Why is it wrong for non Muslims to draw Muhammed?

[CaptainBritain]

I understand why it is wrong for Muslims to do so according to the faith they follow but for non Muslims who are bound by none of the sharia rules why is it wrong?

In the same light if a Muslim eats a cow and breaks Hindu rules, does the Hindu have the right to want to cause that person harm or even death.

If I break the laws of religions that forbid pork, am I obliged to fall on my sword.

Surely those rules are for the followers of the particular faiths.

The murder of the Danish cartoonist sticks out at a prime example, for Muslims do you view that murder as just or unjust?

And for general debate,

why should anybody be subject to the rules of a religion which they do not follow?

I understand that when in Rome do as the Romans do, ie if im abroad its best to follow the laws of that land, but in countries where laws permit this activity we should not be bound by anything other the law imho.

I agree with the premise that freedom of speech does not permit a person to shout fire, falsly in a crowded theatre but at the same where expression of ideas are concerned I hold with my 1st ammendment absolutists across the pond, no finer document ever written on the subject imho.

 

[sandandfoam]

From the outset, I believe that killing anyone is wrong.
I also believe that respect for the deeply held views of others is important. I think it is disrespectful of those who do put great store in things to mock those things because it upsets those who have store in them. Gosh that's kind of convoluted - but you get my point?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

From the outset, I believe that killing anyone is wrong.
I also believe that respect for the deeply held views of others is important. I think it is disrespectful of those who do put great store in things to mock those things because it upsets those who have store in them. Gosh that's kind of convoluted - but you get my point?

Is it more inherently mocking for a non-Muslim to draw Muhammad than it is for a non-Hindu to eat a hamburger?

Edit: also, I think it's worth pointing out that in cases like "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day", the act of drawing Muhammad is intended as a response to a perceived disrespect for the deeply held view of the importance of freedom of speech.

 

[LuisDantas]

From the outset, I believe that killing anyone is wrong.
I also believe that respect for the deeply held views of others is important. I think it is disrespectful of those who do put great store in things to mock those things because it upsets those who have store in them. Gosh that's kind of convoluted - but you get my point?

Doesn't it follow that people have a duty not to get too attached to their own views, however?

 

[CaptainBritain]

From the outset, I believe that killing anyone is wrong.
I also believe that respect for the deeply held views of others is important. I think it is disrespectful of those who do put great store in things to mock those things because it upsets those who have store in them. Gosh that's kind of convoluted - but you get my point?

Freedom of speech give people the right to say what they want, but also the listener the right to stop listening.

Respect is important but it should be even handed both ways, people on our streets holding signs saying death to the UK, is a prime example, I am a patriot and hold great devotions to my country and its ideals, should I kill those who do not hold my view?, you and I would both say no.

The right to protest any world view is important.

 

[CaptainBritain]

Is it more inherently mocking for a non-Muslim to draw Muhammad than it is for a non-Hindu to eat a hamburger?

Edit: also, I think it's worth pointing out that in cases like "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day", the act of drawing Muhammad is intended as a response to a perceived disrespect for the deeply held view of the importance of freedom of speech.

struggled to find a comparison that worked,

I dont know lets try Christians worshipping graven idols, ie statues etc before God as a Jew might see it, both have their own rules, none is obliged to follow the others.

 

[sandandfoam]

Is it more inherently mocking for a non-Muslim to draw Muhammad than it is for a non-Hindu to eat a hamburger?

No I don't think so. But you've got to take intent into account in my opinion. So for example if a non-Hindu decides he's going to munch a burger with an eye to ticking off his Hindu friends it's not the same thing as you walking into town and having a McD's with your mates.

Similarly if a guy in the Bible belt decides to walk into a bar and tell bawdy jokes about the Prophet or indeed to draw a cartoon on his friends notebook, I would think him a sad narrow minded eejit but not the same as someone in the Bible belt burning the Quran with the specific intent of ticking off those as intrinsically nuts as himself.

 

[sandandfoam]

Doesn't it follow that people have a duty not to get too attached to their own views, however?

