Why I Support Drawing Muhammad May 15, 2010

Why I Support Drawing Muhammad

You never hear about Hindus walking into McDonald’s and telling the manager they’re not allowed to use beef products anymore.

If they did, we would laugh it off. We’d say that’s absurd because non-Hindus don’t have to follow their rules.

But what if the Hindu radicals committed a violent act against the manager? We’d be furious.

What if moderate Hindus said it was offensive for someone else to eat a Big Mac? We’d say that’s crazy.

In response to all that, I think it would be perfectly appropriate to stage a peaceful sit-in where all participants ate Big Macs.

It wouldn’t be anti-Hinduism nor would anyone be purposely trying to piss off Hindus by doing that. It would just be a show of solidarity by those who believe that only Hindus need to abide by their religious beliefs, not anyone else.

That’s what we’re doing by drawing these Muhammad images.

Lars Vilks, the man who drew Muhammad’s face on the body of a dog, was attacked a few days ago. And it has only gotten worse for him since then.

His house was set on fire. (Thankfully, Vilks is ok.)

The facade of the building was lightly damaged, a police spokeswoman told SR radio. Neither Vilks, nor anyone else was in at the time of the incident at the house in a secluded part of southern Sweden.

The radicals are remaining violent.

The “moderate” Muslims are pointing fingers at the artists — the artists!saying they’re offending Islam by drawing Muhammad.

That’s ridiculous, and that’s why I support everyone drawing Muhammad on May 20th.

I’m getting some great drawings of Muhammad from several of you. (Please keep them coming!)

The ones which seem most effective to me are the ones portraying Muhammad in a positive way. Smiling faces, peace signs, etc. If Muslims are offended by those, they’ll only be embarrassing themselves.

The Secular Student Alliance supports the college students who have drawn stick figure Muhammads. To be sure, we are offering a few helpful pieces of advice for any other campus atheists who want to follow in their footsteps.

In the video below, The Young Turks voice their support for the SSA and they go after Eboo Patel‘s wrong-headed criticism of the atheists. The key part for me begins at 1:53:

Right on.

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Cassandra

    Of course, we should be able to draw Mohammed or any other religious figure. I’m amazed that Americans are allowing themselves to be frightened by religious fanatics. If we cannot stand up to religious extremists here, where can it be done?

    Also, American Muslims must be more vocal in condemning threats against free speech.

  • Holy crap! Atheists, liberal, conservatives, and Christians all agreeing on something. This is a great sign. We can’t allow an anti-American/anti-West/anti-freedom ideology and its hidebound adherents to dictate how we act.

    Bravo. (I especially like the drawings of Mohammed in a positive light for the reason you give.)

  • It’s actually very strange for me to wholeheartedly agree with The Young Turks, but when you’re right, you’re right.

  • gski

    Have other religious groups been invited to draw muhammad?

  • Aj

    I really like the argument that there are thousands of things Americans do that are against Islamic law but this is the only thing they get offended by, I think that can’t be repeated enough. I also agree that there are three groups, fundies, whinies, and a normal majority. Many atheists/agnostics are whinies, and they take offense, or get offended for other people, just for the fun of it. I like Stephen Fry’s response to people who claim they are offended “Well, so fucking what?”.

  • Nakor

    I think the guy is wrong when he says that Muslims are just finding it offensive for fun. He seems to underestimate just how much religion can rally people to do. But otherwise I agree, even if they aren’t just doing it for fun, and you can’t just not be offended (because let’s face it, feelings aren’t a choice, actions based on them are), you can understand what the real purpose of the Muhammed drawing are, and you can just turn the other cheek. I’m offended by athletes who thank god for their victories, as an example, but I just let it slide. I don’t choose to not be offended, I just don’t choose to go around whining about it either. That’s what the moderates are failing to do.

    So yeah, I don’t think they’re just being offended “for fun” or “for something to do” but I otherwise agree that they can choose to react more maturely to this.

