Episode LVIII: Welease Wodger! » « A child is not a notch on the bedpost

Everyone Draw Mohammed

It’s that day when everyone should draw Mohammed. You can just do the traditional stick figure, or you can get fancy — I like this one, a kind of Mohammed transitional series in which you have to draw the line where blasphemy occurs.

I can’t draw. The only thing I could think of was to sketch out this picture of a hybrid cow-pig.

i-79148186b05bae303b43ff8ab282a2ba-moo-ham-ed.jpeg

It’s Moo-ham-ed. Get it? OK, you’re allowed to groan and close the page.

Would it add to the verisimilitude if I said he was mooing/squealing excitedly at the prospect of raping a 9 year old girl (not shown)? Sharp-eyed observers will also note that Moo-ham-ed is a hermaphrodite, since he also has udders. I just thought that would make it a little more offensive.

Your turn. You can try to do better—actually, you could close your eyes and stab a piece of paper with a pen and do better—but there’s not much point. It really doesn’t matter what you draw or how rude or explicit or stupid or accurate or respectful it is, since someone somewhere is determined to be offended by it anyway.

Also, Pakistanis won’t see it: they’re trying to block the internet, demonstrating their own stupidity. Not only is it easy to get around, but I could easily show you a plenitude of obscenity and hatred and violence that has been on the internet for years, and is far more offensive than amateurish stick figures.

Episode LVIII: Welease Wodger! » « A child is not a notch on the bedpost

Comments

  1. deriamis says

    I think the only thing that’s missing for verisimilitude is a turban. That’s not only more offensive, it’s also more funny!

  3. black-wolf72 says

    Ah yes, Pakistan. Another one of our brave allies in defending the freedoms and rights we enjoy in civilized countries. Apparently they want out.
    Pakistan’s regime was always very suspect, but this proves to me that they’re simply the militarized faction of islamists who are fighting against the talibanized faction of islamists. Crooks, hypocrites and liars, all of them.

  5. Insightful Ape says

    From the AP report on the story:

    “What do Laskhar-e-Taiba and Facebook have in common?
    They are both banned in Pakistan, but those who wish can access them both”.
    Other interesting thing is, the government of Pakistan had already banned the web page but the Islamic lawyers wanted more. They demanded-and obtained-a total ban on Facebook for allowing it in the first place.

  6. sorceror171 says

    I drew Mohammed, and put up a video explaining why:

    One mistake, though. I said Myers spiked a copy of the Origin of Species, not The God Delusion. Oh, well.

  7. Energy Boy says

    We can link to webcomics? Hooray! This is mine:

    Chain Bear

    My favourite is posted on Friendly Atheist and features two stick men with the caption “one of these is Mohammad”.

  8. Westcoaster says

    You have the “moo” and the “ham”, but it needs a blackboard or a textbook or something to provide the “ed”. I suppose we could count the fact that is transitional as educational, in a Ken Ham crockoduck kind of way.

  10. mxh says

    The fact that Pakistan is censoring the internet means that the campaign worked before it even started.

  12. Glen Davidson says

    Plus, Muslim creationists will be offended by the “evolutionary” implications of the drawing.

    Not that it’s evolution as science knows it, rather as morons misportray it.

    Glen D
    http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

  15. Shala says

    It’s Moo-ham-ed. Get it? OK, you’re allowed to groan and close the page.

    Oh. Oh my dear. That is brilliant. Utterly bovine joke I have to say.

    I might draw something in MS paint later today.

  16. george.wiman says

    I chickened out, sort of. The idea was that since we don’t know what Muhammad looked like, then the violent protesters want to criminalize an act of imagination – truly a thought crime.

  19. Qwerty says

    Shouldn’t Moo-hammm-id be a cross between a cow and a pig? PZ, you’d better try again.

  23. Alex the Wonderchemist says

    Honestly, some people have such a humour deficiency. All I did was post my picture of Muhammed as a stick man with a ginger afro and a handlebar moustache onto the facebook event page, and I was inundated with death threats and childish semi-coherent insults…

    For instance, I was told:

    “ALEX:PIG YOUR DAD, MOM YOUR DOG” – which was odd, seeing as I only own a kitten

    “Alex Bastard : You family and Jews are not a dog dog has genitalia” – Which I admit I must concede. Neither myself, any member of my family, or any Jew I’ve ever encountered is a dog. 10 points for observation.

    And finally: “I will come to the place you to cut your pubic” – Which was nice of him to offer, but I’m quite capable of trimming down there myself, thanks.

    Isn’t it wonderful to see those who hate the expression of free speech use their expression of free speech to denounce the expression of free speech…?!

  25. Shala says

    That’s udderly hilarious! I posted a pic on my blog as well. A co-worker said I was being mean.

    I hope he didn’t have a cow, man.

  28. irenedelse says

    It’s Moo-ham-ed. Get it? OK, you’re allowed to groan and close the page.

    So, it’s a sacred cow-pig? Nice. Way to offend two religions with only one drawing. ;-)

    Would it add to the verisimilitude if I said he was mooing/squealing excitedly at the prospect of raping a 9 year old girl (not shown)?

