Join me on Facebook!
Follow me on Twitter!
More 'toons here!
Or subscribe here.
in Islam perspective, why is not allow to make a pic of Muhammad Saw, it because the decision of Muhammad Saw doctrine is just toward to God (Allah) and to see the behind time at the moment where the quraisy people who easily to make something into cult - whether knowing that they are just human or prophet.
to avoid that, in a good understanding of all the leader of Islam at the moment - agreed to do not make any pic of Muhammad Saw.
In other words can be said, that Muhammad actually invite people to always sharpen and emphasize the spiritual rather than outward-looking fighting over issues, such as pictures and statues of the pagan at that time. Did not really a religion that bases its teachings on the spiritual riches of there so that later formed the outward behavior?
eventho, wont ever be ending to discuss about this. but let see this as a good free spirit of very human right of human being. to make decision of what they believing in life - without you all must "involved" in to that area. just live your life, think if you already doing something good n better enough in your life and live with peace together.
at the end, we never know, for what we fight each other.
hopefully could help to give a clear view.
I guess you guys missed the reports about South Park having had a depiction of Muhammad in the title sequence for a couple of seasons without any reaction being recorded whilst the recent issue revolves around a FAKE Muslim front group headed by extremist Jews.
Did you also miss the even more extreme and effective reaction from various Jewish groups who couldn't stand Iran's response to the first Muhammad cartoon blow up, with a Holocaust cartoon competition?
With all the carry on about Facebook's recent event, I suppose it hasn't been noticed how a few of us have been unsuccessfully been trying to mount a holocaust cartoon page in response...only to be removed within 24 hours every time!
Of course it's also beyond you twits to realise that Muslims are not becoming offended by the depictions of Muhammad, as you rightly point out there have been such things for about a thousand years anyway, it is the obvious in your face desire to offend and anger them which they respond to. The Holocaust example was meant to make the STUPID RACIST Zionist dominated West understand this point, but evidently such subtelty of thought, such empathy is beyond such beasts.
Bloody holier than thou hypocrites!
PS. I am neither Muslim nor any branch of religion and I have no objection to any religion. I can see for myself who is the troublemaker in all this however and whilst it couldn't happen without self styled "Christian" Zionists, the Zionist cult of Judaism has taken the most racist and primitive religious ideology on earth - Talmudism - and made of it a blueprint for international politics. ie: A self chosen master race dominating the planet.
this is sadly ignorant of islamic art history and simplistic thinking of the complexities of international relations and cultural sensitivity. you should stop masturbating so much and spend some more time thinking about the cultural imperialism that this debate springs from.
I'm not religious (since obviously they are all wrong)
So what about Muhammad and Jesus having a baby together in cartoon?
We could call the baby: UsMad, of which they are :)
Anyway it wouldn't work because if UsMad was a boy, then the 'christian' priests would rape and kill it.
And the Muslim (Islam, or whatever they are?) would do the same if it was a girl (except likely younger than the boy though)
Anyway, if UsMad survives (unlikely) then no one will grow up, and religion would die :) I'm for it, are you?
Here's my first pic of that: 0<-<-...->->0
Looks like they are getting along at last, and finally fucking themselves up.
Thats the spirit.
You are too brilliant - religious intolerance,
religious fanatics, political religious dictorship,
fear is the cornerstone of religion - and who wants
to be afraid while on this good earth.
Thanks Mark for all the courage in your humor. jm
When Jesus, Mary, or the saints are depicted in "blasphemous" ways in paintings, Christians react in the civilized way - they sue the museum to remove the paintings or sculptures, and if that doesn't work, they force the entire museum exhibit to close! Even when they're unsuccessful, the Christian zealots force the artist to spend all his money defending himself from lawsuits, while the artist is simultaneously attacked in the media.
That's how "civilized" people handle insults that they perceive as blasphemy. They still infringe on the First Amendment rights of artists, but without death threats. No wait, I take that back, the artists also receive death threats for "blasphemous" depictions of Jesus and Mary, so I guess there's no difference between Islamic fanatics and Christian fanatics after all!
