# Mohammed cartoons **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 13, 2015, 8:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695 "2015-01-13T08:11:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/81 "2015-01-14T20:40:29Z")
Baring, not bearing. Typo. ---
**Author:** ![Peremensoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ce7236/32.png) [@Peremensoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peremensoe)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/82 "2015-01-14T20:57:29Z")
> [@Lemmytheseal2](#): > > When NYC’s beardy-weirdy Haredi Jews try to tell shorts-wearing women not to bicycle through “their” neighborhoods, well, it’s time for a skin-bearing Bike Bloc, among other things! That’s cool. That’s _speech_, as in expression, in the public arena. Just as it should be. You don’t see how that’s different than chasing the “beardy-weirdys” down and putting your Docs to them? ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/83 "2015-01-14T22:12:32Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > That’s lovely, but it has virtually nothing to do with what I wrote. Then your argument is that Charlie Hebdo should _never_ have published the likeness of Muhammad, and even though they had many times before, they should make an exception in this case. In other words, because they were attacked and many were senselessly murdered, _now_ let’s choose to respect Muslims. If you will grant me at least the acknowledgement that such an action shows that the terrorists would have tangibly altered their freedom of expression, through the use of violence. That’s why every newspaper should publish that cover, imho. ---
**Author:** ![TheSeaOtter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ed655f/32.png) [@TheSeaOtter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheSeaOtter)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/84 "2015-01-14T22:34:28Z")
> [@Freudian\_Slit](#): > > There was no option for my answer. I’d publish them to put the news story in context and because they’re relevant to what’s going on, not so much because of free speech or to send a message. I, too. I do feel strongly about free speech, but in the hypothetical, I’d be publishing the cartoons not because I enjoy sticking it to the censorious, but because I am running a _newspaper_, and reporting on newsworthy events is therefore my _entire job_. The information I intend to convey is less “We will not be terrorized!” and more “This is what this major news story is about.” ---
**Author:** ![Lemmytheseal2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/82dd89/32.png) [@Lemmytheseal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemmytheseal2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/85 "2015-01-15T00:41:48Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > That’s cool. That’s _speech_, as in expression, in the public arena. Just as it should be. Yeah, though that sort of thing needs to be done right in their faces, for maximum effect. It’s a taunt and a provocation, by design. I’ve seen some great video of an atheist conference in Australia, to which a bunch of angry Muslims showed up to protest. The atheists outside start chanting “Where are the women?!” at the protesters, and same-sex couples start making out in front of them. > [@](#): > > You don’t see how that’s different than chasing the “beardy-weirdys” down and putting your Docs to them? Absolutely, that’s why I drew a contrast between that and, say, punching out the Klan. Different enemies, different tactics. The righteous warriors of Cable Street couldn’t just ignore or mock or protest Mosley and his Blackshirts. So, we can’t let the fascists have the streets, ever, or they will only get stronger. Militant reactionary Muslim groups would need to be confronted the same way. In the big picture, pictures of Mohammed should appear commonly and freely, both to rub it in the faces of said fundamentalists, and to remind the broader Muslim community that they live in a pluralistic society, the don’t have the right not to be offended, and the offense they take is rather ridiculous, because a picture of their pervert prophet doesn’t affect anything, or provoke divine wrath, or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/86 "2015-01-15T03:53:56Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Then your argument is that Charlie Hebdo should _never_ have published the likeness of Muhammad, and even though they had many times before, they should make an exception in this case. Nope. Not even close. Hint: I haven’t said anything about what Charlie Hebdo should or should not do. Except maybe hire someone who can draw. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/87 "2015-01-15T09:37:02Z")
I voted “No, for another reason.” My reason was because I’m not a publisher. So I guess the moral of THAT story is “read the OP before answering the poll.” I’d publish only if it was essential to accomplishing the mission of my periodical. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/88 "2015-01-15T11:11:13Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Nope. Not even close. Hint: I haven’t said anything about what Charlie Hebdo should or should not do. Well, you’ve certainly insinuated it. You equate drawing a picture with calling people niggers. Which is fine; you believe that. But reasonable people know that the word “nigger” is offensive and drawings of Muhammad are not. Alas, I hear you cry, drawings of Muhammad ARE offensive because Muslims say so, based on their religious teachings. Quite true. And they are allowed to be offended. But reasonable people SHOULD NOT adopt a religious-based definition of “offensive” because there is no foreseeable end to it. No one on here has explained why a cartoon of Muhammad is “offensive”, (although many concede it is), except for the very problematic reason, “Muslims say so.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/89 "2015-01-15T13:35:36Z")
Why is that “problematic”? The fact that it is offensive says nothing about whether CH has the right to publish it. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/90 "2015-01-15T15:25:00Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > No one on here has explained why a cartoon of Muhammad is “offensive”, (although many concede it is), except for the very problematic reason, “Muslims say so.” That is the reason. Many Muslims are offended by depictions of Muhammad. No more reason needed; anybody may choose to be offended by anything. I may be offended by the existence of aardvarks in the world, and depictions of aardvarks; that’s fine. Other religious (or political, or personal, or sports-related) beliefs for other people mean that certain things are offensive to them, too. The trick is that just because something is offensive to someone in the world is not a reason to outlaw it or make rules about it. There are things you can say or draw about my religion or my personal preferences that will offend me, but here’s the difference–I don’t expect other people to be offended by the same things that offend me, and I don’t expect others to modify their speech based on my personal preferences. It is very nice when people refrain from making offensive jokes about topics I feel sensitive about, and I personally do not intentionally try to offend other people’s sensibilities about their faith or political beliefs or favorite sports teams, but that’s all it is. Nice. Civil. Sensitive. Good manners. While it is _nice_ to not offend people on purpose, it may be necessary, and it is always legal in an open and free society. Start going down the road of vowing never to offend anyone, and you can’t say anything at all. In an open society, everybody is going to get offended at some point, and that’s OK. Heck, some people become more sensitive in an environment where they aren’t offended often enough. Now we’ve got a few people asking for trigger warnings at universities and asking for law classes to refrain from discussing rape laws in case it offends someone–never mind that it took years to get those laws on the books in the first place, in order to _protect_ rape victims. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/91 "2015-01-15T15:46:57Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Why is that “problematic”? The fact that it is offensive says nothing about whether CH has the right to publish it. No one’s arguing “right.” We all concede CH had the right. But many have adopted the Koran-inspired-view that an innocuous drawing of Muhammad is inherently offensive and inflammatory. That is problematic. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/92 "2015-01-15T15:54:00Z")
… because? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/93 "2015-01-15T15:54:10Z")
> [@Grotonian](#): > > No one’s arguing “right.” We all concede CH had the right. But many have adopted the Koran-inspired-view that an innocuous drawing of Muhammad is inherently offensive and inflammatory. That is problematic. Not that it much matters, but you’re wrong to assume that this belief held by some Muslims has a basis in the Quran. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/94 "2015-01-15T16:14:30Z")
Yeah, it didn’t used to be such a rule. I don’t know a ton about it, but a couple of years ago I went to a beautiful exhibit of Islamic art. The older items had pictures of people, and there were several pieces that pictured Muhammad. I couldn’t tell you now when they dated from, though. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/95 "2015-01-15T16:21:15Z")
It isn’t a rule in the sense that “no pork” or “give to the poor” is a rule, part of the common core of beliefs share nearly universally by Muslims and at the core of Islamic tradition. It’s more akin to Protestant Christian antipathy toward gay marriage. That is, it is widely but not universally shared, and has some basis in religious tradition, but is not at the core of that tradition. ---
**Author:** ![ThelmaLou](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thelmalou/32/390_2.png) [@ThelmaLou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ThelmaLou)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/96 "2015-01-15T16:28:55Z")
[Didn’t read the whole thread] I object to cartoons ridiculing and insulting the **principal figure** of a religion, like Mohammed, Jesus, Buddha, etc. Make fun of the religion, point out its inconsistencies, hypocrisies, the violence, stupidity, insensitivity-- by all means, do ALL of that. Likewise, make fun of the practitioners of the religion, the faithful, and especially the clergy. But I draw the line at ridicule of the focal figure of the religion. Not because it has provoked violence, but to me, it is pointless, as that figure is dead (if he ever existed at all). I mean what is the point of ridiculing a mythical figure? Don’t political and editorial cartoons usually take aim at the stupidity and inconsistency of \*\*actual living people? \*\* Making fun of Mohammed himself is inflammatory without making any real point. The reason not to do it is not because it’s inflammatory, but because it is ONLY inflammatory and nothing else. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/97 "2015-01-15T19:42:41Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Not that it much matters, but you’re wrong to assume that this belief held by some Muslims has a basis in the Quran. You’re right. I thought I had read the Surah with it, I think I read the Old Testament. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/98 "2015-01-15T19:49:53Z")
> [@ThelmaLou](#): > > [Didn’t read the whole thread] > Don’t political and editorial cartoons usually take aim at the stupidity and inconsistency of \*\*actual living people? \*\* Making fun of Mohammed himself is inflammatory without making any real point. The reason not to do it is not because it’s inflammatory, but because it is ONLY inflammatory and nothing else. Not the current cover; it’s not inflammatory at all–Muhammad is portrayed respectfully. But he IS portrayed. Do you object to that? ---
**Author:** ![Desert\_Nomad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/desert_nomad/32/177_2.png) [@Desert\_Nomad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desert_Nomad)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/99 "2015-01-15T20:17:14Z")
I voted, Yes because Free Speech… and I am Muslim. People need to calm down and not get overly worked-up about being offended. I don’t really care what anyone publishes. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695/100 "2015-01-15T21:38:45Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Not that it much matters, but you’re wrong to assume that this belief held by some Muslims has a basis in the Quran. Yup. It was in fact a personal Muhammad hang-up, expressed in the hadiths - he didn’t want people to venerate _him_, who was “just” the last of the prophets and ultimately a fallible dude ; because that would have distracted people from venerating Allah (presumably as he had observed with Byzantine Christians in particular). [QUOTE=dangermom] Yeah, it didn’t used to be such a rule. I don’t know a ton about it, but a couple of years ago I went to a beautiful exhibit of Islamic art. The older items had pictures of people, and there were several pieces that pictured Muhammad. I couldn’t tell you now when they dated from, though. [/QUOTE] Concurred - there are quite a few 8th-19th century representations of Muhammad. Like [this](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Mohammed_kaaba_1315.jpg), or [this](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/20/Mohammed_receiving_revelation_from_the_angel_Gabriel.jpg) or… well you can fucking google it. But they’re not the norm, and are for the most part the fruit of the Shia worldspace. It’s the Sunnis who tend to have a bee in their bonnet about it, because traditiooooon, tradition, traditioooon TRADITION ! TRADITION ! And of course none of these historical images are disparaging of the guy in any way, shape or form. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mohammed-cartoons/709695.md?page=6)