    Er… Logically, since this is a cow-pig, wouldn’t a 9 year old feamle of that species be an adult too? Or do you add interspecies sex to the package? (Now, that would be perfect… *giggle*)

    Sharp-eyed observers will also note that Moo-ham-ed is a hermaphrodite, since he also has udders

    Udders, shmudders. If you go by the drawing, it’s a female, because no penis or balls shown. Cows can have horns too, after all. (Unless farmers saw them off.)

  30. daveau says

    It’s Moo-ham-ed. Get it?

    There’s no such thing as a good pun.

    OK, you’re allowed to groan and close the page.

    I consider that option here several times a day. Somehow I don’t, though.

  32. Timberwoof says

    The Guardian article transmits this complaint:

    But Zaidi added that western countries with blasphemy laws protecting Christianity or preventing Holocaust denial were guilty of hypocrisy, and said he felt western rightwing extremists were using the controversy to heighten bigoted views.

    Well, we have done our part to point out and satirize the hypocrisy of the blasphemy legislation. And Holocaust denial … that’s an edge case. It is historically established fact that the holocaust occurred. We have laws against slander and libel, which discourage presenting harmful lies as fact. Yeah, I can see the argument either way there.

    So my advice is, “Grow the hell up. Stop acting like an eight-year-old. Man up* and take it.”

    “If you say Mohammed is violent, we will kill you!” I don’t know whether that’s tragic in a funny way or funny in a tragic way, but the behavior of the Islamofascists keeps amplifying that stereotype.

    * Yes, yes, I know.

  34. Pierce R. Butler says

    I had been excited about “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day” – until I saw it promoted on Ann C**lt*r’s site and realized how this would be seen as a wingnut/xenophobe project more than as an exercise in general-purpose blasphemy.

    But for some reason The Pseudoblonde Psychopath has let that item drop, so maybe a modest bit of celebration would be in order.

    At least, Jesus and Mo seem to think so.

  35. mxh says

    Pierce, you could always include Ann C**lt*r/other winguts in your mohammed drawing.

  38. Jonathan Figdor says

    I want to make clear that these chalk-protests are against the idea of censorship and the idea of “sacred calves,” and NOT a protest of Muslims or Islam as a whole. We atheists are equal opportunity offenders. PZ frequently has to take pot shots at crazy Creationists, such as his expose with the Secular Student Alliance (www.secularstudents.org) of the fatuous “creation museum” last year. The point is, Secular Students and the Atheist movement more broadly believes that no religion has the right to declare any person, place, or thing as “off-limits” to criticism, whether that thing be a Bible, or a drawing of Mohammad, such as this illustration of Mohammad doing taichi:

    o o o_, ,o , o , o , , o
    ‘-( ‘|’ )-‘ _`) `)-‘ `)- `)-‘
    /<> <> < /

    art credit = (http://stickgrappler.tripod.com/cma/tccascii.html)

  40. legistech says

    I like how the picture warns, “Be prepared for a multinational boycott”.

    Umm, a boycott is a grass-roots movement, not a government deciding on behalf of its citizens that it will cut off their access.

    Maybe the government of Pakistan thinks they do support free speech. After all, the government is free to say whatever it wants.

  41. Zeno says

    I have no artistic talent, but I drew Muhammad, too. The proof that I have no talent is here.

    It’s not a stick figure. Rather more circular & elliptical.

  42. SC OM says

    Pretty sure that’s what I want it to look like.

    Can’t be. That’s just too…cute.

  44. bernarda says

    I am not a good drawer myself, but maybe Pat Condell’s expression, “carpet-chewing shit for brains” might inspire someone.

  52. jidashdee says

    Suicide bomber Mohammed (credit to Kevin for the restyled head):

                            |
                                                  /
    (|:{>                  -                       
                                                  
                             |

  54. Ben Goren says

    Muhammad: *~@>(}

    Who knew, after all these years, that he bears a striking semblance to line noise?

    Cheers,

    b&

    —
    EAC Memographer
    BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
    “All but God can prove this sentence true.”

  55. Randomfactor says

    My entry below:

    .. …… ………. .. .. . . …. ..

    (He’s scattered dustmotes by now…)

  58. cag says

    My dog did a Mohammed again today. I put it in a bag and placed it in his “trophy” bin.

  59. Kraid says

    infi #25:

    That was pretty damn funny, and it had some bite to it… particularly the part where he was running around and cars were seemingly exploding in response to his influence.

    Here’s my Mo’ -> .

    Yep, that’s pretty fucking offensive. Much more offensive than seeing godbots and accomodationists take a big steamy dump on everyone’s freedom of expression.

    I wonder if I were to get a goldfish and name it “The Prophet Muhammad” and make drawings and photos of it, would that incense the religiously impaired also?

    Fun fact: there are a total of 50 depictions of Muhammad in this post. 55 if you count the timestamp.

  60. puseaus says

    (Brave &or stupid) Norwegians used to wear a paper clip on their jackets during WWII to annoy the Nazi authorities. The government even prohihibited the use of typical nordic red winter beanies (topplue). It’s just a matter of finding and agreeing on an effective symbol.

  61. daveau says

    My dog did a Mohammed again today. I put it in a bag and placed it in his “trophy” bin.

    Perhaps you should draw a picture of it?

  64. Biddy says

    The Mohamed I drew is proudly perched on the back of the camel. The picture in its self isn’t offensive, but the speech-bubbles that keep materializing around him have a little more bite.

