement from "We will kill you"
The comments here make me feel like a superhero with the special
power of being able to telling the difference between free and
legal protest and the edicts of an Iranian Maula.
|2.6.08 @ 6:29PM|#
Well ok this is annoying...but it is also a light years
worth of improvement from "We will kill you"
Don't know for sure, and after posting this I'll try to find
out.
I'll bet they got some of those too.
I'll be back after doing some googling.
|2.6.08 @ 6:30PM|#
I do find it ironic that what was in essence an anti-idolatry stance, the Muslims want God to be worshiped not an image, to one where now the very image has become a symbol of heretic and surrounded with mythical powers of corruption.
|2.6.08 @ 6:37PM|#
Don't know for sure, and after posting this I'll try to find
out.
I'll bet they got some of those too.
I'll be back after doing some googling.
Ya you do that...look for the homicidal Muslim wikipedia
nerds.
What the fuck are you people even doing here?
You guys are worse then the lets prove blacks are dumber then white
people crowd as if that matters in any way to libertarianism.
|2.6.08 @ 7:08PM|#
careful, my offer to have the late, great tim's name tattooed on
my ass got me banned.
does anyone actually know what muhammed looked like? or is it like
the jesus thing where artists just made it up as they went
along?
M|2.6.08 @ 7:15PM|#
1) When will the perfidious Joos lobby against Wiki's printing
the o in G-d?
2) Could Islam, or at least its louder sections, be the creation of
Christian/Jewish/rationalist-skeptic moles?
3) J sub D, please don't disappear again on a mission like that -
we weren't sure you'd come back in one piece.
|2.6.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Somebody with Photoshop skills needs to put a Mohammed
tattoo onto a sexy female model's bare ass.
Better yet, actually tattoo it, then rub it with bacon.
|2.6.08 @ 7:19PM|#
does anyone actually know what muhammed looked like? or is
it like the jesus thing where artists just made it up as they went
along?
7th Century - no cameras - portraiture probably wasn't very good in
Arabia back then. So I'm guessing that everyone is guessing.
Jennifer|2.6.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Better yet, actually tattoo it, then rub it with
bacon.
I'd considered that, but can't think of anybody I dislike enough to
wish that upon them. But if a porn star were willing to make some
stylistic sacrifices in order to Make A Point, I'm thinking that
the combination of the proper tattoo plus some skillful razor work
could result in an image of Mohammed with a beard that actually
grows, plus he gets sick and vomits blood once a
month.
If you're going to deliberately offend people, don't be all
half-ass about it, says I.
|2.6.08 @ 7:52PM|#
...an image of Mohammed with a beard that actually grows,
plus he gets sick and vomits blood once a month.
Damn Jrennifer, that's kinda tasteless. Funny as hell, though.
|2.6.08 @ 7:55PM|#
or is it like the jesus thing where artists just made it up
as they went along?
If Muhammad were white, tow-headed, and blue-eyed like Jesus, maybe
they wouldn't mind looking at him so much.
Jennifer|2.6.08 @ 7:58PM|#
Damn Jrennifer, that's kinda tasteless. Funny as hell,
though.
I do my best work blue.
cgee|2.6.08 @ 7:59PM|#
How about a Sharia rule that all Muslims have to browse the web with Show Images turned off? That should take care of their bullshit.
Bingo|2.6.08 @ 8:09PM|#
Maybe he was really vain and didn't want people to put unapproved pics of him at parties on their myspace page in case he looked fat in the picture.
|2.6.08 @ 8:35PM|#
Jennifer | February 6, 2008, 7:26pm | #
Better yet, actually tattoo it, then rub it with bacon.
I'd considered that, but can't think of anybody I dislike enough to
wish that upon them. But if a porn star were willing to make some
stylistic sacrifices in order to Make A Point, I'm thinking that
the combination of the proper tattoo plus some skillful razor work
could result in an image of Mohammed with a beard that actually
grows, plus he gets sick and vomits blood once a month.
If you're going to deliberately offend people, don't be all
half-ass about it, says I.
J sub D | February 6, 2008, 7:52pm | #
...an image of Mohammed with a beard that actually grows, plus he
gets sick and vomits blood once a month.
Damn Jrennifer, that's kinda tasteless. Funny as hell,
though.
YAY Jennifer! Yay J sub D!
|2.6.08 @ 8:52PM|#
I hope we don't see massive vandalism of random wikipedia articles by angry muslims. Then I would actually have to spend significant amounts of time and effort when I want to research something. This could be a serious threat to my way of life :)
Elemenope|2.6.08 @ 8:53PM|#
SO ... FUCKING .... SICK ... OF ... MUSLIM ...
"SENSITIVITIES" ...
So, tell us, Jamie...what are you sensitive about? What's your
button?
|2.6.08 @ 8:54PM|#
"Could Islam, or at least its louder sections, be the creation
of Christian/Jewish/rationalist-skeptic moles?"
Only if they've been around since the seventh century...
