Draw Mohammad Day

[Indon]

Yeah! They're just living their everyday lives, damnit! They aren't going out of their way to be offensive to Muslims - I REGULARLY draw pictures of various religious figures stereotyping them in their worst light, like this one.

Seriously? Stop kidding yourself.

The problem there is not depicting Mohammed. The problem there is actively insulting Mohammed and Islam, using a depiction. Nobody here is claiming that insults aren't meant to be offensive!

A non-muslim drawing a non-insulting picture of Mohammed should not offend any sane muslim who understands their faith. Any muslim who is nonetheless offended either doesn't understand their own faith, or is an extremist.

[Moo]

Hush, you silly Muslims, can't you see the non-muslims are telling you what your faith is?

[Ixtellor]

A non-muslim drawing a non-insulting picture of Mohammed should not offend any sane muslim who understands their faith. Any muslim who is nonetheless offended either doesn't understand their own faith, or is an extremist.
.

Were you joking?

Religion isn't based on empiricism, so you get to interpret anyway you want and there is no right or wrong way to believe your fairy tales. While I think all religions are silly, I wouldn't have such an ego to tell those people the "right way to interpret your made up stories".


As to Offensive Mohammad drawings. I am ok with them, because I was ok with the art of Chris Ofili, and it would be hippocritical to support one and not the other. (artist who made the virigin mary with elephant dung art) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili

[Greyarcher]

Hush, you silly Muslims, can't you see the non-muslims are telling you what your faith is?

Eh, people in their own religions disagree with each other about the specifics of their faith. It's not like being outside the religion means you can't take part in that dispute too.

That said, I suddenly wonder what percentage of Jews vs Christians vs Muslims have completely read their own holy books. I know many don't bother, but I'd be curious about the actual numbers.

[Chfan]

Islam != Scientology. Islam is a widely respected religion, Scientology is a cult. Please respect others' beliefs, and do NOT refer to them as crazy.

They both the the same definition of religion.

The fact you say one is respected and the other is a cult, is just a matter of cultural bias.

They are equally bizarre and cultish.

I would write more but I have to go beat my wife for leaving the house without her burka again -- to prove I am honoring her.... um virtue.

I would reply to this but I had to go stone the gays and the adulterers. If you want to insult all bizarre religions equally, you're free to do so, but don't act like Islam is the only extreme religion.

[Ixtellor]

I would reply to this but I had to go stone the gays and the adulterers. If you want to insult all bizarre religions equally, you're free to do so, but don't act like Islam is the only extreme religion.

You assumed and missed by a mile. Search for Ixtellor and Christianity or Jesus, and prepare to be offended.

They are all equally silly and require self-delusion.

[Chfan]

I understand that, and I've seen his posts about religion. I was just making the point that he can't single out Islam like that when it's obvious that he isn't a big fan of any religion.

[felltir]

I said scientology is a cult because it is defined as such. I still respect people who believe in it. Jesus.

[Indon]

Hush, you silly Muslims, can't you see the non-muslims are telling you what your faith is?

Concern about idolatry is the reason why muslims can't depict Mohammed.

Islam is a religion with a body of associated 'religious law' capable of being cited - such judgments are called hadith. It is entirely possible for a non-muslim to correct a muslim using this, though admittedly, not all muslims respect all hadith.

[Xeio]

Hey, a good interview with an admin of the facebook group.

http://www.rferl.org/content/Interview_Administrator_Says_Draw_Muhammad_Day_Facebook_Group_Decided_To_Draw_The_Line/2049411.html

[LuNatic]

Based on the likelihood of hijacking by /b/tards, I object, and propose a better alternative ... The reasons given by the people who initiated DMD were to send a message that they wouldn't be cowed by threats, not to be arseholes, and I think this would be a better and less offensive way of accomplishing that.

Um, anything can be hijacked by /b/tards. You might as well say we should stop doing anything, because after all, what if some asshole comes along and tries to ruin it? If you think someone is an asshole for standing up against terrorists... well, whatever, I disagree.