  65. stvs says

    Would it add to the verisimilitude if I said he was mooing/squealing excitedly at the prospect of raping a 9 year old girl (not shown)?

    ‘Aisha is an important figure that nearly everyone gets wrong, especially atheists, which is a shame because her history offers so much to atheism, especially Muslim atheists. ‘Aisha, when she grew into a woman, was said to be the most beautiful of Mohammad’s wives, and certainly she was the most powerful and influential, in fact one of the most influential women in history by any standard.

    Focusing, as nearly all modern westerners do, on ‘Aisha’s prepubescent age when Muhammad married her is a trifling detail and entirely misses the key historic points. I will pass over in silence the futility of judging one individual’s 7th century marriage practices using modern norms. Instead, let’s get to the meat of why ‘Aisha is so important and learn something real about Islam and history.

    The violent Sunni-Shiite schism was essentially caused by a sequence of events beginning with Muhammad’s decision to take ‘Aisha’s as a young bride. Marrying a girl much younger than yourself is a decision fraught with risks, whether it occurs today or in the 7th century, whether you’re a Prophet of God or not. This is the story of the “The Affair of the Lie,” which had a huge historical influence that affects everyone today, but also influenced the Qu’ran itself—God’s message to mankind revealed to Muhammad.

    Here’s the story: ‘Aisha’s wedding gift, a prized necklace, had a defective clasp, and she is said to have lost it in the wilderness during one of the Prophet’s campaigns. Without telling anyone, she went back to find it, successfully, but when she returned to the campsite the caravan had left without knowledge of her absence. ‘Aisha was abandoned and lost in the desert. A dashing and very handsome young soldier named Safwan rescued her and they returned together to the caravan. This led to charges and gossip about ‘Aisha’s infidelity, and the Prophet ultimately had to depend upon God’s revelation via the archangel Gabriel to defend his wife’s honor, which is enshrined in the Qu’ran in the Sura An-Noor (Book of Light), verses 11–18:

    Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves …
    Why did not the believers—men and women—when ye heard of the affair,—
    put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, “This (charge) is an obvious lie”?

    This incident also led to the Qur’anic injunction to flog people who make unprovable allegation against “chaste women” with eighty lashes (Sura 24:4):

    And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),—
    flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors

    Muhammad’s cousin, brother-in-law, and standard bearer ‘Ali refused to accept ‘Aisha’s flimsy explanation for her alleged dalliance in the desert with the handsome young soldier Safwan, and counseled the Prophet to denounce and divorce ‘Aisha, advice he obviously rejected.

    When ‘Ali was later elected leader of the believers and successor to Muhammad after the Prophet’s death, ‘Aisha, who had to defend her marital honor against ‘Ali, rejected ‘Ali’s leadership and led a civil war against ‘Ali in the Battle of the Camel in Basra in 656. The ill will between ‘Ali’s faction of believers and ‘Aisha’s led directly to the Sunni-Shiite schism of Islam: the followers of ‘Aisha became the Sunnis and the followers of ‘Ali became the Shia’, meaning literally the “followers of ‘Ali”. All for the want of clasp. And a younger husband.

    A good place to read about this episode is Chapter 3 of Bruce Lawrence’s The Qur’an: A Biography. Reza Aslan also discusses ‘Aisha sympathetically on the recent and worthwhile PRI broadcast “Reclaiming Islam“, reading from his book. Aslan also discusses the baseless and rather stupid “Muhammad is a pedophile because he married a 7-year-old” charges.

    So please remember and refer to ‘Aisha when discussing Islam, but not for the age when she was married.

  66. stvs says

    Would it add to the verisimilitude if I said he was mooing/squealing excitedly at the prospect of raping a 9 year old girl (not shown)?

    ‘Aisha is an important figure that nearly everyone gets wrong, especially atheists, which is a shame because her history offers so much to atheism, especially Muslim atheists. ‘Aisha, when she grew into a woman, was said to be the most beautiful of Mohammad’s wives, and certainly she was the most powerful and influential, in fact one of the most influential women in history by any standard.

    Focusing, as nearly all modern westerners do, on ‘Aisha’s prepubescent age when Muhammad married her is a trifling detail and entirely misses the key historic points. I will pass over in silence the futility of judging one individual’s 7th century marriage practices using modern norms. Instead, let’s get to the meat of why ‘Aisha is so important and learn something real about Islam and history.

    The violent Sunni-Shiite schism was essentially caused by a sequence of events beginning with Muhammad’s decision to take ‘Aisha’s as a young bride. Marrying a girl much younger than yourself is a decision fraught with risks, whether it occurs today or in the 7th century, whether you’re a Prophet of God or not. This is the story of the “The Affair of the Lie,” which had a huge historical influence that affects everyone today, but also influenced the Qu’ran itself—God’s message to mankind revealed to Muhammad.

    Here’s the story: ‘Aisha’s wedding gift, a prized necklace, had a defective clasp, and she is said to have lost it in the wilderness during one of the Prophet’s campaigns. Without telling anyone, she went back to find it, successfully, but when she returned to the campsite the caravan had left without knowledge of her absence. ‘Aisha was abandoned and lost in the desert. A dashing and very handsome young soldier named Safwan rescued her and they returned together to the caravan. This led to charges and gossip about ‘Aisha’s infidelity, and the Prophet ultimately had to depend upon God’s revelation via the archangel Gabriel to defend his wife’s honor, which is enshrined in the Qu’ran in the Sura An-Noor (Book of Light), verses 11–18:

    Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves …
    Why did not the believers—men and women—when ye heard of the affair,—
    put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, “This (charge) is an obvious lie”?