  • The point that so many seem to be missing (including The Young Turks)is the fact that Muslims do not have a personal relationship with their god, at least not in the same sense that Christians do. It’s not a private or personal issue to them at all. This is a different kind of religion and a different kind of thinking.
    In order to understand where these primitives are coming from it needs to be understood that the religion is all about SUBMISSION (hell, that’s what Islam MEANS) and CONFORMITY. Submission and conformity. Once you understand that, you’re more than half-way to figuring out Islam.
    They simply do not comprehend anything outside of that paradigm and will not back off unless you scream and threaten and raise bloody hell. If they sense any willingness on your part to compromise, it is just confirmation of their greatness and the power of the all-mighty Allah and his blessed prophet. Once they sense weakness, you’re screwed.
    Look at the Monster Mosque http://thegodlessmonster.com/2010/05/14/where-is-the-atheist-outrage/ they are going to build on Ground Zero. Do you think they give a damn that it upsets American sensibilities? Nope. They are going to force their way and that is that.

  • Charley

    Do I remember correctly, Hemant, that you’re against Blasphemy Day? This feels similar to Blasphemy Day to me. I’m honestly not sure how I feel about either one, personally.

  • Nakia

    The issue isn’t the image alone; alcohol is forbidden to Muslims, yet you don’t see Muslims threatening to bomb local pubs. The problem is the mockery. There is a long history of anti-Muslim caricature in Western Europe. A better analogy might be that of reprinting “Little Black Sambo” would be highly offensive to African Americans, and might indeed result in violence. The violence would certainly be blameworthy, but that doesn’t make the bigotry excusable.

  • @Charley — I was against Blasphemy Day because it seemed like the purpose for many of the participants was to piss off religious people and I thought that would be counterproductive.

    The Irish Atheists, on the other hand, were all about the Free Speech aspect of it and I supported that.

  • @Nakia,
    As an Arab-American, I’ve had to deal with more than my share of anti-Arab bigotry. Not only words, but violent, physical attacks. I know what bigotry is.
    This isn’t bigotry, it’s a righteous response to attempts by members of the largest religion in the world to censor free speech and to direct others as to what they can express through threat of violence.
    There’s bigotry going on, all right, but it’s Muslim bigotry and Muslim Imperialism.

  • Great point: there are other real problems in this world. Second good point: getting offended is a choice. If I got offended at every misogynistic thing out there, I’d be a wreck. I filter out which ones to take issue with. Muslims need to get a better filtering system IMO. In the alternative, they need to get a grip.

  • Nakia

    Godless Monster, when you mock a group of people for who they are, it is bigotry. It doesn’t matter whether it’s in response to the negative actions of a few or just because they are different. And I don’t think people ought to be exempt from being criticized for their actions because of their European heritage. The death threats and arson are reprehensible, but you respond to evil with justice, not more evil.

  • Bob Carlson

    So yeah, I don’t think they’re just being offended “for fun” or “for something to do” but I otherwise agree that they can choose to react more maturely to this.

    I would argue that the radicals who have already acted out violently in protest could not have done otherwise. They were merely doing what their genes and environment caused them to do. That doesn’t mean that is futile to try to persuade against future violence by them or others who might be feel inclined to join the radical cause. And although the drawing of stick figures does demonstrate restraint, I would doubt that the folks the figures are supposedly intended for are going see them or comprehend their purpose.

  • @Nakia,

    “Godless Monster, when you mock a group of people for who they are, it is bigotry.”

    I couldn’t agree more. Now please, tell me, how does drawing pictures or cartoons of a “prophet” mock a group of people for who they are?
    Even Muslims will tell you it isn’t (only) about THEM…it’s (mostly) about their “god”. You are a bit off base, here. They are not all complaining about racism or bigotry against them…it’s multi-culturalist westerners and a few select media savvy Muslims who are mostly claiming this. But, if you aren’t convinced by the facts as they’ve been presented, you will never be convinced.

