• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Seattle cartoonist launches "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day"

Laila said:
Just out of interest, how old do you reckon Mary was when she gave birth to Jesus? Jesus was obviously a product of a peadophilic relationship seeing the age of marriage and consent is 18 in some countries.
Click to expand...

Older than 9, I would recon.

Laila said:
Out of all the things to attack Islam on, it always does make me laugh people start on him and his marriage to Aisha. I mean, get over it. There is no evidence to support it.
Click to expand...


Considering it is various Islamic scholars who have placed her age at 9 at the time of consumation, perhaps your issue is with them. THey seem to think there is plenty of evidence.

Laila said:
Which also explains why Muslims almost never takes Non Muslims view into consideration if that is their first line of attack. Out of all the surahs, hadiths, practices in Islam (Some of which are questionable and others that do deserve attacks) It's always the marriage. And seeing Europe was no better 1500 years ago, what moral ground do Westerners have?
Click to expand...

Whatever moral ground people can claim has to do with events and attitudes of the here and now. As far as Muslims taking non Muslims views into account, I would say the issue of Aisha's age is of lesser importance than all the myriad other issues where Muslims do not take non muslims views into account.

Laila said:
And if Muslims today are being attacked for what Mohammed allegedly did 1500 years ago, I suppose I can attack Whites for what their ancestors did or countries for what they did?
Click to expand...


THe only Muslims who should be attacked are those who justify present day actions based upon Mohammad's sexual conquest of a 9 year old. If all people do is engage in du toque sorts of arguments while never indicating there is anything wrong with such an arrangement, their obvious need to defend is what sticks in other people's minds.
 
Gardener said:
Older than 9, I would recon.
Click to expand...

Younger than 18 I reckon which makes her legally a child ...

Considering it is various Islamic scholars who have placed her age at 9 at the time of consumation, perhaps your issue is with them. THey seem to think there is plenty of evidence.
Click to expand...

Actually there is no consensus on her age. Many Islamic scholars and Imams quote different ages for her.
And there is no primary evidence stating her age.

I would say the issue of Aisha's age is of lesser importance than all the myriad other issues where Muslims do not take non muslims views into account.
Click to expand...

But the way people are going on about it on these threads as if it is somehow central to Islam is amusing. If the only thing they can attack Muslims with is Prophet Mohammeds wife, then it is pointless to have a discussion or take their views into consideration.

THe only Muslims who should be attacked are those who justify present day actions based upon Mohammad's sexual conquest of a 9 year old. If all people do is engage in du toque sorts of arguments while never indicating there is anything wrong with such an arrangement, their obvious need to defend is what sticks in other people's minds.
Click to expand...

I don't care who Prophet Mohammed married it is hardly important in the belief system of Islam but if someone actually expects Muslims to condemn our Prophet for something he has not even been proven in doing so, they are having a laugh.

Bring actual evidence to support claims of him having sexual intercourse with a 9 year old and I'm sure Muslims would condemn.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Hey look, its yet another thread that is not about whether or not Muhammed was a pedophile. The off topic derailing needs to end here. Next one that tries to continue it in any way is getting thread banned. Go start a thread about it if that's what you want to discuss.
 
Wiseone said:
I'm all for freedom of speech and I won't say they shouldn't do this or not be allowed to do this. But doing something just to piss some people off is still kind of a dick move in my eyes. And at the very least not productive
Click to expand...

People need to be taught that they don't have a right to not be offended. The dick move isn't so much this as much as it is threatening the lives of people who draw certain pictures. We do this to Christians all the time, and they'll get pissed about it, but they'll also let it go. Time to learn that they can't get everything they want by trying to bully an entire population with threats and violence.
 
Damn, I wish I was a cartoonist.


PeteEU said:
Only ones doing that are people like you and other right wingers in the US and Europe and of course those in the two religions who are fanatics. This is not and never has been a Christian vs Muslim thing, and yet every time such a subject is brought up here on the boards, it is always "Muslims are evil, Christians are good" or/and "we are better than them".. and that is us vs them, Christians vs Muslims.
Click to expand...
Not all of us are christians


yes it is, that we can agree on. Funny how you did not protest against the Christian radicals that attempted (and succeed some what) to stop a play in the UK that they had deemed was blasphemous. Death threats were used as well as threats of violence. It is funny how the right likes to be the "defender of free speech" but when they are in power free speech is the first to go out the window... the irony.
Click to expand...
Actually *I* did protest against stopping that play. As I recall, I saw quite a few others expressing disagreement with the whole thing as well. The difference is, we couldn't really go open a play in the UK in protest, now could we?
 
Wiseone said:
I'm all for freedom of speech and I won't say they shouldn't do this or not be allowed to do this. But doing something just to piss some people off is still kind of a dick move in my eyes. And at the very least not productive
Click to expand...

It's not about trying to piss people off.