    This incident also led to the Qur’anic injunction to flog people who make unprovable allegation against “chaste women” with eighty lashes (Sura 24:4):

    And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),—
    flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors

    Muhammad’s cousin, brother-in-law, and standard bearer ‘Ali refused to accept ‘Aisha’s flimsy explanation for her alleged dalliance in the desert with the handsome young soldier Safwan, and counseled the Prophet to denounce and divorce ‘Aisha, advice he obviously rejected.

    When ‘Ali was later elected leader of the believers and successor to Muhammad after the Prophet’s death, ‘Aisha, who had to defend her marital honor against ‘Ali, rejected ‘Ali’s leadership and led a civil war against ‘Ali in the Battle of the Camel in Basra in 656. The ill will between ‘Ali’s faction of believers and ‘Aisha’s led directly to the Sunni-Shiite schism of Islam: the followers of ‘Aisha became the Sunnis and the followers of ‘Ali became the Shia’, meaning literally the “followers of ‘Ali”. All for the want of clasp. And a younger husband.

    A good place to read about this episode is Chapter 3 of Bruce Lawrence’s The Qur’an: A Biography. Reza Aslan also discusses ‘Aisha sympathetically on the recent and worthwhile PRI broadcast “Reclaiming Islam“, reading from his book. Aslan also discusses the baseless and rather stupid “Muhammad is a pedophile because he married a 7-year-old” charges.

    So please remember and refer to ‘Aisha when discussing Islam, but not for the age when she was married.

  68. stvs says

    Would it add to the verisimilitude if I said he was mooing/squealing excitedly at the prospect of raping a 9 year old girl (not shown)?

    ‘Aisha is an important figure that nearly everyone gets wrong, especially atheists, which is a shame because her history offers so much to atheism, especially Muslim atheists. ‘Aisha, when she grew into a woman, was said to be the most beautiful of Mohammad’s wives, and certainly she was the most powerful and influential, in fact one of the most influential women in history by any standard.

    Focusing, as nearly all modern westerners do, on ‘Aisha’s prepubescent age when Muhammad married her is a trifling detail and entirely misses the key historic points. I will pass over in silence the futility of judging one individual’s 7th century marriage practices using modern norms. Instead, let’s get to the meat of why ‘Aisha is so important and learn something real about Islam and history.

    The violent Sunni-Shiite schism was essentially caused by a sequence of events beginning with Muhammad’s decision to take ‘Aisha’s as a young bride. Marrying a girl much younger than yourself is a decision fraught with risks, whether it occurs today or in the 7th century, whether you’re a Prophet of God or not. This is the story of the “The Affair of the Lie,” which had a huge historical influence that affects everyone today, but also influenced the Qu’ran itself—God’s message to mankind revealed to Muhammad.

    Here’s the story: ‘Aisha’s wedding gift, a prized necklace, had a defective clasp, and she is said to have lost it in the wilderness during one of the Prophet’s campaigns. Without telling anyone, she went back to find it, successfully, but when she returned to the campsite the caravan had left without knowledge of her absence. ‘Aisha was abandoned and lost in the desert. A dashing and very handsome young soldier named Safwan rescued her and they returned together to the caravan. This led to charges and gossip about ‘Aisha’s infidelity, and the Prophet ultimately had to depend upon God’s revelation via the archangel Gabriel to defend his wife’s honor, which is enshrined in the Qu’ran in the Sura An-Noor (Book of Light), verses 11–18:

    Those who brought forward the lie are a body among yourselves …
    Why did not the believers—men and women—when ye heard of the affair,—
    put the best construction on it in their own minds and say, “This (charge) is an obvious lie”?

    This incident also led to the Qur’anic injunction to flog people who make unprovable allegation against “chaste women” with eighty lashes (Sura 24:4):

    And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations),—
    flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors

    Muhammad’s cousin, brother-in-law, and standard bearer ‘Ali refused to accept ‘Aisha’s flimsy explanation for her alleged dalliance in the desert with the handsome young soldier Safwan, and counseled the Prophet to denounce and divorce ‘Aisha, advice he obviously rejected.

    When ‘Ali was later elected leader of the believers and successor to Muhammad after the Prophet’s death, ‘Aisha, who had to defend her marital honor against ‘Ali, rejected ‘Ali’s leadership and led a civil war against ‘Ali in the Battle of the Camel in Basra in 656. The ill will between ‘Ali’s faction of believers and ‘Aisha’s led directly to the Sunni-Shiite schism of Islam: the followers of ‘Aisha became the Sunnis and the followers of ‘Ali became the Shia’, meaning literally the “followers of ‘Ali”. All for the want of clasp. And a younger husband.

    A good place to read about this episode is Chapter 3 of Bruce Lawrence’s The Qur’an: A Biography. Reza Aslan also discusses ‘Aisha sympathetically on the recent and worthwhile PRI broadcast “Reclaiming Islam“, reading from his book. Aslan also discusses the baseless and rather stupid “Muhammad is a pedophile because he married a 7-year-old” charges.