-jcr
|2.6.08 @ 8:55PM|#
"I hope we don't see massive vandalism of random wikipedia
articles by angry muslims."
That tends to be pointless. Vandalism on wikipedia happens all the
time, and it's typically corrected by the next visitor to the page
in question.
-jcr
Ali|2.6.08 @ 9:11PM|#
...an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images
of people.
I've heard this before. Is it true that some interpretations
prohibit all images of people?
Ali? A little help please.
J sub D,
Yes.
ChrisO|2.6.08 @ 9:21PM|#
I tend to believe that both Islamic and Christian iconoclasm are
products of the Jewish ban on the worship of "graven images."
Neither Islamic nor Christian texts (apart from the Jewish core of
the Old Testament) provide much support for the practice, and were
probably interpreted thusly by people for whom that tradition
already existed.
|2.6.08 @ 9:22PM|#
...an online petition cites a prohibition in Islam on images
of people.
I've heard this before. Is it true that some interpretations
prohibit all images of people?
It really depends on the school of thought. It's basically the
graven images commandment taken to the logical extreme (some
extreme Christian sects, like the Amish, do the same). I've even
heard of a fantastically talented rug maker in Egypt that won't
weave images of animals for this reason, so he sticks to geometric
shapes and patterns. However, this isn't a mainstream belief
anymore.
|2.6.08 @ 9:22PM|#
I can understand why a muslim would not want to publish, draw,
create, whatever, an image of Mohomed, but why do they care if
non-muslims do it. I mean, they don't seem to mind when I eat
bacon, even in public. I even charge interest!
So, what gives?
|2.6.08 @ 9:30PM|#
Oh, and how is this worse than freaking out about a split second nipple shield during the Super Bowl and then causing record fines for b.s. supposed obscenity. At least they're writing letters to the proprietors and complaining rather than the government.
Ali|2.6.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Mo, J sub D,
What Mo says is my intended answer when I simply said "yes".
Because J sub D asked whether some interpretations... So
yes, some do, but I believe most do.
Ali|2.6.08 @ 9:35PM|#
To add to Mo's last comment, quite frankly, I find:
1. violent Muslim mobs getting angry at stupid and silly cartoons
or pictures, or whatever, as well as
2. comments made by Jammie, Jennifer (unless I miss any sublime
point above, and I do like most her other posts on others topics
and she knows that), and others,
quite sickening and plain stupid. Both.
yes, y'all have a right to say what you want. Yes, you have the
right to say pretty tasteless and dumb things, too.
Jennifer|2.6.08 @ 9:38PM|#
ow is this worse than freaking out about a split second
nipple shield during the Super Bowl and then causing record fines
for b.s. supposed obscenity
The freakout over Janet Jackson was indeed asinine and
indefensible. But I suspect the ones who freaked out would have
been viewed with far more disdain if they shared, in the public
perception, any association with people who had recently (like,
within the past couple of years) started violent riots over another
nipple sighting, or made death threats against people who published
nipple cartoons.
|2.6.08 @ 9:40PM|#
Not to stick it to believers or anyone else, but I bet it's
harder to get a new religion to stick these days because of all the
photography. You know how well the imagination fills in blanks? If
we had photographs of Jesus, Zoroaster, Mani, Moses, et. al., I
wonder if people would be less likely to believe in them. Maybe
that's part of the reason it's so hard for me to believe in the
possibility of an L. Ron.
Show me a photo of the real Xenu and I might buy in, but I've seen
pictures of L. Ron! That dude doesn't have any secret knowledge.
Now Asimov, he looks like he might have known an intergalactic
secret or two. ...but then he had like crazy facial hair, which
seems to help.
Jennifer|2.6.08 @ 9:57PM|#
omments made by Jammie, Jennifer (unless I miss any sublime
point above, and I do like most her other posts on others topics
and she knows that), and others, quite sickening and plain
stupid.
I can produce some after-the-fact sublimity for you. To whit:
Any person who is capable of looking at a beautiful piece of
historic art, which was clearly created with the utmost reverence
for the subject, and thinking "That is offensive," is an abysmally
ignorant jackass who desperately needs to be shown what
real offense is. Behold a depiction of the mythic tattoo,
and then look at those lovely images on Wikipedia and explain why
they're not merely offensive, but offensive to the point where
nobody should be allowed to look at them ever again.
Jennifer|2.6.08 @ 9:58PM|#
And behold the difference between the mind which invented the tattoo versus the minds behind the attempted Wikipedia changes: if both our visions came to life, only one would not detract from the sum total of human freedom.
Ali|2.6.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The beholder has no right
to oppress the art that he sees tasteless.
And behold the difference between the mind which invented the
tattoo versus the minds behind the attempted Wikipedia changes: if
both our visions came to life, only one would not detract from the
sum total of human freedom.
Yes, but...
And behold the difference between the mind which speaks
freely but with civility versus the minds that
don't: if both our visions came to life, only one would
contribute to the sum total of human
understanding.
