this post was submitted on
617 points (56% like it)
2,564 up votes 1,947 down votes

atheism

subscribe1,210,286 readers

1,390 users here now


Welcome to r/atheism, the web's largest atheist forum. All topics related to atheism, agnosticism and secular living are welcome here. Please read our FAQ.

Please link directly to any images or use imgur to avoid being flagged as blogspam

Recommended reading and viewing

Thank you notes


Related Subreddits <--the big list

GodlessWomen YoungAtheists AtheistParents
BlackAtheism AtheistGems DebateAnAtheist
skeptic agnostic freethought
antitheism humanism Hitchens
a6theism10 tfbd AdviceAtheists
atheistvids atheismbot

Events
10/5-6 NAPCON2012 - Boston
11/9-11 Skepticon - Springfield MO
3/28-31 AA Convention - Austin
Giving
DWB/MSF fundraiser
Kiva lending team
FBB's Appeal to Freethinkers to Fight Cancer
Camp Quest
Ex* Groups
ex-Muslim ex-Catholic ex-Mormon
ex-JW ex-Jew ex-SistersinZion
ex-Bahai ex-Christian ex-Adventist
Assistance
Coming Out
Atheist Havens
Start an Atheist Club at Your School

Chat: #reddit-atheism on irc.freenode.net

Watch: #/r/atheism on reddit.tv

Read The FAQ


Submit Rage Comic

Submit Facebook Chat

Submit Meme

Submit Something Else

Read The FAQ

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 97 comments

[–]PhallogicalScholar 59 points60 points ago

That's man is Sikh. Muslims don't wear turbans.

Also repost, rage, etc.

[–]pattwell 7 points8 points ago

That man is a drawing. Real people are 3-dimensional.

[–]forcedtolie 20 points21 points ago

Yeah they don't now but back in that time they wore turbans, not because of religious reasons but because of cultural reasons.

[–]amazinglyanonymous 6 points7 points ago

His username may refer to otherwise, but he's right.

[–]voodoochild87 -1 points0 points ago

In the middle east these two things (religion and culture) are synonymous

[–]that_70s_show_fan 1 point2 points ago

Er.. what? They do wear turbans.

[–]forcedtolie 0 points1 point ago

I lost it when i saw dat eyepatch.

[–]heygivethatback 0 points1 point ago

[–]nodontlethimin 0 points1 point ago

they should probably take him to the dokhtor! amiri...don't you dare click on that downvote button!

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points ago

Then, who is Muhammad?

[–]Italian_Barrel_Roll 1 point2 points ago

Who was phone?

[–]davorzdralo 3 points4 points ago

Yes, this is dog?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

a man who trolled everyone saying he was a prophet and started his own branch of religion.

[–]Sloppy1sts -1 points0 points ago

He's not drawing from an image. That's a mirror.

[–]benmuzz 1 point2 points ago

Ever heard the term "mirror image"?

[–]Lowilru 27 points28 points ago

I'd like to note that he didn't want to be depicted because he didn't want to be worshiped. He didn't want his influence or deeds to draw worship from the lord.

Following his internal logic that's a profoundly humble stance, and I think it's one we can appreciate.

Unless of course I'm mistaken.

edit: Typo

[–]alexisaacs 41 points42 points ago

Appreciate? Sure. Respect and abide by? No. As a former Jew, I don't recall demanding that pork not be sold in supermarkets because it's a sin for us to eat it.

There is a difference you say?

No, there isn't. No one outside of a certain religion should be subject to any demand, law, practice, tradition, or anything even remotely related to that religion in any way possible.

And if the reasoning behind not portraying him is because that can be construed as worshiping him, who the fuck do these specific Muslims think they are? Nobody worships him except them. And don't even give me that BS that it's the worst thing ever for Muslim to see, etc. etc.

I've talked to many Muslims, many of us have and I am sure you have as well. However, if you just ask them about their position, the typical response is "I prefer no one portrays Muhammed, but it is not my place to tell people who don't believe in my religion what to do."

All these death threats and shit come from insane, moronic radicals. They are a minority in the US and many other countries. We should stop acquiescing these idiotic minorities and acting like they are somehow a positive influence in the world.