If I was a cartoonist, I wouldn't draw the images in order to piss people off. I would do it in protest of the actions of a company in the US catering to terrorists. IMO, this is not so much spitting in the face of Muslims, as it is making fun of the people and companies who cater to terrorists. Making them look like fools. Hoping that perhaps next time, they will have the courage to stand up for freedom of speech. That perhaps next time, the voices of a few idiotic extremists will not drive the actions of a huge US media company.
 
Laila said:
And on topic, have a draw Mohammed day. I find it childish and pathetic but that is the price of freedom.
Click to expand...

What is the harm done that would make this childish and pathetic?
 
PeteEU said:
As has drawing Mohammed.. been done for the last 1500 years in and out of the Muslim world. This is nothing but reactionary crap from both sides. On the muslim side it is to gain more political traction against the "enemies" of whoever is trying to get political power, and in the west it is nothing more in the never ending "our religion is superior to yours" crap being propagated by the Christian church and its supporters.

In the end it is all a load of crap.
Click to expand...

I never realized you euros thought freedom of speech was a religion.

Well, it ain't.

But it's an American thang, and y'all can't understan'.
 
PeteEU said:
Guess it would be fine to have a "piss on the bible" day too... where people actually piss on the bible.
Click to expand...

Stop being such a damned wimp! These Islamo-Nazis deserve far worse.

Religious zealotry should be confronted at every opportunity; it is the duty of courageous souls!
 
spud_meister said:
i think this cartoonist should draw a cartoon of mohammed and jesus having sex with each other, and see who gets the most offended
Click to expand...

:rofl

I second that!
 
PeteEU said:
Christian fundies are no different than their Muslim counterparts.
Click to expand...

Ah, the wonders of modenm moral equivalency blindness.

When was the last time Christians stole airplanes and used them to murder 3000 people?

When was the last time Christians strapped one of those chic Dyn-O-Mite! vests and murdered children in a pizza parlor?

When was the last time a Christian hijacked a cruise ship, shot a man in a wheel chair, and then pushed him overboard?

When was the last time a Christian put a bomb in a radio and put the radio on an airplane, so it could detonate in flight and kill everyone on board?

When was the last time a Christian became a passenger on a flight to ignite the explosives in his shoes?

When was the last time a Christian became a passenger on a flight to ignite the explosives in his panties?

When was the last time Europeans saw their testicles?
 
I have no problem doing things that religious zealots find offensive. To hell with them. If they have a problem with it, they can come to my house and attempt to "rectify the situation" - I'll be the guy wearing this...

41185890_9108376.jpg
 
Wiseone said:
I'm all for freedom of speech and I won't say they shouldn't do this or not be allowed to do this. But doing something just to piss some people off is still kind of a dick move in my eyes. And at the very least not productive
Click to expand...

Creators of 'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day' drop gag after everybody gets angry | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

So apparently even the creators of this event now agree with me after seeing the kind of responses and the kind of people supporting them.

Apparently the posts weren't "welcoming" enough, as on Sunday morning he announced his departure from the cause. "I am aghast that so many people are posting deeply offensive pictures of the Prophet," he writes. "Y'all go ahead if that's your bag, but count me out."

Did he think people were going to post flattering images?

That's what Facebook user Douglas Armstrong wondered too. "You created an event inviting people to submit pictures of Mohammed," Armstrong wrote. "And apparently you're so new to the Internet that you didn't foresee what would happen?"
Click to expand...
 
Degreez said:
It makes all the difference to talk about historical people in a historical context. Obviously intellectual honesty and historical integrity mean absolutely nothing to you.
Click to expand...

And Hitler was just a normal product of a anti-semitic culture and influenced by the European cultural norm of pogroms against the Jews, who are we to judge? :roll:

Cultural/moral relativist horse****.

Tell me what are your feelings on ancient human sacrifice?
 
SgtRock said:
Quran in a crapper is passé I think its time for a cartoonist to do something daring like a cartoon of the 40+ year old pedophile prophet Mohammad with his 9 year old wife Aisha.

toilet2.jpg
Click to expand...
So it is... passé.

The Prophet & Aisha; it could be made into a movie.
Roman Polanski can direct it.

.
 
Tashah said:
I understand her motivation - freedom of ideas and freedom of the press - and I embrace these freedoms. But I also think that sinking to this level is rude, crude, unnecessary, and counterproductive. Islamophobia is just as ugly as anti-Semitism.
Click to expand...

This is against radical Muslims who are looking for any excuse to blow themselves up. This is not against the Muslim faith or the average Muslim.
 
rivrrat said:
It's not about trying to piss people off.

If I was a cartoonist, I wouldn't draw the images in order to piss people off. I would do it in protest of the actions of a company in the US catering to terrorists. IMO, this is not so much spitting in the face of Muslims, as it is making fun of the people and companies who cater to terrorists. Making them look like fools. Hoping that perhaps next time, they will have the courage to stand up for freedom of speech. That perhaps next time, the voices of a few idiotic extremists will not drive the actions of a huge US media company.
Click to expand...