Sure, anything can be hijacked, but some things lend themselves more so than others. I'm not saying standing up against terrorists makes people arseholes. I'm saying drawing a picture of Mohammed waving his hand is one thing. Drawing a picture of Mohammed raping a pig (to use an example earlier in the thread) is another entirely.

get a scan of a proper historical painting of him from before the whole no pictures rule was brought in to place

Why does the picture have to be from before depicting Muhammad was "banned"? That seems like an odd request. Does that mean the Danish cartoons that started the controversy would be banned? The 200th South Park episode (where he wasn't even shown)? The super-best-friends episode?

Err, what? I'm not really sure how you interpreted me as saying this. It was just a suggestion of something that will make the point without being horribly offensive to Muslim culture.

And only in direct response to an extremist threat, not as an annual thing.

I doubt the day will continue being celebrated after the extremists have stopped sending threats (I'll just mark down "extinction of human race" on my calendar to make sure I don't forget...). In fact, is that really when we should even stop? Shouldn't it be after they realize that they can't thought depiction police everyone who doesn't follow their beliefs?

Also, what is the practicality of organizing an event every time there is a threat? I'm not sure how often this actually comes up...

Umm, this was just a response to Griffon's question. I wasn't sure whether he meant as a one-off or annual event, so I clarified my response.

[Steax]

Disclaimer: I am a muslim. I am not an extremist.

The problem I see here is that people are poking fun at the entire religion instead of just the extremists. As stated, there are rules that muslims are not allowed to draw Mohammad or make depictions of him, in fear that people start worshiping him instead of Allah. It is not, however, necessary (or allowed) to kill people just because of such an offense. 99% of muslims won't have any sort of negative reaction. Some will just smile politely, some will shake their heads, some may give a dirty glance - but that's normal for criticizing faith. Most won't do a thing; its even stated that we let Allah handle stuff like this.

With such images, however, it seems to just be poking a dragon in the funny bone just to see if it spews fire at you. Mock the extremists, sure; the rest don't care about them, honestly. If they're going to be extremists and take violent action, and get violent action in return, that's their own responsibility. But there's no point mocking the rest of us. I seriously despise people who do so 'just for the laugh of it', as I see a lot of people are. Solidarity is fine to show you don't want extremists terrorizing people. Doing exactly what they did just to show you care, isn't.

Just my two cents. I hope this doesn't offend anyone. The idea of the day does offend me, but I'm not going to pull out a lightsaber and start slashing people.

[Arancaytar]

I find your avatar particularly amusing, given the discussion in the other thread.

The only logical conclusion of such a line of thinking is the LOLMohammed.

"I made you a religion, but then I eated it."

I can has virgin?

[Asylumer]

Here's an interesting response to Draw Muhammad Day.

Well, I support his right to speak, but primarily so that I can laugh at him. The countries that partook in the Holocaust are the ones who've banned its denial, and while I see why they'd feel it's their responsibility, the best remedy to idiotic ideas is laughter.

With such images, however, it seems to just be poking a dragon in the funny bone just to see if it spews fire at you. Mock the extremists, sure; the rest don't care about them, honestly. If they're going to be extremists and take violent action, and get violent action in return, that's their own responsibility.

Drawing pictures is a violent action now?

Apparently my drawing of stick figures is likened to the worst sort of bigotry and hate imaginable. It's peculiar how a non-violent protest suddenly becomes as anathema as the string of violent reactions which ultimately triggered it. Even the more offensive pictures are not an assault upon another person's being, they're an assault upon belief and ideology. Being offended is not the same as being killed, no matter how hard apologists try to twist the truth to fit their outrage.

[Steax]

We don't mind a casual drawing or some sort of thing. Keep in mind though that what you find offensive might be different to people in other cultures, and it's simply innapropriate to say "you don't need to get upset over that". It's a cultural difference. On the other hand, not every offended guy starts becoming extreme.

Seriously, a stick figure saying something would just make me pass over it without drawing any annoyance. What does become a problem is when the tone grows overly condenscending or insulting. This does indeed happen. It's a thin line.

[aleflamedyud]

Here's an interesting response to Draw Muhammad Day.

Well, I support his right to speak, but primarily so that I can laugh at him. The countries that partook in the Holocaust are the ones who've banned its denial, and while I see why they'd feel it's their responsibility, the best remedy to idiotic ideas is laughter.

Quoting from that event:

I know who they are. They are the ones who do not care that you are Muslim, Jew, Christian. They want religions and morals to be wiped off from the face of the earth. The only things that they care about are power and money and "The Zionist state of Israel". Their excuse is Holocaust.