Yeah, right, you always hear about death threats from Christians. You are a joke.
Yup. Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings Hill, John Salvi, Eric Robert Rudolph, James Kopp, and Scott Roeder, to name but a few.. All jokes indeed.
It is a Blasphemy for muslims to draw Muhammad. So MUSLIMS should NOT do it. Since i am NOT a muslim, i have a right to do as i please as long as i am NOT offending anyone according to PREVAILING social norm (not some tribal bs from 1600 years ago). Whats next? Some muslims beleive that women should be walking around in shuttle ------- burqas, are they going to tell us not to jog in shorts and T shirts?
Remember, there was a case couple year back in colorado, where a muslim cabby declined to take a passenger because he was carrying liquor with him and islam prohibits liquor.
If i belong to a religion that preaches "thou shall pee on thee neighbours lawn first thing in the morning" and my neighbour prevents me from peeing on his lawn. Is he violating my fundamental rights? Most will answer NO because it is a ridiculous belief. I dont subscribe to some bigoted and hatefull theology named islam.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, for bringing history to the forefront of this whole discussion, where it should be. Certainly no one else is, you deserve a gold star for your research on this one Mark... WTG!!
The whole point is excessive anger at perceived insult to the Prophet IS AN ATTEMPT to claim he is more than man, divine in fact, and that is exactly what the Prophet said he was trying to avoid by forbidding drawing his picture. Calling insults to a man Blasphemy is placing that man at the same level as God, and that is the ultimate Blasphemy.
Since there is no religious justification for this level of reaction, its clear these reaction are simple childish reaction to insults. Adults ignore insults, they do not encourage them by reacting. GROW UP, and ignore these offenses and they will go back to far more insulting cartoons about our own leaders. They draw our President as a Nazis and Chairman Mao on alternative days which shows how confused cartoonist are, and the ones on the left that like our President, do equally offensive drawings about those on the right. Only the most childish of our leaders are fool enough to give power to these Geeks by reacting publically.
ALL religion is a lie. It is trickery, superstition and shame.The pope or iman or anyone else knows no
more about god than the person reading this (you).
It is time for the religious people to at least consider, that they may if fact, have been fooled.
Any basic values religions teach, can be had without religion.It is time to teach ethics.
Religion wants to control you, and of course, wants your money. This is why "prophet" and
"profit" are the same word-nothing but a trick.
You can be a good person without those unbelievable stories...
I tend to agree with August J. Pollak on this:
In Pollak's cartoon, I guess he is lecturing me...
...except I'm a US serviceman, so his comments about the dangerous front-line that is the mail room ring a little hollow.
His point seems to be little more than an obfuscation of cowardice--that if standing for principle involves risk (ridiculously minuscule in this case), it's better not to take that stand.
In which case, I'm not sure whose rights Mr. Pollak has convinced himself that he is defending so riskily from his cubicle... certainly not mine.
Besides, if I recall the original incident that sparked this correctly--for all the death threats no cartoonists were killed. I believe that the only casualties were a bunch of bigoted islamic fundamentalists who trampled each other to death in a demonstration. So I guess cartoonists can join servicemen on the front lines after all!
"Kill a terrorist, draw Mohamed."
Can't speak for Pollak, but personally, I'm all in favor of standing for principle. I just don't see how this qualifies. And taking risks is fine, but when it's other people who are exposed to the risks then maybe one should be a little judicious about it. (If you really are on duty in the Middle East then this does not apply to you, but there are a lot of people to whom it does. Somehow I don't think Pollak had you specifically in mind when he wrote this.)
Personally, I see Judeo-Christian terrorists as a much bigger danger than their Muslim counterparts. Cases in point: The murder of Dr. Tiller and other abortion doctors; GWB and company's blitzkrieg into Iraq and subsequent occupation; the recent shooting up of an international aid flotilla by IDF forces; and so on. Nevertheless, I won't be drawing any cartoons depicting Jesus and Yaweh as Beavis and Butt-head. Unless I were trying to piss off Judeo-Christians in general, or trying to smear them by pretending that the tiny minority of them that commits acts of terrorism is representative of all of them in general, what would be the point?