There are some wonderful Muslim people out there. No, not some. There are many wonderful Muslims, but they are overshadowed because of the loud extremists. Shut up the loud minority, kick them in the ass and have a jizz in their ear, and they will stfu with their intolerant BS.

tl;dr: Sick and tired of people acting like respecting someone's belief automatically = abiding by their law.

EDIT: Just realized I said "Jew" and "Muslim" in the same post. Please read my entire post before downvoting based on your assumption that we all instinctively hate each other (we don't at all outside of the middle east, and even there you have quite a large amount of tolerance from both sides when you remove the governments and terrorist organizations).

[–]one_among_the_fence 2 points3 points ago

kick them in the ass and have a jizz in their ear

phrase of the fucking day right there.

[–]DeadOptimist 7 points8 points ago

All these death threats and shit come from insane, moronic radicals. They are a minority in the US and many other countries.

They are a big enough group to destroy embassies. I believe 10 people were killed as a result of the cartoons.

[–]alexisaacs -1 points0 points ago

3,000+ people killed on 9/11 because these people don't want us to live better than they do and to accept allah or die. I am fairly certain our response was not to do what they say.

Hundreds are killed every day in the name of their religion for random as hell reasons.

You cannot listen to the demands of an extremist. If you give in to those demands, those people died for nothing.

[–]jtfine 0 points1 point ago

Yes there are huge numbers of radicals, not the tiny minority claimed by politically-correct westerners. Pew polls are a good source of these numbers.

[–]Italian_Barrel_Roll 0 points1 point ago

It only takes one man... Collaborators are just icing on the terrorism cake.

[–]voodoochild87 0 points1 point ago

"All these death threats and shit come from insane, moronic radicals. They are a minority in the US and many other countries."

But in some countries, they aren't the minority. And in other countries, where there is a vacuum left by recently overthrown governments, these people are screaming for democracy and, if they get it, the insane, moronic radicals will have power.

[–]alexisaacs 0 points1 point ago

How does that relate to what we are allowed to do in our country?

[–]Quo_Usque 14 points15 points ago

Nah, that's true. And pretty cool coming from a prophet- "don't worship ME, asshats, worship god!" He was trying to enforce a message that got a bit lost with the whole jesus thing. Although his views on women dort of make him an asshat himself...

[–]Maxables 4 points5 points ago

Dort.

[–]Snuggadillo 5 points6 points ago

Dort dort.

[–]SirArseToucher 7 points8 points ago

Dort Dort Motherfuckers

[–]askvictor 1 point2 points ago

Same kinda thing with the Buddha; he didn't want people to worship him. Must suck being a visionary of your time - people are going to worship you regardless.

[–]dubalrimaal 1 point2 points ago

Right, but not this type of turban. The turban pictured is of specifically Sikh design.

[–]Laziness 1 point2 points ago

Norman Rockwell fanatics everywhere are now calling for your death.

[–]JimDixon 2 points3 points ago

I wonder how many people even realized this was based on a Norman Rockwell painting?

http://eslfive.blogspot.com/2010/09/norman-rockwell-painter-of-everyday.html

[–]arahman81 1 point2 points ago

BLASPHEMY?

THIS.IS!R/ATHEISM!!!

[–]luckycharms8282 1 point2 points ago

Btw, Draw Muhammad Day is coming up on May, 20th. Start practicing your artistic abilities.

[–]DarvelMk 0 points1 point ago

Having participated two years in a row, I'll try and come up with something for this Sunday.

I was especially proud of last years drawing, even though I'm pretty sure it probably wasn't original. :)

[–]i_am_sad 1 point2 points ago

BILLY MAYS HERE

[–]Thestupidiot 3 points4 points ago

Hateception.

