Really? Besides Muhammad, name 1 other well known person who showing a benign picture of him causes a real risk of getting killed by his fans?
Noooooo you forgot the (PBUH) when you mentioned Muhammad (PBUH), now I will have to kill you :( look what you made me do
Don’t worry, i was actually taking about Muhammad Ali
You shall be spared this time Mashallah
How DARE you speak that name with even the slightest link to derision! I mean, erm, Jar Jar Binks.
Muhammad is SCP-096 confirmed.
deleted by creator
Huh?
deleted by creator
The fans of some streamer are not going to kill you.
It was sort of a half-joking response but I can see that didn’t come through. Oh well
Who cares though. Why do we put so much more power in the hands of people who are only more physically attractive?
I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen quite a number of vtuber face reveals, every singe one is shockingly sexy
At this point its a bit of a meme in the community that all vtubers are automatically hot
name 1 other well known person who showing a benign picture of him causes a real risk of getting killed by his fans?
I’ve gotta say, I know quite a few Muslims and I can’t think of one who would so much as take a swing at me for running around in a big t-shirt with Muhammad’s face on it. Meanwhile, I can think of a few people who would take a swing at me if I was wearing, say, Osama Bin Laden.
Well I don’t know if you heard but there’s this orange deranged guy.
Showing a benign picture of him won’t get you killed.
What’s the fun in that?
Does this narrow it down better? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
I’m really confused about the “No one can have my picture but almost every single one of my male believers is going to carry my name” situation.
Religions are kind of weird, aren’t they?
Always has been. Religion is the single biggest reason to not believe in religion.
“Religion has given us hope in a world torn apart by religion.”
the picture thing is to avoid idolatry, which was the main type of religion in the region at the time Islam was beginning. people were used to worship to (or via) visual depictions of gods, so a ban on visual representations of people was an effort to avoid people falling into old habits.
that’s why currently an overwhelming majority of Muslims don’t care about depictions of people in general, but they still don’t allow the prophet or god to be depicted (god isn’t supposed to have any physical form anyway) because that would be too close to idolatry.
kind of the opposite approach of christians with pagans, where christians appropriated pagan symbols to make Christianity more appealing, media were concerned with differentiating themselves from other religions.
uttering names isn’t taboo in Islam like it is in Christianity. while some Christians avoid saying God, Jesus or the like, Muslims are encouraged to use god’s name frequently. however they’re not allowed to call people certain names reserved for god alone, but that isn’t the case for the prophet. so it’s considered sort of a tribute or a sign of respect to name people after the prophet.
interesting fact, Muhammed isn’t the prophet’s only name, so while this is the most common name in the world, the number of people named after the prophet is even higher, because it includes some other names, most common after Muhammed being Ahmed.
Well, really fundamentalist whackdoodle strains of Islam actually go so far as to claim that no pictorial depiction of any living thing is allowed. They just get really extra touchy about old Mr. M.
Jury’s out on how, exactly, that would stand up to things like television and photographs. But I’m not an imam and I don’t have the entirety of the hadiths in front of me so I don’t fuckin’ know. The whole thing is obviously wonky on its face.
It’s a rule thing. Like not eating pork or shellfish, but less tangible and comprehensible than a dietary restriction.
Not depicting people with representative art is a thing that isn’t universally embraced in Islam or by every Muslim. But similarly there’s going to be some person out there who feels as strongly about it as they would if someone intentionally snuck pork into their food.
Fun fact: While pictures of Mohammed are a no-no for Sunnis (Arabic World), it’s a common thing for Shias (Iran mostly).
That right there is so annoying… Imagine a doctor’s waiting room, and a nurse asks Mr Mohammed to come in and 20 guys stand up.
I’m really confused about the “No one can have my picture but almost every single one of my male believers is going to carry my name” situation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm#
Just an artifact of history.
I remember when the South Park drama happened, and Matt and Trey were both like “you guys realize he’s been in every single episode for months now, right? He’s in the intro. It’s only an issue now because we had him as a focus of the episode.”
There once was a post on the Onion about a caricature of Christian, Judaist, Hindu and Buddhist gods having an orgy and no believers wishing death upon the author, but sighing and closing the tab instead.