  • Nakor

    @Bob: I would argue it’s not just about making a point to the Islamics, but also to the non-Islamic people who think we should back down whenever we’re threatened. I think it’s important to remind people that we must defend our rights, and that we shouldn’t give in to threats — that we shouldn’t compromise freedom for security.

    @Nakia: I’d argue that it isn’t bigotry when the thing being mocked is a conscious choice — like a political stance, for example. Moreover, I’d argue that this isn’t mockery to begin with; it’s a response that says we won’t give up our right to free speech. The motivation is not to mock Islam, the motivation is to say “we will not let you threaten us into giving up free speech.”

    From my standpoint, opposing this is akin to giving more importance to political correctness than free speech. That should never happen.

    Honestly, a picture like, for example, Muhammed, Jesus and, say, an atheist, all sitting together watching a sunset with a caption at the bottom “Let’s put our differences aside and be friends” should not be offensive at all. It makes the point that we won’t sacrifice free speech, and it shows we’re not out to discriminate.

  • Nakia

    It would be one thing to draw images that were meant to be instructive or otherwise positive. But drawing someone wearing a bomb or with the body of a dog isn’t positive in any way. Those things are mockery. And as far as it not being bigotry for something that is a conscious choice, I’ll have to agree to disagree with you on that. I wouldn’t mock anyone for their gender or nationality.

  • Nakor

    Gender and nationality aren’t conscious choices though, so by the standard I mentioned mocking someone for either would be bigotry. Well, nationality can be, I suppose. As a counter example, mocking the pope for his stance on the child rape ordeal is not (to me) bigotry.

    And I also agree that bomb-head Muhammed is a bad way to go about it. Hemant is also encouraging positive images. We can support Draw Muhammed Day with positive images and still not support mockery and insults. At the same time though, I have to defend the right of people to draw mocking images, even if I disagree with them, because freedom of speech is too important to allow censorship of possibly offensive topics.

    And while I would prefer less aggressively offensive messages be sent, I don’t think those images are bigotry, because they are mocking a bad moral choice (to use violence to silence free speech) that people have made, and that choice is no more sacred and should be no more protected from mockery than the pope’s child rape cover-up.

  • Aj

    I think people need to look up the definition of bigotry before they use the word, and stop personalizing belief so they can start whining about being offended. Mockery can be positive, especially when directed at religion. Islam offends me, it makes a mockery of humanity and reason, and isn’t positive in any way. Mocking Islam is instructive and positive.

  • Nakia

    But Nakor, would you make fun of nuns, or a Catholic family for the pope’s stance? Would you perpetuate negative stereotypes of African Americans because some commit crimes? Aiming offensive images and speech at a whole group of people for what a few have done is bigotry. I see no calls to create caricatures of the idiots who make these threats. The best response to this is still the one that Jon Stewart made.
    AJ: passive-aggressive much?

  • Raghu Mani

    Let me make a few points.

    1. Freedom of speech is meaningless without the freedom to offend. So the free speech protection applies to every single one of these cartoons – including this latest one. However, there can be lots of speech (that is legally protected) that I disapprove of.

    2. Personally, I draw a distinction between speech aimed at making a specific point (this would include satire) and speech aimed at nothing other than causing offense. A person could genuinely feel that Islam (or Christianity or any other religion) is harmful and could draw a cartoon (or write an article) illustrating that opinion and people could take offense. Personally I would have few objections to that (though I might disagree with the writer’s point of view).

    3. I however, object to yanking people’s chains just for the heck of it. The cartoon of Mohammad attached to the body of a dog falls into that category. It isn’t well drawn, it isn’t funny, it doesn’t seem to convey any larger point – it has been drawn just for the purposes of causing offense. Ordinarily, my sympathy would be with offended Muslims in such a case. I would not support banning such speech but I would support any kind of peaceful protest.