[–]NarutoRamen 2 points3 points ago

[–]USGunner 4 points5 points ago

if one muslin can explain to me how a 'prophet' can sleep with a nine year old girl and be a 'man of god' id love to hear it and none of the " it was a different time" bs in many muslim countries its still considered ok to forcefully marry off you pre teen daughter into sexual slavery so the apples don't fall far from their trees

[–]balqisfromkuwait 0 points1 point ago

Hey usgunner, if you'll be so kind as to read this reply (it's kind of long) hopefully I will be able to show you that Aisha was not 9 when the Prophet consummated his relationship with her:

The main source of Islam is the Qur'an, while the secondary source is the hadith (sayings of the Prophet). The definition of a hadith is a saying or an act or tacit approval or criticism ascribed either validly or invalidly to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. If so, then none of the quotes that mention Aisha's age at the time of marriage are actual hadiths. The quotes that mention Aisha's age are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

For something to qualify as a hadith, that is a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, then it must have been said by the Prophet. The quotes that mention Aisha's age were not attributed to the Prophet. Five of them were presumably said by Aisha herself, one by Hisham's father and one by Ursa. To be clear, they were not transmitted by these people from the Prophet, they were the opinions of the aforementioned people only. Therefore, they were reports and not ahadeeth. Therefore, they are not accorded the same amount of reverence as the actual sayings of the Prophet. Moreover, there are problems with the authenticity of thezd reports, and you can learn more about that here

In addition, according to Ibn Kathir, Al-Dhahabi and Ibn Hajar Asqalani (who are the most famous Islamic scholars) Asma (who is Aisha's half-sister) was 10 years older than Aisha. Also according to these scholars, Asma died at the age of 100 in 695 CE. This would make her birthdate in 595 CE and consequently Aisha's birthdate in 605 CE.

The Year of Sorrow happened in either 619 or 623 CE, when Khadija (the Prophet's first wife who was 15 years older than him and to whom the Prophet remained monagamous to for 25 years, until her death) passed away. The Prophet married Aisha shortly after this time. This would therefore make Aisha either 14 when the marriage was written and 17 at consummation, or 18 when the marriage was written and 21 at consummation.

Here is more evidence to show that Aisha couldn't have been 9 at the time of marriage:

~ Ibn Hisham’s version of Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rashul Allah, the earliest surviving biography of Muhammad, records Aisha as having converted to Islam before Umar ibn al-Khattab, during the first few years of Islam around 610 CE. In order to accept Islam she must have been walking and talking, hence at least three years of age, which would make her at least fifteen in 622 CE

~Tabari reports that Abu Bakr wished to spare Aisha the discomforts of a journey to Ethiopia soon after 615 CE, and tried to bring forward her marriage to Mutam’s son. Mutam refused because Abu Bakr had converted to Islam, but if Aisha was already of marriageable age in 615 CE, she must have been older than nine in 622 CE.

~Tabari also reports that Abu Bakr’s four children were all born during the Jahiliyyah (Pre-Islam Period), which has ended in 610 CE, making Aisha at least twelve in 622 CE.

~According to the generally accepted tradition, Aisha was born about eight years before Hijrah (Migration to Medina). However, according to another narrative in Bukhari (Kitaab al-Tafseer) Aisha is reported to have said that at the time Surah Al-Qamar, the 54th chapter of the Qur’an , was revealed, “I was a young girl”. The 54th Surah of the Qur’an was revealed nine years before Hijrah. According to this tradition, Aisha had not only been born before the revelation of the referred Surah, but was actually a young girl, not even only an infant at that time. So if this age is assumed to be 7 to 14 years, then her age at the time of marriage would be 14 to 21.

I'm sorry my reply is so long and I hope you find it useful! :)

[–]jtfine 1 point2 points ago

It says very plainly that she was married at 6, "consumed" at 9:

"...he married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consumed that marriage when she was nine years old." (Volume 5, Book 58, Number 236)

I don't see the relevance of whether or not it is Hadith, and the rest seems like conjecture.

[–]balqisfromkuwait -1 points0 points ago

You do realize that these reports were collected over 200 years after the death of the Prophet? If you don't see the relevance of Hadith and think that the most important Islamic scholarly works "seem like conjecture", then good day to you sir. Thanks for your time though. :)

[–]jtfine 0 points1 point ago

If you disagree with the truth or historical accuracy of the Quran, then that is a different matter than trying to apologize for what it clearly states. I would start by establishing why the contradicting texts would have greater credibility, and then clarifying what the specific contradictions are, without the use of assumption.