There was one with mohammed included too in a french satirical paper, but it was sometimes in the -70 or -80. Much cooler times.
…didn’t that French newspaper then much later end up getting shot up?
I think it’s the same but I’m not sure. The shooting was like 40 years later though so not relevant to the mohammed orgy images.
It was shot up by people who were mad that the journal was regularly doing drawings like that.
Yes but that was 30-40 years later.
It’s not that specific drawing, it’s that they still make drawings like it regularly.
Well yes, but nobody cated for 30 years so they didn’t do it during that time. Or not at all as provocatively.
Pls don’t kill me for posting this. A holy warrior already smote the guy that drew it 🙏
My question is, if it is supposedly abominable to show a picture of Mohamed, thus there are no extant pictures of him, how does the claim that any particular doodle of a guy in a turban with a beard actually is a depiction of Mohamed stand up to logical scrutiny? (That was a rhetorical question. I know my error was actually in including the word “logic.”)
You can’t prove it’s actually him. This could just be the Continuing Adventures of Captain Bomb Hat, an individual completely unrelated.
You’ll KNOW it’s a drawing of Muhammad because the artist will be killed by a Muslim.
Truly the prophet of a thousand faces
That’s why it’s very silly. You can literally go around with a label maker and put “This is officially a depiction of the Prophet Muhammad” on any random thing.
Context of the intention.
Here I go;
0>-<
^ That’s him there ^
A jihad upon you
- Draw racist caricature
- Label it “Mohammad”
Murder
Sure its not maybe possibly Linux?
Sentenced to death by Arch.
This one?
No this is a common misconception. That’s Brian, and he is a very naughty boy
For a moment I thought this was a character from JoJo’s Bizarre Adventure lol
How do we know it’s not?
Which heavy metal band is he named after?
My bet is on Killing Joke
No, that’s just the Jesus
Nobody fucks with the Jesus!
I’m fairly certain that’s Stephen Fry with a beard.
Fucking Star Wars fans…
As a Star Wars fan, have an angry upvote
Well, because Exodus 20:4-6, the Second Commandment, says:
4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
Belief It or Not just did an episode about it, too.
What’s interesting is both how lax Christians and Jews are about it, and how severe the wording actually is. By some interpretation, any visual depiction of nearly anything is an idol. Certainly a big statue of Jesus or a fresco of God should both qualify, and yet…
There was a whole schism in the Byzantine Empire during the late 700s over whether religious iconography constituted graven images. This enveloped all the Abrahamic Religions and periodically reasserted itself for nearly a millennium, both in the academic sphere and in riots lead by hot-headed zealots of various sects.
Muslims simply ended up on the iconoclast side of the fence once the dust settled. If you study art history of the region, you get some truly incredibly geometric patterns emerging throughout the Muslim world, well into the 20th century, because of this stricture against iconography. There’s some speculations iconoclasm inspired efforts to produce these shapes and patterns, resulting in a heavy religious patronage of Islamic mathematics in much the same way the Renaissance Era in Europe contributed to the modernization of art and sculpture.
But the idea that Islam is somehow unique in the views on artistic reproduction of the human form is really more an artifact of history than of the religion itself. Absent certain twists of fate, we’d be angrily denouncing Muslims for making big bronze statues of their religious figures, which 600 years of Protestant iconoclasty informs us is only something a bunch of evil religious psychos would ever do.
Punish third and fourth generations for the sins of their ancestors. Sure whatever.
Showing love to a thousand who love and keep commandments. Sure fine.
But what happens if my grandparents loved and kept commandments, but my parents didn’t? Does the punishment supersede the love? Or do me and my kids get fucked, but my grandkids are back in the good graces?
Just sayin.
The guy is jealous. You got the warning so watch out and behave.
Twelve people were gunned down for publishing a cartoon of Muhammad.
A teacher was beheaded for showing a drawing of Muhammad.
Cartoonist drew Muhammad, leading to Danish embassies being attacked and riots broke out and people died. Later, people broke into his house to try to kill him.
Cartoonist had to live under police protection because of threats.
Creators of South Park were threatened for including Muhammad in an episode of the show.
Salman Rushdie was stabbed on stage
A teacher forced into hiding for showing a picture of Muhammad
I don’t care if you want to claim all religions are equally capable of violence.
