3rd Annual - Everybody Draw Muhhammed Day

I will be the first to defend anyone’s right to hold their own religious beliefs, no matter how offensive it may be to me. Our nation has prospered while Americans have valued and respected religious freedom.
But freedom of religion does not create a right to threaten, or an obligation to show disrespect to, the persons who exercise their own revered rights of speech and expression.
Though, I, myself, find some of the resulting depictions of Muhhamed to be offensive, I support the celebration of anyone’s 1st Amendment right to draw a picture of Muhammed as they see fit.
May 20th is Everybody Draw Muhhamed Day. (If I were going to draw him, I would try to make him look strong, handsome, and intelligent.)

May 20th is Everybody Draw Muhhamed Day. (If I were going to draw him, I would try to make him look strong, handsome, and intelligent.)
The only problem here is nobody really knows what he looked like except for sketchy descriptions. Same as jesus, not the simpy looking white Jesus you see in churches but the real Mediterranean looking guy. Not being artistically inclined my Mohammad picture would be a stick figure with a turban. Cap't Jack

I think I could draw his cat. I wouldn’t try to draw him, though.

Same as jesus, not the simpy looking white Jesus you see in churches but the real Mediterranean looking guy.
Enjoy]!

Thanks GdB; so many jesuses to choose from but not one blue eyed white guy Jesus! Fundies wouldn’t even recognize the haloed variety, representing the sun god Apollo. This is the one I’m talking about. You know, the school white guy jesus that the mean old ACLU is having taken down all across Amerika. What’s next? Taking the X out of Xmas?
http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-6321365004794/
Cap’t Jack

If I had the artistic ability to do so, my drawing would be based on an idealized version of the man based on what we know of his history and accomplishments, which were profound. (This is not to say that I lack contempt for the current day manifestation of the religion that stemmed from his life.)

Same as jesus, not the simpy looking white Jesus you see in churches but the real Mediterranean looking guy.
Enjoy]! Thanks, I liked the one labeled "forensic reconstruction". That one might make a good Muhhamed, as well. I wonder how they came up with it.
I think I could draw his cat. I wouldn't try to draw him, though.
I never suspected that he owned a cat... a dog, maybe.
May 20th is Everybody Draw Muhhamed Day. (If I were going to draw him, I would try to make him look strong, handsome, and intelligent.)
The only problem here is nobody really knows what he looked like except for sketchy descriptions. Same as jesus, not the simpy looking white Jesus you see in churches but the real Mediterranean looking guy. Not being artistically inclined my Mohammad picture would be a stick figure with a turban. Cap't Jack
That would be enough to send Muslims into a frenzy. They don't know what he might have looked like, either, but if you label anything as Mohammad, even an inkblot, they'll make a fatwa on you. That's what religious indoctrination does to people. It turns them into crazed idiots with an astounding inability to think rationally.
I think I could draw his cat. I wouldn't try to draw him, though.
I never suspected that he owned a cat... a dog, maybe. Oops, I looked it up. There are rumors that he had a cat and the rumored cat even has a name: Muezza. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muezza Perhaps we should have an Everybody Draw Muezza Day.
That would be enough to send Muslims into a frenzy. They don't know what he might have looked like, either, but if you label anything as Mohammad, even an inkblot, they'll make a fatwa on you. That's what religious indoctrination does to people. It turns them into crazed idiots with an astounding inability to think rationally.
That is a despicable problem, in today's world, when it occurs. But it doesn't make Muhammed, himself, a bad person.
That would be enough to send Muslims into a frenzy. They don’t know what he might have looked like, either, but if you label anything as Mohammad, even an inkblot, they’ll make a fatwa on you.
Ironically, Mohammad himself would have been offended by this very sort of veneration, if any of his surviving oracles in "Al Qu'ran" are accurate, as he maintained throughout his life that he was just the messenger.
That would be enough to send Muslims into a frenzy. They don’t know what he might have looked like, either, but if you label anything as Mohammad, even an inkblot, they’ll make a fatwa on you.
Ironically, Mohammad himself would have been offended by this very sort of veneration, if any of his surviving oracles in "Al Qu'ran" are accurate, as he maintained throughout his life that he was just the messenger.
Another irony is that Muslims don't know their own dogma. There is nothing in the Quran about not depicting Muhammed in pictures. And in the haddith (their other source for determining what is permitted or prohibited, there is no prohibition singling out pictures of Muhhamed. Rather, all pictures are prohibited, in that when they die, the artist will be asked to breath life into the picture. Having pictures in one's home will prevent angels from entering. But there is nothing in actual Islamic teachings that suggests an earthly punishment for artists. http://www.answering-islam.org/Muhammad/pictures.html I can only surmise that many Muslims are fatally stupid.
That would be enough to send Muslims into a frenzy. They don't know what he might have looked like, either, but if you label anything as Mohammad, even an inkblot, they'll make a fatwa on you. That's what religious indoctrination does to people. It turns them into crazed idiots with an astounding inability to think rationally.
That is a despicable problem, in today's world, when it occurs. But it doesn't make Muhammed, himself, a bad person. Who said it did? It isn't Mohammad doing the destruction, it'a his crazed followers, not a lot different from the crazed followers of any religious figure, including Jesus. Lois
Thanks GdB; so many jesuses to choose from but not one blue eyed white guy Jesus! Fundies wouldn't even recognize the haloed variety, representing the sun god Apollo. This is the one I'm talking about. You know, the school white guy jesus that the mean old ACLU is having taken down all across Amerika. What's next? Taking the X out of Xmas? http://m.upi.com/story/UPI-6321365004794/ Cap't Jack
IDK, most of the Jesus's in that Icon gallery looked white.
I will be the first to defend anyone's right to hold their own religious beliefs, no matter how offensive it may be to me. Our nation has prospered while Americans have valued and respected religious freedom.
I would like to thank you for bringing up the issue of ‘‘freedom of speech’‘. That is a slightly debated topic even in the US (or at least made controversial thanks to the history channel). So I just want to know, what people think is the limit for free speech. Most people I know use the 10 ammendments from the US constitution as their reference. They are secular and interesting clauses to study. So I am curious to know if you agree with this or not. Whats your view on using the constituion as a reference? I've been a number of places around the world, and I have encountered a number of views. You could sort of say I have a mashed collection from each place. I am really curious to know what everyone here thinks. BTW: I do NOT use the history channel as a source reference, I've come to realize that it is trustworthy in virtually everything EXCEPT history.