[–]balqisfromkuwait 0 points1 point ago

If you disagree with the truth or historical accuracy of the Quran, then that is a different matter than trying to apologize for what it clearly states.

The Qur'an doesn't mention Aisha, not even once. I think you're confused. The only Islamic sources that mention Aisha's age are reports collected from various individuals, not from the Prophet himself. If you had read my initial comment then you would have seen that I clarified the contradictions and that the contradicting texts have more credibility because they were written around the time the reports were collected and that there are too many contradictions from many different texts.

[–]jtfine 0 points1 point ago

That's my mistake it is from Sahih Muslim hadith. The point remains, however. Here is what Wikipedia says on the question ( sources are included)

"Aisha stayed in her parents' home for several years until she joined Muhammad and the marriage was consummated.[6][8][9][11][12][13] Most of the sources indicate that she was nine years old at the time, with the single exception of al-Tabari, who records that she was ten"

[–]balqisfromkuwait 1 point2 points ago

Those sources based their claims on the reports I provided, and I illustrated through the use of scholarly evidence why these quotes are disputed/inaccurate. If you're not in the mood to read everything I wrote, then I suggest you focus on this.

[–]USGunner 1 point2 points ago

actually i appreciated that response! i was not there so who am i to say what did and did not happen?, However the mere fact that you took the time to say thats not accurate history and its possible she was much older means a lot! im all for people practicing religion as long as basic human rights are respected and lets face it, all three major world religions have groups that have not respected those rights. i just feel its up to todays followers to denounce leaders who are still pushing those views and it goes true of all organized religions but you prove they also have thoughtful people who do care about the right things so ill not use that example of the prophet again

[–]balqisfromkuwait 0 points1 point ago

ill not use that example of the prophet again

Awww bro really? You are such a considerate person. :')

[–]taint_stain 2 points3 points ago

Muhammad or stereotypical looking Muslim?

[–]DeadOptimist -1 points0 points ago

If they kept better documentation on how he looked...

IIRC, were there not early pictures of Muhammed, and the "do not depict" thing came later? Seems I am somewhat right after a quick wiki search.

[–]arahman81 0 points1 point ago

So this is supposed to be Muhammad destroying the idols at Ka'aba.

I'm sorry, I just see a bunch of Arabs and some Chinese.

[–]BanglaPP 0 points1 point ago

Actually, there are quite well documentation of how Prophet Muhammad looked physically. It's possible to draw a rather accurate depiction of him.

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showthread.php?t=15806

[–]chase_what_matters 4 points5 points ago

I thought it might be fitting to repost in your repost... dawg.

[–]Fausto1981 1 point2 points ago

yo dawg, muslim will have this pic removed because they find "offensive" to draw muhammad. you guys know how liberal, intelligent and open minded is that religion.

[–]rory_guy 0 points1 point ago

Why is he Hindu......

[–]DamnDjinni 0 points1 point ago

They photoshopped a Norman Rockwell painting...BOO!!!

[–]solidnick 0 points1 point ago

Where is the repost alert bot when you need it?

[–]BetterWithButter 0 points1 point ago

does theparagraph even made any sense? i was all tongue twister.

[–]Lysus 0 points1 point ago

Was a repost for the third time in three months really necessary?

title comnts points age /r/
Probably the best picture of Mohammed I've seen 815coms 1194pts 1mo atheism
Seen this yet? 487coms 1472pts 3mos atheism
Winner? 725coms 2543pts 1yr pics

source: karmadecay

[–]Ceigee 0 points1 point ago

Mind. Fucked.

[–]Monkespank 0 points1 point ago

Let Wonka explain http://qkme.me/35pt1l

[–]FelixTheMatt 0 points1 point ago

It's not their prophet, it is Bob Ross cleverly disguising his 'fro.

[–]HabitOfCreature 0 points1 point ago

The Prophet Muhammad sort of looks like Edward Norton with a turban and a beard.