There is only one religion I’m deathly afraid of pissing off if I choose to criticize them publicly.
What’s up with the casual Islamophobia recently?
Let’s not make this into reddit.
Phobia is an irrational fear. Being afraid of extremists who want to brutally murder you for drawing a cartoon is perfectly rational.
I am honestly shocked at the level of bigotry in this meme and this comment.
Comparing Islam to a fanbase that will ‘literally murder you for showing a picture’ is so obviously Islamophobic I don’t know how else to say it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
Read up dipshit, they specifically murdered people because they were offended by cartoons of their prophet. The murderers themselves cited their religion as motivation. Go on, explain to me how that wasn’t really what they’re upset about, I’ll wait.
It is the attribution of that extremism to being a part of ‘muhammad’s fanbase’ that is islamaphobic, not pointing to an example of the extremism itself.
A member of a group committing murder and citing that group’s beliefs isn’t a justification for casually implying that members of that group are murderous, even if it’s true is the most limited sense of the word.
Especially when that group is itself subject to extreme violence and genocide on the basis of their membership.
This is a poor semantic argument. It actually originates with right-wing rhetoric around “homophobia”.
The argument also hinges on there being only one meaning to a word. Kinda like how Trump is confused about how you can be Asian and Black.
Not all criticism is Islamophobia.
Lmao this is criticism?
Yea it’s fuckin dumb to murder people over cartoon drawings.
It isn’t as dumb as it is bigoted to imply that muslims are murderous extremists.
Maybe, but that’s not what’s happening here.
Pop quiz: name a group of people who could be considered the ‘fanbase’ of the prophet named Muhammad.
The mistake you’re making here is the only person saying ALL Muslims are like this in this thread is you. That would be a bigoted statement but only you are saying that.
I assure you that I take pleasure in offending religious fruitcakes of all sorts.
Offensive: “christians believe that an imaginary flying bearded man in the sky speaks to them”
Bigoted: “Muslims are barbaric murderers that will kill you for showing a picture of their prophet”
You see the difference there?
But christians are barbaric murderers who will kill you for not converting to Christianity. I am not sure which of us is more confused.
- Only one of those groups is subject to violent marginalization in the western world on the basis of their belief
- It is possible to be bigoted/prejudiced against multiple groups of people at the same time
I am quite sure it’s you who is confused.
Not really seeing a ton of violence against Muslims or Christians where I am tbh.
Can you expand on this point? It’s not immediately clear what difference you are trying to highlight.
One is mocking the belief of a group by portraying it as ridiculous, the other is a bigoted portrayal of a group as homicidal on the basis of their belief.
The meme isn’t offensive toward ‘religious fruitcakes’ (the use of this word is kinda ironic but unrelated), it’s actively bigoted and Islamophobic. Socsa was presumably defending the meme by saying they enjoy offending all religions and not just islam, and I was pointing out that the post wasn’t simply offensive, it was bigoted.
Edit: responding here because this post was removed on my home instance for Islamophobia.
you’re still coming across to me as just saying “it’s never ok to criticize bad Islamic practices, it’s automatically bigotry.
It isn’t a critique, it is portraying Muslims as fanatical murderers.
I assume you find the practice of brutally murdering people for the act of drawing a picture of a fictional character to be bad. How would you phrase a legitimate criticism of the practice without being bigoted?
In the same way that you would ‘critique’ Christianity, which justifies acts of terror such as bombing PFP clinics with Genesis 9:6, or Romans 13.
Extremists in Christianity are not seen as representative of the faith, but they are for Islam.
I’m really, honestly trying to understand your perspective to the point of being weird and following you around in a comment section, but you’re still coming across to me as just saying “it’s never ok to criticize bad Islamic practices, it’s automatically bigotry.”
Let’s flip this on its head, maybe that will help. I assume you find the practice of brutally murdering people for the act of drawing a picture of a fictional character to be bad. How would you phrase a legitimate criticism of the practice without being bigoted?
Nah, bigoted would be saying “these people are inferior humans because they have stupid beliefs.” Or perhaps the act of infantilizing people for use as an ideological cudgel.