    4. Unfortunately, the protest wasn’t exactly uniformly peaceful. Mr. Vilks was assaulted and an attempt was made to burn his home down. I’m sorry, but at this point the cartoons are no longer the major issue for me. The bigger problem I am concerned with is how some in the Muslim community threaten violence (and sometimes carry it out) at the slightest provocation, how they try to use physical intimidation almost at the drop of a hat. This phenomenon can no longer be described as rare and isolated – it is happening all too often.

    5. I would submit that moderate Muslims should also feel the way I do – that this culture of violence and intimidation is a far more serious issue than the cartoons will ever be.

    – RM

  • Bob

    @nakia, I don’t see anyone calling for intentionally offensive depictions of Muhammad so your concern seems overwrought, bordering on a strawman.

    But even if some do draw horribly obscene and blasphemous pictures of Muhammad, so what? Muslims get to be offended just like every other religious, cultural, political, ethnic, etc. group in this society. They get no special dispensation to control what is or is not created and they have no more or less right to take offense than anyone else.

    They are not special and get no special treatment no matter how much they whine and cry and wring their hands. It is not bigotry to expect them to peacefully suck it up like everyone else in this society. And if it’s too much for them, they have precisely two choices: get thicker skin or change the laws.

    Remember, a lot of the offense-taking is over any representational depiction of Muhammad. Someone out there will shit a brick even if you draw Muhammad smiling at his wife/wives or watching a sunset. Whether the intent to offend exists or not, offense will be taken. This alone is no reason to protest, rather it’s the inevitable violence or threats of violence that will result that drive this protest. And as others have pointed out, this is the real problem – the inability or unwillingness of some Muslims to restrain their violent tendencies. Behavior, not speech is the problem here.

    I’m not willing to toss away the hard-won fruits of the Enlightenment (e.g. free speech) simply because a few religious people can’t control their emotions or their behavior.

    And if you’re offended – welcome to the club.

  • Nakor

    @Nakia: The ones supporting him as pope, who aren’t trying to have him tossed out? Frankly anyone covering for the pope is no better than the pope himself covering for the rapists.

    As for mocking Muhammed, I don’t know that it necessarily equates to mocking Islamics anyway. I mocked Bush during his presidency, was that mockery of Americans? (Many Americans mocked Bush!) There are lots of jokes about Jesus, from both atheists and Christians, and the vast majority don’t appear to be bigoted against Christians — only mocking the religion itself.

    It’s like the phrase, “Don’t hate the players, hate the game.” Yes, it would be bigotry to hate on all Islamic people, but it’s not bigotry to mock the religion itself. Islam is a religion based on submission. The religion itself encourages violence to some degree. It’s frankly deserving of mockery. But mocking the religion does not inherently imply mocking or insulting every follower of it.

    Anyway, my point wasn’t that the jokes are nice, or even appropriate. My point was that (1) they aren’t bigotry (dogmatic prejudice against anyone whose opinions differ from their own), they’re just mockery. There is a difference. And, (2) that even the distasteful must be protected as freedom of speech.

    When one mocks Christianity or Jesus, they are not being bigoted against Christians, they are just mocking Christianity. When one mocks Islam or Muhammed they are not being bigoted against the Islamic people, they are just mocking Islam. The only difference is that Islam reacts much louder and much more violently to it.

    Short version: Not all mockery is bigotry, you can mock the idea and not the people, we have to defend mockery as free speech, and I don’t endorse the more insulting mockery like drawing bomb-head Muhammed — only the right to draw it.

  • Mak

    Uh…when it came out that McDonald’s had been using beef flavoring in their french fries and lying about it, “The news ricocheted to India, where restaurant windows were smashed, statues of Ronald McDonald smeared with cow dung, and Hindu nationalist politicians called for the chain to be evicted from the country.” There was a lawsuit and everything. It’s clearly quite a bit different from the example you gave, because of the false advertising part, but close enough that it confused me a bit, because I wasn’t sure at first if you were being sarcastic. http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/20/us/for-hindus-and-vegetarians-surprise-in-mcdonald-s-fries.html

  • @Mak — I had heard about that, but you’re right that the violence had to do with the false advertising. They were fine with meat being served as long as they could choose to not eat it. That’s not the type of thing I’m talking about.