[–]a_hobo1234 0 points1 point ago

BEST YO DAWG EVA

[–]dontpeoplepanic 0 points1 point ago

the injunction against depicting the prophet is actually a very complex historical and cultural issue, and not at all as simple as the danish cartoon controversy seemed to make it. many cultures have depicted the prophet across time and space and, depending on larger historical circumstances, it was considered either problematic or not at all problematic. in the case of denmark, the cartoons occurred within a specific context in which muslims were being demonized by far-right politicians, who were comparing them to a metastasized cancer and also (somewhat sarcastically) offering to sell them to russian prison systems for 25 euro. you get the idea; these cartoons aren't a manifestation of free speech, they are a coercive leveraging of 'freedom' against the 'unfree', an attempt by a largely (post)christian society to make a non-christian minority population feel as uncomfortable and unwelcome as possible. the sharp and violent reaction against these depictions must be understood within this context. an enlightened society does not do that to its members, not in the name of freedom or non-theist idealizations thereof.

edit: typos, i has them

[–]random_invisible_guy 1 point2 points ago

in the case of denmark, the cartoons occurred within a specific context in which muslims were being demonized by far-right politicians, who were comparing them to a metastasized cancer and also (somewhat sarcastically) offering to sell them to russian prison systems for 25 euro.

Hmmm... let me see if I got it right... the cartoons were stereotypically depicting muslims as a group of crazy-acting dangerous people. So, the reply to this is... acting stereotypically like crazy-acting dangerous people?

Yeah, they totally showed how wrong danish cartoonists were! /sarcasm

When was the last time you saw other "ostracized"/unwelcome/unprivileged groups of society (e.g. gays, blacks, women, atheists, etc.) kill other people (or threatening to kill other people) in response to cartoons depicting them in a stereotypical manner?

Just curious...

[–]dontpeoplepanic -1 points0 points ago

if you are genuinely interested in learning about it, i can forward you some things to read that will shed greater light on the issue than i can in a PM

[–]random_invisible_guy 1 point2 points ago

Sure, I'll gladly read whatever you want.

Still... you could address my question: how can murder (or calls to murder) against cartoonists be justified?

Why do other (equally "unwelcome") groups of people generally do not respond to perceived threats/mockery with the same type of violence?

One thing is to try to understand the sociological and psychological basis for such behaviour, another is to try to justify it. Please don't defend the indefensible.

Have a good day.

[–]dontpeoplepanic -1 points0 points ago

just find it strange that you are singling out a group that faces daily humiliation for their calls to violence but that you do not question the violence and dehumanization enacted against them on a global scale. also, most of the violence and calls to arms occurred outside of denmark, in quarters of the middle east where muslims are being murdered for questionable geopolitical ends.

you would be interested to read "is critique secular?" which is available for free on the internet, and also a book called 'frames of war.' the latter is important because it exams the way queer rights are mobilized by a largely homophobic culture against muslims in europe and the mid east.

[–]mikwest 0 points1 point ago

Yeah well, MY tombstone won't say "He died because he got into a hissy fit and rioted violently OVER A GODDAMN DRAWING".

[–]GirlZGetZGasmZ 0 points1 point ago

REREREREREPOSSSTTTTT

[–]tossn00b -3 points-2 points ago

Yo dawg, I heard you like reposts.

[–]UncleLev -1 points0 points ago

This was sooooo funny!

.... at least the first time I saw it posted.

[–]teawreckshero -1 points0 points ago

I would upvote this but there are 666 ups already...

[–]teawreckshero 0 points1 point ago

It changed to 668 and I upped it.

[–]veritas96 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for the update

[–]teawreckshero 1 point2 points ago

lol well people seemed to be under the impression that I would never upvote it based on a joke.

[–]trolltis -2 points-1 points ago

Now this is funny lol

[–]Tsum -1 points0 points ago

I think religious people already do that without the picture anyway

[–]RubSomeFunkOnIt -1 points0 points ago

Oh my, is it already time for this one again?

[–]Theishi -5 points-4 points ago

This wasn't that funny the first time. Every 3 weeks do we have to see it again?

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]WhyThisIsRelevant 7 points8 points ago*

This image contains:

  • A satirical take (via a semi-popular internet meme) on the order in the Qur'an not to represent Muhammad in any drawing or depiction.