Jennifer|2.6.08 @ 10:19PM|#
And behold the difference between the mind which speaks
freely but with civility versus the minds that don't: if both our
visions came to life, only one would contribute to the sum total of
human understanding.
And by "civility" do you mean "inoffensiveness?" The idea that
being inoffensive is the only way to contribute to human
understanding is not one with which I agree. I'm not even convinced
it's always even the best way.
Ali|2.6.08 @ 10:23PM|#
And by "civility" do you mean "inoffensiveness?"
No, I mean "intelligent". But may be H&R is not the forum for
intelligence.
Carl|2.6.08 @ 10:25PM|#
I am not a Muslim, but I don't see how it's "censorship" to put the picture of Mohammed behind a link that says, "Click here to see a picture of Mohammed." A lot of the people who go to the Muslim page are probably Muslim. True, you don't need to hide the image for their sakes, but on the other hand, why be a jerk about it? I thought the same thing when I saw the page on Bahai (I'm not Bahai either), and it had a picture of the main Bahai-dude. Apparently, for Bahai to see the photo disrespectfully is bad for their souls or whatever. So why not hide it behind a link instead of plastering it on the page that Bahai are most likely to look up? Seems like a decent compromise to me, but apparently for the Wiki heads, common courtesy is censorship.
Jennifer|2.6.08 @ 10:28PM|#
No, I mean "intelligent". But may be H&R is not the
forum for intelligence.
Ah! Behold a teachable moment: obviously, you do not literally
think that "civility" is a synonym for "intelligence." Therefore,
your comment was clearly meant to imply that I am unintelligent;
i.e., a personal insult. That is behavior considered
"uncivil." By contrast, posting a tasteless joke, directed at
someone who can't possibly read it because he's been dead for 1,400
years, in a thread where jokes about the subject matter are already
being made, is a comment which would indeed be considered offensive
by some, but is not a breach of civility.
However, it would be uncivil and offensive if I went and
posted it on a message board for Muslims discussing the matter. But
I would not.
Ali|2.6.08 @ 10:34PM|#
obviously, you do not literally think that "civility" is a
synonym for "intelligence."
No.
Therefore, your comment was clearly meant to imply that I am
unintelligent; i.e., a personal insult. That is behavior considered
"uncivil."
So did my (planned) insult cause progress?
but is not a breach of civility
Is "civility" a subjective or objective value?
However, it would be uncivil and offensive if I went and posted it
on a message board for Muslims discussing the matter. But I would
not.
Can't help it, but that is because you are not that
uncivil.
Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|2.6.08 @ 10:35PM|#
Goddamn those fuckers really go out of their way to get offended.
Jennifer|2.6.08 @ 10:41PM|#
So did my (planned) insult cause progress?
Without knowing how you define progress in this instance, I can't
possibly answer.
Is "civility" a subjective or objective value?
I just read it defined as "politeness" and "courtesy," and
determining what those are regarding a joke which had already
caused laughs long before anyone came around to deem it uncivil is
admittedly difficult. How polite and courteous, for example, do you
think walking into a roomful of laughing people and insisting
"THAT'S NOT FUNNY!" would be?
|2.6.08 @ 10:55PM|#
I can understand why a muslim would not want to publish,
draw, create, whatever, an image of Mohomed, but why do they care
if non-muslims do it.
Because some Muslims believe it is their duty to make all of us
conform to Muslim beliefs.
Jennifer|2.6.08 @ 10:56PM|#
I am not a Muslim, but I don't see how it's "censorship" to
put the picture of Mohammed behind a link that says, "Click here to
see a picture of Mohammed." A lot of the people who go to the
Muslim page are probably Muslim. True, you don't need to hide the
image for their sakes, but on the other hand, why be a jerk about
it?
First of all, not everyone shares your assumption that it makes you
a "jerk" to have an encyclopedia entry about a historic subject
feature some historic illustrations. Secondly, it is a big
deal to decide anything deemed offensive by a minority
subset of the population must always be made more difficult
for all to see, lest people get their feelings hurt.
Or shall we go with your alternative? Put David behind a
link so people can read about Michelangelo without having to see a
penis. Put Birth of Venus behind a link for those who are
offended by nudity but still want to learn about Botticelli. Hide
the Virginia commonwealth flag, because there's a lady's naked
breast on it and people who want to read about the Old Dominion
shouldn't have to look at that if they don't want to. I mean, why
be a jerk about it?
Ali|2.6.08 @ 10:59PM|#
Without knowing how you define progress in this instance, I
can't possibly answer.
Progress as I had implied earlier as in "understanding".
How polite and courteous, for example, do you think walking
into a roomful of laughing people and insisting "THAT'S NOT FUNNY!"
would be?
OK, may be insulting, but my intention was to point out that I no
longer find some of the comments above funny. This ain't the first
time we had these discussions and I was simply expressing that it
is becoming boring. May be I should not have said it because it was
tasteless of me to do so. So, now, I take it back. I respectfully
withdraw from this "roomful of people".