    So please remember and refer to ‘Aisha when discussing Islam, but not for the age when she was married.

  69. Alverant says

    too bad I don’t have any artistic skills. I would have loved to participate. I have such good ideas I’d love to see on canvas:

    Mohammed Lisa
    Mohammeds Playing Poker
    Mohammed’s Last Supper
    Mohammed vs Sonny Liston
    Star Wars: Return of Mohammed (starring Luke SkyMohammed and Mohammed Vader)

  71. Kieranfoy says

    @STVS:

    WTF? Trifling detail? Grown men having sex with 9 year old girls is not a trifling detail; it’s not something that somehow gets better with age.

    And, no, living in a primitive time does not somehow make it better. Relatavism can go fuck itself.

    We look in horror at Vlad Tepes impaling thousands and nailing turbans to ambassadors heads, we condemn the Inquisition, we condemn every other historical perversion and abuse of common human decency.

    Why should we ignore this one?

  74. irenedelse says

    @ stvs:

    Focusing, as nearly all modern westerners do, on ‘Aisha’s prepubescent age when Muhammad married her is a trifling detail and entirely misses the key historic points. I will pass over in silence the futility of judging one individual’s 7th century marriage practices using modern norms.

    Sorry, you got that wrong. It would be futile only if religious authorities, in countries Iran, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Nigeria, didn’t use the example of that particular 7th century bride to justify the marriage of underage girls to adult men, today, and deny them basic human rights.

  75. Evolving Squid says

    If making images of Mohammed is so bad, why do so many muslim men carry the name Mohammed?

    It would seem to me that the ultimate arrogance would be to name your child after the prophet… doing so suggests that you are creating something as awesome as god can. By giving your creation that name you are creating an idolization far worse than any graphical representation.

    You’d think that if drawing mohammed carries a death sentence, then naming your child Mohammed would make them kill you, your family, your friends, and shave all the cats you’ve ever petted or something.

  77. The Countess says

    Aw crap, Draw Mohammed Day is today? I suppose I could make fun of Mohammed and Nicholas Cage in one fell swoop. In case you’ve been living in an Afghani cave, Cage said he only eats animals who have dignified sex. I think he was pulling the reporter’s legs but you never know.

    So, I can draw two cowpigs getting it on, one being Mohammed? “Farside” style? Pretty please? :)

  79. irenedelse says

    @ Evolving Squid: Heh. Chalk one for compartmentalization of the mind.

    Not everybody is so hung up, though. I once had a boyfriend named Mohammed who was a Muslim and jokingly referred to himself as “the prophet”. But he would have blanched at a graphic depiction of the Prophet.

  82. Draken says

    What we can learn from stvs’s recap is, that muslim men are among the pettiest and vilest of critters dwelling the desert. If your beloved wife gets lost in the desert and, when returned by a brave young soldier, you need “divine revelation” to keep you from killing her, you’re one piece of fucked up misogynist.

    (I presume here that stoning already then was the prescribed way of dealing with adulterers)

  83. mmelliott01 says

    I plan to draw a spherical homogeneous isotropic Mohammed, just to make it all simpler.

  84. James F says

    Hey, the drawing reminds me of Antoine de Saint-Exupéry’s The Little Prince! “Draw me a sheep!”

  91. Parse says

    Here’s a depiction of a physicist’s Mohammed:
    o

    (First, assume a spherical Mohammed…)

  99. BigMKnows says

    This is the top story on CNN.com right now: http://j.mp/9WviO5

    It was Boobquake last month and Everybody Draw Mohammed this month. Funny how internet culture is driving mainstream news.

  103. Duncan says

    I’ve been reading pharyngula for a few months, but I’m a first time commenter.

    I drew my depiction of Mohammed and uploaded it to facebook. My depiction was, quite frankly, utter toss, since all my drawings are, quite frankly, utter toss, since I can’t draw.

    The important thing about draw Mohammed day is that by drawing Mohammed we are sending a message to violent idiots that attack cartoonists that we won’t be bullied by them. A minor side effect of this is that I may have offended some non-violent Muslims.

  105. https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmqD_mcUIrSfOTlK3iGVsnEDcZmI43srbI says

    Oh sure, PZ. Go after the Muslims.
    I’ll bet you’d never have the temerity to insult a Christian sect, like the Catholics by doing something they consider blasphemous….

    …..

    what?…..really?…..OK, then…..never mind.

  106. emujoe says

    I have no idea what the false prophet Mohammed looked like. I don’t see him hanging around on a cross like that Caucasian Middle Eastern man the Christians displayed everywhere.

    I imagine he’s just another swarthy, unshaven Arab with a silly hat, but I’m a shit artist, so I won’t even bother.

  108. arkestrate says

    I assume you mean the Pakistani government, not Pakistanis. Not everyone in this country supports the FB/Youtube/Wiki/etc ban, so don’t paint everyone with the same brush. That’s all.

  117. stvs says

    @ Kieranfoy, irenedelse

    The immorality and undesirability of child brides in not in dispute. But applying modern standards to historical persons is a fool’s errand, especially when it leads you to comparing common marriage practices to Vlad the Impaler, an amusing Freudian comparison.

    Any Muslim apologist will tell you, and they have a good point here, that the revelation given to Mohammad markedly improved the lot of women in the 7th century. Just compare the Old Testament to the Qu’ran on this point. Until Islam, especially in pagan Arabia, women were chattel, and a man could marry as many as he pleased. The limit to four wives only is an Islamic innovation.