  • Mak

    Wow, you’re quick at responding! Yeah, I just wanted to point it out, in case I wasn’t the only one who was briefly confused. I’ll go see if I can draw you a Muhammad now. 🙂

  • Koala

    Interesting article. The issue, however, is not that religions or religious communities should be protected from criticism by law nor is it the projection of one religion’s values (in this case Islam’s) over other religion’s or philosophies’ values. Instead, by allowing these figures to be drawn, the MSA will be creating/perpetuating institutions of systematic oppression and racism against Muslim-Americans at home and abroad, similar to those that the Japanese-Americans endured during WWII. Racism and its kin are social problems. Not political ones. Not a religious ones. If you ever get a chance, read Holyoake’s book in which he coined the term “Secularism” and also defined freethinking and freethought. We need to remember why we have been given the right of free speech- as a means of disseminating ideas towards perfecting our societies. Holyoake notes that free speech must come with responsibility. The denial of free speech is oppression but its misuse may even be worse. I do not believe that it is the secular students’ intention to fuel oppression, but they must realize that this is, in fact, what will naturally happen.

  • As for how you’ve started this entry, check out Hindu absurdities.

  • Krista

    A muslim friend of mine explained to me that someone drawing Muhammad, to Muslims, is the equivalent to the feeling christians would get if someone set a cross on fire. Granted, to me, I think it’s ridiculous to get upset over either of those two things, but it does make me understand more why Muslims are so upset over it.
    Still doesn’t justify their level of outrage and violence over it though.

  • muggle

    Um, isn’t that kind of a bad analogy on your Muslim friend’s part given that it’s usually Christians (KKK) that set crosses on fire? Maybe he meant churches?

    In any case, it’s still bad. He’s comparing something that does harm to something that doesn’t. It doesn’t do any harm to the Muslim to draw a picture of that perv Muhammed. It does harm to burn down a church or a mosque. No one’s proposing burning down a mosque.

    Maybe I’ll draw one and label it fuck Muhammed or who gives a shit what Muhammed wants. Or just one of him ogling his little six year old wife as she plays with her dolls (gee, what a turn on /sarcasm) and he decides it’s time to consummate the marraige. What a fucked up religion!

    They’re being assinine.

    And, hello, all this drawing of Muhammed would end tommorrow if they’d stop overreacting to it.

    Let’s not forget how this began.

  • @Aj,

    “I think people need to look up the definition of bigotry before they use the word…”


  • @muggle,

    “Let’s not forget how this began.”

    Good reminder, I think a few folks in this thread have a short (or selective) memory.

  • Casimir

    Um, isn’t that kind of a bad analogy on your Muslim friend’s part given that it’s usually Christians (KKK) that set crosses on fire? Maybe he meant churches?

    A better comparison would be something like “Piss Christ” or that picture of Mary with elephant dung on it. Useful, too, since I doubt that either of those artists ever had to face an mob like the one Vilks did, or get attacked by an axe-wielding lunatic, or get stabbed in the chest, et cetera.

    And, hello, all this drawing of Muhammed would end tommorrow if they’d stop overreacting to it.

    Specifically if there were less death threats.

  • Aj

    There are many tactics to try to censor free speech:

    Personalize criticisms of ideas or authorities by dishonestly representing them as attacks on groups or individuals. Mocking Muhammad, a historical figure, is not the same as mocking Muslims. Criticizing the Pope is not the same as criticism all Catholics.

    Crying racism, even when no racial concepts are involved. When ever aspects of non-Western culture are criticized, however insane or harmful they are, people cry racism. If anything, that sort of behaviour is a form of racism.

    Dishonestly categorize any criticism you disagree with as not meaningful, even when you clearly interpreted meaning to it, because you got offended by the message. You might disagree with it, so what, get over it.