Ali|2.6.08 @ 11:01PM|#
FWIW, I personally do not find the artistic pictures appearing on non-Muslim forums insulting. It would be if the intention was merely to insult.
|2.6.08 @ 11:26PM|#
FWIW, I personally do not find the artistic pictures appearing on non-Muslim forums insulting. It would be if the intention was merely to insult.
Then expect people to create images specifically meant to insult
you.
If you're the one kid in class who can always be counted on to have
a huge reaction when the bully pesters you, expect the bullies to
do stuff to get a rise out of you ALL THE TIME.
Ali|2.6.08 @ 11:31PM|#
If you're the one kid in class who can always be counted on
to have a huge reaction when the bully pesters you, expect the
bullies to do stuff to get a rise out of you ALL THE
TIME.
How is being insulted necessarily imply that I have a "huge
reaction"? I remember as a kid I would always respond not with a
"huge" and loud reaction, but a reasoned and, yes, civil one. That
seemed to offend the bullies around me.
|2.6.08 @ 11:33PM|#
I just signed the anti-anti-images petition, linked to on the Talk:Muhammad/images page.
|2.6.08 @ 11:42PM|#
Ali,
Putting the images behind a "brown wrapper" of sorts would be no
different from putting the "blasphemous" statements about Jesus on
the "Jesus Christ" and "Historicity of Jesus" articles behind a
"click here to read offensive assertions" barrier. It's not a
slippery slope, it's a cliff.
Regarding intent to offend, many entries on the Wikipedia were put
there with intent to offend. Many of those were removed as
unsupportable bias, but many others were backed up with solid
references and kept. Intent is irrelevant in a reference
work.
There are many historically notable and historically illustrative
depictions of Mohammed. They belong in an encyclopedia article
about him.
Ali|2.6.08 @ 11:55PM|#
Rimfax- I know that. I have seen these pictures more back in the
middle east than here. I have seen them on Wiki many times and had
never had problem with them. So I am not offended about that (and
if you revisit my comments above you'll find that I was not
offended by anything else. I found some of the comments as, yes,
uncivil, though less so that, the attitudes of over sensitive
Muslims).
In this very specific case here is my position:
1. Wikipedia is the only entity in this (yet again) "debate" that
has the ultimate right to make the decision. It is a matter of
property rights regardless of the opinions of the anti- or
pro-images. Period.
2. Both sides of the (silly) "argument" can make the case for or
against, but only wiki will have to decide what to do.
3. Muslims have to grow up.
4. So are some people in the West. No I do not mean Jamie Kelly
here, but I mean this very silly tit for tat apprehension by, well,
Moynihan (who represents more as a writer than just his person). If
it is silly for Muslims to file a petition objecting to the
pictures, I find it equally silly that others file a counter
petition objecting to the objection to the pictures.
May be I should have just shut up earlier and let it go as
silly.
|2.7.08 @ 2:02AM|#
Ali -- a little late to the party here, but here's my take on
this thread:
You have the right to be offended by the tastelessness and lack of
sensitivity displayed by some here. However, this is not an
obligation. You can choose to say, well, that's H&R. People
here revel in being politically incorrect and fiercely defending
freedom of speech. If that bothers you, perhaps you need to do what
I've done about joe and Dondero -- skip certain people's comments
unread.
Telling Jennifer to be more civil and sensitive to your tender
feelings is like waving a red flag in front of a bull, and sending
in the picadores to poke the bull with spears. Of course she's
gonna go out of her way to be extra offensive just to prove she has
the right. What did you expect? That's Jennifer. That's who she is.
We need a few people like that around, to keep the rest of us from
becoming insufferable and self-righteous.
I understand how all this may be totally cringeworthy to you. Deal
with it. The price for your freedom of speech to hold minority
views on religion and not be persecuted is your granting others
freedom of speech to be dicks. If you don't like the speech, and
they can't or won't be courteous out of respect for your feelings,
quit listening to the offending parties, or at least quit listening
when they're talking about stuff where you can reasonably expect
them to be dickish.
Hope this didn't cause offense. I got picked on bigtime in grade
school. I developed a thick skin, and it's REAL hard to offend me
now.
offended atheist|2.7.08 @ 2:18AM|#
Wow! Gratuitously obscene jokes about peoples' religious beliefs and their religious leaders? How does y'all feel regarding jokes about queers, niggers, and butt-fucking, child-molesting civil rights leaders? How about remarks describing rioting looters as "animals"? Are those welcome here, too - especially if one can make up some "after-the-fact sublimity" to justify such quips? I just love the smell of hypocrisy one gets when one scratches the liberaltards here at H&R.
wag|2.7.08 @ 4:00AM|#
the liberaltards here at H&R.
I think they're calling themselves "cosmotarians" now. ;-)
|2.7.08 @ 7:23AM|#
Pictures of Mohammad >>> Online lists with photographs
of child molesters.
I can see why Muslims oppose publishing pictures of the
"prophet".
CB
Tony Iovino|2.7.08 @ 8:08AM|#
I guess the petition demanding that Muslims stop using mentally retarded girls as walking land mines got lost in the mail.