This is one of your better Toons Mark Fiore. There have been historical depictions of muhammed and even cartoons like the Super Friends episode of South. Park.
But... the Jihadists forget history and go nuts and use it as an excuse to wage a war. Insane.
You are right, to a point. Just because something has been done once (or tens of times) does not make it correct. Muslims who protest in the wrong way are in error. It doesn't mean that their point is not valid though. They need to be reminded how the Prophet himself dealt with abuse...through patience and forebearance.
Ilsam is not the only religiion that succesfully impose its views to the population...
Born again cristian...
And how many born again Christians and Jews blow up buildings and airplanes?
Bush was supposedly a born-again, and he blew up an entire country.
Hitler was Christian.
Godwin's Law so early in the discussion?
Does the Law apply when it's an actual fact?
And Mein Kampf is full of quotes where Hitler says he believes in a god and that he is doing gods work.
What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 8
I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
Here I thought being a dorky cartoonist was punishment enough. It isn't as creepy as being a journalist, but being a political cartoonist combines the creepiness and dorkiness of the two. There is no need to get angry over the doodles. Pity is probably more appriate.
LOL. Nicely done.
I Enjoyed it
That was a very articulate, well thought out, fair explanation, and satirization to the recent issue. I applaud Mr Fiore for this.
Nice take on the issue. I appreciate that you didn't need to depict Muhammad (which *IS* insulting to many Muslims, even non-jihadists) to focus the spotlight where it belongs: on the jihadists.
Fredom of expression definitely isn't free...It cost CBS $650,000 just because of Janet Jackson's two-second tit!!
Coming from someone who is curently living at "ground zero of the cartoon controversy" (Denmark), I can say with certainty that a lot of these European cartoonists aren't keeping this controversy alive because they truly believe in the freedom of expression. It's mostly because these cartoonists and the editors they work for want to keep up the narrative that Muslim "values" are completely incapatible of Western "values," and they know that offending 1 billion muslims will play right into that narrative. They know that drawing and printing these cartoons will rile up the extremists, and then everyone else who's just trying to get on with life will get caught in the blowback. The "Jyllands Posten" is basially the "Washington Times" of Denmark, and just about every day they're printing stories or opinions that illustrate the point that Muslims will NEVER fit into Danish society. So far no terrorism has happened in Denmark itself, but if this keeps up, then it won't be long until a London or Madrid-style attack happens here.
You non Muslim did not let any chance to hurt Muslims and then you claim Muslims are extremist. Your crusader instincts are still allived and thriving. But we are not going to insult Jesus or Moses or others just because you are doing it. We respect them. But the anger of Muslims must be giving you sleepless night so use some sedative
Allow me to explain why Muhammed (SAW) may not be depicted and why we find your cartoons malicious and insulting.
Islam became prevalent in Arabian society 1400years ago when the people were strong idol worshipers, they had many gods and visual depictions of them. When the people reverted to Islam they broke their previous idols. Any depiction of prophets etc is prohibited in Islam to prevent people from straying towards idol worship. We only worship God, who is in our hearts.
The Prophet, Muhammad (saw) is our beloved teacher and the father of our nation. If I ridiculed your beloved father/guide with cartoons ranging from childish to obscene and encouraged the world to join me in targetting him. How would you feel?
The term "freedom of expression" does not justify malice and racism.
Muslim - one who submits to God. Islam - peace.
I do not "believe" in god. In my opinion, that idea of God is small. There is something that Science refuses to explore that is far bigger than any Judeo-Christian god or the God of Islam, Allah. It is 'consciousness'. The reason we can have a discussion is because we are conscious. Not a minor boast, all life is "self-propelled" consciousness. This ocean of consciousness is quite big. It has both good and bad contained in that interpretation. Now I will never kill anyone for the simple action of believing in a god, or for disrespecting my beliefs. My beliefs are disrespected everyday but I don't hold ignorant people mortally responsible for their offensive actions because they are IGNORANT. In defense of ignorance, ignorance can be addressed by becoming knowledgeable, or aware of. or conscious of.