    Comment on the quality of the expression as if that has any baring on whether it’s worthy of being expressed. You can only accept criticism when it meets your standards and you find it funny? People that don’t have your sense of humour, or don’t create art as well as you could, are as worthy as you to speak and enjoy.


    The reaction to the cartoons, South Park, and the stick figure protest have more than proved that people care more about causing offence than about legitimate expression, that some people think that because some cleric orders them not to do something that atheists have to follow, and that there are groups of religious and their friends that will lie and cry racism just to close down debate. Taboos and rules need to be broken, sacred cows need to be mocked, in order to show people that they can’t dictate what’s acceptable free speech, that just because they disagree with someone doesn’t mean they can threaten legal action or slander them with slurs like bigot and racist. Anyone doing that can go fuck themselves, if something should offend people, it should be that sort of behaviour.

  • Staceyjw

    This post made me want a big-mac, thanks!

    Otherewise, I am all for being offensive to islam, as there is nothing about the religion that deserves my respect. Its a sick, evil, violent faith that opresses everyone it touches, as a woman it is especially offensive to me.Muslims don’t deserve special privilages, and if we quit drawing “mo” we have submitted to their will. I don’t get why so many people think its so wrong to purposely offend a religion so utterly backwards- atheists say things about xtians all the time (also fine).

    The ONLY reason I agree that drawing mo in a positive way is best (for this occasion), is because being negative will only cloud the point being made- that muslims are being barbaric and violent because non-muslims don’t want to follow their rules, and this is unacceptable.

    BTW- has anyone ever seen the horrible cartoons muslims draw about jews? Talk about racist and hate-provoking!!! But you don’t see anyone mentioning THIS when they are worrying about the “feelings of muslims”.

    And no, drawing or speaking against islam is not bigotry.

  • Jon

    Hemant, I don’t buy your Hindu analogy for a simple reason. Hindus aren’t noticeably offended by the eating of Big Macs. For an analogy to work you need comparable incidents. Americans eat beef every day and I’ve never heard a single complaint. I’ve not seen mass protests (mostly peaceful). For a good analogy you have to find something that is really offensive to the sensibilities of your target.

    Here’s a better analogy. Suppose an elderly Christian person was violent towards a distributor of pornography. Your response is to shove pornography in the face of every elderly Christian you find walking down the street. Would that make sense to you?

    Lars Vilks was wronged of course. But you know who else was wronged? 1.3 million Iraqi’s, mostly Muslims of course, that died because their country was invaded by our secular government on a pack of lies. I haven’t seen that you’ve noticed this. You also haven’t noticed the frequent peaceful protests of Muslims regarding the cartoons. What you have noticed is the tiny fraction of the protests that resulted in violence and you use this as an excuse to stick your finger in the eye of all Muslims in the world.

    Do you know that Palestinians can’t get plastic toys, chocolate, and fruit juice? These items along with many others are blocked by Israel, which can do this only with the support of our secular government. Have we not heaped enough suffering on the Muslim world?

  • Abdul

    Shame on all those people who started and are participating in this day. I dont understand why people do such ridiculous, lame and foolish things,.

    If any of them try to study Muhammad he/she will become Muslim immediately, you cant find more perfect and inspiring personality like Muhammad.

    and Listen People who do Bomb blast stuff are not Muslims at all…

    Request to all: Try to give respect to such personalities.

  • adam

    Jon it’s for that reason why the Hindu analogy is valid.
    In Hindu culture the cow aka the stuff hamburgers are made from is sacred. Therefore killing them, grinding them up and selling them to the masses as food would be considered blasphemous.

    In the Muslim culture drawing Muhammad is blasphemous the point Hemant is trying to make is that despite the cow being holy to Hindu’s they don’t threaten and protest others (non-Hindus) into following their religious beliefs i.e. not eating a Big Mac or other beef based products. Whereas there is a very visible and loud portion of Muslims who does this for the act of drawing Muhammad regardless of context.