I'm honestly not sure whether to laugh, cry, or beat this man over the head with a history book and a copy of the Talmud. Once again, Islamists utterly deny any need for self-examination and instead blame every single thing they don't like in the world on... (dun dun DUUUUUN....) the secular humanists and Zionists.

So let's try a moral comparison, as they desire... What's worse: insulting Muhammad, or denying history to legitimize violence, terrorism, and genocide for nothing more than spite?

[Ixtellor]

Seriously, a stick figure saying something would just make me pass over it without drawing any annoyance. What does become a problem is when the tone grows overly condenscending or insulting. This does indeed happen. It's a thin line.

No. The "line" is obscenity as defined by the Supreme court.

As long as a depiction is not obscene by that definition, it doesn't cross the line.
And there is nothing a person could draw on a computer or with a pencil that would cross the line.

In a free society, people have the right to condescend, mock, insult, and anything else they want to be. Religious objections are invalid.

Out of curiosity, how do you think Muslims should react to a vile depiction of Mohammad engaged in unspeakable acts? What consequences should the artist suffer, if any in your opinion?

[Indon]

Just my two cents. I hope this doesn't offend anyone. The idea of the day does offend me, but I'm not going to pull out a lightsaber and start slashing people.

I would like to ask why, say, a stick-figure depiction of Mohammed, made by a non-muslim, that is not insulting mohammed or islam is offensive to you.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

Seriously, a stick figure saying something would just make me pass over it without drawing any annoyance. What does become a problem is when the tone grows overly condenscending or insulting. This does indeed happen. It's a thin line.

No. The "line" is obscenity as defined by the Supreme court.

I suspect that Steax is not talking about a legal line.

[Ixtellor]

I suspect that Steax is not talking about a legal

Yes, I am fully aware. It was some made up line that he will apparently define.
I was reminding him, he doesn't get to make the line, the rule of law does.

And the rule of law is clear -- offensive depictions of Mohammad are protected speech.
There is basically no limit on what a person could draw, it would still be acceptable.

I do wonder, what in Steax opinion is going to happen when that line is crossed.

He earlier mentioned "waking a dragon".

[Rakysh]

Fucking hell Ix, good one. I think he's perfectly qualified to define the line at which he feels offended at. Which was what he clearly stated the line was. Honestly.

[Kayangelus]

I suspect that Steax is not talking about a legal

Yes, I am fully aware. It was some made up line that he will apparently define.
I was reminding him, he doesn't get to make the line, the rule of law does.

And the rule of law is clear -- offensive depictions of Mohammad are protected speech.
There is basically no limit on what a person could draw, it would still be acceptable.

I do wonder, what in Steax opinion is going to happen when that line is crossed.

He earlier mentioned "waking a dragon".

Actually, he does get to make the line that he judges us by. We just don't have to accept the line, or even acknowledge its existence. He can have his opinions be based on as arbitrary a set of rules as he wants. So long as he doesn't try to force people to act on those lines, or treat those as the law, it is fine.

[aleflamedyud]

Seriously, a stick figure saying something would just make me pass over it without drawing any annoyance. What does become a problem is when the tone grows overly condenscending or insulting. This does indeed happen. It's a thin line.

No. The "line" is obscenity as defined by the Supreme court.

As long as a depiction is not obscene by that definition, it doesn't cross the line.
And there is nothing a person could draw on a computer or with a pencil that would cross the line.

In a free society, people have the right to condescend, mock, insult, and anything else they want to be. Religious objections are invalid.

Out of curiosity, how do you think Muslims should react to a vile depiction of Mohammad engaged in unspeakable acts? What consequences should the artist suffer, if any in your opinion?

He's talking about the moral line, which is not defined by the legal doctrines of Free Speech. You can disagree with him on morals, but you don't get (morally) to be an asshole to him just because his morals differ from yours.

[Steax]

We're not making legal accusations here. Just personal feelings, and for that, I'm pretty sure we're all entitled to our own opinion. If you invoke from of speech, then I invoke freedom of opinion. The law has a line, but that doesn't necessarily have to be the line where everybody goes from smile to frown.

I would like to ask why, say, a stick-figure depiction of Mohammed, made by a non-muslim, that is not insulting mohammed or islam is offensive to you.