    Under Jewish and Christian revelations, there are no such hindrances to the number of wives a many may have, a fact that, e.g., Joseph Smith and his Mormons capitalized upon, as have many others.

    As repugnant as we all find it today, child marriage was commonplace until relatively recently in history. Is Mohammad’s marriage to the child ‘Aisha really what is objectionable about Islam? Or is this fact to be used as a cheap and rather uninformed way to score points against Muslims, precisely in the way that many Christians do? Certainly those who wish to call out the objectionable practice of child marriage can find a better example than the remarkable and accomplished person of ‘Aisha.

    ‘Aisha is important to the history of Islam, especially to atheists, not because of her age when she was married, but because her noteworthy story underlines that Islam is a religion founded by living human beings.

  118. Sastra says

    Here’s mine:

    0

    It looks like I copied Parse at #88, but no, it’s my own work. I am a professional artist.

    stvs #66 wrote:

    ‘Aisha is an important figure that nearly everyone gets wrong, especially atheists, which is a shame because her history offers so much to atheism, especially Muslim atheists.

    Offers so much to atheism? You mean, as fodder?

    Sheesh. After reading the description of Aisha’s role in the development of Islam, I actually admire the story of Islam even less than before — an impressive feat. An entire theological split and centuries of violence all predicated by a narrow, bigoted, and creepy fixation on the incredible, earth-shattering significance of a woman’s purity? Did you really think we would find anything admirable in that depressingly backwards display of paternalistic tribalism? Aisha becomes more “sympathetic” to us because she was beautiful and faithful and if she wasn’t the latter she should have been executed?

    And, of course, we secular humanists ought to be ever so pleased that those who accuse a woman of not being chaste on insufficient evidence will be whipped 80 times into bloody pulps. Oh, good: I see feminism has its origin in Islam. Also, human rights. Whoda thunk.

    I think this is a case where the defense just makes it worse. stvs, the common background moral assumptions you think we all share, we do not all share. Even without the charge of pedophilia, this tale is gruesome.

    It’s too late to quit while you’re ahead. Stop digging.

  119. Sastra says

    stvs #115 wrote:

    Any Muslim apologist will tell you, and they have a good point here, that the revelation given to Mohammad markedly improved the lot of women in the 7th century.

    It only improved it slightly, though, because in Islam, one is not supposed to obey or submit to Allah, and a revelation which is too enlightened puts too much of a burden on the believer: Allah wisely refrained from asking for what He really wanted, and kept the changes minimal.

    Aisha is important to the history of Islam, especially to atheists, not because of her age when she was married, but because her noteworthy story underlines that Islam is a religion founded by living human beings.

    Um. Atheists already realize that Islam was a religion founded by living human beings. We’re the group that is MOST likely to already realize this. Thus, you do not have to go through the trouble of showing that Islam is a flawed mess which clearly comes out of morals and standards of an ancient time, so that atheists will not be under the mistaken impression that Islam is a religion founded by God.

    Your fears are groundless. We are all happy now.

  120. jidashdee says

    @stvs

    “…Islam is a religion founded by living human beings.”

    We were not labouring under any contrary opinion, but your wording of the following leaves us with the impression that you may be:

    “Any Muslim apologist will tell you, and they have a good point here, that the revelation given to Mohammad markedly improved the lot of women in the 7th century.”

    I realise that you’re assuming the voice of a muslim apologist in that sentence, but you’d better clarify your own view of this “revelation” before others here start ripping you a few more new ones.

  124. irenedelse says

    @ stvs #115:

    What Sastra (#116) said. Plus a few other things.

    The immorality and undesirability of child brides in not in dispute. But applying modern standards to historical persons is a fool’s errand

    But you still don’t address my point: that the historical ‘Aisha is used today, by Muslim authorities, in several countries, to justify child marriages. And it’s definitely not foolish to be concerned about that.

    Any Muslim apologist will tell you, and they have a good point here, that the revelation given to Mohammad markedly improved the lot of women in the 7th century.

    Oh, hum. Say “somewhat improved”, you’ll be closer to reality. I have to say that for Muhammad, he was a Realpolitik kind of guy. But, limiting the number of wives instead of banning polygamy; or admitting female genital mutilation if only a part of the clitoris is cut and not all of it; or giving a daughter half of what her brother inherits (instead of nothing at all): these are not instances of “marked improvements”. Just giving women a little more humane treatment inside a heavily patriarchal social system is not the same as treating them as equal human beings.

    Just compare the Old Testament to the Qu’ran on this point.

    If you really think that, did you read Sunday’s post on the “Daughters of Eve”? No? Go ahead, you will find it enlightening, I’m sure.

    Under Jewish and Christian revelations, there are no such hindrances to the number of wives a many may have.

    Erm… Do you know anything at all about Judaism and Christianity? Because there was no “Thou shalt have only one wife” commandment in the Bible doesn’t mean that a guy could just marry as many women as he wanted and be OK with the local church or synagogue authorities, y’know… There’s a reason why Joseph Smith had to create his own religion.

    As repugnant as we all find it today, child marriage was commonplace until relatively recently in history.

    True, though we there’s nothing wrong not to be cool about it. And there’s still the problem of today’s child brides. Think about that?