Why this is relevant to /r/atheism:

Further information:

What most atheists consider to be hate:

  • Groups of fanatics who call for other human beings to be murdered simply for producing criticism to a religious belief or drawing a picture.

  • Fanatics who enact such crimes

  • "Moderate" muslims who do not speak out against calls for violence against a group of people or an individual.

What most atheists do not consider to be hate:

  • Using free speech rights to criticise what is felt to be a backwards, dehumanising, misogynistic set of ideas.

  • Using internet memes to express such criticisms

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]dxyze 6 points7 points ago

We do not have free speech rights so that we can say things that no one is going to get angry about or take offence to. We have free speech rights so we can air controversial opinions that many might take offence to.

As for "the killing of innocent people is not even allowed in islam", technically, making blasphemous comments means people are not innocent under Islam. See Islam and Blasphemy

Your analogy with the house is irrelevant. A person made a cartoon. They didn't infringe on anyone's property.

I want humans to live in peace together. And I am certain that there can be no peace if people take a literal interpretation of holy books, and if 'moderate' Muslims do not stand up and condemn these acts of extreme violence.

The correct response to provocation is not death threats. Muslims can draw cartoons back if they're not happy, or voice their opinions through non-violent means. It's rather simple. No one has the right not to take offence.

I think you're missing the whole point though; If Islam can't stand up to criticism, maybe the problem lies within the belief system, not the people making criticisms.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]dxyze 1 point2 points ago

The media in my country is frankly far too nice on the subject of Islam due to fear of offense. IMHO, Islam deserves to be mocked and ridiculed for the abhorrent ideas it contains.

Look at the history of Islam. Look at it today. Look at the mysogony, the homophobia, the violence, the terrorism - don't pretend you're the victim because people point these things out.

In regards to the Danish Cartoonist:

"Four months later, Muslims protested across the Islamic world, some of which escalated into violence with instances of firing on crowds of protestors resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths,[1] including the bombing of the Danish embassy in Pakistan and setting fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, storming European buildings, and burning the Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City.[2][3]"

Source

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]dxyze 0 points1 point ago

I'm not saying this is true of all Muslims, but these elements exist within the Quran and within fundamentalist beliefs. You can't pretend that the things don't exist in the Quran Just because you choose to ignore them:

There isn't enough space to quote them, so I will reference them and people can look it up for themselves:

Homophobia:

  • Surah 7:80-81
  • Surah 26:165-166
  • Surah 27:54-55
  • Surah 29:28-29

Mysogyny:

Violence:

Terrorism:

  • 4:76 "Those who believe do battle for the cause of Allah; and those who disbelieve do battle for the cause of idols. So fight the minions of the devil."

  • 4:74 "Fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

And more

And not to mention the Scientific errors

Now, you might not like these websites, but you can read your own Quran and the context of these quotes and find that they are still inexcusable and are considered homophobic/mysogynistic/violent by today's standards.

[–][deleted] ago

[deleted]

[–]dxyze 0 points1 point ago

Thanks for the correction. But can I ask in what way the others are misquoted or mistranslated? Does it not say humans were made from clay? And in an instant?

What about Surah 2:82 which says a woman is worth half as much as a man?

What about the passages I quoted, to do with terrorism and homophobia? Do you really not think that a passage like 4:74 isn't inciting terrorism or violence? Is it not saying that if you fight for Allah you will be rewarded?

[–]TraderHoes 0 points1 point ago

Part of the reason the Draw Muhammad Day even happens if the out of proportion reaction to it. It is nuts. Most people who engage are wanting to point out blasphemy and freedom of speech issues.

Now, I am not talking about the Jihadwatch and Pam Geller types....they DO take part solely to be angry assholes.

[–]anthony2301 -2 points-1 points ago

Wow. You are lost fucking people man.... Just speechless at how much of a dick you are.

[–]Inky_musty -5 points-4 points ago

I'm athiest and I find this hateful attack on muslims very childish. I am disapoint.

[–]Eskelsar -1 points0 points ago

Those poor Muslims, threatening to butcher Europeans for daring to draw an imaginary god!