It is not. Honestly. Perhaps I was unclear as to which I was saying offended me; it's the general idea to invite people into making drawings which may be malicious (mocking, insulting, whatever) in intent. I'm perfectly fine (and probably 99% of other muslims too) if they're drawn like any other character. He's a personality, after all, so it's not a problem to represent him as much (we do that too when we make films about him, just that we usually don't show a face; but it's not like he's somehow banned from being interpreted at all). The problem is when it's condescending.

Out of curiosity, how do you think Muslims should react to a vile depiction of Mohammad engaged in unspeakable acts? What consequences should the artist suffer, if any in your opinion?

Most Muslims will turn their back on it. If it's shown publicly (as a poster or something) then they might try to get it removed. From my perspective, nothing I do can change his opinion, so why bother? Better let God take care of it, no? I'm quite sure most Muslims share my opinion. They may frown upon the artist or avoid him as a person, but I suppose that's to be expected if you draw a person's believed prophet in such away.

But then the extremists scream, and like all other extremists, they shriek the loudest.

[gmalivuk]

I was just making the point that he can't single out Islam like that when it's obvious that he isn't a big fan of any religion.

Um, hi. Have you read the thread title? This thread is about Islam, so it seems pretty topical to comment about Islam more than other religions. Since, you know, that's what the thread is about.

As stated, there are rules that muslims are not allowed to draw Mohammad or make depictions of him, in fear that people start worshiping him instead of Allah.

But as others have brought up already (at least in the South Park thread, I don't know if it's been brought up explicitly in this one), by putting so much weight on making sure you never draw Muhammad, by making the depiction of him a deeply taboo action, don't you greatly increase his importance?

Someone earlier in this thread jokingly suggested adding other kinds of insulting depictions to pictures of Muhammad, including ones against Darwin. And I laughed because of how little I could possibly care about anyone disrespecting Darwin, because he's just a man. But if I went out of my way to make sure no one who believes in evolution ever draws Darwin for fear that they'll care more about him than about his contribution to science, then people will start to be more concerned with him than with his contribution to science. Which seems a bit self-defeating, really.

[Ixtellor]

But then the extremists scream, and like all other extremists, they shriek the loudest.

I disagree.

Which brings me to my one real criticism of Islam -- aside from the fact its a religion and all religions are silly faerie tales --

I feel like moderate Muslims let the extremists win the war of ideas and need to do a lot more screaming of their own.

Westboro Baptist Chruch is just about the most extreme and insane group of Christians on earth, and they are totally drowned out by the 'good' Christians. Christian psychos don't have 10,000 + man rallies and chant death to America without being surrounded by protestors countering their pathetic 'protests'.

While I see Muslims on TV and read them on the interwebs, condemning extermism, I don't see the huge rallies or open opposition to the guys chanting death to Isreal. (I am no fan of Isreal and think the US should sever ties).

Where is the million man muslim march in DC that conveys a postive non-violent worldview?

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

While I see Muslims on TV and read them on the interwebs, condemning extermism, I don't see the huge rallies or open opposition to the guys chanting death to Isreal.

Therein lies the problem.

[Aetius]

While I see Muslims on TV and read them on the interwebs, condemning extermism, I don't see the huge rallies or open opposition to the guys chanting death to Isreal.

Therein lies the problem.

There is also polling data that reveals that a minority, but a non-negligible minority, of Muslims either support or are sympathetic to violent extremism. Are anything like a majority of Muslims violent and unreasonable? No. But is violence a problem in Islam in ways it is not in most other religions? Yes.

[aleflamedyud]

While I see Muslims on TV and read them on the interwebs, condemning extermism, I don't see the huge rallies or open opposition to the guys chanting death to Isreal.

Therein lies the problem.

There is also polling data that reveals that a minority, but a non-negligible minority, of Muslims either support or are sympathetic to violent extremism. Are anything like a majority of Muslims violent and unreasonable? No. But is violence a problem in Islam in ways it is not in most other religions? Yes.

This is true, but when it comes to rallies and chants, be aware that, at least in the Middle East, such things are as much astroturfing as they are real. People are told that if they come to the anti-America/Jews/Europeans/modernity/liberalism/etc rally, they'll be given fine gifts or a large meal, and the organizers make good on that. So people go and scream the angry slogans they're told to scream without really meaning it more than half-heartedly.