Taktix®|2.7.08 @ 8:25AM|#
I just love the smell of hypocrisy one gets when one
scratches the liberaltards here at H&R.
DRINK!
No, I mean "intelligent". But may be H&R is not the forum
for intelligence.
Eh, close enough.
DRINK AGAIN!
|2.7.08 @ 8:51AM|#
I'm pretty sure that the restriction on showing images of Muhammed or any person is limited to Sunni Islam. This would explain why such images would exist in Shia Iran.
|2.7.08 @ 9:16AM|#
I guess the petition demanding that Muslims stop using
mentally retarded girls as walking land mines got lost in the
mail.
Completely irrelevant.
wag|2.7.08 @ 9:17AM|#
I guess the petition demanding that Muslims stop using
mentally retarded girls as walking land mines got lost in the
mail.
No, but the girls did. Ha! Ha! Oh wait, I thought you said
mall.
|2.7.08 @ 9:21AM|#
And Duncan provided a perfect lead-in... speaking of the
difference between Sunni and Shia Islam. In the early 80s
photography of people was forbidden in Sunni Saudi Arabia. People
thought that a photograph would entrap your soul.
When I was 5 years old, my family joined several others on a trip
to visit the camel market. We all got to ride some camels while the
dads of the group snapped photos of us.
Someone decided to be offended and set the police on us - one of
them chased my father around our car four times. We had to follow
the police to the station, where they lectured our dads on how
taking photographs of 4 sheep being stuffed into the trunk of a
Toyota is Haram. They ripped out the film and exposed it before
returning the camera.
Good times in the Magic Kingdom, and little has changed in 25
years.
|2.7.08 @ 9:26AM|#
Actually, the Jennifer aand Ali exchange was fairly civil. The
point made by prolefeed and others that if you get offended too
easily, your asking for more is something that should have been
learned in childhood.
This may be hard to believe, but I have made (IMHO) innocent,
satirical, ironic or just plain silly remarks that have offended
other people. If you just say, Hey, J sub, that was pretty
tasteless, I'll likely apologize. If you jump on my ass over it, I
too will adopt the "If you think that's offensive get a load of
THIS!"
And after 52 years of unpampered life, I can get very offensive if
I mean too.
Episiarch|2.7.08 @ 9:28AM|#
People need to be offended constantly. Then they get used to it and shut the fuck up.
Ali|2.7.08 @ 9:42AM|#
prolefeed- Sure, thanks. I have been developing my thick skin,
but one's natural inclinations (not the ones defending the
petitions --I haven't even heard of such a petition until I came
across it here-- but human courtesy and civility in discourse)
sometimes overtakes oneself.
offended atheist- you make some very good points. It seems that
positive messages like these do not hold
across the board. Offend libertarians and they get all restless (I
mean come on, how many times have we had these also very silly
cosmo/paleo debates), libertarians being offensive...
Bronwyn- Yeah, the KSA laws are pretty stupid.
Ali|2.7.08 @ 9:46AM|#
People need to be offended constantly. Then they get used to
it and shut the fuck up.
[start joke] Aaah, the legitimate way to suppression of expression!
[end joke]
So the question is: How do you offend people who constantly often
others to make them shut up, too?
Ali|2.7.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Actually, the Jennifer aand Ali exchange was fairly
civil.
This ain't the first one that Jennifer and I have and, hopefully,
won't be the last :-)
Episiarch|2.7.08 @ 9:51AM|#
How do you offend people who constantly often others to make
them shut up, too?
Well, first, when I say "shut up" I mean "stop complaining and not
worry about it".
But if you want to offend somebody, just figure out their hot
buttons. Sometimes that takes a little work.
Jennifer|2.7.08 @ 9:53AM|#
How does y'all feel regarding jokes about queers, niggers,
and butt-fucking, child-molesting civil rights leaders?
Are you seriously attempting to equate my tattoo description with,
for example, false claims that the likes of Martin Luther King was
a child molester? (Actually, if you wanted to make child-molester
jokes on this thread I seem to recall a certain historical figure
who allegedly married a nine-year-old. Or was she six? No matter; I
chose instead to do the prose equivalent of blacking out the front
teeth on a photograph.)
How about remarks describing rioting looters as
"animals"?
Hell, yes! I see no reason to waste precious respect on anyone who
would take advantage of civil disorder to steal from their
neighbors. Personally, I'd probably use a term stronger than
"animal," myself.
I just love the smell of hypocrisy one gets when one scratches
the liberaltards here at H&R.
What hypocrisy? Who here has gone on the record to say people have
the right to go through life without ever being offended? It would,
however, be hypocritical if the free-speech defenders her insisted
that any and all jokes must be made in such a way that no person
could possibly be offended by them.
|2.7.08 @ 9:57AM|#
We need a few people like that around, to keep the rest of
us from becoming insufferable and self-righteous.
Hey! I resent your implication that I'm insufferable and
self-righteous!