    ‘Aisha is important to the history of Islam, especially to atheists, not because of her age when she was married, but because her noteworthy story underlines that Islam is a religion founded by living human beings.

    That ‘Aisha was important to the history of Islam, sure. And she must have been a very interesting person. But, important to atheists? Aside as one more example of how religion ruins everything, I wonder.

  125. rick.price84 says

    I think the group was taken down, I can’t access it anymore. I hope facebook didn’t give in.

  126. echidna says

    stvs@115 said:

    Is Mohammad’s marriage to the child ‘Aisha really what is objectionable about Islam?

    Of course it is objectionable because it is still being used to justify child-marriage.

    Saudi-Arabia:
    Many of the country’s hard-line Wahhabi imams claim child marriage is justified by the Koran, since the Prophet Muhammad wed his third wife, Aisha, when she was only 9 years old. “It is incorrect to say that it’s not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger,” Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, the kingdom’s top cleric, said in January, according to the regional Al-Hayat newspaper. “A girl aged 10 or 12 can be married. Those who think she’s too young are wrong, and they are being unfair to her.”

    And Afghanistan is worse.

  127. agenoria says

    In Does God Hate Women, Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom point out that Mohammed’s behaviour is seen as exemplary. As well as the dubious marriage with Aisha, they write of Mohammed being given two slave girls. He kept the more beautiful, Mariyah, and gave her sister to an associate. As a possession, Mariyah had no choice in the matter. Hardly exemplary behaviour in either case.

    Blatant plagiarism of Kevin’s drawing:

    (|:{>

  129. NewEnglandBob says

    I think Facebook just took down the “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!” page.

  131. cehbeach says

    Actually PZ, the blocking move by Pakistan was a wise one. This isn’t about denying the people of Pakistan freedom. It’s about trying to keep a lid on an already volatile situation, which nobody really seemed to think about with this little stunt. The radicals would like nothing better than the Pakistani government to withdraw forces from the border and in other areas to protect vital areas in the cities. It also undermines the efforts of the Unites States to keep the region from exploding into complete chaos and possibly leading to these nuts getting access to Pakistan’s nukes or starting a war with India. But no, it’s more important to have your little third grade giggle fest and fuck everything and everyone else.

    BTW, any comment on your friend Thunderf00t’s recent psychopathic rantings calling for the annihilation of 1.3 billion people? The ironic part is that he was calling ‘warning’ of such dire action over a frigging cartoon. He must be dating Pam Oshry (of Atlas Shrugs fame).

    In the end what did you achieve? All I see is a heightening of tensions and Atheists looking like a bunch of retarded, self indulgent, selfish middle schoolers. I don’t feel any ‘free speechier’. but since the ‘threat’ over the SP episode was a bunch of BS hype, that’s not surprising

    Nice going

  133. jidashdee says

    @cehbeach

    How is life as a coward?

    You’ve got a lot of serious thinking to do and I suggest you get to it.

    Oh, and kiss my blasphemous ass. Fuck islam and fuck you.

    Retard.

  134. Ichthyic says

    any comment on your friend Thunderf00t’s recent psychopathic rantings calling for the annihilation of 1.3 billion people?

    I looked at couldn’t find him doing this anywhere on his site.

    link?

  136. Ichthyic says

    The radicals would like nothing better than the Pakistani government to withdraw forces from the border and in other areas to protect vital areas in the cities.

    how does drawing pictures on a facebook page relate to that, exactly?

    evidence?

  137. Rey Fox says

    I dashed off something this afternoon.

    http://hphotos-snc3.fbcdn.net/hs602.snc3/31702_429582806065_555151065_6024132_1738288_n.jpg

    I went ahead and played it fairly straight. Portraying him as a decent fellow, now there’s a subversive idea. I wanted it to be completely inoffensive outside the context of arbitrary religious rules. Like Crackergate, no victims except those who choose to be victims.

    If any Muslims out there worship this image, then I apologize.

  138. Ichthyic says

    In the end what did you achieve?

    well, we got Pakistan to ban a website.

    frankly, I agree with Thunderfoot’s assessment of the practical nature of this exercise.

  139. Ichthyic says

    I went ahead and played it fairly straight.

    kinda reminds me of the Disney version of Sinbad.

  142. cehbeach says

    “How is life as a coward?

    You’ve got a lot of serious thinking to do and I suggest you get to it.

    Oh, and kiss my blasphemous ass. Fuck islam and fuck you.

    Retard.”

    Oh look a Thundersh33p. I’m not the wetting my pants weenie because one guy posted one post about South Park and then freak out and believe the hype about ‘Boogie Muslims’ are taking our freeeeeeeedooooom!!! You’re the coward, you’re also a hater, which is not the same as being a rational thinking Atheist

    Check his YouTube channel and look for the video about the Sleeping Giant

  145. Ichthyic says

    …I also think you blatantly missed what the “sleeping giant” message actually was referring to.

    in short, you’re a moron.

    congratulations.

  146. jidashdee says

    @cehbeach

    So, not only can you not tell clear thought from bullshit, but you can’t tell hype from a clear and present threat to your own freedom of speech.

    Don’t worry, the rest of us will take care of it while you do your cypherin’.

  148. Shplane says

    I don’t even have the coordination to effectively draw a stick figure.