[Steax]

I can't give you guys info on how things are in the middle east, but I can from Indonesia and the other nearby communities (Malaysia etc), where there is also a large mass of (nearly entirely moderate) Muslims.

But as others have brought up already (at least in the South Park thread, I don't know if it's been brought up explicitly in this one), by putting so much weight on making sure you never draw Muhammad, by making the depiction of him a deeply taboo action, don't you greatly increase his importance?

Yes. Someone who understands Islam better than me might be able to explain better, but basically Muslims are banned from making depictions of him by law in the Quran. It's this law that was exploited to make it appear it's valid to threaten people who make the drawings via generalization, although it is not.

I feel like moderate Muslims let the extremists win the war of ideas and need to do a lot more screaming of their own.

I can give some insight on this. I agree with you, this is a problem. There are a few contributing factors.

First, moderate Muslims are often more, well, moderate. They're from developing countries. Especially here in Indonesia (where a huge bulk of Muslims are), people are submissive. If they don't scream about it, they're usually silent about it. They don't agree on it, but they decide to let them be (and let God decide, which is the 'official' protocol if a Muslim is unsure about something). By nature in their individual traditions, they're less outspoken. Some have indeed speaking out, usually in person, like me. It's kind of an intrinsic problem, being in developing countries and having less self-esteem than all the westerners.

Second, there's added fear of extremism from these people. Non-muslims are at threat for making drawings; if we were to go against them as well, they'd get even more agitated and start screaming about us as defects or something. It's happened before, and sometimes ended in violence faster (as the extremists feel that they're kin, but getting in their way, and nobody's backing us up). It's also a lot scarier when the screaming people are at your doorstep, instead of death threats half a world away.

Third, what you're saying does happen, but inwards. There has been increasingly frequent preaches on TV and in mosques to basically take it easy, and not support extremism. I can't blame them either, I really think it's important for now to focus on getting people straight about it. People without proper knowledge on the subject could potentially become extremists, so they're trying to stop that now (along with other stuff like terrorism and misguided "Jihad").

But I do agree with you, the moderates need to speak out more. Hence I am.

[Ixtellor]

While I see Muslims on TV and read them on the interwebs, condemning extermism, I don't see the huge rallies or open opposition to the guys chanting death to Isreal.

Therein lies the problem.

Perception is reality. In the war of ideas, the Muslim extremists are doing a good job.

Also see this:

But I do agree with you, the moderates need to speak out more.

Indonesia should be the model for an Islamic nation, and instead the world looks at Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Back to Grammer -- Saudi Arabia is mainstream, and it is extremist. Iran -- the same.
While Indonesia dwarfs those nations in terms of population, they do demonstrate that the extremists are not some small group of crazies like the Westboro crowd, they are very mainstream and a large group.

[Rakysh]

Yes, I'm sure every single person in each of those countries is a terrorist. Absolutely. Don't be silly, of course there can't be some variation amongst the millions of people that live in them.

[Steax]

Saudi Arabia is mainstream, and it is extremist

May I ask why you get that impression? I believe the majority of the people their are peace-loving. They import and export. They accept international flights. Every year millions of people flock there. I don't think most of that would be possible if they were all extremists.

(That plane is serving pork! That's illegal! AIM! FIRE!)

I don't even think a country could exist as a single entity without breaking up if the entire population were extremists. Or at least be in total war.

@ southeast asian countries vs arabian:

The reason for that is because Indonesia and Malaysia were Dutch and English colonies. The people were taught to be submissive and peaceful, and western technology has spread like other Asian countries. Arabian nations, however, have a long history of being free with their own tradition and cultures. Their laws are more strictly based on a mix of culture and religion (more religion for Saudi Arabia), and they're used to having their way in their own land. In the past, westerners usually left them to their own devices and avoided interacting with what was taboo for them. And suddenly this happens, which triggers massive reactions.

In this sense, if you look at it from their perspective, they're not really 'extremists' as you might imagine. They're upset and they don't like it. Being used to having their way with what they feel is their culture (and religion), they shout out loud. They get angry. But I doubt that very many would actually try to assassinate an artist or something. They might vent their frustration, but I'm quite sure the vast majority won't reach for guns and spears unless provoked further.