Wikipedia has a link to some descriptions of Mohammed’s appearance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad#Appearance
I find the “Draw Mohammed” day thing to be childish and unfunny. It’s understandable if Muslims are challenging a non - Muslim on their own (non-Muslim) turf, but to do it simply to cause annoyance is immature.

I will be the first to defend anyone's right to hold their own religious beliefs, no matter how offensive it may be to me. Our nation has prospered while Americans have valued and respected religious freedom.
I would like to thank you for bringing up the issue of ‘‘freedom of speech’‘. That is a slightly debated topic even in the US (or at least made controversial thanks to the history channel). So I just want to know, what people think is the limit for free speech. Most people I know use the 10 ammendments from the US constitution as their reference. They are secular and interesting clauses to study. So I am curious to know if you agree with this or not. Whats your view on using the constituion as a reference? I've been a number of places around the world, and I have encountered a number of views. You could sort of say I have a mashed collection from each place. I am really curious to know what everyone here thinks. BTW: I do NOT use the history channel as a source reference, I've come to realize that it is trustworthy in virtually everything EXCEPT history.
What makes you think we think there should be any limit on free speech except for the old canard about not shouting "fire" in a crowded theater? All political speech should be completely free. That's what the writers of the US Constitution meant when they wrote the First Amendment. They wanted all citizens to be able to criticize the government, unlike the situation in England and its posessions at the time when it was against the law to criticize a king. If you want anyone to accept your opinion about the History Channel, or any history, you'll have to make a specific criticism of the history as it's presented, and support it with documented facts. Such a broad, unsupported accusation makes you look completely ignorant. I suspect you just don't like what they have to say. That doesn't mean they're wrong. You have to show some evidence. ...... Lois
IDK, most of the Jesus’s in that Icon gallery looked white.
Gee Mike, I wonder why? ;-) Cap't Jack
...So I just want to know, what people think is the limit for free speech...
When we consider limits, we are necessarily considering extreme instances. Here are 1) an extreme example of outrageous speech that is constitutionally protected, and 2) an extreme example of outrageous speech that is not constitutionally protected : 1) In the U.S., if a group of folks, such as those from the Westboro Baptist Church are on a public sidewalk, but standing purposefully near, a funeral ceremony for a serviceman who was a homosexual, carry signs that say "God Hates Fags", with the obvious intent of inflicting emotional distress on others so as to draw attention to their view that homosexuality is wrong... I, personally think that this is an outrageous use of the right of free speech, but it is protected speech since it is a demonstration on a public sidewalk and involves a public issue. 2) If I were present at such an event, with a group who were not supportive of the Westboro views, and I intentionally spoke to my group in such a way as to incite them to, very likely, immediately physically attack those Westboro religious nut-bags, then my speech, that I used to incite my cohorts, would not be protected speech.