Jennifer|2.7.08 @ 9:58AM|#
Would anyone here be offended if I said of rioting looters:
"What worthless wastes of human genetic material. For all the flesh
and blood and bone it took to make that guy, the world could've had
two syphilitic crack whores instead, and I daresay we'd be better
off?"
Whoops! Too late; I already did.
|2.7.08 @ 10:09AM|#
I sent an e-mail to a friend who then forwarded it to a
Christian who was offended by the all-natural subject of the
picture. I then told my Christian friend why I thought he should
not be offended. (The subject of the picture was in it's natural
state, so in my mind was either produced by God so he can't be
offended or there is no God in which case he should not take
offense at God being portrayed in any manner.) He went on to tell
me why I should apologize for him being offended, nevermind the
fact that I didn't send the picture to him, but because I was
arguing he should not be offended.
Needless to say, I didn't apologize. My contention remains that
since the image was a completely naturally occurring phenomenon no
one could possibly be offended by it, having been created by
God/nature. He didn't get it.
Take this a few steps further. If one is a believer, then Mohammed
was created by God. Art, pictures, eyes, and the ability to discern
an image were all created by God at least vicariously. So how can
anyone be offended by God's creation?
Guess what else God created? Child molesters, evil, rape, the
devil, donkey shows, the Dallas Cowboys...in other words if God
created everything, then God is a fucking asshole. People need to
come to terms.
|2.7.08 @ 10:20AM|#
Some say Mohammad married Aisha at nine, then consummated the
marriage at puberty. If so, that was standard practice at the time.
At least one of the Hadith (alleged sayings or doings of the
prophet) states that the marriage took place earlier, at 6. But
even many Muslims state that many of the Hadith are unreliable and
that common Middle Eastern cultural standards at the time are a
more reliable reference.
Also, Aisha apparently later fought in battle alongside Mohammad.
Held her own.
Reza Aslan's "No god but God" is generally a good reference for a
lot of this stuff. Disentangles the confusion over the Wahhabist
cult, which is so prevalant and powerful in many regions of the
Middle East and Africa, and True Islam which actually was quite
advanced for the time. Also, comments on how the fundamentalist
interpration of the Koran is just that. An interpretation. Early
Islam and the Koran was more tolerant and much more progressive
than the modern Wahhabist variety.
But on the main topic, yeah, I agree, people who are offended by
such pictures shouldn't have the right to impose their will on the
rest of us.
|2.7.08 @ 10:32AM|#
I think these particular Muslims are suffering from a belief
that their standards of morality and taste can be applied to non
muslims because the particular non muslims do have a mild belief in
tolerance and peaceableness.
I think Muslims everywhere should rid themselves of this belief. If
I go to Saudi Arabia, I learn to deal with their set of beliefs,
quixoticies, and culture. If they come here, they deal with mine.
Sorry, but if we're all going to get along, we're going to learn to
pick our battles and realize we can't win them all. If certain
muslims think it is their divine right to win every battle they
come up against, they'll find themselves sadly mistaken. I will not
change my culture in my own land to suit someone else.
Ali|2.7.08 @ 10:41AM|#
LIT- In this case, and only this case, I am not sure what you
say really applies here. Some Muslims thought that the pictures
were tasteless. They, civilly enough, decided to write a petition
and sign it, probably to be forwarded to Wiki. Wiki then chooses to
keep the pictures or not. So far so good. Feel free to write your
own petition asking wiki to keep the pictures. Ultimately it is
Wiki's property, not mine, not yours, not the Muslim petitioners or
counter-petitioners. I do not see any problem with any of
that.
If people bitch about this one too, we would be leaving very little
room for further civil discourse.
ed|2.7.08 @ 10:56AM|#
How does y'all feel regarding jokes about queers, niggers,
and butt-fucking, child-molesting civil rights leaders?
I'm good with all of that.
Jackson Kuhl|2.7.08 @ 11:05AM|#
J sub D,
The Taliban destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001 was part of
a spree across Afghanistan. While they destroyed a great deal of
Greek, Buddhist, and Christian art, what went underreported at the
time was the destruction of Muslim and Persian art as well. Museums
such as the one in Kabul were sacked. Anything that looked like
anything in nature -- humans, fish, birds, you name it -- was
destroyed. Statues, figurines, friezes, paintings on ceramic, and
so on. The only acceptable art form to Wahhabi/fundamentalists is
the symmetrical repeating symbolism we often see (and which I'm
sure has a name, and perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me can
tell us what it is).
And as Duncan said, it's a Sunni/Shia thing: the Taliban are Sunni,
the Persians (and their art) Shia.
wag|2.7.08 @ 11:50AM|#
How does y'all feel regarding jokes about queers, niggers, and butt-fucking, child-molesting civil rights leaders?
I'm good with all of that.
Oh, goody! goody!
See, there was this ancient ol' darky woman sitting on a porch in a
rocking chair with her skirt hiked up and not wearing any
underwear. And there was these two adorable little pickaninnys out
in the yard playing. One of them says to the other, "Looky there,
that ol' woman ain't got no drawyers on." He calls out, "hey,
granny, we can see your privates; how come you ain't wearing no
drawyers - is it cooler that way?" And the old woman says, "well,
chile, I dasn't know 'bout dat, but it sho' do keep the flies off
'n my watermellon."