    In paint.

    ;____________________________;

  149. Watson says

    ichthyic:

    where he has clips of Muslims chanting to Nuke Denmark and the USA?

    Nuke Denmark? I never thought I’d ever read those words together in a sentence, not in my life.

  150. Ichthyic says

    Nuke Denmark? I never thought I’d ever read those words together in a sentence, not in my life.

    ditto.

    and yet…

    check out the vid starting at 1:50

  151. Akira MacKenzie says

    I’ve made my own poor artistic contribution to the day on YouTube:

    Also, in response to those who will scream “RACIST” at my depiction of Mo as a scimitar-wielding, Qu’arn-thumping savage, I drew a picture of a crucified Jesus in S&M gear:

    I’ll try to get the pics up to a photo-sharing site, but my scanner is being temperamental.

  153. stvs says

    @ Sastra, “Offers so much to atheism? You mean, as fodder?”

    Yes. Must it be spelled out?! Muhammad’s young beautiful wife, the “Mother of All Believers”, was accused rather convincingly of having an affair with one of his soldiers after ‘Aisha was caught alone with the soldier. This “Affair of the Lie” caused an everlasting schism within Islam and required the intervention of an Archangel to protect ‘Aisha’s honor. The whole thing would be hilarious, if not for all the blood spilled over the Sunni-Shia rift. Yes, this history offers A LOT to atheists interacting with Muslims.

    @ irenedelse, “limiting the number of wives instead of banning polygamy; or admitting female genital mutilation if only a part of the clitoris is cut and not all of it; or giving a daughter half of what her brother inherits (instead of nothing at all): these are not instances of “marked improvements”.”

    Female genital mutilation, which originated in Africa and predates Islam, wasn’t practiced by the early Muslims. Some Coptic Christians and many tribal religions also practice this mutilation. And yes, literally enshrining inheritance rights for women in Islam was a marked improvement for them. And it’s the Sunni women that get half. Shiite women get equal inheritance, which is one reason why some Sunnis formally convert to Shiism.

    This is the sort of thing that motivated my original comment: historically misinformed statements.

    @ irenedelse, “Do you know anything at all about Judaism and Christianity? Because there was no “Thou shalt have only one wife” commandment in the Bible doesn’t mean that a guy could just marry as many women as he wanted and be OK with the local church or synagogue authorities, y’know… There’s a reason why Joseph Smith had to create his own religion.”

    irenedelse, meet Martin Luther: “I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter” (Letter to Gregory Brück, 1524). Luther put these words into practice 15 years later when he supported the bigamous marriage of Philip of Hesse, a key supporter of Luther’s Reformation.

    Christians inherited their marital norms from Greco-Roman paganism, not from anything having to do with their revealed scripture. Polygamy, like slavery, was just fine with many Christian leaders throughout history, including Luther and Smith.

  154. https://me.yahoo.com/a/EEHyaQRzjZhERjWpIm2n_cHbWHvQVxpM#2f97f says

    I’m not a cartoonist, but Photobucket here’s my cartoon of Mohammed doing yard work.

  155. Uzziel says

    PZ, remember a few days ago when you defended a school for smacking down kids who wore US flag shirts to school on Cinqo de Mayo because the kids were needlessly provoking the Hispanic students?

    I’m very much for freedom of expression, but I fail to see how drawing pictures of Mohamed is a productive or helpful exercise. I got it when you did your bit with the cracker – it was in response to a ridiculous assault on a kid. But I don’t get how this exercise is demonstrating a point or furthering discourse.

    Maybe I missed something in the lead up to Draw Mohamed day, but this whole thing just seems mean-spirited to me.

  156. stvs says

    I got it when you did your bit with the cracker – it was in response to a ridiculous assault on a kid.

    This is in response to actual assaults on real people for drawing pictures. The Cinqo de Mayo thing was just kids celebrating their culture, being needlessly provoked.

    PZ’s position is entirely consistent.

  159. Akira MacKenzie says

    I posted links to finished pictures of Jeese and Mo to the descriptions in my youTube videos. In the meantime…

    @cehbeach

    I’m quite familiar with thunderf00t’s Sleeping Giant” video and I don’t believe that a defiant and principled declaration of self-defense against delusional fanatics who promise murder against those who paint their god-man in anything less than a respectful light is in any way “psychopathic.”

    Your cowardly desire to appease the Islamic thugs who’d level death threats on cartoonists and your disdain for those who’d stand up to them frankly disgusts me.

  162. firemote says

    I am somewhat disappointed that this “expression” is being bought into.

    Sure, we all have every right to do so, but the fervor in which it’s being presented with is inseparable from the neocons mocking Islam.

    I’d be more impressed if the originators decided to draw all the spiritual leaders fucking each other in some sort of death-orgy instead of singling out one particular religion.

    The South Park conservatives seem particularly gleeful about this choice of diety, and while again, perfectly free speech, it is a dull one that does nothing for advancing rational thought and a more secular society.

  163. windy says

    The radicals would like nothing better than the Pakistani government to withdraw forces from the border and in other areas to protect vital areas in the cities. It also undermines the efforts of the Unites States to keep the region from exploding into complete chaos and possibly leading to these nuts getting access to Pakistan’s nukes or starting a war with India.

    So, cartoons are more “explosive” than drones? Aren’t you a piece of work.