    For example The AHA group from the University of Wisconsin-Madison that Hemant has brought up in previous posts, they drew stick figures with smiley faces and Muslims still got offended. Seriously stick figures with smiley faces, this is the farthest thing from trying to be insulting but they where still offended, they called it bigotry and hate speech against them.

    As the Godless monster stated earlier “how does drawing pictures or cartoons of a “prophet” mock a group of people for who they are?”

    Muslims whether they’re extremists or moderates react to the simple act of drawing Muhammad, this is true if the drawing is done with the intent of being derogatory, silly, benign, or even positive.

    If I drew your mother as a stick figure with smiley faces would you be outraged? I’m going to say no, if anything your going to laugh due to my bad drawing stills.

    We’re not Muslims we don’t follow Islamic laws and traditions just like a can eat a hamburger that would be blasphemous for a Hindu to do I can and should be able to draw a picture of Muhammad.

    That’s the point

    As for the rest of your post about the Iraqi’s and Palestinians, while it is sad it has nothing to do with the current topic of free speech.

  • Abdul
  • adam

    Also as per your analogy a more accurate version would be an elderly Christian person being violent towards a distributor of pornography and trying to ban it while everyone else is viewing and buying pornography in spite of that.

  • adam


    have you not read any of the comments that have posted?

  • moslim

    if you believe in the prophethood of Mohammed, or do not believe you have no right to injure the feelings of Muslims who consider Muhammad the most expensive of all themselves :((

  • Killer Bee

    In any fight, the guys with the pens get my sympathy over the guys with the guns…or scimitars.

  • saleha anwer

    look were not saying stop eating pork or stop drinking…(though both have gi-normous side effects…but that being another topic entirely) imagine your mother or father being drawn in an entirely disrespectful insulting manner…its offending.. all we ask for is a little respect.. please dont go around drawing our prophet.. that is all we ask..

  • @saleha

    imagine your mother or father being drawn in an entirely disrespectful insulting manner…its offending.. all we ask for is a little respect..

    A smiling stick figure is hardly offensive.

    What’s more, while some drawings may have offended Muslims, the response from radical Muslims was (and still is) to kill/threaten the artists. Meanwhile, moderate Muslims continue to place too much blame on the artists and not on the extremists on their own side.

    We do this not to make moderate Muslims upset but to show solidarity with those who dare to criticize Islam where it’s deserved. Muhammad is no greater or worse than other prophets and we certainly don’t have to follow your god’s rules if we are not Muslim. For whatever reason, Muslims continue to insist otherwise.

  • Aj

    saleha anwer,

    …imagine your mother or father being drawn in an entirely disrespectful insulting manner…

    You mean as stick figures, with their names and arrows? I kill you, no joke.

    …its offending… all we ask for is a little respect…

    Fair enough, if you stop offending us and show us a little respect. The Qur’an… it says disbelievers go to hell, stop promoting it, stop saying it’s the word of God. The Hadith… says apostates should be killed, make a correction. Muhammad… married a child, don’t say that he is the closest man to perfection. Indoctrination… don’t, educate children impartially and let them decide.

  • Hitch

    Nono, you got that wrong. Telling us that we can burn in hell is OK and not offensive, but those smiling stick figures really really hurt a lot. So we shall burn in hell even more and perhaps we can accelerate the process!

    *was sarcasm*

    I recommend Mark Fiore’s cartoon for EDMD on this point:


  • mish

    if u talk abt freedom of speech why do u have to prove freedom of speech by drawing our prophet….?
    obviously we’ll get offended as he has real imp for all us muslims….
    even if they are smiling stick figures we muslims take that as an offence….because according to us mohammad(PBUH) is sch a beauty that only God can create…no human can even imagine the prophet’s figure and face let alone draw him…
    i think all these activities regarding our prophet should be stopped…
    get a new hobby ppl!

  • A better analogy might be that of reprinting “Little Black Sambo” would be highly offensive to African Americans, and might indeed result in violence.