What I am saying is that they are very normal, run of the mill humans, and that having stupid beliefs is pretty typical of the human condition, writ large.
I need explainxkcd.com, but for memes.
There have been several violent incidents in reaction to published depictions of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, which is strictly forbidden by some interpretations of the Sahih al-Bukhari, one of the major Sunni Islamic texts.
I’m assuming that’s what’s being alluded to here.
But like, that’s stupid they don’t expect us to eat halal why do they expect us not to depict their prophet?
It’s not every muslim. Only the bigoted/loudest ones. Just like not every christian intimidates you to accept Jesus as your savior.
deleted by creator
Basically they managed to convince a lot of people that drawing Mohammad is hate speech, while obviously such depictions do exist (especially those that also conflate having an Arabic decent with Islamism), it’s just certain fundamentalists won the free marketplace of ideas through bullying and terrorism.
Despite all the legitimate critiques, it was a mistake to succumb, now Christian fundamentalists are trying the same, see the overreaction to the Olympics.
now Christian fundamentalists are trying the same, see the overreaction to the Olympics.
I’m OotL on the Shitlympics intentionally, what are the big babies crying about now?
People want to claim the drag performance was making fun of “The Last Supper” and the Gojira concert was “satanic”.
People want to claim the drag performance was making fun of “The Last Supper”
By their own statements, that was their actual intention though.
No it wasn’t. It was an homage to a French painting of Greek gods having a bacchanal.
Drag queens in the opening ceremony
Because Religion = Logic - Religion
Oh, yes I do remember that incident, but I never would have connected it with Yoda etc. Thanks.
Je suis Charlie.
Mohamed. For reference search it+ South Park
KnowYourMeme.com is the closest i could think of. Maybe combined with urbandictionary.com
There was a time in Europe where it was illegal to draw something to realistic thanks to the church.
There was also a time when it was believed that Jesus, being perfect, was incapable of change. It’s why so many old paintings of Jesus look like middle aged babies; They believed that Jesus was born with an adult’s body, just baby-sized. Cuz if he was perfect, there would be no room for change. So lots of old paintings of Jesus have him looking like a tiny middle aged man.
I love that he has a receding hairline there. Also that’s a bit old of a look for a man who died at like 30
That was like getting to 60 in today’s terms
You’re probably joking but if you’re not, this idea pisses me off.
The average is skewed by childhood mortality at birth or due to childhood diseases and birth defects. If you made it to 20 in the Bronze Age and weren’t killed by violence, there’s a damn good chance you’d hit 60 or 70 years old.
Well also there were the Romans. I imagine being conquered ages you at least a decade.
I’m talking world-wide not that time of empire. Also way before Roman was a thing.
It’s even referenced in the Bible, showing that the writers had a good idea of the maximum human lifespan even back then.
[Genesis 6:3] Then the LORD said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.”
Unless you’re being funny get fuct.
Even the Far Side got in on the act
This predates the internet. And I’ve heard it in at least two other languages besides English. I love it.
Linux users
Who would Linux users murder if you showed a picture of… who exactly?
Linus Tolvards with a T-shirt saying “I love NVidia”
LiNuX bAD
More like WiNdoWs bAd.
🤓
Windows is a huge piece of shit. I tried to deny it for a long time but I was wrong. And it’s only getting worse.
wINdOwS bAd 🤓
nOn-CoRpOrAtE OpTioNs BaD
Nobody made that point nerd.
nerd
Says the person on Lemmy who tries to start a fight about Linux people.
deleted by creator
This type of comment is always hilarious to me. We’re talking about it right now. Nobody has been called bigoted. It’s fine.
Fuck off, all religions are fucking stupid and need to die. They have no place in human civilization anymore. It is time to move on.
Isreal is a religious ethnostate, in the same way most of the middle east is, in the same way large swaths of the bible belt try (and many times succeed) to be.
The only difference between these three is the amount of money and leeway they’re given to enact their stupid bullshit. Its time the adults in the room stopped putting up with it.
You can throw around “edgy reddit atheist” all you want, but were not the group of people enabling and engaging in some of humanities most heinous acts over the fact that you where too stupid to question your parents. I’m so tired of wearing kid gloves around religious folk.
Have you considered public office? You’d have my vote