Sure. But as I see it it's about respect for others not one's own views.

 

[sandandfoam]

Freedom of speech give people the right to say what they want, but also the listener the right to stop listening.

Respect is important but it should be even handed both ways, people on our streets holding signs saying death to the UK, is a prime example, I am a patriot and hold great devotions to my country and its ideals, should I kill those who do not hold my view?, you and I would both say no.

The right to protest any world view is important.

Sure but if I downloaded some porn and photoshopped the Queens head onto it I would be an idiot. Wouldn't I?

 

[CaptainBritain]

Sure but if I downloaded some porn and photoshopped the Queens head onto it I would be an idiot. Wouldn't I?

Depends on the Quality of your work Sir

 

[sandandfoam]

Depends on the Quality of your work Sir

LOL. Imagine I decide to age match

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure but if I downloaded some porn and photoshopped the Queens head onto it I would be an idiot. Wouldn't I?

Depends why you're doing it.

You twigged my memory: the Sex Pistols famously performed "God Save the Queen" from a boat on the Thames while going past Westminster and Parliament. That act was specifically intended to enrage, and IMO, it was an entirely appropriate expression of their views. Plenty of people disagreed with it - vehemently, in fact - but I think it's the sort of expression that should be allowed.

And I don't really see depictions of Muhammad - even ones that are intended to upset Muslims - as much different from what the Sex Pistols did.

 

[sandandfoam]

Depends why you're doing it.

You twigged my memory: the Sex Pistols famously performed "God Save the Queen" from a boat on the Thames while going past Westminster and Parliament. That act was specifically intended to enrage, and IMO, it was an entirely appropriate expression of their views. Plenty of people disagreed with it - vehemently, in fact - but I think it's the sort of expression that should be allowed.

And I don't really see depictions of Muhammad - even ones that are intended to upset Muslims - as much different from what the Sex Pistols did.

Should Orangemen be free to parade through Catholic streets?
I think the argument is the same. My view is that they should not.

A mural of the Queen as a pornstar painted on a wall in West Belfast is more akin to the territory we're talking about re cartoons of the Prophet than anything the sex pistols did imo

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Freedom of speech give people the right to say what they want, ...

Yes, you have the legal right to be disrespectful.

 

[CaptainBritain]

Yes, you have the legal right to be disrespectful.

Atleast we can agree on something

 

[CaptainBritain]

Depends why you're doing it.

You twigged my memory: the Sex Pistols famously performed "God Save the Queen" from a boat on the Thames while going past Westminster and Parliament. That act was specifically intended to enrage, and IMO, it was an entirely appropriate expression of their views. Plenty of people disagreed with it - vehemently, in fact - but I think it's the sort of expression that should be allowed.

And I don't really see depictions of Muhammad - even ones that are intended to upset Muslims - as much different from what the Sex Pistols did.

Right and I think that given the various outrages of terrorism that have gone on, drawing mohammed could be equall to muslims burning a US flag.

 

[sandandfoam]

Right and I think that given the various outrages of terrorism that have gone on, drawing mohammed could be equall to muslims burning a US flag.

If that is your view I don't believe you understand muslims or have listened to them.

 

[CaptainBritain]

If that is your view I don't believe you understand muslims or have listened to them.

The town of Leicester I grew up in has a high proportion of Muslims.

Its a form of non violent protest in both examples.

 

[idav]

Is it more inherently mocking for a non-Muslim to draw Muhammad than it is for a non-Hindu to eat a hamburger?

Edit: also, I think it's worth pointing out that in cases like "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day", the act of drawing Muhammad is intended as a response to a perceived disrespect for the deeply held view of the importance of freedom of speech.

Haha, I say we have an everybody eat a hamburger day. Will it offend?

 

[sandandfoam]

Haha, I say we have an everybody eat a hamburger day. Will it offend?

Remember this?
Row over cows for slaughter sparks riot - Telegraph

There's nothing wrong with respecting views one doesn't share.