I'd do it to piss people off.

I'd become a psych major and conduct extensive research to pinpoint precise weak spots in the human psyche so I could poke at them and invoke a response. My cartoons would start wars, or in the case of the middle east, bring them to a climactic end.

...that is, if I had any talent with cartoons....


koran-hate-bible-art-gm070802.jpg


0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Wiseone said:
I'm all for freedom of speech and I won't say they shouldn't do this or not be allowed to do this. But doing something just to piss some people off is still kind of a dick move in my eyes. And at the very least not productive
Click to expand...

Jerry said:
I'd do it to piss people off.

I'd become a psych major and conduct extensive research to pinpoint precise weak spots in the human psyche so I could poke at them and invoke a response. My cartoons would start wars, or in the case of the middle east, bring them to a climactic end.

...that is, if I had any talent with cartoons....
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that people don't ever do **** like that to piss people off. Of course they do. I was saying that the "draw Mohamed day' thing wasn't to "piss people off". It was to make a point about something else entirely.

Of course people do things like that to piss people off. No doubt about it. When I was modeling for fetish photo shoots, I thought up of all sorts of ways to be so completely un-PC. To seriously piss off the "religious right" with my (and the photographer's) freedom of expression. While I didn't get to model for all of the ones I thought up, I have no doubt he employed some of the ideas in future shoots with other models.

HE did it to piss people off. It was his goal. I was happy to help him think of ways to do it. LOL


But the point of this recent call to draw the muslim prophet wasn't to 'piss people off'. It was to make a point.
 
rivrrat said:
But the point of this recent call to draw the muslim prophet wasn't to 'piss people off'. It was to make a point.
Click to expand...

No, it's all about money, she's just trying to make a prophet.
 
Agent Ferris said:
And Hitler was just a normal product of a anti-semitic culture and influenced by the European cultural norm of pogroms against the Jews, who are we to judge? :roll:
Click to expand...
WTF? Straw man much?

I clearly said to judge historical people within a historical context. Judging them by the prevailing morals of society in different time periods lacks common sense.
By your logic, you would say Hitler was civilized when judging him by the cultures of 1000 BC. Big deal, it means jack **** in a historical context.

Agent Ferris said:
Tell me what are your feelings on ancient human sacrifice?
Click to expand...
The same as your feelings on how dinosaurs died...

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
 
Degreez said:
WTF? Straw man much?

I clearly said to judge historical people within a historical context. Judging them by the prevailing morals of society in different time periods lacks common sense.
By your logic, you would say Hitler was civilized when judging him by the cultures of 1000 BC. Big deal, it means jack **** in a historical context.
Click to expand...

And in the region where Hitler lived during the time period Hitler lived anti-semitism was rampant and pogroms of Jews was a long held tradition. If you let Mohammed off the hook because it was normal for his era (which isn't even true) then you must likewise let Hitler off the hook and just about any tyrant throughout history.


The same as your feelings on how dinosaurs died...

Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Click to expand...

Really? How so? Human sacrifice was normal and commonplace in the ancient world the same as your claim of pedophilia being normal and commonplace in the time of Mohammed. Is one supposed to judge on the cultural norms of their era or the cultural norms of our era? Should slave owners or those who enforced Jim Crow laws not to be seen as morally repugnant just because of the historical context?
 
Agent Ferris said:
And in the region where Hitler lived during the time period Hitler lived anti-semitism was rampant and pogroms of Jews was a long held tradition.
Click to expand...
Antisemitism was rampant, but attempting to systematically destroy a people was not rampant. Antisemitism was not seen as being morally wrong in 1930-1940's Germany. Killing a person because of their religion/race has always been wrong. Then and now.

Agent Ferris said:
If you let Mohammed off the hook because it was normal for his era (which isn't even true) then you must likewise let Hitler off the hook and just about any tyrant throughout history.
Click to expand...
Got a source for young marriages not being normal during Muhammad's era? I expect you to back up claims you state as factual. If it was not normal for women to get married young, then why didn't Aisha's father or mother say anything about it? Why didn't any of the Meccans who were persecuting Muhammad (like Abu Lahab) use his marriage to such a young girl against him? Probably because the average person in Arabia did not live past 55. In fact, other women saw nothing wrong with it. Khawlah bint al-Hakim was a woman in Muhammad's time who encourage him to marry young Aisha.

And claims that Muhammad is a pedophile are historically inaccurate. His first wife, whom he was married to for 25 years of his life, was 19 years older than him.


Agent Ferris said:
Really? How so? Human sacrifice was normal and commonplace in the ancient world the same as your claim of pedophilia being normal and commonplace in the time of Mohammed. Is one supposed to judge on the cultural norms of their era or the cultural norms of our era? Should slave owners or those who enforced Jim Crow laws not to be seen as morally repugnant just because of the historical context?
Click to expand...
Because it's a straw man...? Or do you not understand what a straw man is...?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom