Can Atheists and Muslims Compromise on Drawing Muhammad?

I frankly see no opportunity for compromise here. When one side is utterly, obviously wrong, the other side has no obligation to accommodate them.
What atheist would object to a black space labeled “god”?
In the U.S. at least, the law is absolutely clear. You may draw anything you want and no one may stop you with threats or violence.

Yeah, this is unlikely to produce dividends. It would be much more effective for them to do nothing at all, since then the whole point behind the AHA’s actions would become null and void, and no-one would bother doing it again next year. However, as Bob says, they are required by their beliefs to voice disapproval in various ways, from the sedate to the bat-shit crazy, so they will, inevitably, validate the AHA’s position on this matter.

I don’t see our freedom as being “so under threat”. I guess that’s the difference.

But, as I’ve said before, if people choose the lame medium of chalk on the sidewalk,they can’t complain if it gets changed or erased.

If they want to make a real statement, do it in a real way and not with something that is so temporary and borderline vandalism.

Someone is starting early:

Atheist Camel Mohammad Drawings

fea24, surely your head cannot have been so completely hidden under a rock that you’ve missed the threats and actual violence taken against those who have “dared” to draw Muhammed? Attacks, vandalism, and even murder occur when someone draws an image of Muhammed that is put in some type of national media. If that’s not freedom under threat, than what the @#$% is??

There’s only room for compromise one way. Muslims (MSA)need to compromise. Compromise by the AHA negates and redefines the entire exercise and its purpose.
It’s hard to take the AHA seriously after reading the word “compromise”.
Very disappointing.

Of course, it is well within your legal right to modify and even to erase our figures…

Does that come from an in-depth study of UW policy for student groups, or is that Chris Calvey talking out his *ss? Interference with freedom of expression runs counter to everything a university should stand for.

@The Godless Monster,

I don’t see them as compromising on the core message. They’re basically taking every step possible to make it unquestionably clear that their actions are meant exclusively as a declaration of freedom of speech. The way its being done (stick figures only, no denigrating messages, reaching out to the Muslim group etc.) makes it so there is simply no legitimate way that their action can be portrayed as being an attack on Muslims as a group, or at least no sane human being would buy such a portrayal.

If, having done all of this, the MSA still acts like immature children and defaces the figures, there will be no question as to their core values; they believe and plan on enforcing their religious laws on others to the detriment of the right of freedom of speech. They will be unable to argue that they’re fine with freedom of speech but this is “hate” speech. I think it’s rather clever, myself.

I think they’re being disingenuous. From the first draft:

Finally and most importantly — both groups would then proceed to an agreed-upon location and have a peaceful, respectful, and hopefully productive discussion about the many complex issues at stake

“…over a beer.”

🙂

I’m sure for the longest time in Christianity that graven images were off limits, otherwise it would not be a commandment, but somehow graven images were allowed eventually. Islam is just going through it’s own reformation yet the Muslims don’t even realize it.

If a Muslim sees a drawing of Mohammed they should feel the same way as a 19-year-old Afghani girl seeing an episode of “Sex and the City” – offended at first, then enlightened and empowered.

It seems to me that compromise with religion is compromise with the long fought search for reality, justice, and a humane, better life. Are people to say, ‘ok you can only maim and murder women’, or that evolution is merely how god does life(creationist evolution)? I think that’s a inherently one way street and a slippery slope trap for the foolish.
The solidarity of everyone standing up to the fanatic twits by a draw Muhammad day is a great idea that may save some creative lives. Why not make it annual and or more inclusive of other tyrannical congame religions?
btw how does one send a drawing, and how can we sign them to be in real solidarity?

This is a fundamentally bad compromise. Part of the idea of free speech and expression is… you get to “offend” others. Sorry, but that is part of the deal with free speech. The mohammed as a stick figure campaign is great way to show the ridiculous extents that muslims can find “offense” at everyday silly things and bully people to stop them (and for the unartistic, easy to draw). But that doesn’t change the fact that no matter how “offensive” something is, they have no business shutting down that speech either.

All this public “compromise” does is say “we will use and fight for, our freedom of speech only up to the point that muslims will allow us”! It gives credence to the idea that muslims are right when they burn the houses of cartoonist that can draw better than stick figures because this group by trying not to “offend” is saying that those cartoons are offensive, and shouldn’t be done. Well they may be “offensive” but I thought the point was even if something is “offensive” muslims need to grow up and get over it. This is still fundamentally caving in to muslim bullying.

fea24:

If they want to make a real statement, do it in a real way and not with something that is so temporary and borderline vandalism.

Actually, chalking sidewalks is a popular way to get the word out on university campuses, and is explicitly permitted (and regulated) by the relevant bureaucrats.

@The Captain:
I disagree. If the AHA was willing to not chalk Muhammad at all, then I’d agree – but they aren’t. If the AHA changed their plans to only do the single chalking, whether or not the MSA went along, then I’d agree – but they aren’t.
They’re saying that if you find it offensive, work with us and we’ll do something that’ll give the same message, but will respect your sensitivities more. It also gives the MSA a chance to oppose those who use Islam for hate – to show that the extremists don’t speak for everybody.
But I’d put the odds of the MSA cooperating somewhere between ‘slim’ and ‘none’. It’s far easier to get outraged and offended. I hope they prove me wrong, but I won’t expect it.

@PrimeNumbers

You realize that child brides were (and in many places sadly still are) a common part of the culture, right? I mean, be offended at the idea all you like, because it’s pretty damn creepy, but Muhammad was not some random pedophile. He was following the same societal rules everyone else did. Not that it’s admirable to go along with something like that without protesting, but traditions have almost a gravitational pull to them. It’s kind of bizarre to expect a guy who is, after all, just some random guy and not holy at all, to suddenly become an activist centuries ahead of his time.

@ Parse

The problem I have is the draw muhammed campaign is basically making two important points. 1. That muslims take “offense” to too much stuff. A stick figure, really???? This shows the absurdity of them and their controlling attitudes. But just as important is the second point. 2. Muslims have to learn that in western societies, you do not have a right not to be “offended”. And they certainly do not get to act violent at others because they get offended. By going out of their way to work with the MSA to not offend them, the AHA is saying that the boundaries of speech at a public protest on free speech, should be dictated by the MSA.

They in effect have taken the muhammed stick figure and turned it from a symbol of free speech, into the limits of free speech.

It’s kind of bizarre to expect a guy who is, after all, just some random guy and not holy at all, to suddenly become an activist centuries ahead of his time.

Yes but Muslims claim that is isn’t some random guy at all, but the holy prophet on who’s life the measure of being a good Muslims should be measured forever, not as pertains to the given culture. The point is that his raping of Aisha shows him to be anything but holy, because someone who was holy would live life according to values recognized as universal, not “because everyone is doing it”.

This is besides the fact that no matter the culture, being attracted to pre-pubecent girls is not normal. Most men, of any age, do not feel such attractions. 14 year old girls maybe according to culture, but 9 year olds?

If you mean the general public, then understand that this stunt is just another version of the same experiment that’s already been run by others. You know what the results were; we all do.
How many times do we need to run this experiment before we finally accept the results?

It’s not an experiment. The goal isn’t just to “see what happens”, it is to change the way Muslims view freedom of expression and what really is their religious right in western society. They think drawing and criticising their prophet and their religion is offensive. Law says that offence is not reason enough to silence other points of view.

This is why it needs to be done, over and over again, with increasing frequency and scope. So long as Muslims react threateningly (either passive-aggressive, or full on aggressive) towards people who draw their prophet, and claim that their freedom of religion extends to forcing others to abide by their dogma, then this is action that needs to be taken.

The written law is very clear, but even our governments are allowing themselves to be cowed into submission.

I say to these students: keep at it. If we bow into something as simple as this, then how far will we let them go when it comes to things more important? The line must be drawn, and it must be drawn here and now.

@claudia – Mohammad’s marriage to Aisha was in large part political and she is the only child he married (all the rest of his wives were older and had been previously married). A real pedophile in his position of authority would have had many more children as wives. As it is it may seem a bit odd that he only married one given the number of prominent men who would want to have him marry their daughters.

Were the customs of that time barbaric by our standards? yes, however, I wonder what customs we have now will seem barbaric in a 1000 years.

@Mak,

Baloney, marrying a child even raised eyebrows at the time and was against the norms of even the, hated by Muslims, Idolaters. Muhammed had to justify many of his norm violations (like taking more than 4 wives) by putting words in the mouth of Allah via Qur’an verses that specifically gave himself exception from norms. Exceptions that allowed him to do things like violate the taboo of fighting during the holy month, nullifying the rights of his wives to divorce, norms on destroying date palms, and the like.

Not only did he violate the low standards of his own tribe but also there were other contemporaneous tribes, religions, cultures and men with far higher standards than those shared by his primitive tribe.

Don’t speak from ignorance.

If this really is about criticising Islam and free speech as many have suggested, then why not produce depictions of Allah rather than Mohammed. As it is, you can easily get away with depicting or criticising Allah, especially since the Qur’an is his word and not that of the Prophet’s.

I will also point out that technically depictions of Mohammed are forbidden only in Sunni Islam; there is not nearly as much of a problem with Shi’a Muslims since they already treat the Prophet with a level of reverence that Sunni’s would equate with idolatry.

There is a broader point about religious certainty versus pluralism that has nothing to do with Islam.

If you hold that X is true, Y is a prophet and, Z is holy. This is not something believers tend to hold contextually. It’s universal. The conclusion is that people who do not hold these propositions are wrong, misguided, or worse mean, intolerant etc.

Of course in reality there just is no pluralism if people demand that absolutist mandates hold. That is very much the friction. Whether certain more devout Sunni Muslims want nobody to draw pictures, or fundamental evangelical Christians want sex ed to be scrapped, the underlying principle is the same. One of profound assumed certainty driving a universalizing intolerance.

That’s exactly why I don’t like when Muslims come out and claim all this is necessary anti-islamic. It’s not. It’s about actual pluralism and tolerance.

@Slickninja,
Argued like a bonafide liberal, bravo. I breathe a sigh of relief every time I read a comment from someone who seems to understand the meaning of the word and the principles behind it.
The pseudo-liberal multi-culturalists are more concerned with the appearance of moral superiority than anything else. It’s intellectual posturing and dogmatic, moral snobbery, plain and simple.

To anyone who really knows about Islam,

Every time I hear some gawd-awful thing about Islam, it seems like it always originates in the Hadith and not the Koran – which, to my mind, means it’s debatable, correct?
Is there any chance that Islam can ever be mellowed down the way Christianity and Judaism have been?
I like the sort of argument from within the box Ian Kendall posted. But, I don’t know if that tack has any meaning or relevance to “real” Muslims.

I agree. PC is a very superficial form of morality. What ever happened to “Saying what you mean and meaning what you say”. From that point of view PC is actually immoral.

I know that my previous argument may not affect many Muslims but it may affect those who have a more considered morality.

I think the time has come to reopen the debate on morality. It is time to reject the half-assed moral standards presented by ancient cults and show them that the evil currently afflicting the modern world is a direct result of their moral inconsistencies: not the progress of science.

The quality of thought that has gone into their moral and unfortunately legal systems is abysmal. This sort of quality in a science project would get you lambasted. During the Renaissance it was agree the Science and Religion would not interfere with each other. It is not the Renaissance now and Muslims were not part of the agreement, and certainly won’t keep to it. Worse, think of the evils that might have been avoided by active critique of the Catholic Church.

The time has come to meet “righteous anger” with witheringly well founded judgment. The Bible says “Judge not if you do not want to be judged” I say why not be critical of something you find thoroughly unacceptable: something you would not dream of doing yourself. Islam is not a system for improving people. It is system that hungers for followers and will excuse any behavior that achieves that end.

So don’t be afraid to say that such an entity is anti-human and no longer acceptable in the modern world.

Muslims are offended because that’s how they gain political power. RACIST! Well islam is not a race, unless you consider it is ARAB centric & Islam is decidedly anti-Judeo-Christian & West, which is predominantly white. So when they say racist? They’re RACIST. Muslims being OFFENDED is the excuse to KILL, Jihad, murder non-muslims anywhere they find them. That’s why death threats and murder against south park, cartoonist, film makers is not against islam. Mohammad murdered his critics, even an old lady. Besides MOHAMMAD IS A MAN NOT GOD. Why is he so sacred? It’s as if muslims think we OWE THEM? It’s the other way around. They should keep their head down and apologize daily.

I love fine art and drawing and I want to be an artist(as well as a author after I graduate from college)and I don`t think I would ever draw the Prophet Muhammad because I haven`t the slightest clue of what he looked like.It would be similiar-(and I`m not comparing them-because in Islam-Muhammad is just a man who served as a conduit for Allah`s will and spirit and in Christianity Jesus Christ was both the son of God and God himself-simultaneously-and in Islam,Muslims do think Jesus Christ lived-but not as the son of God but as a human prophet)to trying to draw Jesus Christ.

I was a Christian up until my late teens and when I was in Sunday school we would always be instructed to color images of Jesus with brown crayons for his hair,blue crayons for his eyes and peach crayons for his skin(because Jesus was depicted as a white guy in my sunday school class-as he has been in many others).
But if Jesus had ”King Of The Jews”etched onto the cross as he was being crucified wouldn`t that mean he was a Jew himself or looked like a Jew?I am neither a a Christian, a Muslim,a Catholic or a Jew but if Jesus lived should it matter what color he was?If Muhammad lived,should it matter what race he was? I won`t ask ”does it matter?”There may be an African-American in The White House and for that I am so proud but don`t kid yourself,we don`t live in a ”post-racial” era.
All of that post-racial stuff is bulls**.
Nascar isn`t post racial.The NHL isn`t post racial.The United States Congress isn`t post racial.

Because the fact of the matter is race does still matter(not to everyone of course) and if it didn`t, students in my Sunday school class wouldn`t have had to draw Jesus as a white guy when there`s no way our teachers could`ve possibly known what color Jesus was and students in some sunday school classes across North America still wouldn`t have to color Jesus as a white guy when there`s no way sunday school teachers today could possibly know what color Jesus was -or is-or both if you believe that Christ lives.

In the West,Jesus is popularly depicted as being white but I`ve heard that historians and religous scholars think that Jesus would have been a Galilean Jew.Personally,I`m not even going to pretend to know what color Jesus was-or is,if God exists and Christ really was God in spirit and the flesh-at the same time.Race matters for the drawing of Muhammad too-and people of all races can be Muslim-but don`t tell me that most Muslims really believe that Muhammad was a white guy or a Jew.I`m not a betting man but I`d bet the rent that most of the world`s Muslims believe that Muhammad was an Arab.

Drawing Muhammad can be a slippery slope too,you wouldn`t want it to be like what Hollywood did with the new Prince Of Persia movie and have Muhammad looking like he could be or could`ve been a white guy.The Prince Of Persia,the movie adaptation of the popular video game of the same name,has Jake Gyllenhaal-a great actor but also a white Jewish actor playing Dastan-a sixth century Prince Of Persia.I get why the studio did it instead of casting an Arabic actor or an actor who could at least believably pass for an Arabic person the way Hispanic actor Antonio Banderas did as a Arab hero in The 13th Warrior because Gyllenhaal has name-brand fame but if Disney had more balls they would`ve cast an Arabic actor or a actor who could believably pass as an Arab and not have whitewashed the role Hollywood-style.

It`s insulting to Persians and to white audiences because it makes it seem like white audiences can`t enjoy a movie without a white actor in the actor in the lead,as Jehanzeb Dar,a blogger and independent filmmaker said and we know that it`s just not true that a movie without a white actor in the lead can`t appeal to a mainstream audience(but admittedly,sometimes it can be harder)Bruce Lee,Denzel Washington,Will Smith,Morgan Freeman,Antonio Banderas and others wouldn`t have careers if it were true.
Persia`s modern day Iran and there wouldn`t have been a white Prince of Persia-I`ll go see the movie but it really is a fantasy movie.

But the popular ”postcard image” of Jesus is the caucasian man with shoulder length brown hair,matching beard and blue eyes.But that still doesn`t mean Jesus couldn`t have been a Jew.Jews can have brown hair,dark hair,blonde hair and blue eyes too or red hair and green eyes.Jesus`s race remains a mystery and a source of debate -people are just free to imagine for themselves what he might`ve looked like and they fill in the blanks with their own imagination.If I were to try to draw Muhammad-I`d have to do same thing.
Fill in the blanks with my imagination.A lot of artists do that anyway with historical figures or fantistical or mythological creatures or fantistical or mythological beings and artists have been doing that for generations when imagining exactly what the dinosaurs looked like(fossils only give more of a general outline).

I thought that Dreamworks took the smartest tact in 1998 Moses movie The Prince Of Egypt because in that movie you couldn`t tell what color the characters were.Are they black?Dark-skinned Jews?Arabic? Dreamworks could`ve really stepped into a minefield with the race issue but they treated the incendiary issue respectfully and downplayed it made the story and characters more important.

I`m for freedom of speech and freedom of expression-politically correct or politically incorrect.I`m also a strong supporter of freedom to worship-which also includes freedom not to worship.If people of different religions or people who are atheists and agnostics want to draw Muhammad-not because they intend to be mean-spirited or malicious or satirical or take a knock at Islam but because they have the right to draw Muhammad,I think that`s great(I`m not Islamic if it sounds like I am).

Islamic radicals threatening cartoonists just goes to show that you have to be careful about what you write,draw and put out there for public consumption but that freedom of speech and freedom of expression are universal human rights but sadly,they are not universally recognized human rights.

And it bothers me when so many in Islam-but not all people in the religion,of course-in many Muslim countries seem to be against freedom of speech and freedom of expression.