Now I am not a religious person, but it seems to me that giving up one's ability to explore the intellectual possibilities is the apex of irresponsible behavior and a sign of a profound level of arrogance. One that is treasonous to one's own cognitive freedom. Put very simply, here is the question: do you prefer slavery or freedom? I know it is a simple dialectic, the old adversarial argument. BUT that is the exact problem with a JIHAD on a simple cartoonist. It is laughable beyond belief. It boggles the mind and no RATIONALIZATION is capable of pulling such inane reasoning from the toilet pit of bad ideas... but I will echo other posts here by saying that all religious organizations are about CONTROL FIRST AND FOREMOST. Your salvation is dependent upon the money that you can contribute.
amen to that... :o
For people with such strong faith, straying towards idol worship because of a cartoon or picture of a guy is kind of .. amusing?
It's a nice big pile of double-standards. I've never read Islamic newspaper but you're telling me there is absolutely nothing in there about Christians or Jews or any other religion? Absolutely nothing that may "ridicule" the savior of someone else or at the very least say that other religions are wrong?
I find that pretty hard to believe.
I forgot to mention that "non-believers" do not include "People of the Book", i.e. Christians and Jews. Non-believer are those who deny God or pervert his nature such as by claiming God is an elephant or there are multiple gods, etc.
So Islam is trying to replace big brother? It's funny that the Islamic thought police are trying to control the whole world. They should stick to their own congregants.
Actually, believe it. Muslims are forbidden from mocking other religions (if they do it, then they are Islamically wrong) and never mock any prophet of Judaism or Christianity (i.e. Jesus). Check out http://arabnews.com/lifestyle/islam/ for the weekly religious column.
Very nice, ur bigotry is quite obvious. it is the buddhist and the hindus ur against, right? The u try to convince the Jews and christians that they r ur "brothers". Really? Get lost.
If someone ridiculed my father I would call him a fool, but I would not threaten or try to kill him for it.
Many people regularly slander President Obama, whom I hold in very high esteem. When I see the slanderous pictures they draw I turn away. When I hear the idotic things they say I choose not to listen. I have my own harsh words for them who offend me but they are not threats of violence.
If you are offended by ridicule that is appropriate and everyone can respect this. If someones responds with murder to ridicule that is criminal insanity.
I have listened to the sermons and read the propaganda that is being disseminated both here in the US and overseas. When the Imam tells his congregation that all Jews and Christians are to die, THAT is hate speech, inciting to riot, insurection, and sedition. Those ideas are not worthy of being called free speech. It is the lesson of fascism that teaches people to beleive they are the master race to conquer the world.
+1, thanks for the insightful comment. You highlighted a very important distinction between meaningful dialog and destructive threats of violence. Society would do well to better learn your point.
I can understand how a religious person might find a satirical cartoon offensive but how do the cartoon depictions of prophets etc encourage people to stray towards idol worship?
It's not a cartoon per se. It's the invention of false images of religious figures. An example of how a depiction (usually a painting or statue) encourage 'idol' worship, just look at the millions of Catholics who bow down and pray to statues of Jesus, or pictures of Mary. See how Buddhists and Hindus make shrines to statues and paintings. In Islam, only God is worshipped and 'make no graven images' prevents those who may have mistaken ideas keep on the right path.
And what about Muslims obsessed with brands? Certain cars or leather handbags depicting particular symbols of that brand? Seems more like "idol" worship than people who know they are praying at a symbol of their god/s.
Seriously? You think that liking a brand (which has a logo) is the same as praying to a statue?
Whether it be a golden calf or a leather handbag by Gucci, you're still worshipping Mammon.
And on a side note Buddhists do not venerate Buddha as a deity, but as their teacher(s) (there have been multiple Buddha's). And as a matter of fact, Buddha (the first one) does refer to there being a Creator deity, even though he himself was unable to perceive him in his meditations back to the source of his existence. And while he could not perceive said deity, he could sense that it was there and would therefore not argue against anyone who'd want to worship it.
Well done Mark, well done...
More information about formatting options