Or how about this one about the little boy, King:
One day when he was little MLK was out in the backyard playing, and
his mother comes to the door and yells, "Martin, get outa dat dirt
an get yo' ass in dis house dis minute, you little motha fucker!"
And the little boy, King says, "please don' call me a motherfucker,
Mama - I ain't no nasty motherfucker." And she says, "well you
ain't in dis house yet, neither!"
Upshot? I'm so glad to know that totally gratuitous and
offensive jokes are welcome here among all you sophisticated,
liberal intellectuals.
wag|2.7.08 @ 12:15PM|#
@ Cracker's Boy,
Well it is after twelve noon, so I guess it's okay if you
go ahead and get sloshed. Got to maintain the ol' blood- alcohol
level and all. Might bring on the DTs if you don't.
|2.7.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Is the title a pun on "Pictures of Lily" ? Oooh ... Moynihan is being a very naughty boy.
|2.7.08 @ 12:24PM|#
Shorter wag:
"I'm telling some offensive, racist jokes. Ergo,
you are all racists!"
(Or am I misreading you, wag?)
|2.7.08 @ 12:41PM|#
See, there was Hillary Clinton sitting on a porch in a rocking
chair with her pant suit off and not wearing any underwear. And
there was these two adorable little democrats out in the yard
playing. One of them says to the other, "Looky there, that ol'
woman ain't got no drawyers on." He calls out, "hey, your highness,
we can see your privates; how come you ain't wearing no drawyers -
is it cooler that way?" And the old woman says, "well, chile, I
dasn't know 'bout dat, but it sho' do keep the flies off 'n my
lunch."
Fixed it. Happy now, Wag?
CB
wag|2.7.08 @ 12:42PM|#
@ Jake Boone,
Shorter wag:
"I'm telling some offensive, racist jokes. Ergo, you are all
racists!"
(Or am I misreading you, wag?)
Yes, as a matter of fact, you are. Shorter wag: I'm telling some
offensive, racist jokes (but funny ones.) If you find that bigotry
offensive, but do not find the religious bigotry of Jennifer's joke
offensive, then you are hypocrites or at least, seriously
inconsistent.
But also, I just wanted to be clever, cute, and funny like
Jennifer. But in case anyone is offended, I wanted to justify my
offensiveness with some "after-the-fact sublimity." I'm just being
more honest about it. Besides - my jokes were funnier than
hers.
|2.7.08 @ 12:43PM|#
One day when he was little EMK was out in the backyard playing,
and his mother comes to the door and yells, "Teddy, get outa dat
dirt an get yo' ass in dis house dis minute, you little motha
fucker!" And the little boy, Kennedy says, "please don' call me a
motherfucker, Mama - I ain't no nasty motherfucker." And she says,
"well you ain't in dis house yet, neither!"
CB
wag|2.7.08 @ 12:45PM|#
@ Cracker's Boy,
Fixed it. Happy now, Wag?
Get your own joke, ya jive turkey. :-)
the innominate one|2.7.08 @ 1:00PM|#
Jennifer | February 6, 2008, 7:58pm | #
"Damn Jrennifer, that's kinda tasteless. Funny as hell,
though."
I do my best work blue.
like a certain libertarian candidate for elected office?
Jennifer|2.7.08 @ 1:18PM|#
If you find that bigotry offensive, but do not find the
religious bigotry of Jennifer's joke offensive, then you are
hypocrites or at least, seriously inconsistent.
False dichotomy. The third choice, which you overlooked, is "You
understand the difference between a person's race, which is a
simple physical fact over which they have no control, versus a
person's belief that nobody in the world should be allowed to look
at an image which said person finds offensive."
You can't change your race (Michael jackson notwithstanding) but
you can, with help, change your solipsistic belief that nobody
should be allowed to look at what you don't like.
But also, I just wanted to be clever, cute, and funny like
Jennifer. But in case anyone is offended, I wanted to justify my
offensiveness with some "after-the-fact sublimity." I'm just being
more honest about it. Besides - my jokes were funnier than
hers.
Sincere advice from someone whose job requires her to write a
certain number of jokes each month: if you have to say "my joke was
funnier than hers," it wasn't.
|2.7.08 @ 2:42PM|#
I'm just curious, there clarifying... does "common Middle
Eastern cultural standards at the time" make child molesting okay?
I mean, keeping slaves was "common SouthEastern United States
cultural standards at the time" of the mid-1800's. Does that mean
THAT was okay? And hanging blacks in the mid-1900's was sort of a
common Southern "thang".
Does that make it right? Or are we just looking the other way
because, you know, it's a Muslim "thang" and you don't want to
offend?
CB
|2.7.08 @ 3:18PM|#
And hanging blacks in the mid-1900's was sort of a common
Southern "thang".