@ 'extremists'

This actually makes me wonder what you classify as 'extremists'. Does simply approving of a death threat mark someone as extreme? Or do they have to actually pick up weapons and actively attempt to do illegal activity?

Because if it's just as "approving" (since a poll was mentioned; I assume it's more like 'do you approve of violence against the artists' and not 'would you like to go kill the artist now'), I kind of see why the reaction from those countries is overwhelmingly supportive. They were taught since childhood that their laws apply to their belief. They don't understand the western way of free speech and taking stuff to court. Basically, they're shouting "he must be brought to justice", but in their tradition, their language, because that's the justice they know. Furthermore, more people making more drawings that they find offensive simply makes them feel provoked more than anything else. It's just 2 different cultures clashing with each other. The boundaries overlap. Chaos happens.

[Ixtellor]

Yes, I'm sure every single person in each of those countries is a terrorist. Absolutely. Don't be silly, of course there can't be some variation amongst the millions of people that live in them.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present the Strawman.

May I ask why you get that impression? I believe the majority of the people their are peace-loving

Women can't not leave the home without the company of a man.
Women can not drive.
Homosexuality is illegal.
Political Parties are illegal.
There is no freedom of speech.
Beheadings and Amputation.
Society is segregated by gender. Females can't enter museums.
Non-Muslims can't not testify in Court.
Women can testity in Court, but nothing say can be considered fact.
Girls can be forced to marry at the age of 9.
Men have sole guardianship of children.
Wahhabism.
Religious Police AKA The Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.
Religious conversion = Death Penalty.
Telethons for "Martyrs" = Support of Terrorism.


Thats enough for now, but there is a lot more. These are just a few examples of why I consider the nation extremist.

In the USA your considered an extremist if you say something like "god caused Hurricane Katrina". In Saudi Arabia that would come straight from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

[Rakysh]

Saudi Arabia is mainstream, and it is extremist. Iran -- the same.

Fair enough, but what do you actually mean by this?

[folkhero]

This actually makes me wonder what you classify as 'extremists'. Does simply approving of a death threat mark someone as extreme? Or do they have to actually pick up weapons and actively attempt to do illegal activity?

Yes, very much yes. If you think that speech should be met with violence, you are an. extremist. A Dutch filmmaker has been murdered, if it weren't for shoddy bomb-making, the building housing "South Park's" parent company would have been bombed, Salman Rushdie has been in semi-hiding since the 80's while people have been making serious attempts to murder him; if your response to that is, "yeah, that sounds pretty good," then you are a thug and the civilized world has no place for you. If you don't have the guts to actually partake in the violence, so much the better for the civilized world, but your beliefs are still extreme.

Because if it's just as "approving" (since a poll was mentioned; I assume it's more like 'do you approve of violence against the artists' and not 'would you like to go kill the artist now'), I kind of see why the reaction from those countries is overwhelmingly supportive. They were taught since childhood that their laws apply to their belief. They don't understand the western way of free speech and taking stuff to court. Basically, they're shouting "he must be brought to justice", but in their tradition, their language, because that's the justice they know. Furthermore, more people making more drawings that they find offensive simply makes them feel provoked more than anything else. It's just 2 different cultures clashing with each other. The boundaries overlap. Chaos happens.

If you are raised to be an extremist, does that make you less of an extremist if you grow up to be one? Childhood indoctrination may explain extremism, but it certainly shouldn't excuse it.

Taking intentional violent acts of humans and pretending like it's some sort of inevitable force of nature (culture clash, boundaries overlap, chaos happens) is really the opposite how moderate Muslims should be responding to extremist violence.

[Steax]

The list is a mostly a mix of culture and religious rules. Some, I am certain are cultural rules that turned to law.

Not all are from Islam as much as their own culture.
A few clarifications (AFAIK): (rather out of topic so lets not discuss this I guess, just open if you're interested)

Spoiler:

Muslims are not permitted to kill someone because of religious conversion. It's in the Quran, I believe. It kind of goes "Your religion is yours, my religion is mine."
Both parents are guardians of their children. We are told to be 7 times more grateful for our mothers than our fathers.
There is nothing in the Quran about women not being allowed to venture off alone. There are verses about warning them not to go at night, or without permission of their husbands, but I think that's quite different.
Girls may not be forced to marry. They must mutually agree. Of course, sometimes the forcing takes place beforehand to make her agree, but then that's a different situation.