    Uh, Little Black Sambo has been reprinted. In fact, I’m not sure it ever went out of print. You can get a brand-new copy on Amazon right now. With that in mind, no matter how offensive the drawings might (or might not) be to African Americans, we have seen no violence. There are far more racist books in print than Helen Bannerman’s children’s story. A person who responded with threats and violence to any book would be roundly condemned. That sort of reaction is not understandable in the slightest.

  • Maamy

    You people just don’t understand what Islam is about. It’s not just about Mohammed (pbuh), it concerns all the prophets including Jesus, Abraham ect… If you guys claim to be atheist then so be it but that doesn’t give you the right to offend other people. Your freedom ends where my nose begins. Don’t give me any excuse like “ohh it’s not so much about Islam, it’s just for freedom of speech” because you and I both know that it’s b.s. I don’t see how drawing the Prophet is going to help you in any case. You can criticize Islam all you want but the matter of the fact is Islam is the fastest growing religion and if it was that bad so many people wouldn’t convert to it. To make good criticism you have to know what you are going against. You can’t just go to a website that clearly has an anti-Islam agenda and judge the Muslim population according to that. If you want to know what real Islam is about go to countries like Senegal and Mali. That’s what real Islam is about.

  • adam


    First off wow I can’t believe anyone would still post in a this thread after this so much time

    And second of all, you are a complete idiot

    seriously did you read any of the posts here for the reasons why we did this or why we supported this.

    “Islam is about more then just Mohammed” Really! no fucking really! WOW! You sure told me off.

    “Your freedom ends where my nose begins”

    oh give me a fucking break, drawing Mohammed doesn’t take away your rights it doesn’t harm or effect you in anyway other then the fact you don’t like it and you know what tough suck it up we all face things that we don’t like. Do you know how many stupid, hateful and harmful things I hear about atheists and gays from theists. While yes I would like them to stop my first instinct is not to start taking away rights but to counter it by educating them.

    Oh we have the absolute right to do this, you have the right to be offended you don’t have the right not to be offended. In other words you can bitch and moan all you like, you can form a counter protest, you could just go around making fart jokes about all day for no propose other then to make fun of atheists and that’s your right. No one can take away your right to believe and say what you like and in return you can’t take away our right to think and say what we want that is freedom of speech.

    Oh and btw wanting to step on someones rights is were our noses begins and our freedom ends not some arbitrary oh this thing offends me B.S.

    “I don’t see how drawing the Prophet is going to help you in any case”

    Do you remember up above were I said “you are a complete idiot seriously did you read any of the post here for reason why we did this are why we supported this“

    Your comment right there proves you didn’t because this was answered endlessly.

    people are being censored, attacked, and even killed for making depictions of Mohammed.

    This is in protest of that, it was meant to be a stand for freedom of speech, to desensitize Islam and make it see that it’s not the only belief on the block and doesn’t get special treatment, and last but not least it was meant to give too many targets to fight for those who would wish us harm.

    Oh the rest of your post is irrelevant because it doesn’t matter how big your religion is it’s still doesn’t have anything to back of it claims and therefore it’s just as wrong as every other religion.

  • Catfish_jones

    Is there anything that isn’t offensive to Muslims? Dogs, pigs, monkeys, Jews, Christians, wine, independent women who pick their own wardrobe. I could go on and on. Islam is the most insane so called “religion” in the world. It promises sexual gratification to those who kill themselves in the commission of mass murder, with not 3 or 6, but 72 virgin girls. Does anyone with a brain really believe they’ll be forever engaged in a heavenly orgy, if they kill others in the name of Islam? Islam, is a totally male dominated religion. Designed to propagate itself in the form of Taqyya (lies to non Muslims, like Islam is peace and compassion) when it’s entire history has been involved in warfare, at some capacity, since the very days of Mohammed (Peanut butter be upon him) You people say the most hateful and despicable things about Jews. Yet, you act like a simple cartoon drawing, is a just provocation of murder and warfare. I hate Islam, and I think the entire world is waking up to the fact that Islam, is anything but peace and compassion. 

error: Content is protected !!