It wasn't just a "Southern thang". There were lynchings at least as
far north as Indiana and there were race riots in Chicago early in
the last century - just before or after World War One, I believe. I
think there were also lynchings out west during that time, but
don't hold me to that.
|2.8.08 @ 1:42AM|#
Well, here's the "thang" my wigga, Cracker's boy. You're mixing
categories inappropriately. Decisions over sexual readiness do not
equate to the slavery question.
At a distant point in history, all over the Middle East, including
Israel of course (perhaps all over the world) people married at a
much younger age. Puberty, before our age of enlightenment, was one
of the general markers.
So, therefore, I don't think it would be accurate to refer to
Muhammad as a pervert using the standards that are used today. By
definition he was not a pervert, if he consummated his marriage at
Aisha's puberty and if this was the standard age for consummation
of marriage at the time. How old was Mary - perhaps 13?
This age of greatly extended childhood (even the idea of childhood)
is a fairly recent development in the great span of history. So, in
this particular area, I think it would be inaccurate to accuse
Muhammad of perversion or immoral behavior of another sort.
I'm not saying that makes it okay today to have sex with 12 year
olds. Not at all. Just that context is important at least on some
issues. Other than puberty, there is really no objective markers
for us to judge whether a woman is ready. So naturally, different
countries and even states within the U.S. have picked an arbitrary
number for when a woman is ready. Would you say that Idahoan's are
immoral but New Yorkers are not because of these differences?
|2.8.08 @ 6:16AM|#
wigga? You haven't spent much time listening to white
southerners speak have you?
A 50 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl. If that's okay
with you (now or ever) then we can put this thread to bed. You're
obviously just another apologist. Keep the Muslims happy and they
won't kill you. Don't forget to make your wife wear her
burqa.
Have a nice day. I hope you don't have any girl children.
CB
|2.9.08 @ 12:22AM|#
Cracker's boy,
Wigga please.....
Careful, that house of straw you've built could easily ignite from
the gaseous ignorance and poor reasoning skills you're emitting.
Learn to read. Then get back to me. But in short,
1. As I wrote before, the evidence that Muhammad had sex with Aisha
at that age is not strong. It is just as likely, or more so, that
he simply followed the customs at that time, which would have meant
she would most likely have reached puberty closer to 12 or 13,
maybe even 14 considering that girls today are reaching puberty
earlier much earlier than they were in ancient times.
Additionally, Muhammad also married women older than himself, so it
is unlikely he had some sort of youth fetish.
But just out of curiosity, at what age do you think it is "okay"?
15, 16, 18, 21? 35? How did you come up with that number? Is it
divinely inspired natural law or did you just pull it out of
your...crack?
2. You seem to be conflating all of Islam with Wahabbist
fundamentalism in calling me an apologist and suggesting I have my
wife wear a burqa. Are you capable of understanding this
distinction? I'll give it a shot. Wahabbism is the fundamentalist
branch of Islam that unfortunately allied itself early on with
Saudi oil money and became influential in much of the region and
parts of Africa. It is a very large and dangerous cult. Make no
mistake, I find the violence and intolerant actions of these
cultists offensive to the core of my being. I don't give a flying
cracker's boy if or how they are offended by the free speech of
others - or rather I would not concede one inch to their demands
that any material they find offensive need be removed from any sort
of media (of course, if the media itself wants to cave to their
demands that's their right as well, though I would hope they
wouldn't). I categorically denounce hate speech laws as odious
offenses against our civil liberties. And anyone, reacting in
violence against the peaceable actions of others, no matter how
offensive they might find those actions, needs to be prosecuted to
the full defense of the law. In other words, I find what you say,
CB, to be smugly ignorant and poor in reasoning skills, but I would
defend at all times your right to say it.
All I was saying in my original argument is that it's important
when criticizing something to understand the subject at hand.
Otherwise we end up doing and saying ignorant things, like mixing
up Wahabbism with all of Islam. All that does is spread unnecessary
hate. Go ahead and condemn the devil. But at least know who the
devil is.
Muslims are bigots|2.9.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Sorry but the "don't mix me up with Wahabbist argument" just doesn't cut it. The Koran is quite possibly the most racist, intolerant piece of garbage ever foisted upon the human race. Unless you reject its "teachings" you are no better than any other muslim.
|2.9.08 @ 9:30PM|#
MAB,
You know this because...?
A: You have read the Koran in its original Arabic and have come to
the fundamentalist conclusion that there is only one possible
interpretation to the words written
B: You are some strange breed of linguist (a minority of one) who
believes that for every word there is one and only one possible
definition. And anti-Abelard you have some iconoclastic belief that
words actually don't stand for anything at all. They are glued
indelibly to divinely revealed meanings.
C: You have only read the anti-Islamic rantings of
pseudo-intellectual hate mongerers like Robert Spencer who are
completely incapable of understanding that for any text there are
multiple possible interpretations.
D: You are related to Cracker's boy above and come from a clan that
is genetically incapable of understanding the conflationist
fallacy
?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245