Stuff like that. I'm not an expert on it, just saying that some are simply their own culture and not fundamentally from Islam.

In the USA your considered an extremist if you say something like "god caused Hurricane Katrina". In Saudi Arabia that would come straight from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

Wait, a religious person is extreme if they believe their God created something on the planet? I really don't get this part.

Yes, very much yes. If you think that speech should be met with violence, you are an. extremist. A Dutch filmmaker has been murdered, if it weren't for shoddy bomb-making, the building housing "South Park's" parent company would have been bombed, Salman Rushdie has been in semi-hiding since the 80's while people have been making serious attempts to murder him; if your response to that is, "yeah, that sounds pretty good," then you are a thug and the civilized world has no place for you. If you don't have the guts to actually partake in the violence, so much the better for the civilized world, but your beliefs are still extreme.

For those who agree with it (for the record, I don't), it's really their way of saying 'they should be punished'. They only know their type of punishment. I know this isn't a conclusive argument and people will continue to backlash at them, but I'm trying to give some insight so people can understand what's going on in their heads behind the screaming and wailing.

Taking intentional violent acts of humans and pretending like it's some sort of inevitable force of nature (culture clash, boundaries overlap, chaos happens) is really the opposite how moderate Muslims should be responding to extremist violence.

If it was inevitable I wouldn't be talking about it. I'm simply stating what I believe to be the root cause of the conflict here. In any case, most moderate Muslims don't fight them openly (see my post a few posts above for reasons why).

As a disclaimer, I'm not trying to support those who give death threats, nor support those making drawings. All I'm trying to do is facilitate each side to get behind the thoughts and feelings of the other side, to give some insight on why their reactions are what they are. Due to cultural boundaries, it's not easy to do this directly.

[gmalivuk]

Religious extremists everywhere interpret their holy books in ways that seem obviously wrong to religious moderates, and so pointing out how you disagree with how those extremists have interpreted the Quran doesn't do anything to change the fundamental claim: They are religious extremists who are using their interpretations of the Quran and other religious tradition to justify their fundamentalist viewpoints and rules. The actual history of some of those rules may predate Islam, but the present justifications are often deeply rooted in it, however incorrect that interpretation may seem to you.

Wait, a religious person is extreme if they believe their God created something on the planet? I really don't get this part.

No, it's really more a matter of believing that God did that specifically to punish immorality or something. In other words, thinking that the victims of a natural disaster *deserved* divine retribution for their sins makes one an extremist.

In the USA you're considered an extremist if you say something like "god caused Hurricane Katrina". In Saudi Arabia that would come straight from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs.

To be fair, I know that many Iranians regard the cleric who recently blamed an earthquake on immodestly dressed women as the same level of quack that most intelligent Americans regard the likes of Pat Robertson. And speaking of Iran (I know you were talking about Saudi Arabia but I assume you'd have made similar claims about Iran, right?) when people there did try to stand up in protest of what was happening in their government, they were brutally put down. I'm not sure how much you want moderates to do when that's the kind of response they can expect from those in power over them.

[Steax]

Wait, a religious person is extreme if they believe their God created something on the planet? I really don't get this part.

No, it's really more a matter of believing that God did that specifically to punish immorality or something. In other words, thinking that the victims of a natural disaster *deserved* divine retribution for their sins makes one an extremist.

In that case, I would quite agree. Religion is supposed to work together with science, not banish it entirely. I view them on the same level as astrologers or stuff like that. That's simply foolish behavior. I understand that definition of extremist, then. Makes sense to be upset at someone like that (although not sure I would personally call him an extremist, just a guy who puts too much on faith over logic and is heartless enough to say that to a disaster victim).

[Triangle_Man]

To me, there is a difference between defending one's right to free speech and taking advantage of a situation to act like a jerk. As far as I'm concerned, 'Draw Mahammad Day' is an example of the latter, and while I am completely opposed to anybody using religion to justify the murder of another human being, I also refuse to condone this spiteful event.

I know that the intentions of the organizers of this event are good at heart, but this event is causing more harm then good. It is more important to read up on the Muslem religion and thereby understand the world view of the average Muslem instead of engaging in reactionary, ignorant bull.